HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 At Dublin Project (PLPA-2017-00061)Page 1 of 22
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: October 30, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT:
At Dublin Project (PLPA-2017-00061)
Prepared by:Amy Million, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission will consider and make a recommendation to the City
Council regarding the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to 665
residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small -lot single
family homes, and up to 400,500 square feet of retail commercial development, a 2.23-
acre public park, and related infrastructure and landscape improvements. The project is
located on a 77.3-acre site primarily bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate 580,
Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive.
Requested land use approvals include a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan, a Site Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Maps, Tentative Parcel
Map, street vacation, Development Agreement, and certification of an Environmental
Impact Report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing, deliberate and take the following actions: a) Adopt a
Resolution recommending City Council certification of a Final Environmental Impact
Report and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for the At Dublin project b)
Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving
a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the At Dublin Project;
c) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance
amending the Zoning Map and approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a
related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; d) Adopt a Resolution recommending
that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit,
Vesting Tentative Maps 8440, 8449, 8450, 8451, 8452 and Tentative Parcel Map 10800
for the At Dublin project; and e) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the SCS
Development Company and the City of Dublin for the At Dublin project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
5.1
Packet Pg. 17
Page 2 of 22
The At Dublin project is proposed on property formerly owned by the Dublin Land
Company. The 77.3 gross acre property is located north of I-580 between Tassajara
Road and Brannigan Street and extends to the north of Gleason Drive as shown in
figure 1 below.
The property is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area and has
Planned Development Zoning (Resolution No. 104-94) adopted with the EDSP. The
site is generally surrounded by commercial uses to the southwest and southeast and
residential uses to the northwest and northeast.
The site is undeveloped and is generally flat with a slight slope from a higher elevation
at the northerly boundary to a slightly lower elevation towards the southerly boundary.
At one time the property was used for agricultural purposes and has remained vacant
(except for temporary seasonal uses) with low lying native and non -native grasses
turned periodically for the purposes of weed abatement. A small group of trees and
shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No grading
for development purposes has occurred to date.
The majority of the site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located within the
Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. The AIA is a designation by the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission. This area is designated as an area in
which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace protection
factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses.
On October 3, 2017, the City Council initiated a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation of the
project site.
On October 3 and 4, 2018, the Planning Commission held a study session to receive a
presentation and provide feedback on the project. Presentations were provided by City
staff and the applicant’s team. A total of seven members of the community provided
public comment over the two meetings.
5.1
Packet Pg. 18
Page 3 of 22
Proposed Project
The proposed project is a mixed-use development which consists of up to 665
residential units and up to 400,500 square feet of commercial uses. The proposed
project is grouped into four planning areas (PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4) as show in
Figure 2 below:
Planning Area 1 (PA-1) located south of Dublin Boulevard is proposed to accommodate
a mix of large-format retail and regional-serving commercial uses including a hotel, gas
station, drive-thru restaurant and a mix of restaurant and retail uses.
PA-2 is the mixed-use area of the project supporting both commercial and residential
uses. PA-2 is located in the middle of the project area and is divided into three different
subareas (PA-2a, PA-2b and PA-2c).
o PA-2a is a wholly commercial area planned for smaller-scale social retail
uses that focus on the pedestrian experience. This area consists of a
movie theater, restaurants, retail and a market hall envisioned to be
occupied by a mix of eateries with outdoor dining.
o PA-2b consists of an apartment building with ground floor commercial on
the west side of the building facing the commercial area of PA -2a. The
ground floor commercial spaces are designed to complement the mix of
uses by providing space for small retail shops, coffee shops, office space,
etc.
o PA-2c, located just to the north, consists of townhomes located on either
side of the public park.
PA-3 and PA-4 are located north of Central Parkway and are comprised of small-lot
single family detached homes.
An overview of the Planning Areas is provided in Table 1 below:
Table 1. Planning Areas
Planning Area (PA) Proposed Uses Location
PA-1 Regional commercial South of Dublin Boulevard
PA-2a and PA-2b Mixed-Use with neighborhood
commercial uses, apartments and
a public park
North of Dublin Boulevard
PA-2c Townhomes and public park South of Central Parkway
PA-3 and PA-4 Small-lot single-family residential North of Central Parkway
5.1
Packet Pg. 19
Page 4 of 22
To accommodate the project, the applicant is seeking the following land use
entitlements which are described in further detail below:
• General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
• Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan;
• Site Development Review Permit;
• Vesting Tentative Map;
• Vacation of Northside Drive;
• Development Agreement; and
• Certification of an Environmental Impact Report.
ANALYSIS:
General Plan / Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
The site has several existing General Plan and EDSP land use designations as shown
in Figure 3 and Table 2 below. Most of the site is designated General Commercial with
varying densities of residential along Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive. The EDSP
assumed average development intensity for each land use designation. As summarized
in Table 2 below, the EDSP anticipated development of 261 residential units and
902,563 square feet of commercial on this site.
Table 2. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Development
Land Use Designations Acres Res.
Units
Commercial s.f.
General Commercial 60.3 -- 846,153
Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 -- 56,410
Medium Density Residential 4.3 43 --
Medium High Density Residential 5.3 106 --
High-Density Residential 3.2 112 --
Public/Semi-Public 3.3 -- --
Total 80.11 261 902,563
1The actual project acreage is 77.3 acres which takes into account frontage
improvements and is based on Gross Acreage as defined by the General Plan. Gross
Acreage is the Net Site Area plus 25-ft of the area of the abutting streets.
5.1
Packet Pg. 20
Page 5 of 22
To accommodate the proposed project, the applicant proposes to redistribute and
simplify the six (6) existing land use designations interspersed throughout the project
site into four (4) primary land use de signations organized in large blocks and a centrally
located public park designated as Parks/Public Recreation. Particularly noteworthy, the
land designated for commercial is reduced as compared with the EDSP, and the area
designated for residential is increased. The proposed land use designations, and their
respective Planning Areas are shown in Figure 4 below.
The proposed land use designations of General Commercial, Mixed -Use, Medium-High
Density Residential, Parks/Public Recreation and Medium-Density Resident are existing
land use designations and are consistent with the General Plan and the EDSP land use
classifications. In addition to the changes to the land use designations, other minor
amendments to the General Plan and EDSP are necessary for c onsistency. The
amendments include modifications to the public rights of way, such as the vacation of
Northside Drive, reduction to the width of Tassajara Road, extension of Brannigan
Street south of Dublin Boulevard and the widening of Dublin Boulevard.
The Planning Commission resolution recommending approval of the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 1. The City Council
resolution approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is
included as Attachment 2.
Planned Development Rezoning
The application includes a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plan. The Planned Development Rezoning for the property will
establish a detailed Development Plan for the site, with specific uses that are permitted
by right, conditionally permitted, and prohibited, the overall development density and
intensity (e.g. FAR, building heights, setbacks) for the site, and design guidelines. The
applicant is proposing that the Planned Development Zoning District allow for a variety
of retail and service uses to accommodate the proposed project as well as varying
residential densities. The Planning Commission resolution recommending approval of
the Planned Development Zoning is included as Attachment 3. The draft Ordinance
providing the details of the proposed zoning is included as Attachment 4.
5.1
Packet Pg. 21
Page 6 of 22
As show in Table 3 below, the maximum amount of development allowed by the
proposed Planned Development Zoning is 400,500 square feet of commercial uses and
665 residential units which is greater than the amount of development shown in the
project plans submitted with the Site Development Review Permit. The Site
Development Review Permit is for a total of development at 361,322 squ are feet of
commercial uses and 665 residential units. The applicant is proposing a buffer in the
amount of commercial square footage allowed in PA-1 to accommodate for potential
modifications to the layout and size of the large-format retail buildings and hotel. Should
the project be approved, any development beyond the approved Site Development
Review Permit and within the Planned Development Zoning development regulations
would need Site Development Review Permit approval. See Table 3 for a comparison o f
the maximum proposed development (EIR & PD) and actual proposed development
(SDR).
Table 3. At Dublin Proposed Development
PA Land Use
Designations Use
Size
(Gross
Acres)
Commercial SF / No. of Units
FAR/ Du/Ac
(SDR) EIR PD SDR
1 General
Commercial Commercial 23.7 370,000 SF 320,605 SF 281,427 SF .27 FAR
2a Mixed Use Commercial
15.4
76,500 SF 73,409 SF 73,409 SF
.65 FAR1
2b Mixed Use
Residential
above
Commercial
8,000 SF /
300 units
6,486 SF /
280 units
6,486 SF /
280 units
2c
Medium High
Density
Residential
Townhomes 12.4 200 units 205 units 205 units 16.53 Du/Ac
2 Parks / Public
Recreation Park 2.3 - - -
3 Medium Density
Residential
Single-Family
Residential 23.5 180 units 180 units 180 units 7.66 Du/Ac
4 Medium Density
Residential
Single-Family
Residential
TOTAL 77.3 454,500 SF /
680 units
400,500 SF /
665 units
361,322 SF/
665 units
1 The floor area ratio is for the combined commercial and residential uses per the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
5.1
Packet Pg. 22
Page 7 of 22
Planned Development Requirements
Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose and
requirements of the Planned Development District. The Planned Development
Ordinance contains requirements that ensure the project components will be develo ped
as a cohesive and complementary project. The Development Plan establishes the
following regulations for use of the subject property: permitted and conditionally
permitted uses, development regulations, including setbacks, floor area ratio, height
limits, and parking requirements, standards and design guidelines, site plan o, and other
requirements which regulate the improvement and maintenance of the property. An
overview of the Planned Development Zoning District is provided below.
Permitted, Conditional and Temporary Land Uses
The permitted and conditionally permitted uses vary between the different Planning
Areas. An overview of the types of uses for each Planning Area is provided in Table 4
below.
Table 4. Overview of Allowed Uses
Planning
Area
(PA)
Permitted Uses Conditional Uses Temporary Uses
PA-1 Offices
Restaurants
Personal Services
Indoor Recreation
Day Care Centers
Outdoor Recreation
Plant Nursery
Laboratory
Health Services/Clinic
Comedy Club
Hotel/Motel
Service Station
Retail
Theater
Animal Hospital
Car Wash/Detail
Nightclub
Repair Shop
Drive Thru
Arts & Crafts Fair
Christmas Tree Lots
Farmer’s Markets
PA-2a
PA-2b
Offices
Restaurants
Personal Services
Indoor Recreation
Retail
Theater
Multi-Family Residential
Large Family Day Care
Community Facilities
Nightclub
Arts & Crafts Fair
Christmas Tree Lots
Farmer’s Markets
PA-3 &
PA-4
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Second Units
Home Occupations
Large Family Day Care
Bed and Breakfast
Animal Day Care
Model Home Complex
The complete list of uses is provided in the Planned Development Ordinance for the
project site (Attachment 4).
5.1
Packet Pg. 23
Page 8 of 22
Design Theme
The architecture is characterized by clean, simple lines using natural materials and a
classic color palette. According to the applicant, the project’s materials, landscapes and
architecture are subtle reflections of farm life, and are guided by the concept of “modern
agrarian,” taking inspiration from Dublin’s agricultural past and California’s wine regions.
Buildings are designed and situated to create a variety of social spaces across the
project area. These spaces are comprised of walkways, patios, plazas, and parks.
Commercial buildings are designed with large openings connecting to outdoor dining
areas; plazas are framed by buildings and the townhomes are designed to front on the
public park or the street providing a direct connection to the open space.
Commercial Areas - Tenant Design Criteria
In order to promote distinct storefronts in the commercial areas, the applicant is
proposing Tenant Design Criteria to be included as part of the Planned Development
Zoning. The objective of the Tenant Design Criteria is to allow the maximum expression
of a store’s individual personality and character while maintaining a cohesive design
theme throughout the project. The architecture shown in the Site Development Review
Permit plans uses a variety of colors and high -quality materials so that the buildings
make a statement on their own. However, commercial architecture can be enhanced
through an individual tenant’s brand identity and expression. Examples of the types of
enhancements are architectural canopies and overhangs, decorative lighting, and
artisan railings for outdoor seating areas. The additional buildings materials and
features proposed as part of the Tenant Design Criteria were selected to complement
those identified in the project plans and provide guidance to future tenants.
The details of the Tenant Design Criteria are provided in the Planned Development
Ordinance (Attachment 4).
Project Phasing
The project is proposed to be constructed in 2 phases, with Phase 2 broken into two sub
phases (2a and 2b) as shown on Figure 6 and Table 5 below. The proposed phasing
plan addresses the development needs of the applicant, the inte rests of the City, as well
as places the areas identified in the biological assessments as having potential wetlands
into a separate phase. Although the project is divided into different phases, the applicant
anticipates that these phases will overlap with most of the construction happening
concurrently.
5.1
Packet Pg. 24
Page 9 of 22
To ensure that the residential portions of the project do not wholly develop in advance of
the retail/commercial portions, the following restrictions are imposed on the issuance of
permits:
➢ Phase 1. No building permits shall be issued for development on PA-2c until
improvement plans have been approved, bonds posted, and horizontal
construction has commenced on PA-2a.
➢ Phase 2a. No building permits shall be issued for development on PA-3 until the
Improvement Plans for Phase 2a in PA-1 have been approved and bonds posted.
➢ Phase 2b. No building permits shall be issued for development on PA-4 until the
Improvement Plans for Phase 2b in PA-1 have been approved and bonds posted.
Table 5. Phasing Plan
Planning
Area Land Use Designations Use Phase
1 General Commercial Commercial 2A / 2B
2a Mixed Use Commercial 1
2b Mixed Use Apartments above Commercial 1
2c Medium High Density Residential Townhomes 1
2 Parks / Public Recreation Public Park 1
3 Medium Density Residential Single-Family Residential 2A
4 Medium Density Residential Single-Family Residential 2B
Site Development Review
The applicant has submitted a request for a Site Development Review Permit (SDR) for
the entire project except for three buildings located on the south side of Dublin
Boulevard in PA-1. The Planning Commission resolution recommending approval of the
Site Development Review Permit is attached as Attachment 5 with the City Council
Resolution, including all conditions of approval included as Attachment 6.
As noted above, three buildings in PA-1 will require a separate SDR approval by the
Planning Commission in the future. The three buildings, as identified on Sheet 0.4 of the
Project Plans (Attachment 7), are: Building 1000: a proposed hotel; Building 1900: a
proposed gas station; and Building 1800: a proposed drive-thru restaurant. The
applicant has chosen to coordinate the final design of these three buildings with the
future tenants.
The following is a summary of the key components of the project associated with the
SDR separated into the proposed Planning Areas. Refer to Figure 4 for location and
boundaries of the Planning Areas.
Architecture Overview – All Planning Areas
The architecture across the project is guided by the concept of “modern agrarian” and
takes inspiration from the City of Dublin’s agricultural past and the California wine
5.1
Packet Pg. 25
Page 10 of 22
country. The goal of the architecture is to create a blend of formal and casual spaces
around the site, blend with surrounding buildings while creating a unique identity, have
pedestrian scale and include a mix of quality materials.
The project includes a wide variety of building types and uses and therefore different
architecture is proposed to meet the different aspects of the project. The color palettes
for both the commercial and residential buildings are varied with a mix of neutral and
warm base colors and vibrant accent colors. The color palettes and materials samples
are location on Project Plans Sheets A1.50, A.2.1.29, A2.2.21-A2.223, A2.3.1-A2.3.3,
and A.3.1-A3.2 (Attachments 7-13). The paint colors, which are primarily placed on a
stucco finish, are accented with a mix of natural materials such as wood, reclaimed
wood, masonry, rusty metal, corrugated metal, standing seam metal, aluminum panels
and glass.
The architecture of the buildings is further complimented through the various outdoor
spaces discussed in further detail below in the “Parks and Other Open Space” section
of the report.
Planning Area 1
Access to PA-1 would be provided directly from Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street and
a new signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and
Brannigan Street. Brannigan Street, which is currently a private road south of Dublin
Boulevard that serves the Grafton Station shopping center, may need to become a
public street to accommodate this access as part of the project. Northside Drive, which
currently extends east from Tassajara Road to the stormwater detention basin on the
south side of Grafton Plaza is proposed to be vacated.
The site plan (Sheet A1.1 of the Project Plans, Attachment 8) shows a total of 281,427
square feet of commercial uses including 75,000 square feet for a hotel. The area is
planned for regional retail with larger buildings along the eastern interior property line
and smaller pad buildings including a fuel station and drive -thru restaurant along
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. The proposed signalized intersection on Dublin
Boulevard creates the primary entrance to the shopping area and a direct connection to
PA-2 on the north side of Dublin Boulevard. A gateway plaza is located on the corner of
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. The parking area is oriented to the center of the
parcel and will be shared by all users. The parking requirement for the commercial
areas (PA-1 and PA-2a) is to default to the requirements for each land use as stated in
the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the anticipated mix of uses, the parking requirement
has been met.
The smaller buildings along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard are approximately 30
feet in height and designed as single-story retail buildings with varying rooflines,
including shed, pitched, and flat roofs. The larger format buildings along the eastern
property line are designed to be approximately 48 feet to accommodate for an interior
second story, a mezzanine or a sizeable open interior space depending on the tenant.
These buildings are also wider and deeper than those along the street frontage and the
rooflines are articulated through varying parapet heights.
The buildings are finished with a variety of materials including masonry, aluminum
storefronts, natural and composite wood, CMU, corrugated metal, rusty metal, and
plaster. The proposed paint colors are a wide range of grey and brown to provide a
5.1
Packet Pg. 26
Page 11 of 22
neutral backdrop for the finish materials. Decorative lighting is proposed on all
commercial buildings to provide accent lighting as well as security lighting. Examples of
the proposed lighting is provided on Sheet A1.51 (Attachment 8).
The proposed hotel, located on the corner of Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street,
which is not included as part of this SDR, would be a maximum height of 74 feet. A
building of this height would comply with the requirements of the Fire Depa rtment as
well as the proposed Ordinance.
Planning Area 2
This area is divided into three subareas including PA-2a, the commercial area to the
south west, PA-2b, the mixed-use residential apartment building to the southeast and
PA-2c, the residential townhomes to the north. A 2.23-acre public park is proposed
through the middle of PA-2. The park extends from Central Parkway south through PA-
2c to the proposed theater building (Building 100).
Planning Areas 2a
PA-2a consists of six buildings. The site plan (Sheet A2.1.4 of the Project Plans,
Attachment 9) shows a total of 73,409 square feet of commercial uses. T hree restaurant
and retail buildings (Buildings 500, 700 and 800) are oriented along the east/west main
street off Tassajara Road referred to as “The Lane”. The other three building, a theater
and potentially restaurant or retail spaces (Buildings 100, 200 and 400) are located
along the north/south central road between the commercial area of PA -2a and the
residential apartment building in PA-2b. This is the same north/south road that connects
to PA-1.
Commercial parking would be provided throughout and concentrated into two surface
parking lots within PA-2a and the lower levels of the parking garage within the
apartment building within PA-2b. Similar to other developments, such as The Shops at
Waterford, the parking structure for the apartment building has been designed with
additional parking to accommodate the adjacent commercial uses.
Planning Area 2b
The apartment building comprises PA-2b and is designed as a four-story building
wrapped around five levels of parking with 6,500 square feet of retail on the ground floor
facing west. There are two vehicular entrances to the building, one of the north side and
the other on the west side facing PA-2a.
The proposed building is consistent with the mass and scale of the three - and four-story
townhomes directly across Brannigan Street, “The Villas”. The building continues the
modern agrarian architectural theme from throughout the project and ad apts it to a
larger scale. The building is finished with a variety of metal (corrugated, rusty and
standing seam), stone and natural and composite wood. The materials and color
palette for the commercial storefronts and residential portions of the buildin g are on
Sheets A2.2.21 to A2.2.23 of Attachment 10). The building is articulated with changes
in the depth on all facades. Three large courtyards further separate the building along
Brannigan Street. The courtyards are designed with seating areas, fire p its, barbecues,
shade structures and water features. A fourth courtyard off Dublin Boulevard provides
the largest amenity space with a pool, spa, lawn area, outdoor kitchen, and fire pit.
5.1
Packet Pg. 27
Page 12 of 22
The project proposes to provide 1.75 parking spaces per unit, which includes both
resident and guest parking. All parking spaces would be provided within the five -story
parking garage along with additional commercial parking spaces shared with PA -2a.
The parking garage is designed for commercial parking to be on the base ment and first
levels, guest and resident parking on the second level and resident parking on the third,
fourth and fifth levels. Entry gates and signage will direct residents, guests and
commercial customers to ensure they park in the appropriate areas.
The site plan (Sheet A2.2.3 of the Project Plans, Attachment 10 shows a total of 73,409
square feet of commercial uses and 280 residential units.
Planning Area 2c
PA-2c is comprised of 32 townhome buildings designed with either six or seven units
per building. The units are a more traditional townhome style, with the garages on one
side of the building facing the common drive aisles and the unit entries at the front of the
buildings. The layout of the buildings are unique in that the majority of the buildings (26
of the 32) are either oriented so the front entrance faces the public streets: Tassajara
Road, Central Parkway and Brannigan Street, or toward the proposed park.
The buildings are finished with stucco, fiber cement board, corrugated metal and stone.
They have varying roof heights and porches and/or balconies on every unit. A street
scene of the townhomes is depicted on Sheet A2.3.4 of the Project Plan set
(Attachment 11) and the three color and material palettes are shown on Sheet A2.3.1 -
A2.3.3 (Attachment 11). The architectural details, floor plans, building sections, and
roof plans are shown on Sheets A2.3.5 to A.3.33.
Each home has been designed with a direct-access, private, two-car garage accessed
from interior alleys. One additional guest parking space is also provided either within the
development or on the adjacent street, except Tassajara Road which does not allow for
on-street parking.
Access would be from Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. No vehicular access from
Central Parkway is proposed; however, a midblock pedestrian crossing on Central
Parkway is proposed. This would provide direct pedestrian access from the paseo to the
north to the central park and the commercial areas to the south.
Planning Areas 3 and 4
This area is comprised of small-lot two and three story single-family homes. The two-
story homes are located along the perimeter of the neighborhood with the three -story
homes located in the interior. There are three plan types with three elevation styles
each housing type. Each building type accommodates for a corner lot placing the front
entrance on the side of the building. The garage and front entry are otherwise on the
same side of the building facing the street. The placement of the garage and front entry
allows for a small rear yard. A street scene of the homes is depicted on Sheet A3.4 of
the Project Plans (Attachment 12). The six color and material options are shown on
Sheet A6.4.0. The architectural details, floor plans, building sections, and roof plans a re
shown on Sheets A6.1.1 to A6.3.9.
5.1
Packet Pg. 28
Page 13 of 22
Primary access to PA-3 would be provided off Brannigan Street with a second access
driveway off Central Parkway. Access to PA-4 would be from a single driveway on
Gleason Drive.
Similar to PA-2c, two parking spaces for each unit are provided within private garages.
One additional guess space is provided either within the development or on the
adjacent street.
Parks and Other Open Space
The proposed project incorporates a variety of green space and plaza areas throu ghout
the project site, as illustrated on Sheet 0.4 (Landscape Master Pan, Attachment 7) and
detailed on Sheet L0.2 (Community & Neighborhood Park Areas, Attachment 7). The
primary focus of the landscape vision is through the central spine of the developme nt
extending from PA-3 through PA-2. A linear park paseo north of Central Parkway
connects to the south via a midblock pedestrian crossing which leads to a 2.23 -acre
park.
The Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan requires residential development proje cts
to provide five acres per 1,000 residents. Based on a ratio of 2.7 residents per unit, the
proposed project is required to provide a total of 9.18 acres. The project proposes to
provide two public parks: 1) a Neighborhood Square and 2) a Community Buil ding,
totaling 2.33 acres. The remaining park acreage that is not provided as part of the
project would be addressed through the payment of an in-lieu fee.
Public Park - Neighborhood Square
The 2.23-acre public park which is designed with various areas referred to as the
“Residential Green”, the “Commons” and the “Side Yard” extends south to the beginning
of the commercial area adjacent to the proposed theater building. The “Residential
Green” is planned as a passive space with flexible lawn area accente d with plants. The
“Commons” is slightly more active with picnic areas, barbecues and a grove of shade
trees. The “Side Yard” located adjacent to the commercial area is the most active park
area with a raised performance stage, tree groves with seating, events lawn and plaza
space. Its location adjacent to the theater provides for the opportunity for movies in the
park. This park adds to the City’s park network as a “Neighborhood Square” as defined
in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Public Park - Community Center
The project includes a community building in PA -1. This community center/event space
consists of approximately 3,000 square feet of indoor space and 1,500 square feet of
outdoor space. The location of the building within PA-1 is adjacent to Dublin Boulevard,
noted as Building 900 (Sheet C1.1 of Attachment 8). The community center, as
specified in the Development Agreement, shall serve as event space and for City
programming and will contribute to the City’s effort to add additional community space
as defined in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Other Areas
On the south side of the theater in PA-2, the concept of outdoor social spaces
connecting with the commercial uses through the incorporation of a large plaza area
5.1
Packet Pg. 29
Page 14 of 22
designed with outdoor dining, water features, benches and landscaping. Th is plaza
area, along with others throughout the project, are highlighted with a variety of flatwork
including, textured pavers, colored concrete, stone and decomposed granite. Th e large
plaza also connects to the new signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard providing
another extension through the development to the commercial area to the south. The
proposed landscape materials, furnishings and planting palette are located on Sheets
L0.4, L0.5 and L0.9-L0.14 (Attachment 7).
Public Art Compliance
The applicant intends to satisfy the requirements of the City’s Public Art Ordinance on -
site. However, at this time the details of where the public art may be located are
unknown. Condition of Approval No. 18 of Attachment 6 describes the process for
preparing a project-wide Public Art Master Plan, which will detail how the project will
satisfy the public art requirement in a comprehensive fashion and not neighborhood -by-
neighborhood. The Public Art Master Plan will be subject to approval of the City Council
upon recommendation by the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission.
Inclusionary Housing
Pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin
Municipal Code), developments of more than 20 residential units are required to set
aside 12.5% of the units in the project as affordable units. The City’s Regulations also
allow for exceptions commonly referred to as an “alternative method of compliance”.
These exceptions include the payment of fees in lieu of constructing affordable units,
construction of off-site housing projects, land dedication, etc.
The Site Development Review Permit includes a request for 665 units, of which 83 units
are required to be designated as affordable u nits. The 83 units is broken down as
follows: 46 moderate income units (29 for sale and 18 rental), 26 low income (19 for
sale and 7 rental), 11 very low income (rental). The project proposes to satisfy the
City’s inclusionary zoning requirements through various methods. An overview of this is
provided below:
➢ Inclusion of 46 moderate income units on- or offsite or pay a fee in-lieu
thereof
➢ Acquisition of land for development of an affordable housing project at 6541
and 6543 Regional Street
For additional detail, refer to the Development Agreement section below.
Vesting Tentative Map
The application includes a request for a Tentative Parcel Map 10800 for financing and
conveyance purposes which is being processed concurrently with the more detailed
Vesting Tentative Maps 8440, 8449, 8450, 8451, and 8452 . The Vesting Tentative
Map create the individual development parcels within each project component, identify
those areas that would be reserved as open and/or common space, and identifies
easements to provide access through the project site.
Tentative Parcel Map 10800 and Vesting Tentative Maps 8440, 8449, 8450, 8451, and
8452 were reviewed by the City’s Engineering Staff for compliance with City standards
5.1
Packet Pg. 30
Page 15 of 22
and regulations. The Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map 10800 and Vesting
Tentative Maps 8440, 8449, 8450, 8451, and 8452 is included as Attachment 6. The
Tentative Parcel Map and Vesting Tentative Maps and associated details are Sheets
0.1-5.6 attached (Attachment 13).
Vacation of Northside Drive
The application includes a request to vacate Northside Drive which runs along the south
side of the property just north of I-580. This existing City street provides access from
Tassajara Road to the existing stormwater detention basin adjacent to Grafton Plaza as
well as other city facilities (i.e. culverts). The layout of PA -1 ensures that the City will
retain access through the project site to the basin and other facilities along Northside
Drive east of the project site. The details regarding the developer’s acquisition of
Northside Drive is provides in the Development Agreement.
Development Agreement
The Development Agreement is one means the City has to assure that the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan goal of new development funding the costs of inf rastructure and
service is met. The Development Agreement also provides security to the developer
that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for five
years. Additionally, it is a mechanism for the City to obtain com mitments from the
developer that the City might not otherwise be able to obtain.
The Planning Commission resolution recommending approval of the Development
Agreement is included as Attachment 14. The City Council Ordinance approving the
Development Agreement and the Development Agreement itself are provided as
Attachments 15 and 16 respectively.
The Agreement:
The proposed Development Agreement sets forth the terms to many items, including,
but not limited to, infrastructure construction and phasing, and the payment of fees. The
Development Agreement becomes effective for a term of five (5) years from the date it
is recorded. The Development Agreement runs with the land and the rights thereunder
can be assigned. The main points of the Development Agreement can be found in
Attachment 16 and are highlighted below:
Community Benefit Payment:
The Development Agreement requires the developer to contribute a sum of
$7,000,000 to the City as a community benefit that can be spent at the City Council
discretion.
Affordable Housing:
The Development Agreements lays out the way in which the Developer will satisfy
the City’s inclusionary housing requirement. As previously stated, the proposed
“alternative method of compliance” includes the option of constructing 46 moderate
income units in the proposed apartment building, or through the payment of an in -
lieu fee. It also includes acquisition of 1.33 -acre parcel at 6543 Regional Street
(APN: 941-150-25) from City and dedicating the parcel to a non-profit affordable
housing developer.
5.1
Packet Pg. 31
Page 16 of 22
Community Center
The Developer will construct a community center/event space in PA -1 consisting of
approximately 3,000 square feet of indoor space and 1,500 square feet of outdoor.
The Community Center is designed to serve as event space and for City
programming and will contribute to the City’s effort to add additional community
space as defined in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
Public Park
The Development Agreement contemplates the development of a public park
proposed in Planning Area 2. The park is considered a Neighborhood Square under
the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan and would be constructed by the
Developer and dedicated to the City. In addition, the developer is required to enter
into an operations and maintenance agreement with the City for future park
programing and maintenance requirements.
Vacation of Northside Drive
As part of the Development Agreement, the City agrees to vacate Northside Drive
for the acquisition of the land from the Developer. The City will place funds from
the sale in an escrow account and the funds will be used as an incentive to ensure
that high-quality tenants locate within the project. The City Council will have the
authority to use the funds based on requests from the De veloper or by tenant and
will cover expenses such as the payment of fees (e.g., fees sewer capacity
imposed by Dublin San Ramon Services District).
Fiscal Analysis
The General Plan requires that the “fiscal impact of new residential development in the
Eastern Extended Planning Area supports itself and does not draw upon and dilute the
fiscal base of the remainder of the city”.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan expands upon this policy through the following
Financing Goal: “New development in the Specific Plan area should pay the full cost of
infrastructure needed to serve the area and should fund the costs of mitigating adverse
impacts on the City’s existing infrastructure and services.” To thoroughly evaluate the
fiscal impact of the proposed At Dublin project, the City engaged the services of Keyser
Marston Associates (KMA) to prepare a Fiscal Analysis of the project. The Fiscal
Analysis confirmed that the project would be fiscally neutral or better. The Fiscal
Analysis is attached to this report as Attachment 17.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLANS, AND ZONING
ORDINANCE:
The project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendments, is consistent with the General Plan which allows for a variety of
residential and commercial uses in this area of Dublin which the proposed project will
achieve. The General Plan encourages projects to relate well to the surrounding
developments, and the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood that includes residential, public park, commercial, and office uses.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides design guidelines to guide development
within the Specific Plan area. As stated in the Specific Plan, the design guidelines are
advisory only and the City may consider equivalent or superior methods that achieve
5.1
Packet Pg. 32
Page 17 of 22
the objectives of the Specific Plan. The proposed project meets the intent of the
guidelines and carefully integrates the development and infrastructure improvements
into the existing fabric of the area. The proposed project is consistent with the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan because the Plan states that regionally-oriented commercial uses
should be located south of Dublin Boulevard and near freeway interchanges where
convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts to the rest of Dublin. The Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan provides that mixed-use buildings and complexes are strongly
encouraged in the Town Center, which encompasses the area north of Dublin
Boulevard. It further states that the mixture of office and residential uses with retail
contributes to a downtown that is active not only on weekdays, but during evenings and
weekends as well.
Intersection Spacing – General Plan
Dublin Boulevard is classified as an arterial street in the Gene ral Plan. Arterial streets
are designed to distribute localized trips. The General Plan specifies that intersections
shall be spaced no closer than 750 feet, except in special circumstances, intersection
spacing less than 750 feet may be allowed with the a pproval of the Public Works
Director/City Engineer. As part of the project review, including the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), the proposed intersection was evaluated for its impact to the street
network as well as to public safety. As a result of this review, the EIR includes a
mitigation measure to address the impacts of the intersection during the peak period of
traffic. The mitigation measure restricts the movement of vehicles at the intersection out
of the project site providing priority to the ve hicles on Dublin Boulevard. This mitigation
measure ensures that traffic impacts to Dublin Boulevard and public safety are
addressed. Based on the EIR analysis and mitigation measure TR-1, the impacts of the
proposed intersection were addressed to a level of less than significant. With that said,
the spacing of the new intersection is not preferred and so the balance is to evaluate the
project as a whole and consider both the impacts and the benefits of its inclusion. The
new intersection results traffic impacts as detailed and addressed in the EIR, provides a
greater level of connectivity between PA-1 and PA-2 and was incorporated into the
application in order to meet the economic and access needs of the development.
Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District
The majority of the site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located within the
Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. This area is designated as an area
in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace
protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those
uses. The AIA is a designation by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission.
All permitted and conditionally permitted uses set forth in a P lanned Development
Zoning District that was adopted and in effect prior to August 2012 are considered to be
“Existing Land Uses” pursuant to the Livermore Municipal Airport ALUCP. The Alameda
County ALUC has no authority over Existing Land Uses unless chan ges to an Existing
Land Use results in an increase of nonconformity with ALUCP policies and the change
would increase the intensity or density of the use beyond what was permitted by the
Existing Land Use. The proposed Planned Development Zoning District d oes not
include any new land uses that would increase the intensity of density beyond what was
allowed in the Existing Planned Development Zoning District. More specifically, the
existing and proposed Planned Development Zoning Districts allow a variety of
residential and commercial uses, including assembly land uses such as a h otel,
recreational center, cultural center, and other similar uses.
5.1
Packet Pg. 33
Page 18 of 22
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Standards and Policies – EDSP
The Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document was adopted by
the City Council in 1996 as a means of implementing the requirements of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. The Scenic Corridor policies establish standards for projects within
the scenic corridor viewshed. Along the Interstate 580 corridor, the document identified
three critical viewpoints of Dublin’s “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands,”, of which Viewpoint
2 looking northeast to the ridgelands from the Tassajara Road Interstate 580 overpass
applies to the project.
Viewpoint 2 requires that developments shall maintain generally uninterrupted views
and have structures that do not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total horizon line. The EIR provides a
detailed analysis of the project’s impacts to the viewpoint and finds that the proposed
development (including the tallest building at 74 -feet, the hotel), does not extend above
the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total
horizon line.
Semi-Public Facilities Policy - EDSP
In 2004, the City Council adopted a Semi-Public Facilities Policy that requires the
consideration of opportunities for cultural, educations and other community services
when reviewing amendments to the land use map of the General Plan and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. The purpose of the Semi-Public Facilities Policy, among others,
was to create a greater sense of community, enrich community identify, increase public
access to community services and anticipate the needs of Dublin’s diverse community.
The Policy applies to all General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments
which involve 150 or more single-family housing units and/or 250 or more medium
density or great units. The Policy establishes various standards which encourages, but
does not require, the inclusion of a Semi-Public Facilities at a rate of 1 acre per 1,000
residences. The proposed project is estimated to generate a population of 1,836
persons (1.8 acres). To meet the intent of the City’s policy, the proposed project is
including the Community Center in PA-1 as previously described.
Town Center Priority Development Area
The proposed project is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development
Area (PDA). This PDA area is comprised of a mix of housing types, including single-
family detached, town homes, condominiums and apartments and surrounds the
commercial core for eastern Dublin. The proposed project supports the goals of the
PDA through the development of integrated residential and commercial uses.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES:
The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin
San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval
where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local
Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and
agencies have been included in the attached Resolution (Attachment 6).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
On January 17, 2018, the City released a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and held a public scoping meeting on January 30, 2018. The City
5.1
Packet Pg. 34
Page 19 of 22
received 4 letters regarding the scope of the EIR. Subsequently, a Draft EIR (DEIR, see
Attachment 19) was prepared and circulated to the public for 45 days. The comment
period was open from July 6, 2018 to August 20, 2018. The City received 13 comment
letters during the public review and comment period. Responses have been prepared
to each of the comments received by the City. The comments and associated
responses together constituted the Final EIR (Attachment 20).
The Draft EIR examined potential environmental impacts resulting from the project in
the following topic areas:
• Aesthetics *
• Biological Resources *
• Cultural and Tribal Resources *
• Geology and Soils *
• Noise *
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials *
• Energy
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Utilities
• Air Quality
• Transportation
The Draft EIR classifies the environmental impacts as follows:
• Class I are significant and unavoidable
• Class II can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation
• Class III are less than significant and do not require mitigation
In summary, the Draft EIR concludes that the project will have potentially significant
impact in 8 of the 16 topic areas (note above with “*”) and mitigation measures have
been written to reduce the impacts in these areas to a level that is less than significan t
(Class II).
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for the 6 topics areas (underlined
above) and therefore no mitigations were written (Class III).
Similar to other infill projects of this size, impacts were identified where, even with the
implementation of mitigation measures, the effects to the environment are still expected
to be significant (Class I). The identified impacts, noted in italics above, are related to
Air Quality and Transportation. Although mitigation measures were w ritten to reduce the
level of the impact, the impacts could not be fully reduced to less than significant in all
instances.
An overview of all the topic areas is provided below:
Aesthetics
To address potential aesthetic impacts associated with the project, simulations from five
viewpoints were prepared and compared to existing conditions. The EIR concluded that
the project would not adversely impact views from a scenic vista or substantially alter
5.1
Packet Pg. 35
Page 20 of 22
the existing visual character because the building heigh ts, massing and materials are
generally consistent with the surrounding land uses. Potential impacts associated with
light and glare were identified. The DEIR identifies mitigation measure to reduce the
impact to a level of less than significant.
Air Quality
The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant impacts to air quality and includes
mitigation measures. Although mitigation measures were written to reduce the level of
the impact, the impacts could not be fully reduced to less than significant in a ll
instances. The project’s cumulative impact would exceed the air quality thresholds
established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for Nitrogen Oxides (Nox)
and reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions. The predominant source of NOx
emissions would be mobile sources (i.e. project generated vehicle trips).
Biological Resources
The project site contains approximately 77 acres of non-sensitive ruderal habitat
comprised primarily of disced and mowed areas of disturbed vegetation. These
biological communities are not considered sensitive natural communities or riparian
habitat. The Draft EIR identifies other biological resources such as wetlands and
special status species (e.g. Congdon Tarplant, Saline Clover, Burrowing Owl, etc.) that
would be impacted by the project and therefore identifies mitigation measures to
reduce the project’s impact on these biological resources to a level of less than
significant.
Cultural and Tribal Resources
The project site is not listed as a historic site or a tribal resource. Nonetheless, there is
always the possibility that previously unknown historic resources exist below the ground
surface within the project site. As such, development of the project site was determined
to have a potentially significant impact. The DEIR identifies mitigation measure to
reduce the impact to a level of less than significant.
Energy
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for Energy and therefore no
mitigations were required.
Geology and Soils
Geologic-related impacts from development are site-specific and, if properly designed,
would not result in worsening of the environmental or public health and safety. As part
of the project applicant’s building permit application, the applicant is required to submit a
design-level geotechnical report. This report would provide recommendations on the
appropriate level of soil engineering and building design necessary to minimize ground -
shaking hazards. The DEIR builds off these existing requirements and requires the
applicant to submit a design-level geotechnical report to the City of Dublin for review
and approval and implement recommendations under the approved report. The
implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that the project impacts would
be less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and therefore no mitigations were required.
5.1
Packet Pg. 36
Page 21 of 22
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As previously noted, the project site is vacant except fo r seasonal uses. The DEIR
identified a limited amount of hazardous materials on the project site, including two 5 -
gallon buckets of petroleum hydrocarbon, stained soils, and solid waste debris. As such
the Draft EIR identified a mitigation measure to redu ce this impact to less than
significant was identified.
Hydrology
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for Hydrology and therefore no
mitigations were required. Projects, such as the proposed project, involving
construction on sites that are one acre or more are required by regulation to prepare
and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that specifies how the
discharger will protect water quality during construction activities
Land Use
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for Land Use and therefore no
mitigations were required.
Noise
The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts related to project construction in
the short term as well as longer-term noise exposure of future residents by mobile traffic
noise from the adjacent City streets. Similar to other projects in the City where noise
barriers such as patio enclosures and walls are incorporated into the project design,
these features stem from an acoustical study based on the architectur al plans for the
project. Residential neighborhoods adjacent to the project site along Tassajara Road
and Gleason Drive are designed with masonry walls along the project frontage to
reduce noise impacts on the residents as well as provide an enhanced aesth etic to the
street frontage. Accordingly, the DEIR identifies mitigation measures, including the
regulation of construction equipment and the requirement for an acoustical study
demonstrating all residential units would meet the City’s noise standards. Th ese
mitigation measures to reduce the project impacts to a level of less than significant.
Population and Housing
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for Population and Housing and
therefore no mitigations were required.
Public Services and Utilities
There were no potentially significant impacts identified for Public Services and Utilities
and therefore no mitigations were required.
Transportation
The project’s vehicle trip generation would result in impacts to the existing street
network as well as the new signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard. To address the
impacts to existing intersections, mitigations are proposed that require the applicant to
pay the project’s proportionate fair share of the improvements to the intersecti on. These
improvements vary by intersection and include such improvements as adjusting signal
timing, ramp metering rates and additional turn lanes. For the new signalize intersection
on Dublin Boulevard, mitigation measure TR-1:1 restricts left turn movements during
peak time periods.
In order to approve the project, the City Council will need to adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations (SOC) that identifies all environmental impacts that cannot
5.1
Packet Pg. 37
Page 22 of 22
be mitigated and explain why the benefits of the proj ect outweigh its unavoidable
environmental impacts. The SOC is required in order to approve the project, if desired
by a majority of the City Council.
The Planning Commission resolution recommending the City Council certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report and that the City Council make all environmental findings
required under CEQA for Project approval is included as Attachment 18.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owner s and
occupants within 300 feet of the project site. A public notice was also provided to an
expanded area beyond 300 feet, to surrounding residents and businesses including the
following neighboring communities: The Cottages, The Villas, The Courtyards, Sorrento
West, Sonata, a portion of Tassajara Meadows, Grafton Station, and the Waterford
residential and commercial developments and to interested parties. A public notice also
was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the
City. A Planning Application sign was posted on the project site and the project was also
included on the City’s development projects webpage. A copy of this Staff Report has
been provided to the Applicant
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Recommending the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments
2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA
3. Resolution Recommending Ordinance Adopting Planned Development Zoning
4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance
5. Resolution Recommending SDR VTM
6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM
7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping
8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1
9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A
10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B
11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C
12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4
13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps
14. Resolution Recommending Approval of the Development Agreement
15. Exhibit A to Attachment 14 - Ordinance Approving the Development Agreement
16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement
17. Fiscal Analysis
18. Resolution Recommending Certification of the Final EIR
19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR
20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR
21. Public Comment
5.1
Packet Pg. 38
RESOLUTION NO. 18-xx
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 RELATED TO THE
THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNS 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development
Company is requesting approval of the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to
665 residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small -lot single family
homes, and up to 400,500 square feet of retail commercial development, related infrastructure
and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General Plan Amendment
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Sta ge 1 and
Stage 2), and Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps, Tentative Parcel Map, street
vacation, a Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report,
among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as
the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, The Project site is approximately 77.3 acres generally bound by Tassajara
Road, Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I -580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-
0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
WHEREAS, the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations for the project site are Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Medium
Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, High Density Residential, and
Public/Semi-Public; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to redistribute and simplify the six (6) existing land use
designations interspersed throughout the project site to the following land use designations
organized in large blocks of General Commercial, Mixed Use, Medium High Density Residential
and Medium Density Residential with Parks/Public Recreation centrally located within the Project
site. In addition, other provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Du blin Specific Plan are
amended to ensure consistency with the new land use designations for the project site; 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 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed
Project which reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for public comment from July 6, 2018
to August 20, 2018; and
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 1. Resolution Recommending the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments (At Dublin Public Hearing)
WHEREAS, comments received on the Draft EIR were reviewed and responded to, and
the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated October 2018 was prepared; and
WHEREAS, 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 October 30, 2018 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezoning and approval of a related Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and certification of a Final
Environmental Impact Report, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, on
October 30, 2018 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Final EIR, all above-referenced
reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the Resolution attached as Exhibit A approving amendments to the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings, as set forth in Exhibit A, that the
amendments are in the public interest, promotes 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 30th day of October 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
5.1.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 1. Resolution Recommending the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments (At Dublin Public Hearing)
1
RESOLUTION NO. xx-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
_____________________________________________________
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
RELATED TO THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development
Company is requesting approval of the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to
665 residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small -lot single
family homes, and up to 400,500 square feet of retail commercial development, related
infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General
Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development
Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), and Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps,
Tentative Parcel Map, street vacation, a request for a Development Agreement, and
certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These
planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the
“Project”; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is 77.3 acres generally bound by Tassajara Road,
Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-
006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
WHEREAS, the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations for the project site are Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial,
Medium-Density Residential, Medium/High-Density Residential, High-Density Residential, and
Public/Semi-Public; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to change the existing land use designations
interspersed throughout the project site to the following land use designations organized in
large blocks of General Commercial, Mixed Use, Medium/High-Density Residential and
Medium-Density Residential with Parks/Public Recreation centrally located within the Project
site. In addition, other provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are
amended to ensure consistency with the new land use designations for the project site; 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 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
proposed Project which reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for public comment from July 6,
2018 to August 20, 2018; and
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA (At Dublin Public Hearing)
2
WHEREAS, comments received on the Draft EIR were reviewed and responded to,
and the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated October 2018 was
prepared; and
WHEREAS, 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 re quested a
consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required
under section 65352.3; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-xx
recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business
hours; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-xx
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, a Staff Report, dated ________ and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps 8440, 8449, 8450,
8451, 8452, Tentative Parcel Map 10800, street vacation, Development Agreement and
certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report, for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the proposed General Plan and Easter Dublin Specific Plan amendments, on
________ at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on ________, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-18 certifying the At
Dublin EIR 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 EIR and 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 City Council finds that the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, as set forth below, are in the public interest , will
promote general health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan as amended will
remain internally consistent. The proposed project is consistent with the guiding and
implementing policies of the General Plan in each of the Elements and will allow for a mixed-
use development consisting of both residential and commercial uses. The General Plan
amendments noted below will ensure that the implementation of the proposed project is in
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA (At Dublin Public Hearing)
3
compliance with the General Plan and that each Element within the General Plan is internally
consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the General Plan:
Figure 1-1 (Dublin General Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of
Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the project site and shall be amended with a
new designation for the project site as shown below:
Figure 2-1 (Dublin General Plan Sites for Housing Development Map) shall be amended to show
Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the project site.
Figure 2-2 (Dublin General Plan Open Space Initiative Protection Areas Map) shall be amended to
show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the project
site.
Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be amended to
read as follows:
Table 2.2. LAND USEDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING A REA
ACRES
INTENSITY
UNITS1
FACTOR
YIELD1
CLASSIFICATION ACRES INTENSITY UNITS1 FACTOR YIELD1
RESIDENTIAL Acres Dwelling
Units/Acre Dwelling Units Persons/ Dwelling Unit Population
High Density 52.94 25 .1+ 1,328+ 2 .7 3,586+
Medium-High Density
144.91
14 .1-25 .0
2,043-3,623
2 .7
5,516-9,781
Medium-High Density and Retail Office
0 14 .1-25 .0 0 2 .7 0
Medium-Density2 424.6 6 .1-14 .0 2,590-5,944 2 .7 6,993-16,050
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 329.8 0 .01 3 2 .7 9
TOTAL: 1,707.75 6,616-15,272+ 17,864 -41,236+
COMMERCIAL Acres Floor Area
Ratio (Gross)
Square Feet
(millions) Square Feet/ Employee Jobs
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA (At Dublin Public Hearing)
4
General Commercial 262.5 .20- .60 2 .29-6.86 510 4,484-13,452
General Commercial/ Campus Office
95 .22 .20- .80 .83-3 .32 385 2,155-7,325
Mixed Use 22.1 .30-1 .00 .28-.96 490 589-1,965
Mixed Use 2/ Campus Office 22 .9 .45 max .45 260 1,731
Neighborhood Commercial 17.59 .25- .60 .19- .46 490 391-938
Campus Office 195 .58 .25- .80 2 .13-6 .82 260 8,192-26,214
Industrial Park 56 .4 .35 max .86 590 1,458
Industrial Park/ Campus Office 0 .25- .35 0 425 0
Campus Office 137.58 .25- .80 1.50-4.79 260 5,763-18,440
Medical Campus 42.88 .25- .80 .46-4.49 260 1,796-5,747
Medical Campus / Commercial 15.85 .25- .80 .17-.41 510 338-812
TOTAL: 868.6 9.16 -29.42 26,897 -78,082
PUBLIC/SEMI- PUBLIC/OPEN SPACE
Acres Floor Area Ratio (Gross) Square Feet (millions) Square Feet/ Employee Jobs
Public/Semi-Public 94.5 .50 max 2 .16 590 3,488
Semi-Public 1.3 .50 max .03 590 48
Acres Number
Parks/Public
Recreation
207.13
Regional Parks 1 .2 1
Open Space 699 .56
Schools Acres Floor Area Ratio (Gross) Square Feet (millions) Square Feet/ Employee Jobs
Elementary School 38 .50 max 1 .06 590 1,797
Middle School 27 .8 .50 max .61 590 1,034
High School 0
TOTAL: 1,069.49 4.86 6,367
Acres Dwelling Units Population Square Feet
(millions) Jobs
GRAND TOTAL: 3,452.41 6,616-15,272+ 17,864 -41,236+ 9.16 -29.42 25,791-60-289
Figure 3-1 (Dublin General Plan Parks and Open Space Map) shall be amended to include the new
2.23-acre park within PA-2 and shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard
and removal of Northside Drive through the project site.
Figure 4-1 (Dublin General Plan Schools and Public Lands Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan
Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the project site.
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5
Figure 5-1 (Dublin General Plan Roadway Classifications) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street
south of Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the project
site.
Table 5.1 (Roadway Improvements at General Plan Buildout (Year 2035)) shall be amended as to
modify Tassajara Road and add Dublin Boulevard as follows: Text that is proposed to be deleted from
the General Plan is shown in strikethrough and text that is proposed to be added to the General Plan
is shown in underline:
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION
Tassajara Road Widening Widening of Tassajara Road to eight seven lanes between
Dublin Boulevard and I-580 westbound ramps.
Dublin Boulevard Widening Widening of Dublin Boulevard to seven lanes between
Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street
Figure 5-2a (Dublin General Plan Transit Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of
Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the project site.
Figure 5-3b (Dublin General Plan Bicycle Circulation Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan
Street south of Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the
project site.
Figure 5-4b (Dublin General Plan Multi-Modal Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south
of Dublin Boulevard as a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the project site.
Figure 8-1 (Dublin General Plan Geologic Hazards and Constraints Map) shall be amended to show
Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the project site.
Figure 8-2 (Dublin General Plan Potential Flooding Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street
south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the project site.
Figure 9-1 (Dublin General Plan 2011 Existing Noise Exposure Contours Map) shall be amended to
show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the project
site.
Figure 9-2 (Dublin General Plan 2035 Projected Noise Exposure Contours Map) shall be amended to
show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the project
site.
Figure 10-1 (Dublin General Plan Regional Corridors Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan
Street south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the project site.
Figure 10-2 (Dublin General Plan Gateways Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south
of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the project site.
Figure 10-5 (Dublin General Plan Villages Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of
Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the project site.
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA (At Dublin Public Hearing)
6
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
Figure 2.4 Ownership Patterns shall be amended to update the land ownership of 18. Dublin Land
Company to SCS Development Company
Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be amended to read as follows with
no modifications to the footnotes:
TABLE 4.1
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY
(Amendment Reso# 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 101-
15, 165-15, 151-16, xx-18)
Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
General Commercial 320.2 acres .25-.35 FAR 4.184 MSF
General Commercial/Campus
Office
87.02 acres .28 FAR 1.054 MSF
Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF
Neighborhood Commercial 54.19 acres .30-.35 FAR .767 MSF
Mixed Use 15.4 acres .30-1.0 FAR .436 MSF
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office**** 25.33 .45 FAR .497 MSF
Campus Office 94.28 acres .35-.75 FAR 1.840 MSF
Medical Campus 42.88 acres .25-.80 FAR .950 MSF
Medical Campus/Commercial 15.85 acres .25-.60 FAR .250 MSF
Subtotal 716.45 acres 10.725 MSF
RESIDENTIAL
High Density 55.54 acres 35 du/ac 1,944 du
Medium High Density 163.71 acres 20 du/ac 3,274 du
Medium Density** 511.91 acres (1) 10 du/ac 5,119 du
Single Family*** 947.25 acres 4 du/ac 3,789 du (3)
Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du
Rural Residential/Agric. 539.55 acres .01 du/ac 5 du
Mixed Use 0 acres 15du/ac 115 du
Subtotal 2,225.26 acres 13,950 du
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public 93.5 acres .24 FAR .977 MSF
Semi-Public 8.6 acres .25 FAR .114 MSF
Subtotal 102.1 acres 1.091 MSF
SCHOOLS
Elementary School 55.8 acres (2) 5 schools
Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school
Subtotal 77.1 acres
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
City Park 56.3 acres 1 park
Community Park 93.3 acres 3 parks
Neighborhood Park 50.9 acres 7 parks
Neighborhood Square 18.9 acres 7 parks
Natural Community Park 10.4 acres 1 park
Subtotal 229.8 acres 19 parks
Open Space 684.06 acres
TOTAL LAND AREA 4,034.77 acres
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA (At Dublin Public Hearing)
7
Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) shall be amended to
read as follows with no modifications to the footnotes:
Table 4.3 (City of Dublin Projected Jobs/Housing Balance) shall be amended to read as follows with
no modifications to the footnotes:
TABLE 4.3
CITY OF DUBLIN
PROJECTED JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
(Amended Per Resolution No. 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, xx-18)
PLANNING AREA Dwelling
Units
Jobs Employed
Residents*
Balance**
Ratio***
Existing City of
Dublin****
7,100 12,210 11,502 -708 1.06:1.0
Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Area
14,135***** 29,540 22,899 -6,641 1.29:1.0
TOTAL: 21,235 41,750 34,401 -7,349 1.21:1.0******
TABLE 4.2
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 165-15, 151-
16, xx-18)
Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/Employees Persons/du Population
Commercial
Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266
General
Commercial/Campus
Office*
1.054 MSF 385 2,738
General Commercial 4.184 MSF 510 8,204
Neighborhood Commercial .767 MSF 490 1,565
Mixed Use** .436 MSF 490 890
Mixed Use 2/Campus
Office****
.497 MSF 260 1,910
Campus Office 1.840 MSF 260 7,077
Medical Campus .950 260 3,654
Medical Campus/
Commercial
.250 510 490
Public/Semi Public .977 MSF 590 1,656
Semi-Public 0.94 MSF 590 159
TOTAL: 12.642 MSF 29,709
Residential
High Density 1,944 2.0 3,888
Medium High Density 3,274 2.0 6,548
Medium Density 5,119 2.0 10,238
Single Family***(1) 3,789 3.2 12,125
Estate Residential 4 3.2 13
Mixed Use** 0 2.0 0
Rural Residential/Agric. 5 3.2 16
TOTAL: 14,135 32,828
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA (At Dublin Public Hearing)
8
Table 4.4 (Tassajara Gateway Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows:
TABLE 4.4
TASSAJARA GATEWAY
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(Amended Per Resolution No. 76-10, 151-16, xx-18)
Designation Acres Density Development Potential
General Commercial 53.9 .25 FAR .586 msf
General Commercial/Campus
Office
10.5 .28 FAR .128 msf
Campus Office 33.28 .35 FAR .507msf
Medical Campus/Commercial 15.85 .36 FAR .250 msf
Open Space 6.9 ----- -----
Semi Public ---- ---- 0
TOTAL 120.43 ----- 1.471 msf
Section 4.4.1 (Location and Diversity) shall be amended to update the acres of residential
classification and dwelling units:
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designates 2,225.26 acres with a wide range of residential
classifications and densities, resulting in development potential for approximately 13,950 dwelling
units. Approximately 55 percent of the units will be single family (densities of 0.01 to 10 du/ac).
Table 4.5 (Town-Center-Commercial Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows:
TABLE 4.5
TOWN CENTER -- COMMERCIAL
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, xx-18)
Designation Acres Density Development Potential
General Commercial 28.8 .35 FAR .439 msf
Neighborhood Commercial 28.0 .35 FAR .427 msf
Mixed Use 15.4 .65 FAR
Public/Semi-Public 4.3 .25 FAR .468 msf
Semi-Public -- -- 0 msf
TOTAL 76.5 --- 1.334 msf
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA (At Dublin Public Hearing)
9
Table 4.6 (Town Center-Residential Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows:
Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard as
a Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through the project site and shall be amended with
new designation for the project site as noted below.
TABLE 4.6
TOWN CENTER-- RESIDENTIAL
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Designation Acres Density Development Potential
High Density 30.4 35 du/ac 1,064 du
Medium High Density 53.3 20 du/ac 1,066 du
Medium Density 208.2 10 du/ac 2,082 du
Single Family 89.2 4 du/ac 399 du
Subtotal 381.1 --- 4,611 du
Open Space 49.8 ---
City Park 56.3 --- 1 park
Community Park 80.6 --- 1 park
Neighborhood Park 11.6 --- 2 parks
Neighborhood Square 9.7 --- 6 parks
Nature Park 10.4 --- 1 park
Semi-Public --- --- 0 msf
Subtotal 218.4 ---
Elementary School 31.1 --- 3 schools
TOTAL 630.6 --- 4,611 dwelling units
11 parks
3 elementary schools
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA (At Dublin Public Hearing)
10
Figure 4.2 (Planning Subareas Map) shall be amended as shown on the image below as follows:
1) Modify to the boundary of Tassajara Gateway Subarea
(Area A) to Include the 1.2-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel
Number 985-0051-004-00) located east of Tassajara
Road and west of Northside Drive included into Tassajara
Gateway subarea
2) Modify the boundary of Town Center-Commercial (Area B)
to coincide with the northern boundary of the Mixed-Use
Land Use Designation as shown in Figure 4.1.
3) Modify the boundary of Town Center-Residential (Area C) to
occupy the remainder of the project site to the north of the
new Town Center-Commercial boundary.
4) Show Brannigan Street south of Dublin Boulevard as a
Collector Street and removal of Northside Drive through
the project site
Figure 5.1 (Road System Map) shall be amended to show Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard
and I-580 ramps to be seven lanes and Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan
Street to be seven lanes.
Figure 5-3b (East Dublin Bicycle Circulation System Map) shall be amended to show Brannigan Street
south of Dublin Boulevard and removal of Northside Drive through the project site
Figure 6.1 (Open Space Framework Map) shall be amended to include the 2.23 park “Neighborhood
Square” as shown on Figure 1.
APPENDIX 3
Land Use Summary by Planning Areas sections “Tassajara Gateway”, “Town Center-Commercial”,
and “Town Center-Residential” shall be amended as follows:
APPENDIX 3
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY PLANNING SUBAREAS
Planning Subareas
Land Use Category Area Density Square Feet Units
Tassajara Gateway
General Commercial 53.9 .25 586,971
General Commercial/
Campus Office 10.5 0.28 128,066
Campus Office 33.28 .35 507,387
Open Space 6.9
Total 120.43 1,222,424
Town Center - Commercial
General Commercial 28.8 .35 439,085
Neighborhood Commercial 28.0 .35 426,888
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA (At Dublin Public Hearing)
11
Mixed Use 15.4 .65 436,037
Public/Semi-Public 4.3 .25 46,827
Total 76.5 1,348,837
Town Center – Residential
High Density Residential 30.4 35 1,064
Medium High Density
Residential 53.3 20 1,066
Medium Density Residential 208.2 10 2,082
Single Family Residential 89.2 4 399
Subtotal 381.1 4,611
Open Space 49.8
City Park 56.3
Community Park 80.6
Neighborhood Park 11.6
Neighborhood Square 9.7
Nature Community Park 10.4
Subtotal 218.4
Elementary School 31.1
Total 630.6 4,108
APPENDIX 4
Appendix 4 Land Use Summary by Land Owners “#18 Dublin Land Company” shall be amended to
read as follows:
APPENDIX 4
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY LAND OWNERS
Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units
#18 SCS DEVELOPMENT CO.
General Commercial 23.7 .20 - .60
206,474 -
619,423
Mixed Use 15.4 .30 – 1.00
201,247 -
670,824 280
Medium High Density
Residential 12.4 14.1 – 25.0 310
Medium Density Residential 23.5 6.1 – 14.0 329
Neighborhood Square (Park) 2.3 - - -
Total 77.3
825,897 -
1,290,247 919
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA (At Dublin Public Hearing)
12
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____day of _____, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
5.1.b
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 2. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving GPA-SPA (At Dublin Public Hearing)
RESOLUTION NO. 18-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP AND APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT WITH A
RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development Company is
requesting approval of the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to 665 residential
units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small -lot single family homes, and up to
400,500 square feet of retail commercial development, related infrastructure and landscape
improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General Plan Amendment and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), and Site
Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps, Tentative Parcel Map, street vaca tion, a Development
Agreement, and certification of a n Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These
planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project”;
and
WHEREAS, the Project site is 77.3 acres generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive,
Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and
985-0052-025); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Develop ment
Area (DPA) which includes a mix of housing types including single-family detached, town homes,
condominiums and apartments. The Town Center PDA is envisioned as a walkable area with locally
serving businesses within walking distance or a short ride from residential neighborhoods,
conveniently served by transit; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018 for
the proposed Project which reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as
a result of the project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation, most of
which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, on October 3 and 4, 2018, the Planning Commission held an information study
session on the proposed project and provided the interested parties the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public
hearing on the project, including the amendment to the Planned Development Zoning, Site
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 3. Resolution Recommending Ordinance Adopting Planned Development Zoning (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Draft EIR, at which time all interested
parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 30, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the project for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Supplemental EIR, all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment prior to
making a recommendation on the project.
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-xx
recommending that the City Council certify an EIR and adopt mitigation findings, findings regarding
alternatives, a statement of overriding considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review
at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution 18-xx, recommending approval of the 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
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 recommend
that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attached as Exhibit A) amending the existing Planned
Development Zoning District for At Dublin.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 30th day of October 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
5.1.c
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 3. Resolution Recommending Ordinance Adopting Planned Development Zoning (At Dublin Public Hearing)
1
ORDINANCE NO. xx – 18
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING
DISTRICT WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025)
The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
A. The Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development Company , is
requesting a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Site Development
Review Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map for the At Dublin project. The proposed project
includes up to 665 residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small-
lot single family homes, and up to 400,500 square feet of retail commercial development, related
infrastructure and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General
Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendm ent, Planned Development
Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), and Site Development Review, a Development Agreement,
and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These
planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the
“Project”; and
B. The Project site is approximately 77.3 acres generally bounded by Tassajara Road,
Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006,
985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
C. The Project site is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development Area
(PDA) which includes a mix of housing types including single-family detached, townhomes,
condominiums and apartments. The Town Center PDA is envisioned as a walkable area with
locally serving businesses within walking distance or a short ride from residential
neighborhoods, conveniently served by transit; and
D. The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018 for the
proposed Project which reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of the Project; and
E. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as a
result of the project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation, most
of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and
F. Following a public hearing on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution 18-xx, recommending approval of the 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
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
2
G. A Staff Report dated ________, and incorporated herein by reference, described and
analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan, for the City Council; and
H. On __________, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the proposed Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and 2 Development
Plan, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard ; and
I. The City Council considered the Final EIR and related prior CEQA documents and all
above referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on the project;
and
J. On _________, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-18 certifying the Final EIR and
adopting mitigation findings, findings regarding alternatives, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Project; and
K. On ________, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-18 approving General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference
and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours .
SECTION 2: FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows.
1. The At Dublin Project (“the Project”) PD-Planned Development zoning meets the
purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan
that will be consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as
amended and protects the integrity and character of the area by creating a desirable use
of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the
site plan. The Project places residents and employment uses in areas planned for such
uses, which promote preservation of sensitive environmental areas, particularly ridgeline
areas, throughout the City. The development plan focuses the regional-serving
commercial uses south of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to I-580, provides for a walkable
mixed-use environment with residential uses and social retail uses north of Dublin
Boulevard as well as a variety of housing opportunities adjacent to existing residential
neighborhoods. As a result, the development plan creates a more desirable use of the
land, a more coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical environment
than would otherwise be possible under a single zoning district or combination of zoning
districts.
2. Development of the Project under the PD-Planned Development zoning will be
harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding area
in that the site will provide a mix of housing types including apartments, townhomes and
single-family detached homes as well as a variety of neighborhood and regional -serving
commercial uses. The Project site is in an area that has similar uses nearby including
residential uses to the west, north and east, commercial to the east and west, and a l arge
public park to the west.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
3
B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds
as follows.
1. The PD-Planned Development zoning for the Project will be harmonious and
compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the
proposed Site Plan has taken into account adjacent land uses and will provide a wide
range of amenities to and for the community within the development and the surrounding
neighborhoods.
2. The project site conditions were documented in the EIR that has been prepared, and
the environmental impacts that have been identified will be mitigated to the greatest
degree possible. There are no site challenges that were identified in the EIR , which
could not be mitigated, that will present an impediment to utilization of the site for the
intended purposes. There are no major physical or topographic constraints and thus the
site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the retail commercial center and
residential uses approved through the PD zoning.
3. The PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and
standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures.
4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the
Dublin General Plan, as amended, in that the proposed uses of residential and
commercial retail are consistent with the proposed residential and commercial land use
designations for the site.
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council adopted a Final EIR
via Resolution xx-18 on _________, prior to approving the Project.
SECTION 3: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning
Map is amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning
District and supersedes and replaces the previously adopted zoning (Resolution 1 04-94):
77.3 acres bounded by Tassajara Road on the west, by Brannigan Street on the east, by
I-580 on the south, and by a line approximately 150 feet north of Gleason Drive, primarily
comprised of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers: 985-52-24, 985-52-25 and 985-51-
6 (the “Property”)
A map of the rezoning area is shown below:
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
4
SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are
set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire 77.3-acre project
area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan
shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors.
Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan
This is a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. This Development Plan meets all the requirements for both a Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan and is adopted as part of the PD -Planned Development rezoning for the At
Dublin Project (PLPA-2017-00061).
The PD-Planned Development District and this Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan provides
flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and
action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance
are satisfied.
The PD-Planned Development is divided into four Planning Areas (PA-1, PA-2, PA-3 and PA-4),
with PA-2 further divided into three subareas (PA-2a, PA-2b and PA-2c). A map of the Planning
Areas and subareas is shown below:
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5
PLANNING AREA 1 (PA-1)
1. Statement of Uses (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance).
Permitted Uses1:
1. Animal Sales and Services
2. Arcade, accessory to primary use
3. Automobile/Vehicle Brokerage
4. Banks and Financial Services
5. Billiard/Pool Hall, accessory to primary use
6. Building Materials Sales
7. Copying and Blueprinting
8. Dance Floor
9. Eating and Drinking Establishment
10. Eating and Drinking Establishment – Specialty
11. Eating and Drinking Establishment – Take Out
12. Health Club/Fitness Center
13. Health Services/Clinics
14. Hotel/Motel
15. Laboratory
16. Massage Establishment
17. Mobile Food Truck2
18. Mobile Retail Cart3
19. Office – Professional/Administrative
20. Outdoor Sale by Established On-site Business
21. Outdoor Seating
22. Outdoor Permanent Vendor
23. Personal Services
24. Plant Nursery
25. Recording Studio
26. Recreational Facility/Indoor and Outdoor
27. Retail – General
28. Retail Kiosk4
29. Retail – Neighborhood
30. Retail – Outdoor Storage
31. Retail – Service
32. Service Station
33. School – Commercial
34. Theater
35. Tobacco Retailer
Conditionally Permitted Uses:
1. Animal Hospital, Veterinarian
2. Car Wash/Detailing (Zoning Administrator Approval)
3. Community Facility (Zoning Administrator Approval)
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
6
4. Nightclub
5. Comedy Club
6. Repair Shop
Temporary Uses5:
1. Arts and Crafts Fair
2. Christmas Tree Sales Lot
3. Construction-Related Temporary Uses
4. Farmer’s Market
5. Festival/Street Fair
6. Office – Trailer Commercial
7. Pumpkin Sales Lot
8. Outdoor Event by an Established Business6
9. Outdoor Sale Not Related to On-Site Established Business6
Notes:
1. A Zoning Clearance/Minor Use Permit is required for those uses which are subject to
a ZC/MUP by the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Mobile Food Truck use shall comply with the following:
a. A Site Development Review Waiver approving the location of a food truck is
required. Applications for multiple food trucks may be combined into one Site
Development Review Waiver application. The application shall include a site plan
demonstrating compliance with the following:
1. The location of a mobile food vendor is limited to the parking area and shall
not be located within a pedestrian plaza or public right-of-way.
2. The area used for all mobile food truck operations, including but not limited to
customer queuing, trash, and dining, shall not impede the traffic visibility area
at any driveway or intersection, emergency access, pedestrian and vehicular
ingress or egress through the remainder of the parking, or the adjacent public
right of way.
3. The area used for all mobile food truck operations, including but not limited to
customer queuing, trash, and dining, shall not occupy more than 25 percent of
the parking area.
4. If more than one mobile food vendor is on the site at one time, they shall be
located within the same vicinity, not more than 25 feet apart.
b. In addition to the Site Development Review Waiver, the following operational
standards apply:
1. Hours of Operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
2. The food truck must be stationary for a minimum of two (2) hours. No trolling
allowed.
3. Provision of at least one trash receptacle, one recycling receptacle and one
compost receptacle for use by patrons and in a convenient location that does
not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
4. Collection and removal of all litter and debris generated within a minimum 25 -
foot radius of the food truck.
5. No signs other than those exhibited on or in the mobile food truck.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
7
6. Adequate lighting must be provided to ensure customer safety and shall be
directed downwards and away from public streets and adjacent properties.
7. Maintenance of a valid business license from the City of Dublin.
8. Maintenance of a valid health permit from the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health.
3. Mobile Retail Cart. This includes small outdoor retail carts for the sale of any type of
merchandise not constructed on a permanent foundation. The location is limited to the
plaza areas. Up to a maximum of five carts are permitted.
4. Retail Kiosk. This is a fixed structure constructed on a permanent foundation for the
sale of any type of merchandise, including food and beverages. The location is limited
to the plaza areas and approved subject to Site Development Review Waiver. Up to a
maximum of five kiosks are permitted.
5. Subject to the Temporary Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance
6. Outdoor Event by an Established Business and an Outdoor Sale Not Related to On-
Site Established Business shall be limited to a maximum of 4 consecutive days, with a
maximum of 4 such events during a calendar year.
2. Development Regulations.
Standard PA 1
Minimum Lot Area None
Minimum Lot Width/Frontage None
Minimum Lot Depth None
Maximum Building Height 74-ft
Maximum Floor Area Ratio .31
Maximum Building Area1, 2, 3 320,605 s.f.
Setbacks Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.36
Development Regulations unless otherwise noted
Minimum Setback
10’ at Dublin Blvd, Tassajara Rd. and Brannigan St.
15’ at I-580 Right of Way
5’ at Private Drives
Required Parking4 Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.76
Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations.
Signage Pursuant to an approved Master Sign Program
1. Allows up to two hotels of a total of 75,000 square feet with a total maximum of 145 rooms
2. Square footage for enclosed trash rooms or building electrical rooms shall not be counte d toward
the maximum building area.
3. Outdoor Mobile Vendors (i.e., retail kiosks and carts) are not inc luded in the maximum building
area.
4. So long as they comply with the development standards in the notes above, no parking is required
for Mobile Food Trucks, Mobile Retail Carts, Retail Kiosks, and undesignated outdoor seating
located in common areas for informal seating and dining.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
8
PLANNING AREA 2A and 2B (PA-2A & PA-2B)
1. Statement of Uses PA-2A and PA-2B (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance).
Permitted Uses1:
1. Arcade, accessory use only
2. Banks and Financial Services
3. Billiard/Pool Hall, accessory use only
4. Copying and Blueprinting
5. Dance Floor
6. Eating and Drinking Establishment
7. Eating and Drinking Establishment – Specialty
8. Eating and Drinking Establishment – Take Out
9. Massage Establishment
10. Multi-Family Residential (PA-2b only)2
11. Mobile Food Truck3
12. Mobile Retail Cart4
13. Office – Professional/Administrative
14. Outdoor Permanent Vendor
15. Outdoor Sale by Established On-site Business
16. Outdoor Seating
17. Personal Services
18. Recording Studio
19. Recreational Facility/Indoor
20. Residential Use Secondary to Commercial Use (PA-2b only)2
21. Retail – General
22. Retail Kiosk5
23. Retail – Neighborhood
24. Retail – Service
25. Theater
Conditionally Permitted Uses:
1. Nightclub
2. Comedy Club
Temporary Uses6:
1. Arts and Crafts Fair
2. Christmas Tree Sales Lot
3. Construction-Related Temporary Uses.
4. Farmer’s Market
5. Festival/Street Fair
6. Office – Trailer Commercial
7. Outdoor Event by an Established Business7
8. Outdoor Sale Not Related to On-Site Established Business7
9. Outdoor Skating Rink
10. Pumpkin Sales Lot
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
9
Prohibited Uses:
1. Animal Hospital, Veterinarian
2. Building Materials Sales
3. Car Wash/Detailing
4. Day Care Center (15+ persons)
5. Health Services/Clinics
6. Hotel/Motel
7. Laboratory
8. Plant Nursery
9. Recreational Facility/Outdoor
10. Repair Shop
11. Retail – Outdoor Storage
12. Service Station
13. School – Commercial
14. Tobacco Retailer
Notes:
1. A Zoning Clearance/Minor Use Permit is required for those uses which are subject to
a ZC/MUP by the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Multi-family residential uses are subject to Home Occupation Regulation as defined
by the Zoning Ordinance and are not permitted to include all other uses described
above.
3. Mobile Food Truck use shall comply with the following:
a. A Site Development Review Waiver approving the location of a food truck is
required. Applications for multiple food trucks may be combined into one Site
Development Review Waiver application. The application shall include a site plan
demonstrating compliance with the following:
1. The location of a mobile food vendor is limited to the parking area and shall
not be located within a pedestrian plaza or public right -of-way.
2. The area used for all mobile food truck operations, including but not limited to
customer queuing, trash, and dining, shall not impede the traffic visibility area
at any driveway or intersection, emergency access, pedestrian and vehicular
ingress or egress through the remainder of the parking, or the adjacent public
right of way.
3. The area used for all mobile food truck operations, including but not limited to
customer queuing, trash, and dining, shall not occupy more than 25 percent
of the parking area.
4. If more than one mobile food vendor is on the site at one time, they shall be
located within the same vicinity, not more than 25 feet apart.
b. In addition to the Site Development Review Waiver, the following operational
standards apply:
1. Hours of Operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
2. The food truck must be stationary for a minimum of two (2) hours. No trolling
allowed.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
10
3. Provision of at least one trash receptacle, one recycling receptacle and one
compost receptacle for use by patrons and in a convenient location that does
not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
4. Collection and removal of all litter and debris generated within a minimum 25 -
foot radius of the food truck.
5. No signs other than those exhibited on or in the mobile food truck.
6. Adequate lighting must be provided to ensure customer safety and shall be
directed downwards and away from public streets and adjacent properties.
7. Maintenance of a valid business license from the City of Dublin.
8. Maintenance of a valid health permit from the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health.
4. Mobile Retail Cart. This includes small outdoor retail carts for the sale of any type of
merchandise not constructed on a permanent foundation. The location is limited to the
plaza areas. Up to a maximum of five carts are permitted.
5. Retail Kiosk. This is a fixed structure constructed on a permanent foundation for the
sale of any type of merchandise, including food and beverages. The location is limited
to the plaza areas and approved subject to Site Development Review Waiver. Up to a
maximum of five kiosks are permitted.
6. Subject to the Temporary Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance
7. Outdoor Event by an Established Business and an Outdoor Sale Not Related to On-
Site Established Business shall be limited to a maximum of 4 consecutive days, with a
maximum of 4 such events during a calendar year.
2. Development Regulations Planning Area 2A (PA-2A).
Standard PA 2A - Commercial
Minimum Lot Area None
Minimum Lot Width/Frontage None
Minimum Lot Depth None
Maximum Building Height 50-ft
Maximum Floor Area Ratio1 .65 (blended with PA-2B)
Maximum Building Area2, 3, 4 436,527 s.f. (including PA-2B)
Setbacks Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.36
Development Regulations unless otherwise noted
Minimum Setbacks
10’ at Dublin Blvd. and Tassajara Road
5’ at Private Drives and alleys
0’ at interior
Required Parking5
Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 Off-
Street Parking and Loading Regulations unless
otherwise noted
Minimum Parking Setback 5’ from property line along public streets
10’ from property line along main entry road
1. Floor area ratio includes commercial and multi-family square footage
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
11
2. Includes approximately 79,895 square feet of commercial and approximately 356,632 Multi-family
square feet, excluding the parking structure
3. Square footage for enclosed trash rooms or building electrical rooms shall not be counted toward the
maximum building area.
4 Outdoor Mobile Vendors (i.e., retail kiosks and carts) are not included in the maximum building area.
5. No parking is required for Outdoor Mobile Vendors, and undesignated outdoor seating located in
common areas for informal seating and dining.
3. Development Regulations Planning Area 2B (PA-2B).
Standard PA 2B – Multi-Family
Minimum Lot Area 100,000-sf
Minimum Lot Width/Frontage 100-ft
Minimum Lot Depth 100-ft
Site Coverage (Maximum) 65%
Maximum Building Height 65-ft
Maximum Floor Area Ratio1 .65 (blended with PA-2A)
Maximum Residential Units 280
Maximum Building Area2 436,527 sf (including PA-2A)
Setbacks Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.36
Development Regulations unless otherwise noted
Minimum Setbacks 15’ at Dublin Blvd. and Brannigan Street
5’ at Private Streets and Drives
Public Street Encroachments 4-ft max into required setback
Private Street
Encroachments 2-ft max into required setback
Common Usable Open Space 200-sf / unit
Required Parking
Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 Off-
Street Parking and Loading Regulations unless
otherwise noted
Residential 1.75 spaces /unit
(Includes guest parking)
Commercial Per PA-2A
1. Floor area ratio includes commercial and multi-family square footage
2. Includes approximately 79,895 square feet of commercial and approximately 356,632 Multi-family
square feet, excluding the parking structure
PLANNING AREA 2C, 3 and 4 (PA 2C, 3 & 4)
1. Statement of Uses (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance).
Permitted Uses1:
1. Multi-Family Residential
2. Single-Family Residential
3. Accessory Structures and Uses
4. Home Occupations
5. Second Units
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
12
6. Community Care Facility/Small
7. Family Day Care Home (up to 14 children)
Conditionally Permitted Uses:
1. Animal Day Care (restricted to Household Pets)
2. Bed and Breakfast Inn
Temporary Uses2:
1. Construction-Related Temporary Uses
2. Tract and Sales Office/Model Home Complex
Notes:
1. A Zoning Clearance/Minor Use Permit is required for those uses which are subject to a
ZC/MUP by the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Subject to the Temporary Use Permit standards of the Zoning Ordinance
2. Development Regulations – Planning Area 2C (PA-2C)
Standard PA-2C | Townhomes
Minimum Lot Area None
Minimum Lot Width/Frontage None
Minimum Lot Depth None
Maximum Building Height 48-ft
3 stories
Maximum Residential Units 205
Maximum Density 16.53
Minimum Setbacks1
Front
Living Area 7.5-ft
Porch/Deck 2-ft
Encroachments 2 2-ft max into required setback
Side
Corner Lot – Living
Area 5-ft
Corner Lot -
Porch/Deck 1-ft
Encroachments 2 2-ft max into required setback
Rear
Building to Drive Isle
15-ft first floor from center of alley
13-ft upper floors from center of
alley
Garage 15-ft from center of alley
Encroachments 2 2-ft max into required setback
Minimum Building Separation
Garage to Garage 30-ft
Building to Building 20-ft
Encroachments 2 2-ft max into required setback
Required Parking 2 spaces covered/unit
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
13
Guest Parking
1 space/unit
On-street parking can be counted
toward the number of required guest
spaces
1. Setbacks are measured from property line
2. Encroachments may include window bays, chimneys, and other architectural projections.
3. Development Regulations – Planning Area 3 & 4 (PA-3 and PA-4)
Standard PA 3 & 4
Single Family Detached
Minimum Lot Area 2,000 sf
Minimum Lot Width 40-ft
Minimum Lot Depth 40-ft
Maximum Building Height 45-ft
3 stories
Maximum Residential Units 180
Maximum Density 7.66
Minimum Setbacks1
Front
Living Area 2-ft
Porch/Deck 2-ft
Garage Door 5-ft
Encroachments 2 2-ft max into required setback
Side
Interior 4-ft
Corner 4-ft
Encroachments 2 2-ft max into required setback
Rear Living Area 6-ft
Encroachments 2 2-ft max into required setback
Usable Private Yard Space 200-sf min.
10-ft min dimension
Required Parking 2 spaces covered/unit
Guest Parking
1 space/unit
On-street parking can be counted
toward the number of required
guest spaces
Notes:
1. Setbacks are measured from property line
2. Encroachments may include window bays, chimneys, and other architectural projections.
PLANNING AREAS - ALL
1. Phasing Plan. The project is to be constructed in 2 phases with Phase 2 broken into two
sub phases (2a and 2b). Phase 1 is comprised of PA -2a, PA-2b and PA-2c. Phase 2a
includes the north half of PA-1 and all of PA-3. Phase 2b includes the south half of PA -1
and all of PA-4. Although the project is divided into different phases, it is anticipated that
these phases will overlap with most of the construction happening concurrently.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
14
To ensure that the residential portions of the project do not wholly develop in advance of
the retail/commercial portions, the following restrictions are imposed on the issuance of
permits:
o Phase 1. No building permits shall be issued for development on PA -2c until
improvement plans have been approved, bonds posted, and horizontal
construction has commenced on PA-2a.
o Phase 2a. No building permits shall be issued for development on PA -3 until the
Improvement Plans for Phase 2a in PA-1 have been approved and bonds posted.
o Phase 2b. No building permits shall be issued for development on PA -4 until the
Improvement Plans for Phase 2b in PA-1 have been approved and bonds posted.
2. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Consistency. The project is consistent
with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended by the Project. The
land use designations for the Project site would be General Commercial for PA -1, Mixed
Use for PA-2a and PA-2b, Medium-High Density Residential for PA-2c, and Medium
Density Residential for PA-3 and PA-4. The development permitted by the proposed
zoning for each PA is consistent with that PA’s land use designation. The General
Commercial land use designation permits FARs ranging from 0.25 –0.35, and the Project
would permit development at an FAR of 0.31 in the area (PA-1) with this designation. The
Mixed-Use land use designation permits FARs ranging from 0.30 to 1.0, and the Project
would permit development at an FAR of 0.65 in areas (PA -2a and PA-2b) with this
designation. The Medium High-Density land use designation permits up to 20 dwelling
units per acre, and the Project would permit residential uses at 16.53 dwelling units per
acre in the area (PA-2c) with this designation. The Medium Density land use designation
permits up to 10 dwelling units per acre, and the Project would permit residential us es at
7.66 dwelling units per acre in the areas (PA -3 and PA-4) with this designation. The
project also includes a Park/Public Recreation land use designation within PA -2.
3. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The project is subject to the Inclusionary Zoning
Regulations (Chapter 8.68) for the provision of affordable housing as a residential
development of 20 units or more. The City’s Regulations also allow for exceptions
commonly referred to as an “alternative method of compliance”. These exceptions
include the payment of fees in lieu of constructing affordable units, construction of off -site
housing projects, land dedication, etc.
The project includes 665 units, of which 83 units are required to be designated as
affordable units.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
15
4. Aerial Photo.
5. Site Pan.
6. Architectural Standards.
The architecture of the development is characterized by clean, simple lines, reminiscent of a
farm house or barn, and using natural materials and a classic color palette. Buildings are
designed and situated to create a blend of formal and casual spaces across the site. The
project’s materials, landscapes and architecture are subtle reflections of farm life, and are
guided by the concept of “modern agrarian”, taking inspiration from Dublin’s agricultural past
and California’s wine regions.
The architectural design shall reflect the following standards:
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
16
• Employ high quality materials to provide visual interest in the project and to
complement its surroundings.
• Use diversity of textures in the building finishes providing a varied and interesting
base form for the buildings.
• Incorporate features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, roof
elements, roof forms, light fixtures and landscaping to contribute layers of detail at
the pedestrian level.
• Architectural details shall extend around all sides of building, including rear
elevations when visible to perimeter public streets.
Residential (PA-2b, 2c, 3 and 4)
The goal of the architecture in the residential areas is to complement that of the mixed use
and commercial areas and provide design continuity within the project as a whole. The
objective of the following criteria is to allow flexibility within each neighborhood while
maintaining a cohesive design theme throughout the project. The architecture design shall
employ a variety of colors and high-quality materials.
Modifications to PA-2b, 2c, 3 and 4
Modifications to the architecture and layout of the townhome buildings and single -family
homes shall be approved administratively by the Community Developme nt Director with the
following parameters:
1. Consistent with the Design Criteria as provided above.
2. Consistent with the approved scale of the buildings.
3. The modification does not significantly alter the roofline.
4. The proposed design is consistent with the architectural identity of the
development.
Commercial (PA-1 and 2a)
Planning Area 1 (PA-1) is characterized by larger building footprints and is organized into a
modified urban street grid, geared towards regional visitors. It is anticipated to contain a
hotel, community room, and various retail typologies. PA -1 contains the Tassajara Gateway
plaza, which is located at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road, next to
buildings 2100 and 2200.
Planning Area 2 (PA-2) is characterized by a mix of building footprint sizes and a series of
interconnected pedestrian-friendly public spaces. These include a retail street (The Lane)
leading to a primary gathering space (The Porch), which connects the movie theater to a
food venue. A third gathering space (The Sideyard) creates a transition between the theater
and the residential areas to the north. PA-2B includes the ground floor retail space in the
multifamily building.
The goal of the architecture in the commercial areas is promote distinct storefronts. The
objective of the following criteria is to allow the maximum expression of a store’s individual
personality and character while maintaining a cohesive design theme throughout the project.
The architecture design shall employ a variety of colors and high-quality materials so that the
buildings make a statement on their own. The commercial buildings include a mix of single
tenant and multi-tenant buildings. In both cases, the tenant overlay may include awnings,
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
17
canopies, lighting and patios. Tenants may also elect to upgrade the storefronts and may
even modify or upgrade significant portions of the façade. The Tenant Design Criteria below
defines allowable and prohibited criteria for all these tenant elements.
Tenant Design Criteria:
Tenant Entries
Tenants are required to use swinging entrance doors for their primary entry. Overhead rolling
doors, air curtains, and other full-width storefront closure systems may be permitted, subject
to city implements approval, at certain tenant locations. Tenants may employ multiple
swinging entrance doors to provide a greater degree of openness to the storefront.
Restaurants with outdoor seating, or tenants with a regular exterior sales display area, such
as a garden center, are permitted to have secondary doors that extend the width of their
exterior presence provided that these secondary doors are in keeping with the quality and
character of the AT Dublin project, such as “Nanawall” type enclosures or glazed “garage”
type doors.
Doors are to be constructed of wood, steel, or high-quality aluminum. Door hardware shall
be of a consistent finish and selected to complement the overall storefront character. All
doors must have thresholds and door sweeps integrated into their design. Tall entry doors of
8’-0” minimum are required; higher doors are encouraged.
The Tenant’s primary entrance must be located in the areas indicated in the storefront zone.
See Diagrams 3.1 and 3.2.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
18
Storefront Materials
Tenant storefront materials and colors shall be carefully selected to achieve an overall built
form that accentuates the uniqueness of individual tenants and adds to the fabric of the
street. Materials should be high quality, non-corrosive, exterior rated, and should suit the
local environment. Careful attention to the detailing or joinery of differing materials is
necessary. A carefully defined edge must be established between different materials and
surfaces on the storefront as well as between the tenant and Landlord finishes.
Tenant storefront design may not consist of glazing only, any material above and beyond the
SDR. However, tenants may elect to enhance the Landlord -provided storefront system
(glazing).
Materials and colors should highlight and reinforce unique forms with a facade or storefront,
such as base and corner elements, entrances, and other features. Sustainable and recycled
materials are highly encouraged. Permitted materials include brick, cast -in-place or precast
concrete, unitized ceramic panels, non-reflective metal panels, stone, wood, smooth stucco,
plaster, EIFS, cement-fiber lap siding, and curtain wall glazing systems forming an exterior
wall system. Unique finishes such as rusted, etched, or imprinted steel may be considered
for special design objectives. Any plaster or stucco finishes shall be used in combination with
other higher visual quality materials such as stone, wood, or metal and shall not dominate as
the primary storefront material. Simulated woods, such as a wood -finish tile or wood-finish
HPL shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. Any paint applied to materials of the
Tenant Storefront must be clearly specified. Paints shall be of a high quality for even,
durable finishes. Painted gypsum is not permitted on any exterior surface.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
19
Tenants are encouraged to consider original and creative design approaches. Large portions
of tenant facades may be upgraded with tenant materials and expressions, but these should
be integrated into the building in a way that fits the overall project expression, for exa mple by
including some of the landlord architecture materials.
Prohibited materials include: large areas or bulkheads of EIFS, rough stucco or stucco with
patterned finishes, “antiquing” through use of stains, varnishes, or other means, vinyl or
fabric wall coverings, mirror glass, plexiglas or other plastics, anodized aluminum finishes,
and smoked or tinted finishes. Landlord reserves the right to prohibit materials that clash with
the Base Building finishes.
Canopies and Awning Types
Tenant may opt to include an architectural canopy in storefront design. Fixed canopies must
maintain a minimum height of 9’0” clear above grade and must be constructed of appropriate
exterior-rated materials, included glass, factory painted steel, stainless steel, wood, or
composite panels over an aluminum of steel frame. Canopies greater than 3’-0” in depth
must incorporate recessed or sconce lighting into their design; if 4’-0” or greater, canopies
must be fire-sprinklered.
Tenants are encouraged to provide metal or glas s canopies over fabric awnings. Vinyl
awnings are not permitted.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
20
Overhangs/Overbuild
Overhangs are permitted in storefronts provided that they are an integral part of the
storefront design and assuming they meet the setbacks. The underside of overhan gs must
be articulated with architectural elements such as brackets, coffers, or exposed beam ends.
Tenants in multi-family building:
In-line tenants facing the project intersection at Dublin Boulevard and East Porch Drive are
located at the street level of a mixed-use building with residential uses on the upper floors.
Pilasters extend down from the upper levels at fixed locations. The tenant façade area is
defined as the area between Landlord provided pilasters, the pavement, and up to a 15’-0”
vertical datum or height as otherwise indicated on the multifamily shell drawings.
Canopies or awnings are required to enhance the visibility of each retailer. Canopies or
awnings are required to protect the entry and at least 40% of the width of the storefront zone
area.
Seating and Accessories
No exterior accessories are allowed unless approved by the city and the Landlord leasing
plan and included in leasing terms. If approved, exterior accessories must not impede or
restrict pedestrian or vehicular movement. Tenant must receive approval of all elements
placed outside of their lease line prior to their installation or placement. Tenant may be
allowed to accessorize their storefront through the addition of potted plants, tables and
chairs, benches, and other non-permanent and readily moveable elements in the area
immediately in front of the tenant’s storefront only if included in lease terms and approved in
advance of placement.
Accordingly, such accessories shall be the property of the tenant, subject to the terms of the
lease agreement, and maintained in a first class manner. All exterior accessories shall align
with the aesthetic of the At Dublin project in quality and aesthetics, and must be
preapproved. Any accessories left outside on a regular basis shou ld be of a size and weight
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
21
to discourage theft. If accessories are chained together overnight for security, the cables and
locks must be discreet and fully removed during business hours.
Exterior Building Lighting
Tenants may not add or replace fixtures without prior approval. Any additional tenant lighting
should be integrated into the landlord architectural and lighting design without negatively
impacting surrounding land uses and the streetscape. Additional or replaced lighting should
integrate with retail signage, storefront windows, and other building elements to enhance
visual interest; this may include wall-wash lighting, wall sconces, and other innovative
lighting solutions. Light fixtures will complement the Landlord lighting and the overall
“modern agrarian” project architecture and may include fixture types such as: gooseneck,
RLM lamping, or modern interpretations of the previous.
Exterior building lighting shall be commercial grade in quality and size and subject to
California Building Code Title 24.
All store entrance light levels must meet local code requirements. All exterior tenant lighting
shall remain lit for at least one hour after store closing, and as otherwise required by local
codes. The landlord may require any tenant exterior lighting to be placed on house lighting
circuits controlled by the landlord via a time clock. Manual switches for exterior lighting are
prohibited. All emergency and exit lighting provided by the tenant shall be provided with
emergency battery power back-up.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
22
Exterior Illumination at Patios
Tenants may elect to incorporate additional lighting at covered and uncovered patio spaces.
The Tenant’s lighting design at leased patio spaces may include overhead lights such as
catenary lighting or suspended lum inaires, and directional lighting. Tenants may attach
lighting to Landlord shade structures such as pergolas or overhead trellises, subject to
Landlord and city approval.
Uniform flood lighting, strobe or spinner type lighting are prohibited.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
23
Food Service – General Requirements
Food-service tenants are encouraged to utilize operable/retractable storefront windows such
as bi-fold or single-swing storefront windows to connect to outdoor dining patios and to
promote the project concept of indoor/outdoor res taurants. Subject to Landlord approval,
food service tenants may be permitted to alter or enhance the Landlord facade (such as
changing building materials or modifying/adding openings) that support the theme of “farm to
table,” or the idea of bringing food and production forward.
Outdoor Dining
Food service tenants may be permitted to include outdoor seating in the area immediately in
front of their premises, provided that the seating area and any surrounding railing or
enclosure do not impede or restrict the required or desired pedestrian and vehicular
pathways. Railings must be artfully designed with decorative elements and an interesting
use of materials. Standard pickets or wire railings are not acceptable and all railings are
subject to approval. Allowable areas for outdoor seating and rental terms will be defined in
the Tenant’s Lease Agreement and will correspond to the overall patio plan approved for the
At Dublin project. Tables and chairs used in outdoor seating areas, including those under
awnings or canopies, must be rated for commercial outdoor use and approved. Umbrellas
must be closed or removed at night and shall be of sufficient weight and strength to avoid
being broken, or uplifted by winds. The umbrella fabric must be flame retardant mater ial in a
color approved. The minimum standard umbrella fabric is Sunbrella Firesist. Branded or
logoed umbrellas are prohibited. If tables and chairs are chained together overnight for
security, the cables and locks must be discreet and fully removed during business hours.
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
24
Modifications to PA-1
Modifications to the architecture, layout, depth and height of the buildings, including those
which may alter site circulation and/or the size and number of tenants, in PA-1 shall be found
consistent with the Planned Development Zoning Development Regulations and subject to
Site Development Review which shall be approved administratively by the Community
Development Director with the following parameters:
1. Consistent with the Tenant Design Criteria as provided above
2. Consistent with the approved floor area ratio, and substantially conforms with the
scale of the buildings
3. The modification does not significantly alter the roofline of the building
4. The proposed design complies with the Architectural Standards
5. The façade of a single building does not exceed 120 linear feet, unless the façade is
designed and articulated to create the appearance of multiple storefronts and/or
individual building forms.
6. Large outdoor display and/or storage areas shall be integrated into the building’s
architecture.
7. Preliminary Landscape Plan.
The conceptual landscape design of the project shall reflect the following standards. The
landscape design shall:
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
25
• Create a park-like environment that is accessible to the public.
• Provide interpretive and educational components to enrich visitor’s experience on the
site.
• Treat the site’s storm water in a set of basins throughout the site that are linked to the
site’s water infrastructure, or for areas where regional treatment was previously
approved, treat the site’s stormwater in a regional stormwater treatment basin.
• Create a visual buffer and soften the edge between the public realm and the site.
• Utilize plants that provide a year-round vegetated landscape with seasonality, color,
and interest for an attractive visual environment.
8. Applicable Requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
Except as specifically provided in this Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, the use,
development, improvement and maintenance of the Property shall be govern ed by the
provision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 8.04.060.
9. Statement of compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan.
The Stage 2 portion of this Development Plan is consistent with the Stage 1 po rtion of this
Development Plan.
SECTION 5. POSTING OF ORDINANCE
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public spaces in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of
the State of California.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this ___ day of
_______, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
5.1.d
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 4. Exhibit A to Attachment 3 - City Council Draft Ordinance (At Dublin Public Hearing)
RESOLUTION NO. 18 - xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS 8440, 8449, 8450, 8451,
8452 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10800 FOR
THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development
Company is requesting approval of the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to
665 residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small -lot single family
homes, and up to 400,500 square feet of retail commercial development, related infrastructure
and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General Plan Amendment
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Sta ge 1 and
Stage 2), and Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps, Tentative Parcel Map, street
vacation, a Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report,
among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as
the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is 77.3 acres generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason
Drive, Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-
0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development
Area (DPA) which includes a mix of housing type s including single-family detached, town homes,
condominiums and apartments. The To wn Center PDA is envisioned as a walkable area with
locally serving businesses within walking distance or a short ride from residential neighborhoods,
conveniently served by transit; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the project plans, illustrate the site layout and elevations for the At Dublin
project consistent with the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and P lanned Development
zoning proposed as part of this project; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018
for the proposed Project which reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated
as a result of the project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation, most
of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, on October 3 and 4, 2018, the Planning Commission held an information study
session on the proposed project and provided the interested parties the opport unity to be heard;
5.1.e
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 5. Resolution Recommending SDR VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
2
and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-xx
recommending that the City Council certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and
adopting mitigation findings, the findings regarding alternatives, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-xx
recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment, Planned Development Zoning district with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development plan and a Development Agreement, which Resolutions are incorporated herein by
reference and available for review at City Hall du ring normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgement to
evaluate the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Dublin, based on the findings and conditions of approval in the attached Resolution, recommends
that the City Council adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, which Resolution approves a
Site Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Maps and Tentative Parcel Map for the At
Dublin Project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 30th day of October 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
5.1.e
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 5. Resolution Recommending SDR VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
RESOLUTION NO. xx-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT, VESTING
TENTATIVE MAPS 8440, 8449, 8450, 8451, 8452 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10800
FOR THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNS 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, AND 985-0052-025
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development
Company is requesting approval of the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to
665 residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small -lot single family
homes, and up to 400,500 square feet of retail commercial development, related infrastructure
and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General Plan Amendment
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Sta ge 1 and
Stage 2), and Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps, Tentative Parcel Map, street
vacation, a request for a Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Environmental
Impact Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are
collectively known as the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is 77.3 acres generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason
Drive, Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-
0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Dublin Town Center Priority Development
Area (DPA) which includes a mix of housing types including single -family detached, town homes,
condominiums and apartments. The Town Center PDA is envisioned as a walkable area with
locally serving businesses within walking distance or a short ride from residential neighborhoods,
conveniently served by transit; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Project plans, illustrate the site layout and elevations for the At Dublin
project consistent with the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Planned Development
zoning proposed as part of this project; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018
for the proposed Project which reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated
as a result of the project such as, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation, most
of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-xx
recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the Project, which Resolution is
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
2
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business
hours; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-xx
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan a nd Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan amendments related to the Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by
reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-xx
recommending that the City Council approve Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps
8440, 8449, 8450, 8451, 8452 and Tentative Parcel Map 10800 for the At Dublin Project, which
resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal
business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated __________ and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Planned Development Rezoning and approval of a related Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Maps,
Tentative Parcel Map, street vacation, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final
Environmental Impact Report, for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on ___________, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-18 certifying the At
Dublin Project EIR and adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the Site Development Review Permit application, on ______, at which time all interested
parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the 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 Permit application, Vesting Tentative Maps and Tentative Parcel Map;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby make the following Site Development Review findings and determinations regarding the
At Dublin Project:
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 surrounding properties and neighborhoods. The
development gives thoughtful consideration to building locations, uses, architectural and
landscape design and theme, vehicular and pedestrian access and on -site circulation,
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
3
parking and traffic impact; 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 conform to the density, design, and allowable uses as
stated in the Stage 2 Development Plan; 4) the Project includes streetscape enhancements
to complement those already in place which completes the street infrastructure network for
the area as well as bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure ; 5) 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 a mix of residential and
commercial uses; 2) the Project’s provides a pedestrian scale with connecting the
residential and commercial uses such as retail and restaurants; 3) the overall design of the
Project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan and the proposed layout of buildings, landscaping and parking are well-suited to the
uses; 3) the proposed Project is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that
taller buildings and more intensive uses should be located south of Dublin Boulevard and
near freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts to
the rest of Dublin; 4) the overall Project is consistent with the total development potential
for the site as stated in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 5) the as amended
which allows for a mix of residential and commercial retail uses; and 6) 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 residential and commercial uses.
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 an appropriate pedestrian scale and the landscaping and
parking areas 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 as
amended which allows for a mix of residential and commercial retail uses; 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.
D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because:
1) the Project will provide additional housing in a mix of types as well as commercial uses
that will be of benefit to the Dublin community and is within the density requirements of the
Planned Development Zoning District, the General Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan; 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 bec ause: 1) the Project
site is relatively flat with a slight slopping from the north to the south ; 2) the roadway and
utility infrastructure to serve the site already exists and the project will complete the
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
4
frontage improvements on all street frontages; 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 consistent and compatible with the
contemporary architectural style, colors, and materials being utilized on other residential
and 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 buildings in the Project vicinity; and 4) unsightly uses (e.g. loading docks, parking
lots) will be screened with appropriate materials that are architecturally compatible with the
design of the buildings. .
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 pub lic because: 1)
the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the Project site emphasizes the creation of a
comfortable pedestrian environment that will include a variety of outdoor amenities for
patients and visitors; 2) a network of public plazas, parks, paseos and gardens is proposed
through the Project including a 2.3 acre public park centrally located within the Project site;
3) landscaping will be provided throughout the parking fields both at the front and rear of
the Project buildings; and 4) the Project perimeter and interior landscaping is consistent
with other residential and 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 ci rculation 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; 2)
the Project includes a multi-use path through the public parks connecting the residential
and commercial uses on the north and south; 3) the location of the Project site and the
Project’s circulation design, as mitigated, provides for an efficient flow of vehicles to and
from the major arterials and the I-580 freeway; and 4) development of this Project will
conform to the major public improvements already installed allowing patrons the safe and
efficient use of these facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Vesting Tentative
Maps 8440, 8449, 8450, 8451, 8452 and Tentative Parcel Map 10800 for the At Dublin project:
A. The proposed subdivision map together with the provisions for its design and improvement
is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan because: 1) the
proposed Vesting Tentative Maps 8440, 8449, 8450, 8451, 8452 and Tentative Parcel
Map 10800 together with the provisions for its design and improvements complies with
the development standards of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Stage 2 Development
Plan.
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5
B. The subdivision site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of
development because: 1) the project site is physically suitable for the type and proposed
density of development is consistent with the General Commercial land use designation
of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan; 2) the proposed
development is consistent with the scale of other developments in the immediate vicinity;
and 3) the project site is located on 77.3 gross acres of relatively flat topography, and so
therefore is physically suitable for the type and density of development that is proposed.
C. The tentative tract map is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision design or
improvements of the tentative tract map are consistent with the city ’s general plan and
any applicable specific plan because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Maps and
Tentative Parcel Map to create parcels that generally reflect the Planning Areas as
proposed for residential and commercial uses is consistent with the development densities
of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan
D. The subdivision design and proposed improvements will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Maps and Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map are for the development of an relatively flat and vacant property which has been
disturbed through vegetation management for years; 2) the City certified an Environmental
Impact Report (Resolution No. XX-18) which mitigated any potential impacts and therefore
the proposed subdivision will not result in environmental damage or substantially injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns.
E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health
concerns because: 1) the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause
serious public health concerns as it has been conditioned to comply with all building codes
and ordinances in effect at the time of permit issuance; 2) in addition, the City conducted
a review to evaluate the project’s impacts; 3) the City certified an Environmental Impact
Report (Resolution No. xx-18) which mitigated any potential impacts to public.
F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision; or alternate easements are provided pu rsuant to Government Code
Section 66474(g) because: 1) the City Engineer has reviewed the Vesting Tentative Maps
and Tentative Parcel Map and title report and has determined that the future proposed
buildings will not conflict with existing or new easements nor with future property lines.
G. The design or improvements of the tentative map are consistent with the city’s general
plan and any applicable specific plan because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Maps
and Tentative Parcel Map together with the provisions for its design and improvements
complies with the development standards of the Stage 2 Planned Development and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
H. The subdivision is designed to provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities because: 1) the project would be constructed in accordance with the latest
building code and green building regulations/ CalGreen; and 2) the project includes green
common spaces through a network of plazas, parks and paseos that are designed with
landscaping to reduce urban heat island effects; and 3) landscaping will be provided
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
6
throughout the surface parking lot providing natural shading and a parking structure is
proposed which would be shared between uses, provide shade and reduce open parking
areas
I. The tentative tract map, including design and improvement, shall comply with all the
applicable provisions and requirements of th e zoning ordinance, the latest municipal
stormwater permit issued to the city by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, this title,
any other ordinance of the city, and the Subdivision Map Act because: 1) the project is
compliant with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay
Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit; 2) the project would include
bioretention areas and stormwater treatment vaults to ensure consistency with regional
C.3 stormwater treatment; and 3) the project would include full trash capture devices to
ensure consistency with regional C.10 stormwater treatment requirements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby
approve Site Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Maps 8440, 8449, 8450, 8451, 8452
and Tentative Parcel Map 10800 for the At Dublin Project, subject to the conditions included
below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and
approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies 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.
# CONDITION TEXT RESPON.
AGENCY
WHEN REQ’D
Prior to:
Planning
1. Approval. This approval is for the At Dublin Project
(PLPA-2017-00061). This approval shall be as
generally depicted and indicated on the project plans
prepared by Dahlin Group, Field Paoli, TCA Architects,
SWA, Brightview Design Group, Ruggeri Jensen Azar
and Giacalone Design Services, Inc., dated August 7,
2018, attached as Exhibit A and other plans, text, and
diagrams relating to this Project, and as specified as
the following Conditions of Approval for this project.
PL Ongoing
2. Effective Date. This SDR approval becomes effective
once the accompanying Final EIR has been certified
by the City Council and once both the Planned
Development Zoning District and the Project
Development Agreement have been approved by City
Council and are effective.
PL Ongoing
3. Permit Expiration – Site Development Review. The
Site Development Review Permit term shall coincide
with the Term of Project Approvals defined in the
Development Agreement.
PL Defer to the DA
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
7
4. Permit Expiration – Vesting Tentative Map. The
Vesting Tentative Maps term shall coincide with the
Term of Project Approvals defined in the Development
Agreement.
PW Defer to the DA
5. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall
operate this use in compliance with the Conditions of
Approval of this Site Development Review Permit and
Vesting Tentative Map, 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.
PL On-going
6. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review
approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance
with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of
this permit shall be subject to citation. Approved
Development Agreement supersedes where
applicable.
PL On-going
7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The
Applicant/ Developer shall comply with applicable City
of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin Public Works
Department, Dublin Building 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.
Various Building Permit
Issuance
8. Required Permits. As determined applicable for
grading and building permits for each development
phase or planning area, the Developer shall obtain all
permits required by other agencies including, but not
limited to Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Zone 7, California 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.
PW Building Permit
Issuance and
Grading Permit
Issuance
9. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable
fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance,
including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building
fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San
Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees,
Dublin Unified School District 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. Approved Development
Agreement supersedes where applicable.
Various Building Permit
Issuance
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
8
10. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its
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.
ADM On-going
11. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there
needs to be 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 to this project.
PL, PW On-going
12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be
responsible for clean-up & disposal of project related
trash to maintain a safe, clean and litter-free site.
PL On-going
13. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site
Development Review approval may be considered by
the Community Development Director if the
modifications or changes proposed comply with
Section 8.104.100 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
PL On-going
14. Equipment Screening. All electrical equipment, fire
risers, electrical and gas meters, and/or mechanical
equipment shall be architecturally screened from
public view by landscaping and/or architectural
features and that electrical transformers are either
underground or architecturally screened.
Any roof-mounted equipment shall be completely
screened from adjacent street view by materials
architecturally compatible with the building and to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
The Building Permit plans shall show the location of all
equipment and screening for review and approval by
the Director of Community Development.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
and
Through
Completion/ On-
going
15. Temporary Promotional Banners and Balloons.
Temporary Promotional Banner Signs and Balloons
PL On-going
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
9
shall only be permitted after first securing an approved
Temporary Promotional Sign Permit. All temporary
on-site signage shall be subject to the sign regulations
contained in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
16. Construction Trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall
obtain a Temporary Use Permit prior to the
establishment of any construction trailer, storage
shed, or container units on the project site.
PL Installation of a
Construction
Trailer
Planning – Project Specific Conditions
17. Reciprocal Parking Agreement. Reciprocal
agreements for PA-1 and PA-2 for parking shall be
recorded and provided to the City.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
18. Public Art. The Applicant/Developer is intending to
acquire and install public art on the project site in
accordance with Chapter 8.58 of the Dublin Municipal
Code. The value of the public art project is required to
equal or exceed 0.5% of the building valuation
(exclusive of land) for the entire project. The Building
Official will determine the building valuation at the time
of Master Plan Check submittal for each Planning
Area. The Developer shall prepare a Public Art Master
Plan for the entire project area, which shall be
reviewed and approved prior to occupancy of the first
residential unit or commercial building constructed
under this SDR approval. An agreement that sets forth
the manner in which public art shall be installed
throughout the project area shall be executed within
this same timeframe and shall include the Public Art
Master Plan. This agreement shall also set forth the
ownership, maintenance responsibilities, and
insurance coverage for all public art within entire the
project area. All public art installations are subject to
approval of the City Council upon recommendation by
the Heritage and Cultural Arts Commission.
PL Prior to First
Occupancy of
each Planning
Area as
Applicable
19. Fencing. The wood fencing for PA-3 and PA-4 shall
be replaced with masonry wall(s) in all areas which
abut the public rights-of-way (Gleason Drive,
Brannigan Street, Central Parkway and Tassajara
Road). All interior fencing may remain wood as shown
on the project plans, unless required to be modified by
the acoustical study as stated in MM NOISE 3.1 Noise
Attenuation. The design and color of the masonry wall
shall include architectural interest and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director.
PL Building Permit
Issuance and/or
Approval of
Improvement
Plans
20. Relocation of Off-Site Residential Development
Directional Signs. The off-site residential
development directional signs with approved Site
Development Review Permit (PA 98-074) shall be
temporarily relocated during grading and construction
activities. The temporary location shall be reviewed
and approved by the Community Development
Director with a Site Development Review Waiver prior
to removal and installation. This condition of approval
PL Issuance of any
construction
permit impacting
the sign(s)
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
10
acknowledges that with the development of the site,
these signs may no longer have a location on this site.
21. Building Materials and Colors Board. Color and
materials boards consistent with the project plans for
each color scheme shall be provided and approved
with a Site Development Review Waiver prior to
master plan check approval. The boards shall include
proposed paint colors (body, trim and accent) and
materials (including roofing). In addition, the boards or
supporting other documents shall clearly show the
location of each color and material on the approved
elevations.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
22. Parking Structure. The parking structure shall be
secure and controlled by electronically controlled
gates. The parking structure shall be well lit, with the
ceiling painted white to enhance brightness. Blind
corners in the parking structure shall be provided with
shatterproof convex mirrors to improve visibility for
both operators of vehicles and pedestrians.
PL, PO Occupancy &
On-going
23. Parking Structure Lighting.
• The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a
photometric plan to the reasonable satisfaction
of the City Engineer, Director of Community
Development, the City’s Consulting Landscape
Architect and Dublin Police Services.
• The photometric plan shall show lighting levels
which take into consideration, poles, low walls
and other obstructions.
• Lighting used after daylight hours shall be
adequate to provide for security needs.
• The plan shall show measurements for the
parking structure, connecting paths, pedestrian
bridges, common areas and outside of
residential areas.
• Lighting inside of the parking structure shall be
of a level which is high enough to promote
safety within the structure, and at no point
should the lighting level be below 1.0 foot-
candle.
• The parking lot lights shall also be designed to
eliminate any pockets of high & 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.
PL, PW,
PO
Building Permit
Issuance
24. Parking Lot Lighting. The Developer shall prepare a
photometric plan for the site to demonstrate that the
minimum 1.0-foot candle lighting is provided in
accordance with the City of Dublin’s requirements.
The photometric plan shall show lighting levels which
PL, PW,
PO
Building Permit
Issuance
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
11
takes into consideration poles, low walls and other
obstructions. Exterior lighting shall be provided within
the surface parking lot, on the building, and along the
trail 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.
25. Building Materials and Colors.
• All building materials, brick, stone, stucco, etc.
shall be brought to within 6-inches of the adjacent
ground surface when the surface is dirt and within
2-inches when the adjacent surface is concrete,
asphalt or another impervious surface.
• All building materials shall be wrapped around the
corners of the accented elevation and continue to
the nearest change in wall plane to give the
appearance of a completed design element. In
Planning Areas 3 & 4: On side elevations where a
change in wall plan is not present, brick and stone
accents shall be carried to the side yard fence or
other logical stopping point to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director. For all
other Planning Areas: On side elevations where a
change in wall plan is not present, brick and stone
accents shall be carried to the logical stopping
point to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director
• That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings,
etc., are painted to match the color of adjacent
surface.
PL Issuance of
building
permits/lath
inspection/final
inspection
26. Parking Lot Trees. The two east/west pedestrian
connections through the parking lot shall be enhanced
with trees with the placement of trees every 4 parking
spaces (may be offset).
PL Approval of
Improvement
Plans
27. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/
Developer shall comply with At Dublin Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) certified by City Council
Resolution xx-18, including all mitigation measures,
action programs, and implementation measures
contained therein. The EIR is on file with the
Community Development Department.
PL Ongoing
28. Parking of Delivery Trucks. The parking of delivery
trucks shall be limited to on-site for the express
purpose of loading and unloading, and not obstruct the
flow of vehicle and pedestrian circulation.
PL Ongoing
29. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program is
required prior to installation of any project related
signage. Any signs shown in the Project Plans are for
illustrative purposes only and the full details of the sign
sizes, content, materials, and construction shall be
shown in the separate sign package.
PL Installation of
Project Related
Signage
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
12
30. Satellite Dishes. The Applicant/Developer’s Architect
shall prepare a plan for review and approval by the
Director of Community Development and the Building
Official that provides a consistent and unobtrusive
location for the placement of individual satellite dishes.
Individual conduit will be run on the interior of the unit
to the satellite location on the exterior of the home to
limit the amount of exposed cable required to activate
any satellite dish. The plan shall show a common and
consistent location for satellite dish placement to
eliminate the over proliferation, haphazard and
irregular placement.
PL Issuance of
Building Permit
within PA 2C, 3
& 4
31. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan. Plans shall
comply with Chapter 8.72 and be generally consistent
with the project plans attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit A and date stamped received on August 8,
2018. A Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan prepared
and stamped by a State licensed landscape architect
or registered engineer shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Community Development
Director. Landscape and irrigation plans shall provide
for a recycled water system.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
32. Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations. The
Applicant shall meet all requirements of the City of
Dublin's Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations,
Chapter 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code and submit
written documentation to the Public Works Department
(in the form of a Landscape Documentation Package
and other required documents) that the development
conforms to the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping
Ordinance.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
33. Sustainable Landscape Practices. The landscape
design shall demonstrate compliance with sustainable
landscape practices as detailed in the Bay-Friendly
Landscape Guidelines by earning 60 points or more
and meeting the 14 required practices in the Bay-
Friendly Landscape Scorecard.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
34. Landscape Edges: Concrete curbs or bands shall be
used at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces,
unless otherwise defined differently. The design width
and depth of the concrete edge to be to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director and City
Engineer.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
35. Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape Plan
shall show the location of all backflow prevention
devises. The location and screening of the backflow
prevention devices shall be reviewed and approved by
City staff.
PL Building Permit
Issuance
36. Maintenance of Landscape. All landscape areas on
the site shall be enhanced and properly maintained at
all times. Any proposed or modified landscaping to the
site, including the removal or replacement of trees,
shall require prior review and written approval from the
Community Development Director.
PL On-going
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
13
37. Vehicle Access in PA-2A. The western end of Street
E and the eastern end of Street F, as shown on Sheet
C2.1.1 of the Project Plans, abut the public park/plaza
on the north side of Building 100. The final landscape
plans shall include landscaping or other architectural
or site features to clearly demonstrate that vehicle
access across the public park/plaza is not allowed,
with the exception of emergency access and for
special event set-up.
PL, PO Improvement
Plans
Dublin Police Services
38. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.
The Developer shall coordinate with the Dublin Police
Services’ Crime Prevention Unit to conduct a Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
inspection plan. These inspections may occur both
during the construction phase and prior to certificate of
occupancy. The Crime Prevention Unit through the
CPTED program plan may provide strategies to deter
crime and allow Dublin Police to best assist the
businesses should crime occur.
PL, PO Building Permits
and During
Construction
Building Conditions
39. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project
construction shall conform to all building codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit.
B Through
Completion
40. Building Permits. To apply for building permits,
Applicant/Developer shall submit electronic plans and
specifications for plan check, and the number of hard
construction documents, as determined by the Chief
Building Official. Each set of plans 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.
Electronic plans may be acceptable in lieu of paper
construction drawings.
B Issuance of
Building Permits
41. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be
fully dimensioned (including building elevations)
accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed
conditions on site), and 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.
B Issuance of
building permits
42. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be
fully dimensioned (including building elevations)
accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed
conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a
California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural
BL Issuance of
Building Permits
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
14
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.
43. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils
report shall review and approve the foundation design.
A letter shall be submitted to the Building Division on
the approval.
BL Permit Issuance
44. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall
be retained to provide observation services for all
components of the lateral and vertical design of the
building, including nailing, holddowns, straps, shear,
roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A
written report shall be submitted to the City Building
Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame inspection.
BL Scheduling the
Final Frame
Inspection
45. 60-Foot No Build Covenant (As it applies to certain
buildings and when side yards are being used for
area increases). Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code
Section 7.32.130, the owner shall file with the Chief
Building Official a Covenant and Agreement
Regarding Maintenance of Yards for an Oversized
Building binding such owner, his/her heirs, and
assignees, to set aside a 60-foot required yard as
unobstructed space having no improvements. After
execution by the owner and Chief 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 Chief Building
Official.
BL Prior to
Permitting
46. Options – Residential Projects. Selected options
that affect the square footage of the dwellings shall be
listed on the building permit application. Selected
options that affect the footprint of the dwelling shall be
shown on the plot plan.
BL Through
Completion
47. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is requested
to occur in phases, then all physical improvements
within each phase shall be required to be completed
prior to occupancy of any unit/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 60 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 adjoining area is finished, safe, accessible, and
provided with all reasonable expected services and
BL Occupancy of
Any Affected
Building
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
15
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 with the posting of
a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and
associated improvements.
48. Air Conditioning Units & HVAC Systems –
Residential Projects. Air conditioning units and
ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view
with materials compatible to the main building. Units
shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or
other non-movable materials to be approved by the
Chief Building Official and Director of Community
Development. Air conditioning units shall be located
such that each (detached) dwelling unit has one side
yard with an unobstructed width of not less than 36
inches. Air conditioning units shall be located in
accordance with the PD text.
BL Occupancy of
Each Residential
Unit/Building
49. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing
material coated with light colored gravel or painted with
light colored or reflective material designed for Cool
Roofs.
BL Through
Completion
50. Solar Zone, CA Energy Code – All Projects. Show
the location of the Solar Zone on the site plan. Detail
the orientation of the Solar Zone. This information
shall be shown in the plan set. This condition of
approval will be waived if the project meets the
exceptions provided in the CA Energy Code.
BL Through
Completion
51. Short- and Long-Term Bicycle Parking – Retail
Projects. The project shall incorporate the
requirements of the CAL Green Building Standards
Code and Chapter 7.94 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
The project shall be provided with:
a) Short-term bicycle parking,
b) Long-term bicycle parking, and
b) Conduit installed from the electrical supply panel to
the roof for the installation of future PV. The Green
Building Plan shall be submitted to the Chief Building
Official for review.
BL Permitting
52. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations – All Projects.
Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Stations mandated
for new residential construction (one- and two-family
dwellings and multifamily dwellings) and retail
construction (nonresidential). Include the number and
location of EV charging stations on plans. Design and
review can be coordinated under the site work permit
(as applicable).
BL Through
Completion
53. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations – All Projects.
Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Stations mandated
for new residential construction (one- and two-family
dwellings and multifamily dwellings) and retail
construction (nonresidential). Include the number and
location of EV charging stations on plans. Design and
BL Through
Completion
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
16
review can be coordinated under the site work permit
(as applicable).
54. Green Building – Residential Projects. Green
Building measures as detailed in the SDR package
may be adjusted prior to master plan check application
submittal with prior approval from the City’s Green
Building Official provided that the design of the project
complies with the City of Dublin’s Green Building
Ordinance and State Law as applicable. In addition,
all changes shall be reflected in the Master Plans.
The Green Building checklist shall be included in the
master plans. The checklist shall detail what Green
Points are being obtained and where the information
is found within the master plans.
Prior to each unit final, the project shall submit a
completed checklist with appropriate verification that
all Green Points required by 7.94 of the Dublin
Municipal Code have been incorporated.
Homeowner Manual. If Applicant takes advantage
of this point the Manual shall be submitted to the
Green Building Official for review or a third party
reviewer with the results submitted to the City.
Developer may choose self-certification or
certification by a third party as permitted by the Dublin
Municipal Code. Applicant shall inform the Green
Building Official of method of certification prior to
release of the first permit in each subdivision
/neighborhood.
BL Through
Completion
First Permit
Through
Completion
Through
Completion
Approval of the
Landscape
Plans by the City
of Dublin
55. Accessibility for On-Site Parking and Accessible
Units under CBC 11A – Multifamily Projects. The
required number for on-site parking stalls (guests,
assigned, unassigned), the design and location of the
accessible parking stalls shall be as required by
Chapter 11A of the CA Building Code.
Project type requires a minimum of 10% of the units
meet the requirements of chapter 11A of the CBC.
The ten percent (10%) accessible units shall be
constructed concurrently with the project. Certificate
of Occupancies may be withheld by the Chief Building
Official’s determination at any time that the 10%
requirements are not being met.
BL Issuance of
Building Permits
Through
Completion
56. Accessible Parking – Retail Projects. The required
number of accessible public parking stalls, the design
and their location shall be as required by Chapter 11B
of the CA Building Code.
BL Permits
57. CASp – Retail and Multifamily Mixed-Used
Projects. Applicant shall obtain the services of a
Certified Access Specialist for the review of the
construction drawing and inspections for the building
interior and site exterior. A written report shall be
submitted to the City prior to approval of the permit
application. In Addition, a written report shall be
submitted to the City Building Inspector prior to
scheduling the final inspection.
BL Permitting and
Occupancy
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
17
58. Plumbing Fixtures – Retail Project. The minimum
plumbing fixtures shall be designed per Section 422.4
of the CA Plumbing Code. Each tenant space shall be
provided with toilet facilities.
BL Permit Issuance
59. Addressing – Residential Project. Site address
signage shall be reviewed by the Chief Building Official
for each neighborhood.
a) Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin’s address
grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale). Highlight all
exterior door openings on plans (front, rear, garage,
etc.). The site plan shall include a single large format
page showing the entire project and individual sheets
for each neighborhood. Three copies on full size
sheets and five copies reduced sheets.
b) Provide plan for display of addresses. The Chief
Building Official shall approve plan prior to issuance of
the first building permit.
c) Addresses will be required on the front of the
dwellings. Addresses are also required above the
garage door opening if the opening is not on the same
side of the dwelling as the front door.
d) Townhomes/Condos are required to have address
ranges posted on street side of the buildings.
e) Address signage shall be provided as per the
Dublin Residential Security Code.
f) Exterior address numbers shall be backlight and
be posted in such a way that they may be seen from
the street.
g) Driveways servicing more than one (1) individual
dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 4 inch high
identification numbers, noting the range of unit
numbers placed at the entrance to each driveway at a
height between 36 and 42 inches above grade. The
light source shall be provided with an uninterruptible
AC power source or controlled only by photoelectric
device.
h) Address signage shall be provided as per the
Dublin Commercial Security Code, Section 7.32.280
as applicable to multifamily buildings and parking
structures.
Addressing – Retail Project (Suites).
a) Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin’s address
grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale). Highlight all
exterior door openings on plans (front, rear, garage,
etc.). The site plan shall include a single large format
page showing the entire project and individual sheets
for each neighborhood. Three copies on full size
sheets and five copies reduced sheets.
b) Address signage shall be provided as per the
Dublin Commercial Security Code.
c) Address will be required on all doors leading to the
exterior of the building. Addresses shall be illuminated
BL
Release of
Addresses
Permitting
Permitting
Occupancy of
Any Unit
Occupancy of
Any Unit
Permit Issuance
and Through
Completion
Permit Issuance
and Through
Completion
Occupancy of
Any Building
Release of
Addresses
Permitting
Occupancy
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
18
and be able to be seen from the street, four inches in
height minimum.
60. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage
Requirement – Multifamily Mixed-Use Building.
Installation of an emergency responder radio coverage
equipment shall be determined by the Fire Code
Official and the Chief of Police. If installation of
equipment is required, the equipment shall be
operational prior to any occupancy.
BL, PD, F First Occupancy
61. Mailbox Lighting – Residential Projects. Mailboxes
shall be provided with lighting meeting the
requirements of the City’s Residential Building
Security requirements.
BL Through
Completion
62. Separate Permits for Accessory Structures –
Retail and Multifamily Mixed-Use Projects.
Separate building permits are required for all
associated exterior amenities/structures as they are
required to meet the building codes for accessibility,
life safety, electrical, plumbing, etc. Examples of
amenities include: shade structures, swimming
pools/spas, fire pits, retaining walls, playground
equipment, sound walls, water features, exterior fixed
seating, BBQs, etc. A list of these features requiring
separate permits shall clearly be noted on the cover
sheet of plans for each separate project.
BL Through
Completion
63. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction
fencing shall be installed along perimeter of all work
under construction.
BL Through
Completion
64. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide
City with one (1) reduced (1/2 size) copies of the City
of Dublin stamped approved plan.
B 30 days after
permit and each
revision
issuance
65. Electronic File. The applicant/developer shall submit
all building drawings and specifications for this project
in an electronic format to the satisfaction of the Chief
Building Official prior to the issuance of 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.
BL Issuance of the
Final Occupancy
Fire Prevention
66. No fire service lines shall pass beneath buildings. F Approval of
Improvement
Plans
67. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring
Requirements
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. Plans and specifications
showing detailed mechanical design, cut sheets, listing
sheets and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to
F Building Permit
Issuance for
each Planning
Area as
Applicable
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
19
the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to
installation. 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 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.
e) Fire Protection Equipment shall be identified
with approved signs constructed of durable
materials, permanently installed and readily
visible.
68. Fire Access During Construction.
a) Fire Access. Access roads, turnaround,
pullouts, and fire operation areas are fire lanes
and shall be maintained clear and free of
obstructions, including the parking of vehicles.
b) Entrances. Entrances to job sites shall not be
blocked, including after hours, other than by
approved gates/barriers that provide for
emergency access.
c) Site Utilities. Site utilities that would require
the access road to be dug up or made
impassible shall be installed prior to
construction commencing.
F During
Construction
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
20
d) Entrance flare, angle of departure, width,
turning radii, grades, turnaround, vertical
clearances, road surface, bridges/crossings,
gates/key-switch, within a 150-foot distance to
Fire Lane shall be maintained.
e) Personnel Access. Route width, slope,
surface and obstructions must be considered
for the approved route to furthermost portion of
the exterior wall.
f) All-weather access. Fire access is required to
be all-weather access. Show on the plans the
location of the all-weather access and a
description of the construction. Access roads
must be designed to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus.
69. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required
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.
a) Fire Alarm Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item).
Submit detailed drawings of the fire alarm
system, including floor plan showing all rooms,
device locations, ceiling height and
construction, cut sheets, listing sheets and
battery and voltage drop calculations to the
Fire Department for review and permit prior to
the installation. Where employee work area’s
have audible alarm coverage, circuits shall be
initially designed with a minimum 20% spare
capacity for adding appliances to
accommodate hearing impaired employee’s.
b) Central Station Monitored Account.
Automatic fire alarm systems shall be
monitored by an approved central alarm
station. Zoning and annunciation of central
station alarm signals shall be approved by the
Fire Department.
c) Qualified Personnel. The system shall be
installed, inspected, tested, and maintained in
accordance with the provisions of NFPA 72.
Only qualified and experienced persons shall
F Occupancy for
each Planning
Area as
applicable
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
21
perform this work. Examples of qualified
individuals are those who have been factory
trained and certified or are NICET Fire Alarm
Certified.
d) Inspection & Testing Documentation.
Performance testing of all initiating &
notification devices in the presence of the Fire
Inspector shall occur prior to final of the
system. Upon this inspection, proof that the
specific account is UL Certificated must be
provided to the Fire Inspector.
70. Fire Extinguishers.
Extinguishers shall be visible and unobstructed.
Signage shall be provided to indicate fire extinguisher
locations. The number and location of extinguishers
shall be shown on the plans. Additional fire
extinguishers maybe required by the fire inspector.
Fire extinguisher shall meet a minimum classification
of 2A 10BC. Extinguishers weighing 40 pounds or less
shall be mounted no higher than 5 feet above the floor
measured to the top of the extinguisher. Extinguishers
shall be inspected monthly and serviced by a licensed
concern annually.
F Occupancy for
each Planning
Area as
applicable
71. FD Building Key Box. Building Access. A Fire
Department Key Box shall be installed at the main
entrance to the Building. Note these locations on the
plans. The key box should be installed approximately
5 1/2 feet above grade. The box shall be sized to hold
the master key to the facility as well as keys for rooms
not accessible by the master key. Specialty keys, such
as the fire alarm control box key and elevator control
keys shall also be installed in the box.
The key box door and necessary keys are to be
provided to the fire inspector upon the final inspection.
The inspector will then lock the keys into the box.
F Occupancy for
each Planning
Area as
applicable
72. Means of Egress.
Exit signs shall be visible and illuminated with
emergency lighting when building is occupied.
F Occupancy for
each Planning
Area as
applicable
73. Main Entrance Hardware Exception.
It is recommended that all doors be provided with exit
hardware that allows exiting from the egress side even
when the door is in the locked condition. However, an
exception for A-3, B, F, M, S occupancies and all
churches does allow key-locking hardware (no thumb-
turns) on the main exit when the main exit consists of
a single door or pair of doors. When unlocked the
single door or both leaves of a pair of doors must be
free to swing without operation of any latching device.
A readily visible, durable sign on or just above the door
stating “This door to remain unlocked whenever
F Occupancy for
each Planning
Area as
applicable
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
22
the building is occupied” shall be provided. The
sign shall be in letters not less than 1 inch high on a
contrasting background. This use of this exception
may be revoked for cause.
74. Maximum Occupant Load. Posting of room capacity
is required for any occupant load of 50 or more
persons. Submittal of a seating plan on 8.5” x 11”
paper is required prior to final occupancy.
F Occupancy for
each Planning
Area as
applicable
75. Interior Finish. Wall and ceiling interior finish material
shall meet the requirements of Chapter 8 of the
California Fire Code. Interior finishes will be field
verified upon final inspection. If the product is not field
marked and the marking visible for inspection,
maintain the products cut-sheets and packaging that
show proof of the products flammability and flame-
spread ratings. Decorative materials shall be fire
retardant.
F Occupancy for
each Planning
Area as
applicable
76. General Inspection. Upon inspection of the work for
which this submittal was provided, a general
inspection of the business and site will be conducted.
F Occupancy
77. Addressing. Addressing shall be illuminated or in an
illuminated area. The address characters shall be
contrasting to their background. If address is placed
on glass, the numbers shall be on the exterior of the
glass and a contrasting background placed behind
the numbers.
Building Address. The building shall be provided with
all addresses or the assigned address range so as to
be clearly visible from either direction of travel on the
street the address references. The address
characters shall not be less than 5 inches in height by
1-inch stroke. Larger sizes may be necessary
depending on the setbacks and visibility.
Multi-Tenants. Where a building has multiple tenants,
address shall also be provided near the main
entrance door of each tenant space. The address
shall be high enough on the building to be clearly
visible from the driveway, street or parking area it
faces even when vehicles are parked in front of the
tenant space. The address shall not be less than 5-
inches in height with a ½-inch stroke.
Rear Doors. The address shall also be provided on
any rear doors to the tenant space with minimum 2-
inch high characters.
F Occupancy
78. FIRE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND
DEMOLITION
A. Clearance to combustibles from temporary
heating devices shall be maintained. Devices
shall be fixed in place and protected from
damage, dislodgement or overturning in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
B. Smoking shall be prohibited except in approved
areas. Signs shall be posted “NO SMOKING” in a
F Ongoing during
construction and
demolition
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
23
conspicuous location in each structure or location
in which smoking is prohibited.
C. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material
shall be removed from buildings at the end of
each shift of work.
Flammable and combustible liquid storage areas
shall be maintained clear of combustible vegetation
and waste materials.
Dublin San Ramon Services District
79. The regulations that apply to development projects are
codified in: the Dublin San Ramon Services District
Code; the DSRSD "Standard Procedures,
Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation
of Water and Wastewater Facilities" as amended from
time to time; all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all
DSRSD policies. Prior to issuance of any building
permit, complete improvement plans shall be submitted
to DSRSD that conform to the pertinent documents.
DSRSD Building Permit
Issuance
80. Planning and review fees/ inspection fees, and fees
associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall
be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and
schedules and at time of payment as established in the
DSRSD Code.
Planning and review fees are due after the 1st
submittal of plans. Construction Permit and Inspection
Fees are due prior to the issuance of a Construction
Permit. Capacity Reserve Fees are due before the
water meter can be set or the connection to the sewer
system.
DSRSD Permit Submittal
and
Construction
Permit Issuance
81. For Construction of DSRSD Facilities: All
improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be
signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of
improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall contain
a signature block for the District Engineer indicating
approval of the sanitary sewer and/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 faithful
performance 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.
DSRSD Building Permit
Issuance or
Construction
Permit Issuance
82. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be
by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD
or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. Prior to
approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map
shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for
easement locations, widths, and restrictions.
DSRSD Approval of Final
Map
83. Where the narrow width of a proposed alley or cul-de-
sac is so restrictive that the standard separation
requirements for water mains and sewer mains cannot
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
24
be maintained, the water and sewer mains shall be
installed within main thoroughfares, outside of
alleyways or cui-de-sacs. Water and sewer mains may
not be installed within courtyards. Water meters shall
be installed around the outer perimeter of buildings.
Installation of water lines from the meter to each unit
shall be documented and submitted to the District.
84. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity
to accommodate future flow demands in addition to
each development project's demand. Layout and
sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD
utility master planning.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
85. The locations and widths of all proposed easement
dedications for water and sewer lines shall be
submitted to and approved by DSRSD.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
86. Water and sewer mains shall be located in public
streets rather than in off street locations to the fullest
extent possible. If unavoidable, then sewer or water
easements must be established over the alignment of
each sewer or water main in an off-street or private
street location to provide access for future
maintenance and/or replacement.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
87. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for
Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be
designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead
end sections in accordance with requirements of the
DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound
engineering practice.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
88. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to
DSRSD’s existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of
sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under
extreme circumstances following a 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.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
89. This project includes mixed use and/or multi-family
residential units and is subject to the requirement of
SB 7 (2016, Walk) as a condition of water service.
Each individual residential unit shall be metered or
submetered to measure water used by each unit.
Water meters for each unit shall be shown on
improvement plans. Exemptions may be made only for
exempted uses listed in the legislation. If submetering
is proposed in lieu or individual meters, plans reflecting
the submeters and associated residential unit shall be
submitted.
DSRSD may not approve applications and issue
construction permits without this submittal.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
25
90. The District employs Advanced Metering Infrastructure
(AMI), a fixed water meter reading system. The system
uses radio communication between the individual
water meter boxes or vaults and Tower Gateway Base
Stations (TGBs) to transmit data on water
consumption and meter readings. Due to the high
density and tall profile of the buildings in this project,
the buildings themselves may hinder effective
communication between the individual meter boxes
and the TGBs. Applicant shall fund an AMI
Propagation Study provided by the District to
determine if supplementary AMI communication
equipment is required. If required, the supplementary
equipment will be provided by the developer, and the
location and appearance of the equipment must be
approved by both the City of Dublin and the District.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
91. This project will be analyzed by DSRSD to determine
if it represents additional water and/or sewer capacity
demands on the District. Applicant will be required to
pay all incremental capacity reserve fees for water and
sewer services as required by the project demands. All
capacity reserve fees must be paid prior to installation
of a water meter for water. If a water meter is not
required, the capacity reserve fee shall be paid prior to
issuance of a building permit. The District may not
approve the building permit until capacity reserve fees
are paid.
DSRSD Building Permit
Issuance
92. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be
permitted unless the proper utility construction permit
has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will
only be issued after all of the items in Condition No.75
have been satisfied.
DSRSD Construction
Permit Issuance
93. Above ground backflow prevention devices/double
detector check valves shall be installed on fire
protection systems connected to the DSRSD water
main. The applicant shall collaborate with the Fire
Department and with DSRSD to
size and configure its fire system.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
94. Upon the District's determination that sufficient supply
of recycled water is available at the time of planned
connection and the connection is technologically and
financially reasonable, the project shall use recycled
water
for irrigation of large landscape areas. Recycled water
is not intended for small and incidental landscaped
areas.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans and
ongoing
95. Improvement plans shall include recycled water
improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for
landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water
mains.
Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Recycled
Water Use Guidelines and conform to the
requirements therein. Availability of Recycled Water to
be determined by District.
DSRSD Approval of
Improvement
Plans
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
26
Public Works General Conditions
96. Conditions of Approval. Developer shall comply with
the City of Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of
Approval contained below (“Standard Condition”)
unless specifically modified by Project Specific
Conditions of Approval below.
PW On-going
97. Compliance. Developer shall comply with the
Subdivision Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision
and Zoning Ordinances, City of Dublin Title 7 Public
Works Ordinance, which includes the Grading
Ordinance, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards
and Policies, the most current requirements of the
State Code Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities
Act with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire
codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit. All public improvements constructed by
Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby
identified as “public works” under Labor Code section
1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such
improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage
Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following).
PW On-going
98. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In
the event that there needs to be clarification to these
Conditions of Approval, the City Engineer has the
authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of
Approval to the Developer without going to a public
hearing. The City Engineer also has the authority to
make minor modifications to these conditions without
going to a public hearing in order for the Developer to
fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting
from impacts of this project.
PW On-going
99. Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fees. The Applicant
shall complete a “Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fee
Application” and submit an accompanying exhibit for
review by the Public Works Department. Fees
generated by this application will be due at issuance of
Building Permit.
PW Final Map(s)
Approval
Public Works – Agreements and Bonds
100. Tract Improvement Agreement. Developer shall
enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City for
all public improvements including any required offsite
storm drainage or roadway improvements that are
needed to serve the development, as determined by
the City Engineer.
PW Final Map(s)
Approval
101. Security. Developer shall provide faithful performance
security to guarantee the improvements, as
determined by the City Engineer (Note: The
performance security shall remain in effect until one
year after final inspection).
PW
Final Map(s)
Approval or
Grading Permit
Issuance
102. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance
Agreement. Developer shall enter into an Agreement
with the City of Dublin that guarantees the property
owner’s perpetual maintenance obligation for all
PW Final Map(s)
Approval
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
27
stormwater treatment measures installed as part of the
project, including those on-site and within the public
Rights of Way of Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive and
Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Boulevard). Said
Agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3 of the
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order
No. R2-2009-0074. Said permit requires the City to
provide verification and assurance that all treatment
devices will be properly operated and maintained. The
Agreement shall be recorded against the property and
shall run with the land.
Public Works - Permits
103. Encroachment Permit. Developer shall obtain an
Encroachment 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 street right of way. The encroachment
permit may require surety for slurry seal and restriping.
At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment
permit for work specifically included in an Improvement
Agreement may not be required.
PW Start of Work
104. Grading Permit. Developer shall obtain a Grading
Permit from the Public Works Department for all
grading.
PW Start of Work
Public Works - Submittals
105. All submittals of plans shall comply with the
requirements of the “City of Dublin Public Works
Department Improvement Plan Submittal
Requirements”, the “City of Dublin Improvement Plan
Review Check List,” and current Public Works and
industry standards. A complete submittal of
improvement plans shall include all civil
improvements, joint trench, street lighting and on-site
safety lighting, landscape plans, and all associated
documents as required. The Developer shall not
piecemeal the submittal by submitting various
components separately.
PW Improvement
Plan Approval
106. Developer will be responsible for submittals and
reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non-
City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department
and the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall
approve and sign the Improvement Plans.
PW Improvement
Plan Approval
107. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The respective Homeowners and Commercial
Association shall be formed by recordation of a
declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
to govern use and maintenance of the landscape
features, decorative pavement and other features
within the public right of way contained in the
Agreement for Long Term Encroachments; all open
space and common area landscaping; and all
stormwater treatment measures. Said declaration
shall set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules and
regulations. The CC&Rs shall also contain a provision
PL, PW Final Map(s)
Approval
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
28
that prohibits the amendment of those provisions of the
CC&Rs requested by City without the City’s approval.
The CC&Rs shall ensure that there is adequate
provision for the maintenance, in good repair and on a
regular basis, of all private streets, landscaping &
irrigation; decorative pavements; fences/gates; walls;
drainage and stormwater treatment facilities; lighting;
signs and other related improvements. The CC&Rs
shall also contain all other items required by these
conditions. The Developer shall submit a copy of the
CC&Rs document to the City for review.
108. Composite Exhibit. Construction plan set shall
include a Composite Exhibit showing all site
improvements, utilities, landscaping improvements
and trees, etc. to be constructed to ensure that there
are no conflicts among the proposed and existing
improvements.
PW Improvement
Plan Approval
109. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements.
Applicant shall submit an Ownership and Maintenance
Exhibit for review and approval by Planning Division
and Public Works Department. Terms of maintenance
are subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
PL, PW
Final Map(s)
Approval or
Grading Permit
Issuance
110. Building Pads, Slopes and Walls. Developer shall
provide the Public Works Department with a letter from
a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the
building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of
the grades shown on the approved Grading Plans, and
that the top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at
the locations shown on the approved Grading Plans.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
111. Approved Plan Files. Developer shall provide the
Public Works Department a PDF format file of
approved site plans, including grading, improvement,
landscaping & irrigation, joint trench and lighting.
PW Improvement
Plan Approval
112. Master Files. Developer shall provide the Public
Works Department a digital vectorized file of the
“master” files for the project, in a format acceptable to
the City Engineer. Digital raster copies are not
acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in
AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. All objects and
entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named
in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global
Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83
California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot.
PW Acceptance of
Improvements
Public Works – Easements and Access Rights
113. Acquisition of Easements. Developer shall acquire
easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the
adjacent property owners for any improvements not
located on their property. The easements and/or
rights-of-entry shall be in writing and copies furnished
to the Public Works Department.
PW
Final Map(s) or
Improvement
Plan Approval
Public Works - Grading
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
29
114. Grading Plan. The Grading Plan shall be in
conformance with the recommendation of the
Geotechnical Report, the approved Tentative Map and
Site Development Review, and the City design
standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between
the soil engineer’s recommendation and the City
ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine which
shall apply.
PW Issuance of
Grading Permit
115. Erosion Control Plan. A detailed Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan shall be included with the
Grading Plan submittal. The plan shall include detailed
design, location, and maintenance criteria of all
erosion and sedimentation control measures.
PW Issuance of
Grading Permit
116. Retaining Walls. Tiebacks or structural fabric for
retaining walls shall not cross property lines or shall be
located a minimum of 2’ below the finished grade of
the upper lot.
PW Issuance of
Grading Permit
Public Works - Improvements
117. Public Improvements. The public improvements
shall be constructed generally as shown on the
Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review.
The approval of the Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review is not an approval of the specific
design of the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, traffic
circulation, parking, stormwater treatment, sidewalks
and street improvements.
PW Final Map
118. Public Improvement Conformance. All public
improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin
Standard Plans, current practices, and design
requirements unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
PW Improvement
Plan Approval
119. Public Street Slopes. Public streets shall be a
minimum 1% slope with minimum gutter flow of 0.7%
around new bump outs bulb-outs within the proposed
project. Private streets and alleys shall be a minimum
0.5% slope. When design is matching with existing
conditions, the City Engineer shall apply flexibility in
complying with slopes.
PW Improvement
Plan Approval
120. Curb Returns. Curb Returns on arterial and collector
streets shall be 40-foot radius, all internal public
streets curb returns shall be minimum 30-foot radius
(36-foot with bulb-outs) and private streets/alleys shall
be a minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the
City Engineer. Curb ramp locations and design shall
conform to the most current Title 24 and Americans
with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved by
the Public Works Traffic Engineer.
PW Improvement
Plan Approval
121. Decorative Pavement. Any decorative pavers/paving
installed within City right-of -way shall be done to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Where decorative
paving is installed at signalized intersections, pre-
formed traffic signal loops shall be put under the
decorative pavement. Decorative pavements shall not
interfere with the placement of traffic control devices,
PW Improvement
Plan Approval
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
30
including pavement markings. All turn lane stripes,
stop bars and crosswalks shall be delineated with
concrete bands or color pavers to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer. Maintenance costs of the decorative
paving shall be the responsibility of the developer or
future property owner.
122. Private Streets. The Developer shall establish private
street access rights and install complete street
improvements for the proposed private streets and
alley ways within the development as shown on the
Vesting Tentative Map.
PW Final Map(s)
123. Monuments. Final Maps shall include private street
monuments to be set in all private streets. Private
street monuments shall be set at all intersections and
as determined by the City Engineer.
PW Final Map(s)
124. Traffic Signing and Striping. Developer shall install
all traffic signage, striping, and pavement markings as
required by the Public Works Department.
PW
Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
125. Street Lighting. Street light standards and luminaries
shall be designed and installed or relocated as
determined by the City Engineer. The maximum
voltage drop for streetlights is 5%.
PW
Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
126. Water and Sewer Facilities. Developer shall
construct all potable and recycled water and sanitary
sewer facilities required to serve the project in
accordance with DSRSD master plans, standards,
specifications and requirements.
PW
Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
127. Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrant locations shall be
approved by the Alameda County Fire Department. A
raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in
the street opposite each hydrant.
PW
Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
128. Utilities. Developer shall construct gas, electric,
telephone, cable TV, and communication
improvements within the fronting streets and as
necessary to serve the project and the future adjacent
parcels as approved by the City Engineer and the
various Public Utility agencies.
PW
Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
129. Utility Locations. All electric, telephone, cable TV,
and communications utilities, shall be placed
underground in accordance with the City policies and
ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided
within public utility easements or public services
easements and sized to meet utility company
standards.
PW
Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
130. Utility Vaults and Boxes. All utility vaults, boxes, and
structures, unless specifically approved otherwise by
the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in
landscaped areas and screened from public view.
Prior to Joint Trench Plan approval, landscape
drawings shall be submitted to the City showing the
location of all utility vaults, boxes, and structures and
adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint
PW
Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
31
Trench Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior
to construction of the joint trench improvements.
131. Street Signs. Developer shall furnish and install
street name signs, traffic signs and markings for the
project as required by the City Engineer. PW
Certificate of
Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
Public Works - Construction
132. Erosion Control Implementation. The Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan shall be implemented between
October 1st and April 30th unless otherwise allowed in
writing by the City Engineer. The Developer will be
responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment
control measures for one year following the City’s
acceptance of the improvements.
PW On-going as
needed
133. Archaeological Finds. If archaeological materials
are encountered during construction, construction
within 50 feet of these materials shall be halted until a
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 and as
provided in Mitigation Measure CR1-1.
PW On-going as
needed
134. Construction Activities. Construction activities,
including the idling, maintenance, and warming up of
equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday,
and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m.
and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the
City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will
be considered by the City Engineer on a case-by-case
basis. Note that the construction hours of operation
within the public right of way are more restrictive.
PW On-going as
needed
135. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction
fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all
work under construction to separate the construction
operation from the public. All construction activities
shall be confined within the fenced area. Construction
materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or
stored outside of the fenced area or within the public
right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City
Engineer.
PW
Start of
Construction
and On-going
as needed
136. Construction Noise Management Plan. Developer
shall prepare a construction noise management plan
that identifies measures to be taken to minimize
construction noise on surrounding developed
properties. The plan shall include hours of construction
operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment,
speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and
identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management
measures shall be provided prior to project
construction.
PW
Start of
Construction
Implementation,
and On-going as
needed
137. Traffic Control Plan. Closing of any existing
pedestrian pathway and/or sidewalk during
construction shall be implemented through a City
PW Start of
Construction
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
32
Public Works
146. Landscape Features within Public Right-of-Way.
The Developer shall enter into an “Agreement for Long
PW Final Map(s)
approved Traffic Control Plan and shall be done with
the goal of minimizing the impact on pedestrian
circulation.
and On-going as
needed
138. Construction Traffic Interface Plan. Developer shall
prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with
public traffic on any existing public street. Construction
traffic and parking may be subject to specific
requirements by the City Engineer.
PW
Start of
Construction;
Implementation,
and On-going as
needed
139. Pest Control. Developer shall be responsible for
controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem
due to construction activities.
PW On-going
140. Dust Control Measures. Developer shall be
responsible for watering or other dust-palliative
measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as
directed by the City Engineer.
PW
Start of
Construction;
Implementation
and On-going as
needed
141. Construction Traffic and Parking. All construction
related parking shall be off street in an area provided
by the Developer.
PW On-going
Public Works - NPDES
142. NOI and SWPPP. Prior to any clearing or grading,
Developer shall provide the City evidence that a Notice
of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State
Water Resources Control Board per the requirements
of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the
Public Works Department and be kept at the
construction site.
PW
Start of Any
Construction
Activities
143. SWPPP. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project
construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the
erosion and sediment control measures in accordance
with the regulations outlined in the most current
version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook or State Construction Best Management
Practices Handbook. The Developer is responsible for
ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water
pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP.
PW
SWPPP to be
Prepared Prior
to Approval of
Improvement
Plans;
Implementation
Prior to Start of
Construction
and On-going as
needed
144. Stormwater Management Plan. Construction Plans
shall include a Stormwater Management Plan subject
to review and approval of the City Engineer. PW
Approval of
Improvement
Plans and
Building Permit
Issuance
145. Trash Capture. Specific information is required on
the construction plan set demonstrating how MRP
Provision C.10 (trash capture) requirements are met.
Trash capture devices to be used shall be listed and
details shown on plans.
PW
Approval of
Improvement
Plans and
Building Permit
Issuance
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
33
Term Encroachment for Landscape Features” with the
City to require the homeowner’s
association/commercial owner’s association/property
owner to maintain the landscape and decorative
features within public right-of-way including frontage
landscaping, decorative pavements and special
features (i.e. walls, portals, benches, shade arbors,
storm water treatment facilities, etc.). The Agreement
shall identify the ownership of the special features and
maintenance responsibilities. The HOA, COA, or
property owner will be responsible for maintaining the
surface of all decorative pavements including
restoration required as the result of utility repairs.
147. Public Street Improvements. Developer shall
construct all street improvements on Dublin
Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street, Central
Parkway and Gleason Drive as generally shown on the
Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review
plans, and as approved by the City Engineer.
Required roadway and utility improvements shall
include, but are not limited to, the installation of
sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb ramps, driveways,
roadway widening, drainage structures, street trees,
utilities, landscaping, irrigation, bio-retention planters,
fire hydrants, signal modifications and installations,
median modifications and installations, slurry seal
and/or grind and overlay of existing roadway
pavement, signing and striping and restriping of
existing pavement.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
for each Phase
148. Brannigan Street – South of Dublin Boulevard.
Developer shall construct all street improvements to
develop Brannigan Street as a public street south of
Dublin Boulevard as generally shown on the Vesting
Tentative Map and Site Development Review plans.
Required roadway and utility improvements shall
include, but are not limited to, the installation of
sidewalk, curb and gutter, curb ramps, driveways,
drainage structures, street trees, utilities, landscaping,
irrigation, bio-retention planters, fire hydrants, signal
modifications, removal of existing asphalt berm, slurry
seal and/or grind and overlay of existing pavement,
signing and striping.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
For PA 1
149. Brannigan Street – South of Dublin Boulevard -
Right-of-Way Acquisition. In accordance with the
Development Agreement, the Developer shall
construct the improvements necessary for an
extension of Brannigan Street that would extend south
of Dublin Boulevard and shall acquire the necessary
land title and interests from the adjoining property
owner. Upon submittal of the first Final Map that
requires Brannigan Street, south of Dublin Boulevard,
to be improved, the Developer shall provide evidence
that the necessary right-of-way or easements have
PW Final Map(s) For
PA 1
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
34
been obtained. If the Developer is unable, through the
use of diligent efforts as specified in the Development
Agreement and in accordance with Government Code
Section (Subdivision Map Act) 66462.5, to obtain the
necessary right-of-way or easements, the City shall
exercise its power of eminent domain to obtain the
necessary right-of-way or easements, and the
Developer shall enter into an agreement with the
City. All costs associated with acquisition shall be the
obligation of the Developer.
150. Private Street and Common Area Improvements.
Developer shall construct all common area
improvements, private streets, private alleys and all
other site and subdivision improvements owned or
maintained by the homeowners’ association,
commercial owner’s association and/or property
owner as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative
Map and Site Development Review Plans, and as
approved by the City Engineer. Such improvements
shall be included in the Tract Improvement Agreement
for the Final Map on each Planning Area. Required
on-site and subdivision improvements include, but are
not limited to, sidewalks, curb and gutter, pavement
areas, curb ramps, driveways, parking and circulation
in and at structures; enhanced street paving; trails;
parking spaces; street lights and appurtenances;
drainage facilities; utilities; landscape and irrigation
facilities; open space and park landscaping;
stormwater treatment facilities; striping and signage;
and fire hydrants.
PW Final Map(s) or
1st Building
Permit for each
Planning Area
151. Bus Stops. Bus stops and/or pullouts shall be
installed on Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road,
Central Parkway and Gleason Drive at the locations
generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map and
Site Development Review plans, and as approved by
the City Engineer and Livermore-Amador Valley
Transit Authority (LAVTA). Bus stops installed on
Dublin Boulevard shall be provided with a shelter with
seating, lighting, and hardwired electrical access, a
trash receptacle and bus stop sign stand. All other bus
stops are to be provided with benches and bus stop
signs only.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
for each Phase
152. Vacation of Northside Drive. The vacation of
Northside Drive is subject to the terms of the
Development Agreement.
PW Final Map for
Planning Area
PA-1
153. Mid-Block Crossing on Central Parkway.
Developer shall construct a mid-block pedestrian and
bicycle crossing on Central Parkway as generally
shown on the Vesting Tentative Map and Site
Development Review plans, and as approved by the
City Engineer. Required improvements shall include,
but are not limited to, crosswalk, pedestrian crossing
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
For PA 2C or 3
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
35
signal, median modification, removal and replacement
of median landscaping, irrigation and street lights.
154. Curb Ramps within Public Right-of-Way. The
number, location and layout of all curb ramps shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer with the
Improvement Plans submitted for the site. All curb
ramps shall be designed and constructed to provide
direct access to marked crosswalks or unmarked
crossings and shall be oriented such that they are
aligned and parallel to the marked crosswalk or
unmarked crossing they are intended to serve. Curb
ramps serving more than one marked crosswalk or
unmarked crossing are not allowed, unless specifically
approved by the City Engineer on a case by case
basis. Curb ramp locations shall shall provide for the
full width of all marked crosswalks to be clear of
obstructions. A reduction in standard public street
minimum curb return radii will be allowed to the extent
deemed feasible by the City Engineer in order to
facilitate curb ramp installation.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
for each Phase
155. Pavement Structural Sections. Asphalt concrete
pavement sections within the public right-of-way shall
be designed as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map.
using the Caltrans method for flexible pavement
design (including the asphalt factor of safety), an
assumed R-Value of 5 and the following traffic indices:
Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street
(south of Dublin Blvd.), TI=12; Central Parkway,
Gleason Drive, TI=10; Brannigan Street (north of
Dublin Blvd.), TI=8. Final pavement sections shall be
based on the actual R-Value obtained from pavement
subgrade.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
for each Phase
156. Street Restoration. A pavement treatment, such as
slurry seal, grind and overlay, or overlay will be
required within the public streets fronting and adjacent
to the site as determined by the Public Works
Department. The type and limits of the pavement
treatment shall be determined by the City Engineer
based upon the number and proximity of trench cuts,
extent of frontage and median improvements, extent
of pavement striping and restriping, condition of
existing pavement, excessive wear and tear/damage
due to construction traffic, Eastern Dublin Traffic
Impact Fee credits granted to Developer, etc.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
for each Phase
157. Dublin Boulevard Pavement Overlay. The existing
unfinished asphalt pavement section on Dublin
Boulevard, extending approximately the full length of
the westbound left turn pockets at Tassajara Road,
shall be overlaid as necessary to increase the existing
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
for each Phase
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
36
pavement section to the design finished asphalt
pavement thickness.
158. Tassajara Road Curb Grades. New curb grades
along the Tassajara Road project frontage widening
shall be designed to conform to the design pavement
grades and street cross-slope as shown on the original
improvement plans for Tassajara Road.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
159. Private Maintenance of Public Improvements. The
following public improvements are to be privately
maintained by the adjacent homeowner’s
association/commercial owner’s association/property
owner as applicable:
• Public street improvements along the project
frontage from back of curb to right-of-way line.
• Public Park within Planning Areas PA-2A and
PA-2C.
PW On-going
160. Street Trees. Street trees, irrigation and street grates
along project frontages shall be in conformance with
the City of Dublin Streetscape Master Plan, unless
otherwise modified by the Site Development Review
plans.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
for each Phase
161. Stormwater Management. A final Stormwater
Management Plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer. Approval is subject to
the developer providing the necessary plans, details,
and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies
with the requirements of the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Alameda
Countywide Clean Water Program, Revised
Stormwater Management Plan for Dublin Ranch and
the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
for each Phase
162. Trash Capture. The project Stormwater Management
Plan shall incorporate trash capture measures such as
screens, filters or hydrodynamic separator units to
address the requirements of Provision C.10 of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) or such MRP
provisions as may be in effect at the time the
Improvement Plans are approved.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
for each Phase
163. Stormwater Source Control. “No Dumping Drains to
Bay” storm drain medallions per City Standard shall be
placed on all public and private storm drain inlets. The
project shall incorporate all other applicable
stormwater source control measures as detailed in the
City of Dublin’s Stormwater Requirements Checklist.
PW Occupancy or
Acceptance of
Improvements
164. Soils Report. The Developer shall submit a detailed
soils report prepared by a qualified engineer,
registered with the State of California. The required
report shall include recommendations regarding
pavement sections for all project streets including all
perimeter streets and internal private driveways and
parking lots. Grading operations shall be in
accordance with recommendations contained in the
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
for each Phase
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
37
required soils report and grading shall be supervised
by an engineer registered in the State of California to
do such work.
165. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval. The
Project Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to
review all final grading plans and specifications. The
Project Geotechnical Engineer shall approve all
grading plans prior to City approval.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
166. CLOMR-F. Prior to final map approval or building
permit issuance, whichever is earlier, for the affected
property within Planning Area PA 1, the developer
shall obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
Based on Fill (CLOMR-F) from Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), conditionally approving
the revised floodplain.
PW Final Map or
Grading Permit
Affected
Property of PA-1
167. LOMR-F. A final Letter of Map Revision based on Fill
(LOMR-F) will be required prior to the issuance of any
Occupancy Permit within the affected property within
Planning Area PA-1.
PW Occupancy
Affected
Property of PA 1
168. Phasing of Grading. Grading within Planning Areas
PA-1 and PA-4 may be phased as necessary to avoid
disturbance of the delineated wetland areas until the
necessary jurisdictional permits are obtained while
permitting grading to proceed on other portions of the
sites outside of the wetland areas. Phased grading to
avoid disturbance of wetlands is subject to the
approval and conditions of the jurisdictional agencies
and shall be in compliance with the project
Environmental Impact Report.
PW Issuance of
Grading Permit
of PA-1 or PA-4
169. Grading Off-Haul. The disposal site and haul truck
route for any off-haul dirt materials shall be subject to
the review and approval by the City Engineer prior to
the issuance of a Grading Permit. If the Developer
does not own the parcel on which the proposed
disposal site is located, the Developer shall provide the
City with a Letter of Consent signed by the current
owner, approving the placement of off-haul material on
their parcel. A Grading Plan may be required for the
placement of the off-haul material.
PW Issuance of
Grading Permit
170. Dust Control/Street Sweeping. The Developer shall
provide adequate dust control measures at all times
during the grading and hauling operations. All trucks
hauling export and import materials shall be provided
with tarp cover at all times. Spillage of haul materials
and mud-tracking on the haul routes shall be
prevented at all times. Developer shall be responsible
for sweeping of streets within, surrounding and
adjacent to the project if it is determined that the
tracking or accumulation of material on the streets is
due to its construction activities.
PW During Grading
and Site Work
171. Underground Obstructions. Prior to demolition,
excavation and grading on any portion of the project
site, all underground obstructions (i.e. debris, septic
tanks, fuel tanks, barrels, chemical waste) shall be
PW Issuance of
Grading Permit
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
38
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.
172. Resource Agency Permits. Prior to the start of any
grading of the site as necessary requiring resource
agency permitting, permits shall be obtained from the
US Army Corps of Engineers, the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State of
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the US
Fish and Wildlife Service for the grading or alteration
of wetland areas within the site, if applicable. The
project shall be modified as needed to comply with the
conditions of the resource agency permits.
PW Issuance of
Grading Permit
173. Lighting. The Developer shall prepare a photometric
plan for the public street and site lighting to
demonstrate that the minimum 1.0 foot candle lighting
level is provided in accordance with the City of Dublin’s
requirements, or as otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. The photometric plan shall show lighting
levels which take into consideration poles, low walls
and other obstructions. Exterior lighting shall be
provided within the surface parking lots and on
buildings and shall be of a design and placement so
as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties,
businesses or to vehicular traffic. Lighting used after
daylight hours shall be adequate to provide for security
needs. The parking lot lights shall be designed to
eliminate any pockets of high and low illuminated
areas.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
For each PA
174. Lighting Inspection. Prior to Occupancy, the
Applicant shall request an inspection of the lighting
levels throughout the site to determine if lighting is
sufficient. If additional lights are required to be installed
to meet the 1.0 foot-candle requirement, or for other
safety or operational reasons, the Applicant shall do
so prior to Occupancy.
PW Occupancy
175. Waste Enclosures. Developer shall coordinate the
waste enclosure locations and sizes with the City to
ensure adequate capacity to serve the future
residential, restaurant and retail tenants. Waste
enclosures shall meet all requirements set forth in the
Dublin Municipal Code (DMC), Chapter 7.98 and in the
Solid Waste Requirements, Waste Handling
Standards, and Waste Enclosure Requirements
Checklist on the City’s website at the following link:
http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/1932/Development-
Resources
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
176. Project signs. All proposed project monument signs
shall be placed on private property. Signs should be
located outside of any easement areas unless
specifically approved by the City Engineer. Any
PW Final Map or
1st Building
Permit for each
Planning Area
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
39
signage allowed to be located in an easement is
subject to removal and replacement at the expense of
the property owner if required by the easement holder.
177. Vehicle Parking. All on-site vehicle parking spaces
shall conform to the following:
a. All parking spaces shall be double striped
using 4” white lines set 2 feet apart in
accordance with City Standards and DMC
8.76.070.A.17.
b. 12”-wide concrete step-out curbs shall be
constructed at each parking space where one
or both sides abut a landscaped area or
planter.
c. Where wheel stops are shown, individual 6’
long wheel stops shall be provided within each
parking space in accordance with City
Standards.
d. A minimum 2’ radius shall be provided at curb
returns and curb intersections where
applicable.
e. Parking stalls next to walls, fences and
obstructions to vehicle door opening (including
those in the parking structure) shall be an
additional 4’ in width per DMC 8.76.070.A.16.
f. Landscaped strips adjacent to parking stalls
shall be unobstructed in order to allow for a
minimum 2-foot vehicular overhang at front of
vehicles.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
178. Bicycle Parking. Developer shall install the bike
lockers and bike racks in accordance with California
Green Building Standards Code requirements.
Locations of the bicycle parking shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Are
179. Striping Plan. A Traffic Signing and Striping Plan
showing all existing and proposed signing and striping
within public streets, on-site private streets, parking
lots and drive aisles shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
180. Visibility Triangle. All improvements within the sight
visibility triangle at all intersections, including but not
limited to walls and landscaping, shall be a maximum
height of 30-inches from the roadway surface
elevation at the nearest lane.
PW 1st Final Map or
1st Building
Permit
181. Surface Slopes. Pavement surface slopes in parking
lots and drive aisles shall be a minimum of 0.5% and
a maximum of 5% (unless otherwise required at
parking spaces for the disabled and at ramps at the
parking structure and loading dock). Exceptions may
be considered by the City Engineer to account for
unusual design conditions.
PW Final Map or 1st
Building Permit
for each
Planning Area
182. Rights-of-Entry. The Developer shall acquire
easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the
PW Final Map
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
40
adjacent property owners for any improvements on
their property. The easements and/or rights-of-entry
shall be in writing and copies shall be furnished to the
City Engineer.
183. BART Right-of-Way. The Developer shall dedicate or
reserve the right-of-way along the southern boundary
of Planning Area PA-1 to accommodate the planned
future improvements by BART and/or Caltrans (i.e.
aboveground BART extension to Livermore) in the
manner and form determined by the City Engineer.
PW Final Map for
Planning Area
PA-1
184. Compliance. The Developer shall comply with the
Subdivision Map Act and the City of Dublin Subdivision
Ordinance in effect at the time of the filing of the Parcel
Map and Final Maps.
PW Parcel Map or
Final Map
185. Substantial Conformance. The Parcel Map and
Final Maps shall be substantially in conformance with
the Approved Vesting Tentative Map, unless otherwise
modified by the conditions contained herein.
PW Parcel Map or
Final Maps
186. Final Map Recordation. The Final Maps for Tract
8440, Tract 8449, Tract 8450, Tract 8451 and Tract
8452 shall record prior to the issuance of the first
building permit within the associated planning area.
PW 1st Building
Permit within
Each Planning
Area
187. Deferral of Frontage Improvements. Pursuant to
Section 66411.1 of the Subdivision Map Act,
installation of frontage improvements required in the
Conditions of Approval may be deferred for the
recording of Parcel Map 10800 until such time that a
permit or other grant of approval for development on
any of the parcels created is issued by the City. If the
owner chooses to defer such improvements, a
Deferred Improvement Statement shall clearly be
included on the first sheet of the Parcel Map.
PW Parcel Map or
Parcel Map
188. Dedications. All rights-of-way and easement
dedications required by the Vesting Tentative Map or
as otherwise required by these conditions or
determined necessary by the City Engineer shall be
shown on the Parcel Map.
PW Parcel Map or
Final Map(s)
189. Abandonments. The Developer shall obtain
abandonment from all applicable public agencies of
existing easements and rights-of-way that will no
longer be used.
PW Final Map (s)
190. Public Access Easements. The Developer shall
dedicate Public Access Easements (PAE) over the
private streets, private alleys and drive aisles as
generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Map and as
required by the City Engineer.
PW Final Map(s)
191. Emergency Vehicle Access Easements. The
Developer shall dedicate Emergency Vehicle Access
Easements (EVAE) over the clear pavement width of
all private streets and drive aisles as required by the
Alameda County Fire Department and City Engineer.
PW Final Map(s)
192. Utility Easements. Public Utility Easements (PUE),
Sanitary Sewer Easements (SSE), Private Storm
PW Final Map(s)
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
41
Drain Easements (PSDE), Water Line Easements
(WLE) and Dublin San Ramon Services District
Easements (DSRSD) shall be established over all
private streets and at other locations within the
subdivisions as appropriate.
193. Public Service Easements. 6’ wide Public Service
Easement (PSE) shall be dedicated along all of the
project’s public street frontages to allow for the proper
placement of public utility vaults, boxes,
appurtenances or similar items behind the back-of-
sidewalk. Private improvements such as fences, gates
or trellises shall not be located within the Public
Service Easements.
PW Final Map(s)
194. Sidewalk Easement. A Sidewalk Easement (SWE)
shall be dedicated along the project’s Dublin
Boulevard frontages as generally shown on the
Vesting Tentative Map and as required by the City
Engineer.
PW Final Map(s)
195. Public Park Parcels. Lot 4 of Tract 8449 and Parcel
G of Tract 8451 are to be dedicated to the City of
Dublin for public park purposes. The public park is to
be privately maintained by the adjacent homeowner’s
association, commercial owner’s association or
property owner as applicable, in accordance with the
public park and facilities improvement agreement.
PW Final Map(s)
PA 2C and PA
2A
196. Easements Between Parcels. Reciprocal access
and utility easements and joint use parking easements
between the parcels or lots shall be provided as
required. The easements shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
PW Final Map(s)
197. Approval by Others. The Developer will be
responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain Parcel
Map and Final Map approvals of all applicable non-City
agencies.
PW Parcel Map or
Final Map(s)
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____day of _____, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
5.1.f
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 6. Exhibit A to Attachment 5 - Resolution Approving SDR-VTM (At Dublin Public Hearing)
AUGUST 7, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
0.1 VICINITY MAP
0.4 STAGE 1, LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN
STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GENERAL
LANDSCAPE
L0.1 LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN NARRATIVE
L0.2 COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AREAS
L0.3 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION DIAGRAM
L0.4 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS IMAGE BOARD
L0.5 LANDSCAPE FURNISHINGS IMAGE BOARD
L0.6 LANDSCAPE PLANTING DIAGRAM
L0.7 LANDSCAPE PUBLIC STREET TREE DIAGRAM
L0.8 LANDSCAPE INTERNAL STREET AND OPEN SPACE TREE DIAGRAM
L0.9 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE: TREE SPECIES
L0.10 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE: SHRUB SPECIES
L0.11 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE: SHRUB SPECIES CONT.
L0.12 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE: PERENNIAL SPECIES
L0.13 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE: GRASS SPECIES
L0.14 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE: GROUNDCOVER AND VINE
SPECIES
L0.15 LANDSCAPE LIGHTING DIAGRAM
L0.16 LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PALETTE: FIXTURE TYPES
PA-1
CIVIL
C1.1 PA-1 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND SIGHT DISTANCE PLAN
C1.2 PA-1 LAND USE SUMMARY
C1.4 PA-1 PARKING PLAN
LANDSCAPE
L1.1 PA-1 ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1.2 PA-1 TREE PLANTING DIAGRAM
L1.3 PA-1 COMMUNITY BUILDING LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L1.4 PA-1 CROSSROADS LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L1.5 PA-1 DUBLIN GATEWAY LANDSCAPE PERSPECTIVE AND
ENLARGEMENT
L1.6 PA-1 BRANNIGAN STREET PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L1.7 PA-1 DUBLIN BVLD PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L1.8 PA-1 TASSAJARA RD PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L1.9 PA-1 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS DIAGRAM
ARCHITECTURE
A1.1 RETAIL ZONE 1: PA-1 SITE PLAN
A1.4 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 900 ELEVATIONS
A1.5 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 900 ELEVATIONS
A1.12 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1100 ELEVATIONS
A1.13 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1100 ELEVATIONS
A1.20 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1200 ELEVATIONS
A1.21 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1200 ELEVATIONS
A1.30 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1300 ELEVATIONS
A1.31 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1300 ELEVATIONS
A1.32 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1300 ELEVATIONS
A1.35 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1500 ELEVATIONS
A1.36 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1500 ELEVATIONS
A1.39 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 2100 ELEVATIONS
A1.40 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 2100 ELEVATIONS
A1.43 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 2200 ELEVATIONS
A1.44 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 2200 ELEVATIONS
A1.47 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 2300 ELEVATIONS
A1.48 RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 2300 ELEVATIONS
A1.49 RETAIL TYPES 1+2: TYPICAL SITE TRASH ENCLOSURE PLANS
AND ELEVATION
A1.50 RETAIL TYPES 1+2: LANDLORD MATERIALS PALETTE
A1.51 RETAIL TYPES 1+2: LANDLORD BUILDING LIGHTING
PA-2A
CIVIL
C2.1.1 PA-2A SITE DEVELOPMENT AND SIGHT DISTANCE PLAN
C2.1.2 PA-2A LAND USE SUMMARY
C2.1.4 PA-2A PARKING PLAN
LANDSCAPE
L2.1.1 PA-2A ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN
L2.1.2 PA-2A TREE PLANTING DIAGRAM
L2.1.3 PA-2A DUBLIN ENTRY LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L2.1.4 PA-2A THE ‘PORCH’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L2.1.5 PA-2A THE ‘LANE’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L2.1.6 PA-2A ‘SIDEYARD’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L2.1.7 PA-2A DUBLIN BVLD PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L2.1.8 PA-2A TASSAJARA RD PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L2.1.9 PA-2A LANDSCAPE MATERIALS DIAGRAM
ARCHITECTURE
A2.1.1 RETAIL ZONE 2: PA-2A SITE PLAN
A2.1.4 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 100 ELEVATIONS
A2.1.5 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 100 ELEVATIONS
A2.1.6 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 100 ELEVATIONS
A2.1.9 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 200 ELEVATIONS
A2.1.10 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 200 ELEVATIONS
A2.1.13 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 400 ELEVATIONS
A2.1.14 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 400 ELEVATIONS
A2.1.19 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 500 ELEVATIONS
A2.1.20 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 500 ELEVATIONS
A2.1.21 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 500 ELEVATIONS
A2.1.24 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 700 ELEVATIONS
A2.1.27 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 800 ELEVATIONS
A2.1.28 RETAIL TYPES 1+2: TYPICAL SITE TRASH ENCLOSURE PLANS
AND ELEVATION
A2.1.29 RETAIL TYPES 1+2: LANDLORD MATERIALS PALETTE
A2.1.30 RETAIL TYPES 1+2: LANDLORD BUILDING LIGHTING
PA-2B
CIVIL
C2.2.1 PA-2B SITE DEVELOPMENT AND SIGHT DISTANCE PLAN
C2.2.2 PA-2B LAND USE SUMMARY
C2.2.4PA-2B PARKING PLAN
LANDSCAPE
L.2.2.1 ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
L.2.2.2 COURTYARD ONE ENLARGEMENT
L.2.2.3 COURTYARD TWO ENLARGEMENT
L.2.2.4 COURTYARD THREE & FOUR ENLARGEMENTS
L.2.2.5 DUBLIN BLVD. PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L.2.2.6 EAST PORCH DRIVE PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION AT RETAIL
L.2.2.7 EAST PORCH DRIVE PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION AT
RESIDENTIAL
L.2.2.8 SIDEYARD EAST PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L.2.2.9 BRANNIGAN STREET PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L.2.2.10 MATERIALS DIAGRAM
L.2.2.11 MATERIALS BOARD
L.2.2.12 TREE DIAGRAM
ARCHITECTURE
A2.2.3 PA-2B ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A2.2.4 PA-2B FLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 1
A2.2.5 PA-2B FLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 2
A2.2.6 PA-2B FLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 3
A2.2.7 PA-2B FLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 4
A2.2.8 PA-2B FLOOR PLAN- ROOF
A2.2.9 PA-2B FLOOR PLAN- BASEMENT
A2.2.11 PA-2B ELEVATION WEST- EAST PORCH DRIVE 1
A2.2.12 PA-2B ELEVATION WEST- EAST PORCH DRIVE 2
A2.2.13 PA-2B ELEVATION NORTH- SIDE YARD EAST
A2.2.14 PA-2B ELEVATION EAST- BRANNIGAN ST 1
A2.2.15 PA-2B ELEVATION EAST- BRANNIGAN ST 2
A2.2.16 PA-2B ELEVATION SOUTH- DUBLIN BLVD
A2.2.17 PA-2B ELEVATION- POOL COURTYARD
A2.2.18 PA-2B SECTIONS
A2.2.21 PA-2B MATERIAL & COLOR PALETTE
A2.2.22 PA-2B MATERIAL & COLOR PALETTE
A2.2.23 PA-2B MATERIAL & COLOR PALETTE
PA-2C
CIVIL
C2.3.1 PA-2C SITE DEVELOPMENT AND SIGHT DISTANCE PLAN
C2.3.2 PA-2C LAND USE SUMMARY
C2.3.5 PA-2C PARKING PLAN
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
AUGUST 7, 2018
LANDSCAPE
L2.3.1 PA-2C ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN
L2.3.2 PA-2C TREE PLANTING DIAGRAM
L2.3.3 PA-2C RESIDENTIAL ‘COMMONS’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L2.3.4 PA-2C RESIDENTIAL ‘COMMONS’ PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L2.3.5 PA-2C RESIDENTIAL ‘GREEN’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L2.3.6 PA-2C TOWNHOME 1 LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
L2.3.7 PA-2C TOWNHOME 2 LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
L2.3.8 BRANNIGAN STREET PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L2.3.9 TASSAJARA ROAD PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L2.3.10 CENTRAL PARKWAY PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L2.3.11 PA-2C LANDSCAPE MATERIALS DIAGRAM
ARCHITECTURE
GENERAL
A2.3.1 COLOR PALETTE: BODY COLORS
A2.3.2 COLOR PALETTE: TRIM AND ACCENT COLORS
A2.3.3 COLOR PALETTE: ROOFING AND STONE COLORS
TOWNHOME 1
A2.3.4 CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
A2.3.8 6-PLEX: BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A
A2.3.9 6-PLEX: BUILDING ELEVATIONS A
A2.3.12 6-PLEX: BUILDING PERSPECTIVE B
A2.3.13 6-PLEX: BUILDING ELEVATIONS B
TOWNHOME 2
A2.3.16 CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
A2.3.20 6-PLEX: BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A
A2.3.21 6-PLEX: BUILDING ELEVATIONS A
A2.3.24 6-PLEX: BUILDING PERSPECTIVE B
A2.3.25 6-PLEX: BUILDING ELEVATIONS B
A2.3.28 7-PLEX: BUILDING PERSPECTIVE A
A2.3.29 7-PLEX: BUILDING ELEVATIONS A
A2.3.32 7-PLEX: BUILDING PERSPECTIVE B
A2.3.33 7-PLEX: BUILDING ELEVATIONS B
PA-3 & PA-4
CIVIL
C3.1 PA-3 & PA-4 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND SIGHT DISTANCE PLAN
C3.2 PA-3 & PA-4 LAND USE SUMMARY
C3.5 PA-3 & PA-4 PARKING PLAN
LANDSCAPE
L3.1 PA-3 PA-4 ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN
L3.2 PA-3 PA-4 TREE PLANTING DIAGRAM
L3.3 PA-3 ‘POCKET PARKS’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L3.4 PA-3 ‘RESIDENTIAL PASEO’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L3.5 PA-3 ‘RESIDENTIAL PASEO’ GARDEN ROOM PLAN VIGNETTE AND
SECTION
L3.6 PA-3 SFD 1 LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
L3.7 PA-3 SFD 2 LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
L3.8 PA-3 GARDEN ROOMS
L3.9 CENTRAL PARKWAY PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L3.10 BRANNIGAN STREET PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION 1
L3.11 TASSAJARA ROAD PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L3.12 GLEASON DRIVE PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L3.13 BRANNIGAN STREET PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION 2
L3.14 PA-3 STREET J PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L3.15 PA-3 ALLEY AA PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L3.16 PA-3 PA-4 FENCE AND RETAINING WALLS DIAGRAM
L3.17 PA-3 PA-4 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS DIAGRAM
ARCHITECTURE
GENERAL
A3.1 COLOR PALETTE: BODY COLORS
A3.2 COLOR PALETTE: TRIM AND ACCENT COLORS
A3.3 COLOR PALETTE: ROOFING AND STONE COLORS
SFD 1
A3.4 CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
A3.5 SITE LAYOUT - FIRST FLOOR PLANS
A3.6 SITE LAYOUT - SECOND FLOOR PLANS
A3.9 PLAN 1 – ELEVATIONS A
A3.12 PLAN 1 - ELEVATIONS A CORNER
A3.15 PLAN 1 – ELEVATIONS B
A3.18 PLAN 1 - ELEVATIONS B CORNER
A3.21 PLAN 1 – ELEVATIONS C
A3.24 PLAN 1 - ELEVATIONS C CORNER
A3.27 PLAN 2 – ELEVATIONS A
A3.30 PLAN 2 - ELEVATIONS A CORNER
A3.33 PLAN 2 – ELEVATIONS B
A3.36 PLAN 2 - ELEVATIONS B CORNER
A3.39 PLAN 2 – ELEVATIONS C
A3.42 PLAN 2 - ELEVATIONS C CORNER
A3.45 PLAN 3 – ELEVATIONS A
A3.48 PLAN 3 - ELEVATIONS A CORNER
A3.51 PLAN 3 – ELEVATIONS B
A3.54 PLAN 3 - ELEVATIONS B CORNER
A3.57 PLAN 3 – ELEVATIONS C
A3.60 PLAN 3 - ELEVATIONS C CORNER
SFD 2
A3.61 CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
A3.62 SITE LAYOUT - FIRST FLOOR PLANS
A3.63 SITE LAYOUT - SECOND FLOOR PLANS
A3.64 SITE LAYOUT - THIRD FLOOR PLANS
A3.67 PLAN 1 – ELEVATIONS A
A3.70 PLAN 1 – ELEVATIONS B
A3.73 PLAN 1 – ELEVATIONS C
A3.76 PLAN 2 – ELEVATIONS A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
A3.79 PLAN 2 – ELEVATIONS B
A3.82 PLAN 2 – ELEVATIONS C
A3.85 PLAN 3 – ELEVATIONS A
A3.88 PLAN 3 – ELEVATIONS B
A3.91 PLAN 3 – ELEVATIONS C
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
CIVIL
0.1 COVER SHEET
0.2 OFF-SITE STREEET SECTIONS
0.3 OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
0.4 OFF-SITE IMRPOVEMENT PLAN
0.5 OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
0.6 OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
0.7 OFF-SITE DETAILS
TRACT 8440
1.0 EXISTING CONDITION
1.1 PROPOSED LOTTING PLAN
1.2 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
1.3 PRELIMINIARY UTILITY PLAN
1.4 PRELIMINIARY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.5 SECTIONS AND DETAILS
TRACT 8449
2.0 EXISTING CONDITION
2.1 PROPOSED LOTTING PLAN
2.2 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
2.3 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
2.4 PRELIMINARY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2.5 SECTIONS AND DETAILSA2.1.21 RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 700
FLOOR PLAN
TRACT 8450
3.0 EXISTING CONDITION
3.1 PROPOSED LOTTING PLAN
3.2 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PL AN
3.3 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
3.4 PRELIMINARY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.5 SECTIONS AND DETAILS
TRACT 8451
4.0 EXISTING CONDITION
4.1 PROPOSED LOTTING PLAN
4.2 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PL AN
4.3 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
4.4 PRELIMINARY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4.5 SECTIONS AND DETAILS
4.6 SECTIONS AND DETAILS
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
AUGUST 7, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DEVELOPER / DESIGN TEAM
APPLICANT / DEVELOPER
SHEA PROPERTIES
130 VANTIS, SUITE 200
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
P: (949) 389-7286
FOR SALE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE PLANNING
5865 OWENS DRIVE
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
P: (925) 251-7200
COMMERCIAL DESIGN
FIELD PAOLI ARCHITECTS
150 CALIFORNIA STREET, 7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
P: (415) 788-6606
MULTI FAMILY BUILDING DESIGN
TCA ARCHITECTS
19782 MACARTHUR BLVD., SUITE 300
IRVINE, CA 92612
P: (949) 862-0270
LANDSCAPE DESIGN
SWA
2200 BRIDGEWAY
SAUSALITO, CA 94965-1750
P: (415) 332-5100
MULTI FAMILY LANDSCAPE DESIGN
BRIGHTVIEW DESIGN GROUP
8 HUGHES, SUITE 150
IRVINE, CA 92618
P: (949) 238-4900
ENGINEERING DESIGN
RUGGERI JENSEN AZAR
4690 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 200
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
P: (925) 227-9100
UTILITY DESIGN
GIACALONE DESIGN SERVICES INC.
5820 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD #345
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
P: (925) 467-1740
TRACT 8452
5.0 EXISTING CONDITION
5.1 PROPOSED LOTTING PLAN
5.2 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PL AN
5.3 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
5.4 PRELIMINARY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
5.5 SECTIONS AND DETAILS
5.6 SECTIONS AND DETAILS
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
AUGUST 7, 2018
0.1SHEET
VICINITY MAP
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018STAGE 1: LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN
0.4
BLDG.
200BLDG.
100
BLDG.
400
BLDG.
300
BLDG.
500
BLDG.
700
EAST PORCH DRIVE
WEST PORCH DRIVE
BLDG.
1100
BLDG.
1000
BLDG.
900
BLDG.
2300
BLDG.
2200
BLDG.
2100 BLDG.
1900
BLDG.
1800
BLDG.
1200
BLDG.
1300
BLDG.
1500
0 60 120 240 360 FEET
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROADCENTRAL PARKWAYDUBLIN BLVD.GLEASON DRIVEBLDG.
800
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
THE ‘PORCH’ RETAIL PLAZA
• ENHANCED PAVING
• OUTDOOR DINING
• WATER FEATURE
• ART PIECE
• TREES IN CONCRETE PLANTERS
• OUTDOOR DINING
• WATER FEATURE
PROJECT GATEWAY
• TREES AT CORNERS
• ART PIECE/FOCAL POINT
• PROJECT SIGNAGE
• SEATWALLS
• INFORMAL SEATING
AT DUBLIN COMMUNITY ROOM
• FLEXIBLE OUTDOOR PLAZA
• BOARDFORM CONCRETE SEATWALLS
• SMALL LAWN SPACE
• CAFE TABLES AND CHAIRS
CITY OF DUBLIN
IDENTITY MARKER
THE ‘BACK YARD’
RESIDENTIAL
COURTYARD
• POOL/SPA
• OUTDOOR KITCHEN
• PRUNUS GROVE WITH LAWN
• LOUNGE SEATING
• SHADE TRELLIS
THE ‘LANE’ RETAIL STREET
• PROJECT ENTRY SIGNAGE
• BENCHES/SEATING
• STREET TREES
STREET TREES PER
CITY OF DUBLIN
STREETSCAPE
MASTER PLAN
THE ‘SIDE YARD’
• RAISED PERFORMANCE STAGE
• TREE GROVES WITH SEATING
• EVENTS LAWN
• FLEXIBLE PLAZA SPACE
PA-3 RESIDENTIAL PASEO
• POLLINATOR GARDENS
• D.G. COURTYARDS WITH BENCHES
• ORNAMENTAL/FLOWERING TREES
• INTERPRETIVE/EDUCATIONAL SIGNAGE
PA-3 POCKET PARKS
• PICNIC TABLE AND BENCHES
• SMALL CHILDREN’S LAWN
• GARDEN WALK
THE ‘COMMONS’
• PICNIC AREAS WITH
BARBECUES
• MULTI-USE PATH/
RESIDENTIAL PROMENADE
• SHADE TREE GROVE
THE ‘RESIDENTIAL GREEN’
• FLEXIBLE LAWN SPACE
• RIPARIAN PLANTING/BIOSWALES
• PLANTING BERMS
TOWNHOME PASEOS
• FLOWERING TREE ALLES
• RAISED CONCRETE PLANTERS
• ORNAMENTAL SHRUBS/GROUNDCOVER
0 60 120 240 360 FEET
LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN NARRATIVE
RESIDENTIAL ENTRIES
MARKED WITH TREES
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROADCENTRAL PARKWAYDUBLIN BLVD.GLEASON DRIVEL0.1
SHADE TREES AT PARKING LOT
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N060120240360FEET
AUGUST 7, 2018COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AREAS
L0.2SHEET
Single‐Family Dwelling Units/ Townhomes 385 units
Multi‐Family Dwelling Units 280 units
persons
persons
TOTAL POPULATION 1,713 persons
Community Park Requirement 3.3 acres/1000
Active Community Park 3.0 acres/1000
Natural Community Park 0.3 acres/1000
Neighborhood Park Requirement 1.7 acres/1000
TOTAL PARK REQUIREMENT 5.0 acres/1000
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AREAS
PUBLIC PARKS 8.57 acres 2.44 acres (6.13)acres
COMMUNITY PARK 5.65 acres 0.21 acres (5.44)acres
PA‐1 Community Facility 0.21 acres
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 2.91 acres 2.23 acres (0.68)acres
PA‐2a Neighborhood Square 0.34 acres
PA‐2c Neighborhood Square 1.89 acres
PRIVATE - PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PARKS 0.00 acres 3.45 acres 3.45 acres
PA‐1 Plaza 0.30 acres
PA‐2a Plaza 1.25 acres
PA‐3 Linear Park 0.83 acres
PA‐3 Greenbelt 0.79 acres
PA‐4 Greenbelt 0.28 acres
TOTAL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARKS 8.57 acres 5.89 acres (2.68)acres
PROJECT DATA
Required
Single‐Family Population: 385 units x 3.08 persons/unit = 1,185.8
Multi‐Family Population: 280 units x 1.88 persons/unit = 526.4
CITY PARK REQUIREMENTS PER 1000 POPULATION
Provided Difference
Single‐Family Dwelling Units/ Townhomes 385 units
Multi‐Family Dwelling Units 280 units
persons
persons
TOTAL POPULATION 1,713 persons
Community Park Requirement 3.3 acres/1000
Active Community Park 3.0 acres/1000
Natural Community Park 0.3 acres/1000
Neighborhood Park Requirement 1.7 acres/1000
TOTAL PARK REQUIREMENT 5.0 acres/1000
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AREAS
PUBLIC PARKS 8.57 acres 2.44 acres (6.13)acres
COMMUNITY PARK 5.65 acres 0.21 acres (5.44)acres
PA‐1 Community Facility 0.21 acres
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 2.91 acres 2.23 acres (0.68)acres
PA‐2a Neighborhood Square 0.34 acres
PA‐2c Neighborhood Square 1.89 acres
PRIVATE - PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PARKS 0.00 acres 3.45 acres 3.45 acres
PA‐1 Plaza 0.30 acres
PA‐2a Plaza 1.25 acres
PA‐3 Linear Park 0.83 acres
PA‐3 Greenbelt 0.79 acres
PA‐4 Greenbelt 0.28 acres
TOTAL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARKS 8.57 acres 5.89 acres (2.68)acres
PROJECT DATA
Required
Single‐Family Population: 385 units x 3.08 persons/unit = 1,185.8
Multi‐Family Population: 280 units x 1.88 persons/unit = 526.4
CITY PARK REQUIREMENTS PER 1000 POPULATION
Provided Difference
PUBLIC PARKS
PRIVATE - PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PARKS
PA-2c
PA-1
PUBLIC
COMMUNITY
FACILITY
PUBLIC
NEIGHBORHOOD
SQUARE PRIVATE
PARK /
PLAZA
PRIVATE PARK /
LINEAR PARK
PRIVATE PARK /
GREENBELT
PRIVATE PARK /
GREENBELT
PRIVATE
PARK /
PLAZA
PA-2a
PA-2b
PA-3
PA-4
CENTRAL PARKWAYGLEASON DRIVEDUBLIN BLVD.BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROAD
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION DIAGRAM
0 125 250 375 FEET L0.3
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROADCENTRAL PARKWAYDUBLIN BLVD.GLEASON DRIVEEXISTING
SIDEWALK
CROSSWALKS
CLASS I SHARED USE PATHS
CLASS II BICYCLE LANES
PARK &
RIDE
PROPOSED
SIDEWALK
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY
DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH
CROSSWALKS
CLASS I SHARED USE PATHS
CLASS II BICYCLE LANES
BUS STOPS
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNAL
BIKE PARKING
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018LANDSCAPE MATERIALS IMAGE BOARD
PATTERN PAVERS
PAVING COLORATIONLINEAR SCORING PATTERN
STONE
RETAINING WALLS LEDGER PAVERS M4. GEOBLOCK PAVING AT EVA
GARDEN WALK
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY
TEXTURED PAVERS
RESIDENTIAL PATHSPANEL PAVERS
M2.
CONCRETE PER CITY
OF DUBLIN STANDARDS
M3.
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
PAVING
M1.
CONCRETE WITH ENHANCED
COLOR/FINISH
MATERIAL TYPES- SEE MATERIAL DIAGRAMS FOR LOCATIONS
L0.4
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET
TREE GRATE
WATER FEATURE
GREEN SCREEN SPECIMEN TREE IN PLANTER
SHADE STRUCTURE
FIRE PIT
CONCRETE PLANTER AND SEATINGDECORATIVE SCREEN/FENCE
LANDSCAPE FURNISHINGS IMAGE BOARD
FURNISHING TYPES- SEE MATERIALS DIAGRAMS FOR LOCATIONS ADDITIONAL FURNISHINGS
F1.
BENCHES
AND TABLES AT
RETAIL AREAS
F5.
POT
PLANTING
F2.
ADIRONDACK
CHAIRS
F6.
BIKE
RACKS
F3.
BENCHES AND
SEATWALLS
F7.
TRASH
RECEPTACLES
F4.
TABLES
F8.
VEHICULAR
BOLLARDS
L0.5
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018LANDSCAPE PLANTING DIAGRAM
L0.6
LEGEND*AT DUBLIN LANDSCAPE PLANTING AREAS AND PERCENTAGES BY PLANNING AREA:
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROADCENTRAL PARKWAYDUBLIN BLVD.GLEASON DRIVECOMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT
IDENTITY
PA-2B
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SCREENING: 11,100 SF
LANDSCAPE WITHIN PARKING LOT: 2,650 SF
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 17,600 SF
% OF LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN PA-2B: 8.2%
PA-2C
TOTAL LAWN AREA: 17,400 SF
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SCREENING: 16,440 SF
LANDSCAPE WITHIN PARKING LOT: 15,400 SF
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 140,700 SF
% OF LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN PA-2C: 24.6%
PA-3
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SCREENING: 94,100 SF
TOTAL LAWN AREA: 4,400 SF
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 126,500 SF
% OF LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN PA-3: 15.7%
PA-4
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SCREENING: 9,200 SF
TOTAL LAWN AREA: 340 SF
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 21,200 SF
% OF LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN PA-4: 21.4%
PARK
HEDGEROW
BIORETENTION
STREET
(CITY)
STREET
(INTERNAL)
EXISTING
TREES
0 125 250 375 FEET
NOTES:
1. SQUARE FOOTAGES BASED ON LANDSCAPE AREA LOCATED WITHIN PUBLIC REALM, INCLUDING PLANTING ASSOCIATED WITH FRONT YARDS.
2. LANDSCAPE PERCENTAGES CALCULATED FROM NET SITE AREAS AS NOTED ON CIVIL LAND USE SUMMARIES.
PA-1
TOTAL LAWN AREA: 900 SF
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SCREENING: 13,400 SF
LANDSCAPE WITHIN PARKING LOT: 52,500 SF
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 182,700 SF
% OF LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN PA-1 : 18.9%
PA-2A
TOTAL LAWN AREA: 13,000 SF
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SCREENING: 4,800 SF
LANDSCAPE WITHIN PARKING LOT: 7,900 SF
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 56,700 SF
% OF LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN PA-2A: 13.9%NO OBJECTS, LANDSCAPING, ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES HIGHER THAN 30 INCHES, SHALL BE ALLOWED
INSIDE INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLES UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR. ON-STREET PARKING SHALL BE RESTRICTED INSIDE THE INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE
TRIANGLE. ALL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SHALL HAVE INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLES
CREATED BY THE CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA OF THE LATEST CALTRANS HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL.
ALL OTHER INTERSECTIONS SHALL BE EVALUATED USING THE SAFE STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA OF
THE LATEST CALTRANS HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL.
*REFER TO PLANTING PALETTES FOR COLOR-CODED SPECIES CATEGORIES
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
TASSAJARA ROADCENTRAL PARKWAYDUBLIN BLVD.GLEASON DRIVEN SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018LANDSCAPE PUBLIC STREET TREE DIAGRAM
L0.7
PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA
LONDON PLANE
DECIDUOUS
CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS
COMMON HACKBERRY
DECIDUOUS
LEGEND
PYRUS CALLERYANA
CALLERY PEAR
DECIDUOUS
PISTACHIA CHINENSIS
CHINESE PISTACHE
DECIDUOUS
ALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA
WHITE ALDER
DECIDUOUS
0 125 250 375 FEET
EXISTING SCHINUS MOLLE TREES
CALIFORNIA PEPPER TREE
EVERGREEN
BRANNIGAN STREET
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
LANDSCAPE INTERNAL STREET AND OPEN SPACE TREE DIAGRAM
L0.8
TASSAJARA ROADCENTRAL PARKWAYDUBLIN BLVD.GLEASON DRIVE0 125 250 375 FEET N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
LEGEND
PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA
LONDON PLANE
DECIDUOUS
OLEA EUROPAEA
OLIVE
EVERGREEN
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA
COASTAL LIVE OAK
EVERGREEN
PRUNUS
PLUM/CHERRY
DECIDUOUS
ACER RUBRUM ‘ARMSTRONG’
ARMSTRONG MAPLE
DECIDUOUS
LAGERSTROEMIA
CRAPE MYRTLE
DECIDUOUS
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA
SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA
EVERGREEN
CITRUS LIMON
CITRUS
EVERGREEN
ZELKOVA SERRATA
JAPANESE ZELKOVA
DECIDUOUS
QUERCUS ILEX
HOLLY OAK
EVERGREEN
PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR
FERN PINE
EVERGREEN
ALNUS RUBRA
RED ALDER
DECIDUOUS
ALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA
WHITE ALDER
DECIDUOUS
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS
WESTERN REDBUD
DECIDUOUS
BRANNIGAN STREET
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE
TREE SPECIES
L0.9
TREE IMAGESTREE LIST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
TRE E S
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER USE MIN. INSTALL SIZE
Acer buergeranum Trident Maple M 15 GAL
Acer palmatum Japanese Maple M 15 GAL
Acer rubrum 'armstrong'Armstrong Maple M 15 GAL
Alnus Rhombifolia White Alder H 15 GAL
Alnus Rubra Red Alder H 15 GAL
Arbutus x. 'marina'Strewberry Tree 'Marina'L 15 GAL
Carpinus betulus European Hornbeam M 15 GAL
Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry L 15 GAL
Celtis sinensis Chinese Hackberry M 15 GAL
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud VL 15 GAL
Citrus limon Citrus M 15 GAL
Eriobotrya deflexa Bronze Loquat M 15 GAL
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust L 15 GAL
Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Rain Tree M 15 GAL
Lagerstroemia Crape Myrtle L 15 GAL
Laurus nobilis Sweet Bay L 15 GAL
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree M 15 GAL
Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box M 15 GAL
Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia M 15 GAL
Magnolia x soulangeana Saucer Magnolia M 15 GAL
Olea europaea 'swan hill' (non-fruiting)Swan Hill Olive VL 15 GAL
Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache L 15 GAL
Platanus X acerifolia London Plane Tree M 15 GAL
Podocarpus gracilior Weeping Podocarpus M 15 GAL
Prunus cerasifera Purple-Leafed Plum L 15 GAL
Prunus domestica European Plum M 15 GAL
Pyrus calleryana Callery Pear M 15 GAL
Pyrus communis Common Pear M 15 GAL
Quercus agrifolia Coastal Live Oak VL 15 GAL
Quercus douglasii Blue Oak VL 15 GAL
Quercus ilex Evergreen Oak L 15 GAL
Quercus lobata Valley Oak L 15 GAL
Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak M 15 GAL
Tilia cordata Little Leaf Linden M 15 GAL
Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm L 15 GAL
Zelkova serrata Japanese Zelkova M 15 GAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
SCREENING SPECIES
ACCENT SPECIES
BENEFICIAL SPECIES
31
32
33
34
31
32
33
34
NOTES:
1. PLANT TYPES WILL BE
SELECTED AND GROUPED
ACCORDING TO WATER
NEEDS; WITH HIGH WATER
USE, MEDIUM WATER
USE, AND LOW WATER
USE SPECIES IRRIGATED
SEPARATELY TO INCREASE
THE EFFICIENCY OF WATER
APPLICATION.
2. ROOT CONTROL BARRIERS
SHALL BE USED WHEN TREES
ARE LOCATED WITHIN 5’ OF
CONCRETE PAVING. ROOT
CONTROL BARRIERS SHALL
BE PLACED ALONG EDGES
OF PAVING IN 8’ LENGTHS
CENTERED ON MIDPOINT OF
TREE LOCATION.
35
36
35
3628
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE
SHRUB SPECIES
L0.10
SHRUB S
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER USE MIN. INSTALL SIZE
Glossy Abelia M 5 GAL
Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise L 1 GAL
Arbutus unedo 'compacta'Dwarf Strawberry Tree L 1 GAL
Arctostaphylos densiflora L 5 GAL
Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort L 1 GAL
Buddleja alternifolia Fountain Butterfly Bush L 5 GAL
Japanese Boxwood M 5 GAL
Callistemon Bottlebrush L 1 GAL
Calycanthus occidentalis Spice Bush M 5 GAL
Ceanothus gloriosus Point Reyes Ceanothus L 5 GAL
Cistus salvifolius Sageleaf Rockrose L 5 GAL
Coleonema pulchrum Pink Breath of Heaven M 1 GAL
Coprosma repens Mirror Plant M 1 GAL
Cornus stolonifera Red-Osier Dogwood H 5 GAL
Cycas revoulta Sago Palm M 1 GAL
Dodonaea viscosa Hopseed Bush L 1 GAL
Euonymus fortunei Winter Creeper L 1 GAL
Fatsia japonica Japanese Aralia M 1 GAL
Grevillea lanigera Woolly Grevillea L 1 GAL
Hesperaloe parviflora Coral Yucca L 1 GAL
Holodiscus Spp.Oceanspray L 5 GAL
Juniperus Spp.Juniper L 1 GAL
Lavatera maritima Tree Mallow L 1 GAL
Ligustrum 'texanum'Texas Privet M 1 GAL
Loropetalum chinense Fringe Flower L 1 GAL
Osmanthus fragrans Sweet Olive M 1 GAL
Russian Sage L 1 GAL
Phormium tenax New Zealand Flax L 1 GAL
Pittosporum crassifolium Karo M 1 GAL
L 1 GAL
Variegated Pittosporum L 1 GAL
Proteaceae Protea M 1 GAL
Rhamnus californica California Coffeeberry L 1 GAL
Rhaphiolepis umbellata 'minor'Dwarf Yeddo Hawthorne L 1 GAL
White Flowering Currant L 1 GAL
Salix scouleriana Scouler Willow H 1 GAL
Salvia leucantha Mexican Bush Sage L 1 GAL
Sarcococca ruscifolia Fragrant Sweet Box L 1 GAL
Spiraea douglasii Spiraea M 1 GAL
Teucrium fruticans Bush Germander L 1 GAL
Xylosma congestum Shiny Xylosma L 1 GAL
Yucca recurvifolia Yucca L 1 GAL
SHRUB LIST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 COMMERCIALHEDGEROWPARKRESIDENTIALSTREET (INTERNAL)BIORETENTIONPROJECT IDENTITYSTREET (CITY)31
32
SHRUB IMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
SCREENING SPECIES
ACCENT SPECIES
BENEFICIAL SPECIES
NOTES:
1. PLANTS WITHIN TRAFFIC
VISIBILITY AREAS (CORNERS
AND GATEWAYS) TO BE
UNDER 30” IN HEIGHT.
2. PLANT TYPES WILL BE
SELECTED AND GROUPED
ACCORDING TO WATER
NEEDS; WITH HIGH WATER
USE, MEDIUM WATER
USE, AND LOW WATER
USE SPECIES IRRIGATED
SEPARATELY TO INCREASE
THE EFFICIENCY OF WATER
APPLICATION.
3. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
OF SHRUBS IN THE FRONT
YARDS OF COMMERCIAL
AREAS SHALL NOT EXCEED
4’. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
OF SHRUBS WITHIN OTHER
YARDS SHALL NOT EXCEED
8’ UNLESS SCREENING
STORAGE AREAS FROM THE
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
4. PARKING AREAS,
COMMERCIAL LOADING
AREAS ADJOINING A PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY, TRASH
ENCLOSURES AND ALL
ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES
(INCLUDING BACKFLOW
DEVICES AND IRRIGATION
CONTROLLERS) WILL BE
SCREENED FROM VIEW WITH
FAST GROWING AND DENSE
EVERGREEN PLANT SPECIES
INCLUDING SHRUBS AND/
OR VINES. COMMERCIAL
LOADING AREAS SHALL
PROVIDE SCREENING TO A
MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 36”.
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHRUB SBOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER USE MIN. INSTALL SIZEGlossy Abelia M 5 GALAdenostoma fasciculatum Chamise L 1 GALArbutus unedo 'compacta'Dwarf Strawberry Tree L 1 GALArctostaphylos densiflora L 5 GALArtemisia douglasiana Mugwort L 1 GALBuddleja alternifolia Fountain Butterfly Bush L 5 GALJapanese Boxwood M 5 GALCallistemon Bottlebrush L 1 GALCalycanthus occidentalis Spice Bush M 5 GALCeanothus gloriosus Point Reyes Ceanothus L 5 GALCistus salvifolius Sageleaf Rockrose L 5 GALColeonema pulchrum Pink Breath of Heaven M 1 GALCoprosma repens Mirror Plant M 1 GALCornus stolonifera Red-Osier Dogwood H 5 GALCycas revoulta Sago Palm M 1 GALDodonaea viscosa Hopseed Bush L 1 GALEuonymus fortunei Winter Creeper L 1 GALFatsia japonica Japanese Aralia M 1 GALGrevillea lanigera Woolly Grevillea L 1 GALHesperaloe parviflora Coral Yucca L 1 GALHolodiscus Spp.Oceanspray L 5 GALJuniperus Spp.Juniper L 1 GALLavatera maritima Tree Mallow L 1 GALLigustrum 'texanum'Texas Privet M 1 GALLoropetalum chinense Fringe Flower L 1 GALOsmanthus fragrans Sweet Olive M 1 GALRussian Sage L 1 GAL
Phormium tenax New Zealand Flax L 1 GAL
Pittosporum crassifolium Karo M 1 GAL
L 1 GAL
Variegated Pittosporum L 1 GAL
Proteaceae Protea M 1 GAL
Rhamnus californica California Coffeeberry L 1 GAL
Rhaphiolepis umbellata 'minor'Dwarf Yeddo Hawthorne L 1 GAL
White Flowering Currant L 1 GAL
Salix scouleriana Scouler Willow H 1 GAL
Salvia leucantha Mexican Bush Sage L 1 GAL
Sarcococca ruscifolia Fragrant Sweet Box L 1 GAL
Spiraea douglasii Spiraea M 1 GAL
Teucrium fruticans Bush Germander L 1 GAL
Xylosma congestum Shiny Xylosma L 1 GAL
Yucca recurvifolia Yucca L 1 GAL
LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE
SHRUB SPECIES CONT.
SHRUB S
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER USE MIN. INSTALL SIZE
Glossy Abelia M 5 GAL
Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise L 1 GAL
Arbutus unedo 'compacta'Dwarf Strawberry Tree L 1 GAL
Arctostaphylos densiflora L 5 GAL
Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort L 1 GAL
Buddleja alternifolia Fountain Butterfly Bush L 5 GAL
Japanese Boxwood M 5 GAL
Callistemon Bottlebrush L 1 GAL
Calycanthus occidentalis Spice Bush M 5 GAL
Ceanothus gloriosus Point Reyes Ceanothus L 5 GAL
Cistus salvifolius Sageleaf Rockrose L 5 GAL
Coleonema pulchrum Pink Breath of Heaven M 1 GAL
Coprosma repens Mirror Plant M 1 GAL
Cornus stolonifera Red-Osier Dogwood H 5 GAL
Cycas revoulta Sago Palm M 1 GAL
Dodonaea viscosa Hopseed Bush L 1 GAL
Euonymus fortunei Winter Creeper L 1 GAL
Fatsia japonica Japanese Aralia M 1 GAL
Grevillea lanigera Woolly Grevillea L 1 GAL
Hesperaloe parviflora Coral Yucca L 1 GAL
Holodiscus Spp.Oceanspray L 5 GAL
Juniperus Spp.Juniper L 1 GAL
Lavatera maritima Tree Mallow L 1 GAL
Ligustrum 'texanum'Texas Privet M 1 GAL
Loropetalum chinense Fringe Flower L 1 GAL
Osmanthus fragrans Sweet Olive M 1 GAL
Russian Sage L 1 GAL
Phormium tenax New Zealand Flax L 1 GAL
Pittosporum crassifolium Karo M 1 GAL
L 1 GAL
Variegated Pittosporum L 1 GAL
Proteaceae Protea M 1 GAL
Rhamnus californica California Coffeeberry L 1 GAL
Rhaphiolepis umbellata 'minor'Dwarf Yeddo Hawthorne L 1 GAL
White Flowering Currant L 1 GAL
Salix scouleriana Scouler Willow H 1 GAL
Salvia leucantha Mexican Bush Sage L 1 GAL
Sarcococca ruscifolia Fragrant Sweet Box L 1 GAL
Spiraea douglasii Spiraea M 1 GAL
Teucrium fruticans Bush Germander L 1 GAL
Xylosma congestum Shiny Xylosma L 1 GAL
Yucca recurvifolia Yucca L 1 GAL
SHRUB LIST
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 COMMERCIALHEDGEROWPARKRESIDENTIALSTREET (INTERNAL)BIORETENTIONSTREET (CITY) SCREENING SPECIES
ACCENT SPECIES
BENEFICIAL SPECIES
NOTES:
1. PLANTS WITHIN TRAFFIC
VISIBILITY AREAS (CORNERS
AND GATEWAYS) TO BE
UNDER 30” IN HEIGHT.
2. PLANT TYPES WILL BE
SELECTED AND GROUPED
ACCORDING TO WATER
NEEDS; WITH HIGH WATER
USE, MEDIUM WATER
USE, AND LOW WATER
USE SPECIES IRRIGATED
SEPARATELY TO INCREASE
THE EFFICIENCY OF WATER
APPLICATION.
3. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
OF SHRUBS IN THE FRONT
YARDS OF COMMERCIAL
AREAS SHALL NOT EXCEED
4’. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
OF SHRUBS WITHIN OTHER
YARDS SHALL NOT EXCEED
8’ UNLESS SCREENING
STORAGE AREAS FROM THE
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
4. PARKING AREAS,
COMMERCIAL LOADING
AREAS ADJOINING A PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY, TRASH
ENCLOSURES AND ALL
ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES
(INCLUDING BACKFLOW
DEVICES AND IRRIGATION
CONTROLLERS) WILL BE
SCREENED FROM VIEW WITH
FAST GROWING AND DENSE
EVERGREEN PLANT SPECIES
INCLUDING SHRUBS AND/
OR VINES. COMMERCIAL
LOADING AREAS SHALL
PROVIDE SCREENING TO A
MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 36”.
SHRUB IMAGES
33
34
35
36
37
38
L0.11
41
42
39
40PROJECT IDENTITY5.1.g
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE
L0.12
PERENNIAL SPECIES
25
PERE N NIALS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER USE MIN. INSTALL SIZE
M 5 GAL
Yarrow L 1 GAL
Aloe species Aloe L 1 GAL
Amsonia tabernaemontana Blue Star Flower M 1 GAL
Asclepias fascicularis Narrowleaf Milkweed L 1 GAL
Asparagus densiflorus 'myers'Foxtail Fern M 1 GAL
Asparagus densiflorus 'sprengeri'Sprenger Asparagus M 1 GAL
Aspidistra elatior Cast Iron L 1 GAL
Callirhoe involucrata Purple Poppy Mallow L 1 GAL
Chasmanthe floribunda African Flag L 1 GAL
Eriogonum arborescens Santa Cruz Buckwheat L 1 GAL
Euphorbia characias Euphorbia L 1 GAL
Gaura lindheimeri Gaura M 1 GAL
Heuchera maxima Island Alumroot M 1 GAL
Lavandula angustifolia English Lavender L 1 GAL
Liriope muscari Lilyturf M 1 GAL
Nepeta faassenii Catmint L 1 GAL
Oenothera lindheimeri M 1 GAL
Penstemon species Penstemon M 1 GAL
Polystichum munitum Sword Fern M 1 GAL
Rosa californica California Wild Rose L 1 GAL
Tuscan Blue Rosemary L 5 GAL
Salvia apiana Chiapas Sage L 1 GAL
Salvia chiapensis White Sage M 1 GAL
Salvia spathacea Hummingbird Sage L 1 GAL
Woodwardia fimbriata Giant Chain Fern M 1 GAL
PERENNIAL LIST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PERENNIAL IMAGES
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24COMMERCIALHEDGEROWPARKRESIDENTIALSTREET (INTERNAL)BIORETENTIONSTREET (CITY) SCREENING SPECIES
ACCENT SPECIES
BENEFICIAL SPECIES
NOTES:
1. PLANTS WITHIN TRAFFIC
VISIBILITY AREAS (CORNERS
AND GATEWAYS) TO BE
UNDER 30” IN HEIGHT.
2. PLANT TYPES WILL BE
SELECTED AND GROUPED
ACCORDING TO WATER
NEEDS; WITH HIGH WATER
USE, MEDIUM WATER
USE, AND LOW WATER
USE SPECIES IRRIGATED
SEPARATELY TO INCREASE
THE EFFICIENCY OF WATER
APPLICATION.
26
26PROJECT IDENTITY5.1.g
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE
L0.13
GRASS SPECIES
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER USE MIN. INSTALL SIZE
Blue Grama L 1 GAL
Reed Grass M 1 GAL
Carex divulsa European Gray Sedge L 1 GAL
Carex praegracilis California Field Sedge M 1 GAL
Carex texensis Texas Sedge L 1 GAL
Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush L 5 GAL
Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted Hairgrass L 1 GAL
Blue Wild Rye M 1 GAL
Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue L 1 GAL
Festuca mairei Atlas Fescue L 1 GAL
Festuca rubra Red Fescue L 1 GAL
Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow Barley UNKNOWN 1 GAL
Juncus patens Spreading Rush L 1 GAL
Leymus triticoides Wild Rye L 1 GAL
Lomandra longifolia Mat Rush L 1 GAL
Miscanthus transmorrisonensis Evergreen Maiden Grass M 1 GAL
Muhlenbergia capillaris Pink Muhly Grass L 5 GAL
Muhlenbergia rigens Deergrass L 5 GAL
Nassella pulchra Purple needlegrass VL 1 GAL
Fountain Grass M 1 GAL
Sporobolus airoides Alkali sacaton L 1 GAL
G RASSES
GRASS LIST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
GRASS IMAGES
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17COMMERCIALHEDGEROWPARKRESIDENTIALSTREET (INTERNAL)BIORETENTIONSTREET (CITY) SCREENING SPECIES
ACCENT SPECIES
BENEFICIAL SPECIES
NOTES:
1. PLANTS WITHIN TRAFFIC
VISIBILITY AREAS (CORNERS
AND GATEWAYS) TO BE
UNDER 30” IN HEIGHT.
2. PLANT TYPES WILL BE
SELECTED AND GROUPED
ACCORDING TO WATER
NEEDS; WITH HIGH WATER
USE, MEDIUM WATER
USE, AND LOW WATER
USE SPECIES IRRIGATED
SEPARATELY TO INCREASE
THE EFFICIENCY OF WATER
APPLICATION.
18
18
19
20
21
19
20
21PROJECT IDENTITY5.1.g
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018LANDSCAPE PLANTING PALETTE
GROUNDCOVER & VINE SPECIES
L0.14
G RO U ND COVERS
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WATER USE MIN. INSTALL SIZE
Ajuga species Carpet Bugles M 1 GAL
Aptenia cordifolia Red Apple L 1 GAL
Dwarf Coyote Bush L 1 GAL
Bougainvillea spp. Bougainvillea L 1 GAL
Ceanothus griseus horizontalis Wild Lilac L 1 GAL
Cerastium tomentosum Snow-In-Summer M 1 GAL
Cotoneaster dammeri Bearberry Cotoneaster L 1 GAL
Delta Grassland Mix (see notes)(see notes)L SOD
Epilobium canum California Fuchsia L 1 GAL
Erigeron karvinskianus Santa Barbara Daisy L 1 GAL
Ficus pumila Creeping Fig M 1 GAL
Hypericum calycinum Aaron's Beard M 1 GAL
Impatiens capensis Orange Balsam M 1 GAL
Jasminum Spp.Jasmine M 1 GAL
Lessingia filaginifolia 'silver carpet'Silver Carpet L 1 GAL
Myoporum parvifolium Creeping Myoporum L 1 GAL
Ribes viburnifolium Evergreen Currant L 1 GAL
Rosmarinus o. Prostratus Dwarf Rosemary L 1 GAL
Trachelospermem jasminoides Star Jasmine M 1 GAL
Zephyranthes candida Argentine Rain Lily M 1 GAL
GROUNDCOVER & VINE LIST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
GROUNDCOVER IMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16COMMERCIALHEDGEROWPARKRESIDENTIALSTREET (INTERNAL)BIORETENTIONSTREET (CITY) SCREENING SPECIES
ACCENT SPECIES
BENEFICIAL SPECIES
17
18
19
17
18
19
NOTES:
1. PLANTS WITHIN TRAFFIC
VISIBILITY AREAS (CORNERS
AND GATEWAYS) TO BE
UNDER 30” IN HEIGHT.
2. PLANT TYPES WILL BE
SELECTED AND GROUPED
ACCORDING TO WATER
NEEDS; WITH HIGH WATER
USE, MEDIUM WATER
USE, AND LOW WATER
USE SPECIES IRRIGATED
SEPARATELY TO INCREASE
THE EFFICIENCY OF WATER
APPLICATION.
3. DELTA GRASSLAND
MIX INCLUDES: KOLERIA
MACRANTHA AND FESTUCA
RUBRA. PLEASE SEE
DELTABLUEGRASS.COM FOR
MORE DETAILS.
20
20PROJECT IDENTITY5.1.g
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
LANDSCAPE LIGHTING DIAGRAM
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
L0.15060120240360FEET
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROADCENTRAL PARKWAYDUBLIN BLVD.GLEASON DRIVEEXISTING CITY ROAD FIXTURE
LOCAL ROAD FIXTURE
PARKING LOT FIXTURE
LEGEND
BIKE/PEDESTRIAN FIXTURE
BOLLARD PATHWAY FIXTURE
AREAS TO RECEIVE SPECIAL LIGHTING
NOTES:
1. TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE
PLANTED SO THAT THEY DO NOT
INTERFERE WITH SERVICE LINES.
2. MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATIONS
BETWEEN TREES AND UTILITIES
INCLUDE: 15’ FROM ALL POLE LIGHTS
(AND AVOID TREE CANOPY OVERLAP);
10’ FROM ALL UNDERGROUND SERVICE
LINES SUCH AS STORM DRAINS, WATER
LINES, ELECTRICAL LINES, JOINT
TRENCHES, AND GAS LINES; AND 5’
FROM FIRE HYDRANTS.
3. TREES SHALL BE PLANTED 20’ FROM
THE CURB RETURN AT INTERSECTIONS
AND FROM ANY REGULATORY TRAFFIC
SIGN.
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PALETTE
L0.16
FIXTURE TYPES
BY BEGA
25’ HEIGHT
POLE TOP WITH SYMMETRICAL DISTRIBUTION
DIE-CAST ALUMINUM HOUSINGS
HAND BLOWN THREE-PLY OPAL GLASS
LOCAL ROAD FIXTURE
BY BEGA
25’ HEIGHT
SINGLE AND TWIN POLE-TOP LUMINAIRE
LED & DAVIT ARM
TYPE IV LIGHT DISTRIBUTION
4000K COLOR TEMPERATURE
PARKING LOT FIXTURE
BY BEGA
15’ HEIGHT
POLE TOP WITH SYMMETRICAL DISTRIBUTION
DIE-CAST ALUMINUM HOUSINGS
HAND BLOWN THREE-PLY OPAL GLASS
BIKE/PEDESTRIAN FIXTURE
BY BEGA
3.5’ HEIGHT
360 DEGREE LIGHT DISTRIBUTION
EXTRUDED AND DIE-CAST ALUMINUM
THREE-PLAY OPAL GLASS
3000K COLOR TEMPERATURE
BOLLARD PATHWAY FIXTURE
NOTES:
1. PROJECT LIGHTING WILL UTILIZE
DARK SKY TECHNIQUES AND NOT
CREATE UNNECESSARY SPILLOVER OR
GLARE ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
2. UPLIGHTING MAY BE UTILIZED FOR
KEY SPECIMEN TREES AND PUBLIC ART.
5.1.g
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: 7. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 1 Introduction & Landscaping (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET C1.1C1.1
PA-1 SIT E DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DISTANCE PLAN
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
SHEET C1.2C1.2
PA-1 LAND USE SUMMARY
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
SHEET C1.4
PA-1 PARKING PLAN
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-1
PA-1 ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN
L1.102550100150FEET
BLDG.
1000
BLDG.
900
BLDG.
2300
BLDG.
2200
BLDG.
2100 BLDG.
1900
BLDG.
1800
BLDG.
1500
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA BLVD.DUBLIN BLVD.DUBLIN ENTRY AND
COMMUNITY BUILDING
CROSSROADS
GATEWAY AT TASSAJARA
LONDON PLANE
STREET TREES
RED MAPLE WINDROW
(COLUMNAR FORM)
OAK BUFFER AND
SCREENING SHRUBS AT
3’ MIN. HEIGHT ALONG
PARKING LOT PERIMETER
SCREENING SHRUBS AT
3’ MIN. HEIGHT ALONG
LOADING AREA
EXISTING PEPPER TREES
(SCHINUS MOLLE)
SUBSURFACE HM
STORAGE BOX
BIORETENTION AREA
ALONG PARKING LOT
OLIVE TREES AND
ACCENT PLANTING AT
COMMERCIAL CORNERS
BIORETENTION AREA
ALONG TASSAJARA
BLDG.
1100 BLDG.
1200
BLDG.
1300
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
0 10 20 40 60 FEET N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018PA-1 CROSSROADS LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L1.4
PA-1
CROSSROADS
RED MAPLE WINDROW
(COLUMNAR FORM)
GATEWAY
INTERSECTIONS MARKED
WITH ENHANCED PAVING
BLDG. 1500 OUTDOOR
DINING AREA, CAFE TABLES
AND CHAIRS PROVIDED BY
TENANT
LONDON PLANE TREES
ALONG EAST/WEST
PROMENADE
SHADE TREES,
NATIVE GRASSES IN
BIORETENTION AREAS
PRECAST CONCRETE
PLANTERS WITH
ORNAMENTAL CITRUS TREES
NATIVE GRASS PLANTING
BANDS ALONG PROJECT
ENTRANCE
ADIRONDACK CHAIR
INFORMAL LOUNGE AREA
AT DUBLIN PROJECT
SIGNAGE
PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTIONS
MARKED WITH CONCRETE
SEATWALLS WITH
BOARDFORM FINISH AND
OAK TREES
PEDESTRIAN
PATH OF TRAVEL
THROUGH PARKING AREA
BLDG.
1500
FF 350.4
P 349.4
BIORETENTION AREA,
TYP.
3.0%
TC 350.1
TC 349.9
HP 348.0
FS 347.7
TC 350.2
TC 349.4
FS 347.6
TC 347.7
TC 348.4
FS 348.4
TC 349.2
TC 348.6
TC 349.0
TC 349.7
TC 350.2
TC 350.1
TC 350.2
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
SEPTEMBER 11, 2018
PA-1 DUBLIN GATEWAY LANDSCAPE PERSPECTIVE & ENLARGEMENT
L1.5
NON-FRUITING OLIVE TREES
ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN
CONCRETE
RAISED MOUNDS WITH
BOARDFORM CONCRETE
SEATWALL AND ACCENT
PLANTING
INFORMAL DINING
PUBLIC SIDEWALK
PER CITY OF DUBLIN
STANDARDS
ART PIECE/INFORMAL
PRE-SCHOOL AGE PLAY
PA-1
DUBLIN
GATEWAY
TASSAJARA BLVD.DUBLIN BLVD.RAISED MOUNDS WITH
BOARD-FORMED CONCRETE
SEATWALL
SHADE ARBOR
NOTES:
1. NO FENCE, WALL, HEDGE, SIGN
OR OTHER STRUCTURE, SHRUBBERY,
MOUNDS OF EARTH, OR OTHER VISUAL
OBSTRUCTIONS OVER 30” IN HEIGHT
SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN A TRAFFIC
VISIBILITY AREA.
2. ALL PARKING LOTS ADJOINING
A RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL INCLUDE
SCREENING OF VEHICLES TO A
MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 36” TO PROVIDE
A VISUAL BUFFER BETWEEN PARKING
AREAS. SCREENING VEGETATION
SHALL CONSIST OF DENSE EVERGREEN
SPECIES THAT GROW QUICKLY TO
BUFFER VIEWS.
GATEWAY
SIGNAGE MONUMENT
AND TENANT SIGNAGE WALL
SHADE ARBOR
TC 350.5
TC 351.3
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
PLAN
TC 352
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
N
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
PA-1 BRANNIGAN STREET PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L1.6
PKWY PKWY
BRANNIGAN
ST.
BRANNIGAN
ST.DUBLIN BLVD6’-0”17’-0” MIN.6’-0”6’-0”
SIDE
WALK
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
SECTION
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
PA-1
BRANNIGAN
STREET
HOTEL
BUILDING 1000
FF 350.0
P 349.0
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
PLAN
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
N
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-1 DUBLIN BVLD PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L1.7
PKWYDUBLIN BVLD
EAST PORCH DRIVE
DUBLIN BVLD7’-0” MIN.6’-0”5’-0”6’-0”
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
AT
BUILDING
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
SECTION SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”PA-1
DUBLIN
BVLD
TC 351.3
BUILDING 2300
FF 352.0
P 351.0
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
PLAN
BUILDING 2100
FF 351.4
P 350.4
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
N
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-1 TASSAJARA RD PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L1.8
PKWYTASSAJARA RD
6’-0”7‘-0”12‘-0” MIN.
SIDE
WALK
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
SECTION SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
PA-1
TASSAJARA
RD
TC 352
TASSAJARA RD.
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-1
PA-1 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS DIAGRAM
L1.902550100150FEET
M1.
CONCRETE WITH
ENHANCED COLOR/FINISH
M2.
CONCRETE PER CITY
OF DUBLIN STANDARDS
PROJECT SIGNAGE WALL
BOARDFORM FINISH
(LOCATED OUTSIDE TRAFFIC
VISIBILITY AREAS OR UNDER
30” IN HEIGHT)
F2.
ADIRONDACK CHAIRS
F3.
CONCRETE SEATWALL/
RAISED PLANTER
(LOCATED OUTSIDE TRAFFIC
VISIBILITY AREAS OR
UNDER 30” IN HEIGHT)
F5.
PLANTER POTS
F6.
BIKE RACKS
LEGENDBRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA BLVD.DUBLIN BLVD.BLDG.
1100
BLDG.
1000
BLDG.
900
BLDG.
2300
BLDG.
2200
BLDG.
2100 BLDG.
1900
BLDG.
1800
BLDG.
1200
BLDG.
1300
BLDG.
1500
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.1SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
SITE PLAN
RETAIL ZONE 1: PA-1
BUILDING 900 3,084 SF
BUILDING 1000 75,000 SF
BUILDING 1100 47,000 SF
BUILDING 1200 56,000 SF
BUILDING 1300 50,000 SF
BUILDING 1500 11,436 SF
BUILDING 1800 4,000 SF
BUILDING 1900 2,700 SF
BUILDING 2100 10,482 SF
BUILDING 2200 10,294 SF
BUILDING 2300 11,431 SF
PA-1 TOTAL 281,427 SF
BUILDING 900 0 SF
BUILDING 1000 0 SF
BUILDING 1100 0 SF
BUILDING 1200 0 SF
BUILDING 1300 0 SF
BUILDING 1500 3,567 SF
BUILDING 1800 0 SF
BUILDING 1900 0 SF
BUILDING 2100 1,472 SF
BUILDING 2200 1,449 SF
BUILDING 2300 577 SF
PA-1 TOTAL 7,065 SF
TOTAL REQUIRED HOTEL
PARKING (FIXED)150 SP.
TOTAL REQUIRED RETAIL
PARKING (5.0/1,000SF)1,032 SP.
TOTAL REQUIRED
PARKING 1,182 SP.
TOTAL PROVIDED
PARKING 1,048 SP.
RETAIL ZONE 1 - SHARED PARKING
PA-1
RETAIL ZONE 1 - GROSS BUILDING AREA
PA-1
TENANT COVERED PATIO AREA
PA-1
N
HOTEL
OPEN
SPACE
DUBLIN BLVDBLDG
900
3,084 SF
BUILDING 1000
75,000 SF
TASSAJARA ROAD
BRANNIGAN STREET
E-W SPINETASSAJARA
GATEWAY -
SOUTH
BUILDING 1100
2-STORY 47,000 SF BUILDING 1200
2-STORY 56,000 SF
BUILDING 1300
1-STORY 50,000 SF
BUILDING 1500
11,436 SF
BLDG
1800
4,000 SFBLDG
1900
2,700 SF
BUILDING 2100
10,482 SF
BUILDING
2200
10,294 SF
BUILDING
2300
11,431 SF
COVERED
DROP OFF
ONE-WAY LOADING/EVA DRIVE ONE-WAY LOADING/EVA DRIVE
COMMUNITY
FACILITY
EXISTING
LOWE’S PARCEL
I-580 OFF RAMP0 25 50 100 200 FEET
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.4SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1 : BUILDING 900
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 900 SOUTH ELEVATION
BLDG 900 NORTH ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
23’ - 0”T.O. LOW ROOF
25’ - 5”T.O. HIGH ROOF15’ - 5”B.O. HIGH ROOF OVERHANG
12’ - 0”T.O. OVERHEAD FOLDING DOOR
25 - 5”T.O. HIGH ROOF
STOREFRONT WITH EXPOSED
STRUCTURE HEADER
FAUX GATE EXPRESSION
BUILDING SIGNAGE
CORRUGATED
METAL SIDING
LIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
WOOD STRUCTURE
BUILDING SIGNAGE
CORRUGATED METAL
SIDING
STOREFRONT WITH BIFOLD
OVERHEAD DOOR AND EXPOSED
STRUCTURE HEADER
WOOD
STRUCTURE
ELECTRICAL ROOM
RISER ROOM
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.5SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1 : BUILDING 900
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 900 WEST ELEVATION
BLDG 900 EAST ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
0’ - 0”SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
8’ - 8”T.O. WINDOWOPENING
25’ - 5”T.O. HIGH ROOF
25’ - 5”T.O. HIGH ROOF
9’ - 7”B.O. LOW ROOF OVERHANG
15’ - 5”B.O. HIGH ROOF OVERHANG
CORRUGATED METAL
ROOF
CORRUGATED METAL
ROOF
CORRUGATED METAL
SIDING
CORRUGATED METAL
SIDING
LIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
WOOD
STRUCTURE
WALL BASE-
BOARDFORM
CONCRETE
STOREFRONT WITH
EXPOSED STRUCTURE
HEADER
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.12SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1100
KEYPLAN
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 1100 SOUTH ELEVATION
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A
MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT
HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN
DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS
WHICH WE ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN
WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS
ARE YET TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO
CHANGE.
CORRUGATED
METAL SIDING
MEDIUM TONE
WOOD SIDING
MEDIUM TONE
WOOD SIDING
EXPOSED STEEL
FRAME AT ENTRY
PORTAL- DARK GREY
PLASTER -
WHITE-GREY
(COOL)
CMU WALL- SPLIT FACEMETAL SCREENMETAL AND GLASS
STOREFRONT
BLDG 1100 NORTH ELEVATION
PARAPET CAP -
LIGHT GREY
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
42’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
42’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
48’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
48’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
18’ - 0”
LEVEL 2
18’ - 0”
LEVEL 2
33’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
33’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
PLASTER -
WHITE-GREY
(COOL)
MEDIUM TONE
WOOD SIDING
CMU WALL- SPLIT FACE
TENANT EXIT DOOR
ELECTRICAL ROOM
RISER ROOM
METAL TENANT
LOADING DOORPARAPET CAP -
LIGHT GREY
14’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT
METAL SCREEN
METAL SCREEN
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.13SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1100
KEYPLAN
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A
MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT
HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN
DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS
WHICH WE ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN
WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS
ARE YET TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO
CHANGE.
BLDG 1100 WEST ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
48’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
18’ - 0”
LEVEL 2
BLDG 1100 EAST ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
48’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
18’ - 0”
LEVEL 2
33’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
CMU WALL- SPLIT FACE
CMU WALL- SPLIT FACE
METAL PARAPET
CAP - LIGHT GREY
METAL PARAPET
CAP - LIGHT GREY
PLASTER -
WHITE-GREY
(COOL)
PLASTER -
GREEN-GREY
METAL AND GLASS
STOREFRONT
PLASTER -
WHITE-GREY
(COOL)
PLASTER -
WHITE-GREY
(COOL)
PLASTER -
GREEN-GREY
CORRUGATED
METAL SIDING
CORRUGATED
METAL SIDING
42’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
42’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
14’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT
33’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.20SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1 : BUILDING 1200
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET NSEE BLDG 1300BLDG 1200 WEST ELEVATION
BLDG 1200 EAST ELEVATION
PLASTER -
WHITE-GREY
(COOL)
PLASTER -
GREEN-GREY
SIGNAGE PANELPLASTER WALL PANEL
BEHIND METAL SCREEN -
GREEN-GREY
CMU WALL -
SPLIT FACE
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
42’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
17’ - 0”
LEVEL 2
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
42’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
38’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
38’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
17’ - 0”
LEVEL 2
14’-0”T.O. STOREFRONT
METAL PARAPET CAP -
LIGHT GREY
PARAPET CAP - LIGHT GREY
CORRUGATED
METAL SIDING
EXPOSED STEEL
FRAME AT ENTRY
PORTAL
METAL AND GLASS
STOREFRONT
PLASTER-
GREEN-GREYPLASTER - BEIGE
CMU WALL -
SPLIT FACE
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (COOL)
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.21SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1 : BUILDING 1200
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 1200 NORTH ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
42’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
18’ - 0”
LEVEL 2
14’-0”T.O. STOREFRONT
CMU WALL -
SPLIT FACE
PLASTER WALL PANEL
BEHIND METAL SCREEN -
GREEN-GREY
TENANT EXIT DOOR
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (COOL)
CORRUGATED
METAL SIDING PARAPET CAP -
LIGHT GREY
38’ - 0”T.O. PARAPET
EXPOSED STEEL
FRAME AT ENTRY
PORTAL
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.30SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1 : BUILDING 1300
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 1300 SOUTH ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
METAL ROOFING -
STANDING SEAM
32’ - 5”T.O. ROOF
24 - 6”
T.O. PARAPET
CMU WALL- SPLIT FACE TENANT EXIT
DOOR
METALROOF
BRACKETS - PAINTED
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (WARM)
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
RISER ROOM
PLASTER-WHITE-GREY (VARIES)
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.31SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1 : BUILDING 1300
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET NSEE BLDG 1200A B
A B
BLDG 1300 WEST ELEVATION-A
BLDG 1300 WEST ELEVATION-B
SLOPING METAL OR
FABRIC AWNING
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
15’-0”T.O. STOREFRONT
41’-6”
T.O. ROOF
30 - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
15’-0”T.O. STOREFRONT
30 - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
35 - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
35 - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
35 - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
METAL AND GLASS
STOREFRONT
METAL SCREEN -
METAL W/ WOOD LOOK
EXPOSED STEEL FRAME
AT ENTRY PORTAL -
LIGHT GREY
CMU WALL - SPLIT FACEMETAL AND GLASS
STOREFRONT
STEEL ACCENT BANDS -
PAINTED
CORRUGATED
METAL SIDING
PARAPET CAP -
LIGHT GREY
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.32SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1 : BUILDING 1300
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
A B
SEE BLDG 1200A B
BLDG 1300 EAST ELEVATION-A
BLDG 1300 EAST ELEVATION-B
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
15’-0”T.O. STOREFRONT
30 - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
35 - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
15’-0”T.O. STOREFRONT
30 - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
35 - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
CMU WALL- SPLIT FACE
CMU WALL- SPLIT FACE
PARAPET CAP -
LIGHT GREY
PARAPET CAP -
LIGHT GREY
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (WARM)
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (WARM)
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.35SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1500
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 1500 WEST ELEVATION
BLDG 1500 EAST ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
26’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
26’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
14’ - 0”T.O. OVERHEAD FOLDING DOOR
12’ - 6”
T.O. STOREFRONT
27’ - 7”T.O. ROOF
33’ - 6”
T.O. PARAPET
27’ - 7”T.O. ROOF
14’ - 0”
T.O. STOREFRONT
12’ - 6”
T.O. STOREFRONT
WALL BASE - BOARDFORM
CONCRETE
PLASTER
LIGHT TONE
METAL ROOF - LIGHT GREY
METAL ROOF - LIGHT GREY
METAL ROOF - LIGHT
GREY
PLASTER
WHITE GREY- COOL
LL METAL
SLAT AWNING
METAL ROOF -
LIGHT GREY
RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING
ELECTRICAL ROOM
RISER ROOM
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.36SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 1500
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 1500 SOUTH ELEVATION
BLDG 1500 NORTH ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
12’ - 0”
T.O. STOREFRONT
27’ - 7”T.O. ROOF
14’ - 0”T.O. OVERHEAD FOLDING DOOR
27’ - 7”T.O. ROOF
33’ - 6”T.O. PARAPET
33’ - 6”T.O. PARAPET
RECLAIMED
WOOD SIDING
RECLAIMED WOOD
SIDING
METAL ROOF - LIGHT GREY
PLASTER- WHITE
GREY COOL
PLASTER
LIGHT TONE
WALL SUPERGRAPHIC
OPPORTUNITY
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.39SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 2100
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 2100 EAST ELEVATION
BLDG 2100 WEST ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
25’ - 7”
T.O. PARAPET
25’ - 7”
T.O. PARAPET
34’ - 0”
T.O. ROOF
23’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
23’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT GLAZING
17’ - 0”
T.O. NICHE
34’ - 0”
T.O. ROOF
LL METAL SLAT
AWNING
LIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
PLASTER -
BEIGE
PLASTER - BEIGE
WALL NICHE -
PLASTER
METAL PARAPET
CAP - MEDIUM
BROWN
METAL PARAPET CAP -
MEDIUM BROWN
DECORATIVE
METAL PANEL
PLASTER -
MEDIUM BROWN
LL METAL
CANOPY
TENANT
EXIT DOOR
TENANT
EXIT DOOR
LIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
SMOOTH WOOD
PLANK SIDING
SMOOTH WOOD
PLANK SIDING
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.40SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 2100
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 2100 NORTH ELEVATION
BLDG 2100 SOUTH ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
34’ - 0”
T.O. ROOF
25’ - 7”
T.O. PARAPET
23’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
17’ - 7”T.O. STOREFRONT EXPRESSION
12’ - 0”
T.O. STOREFRONT GLAZING
17’ - 7”T.O. STOREFRONT EXPRESSION
LL METAL SLAT
AWNING
METAL ROOF -
MEDIUM BROWN
SMOOTH WOOD
PLANK SIDING
LIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
PLASTER -
BEIGE
METAL PARAPET CAP -
MEDIUM BROWN
METAL ROOF -
MEDIUM BROWN
WALL NICHE-
ACCENT COLOR
ELECTRICAL ROOM
RISER ROOM
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.43SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 2200
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 2200 SOUTH ELEVATION
BLDG 2200 NORTH ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
25’ - 7”
T.O. PARAPET
25’ - 7”
T.O. PARAPET
23’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
23’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT GLAZING
14’ - 0”
T.O. NICHE
32’ - 6”
T.O. ROOF
32’ - 6”
T.O. ROOF
METAL PARAPET CAP -
MEDIUM BROWN
CORRUGATED
METAL SIDING
PLASTER -
WHITE-GREY
(COOL)
WOOD AND ALUMINUM
PLANTER TRELLIS
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (WARM)
CORRUGATED
METAL SIDING
PLASTER - MEDIUM
BROWN
PLASTER -
WHITE-GREY
(COOL)
WALL NICHE -
GREEN-GREY
LL METAL
SLAT AWNING
METAL ROOF -
MEDIUM BROWN
LIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
METAL PARAPET CAP -
MEDIUM BROWN
LL METAL CANOPY
CORRUGATED
METAL AWNING
TENANT
EXIT DOOR
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.44SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 2200
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 2200 EAST ELEVATION
BLDG 2200 WEST ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
32’ - 6”
T.O. ROOF
25’ - 7”
T.O. PARAPET
23’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
12’ - 0”
T.O. STOREFRONT GLAZING
17’ - 7”T.O. STOREFRONT EXPRESSION
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT GLAZING
PLASTER -
MEDIUM BROWN
WALL NICHE -
WHITE-GREY
(COOL)
METAL ROOF -
MEDIUM BROWN
METAL ROOF -
MEDIUM BROWN
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (WARM)LIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
CORRUGATED
METAL AWNING
METAL PARAPET
CAP - DARK BROWN
LL METAL CANOPY
ELECTRICAL ROOM
RISER ROOM
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.47SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 2300
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 2300 SOUTH ELEVATION
BLDG 2300 NORTH ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
25’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
28’ - 6”
T.O. PARAPET
25’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
28’ - 6”
T.O. PARAPET
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
15’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
15’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
METAL PARAPET
CAP - DARK GREY
METAL PARAPET
CAP - DARK GREY
WOOD SIDING
LIGHT TONE
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (COOL)
TENANT
EXIT DOOR
TENANT
EXIT DOORWALL BASE - BOARDFORM
CONCRETE
WALL BASE - BOARDFORM
CONCRETE
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (COOL)
TENANT
EXIT DOOR
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (COOL)
WOOD SIDING
LIGHT TONE
BOARDFORM CONCRETE
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.48SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 1: BUILDING 2300
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY
BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING
AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND
WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL
LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY
OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE ARE
ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT
DESIGN WITH CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN
CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET TO BE
DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND
FINAL SELECTION AND LICENSING OF IMAGERY
IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH
INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE
AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE.
FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL CONFORM WITH
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET N
BLDG 2300 EAST ELEVATION
BLDG 2300 WEST ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
25’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
25’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
15’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
28’ - 6”
T.O. PARAPET
28’ - 6”
T.O. PARAPET
12’ - 0”
T.O. OPENING
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (COOL)
METAL PARAPET
CAP - DARK GREY
ELECTRICAL ROOM PLASTER
WHITE-GREY (COOL)RISER ROOM
METAL ROOF -
DARK GREY
lWOOD SIDING
LIGHT TONE
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.49SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
RETAIL TYPES 1 +2
TYPICAL SITE TRASH ENCLOSURE PLANS AND ELEVATION
N
FLOOR + ROOF PLAN SHEET NOTES:
1. LEASE LINES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
2. TENANT ENTRIES AND EXITS ARE ASSUMED BASED ON CURRENT LEASE LINES
AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
3. SEE LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL SECTIONS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON
PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACE.
4. SOLAR READY ROOF ZONE LOCATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL
LOCATION AND AREAS WILL CONFORM WITH TITLE 24.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
9’ - 5”
T.O. WALL
9’ - 5”
T.O. WALL
10’ - 5”
B.O. STRUCTURE
10’ - 5”
B.O. STRUCTURE
CORRUGATED METAL
ROOFING PLASTER
PEDESTRIAN ENTRY
DOOR
DOUBLE GATE WITH
CANE BOLT
BOLLARDS AS
REQUIRED
TALL
PLANTING
WALL
LIGHTING
TALL
PLANTING
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.50SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
RETAIL TYPES 1 + 2
LANDLORD MATERIALS PALETTE
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: WHITE-GREY
(WARM)
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: EXTRA LIGHT
BEIGE
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: WHITE- GREY
(COOL)
PAINT COLORS - NEUTRALS
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: GREEN-GREY
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: BEIGE
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: DARK BROWN
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: MEDIUM BROWN
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: DARK GREY
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: GREY- BROWN
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: EXTRA DARK
BROWN
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: EXTRA DARK
GREY
STOREFRONTS/GLAZING
LOCATION:
STOREFRONTS +
PUNCHED OPENINGS
STYLE: ALUMINUM
FRAME, SOLARBAN 70XL
GLASS
LOCATION:
STOREFRONTS
STYLE: ALUMINUM
FRAME, SILK SCREEN
GLASS
METAL TRIM + LOUVERS
LOCATION: WALLS,
AWNINGS, PERGOLAS,
ACCENT LOCATIONS
STYLE: EXPOSED AES/
AESS FINISH
COLOR: BLACK STEEL,
GALVANIZED, OR
PAINTED
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
FINISH: SMOOTH/
SANDPEBBLE
COLOR: MATCH PAINT
COLOR
EIFS OR PLASTER
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: LARGE PANEL
FINISH
COLOR: GREY-CREAM-
BROWN-BLACK
WALL
PANEL
LOCATION: WALLS
STYLE: BOARDFORM
CONCRETE FINISH
COLOR: GREY, DARK
GREY, TAN
MASONRY OR SIMULATED MASONRY
LOCATION: WALLS
STYLE: CAST-IN-PLACE
CONCRETE FINISH
COLOR: GREY, DARK
GREY, TAN
LOCATION: WALLS
STYLE: SMOOTH CEMENT
FINISH TILE
COLOR: GREY, TAN,
BROWN, BLACK
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: SMOOTH PLANK
FINISH COLOR: MATCH
PAINT COLOR
LOCATION: WALLS,
AWNINGS, PERGOLAS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: LUMBER/TIMBER/
SIDING
COLOR: NATURAL FINISH
WOOD OR SIMULATED WOOD
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: NATURAL WOOD
FINISH - TILE/PLANK
COLOR: LIGHT/MEDIUM
TONE
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: RECLAIMED
WOOD FINISH TILE/
PLANK
COLOR: GREY/DARK
TONE
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: NATURAL WOOD
FINISH - TILE/PLANK
COLOR: MEDIUM/DARK
TONE
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: RUSTY METAL
PANEL FINISH
COLOR: CORTEN, BLACK
STEEL, GALVANIZED
FINISHES
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: CORRUGATED
METAL PANEL
COLOR: CORTEN,
GALVANIZED, PAINTED
LOCATION: WALLS,
SLOPED ROOFS
STYLE: STANDING SEAM
COLOR: DARK
GREY, BROWN, OR
COMPLIMENTARY
LOCATION: TRIM,
GUTTERS, WALLS
STYLE: SHEET METAL,
SHAPES
COLOR:
COMPLIMENTARY
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: ALUMINUM PANEL
FINISH
COLOR: MATCH PAINT
COLOR
METAL OR SIMULATED METAL
LOCATION: WALLS,
STYLE: SPLIT OR GROUND
FACE FINISH
COLOR: GREY-CREAM-
TAN
CMU
WALL
LOCATION: ACCENT
LOCATIONS
STYLE: HORIZONTAL
LOUVER, METAL FINISH
COLOR: GREY, BROWN,
OR COMPLIMENTARY
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.51SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
RETAIL TYPES 1 +2
LANDLORD BUILDING LIGHTING
LANDLORD BUILDING LIGHTING SHEET NOTES:
1. THE IMAGERY ON THIS PAGE ILLUSTRATES THE TYPES OF LANDLORD
BUILDING LIGHTING OR LIGHTING EFFECTS THAT MAY BE USED
THROUGHOUT THE COMMERCIAL SITE.
2. SEE ELEVATIONS FOR EXAMPLE LOCATIONS AND LAYOUTS OF
LANDLORD BUILDING LIGHTING.
5.1.h
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 2 Planning Area 1 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET C2.1.1
PA-2A SITE DEVELOPMENT AND SIGHT DISTANCE PLAN
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
SHEET C2.1.2
PA-2A LAND USE SUMMARY
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
SHEET
PROJECT NO. 171026E
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
SHEET C2.1.4
PA-2A PARKING PLAN
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018PA-2A ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN
L2.1.1
TASSAJARA ROAD DUBLINBLVD.PA-2A
DUBLIN ENTRY
THE ‘PORCH’
THE ‘LANE’
SCREENING SHRUBS AT
BACK OF WALK WITH
MINIMUM 36” HEIGHT
DUBLIN GATEWAY
WITH OLIVE TREES AND
ACCENT PLANTING
BIORETENTION AREA
ALONG PARKING LOT
THE ‘SIDE YARD’
BIORETENTION AREA
ALONG TASSAJARA ROAD
PARKWAY
SCREENING SHRUBS
AT BACK OF WALK
BLDG.
200
BLDG.
100
BLDG.
400
BLDG.
300
BLDG.
500
EAST PORCH DRIVE
WEST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EAST0 20 40 80 120 FEET
BLDG.
700
BLDG.
800 SIDE YARD WEST5.1.i
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018PA-2A TREE PLANTING DIAGRAM
L2.1.2
TASSAJARA ROAD
PA-2A
LEGEND
PLATANUS X ACERFOLIA
LONDON PLANE
PISTACHIA CHINENSIS
CHINESE PISTACHE
PYRUS CALLERYANA
CALLERY PEAR
ACER RUBRUM
ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE
ALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA
WHITE ALDER
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA
SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA
COASTAL LIVE OAK
OLEA EUROPAEA
OLIVE
PRUNUS
CHERRY
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA
CRAPE MYRTLE
CITRUS LIMON
CITRUS
0 20 40 80 120 FEET
BLDG.
200
BLDG.
100
BLDG.
400
BLDG.
300
BLDG.
500
EAST PORCH DRIVE
WEST PORCH DRIVE
BLDG.
700 SIDE YARD WESTSIDE YARD EASTDUBLINBLVD.BLDG.
800
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
0 10 20 40 60 FEET N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018PA-2A DUBLIN ENTRY LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L2.1.3
PUBLIC SIDEWALK
PER CITY OF DUBLIN
STANDARDS
ACCENT PLANTING
AT CORNERS
TRASH ENCLOSURE
SCREENED FROM VIEW WITH
FAST GROWING, DENSE
EVERGREEN SHRUBS AND/
OR VINES
PROJECT ARRIVAL
SIGNAGE WITH BOARDFORM
FINISH (BOTH SIDES OF
ENTRY DRIVE)
PA-2A
PUBLIC SIDEWALK
CROSSING PER CITY OF
DUBLIN STANDARDS
DUBLIN
ENTRANCE
DUBLIN BLVD.EAST PORCH DRIVE
CRAPE MYRTLE STREET TREES
ALONG RETAIL FRONTAGE
OUTDOOR RETAIL FURNITURE
BY TENANTS SHOWN FOR
REFERENCE ONLY
ENHANCED PAVING
AT RETAIL PLAZA
RED MAPLE WINDROW
(COLUMNAR FORM) GATEWAY
MAGNOLIA STREET TREES AT
RETAIL CORNERS
NOTE: NO FENCE, WALL, HEDGE, SIGN
OR OTHER STRUCTURE, SHRUBBERY,
MOUNDS OF EARTH, OR OTHER VISUAL
OBSTRUCTIONS OVER 30” IN HEIGHT
SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN A TRAFFIC
VISIBILITY AREA.
BLDG.
400
FF 353.3
P 352.3
TC 353.1
TC 352.4
TC 353.1
TC 353.7
TC 352.7
TC 353.2
TC 352.7
TC 354.0
FS 353.9
TC 353.7
TC 353.2
BUS STOP
TC 353.2
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018PA-2A THE ‘PORCH’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L2.1.4
RAISED CONCRETE PLANTERS
WITH BUILT IN SEATING AND
BOARDFORM FINISH
WATER FEATURE WITH
CONCRETE BOARDFORM
EXTERIOR FINISH
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
PAVING UNDER OAK TREES
FIRE PIT WITH CONCRETE
BOARDFORM EXTERIOR
FINISH
SPECIMEN OAK TREE
IN RAISED CONCRETE
PLANTER/SEATWALL
ADIRONDACK CHAIR
INFORMAL LOUNGE AREA
CATENARY LIGHTING
ALONG THEATER PASEO
CUSTOM WOOD/STEEL
ARBOR
PRECAST CONCRETE PLANTERS
WITH ORNAMENTAL CITRUS/
PERENNIALS
BIKE PARKING AREA
PA-2A
THE ‘PORCH’
ENHANCED PAVING
AT RETAIL PLAZAS
CRAPE MYRTLE STREET TREES
ALONG RETAIL FRONTAGE
MAGNOLIA STREET TREES
AT RETAIL CORNERS
OUTDOOR RETAIL FURNITURE
BY TENANTS SHOWN FOR
REFERENCE ONLY
0 6 12 24 36 FEET
WEST PORCH DRIVE
BIORETENTION AREA
WITH NATIVE PLANTING,
TYP.
BLDG.
200
FF 354.0
P 353.0
TC 353.6
TC 353.8
TC 353.7
TC 353.2
TC 353.3
TC 353.0
FS 353.6
TC 353.7TC 353.8
TC 353.7TC 353.9
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018PA-2A THE ‘LANE’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L2.1.5
TRASH ENCLOSURE AND
PARKING AREA SCREENED
FROM VIEW WITH FAST
GROWING, DENSE
EVERGREEN SHRUBS AND/
OR VINES
ENHANCED PAVING
AT RETAIL PROMENADE
BIKE PARKING
AREA
CITRUS TREES IN PRECAST
CONCRETE PLANTERS
OLIVE TREES AT PARKING
LOTS
PA-2A
THE ‘LANE’
OLIVE TREES AND ACCENT
PLANTING AT ENTRY DRIVE
BIORETENTION PARKWAY
STRIP WITH STREET TREES
SIDEWALK PER CITY OF
DUBLIN STANDARDS
PROJECT ARRIVAL SIGNAGE
WITH BOARDFORM FINISH
CONCRETE SEATWALLS WITH
BOARDFORM FINISH
OUTDOOR RETAIL FURNITURE
BY TENANTS SHOWN FOR
REFERENCE ONLY
CRAPE MYRTLE TREES ALONG
RETAIL STREETS
SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA
TREES AT RETAIL
CORNERS
THE ‘LANE’TASSAJARA BLVD.
0 8 16 32 48 FEET
NOTES:
1. NO FENCE, WALL, HEDGE, SIGN
OR OTHER STRUCTURE, SHRUBBERY,
MOUNDS OF EARTH, OR OTHER VISUAL
OBSTRUCTIONS OVER 30” IN HEIGHT
SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN A TRAFFIC
VISIBILITY AREA.
2. ALL PARKING LOTS ADJOINING
A RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL INCLUDE
SCREENING OF VEHICLES TO A
MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 36” TO PROVIDE
A VISUAL BUFFER BETWEEN PARKING
AREAS. SCREENING VEGETATION SHALL
CONSIST OF DENSE EVERGREEN SPECIES
THAT GROW QUICKLY TO BUFFER VIEWS.
BLDG.
500
FF 355.5
P 354.5
BLDG.
800
FF 354.9
P 353.9
BLDG.
700
FF 354.9
P 353.9
TC 354.9
2.9%
TC 354.9
TC 354.2
TC 354.6
TC 354.6
TC 355.3TC 355.0 TC 354.7 TC 354.6
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PERFORMANCE STAGE WITH
CONCRETE SEATWALLS AND
ENHANCED PAVING
PRUNUS ALLEE
(TREES APPROX. 22’ O.C.)
ORNAMENTAL
GROUNDCOVER AND GRASSES
AT TOWNHOME ENTRIES
ORNAMENTAL CITRUS
TREES AT TOWNHOME
ENTRANCES
SHRUB BUFFER AT ENDS
OF TOWNHOMES
LONDON PLANE
STREET TREES
8’ WIDE
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY
WITH ENHANCED PAVING
‘ARMSTRONG’ RED MAPLE
WINDROW (COLUMNAR
FORM)
BIKE PARKING
BIKE PARKING ON
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
PAVING
VEHICULAR DROP-OFF
(2 SPACES EACH LOCATION)
5’ WIDE
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
PA-2A
PA-2A ‘SIDE YARD’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L2.1.6
THE
‘SIDE YARD’
BLDG.
100
FF 354.5
P 353.5
0 8 16 32 48 FEET
BIORETENTION AREA,
TYP.
EVENTS LAWN
(90’X140’)
BLDG.
9
P 359.0
BLDG.
24
P 361.5
BLDG.
22
P 363.7
BLDG.
10
P 360.9
TC 354.1
TC 356.6
TC 355.1
FS 354.2
FS 354.1
FS 352.7
FS 357.3
FS 360.0
FS 361.6
FS 361.6
FS 363.1
FS 358.6
FS 357.5
FS 353.9
FS 355.5
FS 356.5
3.5%
3.1%
4.5%
2.8%1.7%0.5%0.9%5.1.i
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
PLAN
TC 352.1
BUILDING 400
FF 352.0
P 351.0
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
N
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-2A DUBLIN BVLD PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L2.1.7
DUBLIN BLVD
16’-0”12’-0”
10’-0”
SIDEWALKLANDSCAPE
BUFFER
SECTION
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”PA-2A
DUBLIN
BLVDDUBLIN BLVDEAST PORCH DRIVE
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
PLAN
TC 352
BUILDING 500
FF 352.0
P 351.0
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
DIMENSIONS.
N
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-2A TASSAJARA RD PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L2.1.8
PKWYTASSAJARA RD
6’-0”5’-11’5’-0”15’-0”7’-0”5’-0”
SIDE
WALK
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
OUTDOOR
PATIO
WALK
PA-2A
TASSAJARA
RD
SECTION
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
TASSAJARA RDTHE LANE5.1.i
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
NSHEETSEPTEMBER 11, 2018PA-2A DUBLIN GATEWAY LANDSCAPE PERSPECTIVE & ENLARGEMENTL2.1.9NON-FRUITING OLIVE TREESRAISED MOUNDS WITHBOARDFORM CONCRETESEATWALL AND ACCENTPLANTINGBIORETENTION AREAWITH NATIVE PLANTING, TYP.SCREENING SHRUBS ALONGPARKING LOT PERIMETER WITH A MINIMUMHEIGHT OF 36”GATEWAYSIGNAGE MONUMENT AND TENANT SIGNAGE WALLACCENT PLANTINGAT CORNERS, TYP.PUBLIC SIDEWALK PER CITY OF DUBLIN STANDARDSDUBLINGATEWAYRAISED MOUNDS WITHBOARD-FORMED CONCRETESEATWALLSHADE ARBORNOTES: 1. NO FENCE, WALL, HEDGE, SIGN OR OTHER STRUCTURE, SHRUBBERY, MOUNDS OF EARTH, OR OTHER VISUAL OBSTRUCTIONS OVER 30” IN HEIGHT SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN A TRAFFIC VISIBILITY AREA.2. ALL PARKING LOTS ADJOINING A RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL INCLUDE SCREENING OF VEHICLES TO A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 36” TO PROVIDE A VISUAL BUFFER BETWEEN PARKING AREAS. SCREENING VEGETATION SHALL CONSIST OF DENSE EVERGREEN SPECIES THAT GROW QUICKLY TO BUFFER VIEWS.GATEWAYSIGNAGE MONUMENTAND TENANT SIGNAGE WALLSHADE ARBOR, TYP.PA-2A5.1.iPacket Pg. 186Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
NSHEETSEPTEMBER 11, 2018PA-2A LANDSCAPE MATERIALS DIAGRAMTASSAJARA ROADPA-2A0 20 40 80 120 FEETBLDG. 200BLDG. 100BLDG.400 BLDG.300 BLDG.500 BLDG.700 EAST PORCH DRIVEWEST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD WESTDUBLINBLVD.BLDG.800 M1.CONCRETE WITHENHANCED COLOR/FINISHM2.CONCRETE PER CITYOF DUBLIN STANDARDSM3.DECOMPOSED GRANITEPAVINGPROJECT SIGNAGE WALLBOARDFORM FINISH(LOCATED OUTSIDE TRAFFICVISIBILITY AREAS OR UNDER30” IN HEIGHT)F2.ADIRONDACK CHAIRSF3.CONCRETE SEATWALL/RAISED PLANTER(LOCATED OUTSIDE TRAFFICVISIBILITY AREAS ORUNDER 30” IN HEIGHT)F3. BENCHES AT PARKS AND OPEN SPACESF5.PLANTER POTSF6.BIKE RACKSLEGENDL2.1.105.1.iPacket Pg. 187Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.1SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
SITE PLAN
RETAIL ZONE 2: PA-2A
BUILDING 100 40,500 SF BUILDING 100 45,500 SF
BUILDING 200 6,846 SF BUILDING 200 6,846 SF
BUILDING 400 4,108 SF BUILDING 400 4,108 SF
BUILDING 500 12,218 SF BUILDING 500 12,218 SF
BUILDING 700 4,235 SF BUILDING 700 5,502 SF
BUILDING 800 5,502 SF PA-2A BLDG TOTAL 74,174 SF
PA-2A TOTAL 73,409 SF
BUILDING 300 6,476 SF
BUILDING 300 6,486 SF
MIXED USE BUILDING
TOTAL 80,650 SF
RETAIL PA-2B TOTAL 79,895 SF
BUILDING 100 0 SF
BUILDING 200 1,052 SF
BUILDING 400 2,049 SF
BUILDING 500 1,805 SF
BUILDING 700 1,740 SF
BUILDING 800 0 SF
RETAIL ZONE 2 TOTAL 6,646 SF
REQUIRED PARKING
(7.0/1,000SF)514 SP.
PROVIDED PARKING 474 SP.
REQUIRED PARKING
(7.0/1,000SF)45 SP.
PROVIDED PARKING 103 SP.
RETAIL ZONE 2 TOTAL
REQUIRED 559 SP.
RETAIL ZONE 2 TOTAL
PROVIDED 577 SP.
PA-2B
PA-2B
PA-2A
RETAIL ZONE 2 - GROSS BUILDING AREA
RETAIL ZONE 2 - TENANT PATIO AREA
PA-2A
RETAIL ZONE 2 - SHARED PARKING
PA-2A
PA-2B - BUILDING AREA
MIXED USE - LUP FAR CALCULATION
PA-2A - BUILDING AREA
N
BUILDING 100 (THEATER)
40,500 SF
THE LANEEAST PORCH DRIVE
WEST PORCH DRIVE
DUBLIN BLVDTASSAJARA GATEWAY
- NORTH
TASSAJARA ROAD
PA-2B
PA-2A
THE SIDEYARD
THE PORCH
DROP OFF
DROP OFF
DROP OFF
LOADIN
G
PROPERTY LINE
BUILDING 200
6,846 SF
BUILDING 400
4,108 SF
BUILDING 500
12,218 SF
BUILDING 700
4,235 SF
BUILDING 800
5,502 SF
RETAIL 300
6,486 SF
SEE PA-2B
0 15 30 60 120 FEET
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.4SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 100
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM
OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE
ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN WILL CONFORM
WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET
TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL
CONFORM WITH MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
N0481632FEET
BLDG 100 WEST ELEVATION-A
BLDG 100 WEST ELEVATION-B
A B
A B
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
14’ - 0”
TOP OF STOREFRONT
14’ - 0”
TOP OF STOREFRONT
14’ - 0”
TOP OF STOREFRONT
18’ - 0”
TOP OF CMU
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
14’ - 0”
TOP OF STOREFRONT
18’ - 0”
TOP OF CMU
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
40’’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
14’ - 0”
TOP OF STOREFRONT
18’ - 0”
TOP OF CMU
METAL COPING - LIGHT GREY
LIGHT TONE WOOD SIDING
TENANT SIGNANGE
VERTICAL METAL FINS
CMU WALL-SPLIT FACE
FINISH DISPLAY WINDOW UNIT
PERFORATED METAL SCREEN
ON METAL FIN SUPPORTS
TENANT SIGNAGE ON ENTRY
CANOPY 40’’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
GREEN WALL
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.5SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 100
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM
OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE
ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN WILL CONFORM
WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET
TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL
CONFORM WITH MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
N0481632FEET
BLDG 100 EAST ELEVATION-A
BLDG 100 EAST ELEVATION-B
A B
A B
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
38’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
14’ - 0”
TOP OF STOREFRONT
18’ - 0”
TOP OF CMU
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
38’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
18’ - 0”
TOP OF CMU
METAL COPING-DARK
LIGHT TONE WOOD SIDING
CMU WALL-SPLIT FACE
FINISH DISPLAY WINDOW UNIT
PERFORATED METAL SCREEN
ON METAL FIN SUPPORTS
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.6SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 100
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM
OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE
ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN WILL CONFORM
WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET
TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL
CONFORM WITH MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
N0481632FEET
BLDG 100 NORTH ELEVATION
BLDG 100 SOUTH ELEVATION
0’ - 0”SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
38’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
18’ - 0”
TOP OF CMU
0’ - 0”SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
38’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
18’ - 0”
TOP OF CMU14’ - 0”
TOP OF STOREFRONT
GREEN WALLOUTDOOR MOVIE SCREEN
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.9SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 200
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM
OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE
ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN WILL CONFORM
WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET
TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL
CONFORM WITH MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
N0481632FEET
BLDG 200 WEST ELEVATION
BLDG 200 EAST ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
33’ - 0”
T.O. ROOF
16’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
CORRUGATED METAL
SIDING
SUSPENDED RLM
LIGHTNING
EXPOSED AESS
TRUSS
0’ - 0”SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
33’ - 0”
T.O. ROOF
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
CORRUGATED METAL
SIDING
TRASH ENCLOSURE
16’-0” GATE
STUCCO -
WHITE GREY
(COOL)
GLASS AND METAL
CANOPY
EXPOSED AESS
TRUSS TRASH ENCLOSURE
PEDESTRIAN DOOR
LL BUILDING SIGNAGE
TENANT EXIT/
SERVICE DOOR
WALL SCONCE, TYP.
24’ - 10”
B.O. EAVE
24’ - 10”
B.O. EAVE
TENANT STOREFRONT
LL FAUX GATE
EXPRESSION
LIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.10SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 200
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM
OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE
ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN WILL CONFORM
WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET
TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL
CONFORM WITH MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
N0481632FEET
BLDG 200 SOUTH ELEVATION
BLDG 200 NORTH ELEVATION
CORRUGATED METAL
ROOFING
GLASS LOUVERSCORRUGATED
METAL PANEL
SUSPENDED RLM
LIGHTING
BRAKE METAL, OR
STUCCO
PROJECT SIGNAGE AND
WALL SUPERGRAPHIC
FIXED STOREFRONT
WITH FRITTED GLASS
PANEL
EXPOSED AESS
TRUSS
GLASS AND METAL
CANOPY
GLASS LOUVERS
CORRUGATED METAL
ROOFING
STUCCO -
WHITE-GREY
(COOL)
FIXED STOREFRONT
WITH FRITTED GLASS
PANEL EXPOSED AESS
TRUSS
TENANT EXIT DOOR
RISER ROOM
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
TENANT EXIT
DOOR
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
33’ - 0”
T.O. ROOF
14’ - 9”B.O. OPENING
24’ - 10”
B.O. EAVE
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
33’ - 0”
T.O. ROOF
14’ - 0”T.O. GLAZING
24’ - 10”
B.O. EAVE
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.13SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 400
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM
OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE
ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN WILL CONFORM
WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET
TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL
CONFORM WITH MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
N0481632FEET
BLDG 400 NORTH ELEVATION
BLDG 400 SOUTH ELEVATION
FLAT SEAMED RUSTY
METAL PANEL
FLAT SEAMED RUSTY
METAL PANEL
PLASTER - MEDIUM
BROWN
FREESTANDING TRELLIS -
AES AND CABLE
CORRUGATED METAL
SIDING
CORRUGATED METAL
ROOFING
RISER ROOM
PLASTER - DARK BROWN
LL METAL CANOPY
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
26’ - 1”
T.O. PARAPET
29’ -6”
T.O. PARAPET
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
23’ - 0”
T.O. RIDGE
TENANT EXIT DOOR
CORRUGATED METAL
ROOFING
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
LL METAL SLAT
CANOPY
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.14SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 400
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM
OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE
ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN WILL CONFORM
WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET
TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL
CONFORM WITH MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
N0481632FEET
BLDG 400 EAST ELEVATION
BLDG 400 WEST ELEVATION
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
26’ - 2”
T.O. PARAPET
FREESTANDING TRELLIS -
AES AND CABLE
LL METAL SLAT
CANOPY
CORRUGATED METAL
ROOFING
FLAT SEAMED RUSTY
METAL PANEL
FREESTANDING TRELLIS -
AES AND CABLE 29’ -6”
T.O. PARAPET
CORRUGATED METAL
SIDING
STUCCO - MEDIUM BROWN
STUCCO - MEDIUM
BROWN
WALL SCONCE, TYP.
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
23’ - 0”
T.O. RIDGE
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.19SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 500
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM
OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE
ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN WILL CONFORM
WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET
TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL
CONFORM WITH MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
N0481632FEET
BLDG 500 SOUTH ELEVATION
BLDG 500 SOUTH ELEVATION
STUCCO - WHITE-GREY
(COOL)
LIGHT TONE WOOD
SIDING
SMOOTH WOOD
PLANK SIDING
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
25’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
23’ - 6”
T.O. ROOF
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
27’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
A B
A B
CORRUGATED METAL SIDING
LL METAL SLAT AWNING
LL METAL SLAT AWNING
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOFING
WALL BASE -
BOARDFORM
CONCRETE
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.20SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 500
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM
OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE
ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN WILL CONFORM
WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET
TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL
CONFORM WITH MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
N0481632FEET
BLDG 500 NORTH ELEVATION
BLDG 500 NORTH ELEVATION
FLAT METAL PANEL
CORRUGATED METAL
SIDING
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
23’ - 6”
T.O. PARAPET
25’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
PROJECT SIGNAGE
AND WAYFINDING
27’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (WARM)
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (WARM)
WOOD AND ALUMINUM
PLANTER TRELLIS
A B
A B WOOD AND ALUMINUM
PLANTER TRELLIS
LIGHT TONE WOOD
SIDING
WALL BASE -
BOARDFORM
CONCRETE
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
RISER
ROOM
TENANT EXIT
DOOR
TENANT EXIT
DOOR
TENANT
EXIT DOOR
TENANT
EXIT DOOR
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.21SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATIONS
RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 500
KEYPLAN
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A MINIMUM
OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS WHICH WE
ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN WILL CONFORM
WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS ARE YET
TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL LOCATION & SIZE WILL
CONFORM WITH MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
N0481632FEET
BLDG 500 WEST ELEVATION
BLDG 500 EAST ELEVATION
SMOOTH WOOD
PLANK SIDING
LIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
CORRUGATED METAL
SIDING
LL METAL SLAT
AWNINGRECESS
RECESS
CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING
WALL BASE -
BOARDFORM
CONCRETE
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
25’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
27’ - 0”
T.O. PARAPET
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.24SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 700
ELEVATIONS
KEYPLAN
N0481632FEET
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A
MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT
HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN
DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS
WHICH WE ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN
WILL CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS
ARE YET TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO
CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL LOCATION & SIZE
WILL CONFORM WITH MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
BLDG 700 WEST ELEVATION
BLDG 700 EAST ELEVATION
FLAT METAL
PANEL - MEDIUM
BROWN
LIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
FLAT METAL PANEL
- MEDIUM BROWN
METAL PARAPET
CAP
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
25’ -6”
T.O. PARAPET
27’ -1”
T.O. PARAPET
22’ - 8”T.O. PARAPET
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY (WARM)
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
SMOOTH WOOD
PLANK SIDING
RISER
ROOM
LL METAL SLAT
AWNING
PLASTER - WHITE-
GREY(WARM)
FAUX GATE EXPRESSION
METAL PARAPET CAP
METAL SLAT AWNINGLIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
SMOOTH WOOD
PLANK SIDINGLIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
BLDG 700 NORTH ELEVATION
BLDG 700 SOUTH ELEVATION
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.27SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018RETAIL ZONE 2: BUILDING 800
ELEVATIONS
KEYPLAN
N0481632FEET
ELEVATIONS SHEET NOTES:
1. STOREFRONT HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS WILL VARY BY TENANT WITH A
MINIMUM OF 12’ HIGH GLAZING AT EACH STOREFRONT. STOREFRONT
HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL LEASE PLAN
DEMISING LINES.
2. THESE ELEVATIONS DEPICT THE VARIETY OF COLORS AND MATERIALS
WHICH WE ARE ENCOURAGING FOR THE PROJECT. FINAL TENANT DESIGN
WILL CONFORM WITH TENANT DESIGN CRITERIA.
3. SPECIALTY GRAPHICS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND FINAL GRAPHICS
ARE YET TO BE DETERMINED.
4. ALL IMAGERY IS PLACEHOLDER AT THIS TIME AND FINAL SELECTION AND
LICENSING OF IMAGERY IS TO BE PROVIDED/PURCHASED BY CLIENT TEAM
PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION INTO FINAL GRAPHICS.
5. SEE MATERIALS PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL FINISH INFORMATION.
6. BUILDING LIGHTING IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO
CHANGE.
7. TENANT SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL LOCATION & SIZE
WILL CONFORM WITH MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
BLDG 800 WEST ELEVATION
BLDG 800 EAST ELEVATION
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
LIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING METAL PARAPET
CAP
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
25’ -6”
T.O. PARAPET
27’ -1”
T.O. PARAPET
22’ - 8”T.O. PARAPET
METAL PARAPET
CAP
12’ - 0”T.O. STOREFRONT OPENING
STANDING SEAM
METAL PANELLIGHT TONE WOOD
SIDING TENANT EXIT DOOR
WALL BASE - BOARDFORM
CONCRETE
WALL BASE - BOARDFORM
CONCRETE
WALL BASE - BOARDFORM
CONCRETE
RISER ROOM
ELECTRICAL ROOM
METAL PARAPET CAP METAL SLAT
AWNING
LIGHT TONE
WOOD SIDING
STANDING
SEAM METAL
PANEL
FAUX GATE
EXPRESSION
BLDG 800 NORTH ELEVATION
BLDG 800 SOUTH ELEVATION
METAL SLAT AWNING
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.28SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
RETAIL ZONES 1 + 2
TYPICAL SITE TRASH ENCLOSURE PLANS AND ELEVATION
N
FLOOR + ROOF PLAN SHEET NOTES:
1. LEASE LINES ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
2. TENANT ENTRIES AND EXITS ARE ASSUMED BASED ON CURRENT LEASE LINES
AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
3. SEE LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL SECTIONS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON
PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACE.
4. SOLAR READY ROOF ZONE LOCATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. FINAL
LOCATION AND AREAS WILL CONFORM WITH TITLE 24.
0 4 8 16 32 FEET
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
0’ - 0”
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
9’ - 5”
T.O. WALL
9’ - 5”
T.O. WALL
10’ - 5”
B.O. STRUCTURE
10’ - 5”
B.O. STRUCTURE
CORRUGATED METAL
ROOFING STUCCO
PEDESTRIAN ENTRY
DOOR
DOUBLE GATE WITH
CANE BOLT
BOLLARDS AS
REQUIRED
TALL
PLANTING
WALL
LIGHTING
TALL
PLANTING
SIDEFRONT
PLAN
SIDEBACK
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.29SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
RETAIL TYPES 1 +2
LANDLORD MATERIALS PALETTE
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: WHITE-GREY
(WARM)
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: EXTRA LIGHT
BEIGE
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: WHITE- GREY
(COOL)
PAINT COLORS - NEUTRALS
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: GREEN-GREY
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: BEIGE
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: LIGHT GREY
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: DARK BROWN
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: MEDIUM BROWN
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: DARK GREY
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: GREY- BROWN
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: EXTRA DARK
BROWN
LOCATION: WALLS
MANUFACTURER:
BENJAMIN MOORE
COLOR: EXTRA DARK
GREY
STOREFRONTS/GLAZING
LOCATION:
STOREFRONTS +
PUNCHED OPENINGS
STYLE: ALUMINUM
FRAME, SOLARBAN 70XL
GLASS
LOCATION:
STOREFRONTS
STYLE: ALUMINUM
FRAME, SILK SCREEN
GLASS
METAL TRIM + LOUVERS
LOCATION: WALLS,
AWNINGS, PERGOLAS,
ACCENT LOCATIONS
STYLE: EXPOSED AES/
AESS FINISH
COLOR: BLACK STEEL,
GALVANIZED, OR
PAINTED
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
FINISH: SMOOTH/
SANDPEBBLE
COLOR: MATCH PAINT
COLOR
EIFS OR PLASTER
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: LARGE PANEL
FINISH
COLOR: GREY-CREAM-
BROWN-BLACK
WALL
PANEL
LOCATION: WALLS
STYLE: BOARDFORM
CONCRETE FINISH
COLOR: GREY, DARK
GREY, TAN
MASONRY OR SIMULATED MASONRY
LOCATION: WALLS
STYLE: CAST-IN-PLACE
CONCRETE FINISH
COLOR: GREY, DARK
GREY, TAN
LOCATION: WALLS
STYLE: SMOOTH CEMENT
FINISH TILE
COLOR: GREY, TAN,
BROWN, BLACK
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: SMOOTH PLANK
FINISH COLOR: MATCH
PAINT COLOR
LOCATION: WALLS,
AWNINGS, PERGOLAS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: LUMBER/TIMBER/
SIDING
COLOR: NATURAL FINISH
WOOD OR SIMULATED WOOD
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: NATURAL WOOD
FINISH - TILE/PLANK
COLOR: LIGHT/MEDIUM
TONE
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: RECLAIMED
WOOD FINISH TILE/
PLANK
COLOR: GREY/DARK
TONE
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: NATURAL WOOD
FINISH - TILE/PLANK
COLOR: MEDIUM/DARK
TONE
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: RUSTY METAL
PANEL FINISH
COLOR: CORTEN, BLACK
STEEL, GALVANIZED
FINISHES
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: CORRUGATED
METAL PANEL
COLOR: CORTEN,
GALVANIZED, PAINTED
LOCATION: WALLS,
SLOPED ROOFS
STYLE: STANDING SEAM
COLOR: DARK
GREY, BROWN, OR
COMPLIMENTARY
LOCATION: TRIM,
GUTTERS, WALLS
STYLE: SHEET METAL,
SHAPES
COLOR:
COMPLIMENTARY
LOCATION: WALLS,
SOFFITS
STYLE: ALUMINUM PANEL
FINISH
COLOR: MATCH PAINT
COLOR
METAL OR SIMULATED METAL
LOCATION: WALLS,
STYLE: SPLIT OR GROUND
FACE FINISH
COLOR: GREY-CREAM-
TAN
CMU
WALL
LOCATION: ACCENT
LOCATIONS
STYLE: HORIZONTAL
LOUVER, METAL FINISH
COLOR: GREY, BROWN,
OR COMPLIMENTARY
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.1.30SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018LANDLORD BUILDING LIGHTING
RETAIL TYPES 1 +2
LANDLORD BUILDING LIGHTING SHEET NOTES:
1. THE IMAGERY ON THIS PAGE ILLUSTRATES THE TYPES OF LANDLORD BUILDING
LIGHTING OR LIGHTING EFFECTS THAT MAY BE USED THROUGHOUT THE
COMMERCIAL SITE.
2. SEE ELEVATIONS FOR EXAMPLE LOCATIONS AND LAYOUTS OF LANDLORD
BUILDING LIGHTING.
5.1.i
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: 9. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 3 Planning Area 2A (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET C2.2.1
PA-2B SITE DEVELOPMENT AND SIGHT DISTANCE PLAN
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
SHEET C2.2.2
PA-2B LAND USE SUMMARY
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET C2.2.3
PA-2B ADDRESS PLAN
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET C2.2.4
PA-2B PARKING PLAN
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY
AUGUST 7, 2018
N L2.2.1SHEET0 15 30 60 120 FEET
PA-2B ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
BRANNIGAN STREET
EAST PORCH DRIVESIDEYARD EASTDUBLIN BLVD.COURTYARD TWO COURTYARD THREE COURTYARD FOUR
COURTYARD ONE
LEASING
RETAIL
PA-2BNOTES:
1. FAST GROWING EVERGREEN SCREENING VEGETATION/ AND OR VINES SHOULD BE
UTILIZED FOR BUFFERING VIEWS OF EXPOSED WALL HEIGHTS AND FENCING.
2. ALL ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES, INCLUDING BACKFLOW DEVICES AND IRRIGATION
CONTROLLERS, TO BE SCREENED WITH FAST GROWING AND DENSE EVERGREEN
SPECIES.
3. NO FENCE, WALL, HEDGE, SIGN OR OTHER STRUCTURE, SHRUBBERY, MOUNDS
OF EARTH, OR OTHER VISUAL OBSTRUCTION OVER 30 INCHES IN HEIGHT SHALL BE
ALLOWED WITHIN A TRAFFIC VISIBILITY AREA.
FF 354.0
P 352.9
FF 354.0
P 352.9
FF 354.0
P 352.9
BFF 344.0
PAD 342.9
TC 350.3
TC 351.1
TC 354.4
TC 355.4
TC 352.6
354.0
TC 353.2
TC 351.7
TC 350.4
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N L2.2.2SHEET0 5 10 20 40 FEET
PA-2B COURTYARD ONE ENLARGEMENT
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY
AUGUST 7, 2018
FF 354.0
P 352.9
FF 354.0
P 352.9
PA-2B INDEX MAP
EXPANDED RESIDENT
PATIOS
GLASS FENCING AT POOL
PERIMETER
STONE VENEER WALL
CONCRETE
WALL
OUTDOOR KITCHEN
• BBQ COUNTER
• BAR SEATING
THE DECK
• CLUB ROOM EXTENSION
• ENHANCED PAVING
FEATURE TREE
THE LAWN
• ACCENT LIGHTING
• MOVABLE FURNITURE
LOW CONCRETE
WALL, TYP.
SEATING &
FIRE FEATURE
POOL DECK
• ENHANCED PAVING
OVERHEAD SHADE STRUCTURE
SWIMMING POOL
SPA
BIO-FILTRATION AREA PER CIVIL ENGINEER
ACCESS GATE
GLASS FENCE WITH LANDSCAPE SCREENING DUBLIN BLVDSEATING & FIRE FEATURE
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N L2.2.3SHEET0 5 10 20 40 FEET
PA-2B COURTYARD TWO ENLARGEMENT
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY
AUGUST 7, 2018
FF 354.0
P 352.9
TC 355.4
PA-2B INDEX MAP
COVERED DINING AREA
OUTDOOR KITCHEN
• BBQ COUNTER
ACCENT PAVING
• CONCRETE BANDS WITH DG
EXPANDED RESIDENT PATIOS
• WOOD DECKING
EXPANDED RESIDENT PATIO
• LOW CONCRETE WALL, TYP.
• SHRUB SCREENING, TYP.
TUBE STEEL FENCE WITH LANDSCAPE
SCREENING
ACCESS GATEMONUMENT WALL
SEATING & FIRE FEATURE
RAISED PLANTERS
SEATING AREA
• ACCENT LIGHTING
• DG PAVING
BRANNIGAN ST.
BIO-FILTRATION AREA PER
CIVIL ENGINEER
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N L2.2.4SHEET0 5 10 20 40 FEET
PA-2B COURTYARD THREE & FOUR ENLARGEMENTS
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY
AUGUST 7, 2018
FF 354.0
P 352.9
TC 354.4
PA-2B INDEX MAP
BIO-FILTRATION AREA PER
CIVIL ENGINEER
LOUNGE AREA
• WOOD DECKING
WATER FEATURE
EXPANDED RESIDENT PATIOS
• WOOD DECKING
OUTDOOR LIVING ROOM
• FIRE FEATURE
FEATURE TREE
• ACCENT LIGHTING
EXPANDED RESIDENT PATIOS
• WOOD DECKING
• LOW CONCRETE WALLS, TYP.
STEP PADS
ACCESS GATE
BRANNIGAN ST.
TUBE STEEL FENCE WITH
LANDSCAPE SCREENING
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
L2.2.5SHEET
PA-2B DUBLIN BLVD. PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
AUGUST 7, 2018
N DUBLIN BLVD.DUBLIN BLVD.SIDEWALK PKWY
PRIVATE
PATIO
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
(VARIES)
8’-0”9’-4” MIN.6’-0”
EX. 32’-0”
R.E. & PUE
15’-0” BLDG. SETBACK
SECTION
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
PLAN
2’-6” MIN.
3’-6” MAX.
FF 354.0
P 352.9
PA-2B INDEX MAP
EXPANDED RESIDENT PATIOS
• WOOD DECKING
• LOW CONCRETE WALLS, TYP.
BIO-FILTRATION AREA PER
CIVIL ENGINEER
SCREENING AT ALL ABOVE
GROUND UTILITIES
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
L2.2.6SHEET
PA-2B EAST PORCH DRIVE PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION AT RETAIL
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY
DIMENSIONS.
AUGUST 7, 2018
N DUBLIN BLVD.EAST PORCH DRIVE
EAST PORCH DRIVE
28’-0”MIN.
RETAIL PLAZA AT PA-2B (VARIES)
TREE
WELL
6’-0”
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER (NAP)
SECTION SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”PLAN
FF 354.0
P 352.9
TC 353.2
PA-2B INDEX MAP
LOW STONE VENEER WALL
RETAIL FRONTAGE
• DINING & LOUNGE SEATING
BIKE PARKING AREA
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
L2.2.7SHEET
PA-2B EAST PORCH DRIVE PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION AT RESIDENTIAL
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY
DIMENSIONS.
AUGUST 7, 2018
N
STREET PARKINGEAST PORCH DRIVE SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
(VARIES)
18’-0”
EAST PORCH DRIVE
PRIVATE
PATIO
6’-0”2’-0”4’-0” MIN.
10’-0” BLDG SETBACKSECTION
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
PLAN
2’-6” MIN.
3’-6” MAX.
FF 354.0
P 352.9
TC 352.6
TC 352.6
VEHICULAR
OVERHANG
PA-2B INDEX MAP
EXPANDED RESIDENT PATIOS
• WOOD DECKING
• LOW CONCRETE WALLS, TYP.
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
L2.2.8SHEET
PA-2B SIDEYARD EAST PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION AUGUST 7, 2018SIDEYARD EASTLANDSCAPE
BUFFER
(VARIES)
SIDEWALKPARKWAY PRIVATE
PATIO
SIDEYARD EAST
GARAGE
ENTRY
6’-0”6’-0”
15’-0” BLDG. SETBACK
N
SECTION
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
PLAN
FF 354.0
P 352.9
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY
DIMENSIONS.
PA-2B INDEX MAP
RESIDENT PATIOS
• WOOD DECKING
• GUARD RAILS BY
ARCHITECT, TYP.
BIO-FILTRATION AREA
PER CIVIL ENGINEER
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
(VARIES)
SIDEWALK PKWY BRANNIGAN
STREET
PRIVATE
PATIO
BLDG. SETBACK
(VARIES)
6’ 6’
BRANNIGAN STREET
N
SECTION SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
PLAN
BRANNIGAN STREET
2’-6” MIN.
3’-6” MAX.
FF 354.0
P 352.9
TC 351.1
EXPANDED RESIDENT PATIOS
• WOOD DECKING
• LOW CONCRETE WALLS, TYP.
L2.2.9SHEET
PA-2B BRANNIGAN STREET PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
BIO-FILTRATION AREA
PER CIVIL ENGINEER
16’-0”MIN. - 24’-0”
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED
STREET AND PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-2B INDEX MAP
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
AUGUST 7, 2018
N L2.2.10SHEET0 15 30 60 120 FEET
PA-2B MATERIALS DIAGRAM
PA-2B
EAST PORCH DRIVE
BRANNIGAN STREET
SIDEYARD EASTDUBLIN BLVD.COURTYARD ONE
LEASING
RETAIL
LEGEND
*
*
PAVING TYPE A,C,&D
ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN
PAVING PER SHEET L2.2.11
PAVING TYPE B
CAST-IN-PLACE PEDESTRIAN
CONCRETE PAVING PER
CITY OF DUBLIN STANDARDS
PAVING TYPE E
DECOMPOSED GRANITE PAVING
WITH STABILIZER
2’-6” MIN-3’-6” MAX.HEIGHT WALL TYPE ‘A’6’-0” MAX.HEIGHT WALL TYPE ‘A’
STONE VENEER WALL: NATURAL STONE WITH WARM
ACCENT TONES
2’-6” MIN.-3’-6” MAX.HEIGHT WALL TYPE ‘B’6’-0” MAX.HEIGHT WALL TYPE ‘B’
CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE WALLS WITH ENHANCED
FINISH
6’-0” MAX. HEIGHT WALL TYPE ‘C’
GLASS FENCE
6’-0” MAX. HEIGHT WALL TYPE ‘D’
TUBULAR STEEL FENCE WITH BLACK POWDER COAT
FURNISHING TYPE ‘A’
FIRE FEATURE WITH BUILT-IN BENCH
FURNISHING TYPE ‘B’
OUTDOOR KITCHEN / BBQ
FURNISHING TYPE ‘C’
WATER FEATURE
FURNISHING TYPE ‘D’
OVERHEAD SHADE / ACCENT FEATURE
PROJECT MONUMENT (* SEE NOTE BELOW)
BIKE PARKING AREA (10 SPACES TOTAL)
REFER TO PLANS PREPARED BY SWA. THIS PACKAGE.
* MONUMENTS SHALL BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE TRAFFIC VISIBILITY AREA OR BE LESS THAN 2’-6” IN HEIGHT.
*
COURTYARD TWO COURTYARD THREE COURTYARD FOUR
+
+
+
+
+
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
AUGUST 7, 2018PAVING TYPEA.
A.
B.
B.
D.
D.
E.C.
C.WALL TYPEINTEGRAL COLOR
CONCRETE
WITH ENHANCED FINISH
STONE VENEER WALLS
NATURAL STONE WITH
WARM ACCENT TONES
NATURAL GRAY CONCRETE
(CITY OF DUBLIN
STANDARD)
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE
WALLS
WITH ENHANCED FINISH
PRECAST PAVERS
WITH ENHANCED FINISH
GLASS POOL FENCE
WOOD DECKING; NATURAL
OR COMPOSITE
TUBULAR STEEL FENCE
BLACK POWDER COAT
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
PAVING
PA-2B MATERIALS BOARD
L2.2.11SHEET
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
AUGUST 7, 2018
N0 15 30 60 120 FEET
PA-2B TREE DIAGRAM
PA-2B
L2.2.12SHEET
N SHEET
JANUARY 31, 2018
PA-2B LANDSCAPE TREE DIAGRAM
L2.2.3
PA-2B
LEGEND
PLATANUS X ACERFOLIA
LONDON PLANE
PISTACHIA CHINENSIS
CHINESE PISTACHE
PYRUS CALLERYANA
CALLERY PEAR
ACER RUBRUM
ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE
BIORETENTION
TREE SPECIES
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA
SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA
COASTAL LIVE OAK
ZELCOVA SERRATA
JAPANESE ZELKOVA
OLEA EUROPAEA
OLIVE
BIORETENTION
TREE SPECIES
PRUNUS
CHERRY
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA
CRAPE MYRTLE
CITRUS LIMON
CITRUS
BRANNIGAN STREET
EAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EASTDUBLIN BLVD.N SHEET
JANUARY 31, 2018
PA-2B LANDSCAPE TREE DIAGRAM
L2.2.3
PA-2B
LEGEND
PLATANUS X ACERFOLIA
LONDON PLANE
PISTACHIA CHINENSIS
CHINESE PISTACHE
PYRUS CALLERYANA
CALLERY PEAR
ACER RUBRUM
ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE
BIORETENTION
TREE SPECIES
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA
SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA
COASTAL LIVE OAK
ZELCOVA SERRATA
JAPANESE ZELKOVA
OLEA EUROPAEA
OLIVE
BIORETENTION
TREE SPECIES
PRUNUS
CHERRY
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA
CRAPE MYRTLE
CITRUS LIMON
CITRUS
BRANNIGAN STREET
EAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EASTDUBLIN BLVD.N SHEET
JANUARY 31, 2018
PA-2B LANDSCAPE TREE DIAGRAM
L2.2.3
PA-2B
LEGENDPLATANUS X ACERFOLIA
LONDON PLANE
PISTACHIA CHINENSIS
CHINESE PISTACHE
PYRUS CALLERYANA
CALLERY PEAR
ACER RUBRUM
ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE
BIORETENTION
TREE SPECIES
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA
SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA
COASTAL LIVE OAK
ZELCOVA SERRATA
JAPANESE ZELKOVA
OLEA EUROPAEA
OLIVE
BIORETENTION
TREE SPECIES
PRUNUS
CHERRY
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA
CRAPE MYRTLE
CITRUS LIMON
CITRUS
BRANNIGAN STREET
EAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EASTDUBLIN BLVD.N SHEET
JANUARY 31, 2018
PA-2B LANDSCAPE TREE DIAGRAM
L2.2.3
PA-2B
LEGENDPLATANUS X ACERFOLIALONDON PLANEPISTACHIA CHINENSIS
CHINESE PISTACHE
PYRUS CALLERYANA
CALLERY PEAR
ACER RUBRUM
ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE
BIORETENTION
TREE SPECIES
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA
SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA
COASTAL LIVE OAK
ZELCOVA SERRATA
JAPANESE ZELKOVA
OLEA EUROPAEA
OLIVE
BIORETENTION
TREE SPECIES
PRUNUS
CHERRY
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA
CRAPE MYRTLE
CITRUS LIMON
CITRUS
BRANNIGAN STREET
EAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EASTDUBLIN BLVD.EAST PORCH DRIVE
BRANNIGAN STREET
SIDEYARD EASTDUBLIN BLVD.PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA
LONDON PLANE TREE
PISTACIA CHINENSIS
CHINESE PISTACHE
ACER RUBRUM
RED MAPLE
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA
SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA
COAST LIVE OAK
ZELKOVA SERRATA
JAPANESE ZELKOVA
OLEA EUROPAEA
OLIVE ‘SWAN HILL’
PRUNUS
CHERRY
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA
CRAPE MYRTLE
CITRUS LIMON
CITRUS
LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS
BRISBANE BOX
ARBUTUS MARINA
MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE
QUERCUS ILEX
HOLLY OAK
PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR
FERN PINE
QUERCUS DOUGLASII
BLUE OAK
ALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA
WHITE ALDER
LEGEND
COURTYARD TWO COURTYARD THREE COURTYARD FOUR
COURTYARD ONE
NOTES:
1. ALL TREES THAT ARE CLOSER THAN
FIVE (5’) TO HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS
SHALL BE PLANTED WITH AN OWNER
AND AGENCY APPROVED ROOT BARRIER.
N SHEET
JANUARY 31, 2018
PA-2B LANDSCAPE TREE DIAGRAM
L2.2.3
PA-2B
LEGEND
PLATANUS X ACERFOLIA
LONDON PLANE
PISTACHIA CHINENSIS
CHINESE PISTACHE
PYRUS CALLERYANA
CALLERY PEAR
ACER RUBRUM
ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE
BIORETENTION
TREE SPECIES
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA
SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA
COASTAL LIVE OAK
ZELCOVA SERRATA
JAPANESE ZELKOVA
OLEA EUROPAEA
OLIVE
BIORETENTION
TREE SPECIES
PRUNUS
CHERRY
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA
CRAPE MYRTLE
CITRUS LIMON
CITRUS
BRANNIGAN STREET
EAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EASTDUBLIN BLVD.5.1.j
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N
PA-2B ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
STOPSTOPSTOP STOPSTOPEVEVEVCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIREVCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIR
EVCLEAN AIRBRANNIGAN STREET
DUBLIN BLVDPARKING GARAGE
(S2) TYPE IA
EAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EASTAPARTMENTS
(R2) TYPE VA
R E T A I L
(M) T YP E VA
(O N G R O UN D L E VE L ) SETBACK10' - 0"GARAGE
ENTRY
GARAGE
ENTRY
ENTRY
24' - 0"
OVERALL
644' - 8"
76' - 6"
COURTYARD
47' - 0 1/2"75' - 0"
COURTYARD
45' - 4 1/2"75' - 0"
COURTYARD
79' - 11"245' - 10"68' - 11 1/2"COURTYARD37' - 5 1/4"121' - 8"2 5 2 ' - 1 0 "
322' - 6"66' - 4"OVERALL279' - 3 1/2"COURTYARD89' - 10 1/2"69' - 6"GAS METERS62' - 8"57' - 2"49' - 2"COURTYARD
219' - 6"
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESETBACK10' - 0"TRASH TRASH
(5 Levels)
(4 Stories)
COURTYARD 1
COURTYARD 2 COURTYARD 3 COURTYARD 4
RESIDENTIAL
MOVE-IN AREA
FIRE
HYDRANT
COURTYARD
EXITSETBACK15' - 0"DWARF
HYDRANT
1 5 0 ' H O S E P U L L F R O M H Y D R A N TENTRY24' - 0"SETBACK15' - 0"BUILDING VEHICULAR PARKING
GARAGE ENTRY/EXIT
T PROPOSED TRANSFORMER AND
SWITCHGEAR LOCATION.
SITE PLAN LEGEND
SETBACK LINE
BUILDING INGRESS/EGRESS
PROPERTY LINE
LOADING DOOR
FIRE HYDRANT
150' HOSE PULL FROM STREET
HYDRANT
150' HOSE PULL FROM COURTYARD
HYDRANT
3SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.0 15 30 60 90 FEET
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
LEVEL 1
N
PA-2B FLOOR PLAN
STOPSTOP STOPSTOPEVEVEVCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIREVCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIR
EVCLEAN AIRA1 A1
GARAGE
ENTRY
BRANNIGAN STREET
DUBLIN BLVDTRASH
ROOM
C1
A1
A1
A1
S1
A1
A1
A1
A1
B3
B3
B2
C1
RETAIL PARKING +354RECYCLE5% SLOPE DOWN TO
LVL B1
CLUB ROOM
RETAIL
MOVE-IN
ELEVATOR
LOBBY
TRASH
ROOM
RECYCLEGARAGE
ENTRY
(2-STORY
OPENING)
RESIDENT MOVE-IN AREA
A1
+352
+354
+354
+354
MAIL
LOBBY
AFTER HRS
GATE
START OF 5% SLOPE UP
TO LVL 2
ELEC
ELEC
B1B1B1
A2
A2
A2
ARMED GATEB1 B1A2 A2B1 A2 B1 B2
A4
A2
A3
B2
A4
A3
LEASING
POOL RR &
EQUIPCourtyard Access
ELEC
A1 A1 A3
A1
A1
A4
S1
A3 A2 A3
ENTRY
PLAZA
A1
S1
AMENITY
A1
B3 B3
B4
A3
B2
A4
A1B2
B2
B2
A3
GAS SUB
METERMPOEC1
C1
gas meters
A3
PARKINGLEASING24' - 0"20' - 0"MOVIE THEATRE RETAIL RETAIL
EAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EASTtyp.7' - 0"MECH
MECHMECH
MECH
DRIVE AISLE
24' - 0"
BIKE
BIKE
24' - 0"15' - 0"BIKE STORAGE
5' - 0"
5' - 0"5' - 0"8' - 0"9' - 6"5' - 3 1/2"6' - 2"5' - 0"11' - 4"
4SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.0 15 30 60 90 FEET
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
LEVEL 2
N
STOPSTOP STOPSTOPEVEVEVCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIREVCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIR
EVCLEAN AIRC1
B2
START OF 5%
SLOPE UP TO LVL 3
A1
B3
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
B3
S1
RETAIL
CLUB ROOM
C1
A1
(2-STORY
OPENING)
(OPEN TO BELOW)
(OPEN TO BELOW)
(OPEN TO
BELOW)
RESIDENT PARKING
A1
GATEGUEST PARKING
B1 B1 B1
B2
B1 A2 B1 A2B1 A2 B1 B2
A2
A2
A2
A2
A4
A3A3
B2
LEASING
A4
A1 A3 A2 A3
S1
A3A1A1
A1
A1
A4
S1
S1
B4
B3 B3
A1
B2
B3
A3
A1
A4
B2
B2
B2
B2
S1
5% SLOPE DOWN TO
LVL 1
C1
B1
C1
MECHMECH
MECHA3
8' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0 1/2"5' - 0"5' - 6"9' - 3"8' - 0"10' - 1"
5SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.0 15 30 60 90 FEET
PA-2B FLOOR PLAN
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
LEVEL 3
N
PA-2B FLOOR PLAN
STOPSTOP STOPSTOPEVEVEVCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIREVCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIR
EVCLEAN AIRA1 A1
B2
C1
C1
A2
A1
A1
A1
A1
S1
A1
A1
A1
B2
B2
B3
B3
RESIDENT PARKING
5% SLOPE DOWN
TO LVL 2
A1
START OF 5%
SLOPE UP TO
LVL 4
FITNESS
2,251 SF
B1 B1 B1
B2
B1
A2
A2
A2
B1 A2 B1 A2B1 A2 B1 B2
A2
A3
B2
B2
A3
A4
A1 A1 A3 A1
A1
S1
A3 A2 A3
A4
A1
A4
S1
S1
A3
B4
B3
S1
A2 A2 A2
B2
B3 B3
A1
A1
A4
B2
B2
B2
C1
B1
B1
C1
A3
MECHMECH
MECH 5' - 0"8' - 0"5' - 6"10' - 1"9' - 3"8' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"7' - 8"5' - 0"6SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.0 15 30 60 90 FEET
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
LEVEL 4
N
PA-2B FLOOR PLAN
STOPSTOP STOPSTOPEVEVEVCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIREVCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIRCLEAN AIR
EVCLEAN AIRB2
C1
A1 A1
B3
A1
A1
A1
S1
B3
A1
A1
A1
A1
A2
RESIDENT PARKING
5% SLOPE
DOWN TO LVL
3
ROOF
DECK 2
A1
START OF
5% SLOPE
UP TO LVL
5
FITNESS
(OPEN TO BELOW)
B1 B1 B1
B2
B1 A2 B1 A2B1
A2
A2
A2
B1
A2 B1 B2 M2
M1
M2
B2
A4
A3A3
B2
S1
A1 A3 A2 A3
A1
A4
A3A1A1
A1
A4
M2
S1
S1
M2
M2
S1
M1 M1 M1
B3
A1
B3
A3
A1B2
B3
B4
A4
B1
C1
A3
C1
MECHMECHMECHMECH
MECH
749 SF
749 SF
ROOF DECK 1
8' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"
10' - 1"9' - 3"8' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 6"7' - 8"
7SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.0 15 30 60 90 FEET
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
WITH LEVEL 5 GARAGE
N
PA-2B ROOF PLAN
RESIDENT PARKING LEVEL 5
5% SLOPE DOWN TO
LVL 4
MECHMECH
MECHROOF
DECK
BELOW
SLOPED ROOFS
SLOPE TO
DOWNSPOUTS
CONDENSERS
OVER CORRIDOR
(TYPICAL)
FLAT ROOF WITH
CRICKETS FOR
DRAINAGE
5 1/2" : 12
SLOPE
(TYPICAL)5' - 6"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"8' - 0"5' - 2"8' - 0"
5' - 0"
8SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.0 15 30 60 90 FEET
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
LEVEL B1- SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE
N
PA-2B FLOOR PLAN
START OF 5%
SLOPE UP TO LVL1 SLOPED PARKING
+344'
RETAIL PARKING
20' - 0"
286' - 0"131' - 0"66' - 0"66' - 0"MECH.5' - 0"5' - 6"7' - 8"
5' - 0"
9SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.0 15 30 60 90 FEET
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
0 8 16 32 48 FEET
EAST PORCH DRIVE 1
PA-2B ELEVATION WEST
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +33'
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +354'
GARAGE ENTRY
DUBLIN
BLVD
(+351')T.O.S. (+/-) 52'-5" PER 2016 CBCALLOWED (+/-) 60'-0" PER DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODEROOF - T.O.S.
LEVEL 4 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 3 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 2 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 1 - T.O.C.
T.O.R.(+/-) 58'-0" TOP OF RIDGE10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"12'-1"MEZ. - T.O.S.5'-7"10'-1"BRANNIGAN STREET
DUBLIN BLVDEAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EASTKEYMAP
1| WEST ELEVATION - EAST PORCH DRIVE 1
2| LEASING AND PARKING ENTRY PERSPECTIVE 2 1
79 1011161 7 53510
1. Exterior Plaster
2. Stone Veneer
3. Horizontal Cementitious Siding
4. Vertical Cementitious Siding
5. Standing Seam Metal Roof
6. Vinyl Window
7. Aluminum Storefront
8. Specialty Door
9. Railing
10. Metal Awning
11. Corrugated Metal Siding
12. Metal Panel Siding
MATERIAL LEGEND
(See material sheet A2.2.50 for more information)
11SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
0 8 16 32 48 FEET
EAST PORCH DRIVE 2
PA-2B ELEVATION WEST
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +33'
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +354'
GARAGE ENTRYSIDE YARD EAST
(+354')T.O.S. (+/-) 40'-4" PER 2016 CBC10'-1"10'-1"ALLOWED (+/-) 60'-0" PER DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODEROOF - T.O.S.
LEVEL 4 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 3 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 2 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 1 - T.O.C.6'-0"T.O.P.(+/-) 46'-4" TOP OF PARAPET(+/-) 52'-4" TOP OF RIDGE10'-1"10'-1"BRANNIGAN STREET
DUBLIN BLVDEAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EAST1| WEST ELEVATION - EAST PORCH DRIVE 2
2| RESIDENTIAL AND PARKING ENTRY PERSPECTIVE 1
6 6 9 5 311010334
2
1. Exterior Plaster
2. Stone Veneer
3. Horizontal Cementitious Siding
4. Vertical Cementitious Siding
5. Standing Seam Metal Roof
6. Vinyl Window
7. Aluminum Storefront
8. Specialty Door
9. Railing
10. Metal Awning
11. Corrugated Metal Siding
12. Metal Panel Siding
MATERIAL LEGEND
(See material sheet A2.2.50 for more information)
KEYMAP
12SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
0 8 16 32 48 FEET
SIDE YARD EAST
PA-2B ELEVATION NORTH
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +33'
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +354'
GARAGE ENTRY
EAST PORCH
DRIVE
(+354.2')
BRANNIGAN
STREET
(+350.4')T.O.S. (+/-) 40'-4" PER 2016 CBC10'-1"ALLOWED (+/-) 60'-0" PER DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODEROOF - T.O.S.
LEVEL 4 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 3 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 2 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 1 - T.O.C.10'-7"T.O.R.(+/-) 50'-11" TOP OF RIDGE10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"BRANNIGAN STREET
DUBLIN BLVDEAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EAST1| NORTH ELEVATION - SIDE YARD EAST
2| ROOF DECK PERSPECTIVE
1
2
61010213319165
1. Exterior Plaster
2. Stone Veneer
3. Horizontal Cementitious Siding
4. Vertical Cementitious Siding
5. Standing Seam Metal Roof
6. Vinyl Window
7. Aluminum Storefront
8. Specialty Door
9. Railing
10. Metal Awning
11. Corrugated Metal Siding
12. Metal Panel Siding
MATERIAL LEGEND
(See material sheet A2.2.50 for more information)
KEYMAP
13SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
0 8 16 32 48 FEET
BRANNIGAN ST 1
PA-2B ELEVATION EAST
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +33'
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +354'
EAST PORCH
DRIVE
(+353.3')T.O.S. (+/-) 40'-4" PER 2016 CBC10'-1"ALLOWED (+/-) 60'-0" PER DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODEROOF - T.O.S.
LEVEL 4 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 3 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 2 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 1 - T.O.C.10'-7"T.O.R.(+/-) 50'-11" TOP OF RIDGE10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"BRANNIGAN STREET
DUBLIN BLVDEAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EAST2 1
1| EAST ELEVATION - BRANNIGAN STREET 1
2| NORTH CORNER PERSPECTIVE
132 1 3 96 1 5 2
1. Exterior Plaster
2. Stone Veneer
3. Horizontal Cementitious Siding
4. Vertical Cementitious Siding
5. Standing Seam Metal Roof
6. Vinyl Window
7. Aluminum Storefront
8. Specialty Door
9. Railing
10. Metal Awning
11. Corrugated Metal Siding
12. Metal Panel Siding
MATERIAL LEGEND
(See material sheet A2.2.50 for more information)
KEYMAP
14SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
0 8 16 32 48 FEET
BRANNIGAN ST 2
PA-2B ELEVATION EAST
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +354'
DUBLIN BLVD
(+350.4')(+/-) 50'-11" TOP OF RIDGE10'-1"10'-1"ALLOWED (+/-) 60'-0" PER DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODEROOF - T.O.S.
LEVEL 4 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 3 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 2 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 1 - T.O.C.10'-7"T.O.R.10'-1"10'-1"(+/-) 40'-5" PER 2016 CBCBRANNIGAN STREET
DUBLIN BLVDEAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EAST21
1| EAST ELEVATION - BRANNIGAN STREET 2
2| NORTH CORNER PERSPECTIVE
11 9 10 1010 33 16115222
1. Exterior Plaster
2. Stone Veneer
3. Horizontal Cementitious Siding
4. Vertical Cementitious Siding
5. Standing Seam Metal Roof
6. Vinyl Window
7. Aluminum Storefront
8. Specialty Door
9. Railing
10. Metal Awning
11. Corrugated Metal Siding
12. Metal Panel Siding
MATERIAL LEGEND
(See material sheet A2.2.50 for more information)
KEYMAP
15SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
0 8 16 32 48 FEET
DUBLIN BLVD
PA-2B ELEVATION SOUTH
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +33'
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +354'
BRANNIGAN
STREET
(+350.4')
EAST PORCH
DRIVE
(+353.3')T.O.S. (+/-) 40'-4" PER 2016 CBC10'-1"T.O. ROOF (+/-) 60'-0" PER DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODEROOF - T.O.S.
LEVEL 4 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 3 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 2 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 1 - T.O.C.10'-7"T.O.R.(+/-) 50'-11" TOP OF RIDGE10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"(+/-) 57'-0" TOP OF RIDGEBRANNIGAN STREET
DUBLIN BLVDEAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EASTKEYMAP
1| SOUTH ELEVATION - DUBLIN BLVD
2| WEST CORNER DUBLIN BLVD
2124675511393
2
1
1. Exterior Plaster
2. Stone Veneer
3. Horizontal Cementitious Siding
4. Vertical Cementitious Siding
5. Standing Seam Metal Roof
6. Vinyl Window
7. Aluminum Storefront
8. Specialty Door
9. Railing
10. Metal Awning
11. Corrugated Metal Siding
12. Metal Panel Siding
MATERIAL LEGEND
(See material sheet A2.2.50 for more information)
16SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
0 8 16 32 48 FEET
POOL COURTYARD
PA-2B ELEVATION
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +354'
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +354'
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +354'
AVERAGE GRADE
PLANE +354'T.O.S. (+/-) 52'-5" PER 2016 CBC10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"ROOF - T.O.S.
LEVEL 4 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 3 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 1 - T.O.C.
T.O.R.ALLOWED (+/-) 60'-0" PER DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODELEVEL 2 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 1 - T.O.C.(+/-) 58'-0" TOP OF RIDGE10'-1"12'-1"5'-7"MEZ. - T.O.S.T.O.S. (+/-) 40'-4" PER 2016 CBC10'-1"ALLOWED (+/-) 60'-0" PER DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODEROOF - T.O.S.
LEVEL 4 - T.O.S.
LEVEL 3 - T.O.C.
LEVEL 2 - T.O.C.
LEVEL 1 - T.O.C.10'-5"T.O.R.(+/-) 50'-9" TOP OF RIDGE10'-1"10'-1"10'-1"BRANNIGAN STREET
DUBLIN BLVDEAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EASTKEYMAP
1| POOL COURTYARD WEST ELEVATION 2| POOL COURTYARD NORTH ELEVATION
3| POOL COURTYARD EAST ELEVATION 4| POOL COURTYARD SOUTH ELEVATION
69 113 15
12 199
810 6 25 19
1 6 1 2
2 4
1
3
1. Exterior Plaster
2. Stone Veneer
3. Horizontal Cementitious Siding
4. Vertical Cementitious Siding
5. Standing Seam Metal Roof
6. Vinyl Window
7. Aluminum Storefront
8. Specialty Door
9. Railing
10. Metal Awning
11. Corrugated Metal Siding
12. Metal Panel Siding
MATERIAL LEGEND
(See material sheet A2.2.50 for more information)
17SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PA-2B SECTIONS
1ST STORY
2ND STORY
3RD STORY
4TH STORY
5TH STORY
ROOF
B115' SETBACK LINEDUBLIN BLVD
POOL COURTYARD CORRIDORCORRIDOR(10'-1" TYP. FLR TO FLR)40' - 4"PROPERTY LINECLUB ROOM
B1
B1
VEHICULAR ENTRY
B2
B2
SIDE YARD
EAST15' SETBACK LINEFACE OF CURBRESIDENTIAL UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS BEYOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS 333' - 0"38' - 9 1/2"
POOL
C1
C1
C1
C1
A3
A3
A3
A3
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL & GUEST PARKING
RETAIL PARKING
RETAIL PARKING
GARAGE
GARAGE
1ST STORY
2ND STORY
3RD STORY
4TH STORY
5TH STORY
ROOF
B115' SETBACK LINEEAST PORCH
DRIVECORRIDORPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE(10'-1" TYP. FLR TO FLR)40' - 4"A3 B1
A3
A3
A3
B1
B1
B1
RESIDENTIAL UNITS BEYOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS
(MECHANICALLY VENTILATED)
PARKING GARAGE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
BRANNIGAN
STREET CORRIDOR10' SETBACK LINECOURTYARD
RETAIL PARKING
RETAIL PARKING GUEST PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
GARAGE
GARAGE
1ST STORY
2ND STORY
3RD STORY
4TH STORY
5TH STORY
ROOF
B115' SETBACK LINEDUBLIN BLVD
POOL COURTYARD CORRIDORCORRIDOR(10'-1" TYP. FLR TO FLR)40' - 4"PROPERTY LINECLUB ROOM
B1
B1
VEHICULAR ENTRY
B2
B2
SIDE YARD
EAST15' SETBACK LINEFACE OF CURBRESIDENTIAL UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS BEYOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS 333' - 0"38' - 9 1/2"
POOL
C1
C1
C1
C1
A3
A3
A3
A3
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL PARKING
RESIDENTIAL & GUEST PARKING
RETAIL PARKING
RETAIL PARKING
GARAGE
GARAGE
1ST STORY2ND STORY3RD STORY4TH STORY5TH STORYROOFB115' SETBACK LINEEAST PORCHDRIVECORRIDORPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE(10'-1" TYP. FLR TO FLR)40' - 4"A3 B1A3A3A3B1B1B1RESIDENTIAL UNITS BEYOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS (MECHANICALLY VENTILATED)PARKING GARAGE RESIDENTIAL UNITSBRANNIGANSTREETCORRIDOR 10' SETBACK LINECOURTYARD RETAIL PARKING RETAIL PARKING GUEST PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING RESIDENTIAL PARKING GARAGEGARAGE
BRANNIGAN STREET
DUBLIN BLVDEAST PORCH DRIVESIDE YARD EASTKEYMAP
2| SECTION B-B: EAST WEST
1|SECTION A-A: NORTH SOUTH
B
B
A A
18SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.0 15 30 60 90 FEET
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
EXTERIOR MATERIALS
PA-2B MATERIALS AND COLOR PALETTE
1. EXTERIOR PLASTER
SMOOTH COAT, 16/20 FINISH
7. ALUMINUM STOREFRONT 8. SPECIALTY DOOR
9. RAILING 11. CORRUGATED METAL SIDING
SILVER
2. STONE VENEER
6” SPLIT STONE
3. HORIZONTAL WOOD-LOOK SIDING
SMOOTH MATTE FINISH, VARIOUS COLORS
4. VERTICAL WOOD-LOOK SIDING
SMOOTH MATTE FINISH, VARIOUS COLORS
12. METAL PANEL SIDING
RUST FINISH
5. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
PAINTED FINISH
10. METAL AWNING
PAINTED FINISH
6. VINYL WINDOW
21SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
COLOR PALETTE
PA-2B MATERIALS & COLOR PALETTE
A-A. YAM A-B. CHRYSANTHEMUM A-C. KNOCKOUT ORANGE
F-D. LATTICE E. MINDFUL GRAYF-B. FUNCTIONAL GRAY F-C. GAUNTLET GRAY
T-A. PEPPERCORN T-B. IRON ORE
F-A. SNOW BOUND
PAINTACCENT COLOR OPTIONSPAINTFIELD COLOR OPTIONSPAINTTRIM COLOR OPTIONS22SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
MATERIAL COLOR OPTIONS
PA-2B MATERIALS & COLOR PALETTE
W-C. WEATHEREDW-A. FARMHOUSE W-B. WILLOW W-E. GRAVEL ROADW-D. IRONWOOD
S-D. SOUTHERN PEAKS-B. BEIGE S-C. GREIGE
M-A. CORRUGATED METAL SIDING M-C. RUST WALLM-B. STANDING SEAM METAL
S-A. CREAMWOOD-LOOK SIDINGCOLOR OPTIONSSTONE VENEERCOLOR OPTIONSMETALCOLOR OPTIONS23SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.2.
5.1.j
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: 10. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 4 Planning Area 2B (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET C2.3.1
PA-2C SITE DEVELOPMENT AND SIGHT DISTANCE PLAN
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
SHEET C2.3.2
PA-2C LAND USE SUMMARY
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET C2.3.5
PA-2C PARKING PLAN
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
0 25 50 100 150 FEET
PA-2C ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN
L2.3.1
TOWNHOME 1 TYPICAL
PA-2C
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROADCENTRAL PARKWAYTHE ‘COMMONS’
OLIVE TREES AND ACCENT
PLANTING AT RESIDENTIAL
CORNERS
BIORETENTION AREA
ALONG TASSAJARA ROAD
PARKWAY
SIGNALIZED CROSSWALK
AT CENTRAL PARKWAY
RESIDENTIAL ‘GREEN’
TOWNHOME 2 TYPICAL
STREET B
STREET C
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
0 25 50 100 150 FEET
PA-2C TREE PLANTING DIAGRAM
L2.3.2
PA-2C
LEGEND
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROADCENTRAL PARKWAYPLATANUS X ACERFOLIA
LONDON PLANE
PISTACHIA CHINENSIS
CHINESE PISTACHE
ACER RUBRUM
ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE
ALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA
WHITE ALDER
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA
COASTAL LIVE OAK
ZELKOVA SERRATA
JAPANESE ZELKOVA
OLEA EUROPAEA
OLIVE
CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS
COMMON HACKBERRY
PRUNUS
CHERRY
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA
CRAPE MYRTLE
CITRUS LIMON
CITRUS (OR ALTERNATIVE)
STREET B
STREET C
NOTE:
FINAL LOCATION/SETBACK OF STORM
DRAINS IN RELATION TO PLANTING
AREAS WILL DETERMINE PLANT
MATERIAL TYPES USED WITHIN THESE
AREAS. ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS
WITHIN PLANTING AREAS WILL ALSO
BE CONSIDERED INCLUDING ROOT
BARRIERS AND IN-GROUND PLANTERS.
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018PA-2C RESIDENTIAL ‘COMMONS’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L2.3.3
PA-2C
RESIDENTIAL
‘COMMONS’
OPEN PLAZA WITH
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
PAVING
LONDON PLANE GROVE
PICNIC TABLE AREA
WITH BARBECUE
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES
ALONG GARDEN WALK
CRAPE MYRTLE
ALLEE
ART PIECE/INFORMAL
PRE-SCHOOL AGE PLAY
5’ WIDE RESIDENTIAL WALK
PER CITY OF DUBLIN
STANDARDS
ORNAMENTAL
GROUND COVER ALONG
RESIDENTIAL WALKS
OPEN LAWN
8’ WIDE PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY
RED MAPLE WINDROW
(COLUMNAR FORM) WITH
HEDGEROW BELOW
INFORMAL OAK GROUPINGS
AT ENDS OF TOWNHOMES
BENCH ON
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
PAVING
SHRUB BUFFER
AT ENDS OF TOWNHOMES
0 25 50 100 150 FEET
STREET N
STREET O
BLDG.
13
P 362.6
BLDG.
21
P 365.2
BLDG.
22
P 363.7
BLDG.
10
P 360.9
FS 362.3
FS 361.4
FS 358.6
FS 364.1FS 365.7
FS 365.6 FS 364.7 FS 364.0 FS 363.1
FS 363.1
FS 361.6
FS 362.1FS 363.0 FS 361.3 2%0.75%0.75%
3.0%
3.1%
1.0%
0.75%0.75%
1.0%
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
23’60’
8’
5’
83’
5’
8’ MIN.8’ MIN.
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-2C RESIDENTIAL ‘COMMONS‘ PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
N SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
PLAN
SECTION
SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”
PICNIC/
BARBECUE
GROUP
SEATINGINFORMAL PLAY/ ART AREA
PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY
OPEN PLAZA WITH DECOMPOSED GRANITE PAVING
WALK
LONDON PLANE GROVE
BUFFER
PLANTING
BUFFER
PLANTING
PA-2C
RESIDENTIAL
‘COMMONS’
L2.3.4
WALK
BLDG.
13
P 362.6
BLDG.
21
P 365.2
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018PA-2C RESIDENTIAL ‘GREEN’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L2.3.5
PA-2C
RESIDENTIAL
‘GREEN’
BIORETENTION AREA
WITH NATIVE PLANTING
LAWN WITH BERMS/
LANDFORMS
AT 5:1 MAXIMUM SLOPE
SHRUBS/GROUNDCOVER
AT 3:1 MAXIMUM SLOPE
5’ WIDE RESIDENTIAL
WALK PER CITY OF DUBLIN
STANDARD
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES
AND GROUNDCOVER
ALONG RESIDENTIAL WALKS
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR/
BIORETENTION AREA
BOULDER ARRANGEMENTS
ALONG CORRIDOR
RED MAPLE WINDROW
(COLUMNAR FORM) WITH
HEDGEROW BELOW
8’ WIDE PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY WITH
ENHANCED
PAVING
BENCH ON
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
PAVING
SHRUB BUFFER
AT ENDS OF TOWNHOMESALLEY CALLEY ESTREET O
STREET N
BLDG.
16
P 365.6
BLDG.
17
P 368.1
BLDG.
14
P 364.3
BLDG.
18
P 366.9
FS 366.4FS 367.3
FS 367.7
FS 368.0
FS 368.1
FS 367.4
FS 364.8
FS 365.2
FS 366.6
FS 363.8FS 364.7
TC 366.3
TC 365.7
3.5%0.75%
1.0%
1.0%
0.75%3.1%
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
0 5 10 20 30 FEET
PA-2C TOWNHOME 1 LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
L2.3.6
PA-2C
TOWNHOME
TYPE 1
5’ WIDE PASEO WALK
PER CITY OF DUBLIN
STANDARDS
LAYERS OF SHRUBS
AND GROUNDCOVER AT
RESIDENTIAL ENTRIES
TASSAJARA ROAD
CRAPE MYRTLE ALLEE
FLANKING TOWNHOME
PASEOS
SMALL CITRUS OR
FLOWERING TREES
BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL
UNITS
SMALL CITRUS OR
FLOWERING TREES AT
RESIDENCES
STRIPED PEDESTRIAN
CROSSWALK
STREET D
LAYERS OF SHRUBS
AND GROUNDCOVER AT
RESIDENTIAL ENTRIES
WHITE ALDER STREET TREE
AT BIORETENTION AREA
BIORETENTION AREA WITH
NATIVE PLANTING ALONG
TASSAJARA ROAD
CRAPE MYRTLE
ALLEE
BLDG.
28
P 365.3
BLDG.
29
P 365.9
FS 366.3
FS 366.4
TC 365.4
FS 365.7
FS 364.8 FS 364.20.75%2%5.1.k
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
0 5 10 20 30 FEET
PA-2C TOWNHOME 2 LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
L2.3.7
PA-2C
TOWNHOME
TYPE 2
SHRUB BUFFER ALONG
PERIMETER OF TOWNHOMES
ZELKOVA STREET TREES
STREET O
CRAPE MYRTLE ALLEE
FLANKING TOWNHOME
PASEOS
SHRUB BUFFER ALONG
PERIMETER OF TOWNHOMES
SMALL CITRUS OR
FLOWERING TREES
BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL
UNITS
5’ WIDE RESIDENTIAL WALK PER
CITY OF DUBLIN STANDARDS
BLDG.
21
P 365.2
BLDG.
20
P 365.5
0.75%
1.0%2%FS 364.7FS 365.6
FS 365.7
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
PLAN
6’-0”
0’-6’
8’-0”8’-0”8’-0”8’-0”6’-0”
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-2C BRANNIGAN STREET PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
BRANNIGAN
STREET
BRANNIGAN STREET
SIDE
WALK
PKWY PKWYPARK
ING
PARK
ING
PA-2C
PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS
EXISTING STREET
EXTENTS/ CONDITION
PUE
(VARIES)
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
ROW
SIDE
WALK
SECTION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
L2.3.8
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
BLDG. 5
P 361.3
TC 359.9
TC 358.6
FS 360.7
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
PLAN
8’-0”6’-0”7’-0”7’-0”
0’-6’
N
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-2C TASSAJARA ROAD PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
TASSAJARA ROAD
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
(VARIES)
PKWY RIGHT
TURN LANE
EXISTING
MEDIAN
CL
PUE
(VARIES)
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
ROW (TO CENTERLINE)
CLASS II
BIKE
LANE AND
BUFFER
SIDE
WALK
SECTION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
PA-2C
L2.3.9
TASSAJARA
ROAD
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
BLDG. 26
P 364.3
BLDG. 29
P 365.9
TC 365.4
PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS
EXISTING STREET
EXTENTS/ CONDITION
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”PLAN
8’-0”8’-0”4’8’-0”
0’-6’
N
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-2C CENTRAL PARKWAY PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
L2.3.10
PK
WY
EXISTING
MEDIAN
(VARIES)
PARK
ING
PUE
(VARIES)
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
ROW
SIDE
WALK
SECTION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
PA-2C
CENTRAL
PARKWAY
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
CLASS II
BIKE
LANE AND
BUFFER
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
TC 363.1
TC 364.3
PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS
EXISTING STREET
EXTENTS/ CONDITION
CENTRALPARKWAYBLDG.
P 367.7
BLDG. 1
P 364.9
BLDG.
P 367.4
FS 366.9
TC 363.3
TC 363.6
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N
AUGUST 7, 2018
0 25 50 100 150 FEET
PA-2C LANDSCAPE MATERIALS DIAGRAM
L2.3.11
PA-2C
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROADCENTRAL PARKWAYM1.
CONCRETE WITH
ENHANCED COLOR/FINISH
M2.
CONCRETE PER CITY
OF DUBLIN STANDARDS
M3.
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
PAVING
F3.
CONCRETE SEATWALL/
RAISED PLANTER
(LOCATED OUTSIDE TRAFFIC
VISIBILITY AREAS OR
UNDER 30” IN HEIGHT)
F3.
BENCHES AT PARKS
AND OPEN SPACES
F4.
TABLES
F4.
OUTDOOR BARBECUES
ASSOCIATED WITH TABLES
LEGEND
STREET B
STREET C
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
AUGUST 7, 2018
A2.3.1SHEET
COLOR PALETTE - PA 2C
BODY COLORS
STUCCO SIDING CORRUGATED METAL
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.2SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
COLOR PALETTE - PA 2C
TRIM AND ACCENT COLORS
TRIM ACCENT MISCELANEOUS
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS:
METAL:
OIL RUBBED BRONZE
OR ALUMINUM
WINDOW FRAMES:
BRONZE OR BEIGE
DOWNSPOUTS / GUTTERS:
PAINT TO MATCH
ADJACENT COLOR
TRIM:
PAINT ALL EXPOSED
TRIM EDGES SAME
COLOR AS FACE
OF TRIM
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.3SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
COLOR PALETTE - PA 2C
ROOFING AND STONE COLORS
COMPOSITION SHINGLE
ROOFING
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOFING
STONE
EXTERIOR LIGHTS:
MILLENIUM LIGHTING
RWHS17-RGN15 OR EQUAL
COLOR: ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE
WATTAGE: 200W
HEIGHT: 15.25”
SHADE: 17”
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.4
AUGUST 7, 2018
CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
TOWNHOME 1
TOWNHOME 1 - CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.8
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
TOWNHOME 1 - 6PLEX
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘A’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
5 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
8 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD AT
PORCH & BALCONIES
9 STONE VENEER
10 STUCCO TRIM
11 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
12 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
13 STEEL AWNING
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1
RAISED PORCHES SHOWN. FOR
LOCATIONS WHERE THIS OCCURS,
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
2 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
10 261
981235
7 4 513
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.9
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
TOWNHOME 1 - 6PLEX
+/- 44’-0”
REAR ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION
(LEFT ELEVATION SIMILAR)
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.12
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
TOWNHOME 1 - 6PLEX
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘B’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
3 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
7 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD AT
PORCH & BALCONIES
8 STUCCO TRIM
9 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
10 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
11 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
12 STEEL AWNING
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1
RAISED PORCHES SHOWN. FOR
LOCATIONS WHERE THIS OCCURS,
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
2 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
5 1171085
16 43 413
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.13
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
TOWNHOME 1 - 6PLEX
+/- 44’-0”
REAR ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION
(LEFT ELEVATION SIMILAR)
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.16
AUGUST 7, 2018
CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
TOWNHOME 2
TOWNHOME 2 - CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.20
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
TOWNHOME 2 - 6PLEX
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘A’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
5 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
8 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD AT
PORCH & BALCONIES
9 STONE VENEER
10 STUCCO TRIM
11 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
12 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
6 10812 8128
652 34 771 2
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.21
AUGUST 7, 2018
FRONT ELEVATION
ELEVATION A
TOWNHOME 2 - 6 PLEX
+/- 41’-0”
REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION
(LEFT ELEVATION SIMILAR)
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.24
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
TOWNHOME 2 - 6PLEX
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘B’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
3 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
7 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD AT
PORCH & BALCONIES
8 STUCCO TRIM
9 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
10 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
11 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
12 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1
RAISED PORCHES SHOWN. FOR
LOCATIONS WHERE THIS OCCURS,
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
2 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
5 58117107
6412 43 1
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.25
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
TOWNHOME 2 - 6PLEX
+/- 40’-0”
REAR ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION
(LEFT ELEVATION SIMILAR)
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.28
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
TOWNHOME 2 - 7PLEX
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘A’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
5 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
8 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD AT
PORCH & BALCONIES
9 STONE VENEER
10 STUCCO TRIM
11 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
12 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
14 WOOD BRACKET
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1
RAISED PORCHES SHOWN. FOR
LOCATIONS WHERE THIS OCCURS,
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
2 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
6 12 48109
12 243751314
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.29
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
TOWNHOME 2 - 7 PLEX
+/- 41’-0”
REAR ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION
(LEFT ELEVATION SIMILAR)
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.32
AUGUST 7, 2018
6 10 117 78125
112 24 4335
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘B’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
3 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
7 STEEL RAILING WITH PAINTED WOOD
AT BALCONIES
8 STUCCO TRIM
9 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
10 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
11 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
12 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1
RAISED PORCHES SHOWN. FOR
LOCATIONS WHERE THIS OCCURS,
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
2 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
ELEVATION B
TOWNHOME 2 - 7PLEX
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A2.3.33
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
TOWNHOME 2 - 7 PLEX
+/- 40’-0”
REAR ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION
(LEFT ELEVATION SIMILAR)
5.1.k
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 5 Planning Area 2C (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET C3.1
PA-3 & PA-4 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND
SIGHT DISTANCE PLAN
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
SHEET C3.2
PA-3 & PA-4 LAND USE SUMMARY
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PROJECT NO. 171026E
AUGUST 7, 2018
SHEET C3.5
PA-3 & PA-4 PARKING PLAN
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROAD CENTRAL PARKWAYGLEASON DRIVE0 25 50 100 150 FEET
PA-3 AND PA-4 ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN
L3.1
PA-3, PA-4
PA-3 RESIDENTIAL PASEO
PA-3 ‘POCKET PARKS’
PA-3 SFD 2 TYPICAL
SFD 1 TYPICAL
OLIVE TREES AND
ACCENT PLANTING AT
RESIDENTIAL CORNERS
GARDEN ROOMS
FRONTING BRANNIGAN
GARDEN ROOMS
FRONTING TASSAJARA
STREET H
STREET JSTREET ISTREET KSTREET MSILVA CELLS
ALONG NORTH
SIDE OF
STREET M
(6 LOCATIONS)
DENSE
EVERGREEN
SCREENING
SHRUBS AND
VINES PROVIDED
ALONG NORTH
SIDE OF
STREET M
BIORETENTION
AREA, TYP.
RETAINING
WALLS, SEE
CIVIL PLANS
SUBSURFACE
HM STORAGE
BOX
EVA WITH
GEOBLOCK
PAVING
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
0 25 50 100 150 FEET
PA-3 AND PA-4 TREE PLANTING DIAGRAM
L3.2
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROAD
PA-3, PA-4
PLATANUS X ACERFOLIA
LONDON PLANE
PISTACHIA CHINENSIS
CHINESE PISTACHE
PYRUS CALLERYANA
CALLERY PEAR
ACER RUBRUM
ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE
ALNUS RHOMBIFOILA
WHITE ALDER
CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS
COMMON HACKBERRY
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA
COASTAL LIVE OAK
ZELKOVA SERRATA
JAPANESE ZELKOVA
OLEA EUROPAEA
OLIVE
LOPHOSTEMON CONFER.
BRISBANE BOX
PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR
FERN PINE
QUERCUS ILEX
HOLLY OAK
ALNUS RUBRA
RED ALDER
PRUNUS
CHERRY
LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA
CRAPE MYRTLE
CITRUS LIMON
CITRUS (OR ALTERNATIVE)
LEGEND
CENTRAL PARKWAYSTREET MGLEASON DRIVESTREET H
STREET JSTREET ISTREET K5.1.l
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018PA-3 ‘POCKET PARKS’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L3.3
PA-3, PA-4
0 5 10 20 30 FEET
POCKET PARKS
GARDEN WALK WITH
DECOMPOSED GRANITE PAVING
RETAINING WALL ALONG
RESIDENTIAL LOTS,
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
MAPLE WINDROW (COLUMNAR
FORM) AND HEDGEROW
SMALL FLEXIBLE
LAWN SPACE
PLANTED BERMS/LANDFORMS
AT 3:1 MAXIMUM SLOPE
PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY
OAK/ARBUTUS INFORMAL
TREE MIX
BENCH ON DECOMPOSED
GRANITE PAVING
STREET KPICNIC AREA
BIKE PARKING
BUILDING
P 368.1
BUILDING
P 369.7
BUILDING
P 369.0
BUILDING
P 367.4
BUILDING
P 374.2
BUILDING
P 370.6
BUILDING
P 374.6
FS 375.1
FG 373.6
FS 370.0 FS 366.4
TC 366.4
TC 366.1
FS 370.5 FS 366.7
FS 370.3 1%2%
2.0%
3.5%
FS 371.2
FS 373.5
FS 374.8
FS 374.9
BUILDING
P 374.3
BUILDING
P 369.3
FS 370.1
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018PA-3 ‘RESIDENTIAL PASEO’ LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT
L3.4
PA-3, PA-4
0 8 16 32 48 FEET
RESIDENTIAL
PASEO
GARDEN ROOM
WITH BENCH SEATING
GARDEN ROOM
WITH BENCH
SEATING
PRUNUS ALLEE
FLANKING
PROMENADE
CONCRETE SEATWALLS WITH
BOARDFORM FINISH ALONG
PROMENADE
GEOBLOCK PAVING AT EVA
CROSSINGS (PLANTED WITH NATIVE
GRASSES) AND MARKED
WITH REMOVABLE VEHICULAR
BOLLARDS
GARDEN ROOM
WITH BENCH SEATING
PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY
RED MAPLE WINDROW
(COLUMNAR FORM) AND
HEDGEROW
CRAPE MYRTLE
FLANKING
EVA CROSSINGS
STREET IBUILDING
PAD 390.5
BUILDING
PAD 383.6
BUILDING
PAD 379.6
BUILDING
PAD 379.1
BUILDING
PAD 375.1
BUILDING
PAD 388.8
BUILDING
PAD 382.5
BUILDING
PAD 378.7
BUILDING
PAD 378.3
BUILDING
PAD 374.7
BUILDING
PAD 384.1
BUILDING
PAD 383.0
FS 389.7
2.8%
2.6%ALLEY VALLEY ZFS 383.2
FS 383.7
2%
4.2%
FS 383.2
FS 383.9 ALLEY UALLEY AAFS 378.8
FS 379.3
2%
FS 378.8
FS 379.4 ALLEY TALLEY BBFS 374.6
FS 375.1
2%
FS 374.8
FS 375.1
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
8’-0” MIN.8’-0” MIN.16’-0”6’-0”6’-0”8’-0” MIN.
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-3 ‘RESIDENTIAL PASEO’ GARDEN ROOM PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
SECTION SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
N SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
PLAN
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
GARDEN ROOM WITH
BENCH SEATING
PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY
(CONCRETE)
PRIVATE
YARD
(VARIES,
4’ MIN.)
PRIVATE
YARD
(VARIES,
4’ MIN.)ALLEY VALLEY ZPA-3
PA-4
‘RESIDENTIAL PASEO’
GARDEN ROOM
L3.5
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-3, PA-4
PA-3 SFD 1 LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
L3.60481624FEET
5’ WIDE RESIDENTIAL
WALK PER CITY OF DUBLIN
STANDARDS
SHRUB BUFFER AT
CORNER LOTS FRONTING
STREETS
RETAINING WALL ALONG
RESIDENTIAL LOTS,
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
ALLEY TREES
(1 PER RESIDENCE)
SMALL ORNAMENTAL/
FRUITING TREE AT FRONT OF
HOMES (1 PER RESIDENCE)
LOW SHRUBS AND
GRASSES AT FRONTS OF
RESIDENCES
6’ TALL WOOD PRIVACY
FENCE BETWEEN RESIDENCES
ZELKOVA STREET TREES
SIDEYARD GATE WITH TRASH/
RECYCLING ACCESS AT GARAGE
SIDE OF RESIDENCE
6’ TALL WOOD DECORATIVE
FENCE FRONTING STREETS
AND OPEN SPACES
AC UNIT AT REAR OF
RESIDENCE
ALLEY MM
STREET H
SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED TYPE 1
STEP STONE PATHWAY
(WITHIN FLUSH FIELD OF STABILIZED
DECOMPOSED GRANITE)
LEADING TO SIDEYARD GATES
2.8%
4%2%2.0%0.5%FS 369.4
FS 364.0FS 367.6
BUILDING
P 367.4
BUILDING
P 367.7
BUILDING
P 368.2
BUILDING
P 368.5
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
0 4 8 16 24 FEET
SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED TYPE 2
PA-3 SFD 2 LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
L3.7
PA-3, PA-4
EVA WITH GEOBLOCK
PAVING AND REMOVABLE
BOLLARDS
4’ WIDE RESIDENTIAL
WALK PER CITY OF DUBLIN
STANDARDS
SHRUB BUFFER ALONG
FENCES AND BUILDING
PERIMETERS
SHRUB BUFFER AT CORNER
LOTS FRONTING
RESIDENTIAL PASEO
ALLEY TREES
(1 PER RESIDENCE)
LOW SHRUBS AND
GRASSES AT FRONTS OF
RESIDENCES
SMALL ORNAMENTAL/
FRUITING TREE AT FRONT OF
HOMES (1 PER RESIDENCE)
SMALL ORNAMENTAL/
FLOWERING TREES ALONG
SIDEYARDS
(OWNER’S OPTION)
AC UNIT AT PORCH SIDE
OF RESIDENCE
STEP STONE PATHWAY
(WITHIN FLUSH FIELD OF STABILIZED
DECOMPOSED GRANITE)
LEADING TO SIDEYARD GATES
SIDEYARD GATE WITH
TRASH/RECYCLING AT GARAGE
SIDE OF RESIDENCE
6’ TALL WOOD DECORATIVE
FENCE FRONTING STREETS
AND OPEN SPACES
6’ TALL WOOD PRIVACY
FENCE BETWEEN
RESIDENCES ALLEY AA2%0.9%FS 378.8
BUILDING
P 378.7
BUILDING
P 378.3
BUILDING
P 378.3
BUILDING
P 377.9
BUILDING
P 378.0
BUILDING
P 377.5
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018PA-3 GARDEN ROOMS
L3.8
PA-3, PA-4
ORNAMENTAL
CITRUS TREES
OLIVE TREE
GROVE
FLOWERING
GROUNDCOVER AND
PERENNIAL GARDEN
ORNAMENTAL
PRUNUS TREES
4’ WIDE RESIDENTIAL
PATH PER CITY OF
DUBLIN STANDARDS
TO TASSAJARA BLVD.
BENCHES ON
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
SURFACE
HOLLY OAK
EVERGREEN BUFFER
ALLEY O
ALLEY JJ
ALLEY P
ALLEY HH
NATIVE GRASSES
PLANTING
SENSORY GARDEN WITH
FRAGRANT PLANT
SPECIES SELECTION
HOLLY OAK
EVERGREEN BUFFER
CRAPE MYRTLE
TREES
HUMMINGBIRD GARDEN
PLANTING
0 4 8 16 24 FEET
GARDEN ROOMS
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”PLAN
8’-0”4’-0”10’-0”12’-0”14’-0”
0’-6’
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-3 CENTRAL PARKWAY PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTIONCENTRALPARKWAY L3.9
EXISTING
MEDIAN
(VARIES)
BUS
STOP
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
(VARIES)
CLASS I
SHARED
USE PATH
AND
SHOULDER
PUE
(VARIES)
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
PRIVATE YARD
(VARIES, 4’ MIN.)
ROW
SECTION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
CENTRAL
PARKWAY
PA-3, PA-4
RETAINING WALL,
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
CLASS II
BIKE
LANE AND
BUFFER
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
BUILDING
P 367.7
BUILDING
1
P 364.9
BUILDING
P 367.4
FS 366.9
4:1
SLOPE
TC 363.3
TC 363.6
PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS
EXISTING STREET
EXTENTS/ CONDITION
TC 363.1
TC 364.3
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
PLAN
15’-0” 6’-0”6’-0”8’-0”8’-0”8’-0”8’-0”6’-0”
0’-6’
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-3 BRANNIGAN STREET PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
BRANNIGAN STREET
PKWY PKWYPARK
ING
PARK
ING
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
(VARIES)
BRANNIGAN
STREET
ALLEY QALLEY RSIDE
WALK
SIDE
WALK
PUE
(VARIES)
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
ROW
PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS
EXISTING STREET
EXTENTS/ CONDITION
SECTION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
L3.10
PA-3, PA-4
PRIVATE YARD
(VARIES, 4’ MIN.)
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
BUILDING
P 374.7
BUILDING
P 374.0
BUILDING
P 370.1
TC 374.3 TC 372.2
FS 374.6
FS 370.3
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
PLAN
8’-0”6’-0”5’-0”17’-0” 7’-0”
0’-6’
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-3 TASSAJARA ROAD PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
TASSAJARA ROAD
PKWYLANDSCAPE
BUFFER
(VARIES)
CL
ALLEY HHPRIVATE YARD
(VARIES, 4’ MIN.)
PUE
(VARIES)
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
ROW (TO CENTERLINE)
CLASS II
BIKE
LANE AND
BUFFER
SIDE
WALK
SECTION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
PA-3, PA-4
TASSAJARA
ROAD
L3.11
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
BUILDING
P 379.6
BUILDING
P 376.9
BUILDING
P 376.5
FS 377.0
TC 376.9TC 378.4
PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS
EXISTING STREET
EXTENTS/ CONDITION
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”PLAN
0’-6’0’-6’
14’-0”12’-0”6’-0”8’-0”8’-0”6’-0”5’-0”12’-0”20’-0” 4’-0”
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-3 AND PA-4 GLEASON DRIVE PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTIONGLEASON DRIVEPKWY PKWYCLASS II
BIKE LANE
AND BUFFER
CLASS II
BIKE
LANE AND
BUFFER
SIDE
WALK LANDSCAPE BUFFER
(VARIES)
PRIVATE YARD
(VARIES, 4’ MIN.)
EXISTING
MEDIAN
(VARIES)
ROWPUE
(VARIES)
PUE
(VARIES)
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
(VARIES)
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
SECTION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
L3.12
PA-3, PA-4
GLEASON
DRIVE
PRIVATE YARD
(VARIES, 4’ MIN.)
RETAINING WALL,
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
CLASS I
SHARED
USE PATH
AND
SHOULDER
ALLLEY Y
BUILDING
PAD 390.5BUILDING
PAD 396.8
BUILDING
PAD 388.4
BUILDING
PAD 396.1
BUILDING
PAD 395.2
TC 393.4
TC 389.1
TC 392.4
TC 392.4
3:1
SLOPE
PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS
EXISTING STREET
EXTENTS/ CONDITION
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
PLAN
14’-0” 6’-0”6’-0”6’-0”8’-0”8’-0”8’-0”
0’-6’
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
ROW
PA-4 BRANNIGAN STREET PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
BRANNIGAN STREET
GLEASON DRIVEPARKWAY PKWYPARKINGLANDSCAPE
BUFFER
(VARIES)
PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS
EXISTING STREET
EXTENTS/ CONDITION
PRIVATE YARD
(VARIES, 4’ MIN.)
PUE
(VARIES)
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
SIDE
WALK
SIDE
WALK
SECTION
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
L3.13
PA-3, PA-4
BRANNIGAN
STREET
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
STREET MBLDG.
P 403.5
BLDG.
P 402.7
TC 407.2 TC 405.2 TC 402.2
TC 400.4
FS 403.5
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
10’-6”5’-0”8’-0”22’-0”8’-0”5’-0”7’-0”
4’-0”4’-0”
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-3 STREET J PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
SECTION
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
N SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
PLAN
PRIVATE YARD
(VARIES, 4’ MIN.)
PRIVATE YARD
(VARIES, 4’ MIN.)
SIDE
WALK
SIDE
WALK
PARK
ING
PARK
ING
STREET J
STREET J
STREET JPA-3
PA-4
PUE PUE
ROW
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
L3.14
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N
SECTION SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
PLAN
4’-0”4’-0”4’-0”22’-0”
2’-6”2’-6”
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
PA-3 ALLEY AA PLAN VIGNETTE AND SECTION
N SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
PLAN
ALLEY AAALLEY AAFRONT YARD
(VARIES, 2’MIN.)
FRONT YARD
(VARIES, 2’ MIN.)
SWK
PUE PUE
PA-3
PA-4
ROW
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
PROPERTY LINE/
ROW
L3.15
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED STREET AND
PARKWAY DIMENSIONS
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
0 25 50 100 150 FEET
PA-3 AND PA-4 FENCE AND RETAINING WALLS DIAGRAM
L3.16
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROAD
PA-3, PA-4
DECORATIVE FENCE
6’ WITH LATTICE TOP PANEL
PRIVACY FENCE
6’ SOLID
RETAINING WALL
SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR HEIGHTS
LEGEND
CENTRAL PARKWAYSTREET MNOTE: FAST GROWING EVERGREEN
SCREENING VEGETATION AND/ OR
VINES SHOULD BE UTILIZED FOR
BUFFERING VIEWS OF EXPOSED WALL
HEIGHTS AND FENCING.GLEASON DRIVESTREET H
STREET JSTREET ISTREET K5.1.l
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
N SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
0 25 50 100 150 FEET
PA-3 AND PA-4 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS DIAGRAM
L3.17N
BRANNIGAN STREET
TASSAJARA ROAD
PA-3, PA-4
LEGEND
CENTRAL PARKWAYSTREET MGLEASON DRIVESTREET H
STREET JSTREET ISTREET KM1.
CONCRETE WITH
ENHANCED COLOR/FINISH
M2.
CONCRETE PER CITY
OF DUBLIN STANDARDS
M3.
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
PAVING
M4.
GEOBLOCK PAVING WITH
PLANTING AT EVA
F3.
CONCRETE SEATWALL/
RAISED PLANTER
(LOCATED OUTSIDE TRAFFIC
VISIBILITY AREAS OR
UNDER 30” IN HEIGHT)
F3.
BENCHES AT PARKS
AND OPEN SPACES
F4.
TABLES
F6.
BIKE RACKS
F8.
VEHICULAR
BOLLARDS
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.1SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
COLOR PALETTE - PA 3 / PA 4
BODY COLORS
STUCCO SIDING CORRUGATED METAL
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.2SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
COLOR PALETTE - PA 3 / PA 4
TRIM AND ACCENT COLORS
TRIM ACCENT MISCELANEOUS
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS:
METAL:
OIL RUBBED BRONZE
OR ALUMINUM
WINDOW FRAMES:
BRONZE OR BEIGE
DOWNSPOUTS / GUTTERS:
PAINT TO MATCH
ADJACENT COLOR
TRIM:
PAINT ALL EXPOSED
TRIM EDGES SAME
COLOR AS FACE
OF TRIM
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.3SHEET
AUGUST 7, 2018
COLOR PALETTE - PA 3 / PA 4
ROOFING AND STONE COLORS
COMPOSITION SHINGLE
ROOFING
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOFING
STONE
EXTERIOR LIGHTS:
MILLENIUM LIGHTING
RWHS17-RGN15 OR EQUAL
COLOR: ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE
WATTAGE: 200W
HEIGHT: 15.25”
SHADE: 17”
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.4
AUGUST 7, 2018
CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
SFD 1
SFD 1 - CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.5
AUGUST 7, 2018
SITE LAYOUT - FIRST FLOOR
SFD 1
SITE LAYOUT NOTES
1
SETBACKS SHOWN ARE MINIMUMS AT
LIVING SPACE AND GARAGE. SEE CIVIL
DRAWINGS.
2
ARCHITECTURAL ENHANCEMENTS,
PORCHES, DECKS MAY ENCROACH UP
TO 2’ INTO MINIMUM SETBACKS.
53'-0" (AT CORNER LOT)
42'-0" (AT CORNER PLAN)7'-0"4'-0"
42'-0"
34'-0"4'-0"4'-0"
48'-0"
40'-0"4'-0"4'-0"54'-0"6'-0"44'-0"4'-0"PLAN ONE
3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS +
LOFT/ BEDROOM 4 OPT.
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
894 SQ. FT.
1108 SQ. FT.
2002 SQ. FT.
469 SQ. FT.
PLAN THREE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS +
LOFT/ BEDROOM 5 OPT.
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
1133 SQ. FT.
1367 SQ. FT.
2500 SQ. FT.
432 SQ. FT.
PLAN TWO - CORNER
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
1093 SQ. FT.
1145 SQ. FT.
2238 SQ. FT.
435 SQ. FT.
PLAN TWO - CORNER
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
1093 SQ. FT.
1145 SQ. FT.
2238 SQ. FT.
435 SQ. FT.5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"8'-0"
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.6
AUGUST 7, 2018
SITE LAYOUT - SECOND FLOOR
SFD 1
PLAN ONE
3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS +
LOFT/ BEDROOM 4 OPT.
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
894 SQ. FT.
1108 SQ. FT.
2002 SQ. FT.
469 SQ. FT.
PLAN THREE
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS +
LOFT/ BEDROOM 5 OPT.
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
1133 SQ. FT.
1367 SQ. FT.
2500 SQ. FT.
432 SQ. FT.
PLAN TWO - CORNER
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
1093 SQ. FT.
1145 SQ. FT.
2238 SQ. FT.
435 SQ. FT.
PLAN TWO - CORNER
4 BEDROOMS / 3 BATHS
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
1093 SQ. FT.
1145 SQ. FT.
2238 SQ. FT.
435 SQ. FT.
W.I.C.
18.5 L.F.LINEN5.1.l
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.9
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
SFD 1 - PLAN 1
+/- 30’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘A’REAR ELEVATION ‘A’LEFT ELEVATION ‘A’FRONT ELEVATION ‘A’
1
3
5
6
13
10
4
8
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘A’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 WOOD BEAM WITH STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
2
9
11
FENCE LINEFENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.12
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
SFD 1 - PLAN 1 CORNER
+/- 29’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘A’REAR ELEVATION ‘A’LEFT ELEVATION ‘A’FRONT ELEVATION ‘A’
1
3
5
6
13
10
4
8
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘A’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 WOOD BEAM WITH STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
2
9
11
FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.15
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
SFD 1 - PLAN 1
+/- 31’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘B’REAR ELEVATION ‘B’LEFT ELEVATION ‘B’FRONT ELEVATION ‘B’
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘B’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
5 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 STUCCO TRIM
8 STONE VENEER
9 STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
9
6
10
3
1
5
2
11
FENCE LINEFENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.18
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
SFD 1 - PLAN 1 CORNER
+/- 31’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘B’REAR ELEVATION ‘B’LEFT ELEVATION ‘B’FRONT ELEVATION ‘B’
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘B’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
5 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 STUCCO TRIM
8 STONE VENEER
9 STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
3
5
9
6
10
3
2
1
11
FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.21
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION C
SFD 1 - PLAN 1
+/- 29’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘C’REAR ELEVATION ‘C’LEFT ELEVATION ‘C’FRONT ELEVATION ‘C’
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘C’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 CORRUGATED METAL SIDING OR
BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 WOOD TRELLIS
10 WOOD BEAM ON STEEL POST
11 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
12 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
13 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
14 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
1
3
5
12
11
7
4
62
10
FENCE LINEFENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.24
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION C
SFD 1 - PLAN 1 CORNER
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘C’REAR ELEVATION ‘C’LEFT ELEVATION ‘C’FRONT ELEVATION ‘C’
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘C’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 CORRUGATED METAL SIDING OR
BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 WOOD TRELLIS
10 WOOD BEAM ON STEEL POST
11 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
12 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
13 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
14 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
1
3
4
12
5
11
7
4
62
10
+/- 29’-0”
FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.27
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
SFD 1 - PLAN 2
+/- 31’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘A’REAR ELEVATION ‘A’LEFT ELEVATION ‘A’FRONT ELEVATION ‘A’
3
1
5
10
4
8
6
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘A’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 WOOD BEAM WITH STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
2
13
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.30
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
SFD 1 - PLAN 2 CORNER
+/- 31’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘A’REAR ELEVATION ‘A’LEFT ELEVATION ‘A’FRONT ELEVATION ‘A’
3
4
5
6 10
8
1
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘A’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 WOOD BEAM WITH STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
2
13
FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.33
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
SFD 1 - PLAN 2
+/- 29’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘B’REAR ELEVATION ‘B’LEFT ELEVATION ‘B’FRONT ELEVATION ‘B’
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘B’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
5 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 STUCCO TRIM
8 STONE VENEER
9 STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
3
1
5
2
6
7
9
10
11
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.36
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
SFD 1 - PLAN 2 CORNER
+/- 29’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘B’REAR ELEVATION ‘B’LEFT ELEVATION ‘B’FRONT ELEVATION ‘B’
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘B’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
5 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 STUCCO TRIM
8 STONE VENEER
9 STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
3
5
6
7
9
10
6
3
1
FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.39
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION C
SFD 1 - PLAN 2
+/- 26’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘C’REAR ELEVATION ‘C’LEFT ELEVATION ‘C’FRONT ELEVATION ‘C’
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘C’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING OR
CORRUGATED METAL SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 WOOD TRELLIS
10 STEEL POST
11 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
12 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
13 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
14 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
5
6
9
11
8
3
1
4
7
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.42
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION C
SFD 1 - PLAN 2 CORNER
+/- 26’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘C’REAR ELEVATION ‘C’LEFT ELEVATION ‘C’FRONT ELEVATION ‘C’
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘C’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT OR
CORRUGATED METAL SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 WOOD TRELLIS
10 STEEL POST
11 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
12 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
13 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
14 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
3
8
5
6 11
8
1
4
7
FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.45
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
SFD 1 - PLAN 3
+/- 31’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘A’REAR ELEVATION ‘A’LEFT ELEVATION ‘A’FRONT ELEVATION ‘A’
4
3
5
2
6
11
12
8
10
1
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘A’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 WOOD BEAM WITH STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.48
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
SFD 1 - PLAN 3 CORNER
+/- 31’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘A’REAR ELEVATION ‘A’LEFT ELEVATION ‘A’FRONT ELEVATION ‘A’
4
3
5
6
11
12
8
10
1
2
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘A’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 WOOD BEAM WITH STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
9
FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.51
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
SFD 1 - PLAN 3
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘B’REAR ELEVATION ‘B’LEFT ELEVATION ‘B’FRONT ELEVATION ‘B’
+/- 31’-0”
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘B’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
5 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 STUCCO TRIM
8 STONE VENEER
9 WOOD BEAM WITH STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
1
5
3
7
7
11
6
10
2
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.54
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
SFD 1 - PLAN 3 CORNER
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘B’REAR ELEVATION ‘B’LEFT ELEVATION ‘B’FRONT ELEVATION ‘B’
+/- 31’-0”
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘B’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
5 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 STUCCO TRIM
8 STONE VENEER
9 WOOD BEAM WITH STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
1
5
3
7
11
6
10
2
9
FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.57
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION C
SFD 1 - PLAN 3
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘C’REAR ELEVATION ‘C’LEFT ELEVATION ‘C’FRONT ELEVATION ‘C’
+/- 31’-0”
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘C’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 CORRUGATED METAL SIDING OR
BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 WOOD TRELLIS
10 STEEL POST
11 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
12 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
13 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
14 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
1
3
5
6
12
14
8
11
7
2
4
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.60
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION C
SFD 1 - PLAN 3 CORNER
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘C’REAR ELEVATION ‘C’LEFT ELEVATION ‘C’FRONT ELEVATION ‘C’
+/- 31’-0”
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘C’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 CORRUGATED METAL SIDING OR
BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 WOOD TRELLIS
10 STEEL POST
11 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
12 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
13 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
14 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
1
4
3
5
6
12
14
8
11
7
2
FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.61
AUGUST 7, 2018
CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
SFD 2
SFD 2 - CONCEPTUAL STREET SCENE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.62
AUGUST 7, 2018
SITE LAYOUT - FIRST FLOOR
SFD 2
42'-0"
31'-0"6'-0"5'-0"
42'-0"
30'-6"5'-0"6'-6"
42'-0"
31'-0"5'-0"6'-0"61'-0"8'-0"48'-0"5'-0"(REVERSE)(REVERSE)
718 SQ. FT.
1090 SQ. FT.
1007 SQ. FT.
2815 SQ. FT.
461 SQ. FT.
4 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHS
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
THIRD FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
PLAN ONEPLAN TWO
4 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHS
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
THIRD FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
769 SQ. FT.
1131 SQ. FT.
961 SQ. FT.
2861 SQ. FT.
440 SQ. FT.
4 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHS +
FLEX/ BEDROOM 5 OPT.
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
THIRD FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
PLAN THREE
701 SQ. FT.
1194 SQ. FT.
1116 SQ. FT.
3011 SQ. FT.
519 SQ. FT.
SITE LAYOUT NOTES
1
SETBACKS SHOWN ARE MINIMUMS AT
LIVING SPACE AND GARAGE. SEE CIVIL
DRAWINGS.
2 MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK IS 5’-0”
3
ARCHITECTURAL ENHANCEMENTS,
PORCHES, DECKS MAY ENCROACH UP
TO 2’ INTO MINIMUM SETBACKS.
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.63
AUGUST 7, 2018
SITE LAYOUT - SECOND FLOOR
SFD 2
(REVERSE)(REVERSE)
718 SQ. FT.
1090 SQ. FT.
1007 SQ. FT.
2815 SQ. FT.
461 SQ. FT.
4 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHS
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
THIRD FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
PLAN ONEPLAN TWO
4 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHS
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
THIRD FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
769 SQ. FT.
1131 SQ. FT.
961 SQ. FT.
2861 SQ. FT.
440 SQ. FT.
4 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHS +
FLEX/ BEDROOM 5 OPT.
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
THIRD FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
PLAN THREE
701 SQ. FT.
1194 SQ. FT.
1116 SQ. FT.
3011 SQ. FT.
519 SQ. FT.
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.64
AUGUST 7, 2018
SITE LAYOUT - THIRD FLOOR
SFD 2
(REVERSE)(REVERSE)
718 SQ. FT.
1090 SQ. FT.
1007 SQ. FT.
2815 SQ. FT.
461 SQ. FT.
4 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHS
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
THIRD FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
PLAN ONEPLAN TWO
4 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHS
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
THIRD FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
769 SQ. FT.
1131 SQ. FT.
961 SQ. FT.
2861 SQ. FT.
440 SQ. FT.
4 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHS +
FLEX/ BEDROOM 5 OPT.
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
THIRD FLOOR:
TOTAL:
GARAGE:
PLAN THREE
701 SQ. FT.
1194 SQ. FT.
1116 SQ. FT.
3011 SQ. FT.
519 SQ. FT.
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.67
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
SFD 2 - PLAN 1
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘A’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 FIBER CEMENT TRIM AT SIDING
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 WOOD BEAM WITH STEEL POST
9 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
10 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
11 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
12 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
+/- 41’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘A’REAR ELEVATION ‘A’LEFT ELEVATION ‘A’FRONT ELEVATION ‘A’
1
12
5
6
10
8
9
11
3
4
2
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.70
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
SFD 2 - PLAN 1
+/- 38’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘B’REAR ELEVATION ‘B’LEFT ELEVATION ‘B’FRONT ELEVATION ‘B’
1
2
3
7
10
6
10
8
12
7
13
4
5
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘B’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
5 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 STUCCO TRIM
8 STONE VENEER
9 STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.73
AUGUST 7, 2018
+/- 39’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘C’REAR ELEVATION ‘C’LEFT ELEVATION ‘C’FRONT ELEVATION ‘C’
1
2
7
11
5
10
7
12
4
3
ELEVATION C
SFD 2 - PLAN 1
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘C’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT OR CORRUGATED
METAL SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.76
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
SFD 2 - PLAN 2
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘A’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 WOOD BEAM WITH STEEL POST
9 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
10 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
11 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
12 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘A’REAR ELEVATION ‘A’LEFT ELEVATION ‘A’FRONT ELEVATION ‘A’
4
11
3
9 11
7
1
3
12
+/- 41’-0”
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.79
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
SFD 2 - PLAN 2
+/- 38’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘B’REAR ELEVATION ‘B’LEFT ELEVATION ‘B’FRONT ELEVATION ‘B’
4
12
3
10 11
6
7
1
5
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘B’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
5 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 STUCCO TRIM
8 STONE VENEER
9 STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.82
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION C
SFD 2 - PLAN 2
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘C’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING OR
CORRUGATED METAL SIDING
4 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 STEEL POST
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘C’REAR ELEVATION ‘C’LEFT ELEVATION ‘C’FRONT ELEVATION ‘C’
+/- 41’-0”
3
4
12
7
2
10 11
6
1
5
13
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.85
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION A
SFD 2 - PLAN 3
+/- 41’-0”
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘A’REAR ELEVATION ‘A’LEFT ELEVATION ‘A’FRONT ELEVATION ‘A’
1
5
6
10
7
9
11
7
3
12
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘A’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 FIBER CEMENT TRIM AT SIDING
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 WOOD BEAM WITH STEEL POST
9 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
10 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
11 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
12 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
13 STEEL AWNING
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.88
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION B
SFD 2 - PLAN 3
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘B’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
6” EXPOSURE
4 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH
4” EXPOSURE
5 COMPOSITE TRIM AT SIDING
6 STUCCO FINISH
7 STUCCO TRIM
8 STONE VENEER
9 STEEL AWNING
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘B’REAR ELEVATION ‘B’LEFT ELEVATION ‘B’FRONT ELEVATION ‘B’
+/- 38’-0”
1
5
4
6
11 8
10
9
3
6
7
12
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A3.91
AUGUST 7, 2018
ELEVATION C
SFD 2 - PLAN 3
EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES
1 OPTIONAL BI-FOLD FRENCH DOORS
SHOWN AT DECKS
EXTERIOR ELEVATION FINISHES
ELEVATION ‘C’
1 40 YEAR DIMENSIONAL COMPOSITION
SHINGLE ROOFING
2 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
3 CORRUGATED METAL SIDING OR
BOARD AND BATT SIDING
4 WOOD TRIM AT COR. METAL SIDING
5 STUCCO FINISH
6 STUCCO TRIM
7 STONE VENEER
8 SHUTTER
9 STEEL AWNING
10 METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOORS
11 ACCENT PAINTED COMPOSITE FRONT
DOORS
12 STEEL RAILING WITH WOOD HANDRAIL
13 ACCENT PANEL INLAY
RIGHT ELEVATION ‘C’REAR ELEVATION ‘C’LEFT ELEVATION ‘C’FRONT ELEVATION ‘C’
+/- 39’-0”
1
6
5
11 7
9
12
3
4
13
9
FENCE LINE FENCE LINE
5.1.l
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: 12. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 6 Planning Areas 3 & 4 (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PLANTER ISLAND ADJACENT TO 6" CURB & GUTTER
SECTION A-A
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
PLANTER ISLAND ADJACENT TO 6" CURB & GUTTER
SECTION A-A
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.m
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: 13. Exhibit A to Attachment 6 - Part 7 Tentative Maps (At Dublin Public Hearing)
RESOLUTION NO. 18-xx
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 SCS
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY RELATED TO THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development
Company is requesting approval of the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to
665 residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small -lot single family
homes, and up to 400,500 square feet of retail commercial development, related infrastructure
and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General Plan Amendment
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and
Stage 2), and Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps, Tentative Parcel Map, street
vacation, a Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report,
among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as
the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, The Project site is approximately 77.3 acres generally bound by Tassajara
Road, Gleason Drive, Brannigan Street and I -580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-
0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
WHEREAS, the project is the subject of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State
Clearinghouse number 2018012027. On October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission approved
Resolution No. 18-xx, recommending that the City Council certify the At Dublin Final EIR and
adopt CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project. The activities under the Development Agreement do not result
in any impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement is attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018 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
5.1.n
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: 14. Resolution Recommending Approval of the Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
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 object ives, policies,
general land uses and programs in the General Plan and Specific Plan and does not amend or
modify them; and (b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and
Specific Plan with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services.
2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the
regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located because the
Development Agreement does not amend the use s 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 General Plan as articulated in Resolution No. xx-18, amending the
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council on ________.
4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and
general welfare in that the Developer’s proposed project will proceed in accordance with all the
programs and policies of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future Project
Approvals and any Conditions of Approval.
5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of
property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the
General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future Project Approvals.
6. The Development Agreement specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted
uses of the property, and the obligations of the Applicant. The Development Agreement contains
an indemnity and insurance clause requiring the developer to indemnify and hold the City
harmless against claims arising out of the development process, including all legal fees and costs.
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 Shea Properties
related to the At Dublin project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of October 2018.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
5.1.n
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: 14. Resolution Recommending Approval of the Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
5.1.n
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: 14. Resolution Recommending Approval of the Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
ORDINANCE NO. xx - 18
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND SCS
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY RELATED TO THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. RECITALS
A. A request has been made by SCS Development Company to enter into a
Development Agreement with the City of Dublin for the property known as the At Dublin project
site, which includes properties identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers 985-0051-004, 985-
0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025, an approximately 77.3 acre site; and
B. The Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development Company is
requesting approval of the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to 665 residential
units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small-lot single family homes, and up
to 400,500 square feet of retail commercial development, related infrastructure and landscape
improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General Plan Amendment and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and Stage 2), and
Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps, Tentative Parcel Map, street vacation, a
request for a Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report,
among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as
the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project”; and
C. The project is the subject of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State
Clearinghouse number 2018012027. On October 30, 2018, the Planning Commission approved
Resolution No. 18-xx, recommending that the City Council certify the At Dublin Final EIR and
adopt CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project. The activities under the Development Agreement do not result
in any impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the EIR; and
D. The proposed Development Agreement is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A;
and
E. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Development
Agreement on October 30, 2018, 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; and
G. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City
Council on __________, 2018 for which public notice was given as provided by law; and
5.1.o
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: 15. Exhibit A to Attachment 14 - Ordinance Approving the Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
2
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 At Dublin Project EIR;
(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 P lan, and in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan in that: (a) the Development Agreement incorporates the objectives policies,
general land uses and programs in the General Plan and Specific Plan and does not amend or
modify them; and (b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and
Specific Plan with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services.
2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the
regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located because the
Development Agreement does not amend the uses or regulations in the applicable land use
district.
3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general
welfare, and good land use policies in that the Developer’s project will implement land use
guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan as articulated in
Resolution No. xx-18, amending the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted
by the City Council on ____________, 2018.
4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety , and
general welfare in that the Developer’s proposed project will proceed in accordance with all the
programs and policies of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future Project
Approvals and any Conditions of Approval.
5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of
property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the
General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future Project Approvals.
6. The Development Agreement specifies the duration of the agreement, the permitted
uses of the property, and the obligations of the Applicant. The Development Agreement contains
an indemnity and insurance clause requiring the developer to indemnify and hold the City
harmless against claims arising out of the development process, including all legal fees and costs.
Section 3. APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A to the
Ordinance) and authorizes the City Manager to execute it.
Section 4. RECORDATION
5.1.o
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: 15. Exhibit A to Attachment 14 - Ordinance Approving the Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
3
Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the
City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation.
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of
its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least
three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government
Code of the State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _____ day of
______, 2018 by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
5.1.o
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: 15. Exhibit A to Attachment 14 - Ordinance Approving the Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 2
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Fee Waived per GC 27383
Space above this line for Recorder’s use
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF DUBLIN
AND
SCS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
FOR THE AT DUBLIN PROJECT
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 3
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement” or this
“Development Agreement”) is made and entered into for reference purposes on this
day of , 2018, by and between the City of Dublin, a Municipal Corporation
(hereafter “City”) and SCS Development Company, Inc., a California Corporation
(hereafter “Developer”) pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California
Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56. City and Developer ar e,
from time-to-time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a “Party,” and are
collectively referred to as “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. (“Development Agreement
Statute”) and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter “Chapter 8.56”)
authorize the City to enter into a Development Agreement for the development of real
property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to
establish certain development rights in such property.
B. Developer owns certain real property (the “Property”) consisting of
approximately 77.3 acres of land, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, Legal
Description of Property, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
C. Developer has applied for, and City has approved, various land use
approvals in connection with a mixed use project consisting of 400,500 square feet of
commercial development and 665 residential units (the “Project”), including, without
limitation, a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the At
Dublin Project (Resolution No. ____ adopted on _____, 2018), a Stage 1 and Stage 2
Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan for the At Dublin Project (Ord.
No. ___ adopted by the City Council on ______, 2018), and a Site Development Review
(SDR) approval permit and Vesting Tentative Maps 8440, 8449, 8450, 8451, 8452 and
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10800 for the At Dublin Project (Resolution No. ___
adopted on ______, 2018), and the DA Approving Ordinance (defined below)
(collectively with the At Dublin Approvals, referred to herein as the “Project Approvals”).
D. City desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of the
Project.
E. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express herein
a Development Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project subject to
conditions set forth herein.
F. City has undertaken, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter “CEQA”), the required
analysis of the environmental effects that would be caused by the Project and has
determined those feasible mitigation measures which will eliminate, or reduce to an
acceptable level, the adverse environmental impacts of the Project. The en vironmental
effects of the proposed development of the Property were analyzed by the Final
Environmental Impact Report (the “FEIR”) certified by City on ______________. City
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 4
has also adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (the “MMRP”) to ensure
that those mitigation measures incorporated as part of, or imposed on, the Project are
enforced and completed. Those mitigation measures for which Developer is responsible
are incorporated into, and required by, the Project Approvals. City also has adopted
findings of fact and statements of overriding considerations for those adverse
environmental impacts of the Project that may not or cannot be mitigated to a less than
significant level.
G. City has given the required notice of its intention to adopt this
Development Agreement and has conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to
Government Code Section 65867 and Chapter 8.56. As required by Government Code
Section 65867.5, City has found that the provisions of this Development Agreement and
its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, standards and land use
designations specified in City’s General Plan.
H. On , 2018, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No.
approving this Development Agreement (the “DA Approving Ordinance”). The DA
Approving Ordinance took effect on , 2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration
of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer
agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Description of Property. The Property that is the subject of this
Agreement is described in Exhibit A. Upon the City’s vacation of the portion of Northside
Drive located within the boundaries of the Conveyance Map (the “Additional Property”)
pursuant to Section 8.3, the Additional Property automatically shall become part of the
Property and City and Developer shall execute and record an Administrative
Amendment (as defined in Section 10.2) of this Agreement in accordance with Section
10.2 to amend the legal description of the Property attached hereto as Exhibit A to add
such Additional Property.
2. Interest of Developer. Developer has a legal interest in the Property in
that it is the owner of the Property.
3. Relationship of City and Developer. It is understood that this Agreement
is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by the City and
Developer and that neither City nor Developer is an agent of the other. The City and
Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership
between them and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in
connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint
venturers or partners.
4. Effective Date and Term
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 5
4.1 Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement (“Effective
Date”) is [the date the Approving Ordinance becomes effective] (as first set forth above).
4.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective
Date and shall continue for five (5) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise
extended or terminated as provided in this Agreement. In the event that any third -party
lawsuit is filed challenging the City’s issuance of the Project Approvals or its compliance
with CEQA, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for a duration
equal to the time from the filing of such lawsuit to the entry of an order dismissing or
otherwise terminating such lawsuit, which duration shall include any appeals.
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 90
days prior to the termination 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) (adjusted for inflation from the Effective Date
using the CPI-U, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area) for each year of extension
requested under this provision. Upon receipt of the notice and the contribution, the City
Manager shall approve the extension and shall notify the Developer in writing that the
term of the Development Agreement has been automatically extended for an additional
time period equal to the time period requested by Developer under this provision,
commencing on the date the Development Agreement would otherwise have
terminated; provided Developer may exercise its option to extend the Development
Agreement no more than five times, for a maximum total term of the Development
Agreement of ten (10) years. Provided there is an extension period remaining,
Developer may request the extension for multiple years and provide the payment due
for each year’s extension.
4.4 Term of Project Approvals. The term of any Project Approvals (as
defined in Recital C) for the Property or any portion thereof, specifically including
without limitation the SDR approval permit, the Tentative Parcel Map and the Vesting
Tentative Tract Map shall be extended automatically for the Term of this Agreement.
4.4.1 Termination of Agreement. In the event that this Agreement
is terminated prior to the expiration of the Term, the term of any Project Approval and
the vesting period for any final subdivision map approved as a Project Approval shall be
the term otherwise applicable to the approval.
5. Vested Rights/Use of the Property/Applicable Law/Processing
5.1 Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop
the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to any
of them as shall, from time to time, be app roved pursuant to this Agreement, and the
City’s ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing
the development, construction, subdivision, occupancy and use of the Project and the
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 6
Property including, without limitation, the General Plan, the Dublin Municipal Code, and
the Specific Plan, the permitted uses of the Property, density and intensity of use of the
Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, and the
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes that are in force and
effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement (collectively, “Applicable Law”). In
exercising its discretion when acting upon subsequent project approvals, City shall
apply the Applicable Law as the controlling body of law (within which Applicable Law
such discretion shall be exercised). Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the
contrary herein, any amendment to the Project Approvals shall not become part of the
law Developer is vested into under this Agreement unless an additional amendment of
this Agreement is entered into between Developer and City in accordance with this
Agreement. In the event that such amendments to the Project Approvals are sought for
any distinct portion of the Property or Project, such amendments shall not require
amendment of this Agreement with respect to any other portion of the Property or
Project, except to the extent set forth in such amendment.
5.2 Fees, Exactions, Dedications. The City shall not apply to the
Project any development impact fee or any application, processing or inspection fee
(collectively, “Fees”) that the City first enacts after the Effective Date. Furthermore, the
rate imposed for each such applicable Fee shall be the lower of (a) the rate in effect on
June 30, 2018, as set forth in the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B, or (b) the rate
in effect at the time such Fee is payable under the terms of the legislation imposing the
particular Fee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall be permi tted to impose any
Exaction on a subsequent project approval that requires an amendment to the Project
Approvals.
5.3 Construction Codes. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.1
above, to the extent Applicable Law includes requirements under the state o r locally
adopted building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical and fire codes (collectively the
“Codes”), the Codes included shall be those in force and effect at the time Developer
submits its application for the relevant building, grading, or other construction permits to
City. In the event of a conflict between such Codes and the Project Approvals, the
Project Approvals shall, to the maximum extent allowed by law, prevail. For
construction of public infrastructure, the Codes applicable to such construction shall be
those in force and effect at the time of execution of an improvement agreement between
City and Developer pursuant to Chapter 9.16 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
5.4 New Rules and Regulations. During the term of this Agreement,
the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and
official policies of the City to the Property which were not in force and effect on the
Effective Date only to the extent they are not in conflict with the vested rights granted by
this Agreement, the Applicable Law, the Project Approvals or this Agreement. In
addition to any other conflicts that may occur, each of the following new or modified
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies shall be considered a per
se conflict with the Applicable Law:
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 7
5.4.1 Any application or requirement of such new or modified
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies that would (i) cause or
impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development of the
Property as otherwise contemplated by this Agreement or the Project Approvals, (ii)
frustrate in a more than insignificant way the intent or purpose of the Project Approvals
or preclude compliance therewith including, without limitation, by preventing or imposing
limits or controls in the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of development of the
Project; (iii) prevent or limit the processing or procuring of subsequent project approvals;
or (iv) reduce the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole, or otherwise
requiring any reduction in the square footage of, or total number of, proposed buildings,
structures and other improvements, in a manner that is inconsistent with or more
restrictive than the limitations included in this Agreement and the Project Approvals;
and/or
5.4.2 If any of such ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or
official policies do not have general (City-wide) applicability. Developer specifically
acknowledges that it will be subject to new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules,
regulations or official policies that implement the Municipal Regional Stormwater
NPDES Permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San
Francisco Bay Region from time to time (the “MRP”) to the extent that the permit does
not include exemptions that apply to the Project.
5.5 Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained herein, if a City ordinance, resolution, policy, directive, or other
measure is enacted or becomes effective, whether by action of the City or by initiative,
and if it imposes a building moratorium which affects all or any part of the P roject, City
agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project,
the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the building moratorium is
imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined
in Government Code section 8558, provided that to the extent a moratorium applies to
all or any part of the Project then the Term shall automatically be extended for a period
of time equal to the period of the moratorium.
5.6 Revised Application Fees. Notwithstanding section Error!
Reference source not found., any existing application, processing and inspection fees
that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided
that (1) such fees have general applicability and are consistent with State law limitations
that processing fees not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service
for which they are charged; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is
prospective; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent, impose a
substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development in accordance with this
Agreement. By so agreeing, Developer does not waive its rights to challenge the legality
of any such application, processing and/or inspection fees.
5.7 New Taxes. This Agreement shall not prohibit the application of
any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes to the Project provided that (1) the application
of such taxes to the Property is prospective, and (2) the application of such taxes would
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 8
not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. By so agreeing,
Developer does not waive its rights to challenge the legality of any such taxes, facially
or as applied to its Project or Property, or to claim exemption from any taxes to the
extent allowed by law.
5.8 Development of the Project; Phasing, Timing. Since the California
Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal. 3d
465, that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development
resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over
such parties’ agreement, it is the Parties’ intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging
and providing that this Agreement contains no requirements that Developer must initiate
or complete any action, including without limitation, development of the Project within
any period of time set by City. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create nor shall
it be construed to create any affirmative development obligations to develop the Project
or liability in Developer under this Agreement if the development fails to occur. It is the
intention of this provision that Developer be able to develop the Property in accordance
with its own time schedules and the Project Approvals.
5.9 Notwithstanding section 5.8 the City will impose restrictions on the
issuance of permits for the Project to ensure that the residential portions of the Project
do not wholly develop in advance of the retail/commercial portions. The details of the
above-mentioned restrictions, including the development of Planning Areas 1, 2, 3 and
4 will be included as part of the Planned Development Zoning for the Project.
5.10 Processing. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit
the authority or obligation of City to hold necessary public hearings, nor to limit the
discretion of City or any of its officers or officials with regard to subsequent project
approvals that require the exercise of discretion by City, provided that such discretion
shall be exercised consistent with the vested rights granted by this Agreement, the
Applicable Law and this Agreement.
6. Community Benefit.
6.1 Community Benefit Payment. Developer will contribute a sum of
Seven Million dollars ($7,000,0000) to the City as a Community Benefit (the
“Community Benefit”). The first payment is Three Million Five Hundred Thousand dollars
($3,500,000) and shall be made within ninety (90) days after the Effective Date (the
“First Community Benefit Payment Date”) and the second payment of Three Million Five
Hundred Thousand dollars ($3,500,000) shall be made within one (1) year after the First
Community Benefit Payment Date.
7. Affordable Housing.
7.1 Units Required by Regulations. The Project includes 665
residential units. Pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68
of the Dublin Municipal Code) (the “Regulations”), developers of more than 20
residential units are required to set aside 12.5% of the units in the project as affordable
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 9
units as specified. Given the mix of for-sale and rental residential units in the Project,
the Developer’s inclusionary zoning obligation is 83 units broken down as follows: 46
moderate income units (29 for sale and 18 rental), 26 low income (19 for sale and 7
rental), 11 very low income (rental).
7.2 Alternative Compliance Authorized. Under the Regulations, certain exceptions permit
developers to satisfy the obligation other than through on -site construction. For
instance, part of this obligation can be satisfied through the payment of a fee in -lieu of
construction of units. In addition, developers can satisfy their affordable housing
obligations by, among other mechanisms, obtaining City Council approval of an
alternative method of compliance that the City Council finds meet the purposes of the
Regulations.
7.3 Alternative Compliance for the Project. Developer shall satisfy its
83-unit affordable housing obligation through the following “alternative method of
compliance” under Section 8.68.040.E of the Regulations:
7.3.1 Developer will either provide 46 moderate income units on-
or offsite or pay a fee in-lieu thereof. Developer shall make such election prior to the
first building permit issued for Planning Area 2B.
7.3.2 In addition, Developer will acquire a 1.33-acre parcel
referred to variously as 6541 and 6543 Regional Street and Alameda County
Assessor’s Parcel No. 941-1500-25 (“Affordable Housing Parcel”) from the City at its fair
market value and dedicate said parcel to a non-profit housing developer for the purpose
of affordable housing. The fair market value shall be determined by an appraisal
commissioned by the City, using the Effective Date as the valuation date.
Developer shall acquire the Affordable Housing Parcel by making two (2)
installment payments to the City. The first payment is due at closing (which shall occur
no later than the first building permit for a residential unit in the Project) and shall be in
the amount of fifty percent (50%) of the fair market value purchase price (the “First
Affordable Housing Payment”). The second payment shall be due three hundred and
sixty (360) days following the First Affordable Housing Payment (the “Second Affordable
Housing Payment”). The Second Affordable Housing Payment shall be the rema inder of
the fair market purchase price. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or under
California law, Developer agrees that, should it fail to make the Second Affordable
Housing Payment when due, City may withhold any permits or approvals the P roject
until it is made.
Concurrent with the First Affordable Housing Payment, Developer shall
transfer ownership of to the Affordable Housing Parcel to an affordable builder for no
more than a nominal price. In no event shall the City be required to issue a building
permit for the Affordable Housing Parcel until both the First and Second Affordable
Housing Payments have been provided to the City. For the purposes of this
Agreement, a “nominal price” shall be any sales price that is one-thousand dollars
($1000) or less (not including, and not limiting, the purchaser’s share of escrow fees,
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 10
title insurance costs, transfer taxes, prorated taxes and assessments and other
customary closing costs).
7.4 Satisfaction of City Requirements. Through its approval of this
Agreement, the City Council hereby finds that the “alternative method of compliance” in
this section 7.2 meets the purposes of the Regulations and will promote the City’s
affordability and Housing Element goals.
7.5 Additional Market-Rate Units. Any residential development on the Property above 665
units shall be subject to the requirements of the Regulations, notwithstanding the
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations limitation to projects of 20 or more units.
8. Dedications; Vacations.
8.1 Community Center. Developer shall construct a community
center/event space consisting of approximately 3,000 square feet of indoor space and
approximately 1,500 square feet of outdoor space (the “Community Center.”) on the
southern portion of the Property, adjacent to Hotel site (“Planning Area 1”, as depicted
on Exhibit D) for use as the Community Center. The Community Center shall serve as
event space and for City programming and will contribute to the City’s effort to add
additional community space as defined in the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
The Southern Parcel together with the constructed Community Center shall be
dedicated to the City, via deed or tentative map. Development of the Community Center
shall be subject to an improvement agreement to be entered into at a later date
between City and Developer that shall address the details, delivery, timing and
maintenance of the Community Center. As part of the any transfer of property to the
City, the Developer shall record a public parking easement on the adjoining parcel(s) to
ensure adequate public parking for the facility. Developer shall receive a credit against
its parkland and facilities fees from the Public Facility Fee Program for the dedication of
the Community Facility.
8.2 Neighborhood Square. The Developer will dedicate and improve
aan approximately 2.23-acre site (the “Neighborhood Square”) in Planning Area 2, as
depicted on the Development Maps. The Neighborhood Square shall be constructed by
Developer and will be dedicated to the City. Development of the Neighborhood Square
shall be subject to an improvement agreement to be entered into at a later date
between City and Developer that shall address the details, delivery, timing and
maintenance of the Neighborhood Square project. Developer shall receive a credit
against its parkland and improvement fees from the Public Facility Fee Program for the
dedication of the Neighborhood Square.
8.3 Northside Drive. As part of this Agreement, the City shall take the
necessary actions to vacate Northside Drive. The Developer shall acquire Northside
Drive, as depicted in Exhibit D, from the City for its “Fair Market Value” (determined in
accordance with Section 8.3.1 herein), prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
Planning Area 1. City will place funds from the sale in an escrow account and the funds
will be used as an incentive to ensure that high -quality tenants locate within the project.
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 11
The City Council will authorize the appropriation of funds based on requests from the
Developer or by tenant and will cover expenses such as the payment of fees, including
but not limited to fees sewer capacity imposed by Dublin San Ramon Services District .
8.3.1 Determination of Fair Market Value.
(a) City shall have the Northside Drive property appraised
and deliver to Developer a written notice (the “Fair Market Value Notice”) setting forth
the proposed fair market value of the based on the appraisal (the “Fair Market Value”).
Developer, within ten (10) business days after Developer’s receipt of the Fair Market
Value Notice, shall either (i) deliver to City written notice (the “Acceptance Notice”) that
Developer accepts the Fair Market Value set forth in the Fair Market Value Notice, or (ii)
if Developer disagrees with City’s determination of the Fair Market Value, de liver to City
written notice of rejection (the “Rejection Notice”). If Developer fails to provide City with
an Acceptance Notice or Rejection Notice within such ten (10) business day period,
Developer shall be deemed to have delivered an Acceptance Notice.
(b) If Developer delivers a Rejection Notice, Developer
and City shall meet and confer in good faith regarding the Fair Market Value. In the
event Developer delivers a Rejection Notice and the Parties are not able to agree in
writing on the Fair Market Value by the date that is twenty (20) business days after
City’s delivery of the Fair Market Value Notice, then Developer may elect to prepare its
own appraisal.
(c) Upon completion of its appraisal, Developer shall
deliver City a written notice setting forth the proposed fair market value (“Developer’s
Fair Market Value Notice”). If the Parties are not able to agree in writing on the Fair
Market Value by the date that is twenty (20) business days after the delivery of the
Developer’s Fair Market Value Notice, then within five (5) business days following
receipt of such appraisal election, the Parties shall attempt to agree on an appraiser to
determine the Fair Market Value. If the Parties are unable to agree in that time, then
each Party shall designate an appraiser within five (5) days thereafter. Should either
Party fail to so designate an appraiser within that time, then the appraiser designated by
the other Party shall determine the Fair Market Value. Should each of the Parties timely
designate an appraiser, then the two appraisers so designated shall appoint a third
appraiser who shall, acting alone, determine the Fair Market Value. Any third -party
appraiser designated hereunder shall have an M.A.I. certification or equivalent with not
less than 5 years’ experience in the valuation of commercial property in Alameda
County, California.
(d) Within five (5) business days following the selection of
the appraiser, Developer and City shall each submit in writing to the appraiser its
determination of the Fair Market Value (respectively, the “Developer Determination” and
the “City Determination”). Should either Party fail timely to submit its Fair Market Value
determination, then the determination of the other Party shall be conclusive and binding
on the Parties. The appraiser shall not disclose to either party the Fair Market Value
determination of the other party until the expiration of that five (5) business day period
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 12
or, if sooner, the appraiser’s receipt of both the Developer Determination and the City
Determination.
(e) Within twenty (20) days following the selection of the
appraiser and such appraiser’s receipt of the Developer Determination and the City
Determination, the appraiser shall determine whether the Fair Market Value determined
by Developer or by City more accurately reflects the fair market value of the property.
Accordingly, either the Developer Determination or the City Determination shall be
selected by the appraiser as the Fair Market Value. At any time before the decision of
the appraiser is rendered, either Party may, by written notice to the other Party, accept
the Fair Market Value submitted by the other Party, in which event such value shall be
deemed adopted as the agreed Fair Market Value. The fees of the appraiser(s) shall be
shared equally by the Parties.
8.4 Brannigan Extension. The Project Approvals require Developer to
construct an extension of Brannigan Street that would extend south of Dublin Boulevard
(the “Brannigan Extension”) and acquire the necessary land title and interests from th e
adjoining property owner. Government Code section 66462.5 (“Section 66462.5 “)
provides that, under circumstances in which neither the City nor the Developer has the
necessary property interests to complete an improvement required by the tentative map
conditions, the City shall either (a) require Developer to enter into an agreement that
requires the completion of the improvement at such time as it has acquired the interests
or (b) acquire the necessary interests within 120 days of filing the map or waive the
condition requiring the improvement. Developer desires more certainty regarding when
the improvements will be completed, and the City desires that a diligent, good -faith
effort be made by the Developer to acquire the necessary interests with the agreement
of the adjacent property owner. Accordingly, the City agrees, upon Developer’s
demonstration of such diligent, good faith efforts to the satisfaction of the City Manager,
to commence the process described under Section 66462.5 within 90 days of pro viding
such evidence to the City Manager. All costs associated with acquisition shall be the
obligation of Developer.
9. Amendment or Cancellation.
9.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. The
Project and Property shall be subject to state and federal laws and regulations and this
Agreement does not create any vested right in state and federal laws and regulations in
effect on the Effective Date. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations
enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with
one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits
approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable
attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation.
Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be subject to approval by
the City Council (in accordance with Chapter 8.56). Each Party agrees to extend to the
other its prompt and reasonable cooperation in so modifying this Agreement or
approved plans.
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 13
9.2 Amendment of Development Agreement by Mutual Consent . This
Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the
Parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures of the Development Agreement
Statute and Chapter 8.56. Review and approval of an amendment to this Development
Agreement shall be strictly limited to consideration of only those provisions to be added
or modified. No amendment, modification, waiver or change to this Development
Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any purpose unless specifically
set forth in a writing that expressly refers to this Development Agreement and signed by
the duly authorized representatives of both Parties.
9.2.1 Partial Amendment. When a Party seeking such an
amendment owns or has an equitable right to only a portion of the whole of the Property
(“Portion”), then such Party may only seek amendment of this Agreement as directly
relates to the Portion, and the Party owning any other Portion shall not be required or
entitled to be a signatory or to consent to an amendment that affects only another
Party's Portion.
9.3 Major Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement which
relate to (a) the Term; (b) the permitted uses of the Property as provided in paragraph
5.1; (c) provisions for “significant” reservation or dedication of land; (d) conditions,
terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) an increase
in the density or intensity of use of the overall Project; (f) the maximum height or size of
proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by Developer as provided in this
Agreement, shall be deemed a “Major Amendment” and shall require notice or public
hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council before the parties may
execute an amendment hereto. The City’s Public Works Director shall determine
whether a reservation or dedication is “significant” in the context of the overall Project.
9.4 Minor Amendments. Any amendment that is not a Major
Amendment shall be deemed a “Minor Amendment” and shall not, except to the extent
otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before the parties may
execute an amendment hereto. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the
authority to determine if an amendment is a Major Amendment subject to Section 7.3
above or a Minor Amendment subject to this Section 7.4. The City Manager shall have
the authority to review, approve, and execute amendments to this Agreement provided
that such amendments are not Major Amendments.
9.5 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted
herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent
of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 8.56. Any fees paid pursuant to this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation
shall be retained by the City.
10. Annual Review.
10.1 Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be
between July 15 and August 15, 2020, and thereafter between each July 15 and August
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 14
15 during the Term. Review shall be conducted in accordance with Section 8.56.140 of
Chapter 8.56 and the provisions of this Section 11.
10.2 Initiation of Review. The City’s Community Development Director
shall initiate the annual review, as required under Section 8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56, by
giving to Developer thirty (30) days’ prior written notice that the City intends to
undertake such review. Not less than thirty (30) days after receipt of the n otice,
Developer shall provide evidence to the Director, as reasonably determined necessary
by the Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the material terms and
provisions of the Agreement as to the whole or relevant portion of the Property owned
by Developer. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon
Developer.
10.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, the City shall deposit in the
mail to Developer a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract
performance at least five (5) days prior to any public hearing addressing annual review.
10.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by the City in connection with the
annual review shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City’s schedule of fees
in effect at the time of review.
11. Default.
11.1 Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default,
the parties may pursue all remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided
for in this Agreement or in the City’s regulations governing development agreements,
expressly including, but not limited to, the remedy of specific performance of this
Agreement.
11.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by
either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the
defaulting party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) days
after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party may then commence any
legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided, however,
that if the default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting
party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as the defaulting party
begins to cure such default within such thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues such
cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default.
11.3 No Damages against City. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained herein, in no event shall damages be awarded a gainst the City upon
an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement.
12. Estoppel Certificate. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time,
request written notice from the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that,
(a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (b)
this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so
amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the knowledge of the certifying Party,
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 15
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. The City Manager of the City shall be
authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer. Should the Party
receiving the request not execute and return such certificate within the applicable
period, this shall not be deemed to be a default, provided that such Party shall be
deemed to have certified that the statements in clauses (a) through (c) of this Section
are true, and any Party may rely on such deemed certification.
13. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure.
13.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and
senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of
recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage
(“Mortgage”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render
invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but
all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and
effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or
mortgagee (“Mortgagee”) who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by
foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.
13.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 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 a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to
construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided
for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement.
13.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. If
the City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default
given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then the City
shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any
notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by the City that Developer has
committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same
period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the
event of default claimed set forth in the City’s notice. The City, through its City
Manager, may extend the thirty-day cure period provided in paragraph 12.2 for not more
than an additional sixty (60) days upon request of Developer or a Mortgagee.
14. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions,
covenant, condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions
unenforceable, invalid or illegal.
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 16
15. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
15.1 Prevailing Party. If the City or Developer initiates any action at law
or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’' fees and costs in
addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled.
15.2 Third Party Challenge. If any person or entity not a party to this
Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of a ny the
Project Approvals (including this Agreement), the Parties shall cooperate in defending
such action. The Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in defending said
action and to execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share
and protect information, under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable
law. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any
such action, and shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys’
fees expended by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding.
16. Transfers and Assignments.
16.1 Agreement Runs with the Land. All of the provisions, rights, terms,
covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the
Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees,
and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest
therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions
of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall constitute
covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited
to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Eac h 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.
16.2 Right to Assign. Developer may wish to sell, transfer or assign all
or portions of its Property to other developers (each such other developer is referred to
as a “Transferee”). In connection with any such sale, transfer or assignment to a
Transferee, Developer 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:
except as provided herein, no such transfer, sale or assignment of Developer’s rights,
interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without prior written notice to City and
approval by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed.
16.3 Approval and Notice of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. The City
Manager shall consider and decide on any transfer, sale or assignment within ten (10)
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 17
days after Developer’s notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications and
other information are provided to the City Manager to enable the City Manager to
determine whether the proposed Transferee can perform Developer’s obligations
hereunder. Notice of any such approved sale, transfer or assignment (which includes a
description of all rights, interests and obligations that have been transferred and those
which have been retained by Developer) shall be recorded in the official records of
Alameda County, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, concurrently with such sale,
transfer or assignment.
16.4 Considerations for Approval of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. In
considering the request, the City Manager shall base the decision upon the proposed
assignee's reputation, experience, financial resources and access to credit and
capability to successfully carry out the development of the Property to completion. The
City Manager's approval shall be for the purposes of: a) providing notice to City; b)
assuring that all obligations of Developer are allocated as between Developer and the
proposed purchaser, transf eree or assignee as provided by this Agreement; and c)
assuring City that the proposed purchaser, transferee or assignee is financially capable
of performing Developer's obligations hereunder not withheld by Developer.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Manager’s approval shall not be required for an
assignment to an entity or entities controlling Developer, controlled by Developer, or
under common control with Developer, provided that Developer owns and controls no
less than fifty percent (50%) of such successor entity.
16.5 Release upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of
all of Developer’s rights, interests and obligations hereunder pursuant to Section 14.2 of
this Agreement, Developer shall be 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, purchaser, or assignee approved by the City Ma nager 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 sh all be subject to all
the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and
other necessary information prior to City Manager approval.
16.6 Developer’s Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations.
Developer may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement or any
portion of the Property transferred, certain rights, interests and/or obligations which
Developer wishes to retain, provided that Developer specifies such rights, interests
and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to this Agreement and
recorded with the Alameda County Recorder prior to the sale, transfer or assignment of
the Property. Developer’s purchaser, transferee or assignee shall then have no interest
or obligations for such rights, interests and obligations and this Agreement shall remain
applicable to Developer with respect to such retained rights, interests and/or obligations.
17. Bankruptcy. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable
in bankruptcy.
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 18
18. Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions,
officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs
(including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage
which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by
Developer, or any actions or inactions of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors,
agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or
maintenance of the Project, provided that Developer shall have no indemnification
obligation with respect to negligence or wrongful conduct of the City, its contractors,
subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or
condition of any improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by
the City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or
maintenance bond). If City is named as a party to any legal action, City shall cooperate
with Developer, shall appear in such action and shall not unreasonably withhold
approval of a settlement otherwise acceptable to Developer.
19. Insurance.
19.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. During the Term of this
Agreement, Developer shall maintain in effect a policy of commercial general liability
insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000.00). The policy so maintained by Developer shall name the City as
an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross-
liability endorsement. City and Developer agree that such insurance may include
alternative risk management programs, including self -insurance or a combination of
self-insurance and insurance, provided that such alternative risk management programs
provide protection equivalent to that specified under this Agreement.
19.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. During the Term of this
Agreement Developer shall maintain Worker’s Compensation insurance for all persons
employed by Developer for work at the Project site. Developer shall require each
contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker’s Compensation insurance for
its respective employees. Developer agrees to indemnify the City for any damage
resulting from Developer’s failure to maintain any such insurance.
19.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to issuance of any permits for the
Project, including grading permits, Developer shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence
of the insurance required in Sections 19.1 and 19.2 and evidence that the carrier is
required to give the City at least fifteen (15) days prior written notice of the cancellation
or reduction in coverage of a policy unless replaced with similar coverage. The
insurance shall extend to the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions,
officers, agents, employees and representatives and to Developer performing work on
the Project.
20. Sewer and Water. Developer acknowledges that it must obtain water and
sewer permits from the Dublin San Ramon Services District ("DSRSD”) which is another
public agency not within the control of the City. City agrees that it shall not take any
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 19
action with DSRSD opposing Developer’s efforts to reserve water and sewer capacity
sufficient to serve the Project described herein.
21. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be
in writing. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows:
City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Fax No. (925) 833-6651
Email: city.manager@dublin.ca.gov
Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows:
Stephen E. Schott
SCS Development Company, Inc
404 Saratoga Avenue, Suite 100
Santa Clara, Ca 95050
408-985-6000
With copy to:
Bo Radanovich
Mission Valley Properties
3875 Hopyard Road, Suite 180
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Direct: (925) 467-9906
Cell: (510) 409-9271
A Party may change address by giving notice in writing to the other Party and
thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices
shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the
expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also
be given by overnight courier, which shall be deemed given the following day or by
facsimile transmission or email, which shall be deemed given upon verification of
receipt.
22. Agreement is Entire Understanding. This Agreement, including its
exhibits, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties and
supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties with respect to
all or any part of the subject matter hereof.
23. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and
are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full:
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 20
Exhibit A Legal Description of Property
Exhibit B Impact Fee Schedule
Exhibit C Planning Area 1 – Location of Community Center
Exhibit D Northside Drive – Area to be Vacated
24. Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are made a part
hereof.
25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by each Party on a
separate signature page, and when the executed signature pages are combined, shall
constitute one single instrument. This Agreement is executed in two (2) duplicate
originals, each of which is deemed to be an original.
26. Recordation. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten
(10) days following execution by all Parties. Thereafter, if this Agreement is terminated,
modified or amended, the City Clerk shall record notice of such action with the Alameda
County Recorder.
27. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement is
intended to or shall be deemed to confer upon any person, other than the Parties and
their respective permitted successors and assigns, any rights or remedies her eunder.
28. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
29. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this
Agreement for which time is an element.
30. Further Actions and Instruments. Each Party to this Development
Agreement shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Party
and take all actions necessary to ensure that the Parties receive the benefits of this
Development Agreement, subject to satisfaction of the conditions of this Development
Agreement. Upon the request of any Party, the other Party shall promptly execute, with
acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required
instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under
the terms of this Development Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the
provisions of this Development Agreement or to evidence or consummate the
transactions contemplated by this Development Agreement.
31. Section Headings. Section headings in this Development Agreement are
for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the
terms, covenants or conditions of this Development Agreement.
32. Construction of Agreement. This Development Agreement has been
reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both Developer and City, and no presumption
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 21
or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the
interpretation or enforcement of this Development Agreement.
33. Authority. The persons signing below represent and warrant that they
have the authority to bind their respective Party and that all necessary board of
directors’, shareholders’, partners’, city councils’, or other approvals have been
obtained.
[Execution Page Follows]
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement
to be executed as of the date and year first above written.
CITY OF DUBLIN
By: __________________________
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
Attest:
__________________________
Caroline Soto, City Clerk
Approved as to form
__________________________
John Bakker, City Attorney
DEVELOPER
SCS Development Company,
By: __________________________
Name: _______________________
Its: __________________________
3071092.3
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
(NOTARIZATION ATTACHED)
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.pPacket Pg. 394Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
CITY OF DUBLIN
IMPACT FEES
The following pages contain a summary of the adjustments for the fees for Fiscal Year 2018-19.
The new fee rates become effective July 1, 2018, with the exception of the Freeway
Interchange Fee which becomes effective September 1, 2018
• Public Facilities Impact Fee
• Fire Impact Fee
• Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF)
• Western Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (WDTIF)
• Dublin Crossing Transportation Fee
• Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTD)
• Noise Mitigation Fee
• Freeway Interchange Fee
• Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee
• Dublin Ranch W est Side Storm Drain Benefit District
• Dublin Ranch East Side Storm Drain Benefit District
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 2 of 6
PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family
& Townhome
Other
Multi
Family
Senior
Housing
Second
Unit
Aquatic Center $345 $211 $125 $211
Civic Center 1,532 935 556 935
Community Buildings 3,841 2,345 1,396 2,345
Community Nature Parks, Improvements 294 180 107 180
Community Parks, Improvements 4,650 2,838 1,690 2,838
Community Parks, Land 8,342 5,092 3,032 5,092
Libraries 276 169 100 169
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 2,718 1,659 989 1,659
Neighborhood Parks, Land 3,757 2,293 1,366 2,293
TOTAL FEE $25,755 $15,722 $9,361 $15,722
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Senior
Service
Facility
Aquatic Center $12 $16 $6 $5
Civic Center 358 481 179 146
Community Buildings 145 195 73 60
Comm. Nature Parks, Improve. 50 69 25 21
Community Parks, Improve. 808 1,085 402 329
Community Parks, Land 1,452 1,951 723 593
Libraries 53 72 27 22
TOTAL FEE (per 1,000 s.f.) $2,878 $3,869 $1,435 $1,176
FIRE IMPACT FEE
RESIDENTIAL
Single-Family
& Townhome
Other Multi
Family
Senior
Housing
Second
Unit
Per Unit $339 $207 $123 $207
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial
Office Industrial
Senior
Service
Facility
Land-Use Type (Per 1,000 s.f.) $80 $107 $39 $32
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 3 of 6
EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
RESIDENTIAL
OUTSIDE
TRANSIT CENTER
Low
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Medium
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium
High
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
(25.1+
units/acre)
Second
Unit
EDTIF Cat. 1 $8,390 $8,390 $5,875 $5,035 $5,035
EDTIF Cat. 2 $2,159 $2,159 $1,513 $1,295 $1,295
EDTIF Cat. 2 (BART Garage) 790 790 553 474 474
EDTIF Cat. 2 $2,949 $2,949 $2,066 $1,769 $1,769
TOTAL FEE $11,339 $11,339 $7,941 $6,804 $6,804
RESIDENTIAL
INSIDE
TRANSIT CENTER
Low
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Medium
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium
High
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
(25.1+
units/acre)
Second
Unit
EDTIF Cat. 1 $8,390 $8,390 $5,875 $3,831 $3,831
EDTIF Cat. 2 $2,159 $2,159 $1,513 $972 $972
TOTAL FEE $10,549 $10,549 $7,388 $4,803 $4,803
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
EDTIF Cat. 1 (Per 1,000 s.f.) $802 $802 $802
EDTIF Cat. 2 (Per 1,000 s.f.) 217 217 217
TOTAL FEE(1) $1,019 $1,019 $1,019
(1) Fee is calculated based on Fee Rate x Land Use Measurement Unit x Trip Rate Multiplier.
WESTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
RESIDENTIAL
Low
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Medium
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium High
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
(25.1+
units/acre)
Second
Unit
Per Unit (1) $5,605 $5,605 $3,475 $2,915 $2,915
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Land-Use Type (Per 1,000 s.f.)(1) (2) (3) $5,605 $5,605 $5,605
(1) Project locates within the boundaries of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area is eligible
for a trip reduction factor of 23% if the project meets certain design criteria.
(2) Fee is calculated based on Fee Rate x Land Use Measurement Unit x Trip Rate Multiplier
(3) Project includes a retail use is eligible for a 35% trip reduction factor to the trips associated
with the retail use.
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 4 of 6
EASTERN DUBLIN FREEWAY INTERCHANGE FEE (City of Pleasanton)
FEES EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2017 - AUGUST 31, 2018
RESIDENTIAL
Low
Density
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Medium
Density
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium
High
Density
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
Density
(25.1 +
units/acre)
Second
Unit
Base Fee $214.60 $214.60 $150.22 $128.76 $128.76
Escalator 124.15 124.15 86.91 74.48 74.48
TOTAL FEE $338.75 $338.75 $237.13 $203.24 $203.24
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Base Fee (Per 1,000 sf) $21.46 $21.46 $21.46
Escalator (Per 1,000 sf) 12.40 12.40 12.40
TOTAL FEE (1) $33.86 $33.86 $33.86
FEES EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2018 - AUGUST 31, 2019
RESIDENTIAL
Low
Density
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Medium
Density
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium
High
Density
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
Density
(25.1+
units/acre)
Second
Unit
Base Fee $214.60 $214.60 $150.22 $128.76 $128.76
Escalator 128.13 128.13 89.69 76.87 76.87
TOTAL FEE $342.73 $342.73 $239.91 $205.63 $205.63
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Base Fee (Per 1,000 sf) $21.46 $21.46 $21.46
Escalator (Per 1,000 sf) 12.80 12.80 12.80
TOTAL FEE (1) $34.26 $34.26 $34.26
(1) Total fee calculation is based on EDTIF trip rate of Land-Use Type.
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 5 of 6
DUBLIN CROSSING TRANSPORTATION FEE
RESIDENTIAL
Low
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Medium
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium
High
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
(25.1+
units/acre)
Second
Unit
Per Unit $9,476 $9,476 $6,633 $5,685 $5,685
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
TOTAL FEE (Per 1,000 s.f.) (1) $838 $838 $838
(1) Fee is calculated based on Fee Rate x Land Use Measurement Unit x Trip Rate Multiplier.
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE
RESIDENTIAL Single Family Multi Family
Second
Unit
Per Unit $4,613.65 $3,178.06 $3,178.06
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Other
(per average AM/PM
peak hour trip)
Land-Use Type (Per s.f.) $3.41 $7.84 $4.57 $5,126.36
EASTERN DUBLIN NOISE MITIGATION FEE
RESIDENTIAL
Low
(6.0 Units
per acre or
less)
Medium
(6.1-14
units/acre)
Medium High
(14.1-25
units/acre)
High
(25.1+
units/acre)
Second
Unit
Per Unit $4.74 $4.74 $3.32 $2.85 $2.85
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Land-Use Type (Per 1,000 s.f.) $23.71 $7.11 $2.37
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Page 6 of 6
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LIEU FEE
RESIDENTIAL (Per Unit) $190,527
NON-RESIDENTIAL Industrial Office
Research &
Development Retail
Services &
Accommodations
Land-Use Type (Per s.f.) $0.54 $1.39 $0.91 $1.13 $0.47
STORM DRAIN BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
1. DUBLIN RANCH WEST SIDE STORM DRAIN BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Parcel Owner / Reference
Balance
(07/01/2018)
Parcel #2 Dublin Land Co. $146,300.91
Parcel #3 Dublin Land Co. 189,162.12
Parcel #4 Dublin Land Co. 93,420.07
2. DUBLIN RANCH EAST SIDE STORM DRAIN BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Note – Some Properties made payment which reduced the balance owed.
Parcel
Original Assessment Report
Owner / Reference
Balance
(07/01/2018)
Parcel #3 Chen $620,549.45
Parcel #4 EBJ Partners 7,249.76
Parcel #5 Anderson 2,636.30
Parcel #7 Croak 543,453.08
Parcel #8 Anderson 261,283.97
Parcel #9 Righetti 312,837.75
Parcel #10 Branaugh 250,738.86
Parcel #11 Monte Vista 61,293.36
5.1.p
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
A1.1SHEETAUGUST 7, 2018SITE PLANRETAIL ZONE 1: PA-1h/>/E'ϵϬϬ ϯ͕Ϭϴϰ^&h/>/E'ϭϬϬϬ ϳϱ͕ϬϬϬ^&h/>/E'ϭϭϬϬ ϰϳ͕ϬϬϬ^&h/>/E'ϭϮϬϬ ϱϲ͕ϬϬϬ^&h/>/E'ϭϯϬϬ ϱϬ͕ϬϬϬ^&h/>/E'ϭϱϬϬ ϭϭ͕ϰϯϲ ^&h/>/E'ϭϴϬϬ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ ^&h/>/E'ϭϵϬϬ Ϯ͕ϳϬϬ ^&h/>/E'ϮϭϬϬ ϭϬ͕ϰϴϮ ^&h/>/E'ϮϮϬϬ ϭϬ͕Ϯϵϰ^&h/>/E'ϮϯϬϬ ϭϭ͕ϰϯϭ ^&WͲϭdKd> Ϯϴϭ͕ϰϮϳ ^&Z d/>KE ϭͲ'ZK^^h/>/E'Z WͲϭNHOTEL OPEN SPACEDUBLIN BLVDBLDG 900 3,084 SFBUILDING 1000 75,000 SFTASSAJARA ROADBRANNIGAN STREETE-W SPINETASSAJARA GATEWAY - SOUTHBUILDING 1100 2-STORY 47,000 SFBUILDING 1200 2-STORY 56,000 SFBUILDING 1300 1-STORY 50,000 SFBUILDING 1500 11,436 SFBLDG 1800 4,000 SFBLDG 1900 2,700 SFBUILDING 2100 10,482 SFBUILDING 2200 10,294 SFBUILDING 2300 11,431 SFCOVERED DROP OFFONE-WAY LOADING/EVA DRIVE ONE-WAY LOADING/EVA DRIVECOMMUNITY FACILITYEXISTING LOWE’S PARCELI-580 OFF RAMP0 25 50 100 200 FEET5.1.pPacket Pg. 401Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.pPacket Pg. 402Attachment: 16. Exhibit A to Attachment 15 - Development Agreement (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed
AT Dublin Project to the
City of Dublin
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
Prepared by:
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
October 2018
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. The Site 1
B. Proposed Land Use 2
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
A. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout 3
B. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact from Residential Component,
Only 4
C. One-time Construction related General Fund Revenues 5
III. FISCAL IMPACTS 6
A. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout 6
B. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout 7
C. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues from Residential Component, Only 8
D. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures from Residential Component 9
E. One-time Construction-Related General Fund Revenues to City of Dublin 10
IV. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 12
V. LIMITING CONDITIONS 16
VI. APPENDIX TABLES 17
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
I. INTRODUCTION
The following report has been prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) for the City
of Dublin (the City). The report presents the estimated fiscal impacts that the proposed project,
AT Dublin (the Project), will have on the City. The findings of this report will be used to
determine if the Project meets the City’s fiscal neutrality requirement for projects that are
applying for development entitlements. The findings may also potentially be used to establish
the terms of a Development Agreement and Municipal Services Agreement with the applicant.
The principal objectives of the analysis are to:
Evaluate the recurring annual fiscal impacts of the proposed (entire) Project upon build-
out, and the recurring annual fiscal impacts of just the residential component; and
Estimate the magnitude of construction-related tax revenues that will be generated by
the Project.
A. The Site
The Project will be located on 77.3 acres bounded by Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street,
Interstate 580, and a sliver above Gleason Drive on the north side of Interstate 580. The Subject
site is currently vacant and the uses in the immediate area primarily include single and
multifamily residential, restaurants, retail, elementary schools, office, and parks.
Exhibit 1. The Site and its Context
Source: Base Map from Google Earth (2018)
Site
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
B. Proposed Land Use
The proposed Project is spread across 77.3 acres and includes approximately 383,500 SF of
commercial development and 665 residential units. The commercial development includes
140,000 SF of regional commercial uses, a community room of 3,100 SF, a 145-room upscale
extended stay hotel, and other general commercial uses. The residential development includes
280 multifamily apartments, 205 townhomes, and 180 single family detached units. The
proposed land use program and the proposed site plan are presented in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3,
respectively.
Exhibit 2. Land Use
Planning Gross Res. Commercial Hotel
Land Use Designation Area Acres Units Sq. Ft. Rooms
General Commercial PA-1 23.7 303,991 145
Commercial, General 47,000 Commercial, Regional 140,000 Commercial, General 38,907 Hotel 75,000 145
Community Room 3,084 Mixed-Use PA-2a, PA-2b 15.4 280 79,510 Commercial 68,926 Commercial 4,108 Multi Family, Apartments 280 6,476 Medium-High Density (Townhomes) PA-2c 12.4 205 0 0
Medium Density (Single Fam. Detached) PA-3, PA-4 23.5 180 0 0
Parks/Public Recreation 2.3
Total Project 77.3 665 383,501 145
See Appendix 3A for details
Exhibit 3. Site Plan
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is estimated that the built-out Project will annually generate a fiscal surplus to the City of
Dublin. The key findings of the analysis are summarized below.
The Project will annually generate approximately $2.65 million of tax revenues to City’s
General Fund, net of service costs. Given that the property generated only a minor
amount of property tax revenue prior to the applicant’s purchase, $2.64 million of the
estimated future surplus represents additional annual net revenues to the City.
The residential component (independent of the commercial component) is also fiscally
positive, and will annually generate approximately $684,000 of net tax revenues to the
City.
The one-time construction-related revenues to be generated to by the Project are
estimated to exceed $1.23 million.
A. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout
The Project upon buildout is anticipated to generate annual General Fund revenues of
approximately $3.81 million. Annual General Fund expenditures to provide services such as
police protection, fire protection, infrastructure maintenance and other general city services are
anticipated to approximate $1.16 million. Net of municipal service costs, the Project is
anticipated to annually generate a net annual fiscal surplus of approximately $2.65 million.
Excluding the amount of property taxes that the City received in FY 2017/18 (which reflects the
period prior to the development team’s purchase of the site for the proposed project), the project
will generate approximately $2.64 million of net new tax revenues to the City.
Exhibit 4. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout
Total Annual
Impacts
Net New
Annual Impacts
Total Annual General Fund Revenues $3,809,000 $3,800,000
Total Annual General Fund Expenditures ($1,163,000) ($1,163,000)
Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit) upon Buildout $2,646,000 $2,637,000
See Appendix 1 for details
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
$3,809,000
($1,163,000)
$2,646,000
($2,000,000)
($1,000,000)
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
Revenues Expenditures Net Impact
Exhibit 5. Recurring Total Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact upon Buildout
B. Recurring Net Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact from Residential Component
The residential component of the Project is anticipated to generate annual General Fund
revenues of approximately $1.65 million, and annual General Fund expenditures of
approximately $963,000. Thus, the residential component is expected to generate a net annual
fiscal surplus of approximately $684,000. Excluding the residential component’s share of the
property taxes that the City received in FY 2017/18, net new tax revenues are estimated to total
$679,000.
Exhibit 6. Recurring Net Annual Fiscal Impact from Residential Component
Total Annual
Impacts
Net New
Annual Impacts
Total Annual General Fund Revenues $1,647,000 $1,642,000
Total Annual General Fund Expenditures ($963,000) ($963,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit) from Residential Component $684,000 $679,000
See Appendix 23 for details
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
$1,647,000
($963,000)
$684,000
($1,500,000)
($1,000,000)
($500,000)
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
Revenues Expenditures Net Impact
Exhibit 7. Recurring Total Annual Fiscal Impact from Residential Component
C. One-time Construction related General Fund Revenues
KMA has estimated that the materials purchased for the construction of the Project will yield
approximately $930,000 of use tax revenues to the City’s General Fund. Additionally, initial
property transfer tax revenues from the land sales transactions are estimated to total $70,000,
and property transfer tax revenues from the initial sales of for-sale residential units are
estimated to total $231,000. The aggregate of one-time construction related General Fund
revenues are estimated to total $1.23 million.
Exhibit 8. One-time General Fund Construction Related Revenues
Revenue Source $ Total
Sales/Use Tax Generated from Construction Material Purchases $930,000
Initial Property Transfer Tax from Land Sale Transactions $70,000
Initial Property Transfer Tax from For-Sale Units $231,000
Total One-time Construction Related Revenues $1,231,000
See Appendix 1 for details.
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
III. FISCAL IMPAC TS
A. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout
Upon build-out, the Project is estimated to generate approximately $3.81 million of annual
revenues to the City of Dublin’s General Fund. Property tax revenues are anticipated to be the
largest source of General Fund revenues, and are expected to annually total $1.72 million (or
45% of total revenues). Excluding the amount of property taxes that the City received in FY
2017/18 (which reflects the period prior to the development team’s purchase of the site for the
proposed project), the project will generate approximately $1.71 million of new property tax
revenues to the City.
Sales tax revenues of $994,000 (or 26% of total revenues), and transient occupancy tax (TOT)
of $613,000 (or 16% of total revenues) are expected to be the second and third largest sources
of revenues, respectively. Also, property tax in-lieu of motor vehicle fees (VLF) are expected to
annually generate $305,000 of General Fund revenue (or 8% of total revenues).
Both property taxes and property taxes in-lieu of motor vehicle license fees are driven by the
assessed valuation of the Project upon buildout. The anticipated future assessed value of the
Project has been calculated based on the development budget provided by Shea Properties and
the FY 2018/19 assessed land value of the site. The total assessed value upon completion is
estimated at $748 million, while the net new assessed value is estimated at $744 million
(Appendix 5A). The Project will generate sales tax revenues from on-site retail sales (including
taxable sales from the theater), the daytime purchases of the Project’s employees from other
locations in Dublin, and resident spending on retail merchandise in other Dublin locations.
Transient occupancy tax (TOT) is driven by hotel room sales. The current letter of intent from the
Hotel Owner/Operator estimates that the hotel will contain145 keys. As recommended by the
CBRE report ‘Market Demand Analysis of Proposed Hotels in Dublin’ (dated October 19, 2017),
this analysis assumes the hotel to be an upscale extended stay hotel with each room containing
a fully equipped kitchen.1 Also, for the purpose of this analysis, it has been conservatively
assumed that the proposed hotel will generate an average room rate of $181, which is equal to
the estimated current average room rate of the hotels in the market area that have been
identified as competing hotels in the CBRE report. In comparison, the CBRE report estimates
that the subject hotel could achieve an average room rate of $209 if it were open in 2018.
1 The CBRE report recommends two hotels for the project. First hotel recommended is an upscale extended stay
hotel with fully equipped kitchen and 125 Keys. While, second hotel recommended is an upper midscale hotel with
100 keys. For the purpose of this analysis, KMA has assumed that the first hotel will have 145 keys, as per the
current letter of intent with hotel owner/operator, and will be an upscale extended stay hotel.
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
45%
26%
16%
8%
5%
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF
Other Revenues
Remaining revenue sources are anticipated to generate annually $178,000 (or 5% of total
revenues) and include: franchise fees, property transfer tax, business registration fee and fines
and penalties. Revenues from Franchise fees, and fines and penalties are based on per capita
figures derived from revenue data from the City’s 2018/19 adopted budget and the City’s current
employment and population base.
Exhibit 9. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout
Revenue Source
Total Annual
Impacts
Percent
of Total
New Annual
Impacts
Property Tax $1,719,000 45% $1,710,000
Sales Tax $994,000 26% $994,000
Transient Occupancy Tax $613,000 16% $613,000
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $305,000 8% $305,000
Other Revenues1 $178,000 5% $178,000
Total Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon
Buildout $3,809,000 100% $3,800,000
See Appendix 1 for details 1. Includes property transfer tax, franchise fees, business registration fees and fines and penalties
Exhibit 10. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout
B. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout
The annual cost to City of Dublin to provide services to the Project upon buildout is anticipated
to approximate $1.16 million. The single largest annual expenditure is expected to be for police
service costs, at $470,000 (or 40% of total expenses). The second largest expenditure is for fire
services costs and is anticipated to approximate $295,000 (or 25% of total expenses). Costs
associated with public works department which is responsible for developing, operating and
maintaining City infrastructure are anticipated to approximate $156,000. The Project will include
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
40%
25%
20%
6%
4%5%
Police Services
Fire Services
Public Works
Parks and Community Services
Community Development
Other Departments
the development of new public infrastructure, including streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, traffic
signals, street lights and landscaped medians. The City’s public works department has
estimated that the annual cost to maintain the public infrastructure will total $76,000. Parks and
community services costs are anticipated to total $65,000, annual community development
costs are anticipated to total $42,000, and other department expenses are estimated to total
$59,000.
Exhibit 11. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout
Expenditure Source
Total Annual
Impacts1
Percent of
Total
Police Services ($470,000) 40%
Fire Services ($295,000) 25%
Public Works – city-wide ($156,000) 13%
Public Works – new public improvements to be built by the Project ($76,000) 7%
Parks and Community Services ($65,000) 6%
Community Development ($42,000) 4%
Other Departments2 ($59,000) 5%
Total Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout ($1,163,000) 100%
See Appendix 1 for details
1. For General Fund expenditures, total annual impacts will be same as new annual impacts.
2. Includes city council department, office of city manager, city clerk's office, human resource department, city
attorney's office and administrative services department expenditures.
Exhibit 12. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Expenditures upon Buildout
C.Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues from Residential Component
The residential component of the Project is estimated to generate approximately $1.65 million of
annual revenues to the General Fund. Property taxes are anticipated to be the largest source of
General Fund revenues and are expected to generate $1.2 million (or 73% of total residential
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
73%
13%
5%
9%
Property Tax
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF
Sales Tax
Other Revenues
revenues). Property tax revenues are followed by property tax in-lieu of motor vehicle fees
(VLF) at $213,000 (or 13% of total residential revenues), and sales tax revenues at $92,000 (or
5% of total residential revenues). Remaining revenue sources are anticipated to generate
approximately $147,000 of annual revenues, and include: franchise fees, property transfer tax,
and fines and penalties.
Exhibit 13. Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues- Residential Only
Revenue Source
Total Annual
Impacts
Percent of
Total
New Annual
Impacts
Property Tax $1,195,000 73% $1,190,000
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $213,000 13% $213,000
Sales Tax $92,000 5% $92,000
Other Revenues1 $147,000 9% $147,000
Total Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon
Buildout $1,647,000 100% $1,642,000
See Appendix 23 for details
1. Includes property transfer tax, franchise fees and fines and penalties.
Exhibit 14. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Revenues- Residential Only
D. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures from Residential Component
The annual cost to City of Dublin to provide services to the residential component of the Project
is anticipated to approximate $963,000. The single largest annual expenditure is expected to be
for police service costs, and is estimated at $384,000 (or 40% of total residential expenditures).
The second largest expenditure is for fire services costs and is anticipated to total $241,000 (or
25% of total residential expenditures). Costs associated with public works department which is
responsible for developing, operating and maintaining City infrastructure is estimated to account
for $128,000, while project specific public works expenditure is estimated at $62,000. Parks and
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
40%
25%
20%
7%
3%5%
Police Services
Fire Services
Public Works
Parks and Community Services
Community Development
Other Departments
community services costs are anticipated to total $65,000, community development costs are
anticipated to approximate $35,000, and other department expenses are estimated to total
$48,000 per year.
Exhibit 15. Recurring Annual General Fund Expenditures- Residential Only
Expenditure Source
Total Annual
Impacts1
Percent
of Total
Police Protection Services ($384,000) 40%
Fire Protection Services ($241,000) 25%
Public Works – city-wide ($128,000) 13%
Public Works – new public improvements to be built by the Project ($62,000) 7%
Parks and Community Services ($65,000) 7%
Community Development ($35,000) 3%
Other Departments2 ($48,000) 5%
Total Recurring Annual General Fund Revenues upon Buildout ($963,000) 100%
See Appendix 23 for details
1. For General Fund expenditures, total annual impacts will be same as new annual impacts.
2. Includes city council department, office of city manager, city clerk's office, human resource department, city
attorney's office and administrative services department expenditures
Exhibit 16. Composition of Total Annual General Fund Expenditures- Residential Only
E. One-time Construction-Related General Fund Revenues to City of Dublin
Use tax revenues will be generated by construction material purchases. For the purpose of this
analysis, it has been assumed that City of Dublin is designated as the point of sale by the
general and sub-contractors for 50% of the materials purchased for construction, and the cost of
construction material is equal to 50% of the total estimated hard cost. Use tax revenues from
purchase of construction materials are estimated to total $930,000. Additionally, initial property
transfer tax revenues from the land sales transactions are estimated to total $70,000, and
transfer taxes from the initial sales of residential units are estimated to total $231,000.
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 11
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
Exhibit 17. One-time General Fund Sales/Use Tax Revenues from Construction
Total Hard Cost $372,566,000
Estimated Construction Material Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs 50%
Estimated Share with Dublin as a point of Sale 50%
Estimated Construction Material Sales in City of Dublin $93,141,500
Local Sales and Use Tax Rate 1%
Total One-time City Sales/Use Tax Revenues from Construction $930,000
See Appendix 21A for details
Exhibit 18. One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax Revenues
$ Total
$70,000 Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of Development Site
Property Transfer Tax from Initial Sale of Ownership Units
Townhomes $110,000
Single Family Detached $121,000
Subtotal $231,000
Total Initial General Fund Property Transfer Tax Revenue $301,000
See Appendix 21B for details
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 12
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
IV. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
The fiscal impact analysis provides a preliminary estimate of the annual recurring fiscal
revenues and expenses that the Project will generate to the General Fund of the City of Dublin
upon buildout, as well as one-time revenues generated during construction.
General Fund revenues are the focus of the fiscal analysis because these revenues are the
major sources of discretionary spending for key city services, including police and fire services,
public works, and administrative services.
This preliminary analysis measures the total annual impacts upon buildout of the entire Project
and of the residential component, independent of the commercial components. The impacts of
the residential component have been evaluated to ensure that the residential component alone
will generate sufficient tax revenues to fund the cost of providing municipal services to the
residential component.
The major revenue and cost elements evaluated include property taxes, transient occupancy,
sales and use taxes, and fire, public works, police, and parks and community services costs.
Projections are static estimates based on both marginal estimating sources, such as assessed
values and per capita retail spending information, and on average revenue and expenditure
factors derived from the City’s adopted FY 2018/19 budget. Estimates are in 2018 dollars.
The analysis reflects the assumption that the Project is financially feasible, reaches full
build-out, and that the land use components generate gross receipts consistent with the
levels generated by newly constructed developments.
The analysis is presented in attached tables. The key assumptions of the analysis and
methodologies used to calculate the revenue impacts are summarized below.
Development Program – Per information from Shea Properties (in AT Dublin, Stage 2
Development Plan - Land Use Table, 06/29/2018), the proposed Project is spread
across 77.3 acres and includes approximately 383,500 SF of commercial development
and 665 residential units. The commercial development includes 140,000 SF of regional
commercial uses, a community room of 3,100 SF, 1 hotel comprising a total of 145
rooms, and other general commercial uses. The residential development includes 280
multifamily apartments, 205 townhomes, and 180 single family detached units. See
Appendix 3A.
Existing City of Dublin Demographics – The source for population and household
demographic data is ESRI Business Analyst Demographic Forecasts for 2018. See
Appendix 2.
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
Project Demographics – Resident population is based on the current average
household size and residential vacancy level in City of Dublin per ESRI Business
Analyst. Commercial employment has been estimated based on employment density
factors of 400 SF/employee for regional box center and other retail spaces, 1,000
SF/employee for fitness and community room, and 200 SF/employee for restaurants.
Hotel employment has been estimated based on the employment density factor of 0.9
employees per room. KMA has assumed a commercial vacancy level of 5% for this
analysis. See Appendix 4.
Inflation of Revenue and Expenses – The analysis is a static analysis of conditions
upon buildout of the Project. Revenues are presented in 2018 dollars.
Continuity of Legal and Institutional Constraints – The revenue and expenditure
experience of the City is based on the adopted FY 2018-19 budget. The projection
assumes that the revenue sources will remain constant.
Rounding – In some cases the calculated summations presented in the appendix tables
do not precisely match the summations presented in the body of the report. These
differences are due to rounding.
Service Population – The estimates of Franchise Fees, and Fines and Penalties, and
most service costs use a modified per capita measure known as “Service Population.”
This approach combines residents and employees to form a single service population.
The Service Population approach weights an employee as 0.50 of a resident, such that
two employees are viewed as having the same impact as one resident. See Appendix 4.
Assessed Property Value – The assessed values of the commercial and rental
residential components have been estimated based on the hard cost estimates provided
by Shea Properties and the development site’s acquisition cost. KMA estimates that a
portion of soft costs would be included in the projects assessed value, equivalent to 20%
of hard cost estimates. The land values of the commercial and rental residential
components have been estimated per the FY 2018/19 assessed land values (source:
Real Quest). See Appendix 5A.
For-sale residential properties’ assessed values are based on Shea’s estimates of the
sales prices of the homes in 2018 dollars.
City of Dublin General Fund’s Portion of Property Tax Revenues – The Project is
located in Tax Rate Area (TRA) 26-023. The City receives 22.98% of the base 1%
property tax levy in this TRA. See Appendix 6.
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
Property Transfer Tax – The City receives $0.55 for every $1,000 of assessed value of
properties upon sale. In order to project annual property transfer taxes, this analysis
assumes that the average holding period for homes is 7 years and that the holding
period for commercial uses is 20 years (see Appendix 7). Additionally, the City received
transfer tax revenues from the initial purchase of the development site by SCS Dublin
Realty LLC and the resale of the site to an affiliate, SCS Development Co and Award
Homes. The City will also receive transfer taxes from the resale of townhomes and
single family residential units. See Appendix 21B.
Property Tax In-Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees – Property tax in-lieu of VLF has
been estimated in accordance with SB 1096, based on data from the California State
Controller’s Office and projected assessed values. It is estimated based on $0.41 per
$1,000 growth in projected assessed values. See Appendix 8.
Sales Tax Revenues – The City receives 1% of taxable sales. The sales tax revenues
from retail activities are based on the average per square foot taxable sales generated
by Persimmon Place in Dublin ($421/SF). Total revenue from theater/cinema is
estimated at $15-16 million, with 50% attributable to taxable (food and beverage) sales
(source: Shea Properties). The analysis reflects the assumption that 100% of on-site
sales are “new” sales to the City and are not generated by a transfer of sales from
existing Dublin retailers to the subject Project. See Appendix 9A.
Off-site taxable spending by project employees is estimated based on weekly retail
spending by suburban workers, as reported in the ICSC report, "Office Worker Retail
Spending in a Digital Age" (2012). Figures have been adjusted to 2018 dollars using
national CPI. KMA has assumed that 40% of the taxable employee retail spending is
captured on-site, 10% is captured off-site in other retail locations in City of Dublin, while
remaining 50% is captured by retail located outside the City. See Appendix 9A. Taxable
expenditures by residents are estimated based on the estimated household income for
each residential prototype (Appendix 9B), and the average percentage of income spent
on taxable expenditures for the Nine County Bay Area residents. KMA has assumed
that 20% of the taxable household retail spending is captured on-site, 30% is captured
off-site in other retail locations in City of Dublin, while remaining 50% is captured by
retail located outside the City. See Appendix 9B.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) – Shea has received and accepted a letter of intent
from a hotel owner/operator that calls for the development of an upscale extended stay
hotel with 145 rooms. While CBRE has estimated that such a hotel could achieve an
average daily rate of $209 per night if it were developed in 2018, the subject analysis
has conservatively assumed that the hotel will achieve an average rate of $181 per
night, which is consistent with the current rate achieved by competing hotels in the
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 15
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
market area. Based on current occupancy rates of competing hotels and the CBRE
projection, it is estimated that the hotel will achieve an average occupancy rate of
80% upon stabilization. Per Dublin Municipal Code (section 3.16.030), the transient
occupancy tax rate in the City is 8%. See Appendix 10.
Business Registration Fees – The current initial business registration fee is $89 per
business and the annual renewal rate is $25. The total number of businesses upon
buildout is estimated based on the following assumed average square feet per business:
3,000 square feet for retail and restaurants, 16,000 square feet for fitness centers. It is
assumed that the Project will also include one theater, one hotel and two “box” retailers.
See Appendix 11.
Franchise Fees, and Fines and Penalties – The estimates for these revenues are
based on per capita (service population) figures derived from revenue data from the
City’s 2018/19 adopted budget. See Appendices 12 and 13.
General Fund Expenditures – This fiscal impact analysis uses average cost multipliers
derived from the City of Dublin’s 2018-19 Adopted Budget to project General Fund costs
for providing public services. Estimates of police, public works, fire, community
development, and other administrative departments’ costs are based on the current city
cost per service population, while the cost estimate for parks and community services is
based on the current cost per city resident. The cost to maintain new public infrastructure
that will be built as part of the project has also been estimated by the City’s public works
department and has been included in the analysis. See Appendices 14 to 20.
Total Annual General Fund Impacts versus Net New Annual General Fund
Impacts- Given that the development site is vacant, the difference between the total
fiscal impacts of the project and the “net new’ impacts of the project is the amount of
annual property tax revenue that the development site generated to the City prior to the
development team’s acquisition of the site in 2017.
Construction related Sales/Use Tax Revenues – The Construction use tax revenue
estimate is based on the hard construction cost estimates provided by Shea properties.
The revenue estimate reflects the assumption that City of Dublin is designated as the
point of sale by the general and sub-contractors for 50% of the materials purchased for
the construction of the Project and that materials costs account for 50% of hard
construction costs. See Appendix 21A.
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 16
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
V. LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. The analysis contained in this document is based, in part, on data provided by third parties
and published data sources. While Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) believes that the
sources consulted are reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy.
2. A projection of economic and fiscal impacts is inherently based on judgment. The
projections contained herein are based on the best information available at the time that this
document was prepared. Actual impacts are likely to vary from the estimates contained in
this report.
3. The analysis assumes that the economy will continue to grow at a moderate rate.
4. Revenue projections are based on the best project-specific and fiscal data available at this
time as well as experience with comparable projects. Material changes to costs,
development program, or project performance may render the conclusions contained herein
invalid.
5. Revenue estimates are based on the assumption that sufficient market support exists for the
proposed uses and that the Project will achieve industry standard productivity levels.
6. It is assumed that all applicable laws and governmental regulations in place as of the date of
this document will remain unchanged throughout the projection period. In the event that this
does not hold true, for example, if any tax rate changes, the analysis would need to be
revised.
7. KMA is not liable for the accuracy of any abstracts, excerpts or summaries of this report that
are not prepared by KMA.
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 17
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
VI. APPENDIX TABLES
Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed (entire) Project
Appendix 1: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts to the City of Dublin
Appendix 2: FY 2018/19 City of Dublin Demographics
Appendix 3A: Proposed Land Use Summary
Appendix 3B: Proposed Residential Unit Mix
Appendix 3C: Proposed Commercial Tenant Mix
Appendix 4: Estimated Project Demographics
Appendix 5A: Estimated Assessed Value
Appendix 5B: Project Assessed Land Values: FY 2017/18 and FY 2018/19
Appendix 6: Estimate of Annual Base Property Tax Revenues
Appendix 7: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Transfer Tax Revenues
Appendix 8: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues
Appendix 9A: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending
Appendix 9B: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending
Appendix 10: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues
Appendix 11: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Business Registration Fees
Appendix 12: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Franchise Fee Revenues
Appendix 13: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Revenues from Fines and Penalties
Appendix 14: Estimate of Annual General Fund Police Services Costs
Appendix 15: Estimate of Annual General Fund Parks and Community Services Costs
Appendix 16: Estimate of Annual General Fund Public Works Costs
Appendix 17: Estimate of Annual General Fund Project Specific Public Works Costs
Appendix 18: Estimate of Annual General Fund Fire Services Costs
Appendix 19: Estimate of Annual General Fund Community Development Costs
Appendix 20: Estimate of Annual General Fund Other Departments Costs
Appendix 21A: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax from Construction Activities
Appendix 21B: Estimate of One-time Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of the Site and from For-Sale Units
Appendix 22: FY 2018/19 General Fund Summary
Fiscal Impacts of the Residential Component
Appendix 23: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts to the City of Dublin- Residential Only
Appendix 24: Estimated Project Demographics- Residential Only
Appendix 25: Estimated Assessed Value- Residential Only
Appendix 26: Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues- Residential Only
Appendix 27: Estimate of Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenues- Residential Only
Appendix 28: Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues- Residential Only
Appendix 29: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending
Appendix 30: Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues- Residential Only
Appendix 31: Estimate of Annual Fines and Penalties - Residential Only
Appendix 32: Estimate of Annual Police Services Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 33: Estimate of Annual Parks and Community Services Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 34A: Estimate of Annual Public Works Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 34B: Estimate of Annual Project Specific Public Works Costs- Residential Only
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 18
\\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\001-001.docx
Appendix 35: Estimate of Annual Fire Services Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 36: Estimate of Annual Community Development Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 37: Estimate of Annual Other Departments Costs- Residential Only
Appendix 38A: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax from Construction Activities- Residential Only
Appendix 38B: Est. of One-time Prop. Transfer Tax from Site Purchase and from For-Sale Units- Residential Only
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 1: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts to the City of Dublin
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total Net New
Annual Impacts Annual Impacts1
I. Annual Recurring General Fund Impacts
upon Buildout
Revenues2
Property Tax $1,719,000 $1,710,000
Property Transfer Tax $42,000 $42,000
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $305,000 $305,000
Sales Tax $994,000 $994,000
Transient Occupancy Tax $613,000 $613,000
Business Registration Fee $1,000 $1,000
Franchise Fees $132,000 $132,000
Fines and Penalties $3,000 $3,000
Total Revenues $3,809,000 $3,800,000
Expenditures3
Police Services Cost ($470,000)($470,000)
Parks and Community Services Cost ($65,000)($65,000)
Public Works Cost ($156,000)($156,000)
Project Specific Public Works ($76,000)($76,000)
Fire Services Cost ($295,000)($295,000)
Community Development Cost ($42,000)($42,000)
Other Department Cost4 ($59,000)($59,000)
Total Expenditures ($1,163,000)($1,163,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit)$2,646,000 $2,637,000
$ Total
II. One-time Construction Related Revenues
Sales and Use Tax Generated from Construction
Material Purchases5 $930,000
Initial Prop. Transfer Tax from Land Sale Transaction6 $70,000
Initial Prop.Transfer Tax from For-Sale Units6 $231,000
Total One-time Revenues $1,231,000
Figures rounded
1. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to calculate the net new annual impacts of the project. In FY 2017/18,
the site generated property tax revenues on the basis of the assessed values of its (vacant) land parcels.
2. See Appendices 6 to 13 for individual revenue calculations and assumptions.
4. Includes city council department, office of city manager, city clerk's office, human resource department, city attorney's
office and administrative services department expenditures.
5. See Appendix 21A for details.
6. See Appendix 21B for details.
3. See Appendices 14 to 20 for individual expenditure calculations and assumptions.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 19
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 2: FY 2018/19 City of Dublin Demographics
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
Population1 64,105
Households1 20,888
Employment1 21,113
Service Population2 75,000 rounded
Average Household Income1 $160,044
Average Household Size1 2.81
1. Source: ESRI Business Analyst.
2. Service Population calculated as resident population plus half of employment population.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 20
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 3A: Proposed Land Use Summary
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Planning Gross Res.Commercial Hotel
Land Use Designation Area Acres1 Units Sq. Ft.Rooms
General Commercial PA-12 23.7 0 303,991 145
Commercial, General 47,000
Commercial, Regional 140,000
Commercial, General 38,907
Hotel4 75,000 145
Community Room 3,084
Mixed-Use PA-2a, PA-2b 15.4 280 79,510 0
Commercial 68,926
Commercial 4,108
Multi Family, Apartments3 280 6,476
Medium-High Density (Townhomes)PA-2c 12.4 205 0 0
Medium Density (Single Fam. Detached)PA-3, PA-4 23.5 180 0 0
Parks/Public Recreation 2.3
Total 77.3 665 383,501 145
Source: AT Dublin, Stage 2 Development Plan - Land Use Table, 06/29/2018
1. Gross Acreage is the Net Site Area plus 25 ft of the area of the abutting streets.
2. PA-1 gross acreage includes Northside Drive area within the property boundaries, approximately 1.55 acres.
3. Multifamily apartment net rentable area is 320,000 SF.
4. As per Shea Properties, current letter of intent with a Hotel Owner/Operator estimates 145 keys.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 21
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 3B: Proposed Residential Unit Mix
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Number of Avg. Area
Residential Type Units Per Unit (SF)
Multifamily Apartments1
Studios 18 558
1 Bedroom 149 741
1 Bedroom Loft 4 1,004
2 Bedroom 89 1,113
2 Bedroom Loft 5 1,417
3 Bedroom 15 1,380
Subtotal/Average 280 898
Multifamily Townhomes2
Townhome A 103 1,970
Townhome B 102 2,362
Subtotal/Average 205 2,165
Single Family Detached2
Small Lot SFD A 97 2,258
Small Lot SFD B 83 2,897
Subtotal/Average 180 2,553
Total Residential Units 665
Source: Shea Properties (in AT Dublin, City Requested Information for Fiscal Study document, June 13, 2018)
1. The above apartment unit mix is based on the current site development plan, and subject to change
with construction documents.
2. The above unit mix for the Medium High and Medium density product is based on the current site development
plan, and subject to change with selected home builder.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 22
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 3C: Proposed Commercial Tenant Mix
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Commerical Square Feet1
Planning Area PA-1 281,427 SF
Regional Box Center 50,000 SF
Regional Box Center, two levels 56,000 SF
Fitness 47,000 SF
Retail 21,626 SF
Restaurant 28,717 SF
Hotel 75,000 SF
Community Room/ Meeting Area 3,084 SF
Planning Area PA-2a and PA-2b 79,607 SF
Theater 40,500 SF
Retail 12,904 SF
Restaurant 26,203 SF
Source: Shea Properties (in AT Dublin, City Requested Information for Fiscal Study document, June 13, 2018)
1. Based on site development plans.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 23
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 4: Estimated Project Demographics
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Residential
Average Household Size1 2.81
Residential Vacancy1 2.10%
Total Residential Units2 665
Resident Population 1,829
Commercial Employment
Commercial Vacancy3 5%
Area (SF)/SF/ Employee or Total
Commercial Type4 Rooms4 Planning Area4 Rooms/Emp.3 Employees
Regional Box Center 50,000 SF PA-1 400 119
Regional Box Center, two levels 56,000 SF PA-1 400 133
Fitness5 47,000 SF PA-1 1,000 47
Retail 21,626 SF PA-1 400 51
Restaurant 28,717 SF PA-1 200 136
Hotel5 145 Rooms PA-1 0.9 131
Community Room/ Meeting Area5 3,084 SF PA-1 1,000 3
620
Theater5 40,500 SF PA-2a, PA-2b 1,000 41
Retail 12,904 SF PA-2a, PA-2b 400 31
Restaurant 26,203 SF PA-2a, PA-2b 200 124
196
Total Employees 816
Service Population6 2,237
1. Source: ESRI Business Analyst.
2. See Appendix 3B.
3. KMA Assumption.
4. See Appendix 3C.
5. Does not include vacancy factor.
6. Service Population calculated as resident population plus half of employment.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 24
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 5A: Estimated Assessed Value
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total Estimated Assessed Value upon Buildout
Commercial $228,000,000 rounded
Rental Residential $101,000,000 rounded
For-Sale Residential $419,000,000 rounded
Total Estimated AV upon buildout $748,000,000
for detailed calculations see below
Assessed Value of Commercial Properties upon Buildout
Estimated
APN1 Tax Area2 Area (Acres)2 Land Value2
985-0051-004 26-023 1.2 $1,280,000
985-0051-005 26-023 20.9 $21,970,000
985-0051-0063 26-023 11.5 $12,080,000
Total Estimated Land Value of Commercial Development $35,330,000
Est. Improvement
Commercial Product Type Hard Cost4 Soft Cost5 Value
Commercial - Regional Box $50,000,000 $10,000,000 $60,000,000
Commercial - Retail & Restaurant $76,600,000 $15,320,000 $91,920,000
Commercial - Pads $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,000,000
Hotel - 145 Keys6 $29,000,000 $5,800,000 $34,800,000
Total Estimated Improvement Value of Commercial Development $192,720,000
Total Estimated Assessed Value of Commercial Development7 $228,050,000
Assessed Value of Rental (high density) Residential Properties upon Buildout
Estimated
APN1 Tax Area2 Area (Acres)3 Land Value2
985-0051-0063 26-023 4.5 $4,690,000
Est. Improvement
Residential Product Type Hard Cost4 Soft Cost5 Value
Multifamily Apartments $80,000,000 $16,000,000 $96,000,000
Total Est. Assessed Value of Rental Residential Development $100,690,000
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 25
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 5A: Estimated Assessed Value
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Assessed Value of For-sale Residential Properties upon Buildout
Sale Price Est. Assessed
For-sale Residential Product Type Per Unit4 No. of Units4 Value
Townhomes A $966,950 103 $99,595,850
Townhomes B $983,044 102 $100,270,488
Single Family Detached A $1,171,021 97 $113,589,037
Single Family Detached B $1,275,940 83 $105,903,020
Total Est. Assessed Value of For-sale Residential Development $419,358,000
Total Estimated Assessed Value upon Buildout $748,000,000
<Less> FY 2017/18 Total Assessed Value (Land Value)8 -$4,284,468
Net New Assessed Value upon Buildout $744,000,000
Note: Final Figure rounded to closest 1,000,000s.
1. APN as per Shea Properties (in AT Dublin, City Requested Information for Fiscal Study document, June 13, 2018).
2. Source: Real Quest, See Appendix 5B for details. For the purpose of this analysis, land value of completed project
has been assumed to be equal to FY 2018/19 assessed land value.
3. As per the Site Plan (June 20, 2018), Parcel 985-0051-006 (total area = 30.26 acres) has mixed-use (commercial
and rental residential) and for-sale townhomes planned on it. See Appendix 5B for distribution of land area per
land use for this parcel.
4. As per Shea Properties.
5. KMA estimates that a portion of soft costs would be included in assessed values. The portion assumed is
equivalent to 20% of hard costs.
6. As per Shea Properties, Construction Hard Cost estimate for 225 Keys Hotel is $45,000,000 or $200,000 per room.
KMA has assumed $200,000 per room as the factor to estimate the hard cost for the revised 145 room hotel.
7. KMA has not included the unsecured assessed values in this analysis.
8. See Appendix 5B for details. FY 2017/18, which reflects the value of the property prior to its purchase by the
development team, has been assumed as the base year to estimate the net new annual impacts of the project.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 26
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 5B: Project Assessed Land Values: FY 2017/18 and FY 2018/19
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Tax Area FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19
APN Area1 (Acres)1 Land AV1 Land AV1 Commercial Rental Res.For-sale Res.Total Commercial Rental Res.For-sale Res.Total
985-0051-004 26-023 1.22 $63,505 $1,280,000 $63,505 $63,505 $1,280,000 $1,280,000
985-0051-005 26-023 20.92 $1,178,117 $21,970,000 $1,178,117 $1,178,117 $21,970,000 $21,970,000
985-0051-0062 26-023 30.26 $1,704,308 $31,790,000 $647,637 $251,264 $805,407 $1,704,308 $12,080,000 $4,690,000 $15,020,000 $31,790,000
985-0052-024 26-023 20.70 $1,165,580 $21,740,000 $1,165,580 $1,165,580 $21,740,000 $21,740,000
985-0052-025 26-023 3.07 $172,958 $3,220,000 $172,958 $172,958 $3,220,000 $3,220,000
Totals $4,284,468 $80,000,000 $1,889,259 $251,264 $2,143,945 $4,284,468 $35,330,000 $4,690,000 $39,980,000 $80,000,000
Notes:
1. Source: Real Quest
2. As per the Site Plan (June 20, 2018), Parcel 985-0051-006 (total area = 30.26 acres) has mixed-use (commercial and rental residential) and
for-sale townhomes planned on it. KMA has assumed the following distribution of land area per land use for the parcel:
Land Use Acres % Total Comments
Commercial 11.50 38%KMA assumption
Rental Residential 4.46 15%KMA assumption
For-Sale Residential 14.30 47%per Shea properties (Land Use Plan: Jan 17, 2018)
30.26 100%
FY 2018/19 Assessed Land Value DistributionFY 2017/18 Assessed Land Value Distribution
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 27
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 6: Estimate of Annual Base Property Tax Revenues
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total New1
Total Estimated Assessed Value2 $748,000,000 $744,000,000
Base 1% Property Tax Levy $7,480,000 $7,440,000
Tax Rate Area 26-023 26-023
City of Dublin General Fund's portion of Base 1% Property Tax (Post-ERAF)3 22.98%22.98%
Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues $1,719,000 $1,710,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s.
1. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to estimate the new annual impacts of the project.
2. See Appendix 5A for details.
3. Estimated based on 17-18 ERAF Contribution Percentages
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 28
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 7: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Transfer Tax Revenues
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55
Holding Period Assumptions
Multifamily Apartments2 20 years
Townhomes2 7 years
Single Family Detached2 7 years
Commercial2 20 years
Est. Assessed Property
Land Use Value3 Transfer Tax
Residential
Multifamily Apartments $100,690,000 $2,769
Townhomes4 $199,866,000 $15,704
Single Family Detached5 $219,492,000 $17,246
Commercial $228,050,000 $6,271
Totals $748,000,000 $42,000
Estimate of Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenues $42,000
Note: Figures rounded
1. Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf, accessed 07/03/2018.
2. KMA Assumption.
3. See Appendix 5 for details.
4. Includes Townhomes A and B.
5. Includes Single Family Detached A and B.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 29
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 8: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
2004-05 Vehicle License Fee Adjusted Amount1,2 $2,278,846
2004-05 Assessed Valuation1,2 $5,553,452,954
VLF per $1,000 in AV Growth $0.41
Estimated Assessed Value Upon Buildout3 $748,000,000
<Less> FY 2017/18 Assessed Value (Land Value)4 ($4,284,468)
Total Estimated Net New Assessed Value upon Buildout $743,715,532
Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Revenues $305,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. As per SB 1096, growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05.
2. VLF distribution in 2004/05 per the California State Controller's Office.
3. See Appendix 5A.
4. See Appendix 5B for details. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to estimate the net new annual impacts
from the project.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 30
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 9A: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
City of Dublin's share of sales tax of total taxable Sales1 1.00%
Sales Tax from Retail Activities
Estimated Taxable Retail Sales per Square Foot2 $421
Total Retail Square Feet3 195,450
Estimated Total Taxable Retail Sales $82,284,000
Estimated Sales Tax from Retail Activities $823,000
Sales Tax from Theater
Estimated Taxable (F&B) Theater Retail Sales4 $7,750,000
Estimated Sales Tax from Theater Activities $78,000
Sales Tax from Off-Site Employee Spending
Weekly Employee Spending on Retail5 $14
Weeks at Work per Year6 50
Average Annual Retail Spending per Retail Employee $716
City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 10%
Onsite Capture Rate7 40%
Employee Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50%
100%
Annual Income Spent on off-site Retail Sales in Dublin per Retail Employee $72
New Employment: Retail8 816
Estimated Off-site Taxable Sales from Employee Spending $58,000
Estimated Sales Tax from Off-site Employee Spending $580
Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Retail Sales and Employee Spending $902,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s.
1. Source: Dublin Municipal Code
2. This is based on average per square foot taxable sales generated by Persimmon Place in Dublin (includes vacancy).
3. See Appendix 3; Excludes fitness, hotel, community room, and theater.
4. As per Shea Properties, total revenue from theater/cinema is estimated to be $15-$16 million with
50% being Food and Beverage (F&B) sales.
5. Based on weekly employee restaurant spending in the vicinity of the workplace, as reported in the ICSC report,
"Office Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012), for suburban workers, assuming 50 weeks at work per year.
Figures adjusted to 2018 using national CPI.
6. KMA assumption.
7. KMA has assumed that 40% of the taxable employee retail spending is captured on-site, 10% is captured off-site in
other retail locations in City of Dublin, while remaining 50% is captured by retail located outside the City.
8. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 31
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 9B: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
City of Dublin's share of sales tax of total taxable Sales1 1.00%
Percentage of Household Income Spent on Taxable Retail Sales2 29.3%
No. of Monthly Est. HH HH Taxable Total Retail
Rental Multi-Family HH3 Area (SF)4 Rent5 Income6 Retail Spending Spending
Studios 17 558 $1,864 $75,000 $21,975 $373,575
1 Bedroom 142 741 $2,475 $99,000 $29,007 $4,118,994
1 Bedroom Loft 4 1,004 $3,353 $134,000 $39,262 $157,048
2 Bedroom 85 1,113 $3,717 $149,000 $43,657 $3,710,845
2 Bedroom Loft 5 1,417 $4,733 $189,000 $55,377 $276,885
3 Bedroom 14 1,380 $4,609 $184,000 $53,912 $754,768
Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by Multifamily Residential HH $9,392,115
City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 30%
Onsite Capture Rate7 20%
Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50%
100%
Estimated Off-site Taxable Sales from Multifamily Resident Spending $2,818,000
Estimated Sales Tax from off-site Multifamily Resident Spending $28,000
No. of Est. Sale Est. HH HH Taxable Total Retail
For-sale Units HH3 Area (SF)4 Price8 Income9 Retail Spending Spending
Townhome A 98 1,970 $966,950 $176,000 $51,568 $5,053,664
Townhome B 97 2,362 $983,044 $179,000 $52,447 $5,087,359
Small Lot SFD A 92 2,258 $1,171,021 $213,000 $62,409 $5,741,628
Small Lot SFD B 79 2,897 $1,275,940 $232,000 $67,976 $5,370,104
Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by For-sale Residential HH $21,252,755
City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 30%
Onsite Capture Rate7 20%
Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50%
100%
Estimated off-site Taxable Sales from for-sale Units' Resident Spending $6,376,000
Estimated Sales Tax from off-site for-sale Units' Resident Spending $64,000
Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending $92,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s.
1. Source: Dublin Municipal Code.
2. Based on the average percentage of income spent on Retail and Food services for Nine County Bay Area
residents; Source: CA Board of Equalization (2015).
3. Includes a 5% vacancy factor.
4. See Appendix 3B.
5. Estimated on the basis of $3.34/SF.
6. Estimated based on the assumption that 30% of the annual household income goes towards rent.
7. KMA assumption.
8. As per Shea Properties.
9. Estimated based on the assumption that 30% of the household income goes towards mortgage payment. Mortgage
is calculated as a self amortizing 30 year loan at 5.5% on 80% of the sale price.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 32
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 10: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenues
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Hotel 1: Upscale Extended Stay Hotel
Estimated Number of Rooms (Keys)145
Annual Room Nights 52,925
Average Daily Rate (ADR in $2018)1,2 $181
Occupancy upon Stablization1,2 80%
Hotel Revenue Generated $7,663,540
TOT
Revenues
Total Hotel Revenue Generated $7,663,540
City of Dublin TOT Rate3 8%
Estimate of Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues $613,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. As per CBRE (Report dated October 19, 2017).
2. The CBRE report recommends two hotels for the project. First hotel recommended is an upscale extended stay hotel
with fully equipped kitchen and 125 Keys. While, second hotel recommended is an upper midscale hotel with 100 keys.
For the purpose of this analysis, KMA has assumed that the first hotel will have 145 keys, as per the current letter of intent
with hotel owner/operator, and will be an upscale extended stay hotel. For the purpose of this analysis, it has been
conservatively assumed that the proposed hotel will generate an average room rate of $181, which is equal to the estimated
current average room rate of the hotels in the market area that have been identified as competing hotels in the
CBRE report. The CBRE report has estimated that the subject hotel would achieve an average rate of $209 per night.
3. Source: Dublin Municipal Code (section 3.16.030).
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 33
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 11: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Business Registration Fees
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Annual Business Registration Fee per business1 $25
Estimated Avg.# of Business Reg.
Commercial2 Program2 SF per Business3 Businesses Fees
Planning Area PA-1
Regional Box Center 50,000 SF 50,000 1 $25
Regional Box Center, two levels 56,000 SF 56,000 1 $25
Fitness 47,000 SF 16,000 3 $75
Retail 21,626 SF 3,000 7 $175
Restaurant 28,717 SF 3,000 10 $250
Hotel 145 Rooms -1 $25
Community Room/ Meeting Area 3,084 SF --$0
Planning Area PA-2a and PA-2b
Theater 40,500 SF -1 $25
Retail 12,904 SF 3,000 4 $100
Restaurant 26,203 SF 3,000 9 $225
Estimate of Annual Business Registration Fees $1,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin; Initial fee amount is $89 per business, but thereafter the annual fee is $25 per business.
2. See Appendix 4 for details
3. KMA assumption
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 34
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 12: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Franchise Fee Revenues
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Franchise Fee FY 2018/191,2 $4,423,100
FY 2018/19 Service Population3 75,000
Estimated Franchise Fee per Service Population $59
New Service Population in the Plan Area4 2,237
Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues $132,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. Includes Electric, Gas, Garbage and Cable Franchise Taxes.
3. See Appendix 2.
4. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 35
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 13: Estimate of Annual City General Fund Revenues from Fines and Penalties
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total Fines and Penalties Revenues FY 2018/191 $111,432
FY 2018/19 Service Population2 75,000
Fines and Forfeitures Revenue per Service Population $1
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 2,237
Estimate of Annual Fines and Forfeitures Revenues $3,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 36
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 14: Estimate of Annual General Fund Police Services Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
Police Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $21,045,901
Less Police Services General Fund Revenues1 ($39,140)
Police Services Net General Fund Expenditures $21,006,761
FY 2018/19 Service Population2 75,000
Percentage Variable Factor 75%
Adjusted Police Services Net Expenditure per Service Population $210
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 2,237
Estimate of Annual Police Services Costs $470,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 37
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 15: Estimate of Annual General Fund Parks and Community Services Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
Parks and Community Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $9,330,608
Less Parks and Community Services General Fund Revenues1 ($4,748,814)
Parks and Community Services Net General Fund Expenditures $4,581,794
FY 2018/19 Resident Population2 64,105
Percentage Variable Factor 50%
Adjusted Parks and Comm. Services Net Expenditure per Resident Pop.$36
New Resident Population in the Plan Area3 1,829
Estimate of Annual Parks and Community Services Costs $65,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 38
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 16: Estimate of Annual General Fund Public Works Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
Public Works General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $11,467,615
Less Environmental Services General Fund Revenues1 ($1,003,313)
Public Works Net General Fund Expenditures $10,464,302
FY 2018/19 Service Population2 75,000
Percentage Variable Factor 50%
Adjusted Public Works Net Expenditure per Resident Population $70
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 2,237
Projected Annual Public Works Cost $156,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 39
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 17: Estimate of Annual General Fund Project Specific Public Works Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Frequency
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost (in Years)Annual Cost
Street Lights
200 HPSV1 40 ea $125.34 1 $5,014
100 MH2 - ea $125.34 1 $0
70 MH2 - ea $48.43 1 $0
Landscaping4
6'-planter3 61,140 sf $0.55 1 $33,627
16'-median2 - sf $0.55 1 $0
trees2 - ea $22.55 1 $0
AC Pavement
slurry seal5 198,615 sf $0.25 5 $9,931
ac overlay5 198,615 sf $2.00 18 $22,068
Concrete Curb & Gutter
street sweeping6 2.14 miles $23.20 1 $50
Draingage
CDS units2 - ea $2,000.00 1 $0
Traffic Signal
energy7 2 ea $840.00 1 $1,680
maintenance7 2 ea $1,680.00 1 $3,360
Annual Project Specific Public Works Estimate $75,729
Source: City of Dublin
1. Tassajara 9; Brannigan 21; Central 6; Dublin Blvd 4
2. Info not provided on type
3. Tassajara 21,050 SF; Brannigan 19,200 SF; Gleason 7,970 SF; Central 6,740 SF; Dublin Blvd 6,180 SF
4. Does not account for benches or bus shelters
5. Tassajara 53900 SF; Brannigan 42,320 SF; Gleason 34,020 SF; Central 14,790 SF; Dublin Blvd 53,585 SF
6. Tassajara 3,220 LF; Brannigan 3,050 LF; Gleason 1,690 LF; Central 1,760 LF; 1,570 LF
7. Tassajara 1 new; Gleason 1 relocate; Central 1 relocate; Dublin Blvd 1 new, 2 relocate
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 40
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 18: Estimate of Annual General Fund Fire Protection Services Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
Fire Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $14,120,932
Less Fire Services General Fund Revenues1 ($943,477)
Fire Services Net General Fund Expenditures $13,177,455
FY 2018/19 Service Population2 75,000
Percentage Variable Factor 75%
Adjusted Fire Services Net Expenditure per Service Population $132
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 2,237
Projected Annual Fire Services Cost $295,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 41
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 19: Estimate of Annual General Fund Community Development Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
Community Developments General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $5,671,904
FY 2018/19 Service Population2 75,000
Percentage Variable Factor 25%
Adjusted Community Development Net Expenditure per Service Population $19
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 2,237
Projected Annual Community Development Cost $42,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 42
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 20: Estimate of Annual General Fund Other Departments Costs
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
City Council General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $525,990
Office of City Manager General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $2,363,581
City Clerk Office's General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $754,868
Human Resources Department General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $1,357,101
City Attorney Office's General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $966,600
Administrative Services Department General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $2,019,812
Total Other Departments General Fund Portion of Expenditures $7,987,952
Less General and Administrative General Fund Revenues1 ($24,878)
Other Departments Net General Fund Expenditures $7,963,074
FY 2018/19 Service Population2 75,000
Percentage Variable Factor 25%
Adjusted Other Department Net Expenditure per Service Population $27
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 2,237
Projected Annual Other Department Costs $59,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 4.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 43
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 21A: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax from Construction Activities
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total Hard Cost1
Commercial - Regional Box $50,000,000
Commercial - Retail & Restaurant $76,600,000
Commercial - Pads $5,000,000
Hotel - 145 Keys $29,000,000
Multifamily Apartments $80,000,000
Multifamly Townhomes A $31,353,000
Multifamly Townhomes B $37,950,000
Single Family Detached A $31,646,000
Single Family Detached B $31,017,000
Total Hard Cost $372,566,000
Estimated Construction Material Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs2 50%
Estimated Share with Dublin as a point of Sale3 50%
Estimated Construction Material Sales in City of Dublin $93,141,500
Local Sales and Use Tax Rate 1%
Total One-time Sales and Use Tax Revenues During Construction $930,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 10,000s
1. As per Shea Properties.
2. KMA assumption.
3. For the purpose of this analysis it has been assume that 50% of the material costs will generate 'sales/use tax' revenue
to the city of Dublin, by general and sub-contractors designating the job site in Dublin as the 'point of sale' for the materials.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 44
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55
12/20/2017
$48,000,000
$26,400
6/29/2017
$80,000,000
I.Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of Site and Sale to Affiliate
1. Land Sale Date2
Sale Price2
Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction
2. Land Sale Date2
Sale Price2
Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction $44,000
Transfer Tax generated from Land Sale Transactions $70,400
II. Initial Transfer Tax from For-sale Residential
Est. Assessed Property
Value3 Transfer Tax
Townhomes4 $199,866,000 $109,926
Single Family Detached5 $219,492,000 $120,721
Transfer Tax generated from Sale of for-sale residential units $231,000
Projected Total One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax $301,000
Note: Figures rounded. For the purpose of this analysis, commercial and rental residential development are not included
in the initial Property Transfer tax calculation.
1. Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf, accessed 07/03/2018.
2. Source: Real Quest
3. See Appendix 5A for details.
4. Includes Townhomes A and B.
5. Includes Single Family Detached A and B.
Appendix 21B: Estimate of One-time Property Transfer Tax from Purchase of Development Site and from Initial
Sale of Ownership Units
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 45
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 22: FY 2018/19 General Fund Summary
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
General Fund Revenues
FY 2018-19 Basis of KMA Projection
Revenues Included in the analysis
Property Taxes $40,130,168 assessed value, City share of 1% tax
Sales Tax $20,129,696 est. project sales, empl. and resid. spending
Property Transfer Tax $750,000 assessed value (AV), $0.55 per $1,000 of AV
Transient Occupancy Tax $1,400,000 avg. daily room rate, and hotel occupancy
Franchise Fees $4,423,100 service population
Licenses $190,337 only business license tax included
Fines and Penalties $111,432 service population
Subtotal $67,134,733
Revenues not Included in the analysis
Permits $4,753,034 independent of project
Use of Money and Property $2,476,205 independent of project
Intergovernmental-State $234,919 independent of project
Subtotal $7,464,158
Charge for Services (deducted from General Fund expenditures)
General & Admin $24,878 deducted from administrative services
Police Services $39,140 deducted from police services
Fire Services $943,477 deducted from fire services expenditures
Environmental Services $1,003,313 deducted from public works expenditures
Parks & Community Services $4,748,814 deducted from parks and comm. serv expenditures
Subtotal $6,759,622
Development Services $3,643,348 not included in the analysis
General Revenue $1,477,026 not included in the analysis
Subtotal $5,120,374
Total Charge for Services $11,879,996
Total General Fund Revenue $86,478,887
General Fund Expenditures1
Dept. General
General Fund Fund Revenues Net
Portion (Service Fees)Expenditure
City Council $525,990 $525,990
Office of City Manager $2,363,581 $2,363,581
City Clerk's Office $754,868 $754,868
Human Resources $1,357,101 $1,357,101
City Attorney's Office $966,600 $966,600
Administrative Services $2,019,812 ($24,878)$1,994,934
Community Development $5,671,904 $5,671,904
Fire Services $14,120,932 ($943,477)$13,177,455
Police Services $21,045,901 ($39,140)$21,006,761
Parks and Community Services $9,330,608 ($4,748,814)$4,581,794
Public Works $11,467,615 ($1,003,313)$10,464,302
$69,624,912 ($6,759,622)$62,865,290
Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget Summary, FY 2018/19
1. Excludes Non-departmental and Developer Deposit Account Fund.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 46
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 23: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impacts to the City of Dublin- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total Net New
Annual Impacts Annual Impacts1
I. Annual Recurring General Fund Impacts
upon Buildout
Revenues2
Property Tax $1,195,000 $1,190,000
Property Transfer Tax $36,000 $36,000
Property Tax In-lieu of VLF $213,000 $213,000
Sales Tax $92,000 $92,000
Franchise Fees $108,000 $108,000
Fines and Penalties $3,000 $3,000
Total Revenues $1,647,000 $1,642,000
Expenditures3
Police Services Cost ($384,000)($384,000)
Parks and Community Services Cost ($65,000)($65,000)
Public Works Cost ($128,000)($128,000)
Project Specific Public Works ($62,000)($62,000)
Fire Services Cost ($241,000)($241,000)
Community Development Cost ($35,000)($35,000)
Other Department Cost4 ($48,000)($48,000)
Total Expenditures ($963,000)($963,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Surplus/(Deficit)$684,000 $679,000
$ Total
II. One-time Construction Related Revenues
Sales and Use Tax Generated from Construction
Material Purchases5 $530,000
Initial Prop. Transfer Tax from Land Sale Transactions6 $40,000
Initial Prop.Transfer Tax from For-Sale Units6 $231,000
Total One-time Revenues $801,000
1. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to calculate the net new annual impacts of the project. In FY 2017/18,
the site generated property tax revenues on the basis of the assessed values of its (vacant) land parcels.
2. See Appendices 26 to 31 for individual revenue calculations and assumptions.
4. Includes city council department, office of city manager, city clerk's office, human resource department, city attorney's
office and administrative services department expenditures.
5. See Appendix 38A for details.
6. See Appendix 38B for details.
3. See Appendices 32 to 37 for individual expenditure calculations and assumptions.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 47
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 24: Estimated Project Demographics- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Residential
Average Household Size1 2.81
Residential Vacancy1 2.10%
Total Residential Units2 665
Resident Population 1,829
Service Population3 1,829
1. Source: ESRI Business Analyst.
2. See Appendix 3B.
3. Service Population calculated as resident population plus half of employment.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 48
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 25: Estimated Assessed Value- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Estimated Assessed Value
Commercial $0
Rental Residential $101,000,000 rounded
For-Sale Residential $419,000,000 rounded
Total Estimated AV upon buildout $520,000,000
for detailed calculations see below
Assessed Value of Rental (high density) Residential Properties
Estimated
APN1 Tax Area2 Area (Acres)3 Land Value2
985-0051-0063 26-023 4.5 $4,690,000
Est. Improvement
Residential Product Type Hard Cost4 Soft Cost5 Value
Multifamily Apartments $80,000,000 $16,000,000 $96,000,000
Total Est. Assessed Value of Rental Residential Development $100,690,000
Assessed Value of For-sale Residential Properties
Sale Price Est. Assessed
For-sale Residential Product Type Per Unit4 No. of Units4 Value
Townhomes A $966,950 103 $99,595,850
Townhomes B $983,044 102 $100,270,488
Single Family Detached A $1,171,021 97 $113,589,037
Single Family Detached B $1,275,940 83 $105,903,020
Total Est. Assessed Value of For-sale Residential Development $419,358,000
Total Est. Assessed Value upon Buildout $520,000,000
<Less> FY 2017/18 Assessed Value (Land Value)6 -$2,395,209
Net New Assessed Value upon Buildout $518,000,000
Note: Final Figure rounded to closest 1,000,000s.
1. APN as per Shea Properties (in AT Dublin, City Requested Information for Fiscal Study document, June 13, 2018).
2. Source: Real Quest, See Appendix 5B for details. For the purpose of this analysis, land value of the completed project
has been assumed to be equal to FY 2018/19 assessed land value.
3. As per the Site Plan (June 20, 2018), Parcel 985-0051-006 (total area = 30.26 acres) has mixed-use (commercial
and rental residential) and for-sale townhomes planned on it. See Appendix 5B for distribution of land area per
land use for this parcel.
4. As per Shea Properties.
5. KMA estimates that a portion of soft costs would be included in assessed values. The portion assumed is
equivalent to 20% of hard costs.
6. Includes FY 2017/18 assessed land values attributable to the residential development. See Appendix 5B for details.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 49
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 26: Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total New1
Total Estimated Assessed Value2 $520,000,000 $518,000,000
Base 1% Property Tax Levy $5,200,000 $5,180,000
Tax Rate Area 26-023 26-023
City of Dublin General Fund's portion of Base 1% Property Tax (Post-ERAF)2 22.98%22.98%
Estimate of Annual Property Tax Revenues $1,195,000 $1,190,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s.
1. FY 2017/18 has been assumed as the base year to estimate the new annual impacts of the project.
2. See Appendix 25 for details.
3. Estimated based on 17-18 ERAF Contribution Percentages
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 50
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 27: Estimate of Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenues- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55
Holding Period Assumptions
Multifamily Apartments2 20 years
Townhomes2 7 years
Single Family Detached2 7 years
Est. Assessed Property
Land Use Value3 Transfer Tax
Residential
Multifamily Apartments $100,690,000 $2,769
Townhomes4 $199,866,000 $15,704
Single Family Detached5 $219,492,000 $17,246
Total $520,000,000 $36,000
Estimate of Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenues $36,000
Note: Figures rounded
1. Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf, accessed 07/03/2018.
2. KMA Assumption.
3. See Appendix 25 for details.
4. Includes Townhomes A and B.
5. Includes Single Family Detached A and B.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 51
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 28: Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
2004-05 Vehicle License Fee Adjusted Amount1,2 $2,278,846
2004-05 Assessed Valuation1,2 $5,553,452,954
VLF per $1,000 in AV Growth $0.41
Estimated Assessed Value Upon Buildout3 $520,000,000
<Less> FY 2017/18 Assessed Value (Land Value)4 ($2,395,209)
Net New Assessed Value upon Buildout (rounded)$518,000,000
Estimate of Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Revenues $213,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s
1. As per SB 1096, growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05.
2. VLF distribution in 2004/05 per the California State Controller's Office.
3. See Appendix 25.
4. Includes FY 2017/18 assessed land values attributable to the residential development. See Appendix 5B for details.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 52
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 29: Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
City of Dublin's share of sales tax of total taxable Sales1 1.00%
Percentage of Household Income Spent on Taxable Retail Sales2 29.3%
No. of Monthly Est. HH HH Taxable Total Retail
Rental Multi-Family HH3 Area (SF)4 Rent5 Income6 Retail Spending Spending
Studios 17 558 $1,864 $75,000 $21,975 $373,575
1 Bedroom 142 741 $2,475 $99,000 $29,007 $4,118,994
1 Bedroom Loft 4 1004 $3,353 $134,000 $39,262 $157,048
2 Bedroom 85 1113 $3,717 $149,000 $43,657 $3,710,845
2 Bedroom Loft 5 1417 $4,733 $189,000 $55,377 $276,885
3 Bedroom 14 1380 $4,609 $184,000 $53,912 $754,768
Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by Multifamily Residential HH $9,392,115
City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 30%
Onsite Capture Rate7 20%
Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50%
100%
Estimated Off-site Taxable Sales from Multifamily Resident Spending $2,818,000
Estimated Sales Tax from off-site Multifamily Resident Spending $28,000
No. of Est. Sale Est. HH HH Taxable Total Retail
For-sale Units HH3 Area (SF)4 Price8 Income9 Retail Spending Spending
Townhome A 98 1,970 $966,950 $176,000 $51,568 $5,053,664
Townhome B 97 2,362 $983,044 $179,000 $52,447 $5,087,359
Small Lot SFD A 92 2,258 $1,171,021 $213,000 $62,409 $5,741,628
Small Lot SFD B 79 2,897 $1,275,940 $232,000 $67,976 $5,370,104
Estimated Taxable Retail Spending by For-sale Residential HH $21,252,755
City of Dublin (off-site) Capture Rate7 30%
Onsite Capture Rate7 20%
Spending Captured Outside City of Dublin7 50%
100%
Estimated off-site Taxable Sales from for-sale Units' Resident Spending $6,376,000
Estimated Sales Tax from off-site for-sale Units' Resident Spending $64,000
Estimate of Annual Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Spending $92,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1,000s.
1. Source: Dublin Municipal Code.
2. Based on the average percentage of income spent on Retail and Food services for Nine County Bay Area
residents; Source: CA Board of Equalization (2015).
3. Includes a 5% vacancy factor.
4. See Appendix 3B.
5. Estimated on the basis of $3.34/SF.
6. Estimated based on the assumption that 30% of the annual household income goes towards rent.
7. KMA assumption.
8. As per Shea Properties.
9. Estimated based on the assumption that 30% of the household income goes towards mortgage payment. Mortgage
is calculated as a self amortizing 30 year loan at 5.5% on 80% of the sale price.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 53
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 30: Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Franchise Fee 2018/191,2 $4,423,100
FY 2018/19 Service Population3 75,000
Estimated Franchise Fee per Service Population $59
New Service Population in the Plan Area4 1,829
Estimate of Annual Franchise Fee Revenues $108,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. Includes Electric, Gas, Garbage and Cable Franchise Taxes.
3. See Appendix 2.
4. See Appendix 24.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 54
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 31: Estimate of Annual Fines and Penalties- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total Fines and Penalties Revenue 2018/191 $111,432
FY 2018/19 Service Population2 75,000
Fines and Forfeitures Revenue per Service Population $1
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,829
Estimate of Annual Fines and Forfeitures Revenue $3,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 24.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 55
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 32: Estimate of Annual Police Services Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
Police Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $21,045,901
Less Police Services General Fund Revenues1 ($39,140)
Police Services Net General Fund Expenditures $21,006,761
FY 2018/19 Service Population2 75,000
Percentage Variable Factor 75%
Adjusted Police Services Net Expenditure per Service Population $210
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,829
Estimate of Annual Police Services Costs $384,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 24.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 56
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 33: Estimate of Annual Parks and Community Services Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
Parks and Community Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $9,330,608
Less Parks and Community Services General Fund Revenues1 ($4,748,814)
Parks and Community Services Net General Fund Expenditures $4,581,794
FY 2018/19 Resident Population2 64,105
Percentage Variable Factor 50%
Adjusted Parks and Comm. Services Net Expenditure per Resident Pop.$36
New Resident Population in the Plan Area3 1,829
Estimate of Annual Parks and Community Services Costs $65,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 24.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 57
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 34A: Estimate of Annual Public Works Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
Public Works General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $11,467,615
Less Environmental Services General Fund Revenues1 ($1,003,313)
Public Works Net General Fund Expenditures $10,464,302
FY 2018/19 Service Population2 75,000
Percentage Variable Factor 50%
Adjusted Public Works Net Expenditure per Resident Population $70
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,829
Estimate of Annual Public Works Costs $128,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 24.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 58
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 34B: Estimate of Annual Project Specific Public Works Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Frequency
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost (in Years)Annual Cost
Street Lights
200 HPSV1 40 ea $125.34 1 $5,014
100 MH2 - ea $125.34 1 $0
70 MH2 - ea $48.43 1 $0
Landscaping4
6'-planter3 61,140 sf $0.55 1 $33,627
16'-median2 - sf $0.55 1 $0
trees2 - ea $22.55 1 $0
AC Pavement
slurry seal5 198,615 sf $0.25 5 $9,931
ac overlay5 198,615 sf $2.00 18 $22,068
Concrete Curb & Gutter
street sweeping6 2.14 miles $23.20 1 $50
Draingage
CDS units2 - ea $2,000.00 1 $0
Traffic Signal
energy7 2 ea $840.00 1 $1,680
maintenance7 2 ea $1,680.00 1 $3,360
Total Annual Project Specific Public Works Estimate $75,729
Service Population of entire Project upon Buildout 2,237
Service Population of Residential component 1,829
Estimate of Annual Project Specific Public Works Costs
attributable to Residential Development10 82%of total estimates $62,000
Source: City of Dublin
1. Tassajara 9; Brannigan 21; Central 6; Dublin Blvd 4
2. Info not provided on type
3. Tassajara 21,050 SF; Brannigan 19,200 SF; Gleason 7,970 SF; Central 6,740 SF; Dublin Blvd 6,180 SF
4. Does not account for benches or bus shelters
5. Tassajara 53900 SF; Brannigan 42,320 SF; Gleason 34,020 SF; Central 14,790 SF; Dublin Blvd 53,585 SF
6. Tassajara 3,220 LF; Brannigan 3,050 LF; Gleason 1,690 LF; Central 1,760 LF; 1,570 LF
7. Tassajara 1 new; Gleason 1 relocate; Central 1 relocate; Dublin Blvd 1 new, 2 relocate
8. See Appendix 4
9. See Appendix 24
10. Estimated based on the portion of Service Population attributable to residential development.
100% of total serv. pop
82% of total serv. pop
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 59
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 35: Estimate of Annual Fire Services Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
Fire Services General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $14,120,932
Less Fire Services General Fund Revenues1 ($943,477)
Fire Services Net General Fund Expenditures $13,177,455
FY 2018/19 Service Population2 75,000
Percentage Variable Factor 75%
Adjusted Fire Services Net Expenditure per Service Population $132
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,829
Estimate of Annual Fire Services Costs $241,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 24.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 60
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 36: Estimate of Annual Community Development Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
Community Developments General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $5,671,904
FY 2018/19 Service Population2 75,000
Percentage Variable Factor 25%
Adjusted Community Development Net Expenditure per Service Population $19
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,829
Estimate of Annual Community Development Costs $35,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 24.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 61
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 37: Estimate of Annual Other Departments Costs- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
FY 2018/19
City Council General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $525,990
Office of City Manager General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $2,363,581
City Clerk Office's General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $754,868
Human Resources Department General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $1,357,101
City Attorney Office's General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $966,600
Administrative Services Department General Fund Portion of Expenditures1 $1,994,934
Total Other Departments General Fund Portion of Expenditures $7,963,074
Less General and Administrative General Fund Revenues1 ($24,878)
Other Departments Net General Fund Expenditures $7,938,196
FY 2018/19 Service Population2 75,000
Percentage Variable Factor 25%
Adjusted Other Department Net Expenditure per Service Population $26
New Service Population in the Plan Area3 1,829
Estimate of Annual Other Department Costs $48,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 1000s
1. Source: City of Dublin, California, Adopted Budget FY 2018/19; See Appendix 22 for details.
2. See Appendix 2.
3. See Appendix 24.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 62
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Appendix 38A: Estimate of One-time Sales and Use Tax from Construction Activities- Residential Only
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Total Hard Cost1
Multifamily Apartments $80,000,000
Multifamly Townhomes A $31,353,000
Multifamly Townhomes B $37,950,000
Single Family Detached A $31,646,000
Single Family Detached B $31,017,000
Total Hard Cost $211,966,000
Estimated Construction Material Cost as a percentage of Hard Costs2 50%
Estimated Share with Dublin as a point of Sale3 50%
Estimated Construction Material Sales in San Francisco $52,991,500
Local Sales and Use Tax Rate 1%
Estimate of Total One-time Sales and Use Tax Revenues During Construction $530,000
Note: Figures rounded to closest 10,000s
1. As per Shea Properties.
2. KMA assumption.
3. For the purpose of this analysis it has been assume that 50% of the material costs will generate 'sales tax' revenue
to the city of Dublin, by general and sub-contractors designating the job site in Dublin as the 'point of sale' for the materials.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 63
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Fiscal Impact Analysis of At Dublin, City of Dublin
Transfer Tax Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value1 $0.55
I. Property Transfer Tax from Initial Purchase of Development Site and Sale to Affiliate
1.Sale Date2 12/20/2017
Sale Price (Portion attributable to Residential Development)2 $26,802,000
Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction $15,000
2. Sale Date
2 6/29/2017
Sale Price (Portion attributable to Residential Development)2 $44,670,000
Transfer Tax generated from the land sale transaction $25,000
Transfer Tax generated from Land Sale Transaction $40,000
II.Initial Transfer Tax from For-sale Residential
Est. Assessed Property
Value2 Transfer Tax
Townhomes3 $199,866,000 $109,926
Single Family Detached4 $219,492,000 $120,721
Transfer Tax generated from Sale of for-sale residential units $231,000
Estimate of Total One-time Initial Property Transfer Tax $271,000
Note: Figures rounded
1. Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf, accessed 07/03/2018.
2. See Appendix 25 for details.
3. Includes Townhomes A and B.
4. Includes Single Family Detached A and B.
Appendix 38B: Est. of One-time Prop. Transfer Tax from Purchase of Development Site and from Initial Sale of
Ownership Residential Units Only
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename: \\SF-FS2\wp\11\11982\010\AT Dublin Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 64
5.1.q
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: 17. Fiscal Analysis (At Dublin Public Hearing)
1
RESOLUTION NO. 18-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPT REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS FOR THE
AT DUBLIN PROJECT
PLPA 2017-00061
(APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-0052-024, and 985-0052-025)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Shea Properties in partnership with SCS Development
Company is requesting approval of the At Dublin project. The proposed project includes up to
665 residential units comprised of apartments, townhomes and detached small -lot single family
homes, and up to 400,500 square feet of retail commercial development, related infrastructure
and landscape improvements. Requested land use approvals include a General Plan Amendment
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning (Stage 1 and
Stage 2), and Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Maps, Tentative Parcel Map, street
vacation, a Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report,
among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as
the “At Dublin Project” or the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is 77.3 acres generally bound by Tassajara Road, Gleason
Drive, Brannigan Street and I-580 (APNs 985-0051-004, 985-0051-005, 985-0051-006, 985-
0052-024, and 985-0052-025); and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared . It was determined that
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to analyze the At Dublin project; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated January 17, 2018, to public
agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also conducted
a public scoping meeting on January 30, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 2018
for the proposed Project that reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of the Project . The Draft EIR is attached as Exhibit A and is
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from July 6,
2018 through August 20, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City received comment letters from State, regional, and local agencies as
well as interested individuals and organizations 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 EIR (that includes the Responses
to Comments), dated October 2018, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy
of each comment letter identifying specific comments, respo nses to each specific comment, and
5.1.r
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: 18. Resolution Recommending Certification of the Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
2
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 At
Dublin Project EIR incorporates the Draft EIR and the Final EIR together. The responses to
comments provide the City’s good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by
the comments; and
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and
determined that the Final EIR, including the clarifications and minor corrections to the Draft EIR,
do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR under the
standards in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated October 30, 2018 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission and contained information on
the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report, the Final EIR, including
comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on October 30, 2018 at which time all
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIRs reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis
on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR 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 EIR 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 Draft and Final EIRs 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-2017-00016,
during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the Final EIR 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings and recommendations to the City Council on the F inal EIR 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 EIR 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 EIR, including the written comments received during the Draft EIR
review period and the oral and written comments received at the public hearing, prior to
making its recommendation on the proposed Project.
5.1.r
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: 18. Resolution Recommending Certification of the Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
3
D. The Draft and Final EIRs reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis on the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project and provides information to the
decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the proposed
Project.
E. The Final EIR 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 Environmental Impact Report
as complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of
Dublin CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council
make all environmental findings required under CEQA for Project approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 30th day of October, 2018 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
5.1.r
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: 18. Resolution Recommending Certification of the Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin
Draft EIR – ERATA | October 2018
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin
Draft EIR -- ERATA| October 2018
State Clearinghouse No. 2018012027
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Table of Contents | Page i
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary 1
2 Introduction 2-1
3Project Description 3-1
4 Introduction to Environmental Analysis 4-1
5 Aesthetics 5-1
6Air Quality 6-1
7 Biological Resources 7-1
8 Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources 8-1
9 Geology & Soils 9-1
10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 10-1
11 Hazards & Hazardous Materials 11-1
12 Hydrology & Water Quality 12-1
13 Land Use & Planning 13-1
14 Noise & Vibration 14-1
15 Population & Housing 15-1
16 Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems 16-1
17 Transportation & Circulation 17-1
18 Energy Conservation 18-1
19 Alternatives 19-1
20 Other CEQA Considerations 20-1
21 EIR Preparers 21-1
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page ii | Table of Contents
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Appendices
A Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis (supporting technical
data)
C Biological Resources Assessment and Supporting Surveys
D Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
E Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
F Preliminary Drainage Study
G Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan
H Noise Analysis (supporting technical data)
I Water Supply Assessment
J Transportation Impact Assessment (supporting technical data)
Appendices documents are available in electronic format and are posted on the City of Dublin
website at https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Table of Contents | Page iii
Draft EIR
10/23/18
List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Project Location
Figure 3-2: Surrounding Land Uses
Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Figure 3-4: Existing Zoning
Figure 3-5: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
Figure 3-6: Illustrative Site Plan
Figures 3-7 (a-b): Project Renderings
Figure 3-8: Landscape Master Plan
Figure 3-9: Parks and Other Open Space
Figure 3-10: Vehicular Access and Circulation
Figure 3-11: Pedestrian Network Plan
Figure 3-12: Project Phasing
Figure 5-1: Location of Simulation Viewpoints
Figure 5-2: Simulation Viewpoint 1
Figure 5-3: Simulation Viewpoint 2
Figure 5-4a: Simulation Viewpoint 3
Figure 5-4b: Gateway Perspective View
Figure 5-5: Simulation Viewpoint 4
Figure 5-6: Simulation Viewpoint 5
Figure 7-1: Biological Communities on the Project Site
Figure 7-2: Special-Status Plant Species with Five Miles of the Project Site
Figure 7-3: Congdon’s Tarplant on the Project Site
Figure 7-4: Special-Status Wildlife Species within Five Miles of the Project Site
Figure 9-1: Soils on the Project Site
Figure 9-2: Regional Fault Zones
Figure 11-1: Livermore Municipal Airport Safety Compatibility Zones
Figure 12-1: Flood Hazard Areas
Figure 12-2: Preliminary Hydromodification Management Plan
Figure 12-3: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan
Figure 19-1: Commercial Development Task Force Opportunity Sites
Note: All figures are presented at the end of their respective chapter.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page iv | Table of Contents
Draft EIR
10/23/18
List of Tables
Table 1-1: At Dublin Land Use Summary ....................................................................................... 2
Table ES-1: Summary of Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project .......................................... 8
Table 2-1: NOP Comment Letters ............................................................................................... 2-3
Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site Development ......................... 3-2
Table 3-2: At Dublin Land Use Summary .................................................................................... 3-4
Table 3-3: Grading Requirements (by Planning Area) .............................................................. 3-11
Table 5-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Aesthetics ................................... 5-17
Table 6-1: Current National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................... 6-5
Table 6-2: Attainment Status of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ...................................... 6-6
Table 6-3: Ambient Air Quality Data ............................................................................................ 6-7
Table 6-4: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Construction Emissions ............................... 6-17
Table 6-5: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions .................................6-18
Table 6-6: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures................... 6-20
Table 6-7: Construction Air Emissions ...................................................................................... 6-26
Table 6-8: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Un-Mitigated .......................................... 6-29
Table 6-9: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Mitigated ................................................ 6-32
Table 6-10: Existing Permitted Stationary Sources within 1,000 Feet of the Project Boundary ... 6-
37
Table 6-11: Cumulative TAC Risk ............................................................................................... 6-40
Table 6-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Air Quality ................................ 6-43
Table 7-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources .................. 7-23
Table 8-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Cultural Resources .................... 8-14
Table 9-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity ................................................................................... 9-3
Table 9-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Geology & Soils.......................... 9-14
Table 10-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases .......................................................................... 10-3
Table 10-2: City of Dublin CAP Reduction Goal Analysis ........................................................... 10-5
Table 10-3: Project Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................... 10-20
Table 10-4: Project Operation-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................... 10-20
Table 10-5: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis - Operational Year 2030 ....................... 10-23
Table 10-6: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis- Operational Year 2050 ........................ 10-25
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Table of Contents | Page v
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-8: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures .................... 10-31
Table 10-9: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Greenhouse Gas Emissions ... 10-34
Table 11-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hazards & Hazardous Materials 11-
14
Table 12-1: PA-1 Water Quality Boundary .............................................................................. 12-12
Table 12-2: PA-2a Water Quality Boundary ............................................................................. 12-12
Table 12-3: PA-2b Water Quality Boundary ............................................................................ 12-13
Table 12-4: PA-2c Water Quality Boundary ............................................................................. 12-13
Table 12-5: PA-3 Water Quality Boundary .............................................................................. 12-14
Table 12-6: PA-4 Water Quality Boundary .............................................................................. 12-14
Table 12-7: Stormwater Flows for a 15-Year Storm Event ...................................................... 12-16
Table 12-8: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hydrology & Water Quality .... 12-20
Table 13-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Land Use & Planning ............... 13-8
Table 14-1: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels ........................................................................... 14-2
Table 14-2: Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration ......................... 14-4
Table 14-3: Existing Noise Measurements ................................................................................ 14-5
Table 14-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................................... 14-6
Table 14-5: Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure ......................... 14-8
Table 14-6: Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix .................................................................. 14-10
Table 14-7: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ...................................................... 14-15
Table 14-8: Project Construction Average Noise Levels .......................................................... 14-17
Table 14-9: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ................................................ 14-20
Table 14-10: Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels........................................ 14-21
Table 14-11: Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels .............................. 14-23
Table 14-12: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels .................. 14-31
Table 14-13: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Noise ...................................14-34
Table 15-1: City of Dublin and Alameda County Existing and Forecasted Population ............. 15-2
Table 15-2: Housing Units for City of Dublin and Alameda County .......................................... 15-2
Table 15-3: City of Dublin Regional Housing Needs Allocation ................................................. 15-3
Table 15-4: Additional Population Generated by Project ......................................................... 15-6
Table 15-5: Buildout Potential of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ........................................... 15-7
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page vi | Table of Contents
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 15-6: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Population & Housing ............. 15-7
Table 16-1: Alameda County Fire Department Stations in the City of Dublin ........................... 16-3
Table 16-2: Dublin School District Existing Student Capacity ................................................... 16-5
Table 16-3: Dublin Parks and Sport Facilities Existing Service Levels and Standards ............... 16-6
Table 16-4: City of Dublin Community Facilities ....................................................................... 16-7
Table 16-5: DSRSD Current and Projected Future Water Supplies............................................ 16-9
Table 16-6: Dublin Unified School District Student Generation Rates by Housing Type ....... 16-28
Table 16-7: Estimated Project Student Generation vs. DUSD Projections ............................ 16-29
Table 16-8: Community and Neighborhood Park Requirements ........................................... 16-32
Table 16-9: Project Potable Water Demand ............................................................................ 16-33
Table 16-10: Project Recycled Water Demand ........................................................................ 16-34
Table 16-11: Proposed Project Estimated Daily Solid Waste Generation ............................... 16-37
Table 16-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Public Services, Utilities & Service
Systems .................................................................................................................................... 16-39
Table 17- 1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria............................................ 17-9
Table 17- 2 Freeway Facilities LOS Criteria .............................................................................. 17-10
Table 17-3 Alameda CTC Roadway Segment LOS Criteria ....................................................... 17-10
Table 17- 4: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS without Project –
Weekday .................................................................................................................................. 17-23
Table 17- 5: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS without Project –
Saturday ................................................................................................................................... 17-26
Table 17- 6: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Freeway Segment LOS without Project ... 17-27
Table 17- 7: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Freeway Ramp LOS without Project ........ 17-28
Table 17- 8: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Ramp Metering Analysis without Project 17-29
Table 17- 9: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis without Project ......... 17-32
Table 17- 10: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative VMT Summary.......................................17-34
Table 17- 11: Proposed Project Trip Generation – Weekday ................................................. 17-46
Table 17- 12: Proposed Project Trip Generation – Saturday ................................................... 17-47
Table 17- 13: Project Driveway Lane Lengths Summary ......................................................... 17-49
Table 17- 14: Existing and Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday ........... 17-55
Table 17- 15: Existing and Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday ........... 17-58
Table 17- 16: Mitigated Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday .............. 17-59
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Table of Contents | Page vii
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 17: Existing + Project Queuing Analysis ................................................................... 17-61
Table 17- 18: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Analysis .................................................... 17-64
Table 17- 19: Existing + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis ......................................................... 17-65
Table 17- 20: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Analysis........................................................ 17-66
Table 17- 21: Near-Term and Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday 17-71
Table 17- 22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday ......... 17-74
Table 17- 23: Near-Term and Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday . 17-75
Table 17- 24: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday .......... 17-76
Table 17- 25: Near-Term + Project Queuing Analysis .............................................................. 17-77
Table 17- 26: Near-Term + Project Freeway Segment Analysis ............................................... 17-81
Table 17- 27: Near-Term + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis.................................................... 17-82
Table 17- 28: Near-term + Project Ramp Metering Analysis ................................................... 17-83
Table 17- 29: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday ... 17-
91
Table 17- 30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday ........ 17-94
Table 17- 31: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday 17-95
Table 17- 32: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday ......... 17-97
Table 17- 33: Cumulative + Project Queuing Analysis ............................................................. 17-99
Table 17- 34: Cumulative + Project Freeway Segment Analysis ............................................ 17-103
Table 17- 35: Cumulative + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis ................................................. 17-104
Table 17- 36: Cumulative + Project Ramp Metering Analysis................................................ 17-105
Table 17- 37: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis with Project .......... 17-111
Table 17- 38: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Transportation and Circulation17-
116
Table 18-1: Electricity Consumption in Alameda County 2006-2016 ........................................ 18-4
Table 18-2: Natural Gas Consumption in Alameda County 2006-2016 .....................................18-5
Table 18-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in Alameda County 2009-2019 ............................. 18-6
Table 18-4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction ............................................... 18-15
Table 18-5 Project Annual Energy Consumption During Operations ...................................... 18-19
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Purpose
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Dublin for the At
Dublin development project (the project). The City of Dublin is the “public agency which has
the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project,” and as such is the “Lead
Agency” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15367. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in the
EIR prior to taking any discretionary action. This EIR is intended to serve as an informational
document to be considered by the City and other permitting agencies during deliberations on
the project.
This Executive Summary summarizes the requirements of the CEQA Statute and Guidelines,
provides an overview of the project and alternatives, outlines the potential impacts of the
project and the recommended mitigation measures, and discloses areas of controversy and
issues to be resolved.
1.2 Project Description
The 76.2-acre project site is generally bound by Tassajara Road, Interstate 580, Brannigan
Street and Gleason Drive. The project site is located in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP)
area and has Planned Development Zoning (Resolution No. 104-94) adopted with the EDSP.
The project site is surrounded by commercial uses to the west, southwest and southeast, a
public park to the northwest, and residential uses to the north, northwest and east.
The project applicant (Shea Properties, in partnership with SCS Development Company) is
proposing to amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to accommodate a
mixed-use development that would allow up to 454,500 square feet of commercial uses and up
to 680 residential units.
To accommodate the project, the applicant proposes to redistribute and simplify the six existing
land use designations to four land use designations organized in large blocks. As shown in Table
1-1: At Dublin Land Use Summary and Figure 1-1: At Dublin Land Use Plan, the proposed land
uses, from the south to the north are: General Commercial; Mixed-Use; Medium-High Density
Residential; and Medium Density Residential.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-2 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 1-1: At Dublin Land Use Summary
Land Use Designations Gross Acres Res. Units Du/Acre
Floor Area
Ratio
Commercial
sq. ft.
General Commercial 23.2 -- -- .4 370,000
Mixed-Use 16.1 300 -- .7 84,500
Medium-High Density Residential 14.1 200 14.2
Medium-Density Residential 23.5 180 7.7 -- --
Total 76.9 680 -- -- 454,500
Source: City of Dublin and Shea Properties, 2018.
1.3 Project Objectives
The following project objectives are identified:
Mix of Uses / Quality of Product
1.Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Eastern Extended
Planning Area that integrate into the existing urban systems and provide a safe and
attractive environment for living and working as encouraged by General Plan Policy
2.6.4.A.1.
2.Provide uses that meet the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan’s objective to have higher-
density housing, adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities.
3.Provide land uses and high-quality architecture that complement existing, adjacent land
uses and development.
Economic Growth
4.Have a positive contribution to the local economy through new capital investment, the
creation of new jobs, and the expansion of the tax base.
5.Add commercial, entertainment, and hotel uses that will have a synergy with existing
retail in the City.
6.Provide a mix of residential and commercial uses that achieves a financially feasible
project.
7.Provide a project that balances housing with job-creating uses.
8.Develop a project that supports the success of the commercial uses through careful site
planning and infrastructure design.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Housing
9.Add to the City’s housing diversity in compliance with Housing Element Program 10 and
General Plan Policy 2.6.1.A.1 by providing a range of housing products, including
apartments, townhomes, and small lot single-family detached homes.
10.Expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing high-quality housing in a
portion of a City-designated Priority Development Area, which is a location planned for
growth under the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area.
11.Increase housing on the project site beyond what was initially planned under the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which will help in state-wide efforts to alleviate California’s
housing crisis.
Responsible Growth
12.Develop vacant and underutilized land in an urban area.
13.Locate commercial and residential uses where such uses can take advantage of existing
infrastructure and utilities.
14.Provide attractive, well-landscaped commercial uses close to Interstate 580 as a buffer
between the highway and residential uses and to further General Plan Policy 10.5.3.E.
15.Enhance the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard consistent with
General Plan Goal 10.6.2.
Connectivity
16.Complete existing infrastructure to support General Plan buildout conditions consistent
with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
17.Implement the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and enhance bicycle and
pedestrian safety by providing on-site and off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities that
link with existing facilities along Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, and Dublin Boulevard.
18.Reconfigure block size and provide publicly accessible parkways, park corridors and
paths to improve pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial uses.
19.Provide and improve pedestrian connections within the project and across adjacent
arterial streets to facilitate pedestrian activity between neighborhoods and within the
development.
1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-4 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Air Quality. The project would cause construction impacts associated with the release of
nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite
implementation of MM AQ-2.2, construction-related NOx emissions would remain
significant and unavoidable. The project would also cause operational impacts
associated with the release of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx that would exceed
BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.4, operational
emissions from ROG and NOx would remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts
would occur through cumulative conditions.
Near-Term + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would increase the critical delay
movement by more than six (6) seconds to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard (#14). This intersection would also experience an increase in queuing due to
the project of more than 25 feet during the weekday AM and PM peak periods and the
weekend peak period. This intersection was determined to be over capacity with no
feasible mitigation available. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and
unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas
Boulevard (Int #18). The project adds 278 trips in the PM peak hour to an already
deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-5.1 would improve the operations to an
acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton, the
City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation and therefore it
remains significant and unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of El Charro Road / Stoneridge
Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Int #29). The project adds 70 trips in the PM peak hour
to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-2.1 would improve the
operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of
LivermorePleasanton, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the
mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would contribute new trips to
facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels; namely, Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard (#14), Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (#18), El Charro Road / Jack
London Boulevard (#29), Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (#35). All feasible
mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts to levels better than without
project conditions; except for the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
(#14). No feasible mitigation is available for this intersection, similar to the Near-term +
Project conditions. In addition, Intersections #18 and #29 are located outside of the City
of Dublin, and therefore the implementation of the mitigations cannot be guaranteed.
Arterials. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested study
roadway segments along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. These arterials are
already over capacity in the future conditions and operate at LOS F based on average
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
travel speeds from the SimTraffic analysis. Since there are no feasible mitigations to
improve the average travel speeds to LOS D or better, the residual significance is
significant and unavoidable.
Freeways. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested project
study freeway segments from Dougherty Road to Airway Boulevard on I-580. These
segments are already over capacity and should be operating at LOS F because the
volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and the volumes for the
eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream bottlenecks.
While the project would be required to pay their proportional share of traffic impact
fees, these freeway segments will continue to operate in an over capacity manner.
Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable.
Ramp Metering. The project would contribute new trips to the Hacienda Drive loop on-
ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak, to the Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp to WB I-580 in
the AM peak, and to the El Charro Road loop on-ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak. Each
of these on-ramps have queues that exceed the on-ramp storage and extend onto the
arterial with project traffic added. While the project would be required to pay their
proportional share of traffic impact fees, the improvements cannot be guaranteed since
it is under Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and
unavoidable.
Congestion Management Program. The project would contribute new trips to
Congestion Management Program facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels
(freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to
mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to
a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available.
Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable.
The EDSP EIR also included the impacts identified above as significant and unavoidable as
follows:
Air Quality. Project development as a result of dust deposition, construction
equipment emissions, mobile source emissions of ROf and NOx, and stationary
source emissions. (Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E)
Traffic and Circulation. I-580 (Impact 3.3/B, E), intersection of Santa Rita Road and I-
580 EB Ramps (Impact 3.3/I), and the intersections of Dublin Boulevard and
Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M)
1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives
The following alternatives to the project are discussed in detail in Chapter 19 Alternatives:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-6 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative would result in the project site remaining undeveloped for the
foreseeable future.
Reduced Residential Units Alternative
The Reduced Residential Units Alternative would reduce the number of residential units from
680 to 261, consistent with the existing number of units assumed in the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative
The Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative would allow development
consistent with existing planned land use designations and development densities as described
in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This includes designations of
Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Medium High Density Residential, High
Density Residential, and Public/Semi-Public. Most the site is designated General Commercial.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan assumed development of 261 residential units and 902,563
square feet of commercial.
Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan Alternative
The Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan Alternative would take into consideration
the recommendations from the Community Development Task Force Summary and Key
Recommendations Report dated July 2014. The General Commercial land south of Dublin
Boulevard (23 acres) would be developed with Office uses at 0.3 FAR = 300,564 sf. The
development proposed north of Dublin Boulevard would remain the same.
1.6 Areas of Controversy
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b), a summary section must address areas of
controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public, and it
must also address issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether
or how to mitigate the significant effects.
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project was issued on January 17, 2018. The NOP
describing the original concept for the project and issues to be addressed in the EIR was
distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties for a
30-day public review period extending from January 17, 2018 through February 19, 2018. The
NOP identified the potential for significant and insignificant impacts on the environment related
to the following topical areas:
Included for Detailed EIR Analysis
(Potentially Significant)
Excluded from Detailed EIR Analysis
(Insignificant)
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Included for Detailed EIR Analysis
(Potentially Significant)
Excluded from Detailed EIR Analysis
(Insignificant)
Biological Resources
Cultural & Tribal Resources
Energy
Geology & Soils
GHG Emissions & Energy Conservation
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology & Water Quality
Land Use & Planning
Noise and Vibration
Population & Housing
Public Services, Utilities, & Service
Systems
Transportation & Circulation
Mineral Resources
Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held on January 30, 2018 at the Dublin City Hall. A
summary of comments made are described in Section 2.2.2 Scoping Meeting, below.
1.7 Issues to be Resolved
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the summary section of an EIR to identify
any "issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and how to mitigate
significant effects."
The following major issues will be resolved by the City of Dublin in its decision process:
Determine whether the EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the
project;
Choose among alternatives;
Determine whether the recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or
modified; and
Determine whether additional mitigation measures need to be applied to the
project.
1.8 Public Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Dublin filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the
State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code,
Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-8 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well
as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code
21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices,
is available for review at the City of Dublin offices and the Dublin Library.
Agencies, organizations, and interested parties may comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-
day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:
Ms. Amy Million, Principal Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: (925) 833-6610
Fax: (925) 833-6628
Email: amy.million@dublin.ca.gov
Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to environmental issues raised
will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days
prior to the public hearings before the Dublin Planning Commission and Dublin City Council, at
which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. Comments received and the
responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision
makers for the project.
1.9 Impacts of the Project
Table ES-1: Summary of Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project provides a summary of the
significant impacts of the project. The mitigation measures associated with each impact are to
be implemented by the applicant to reduce the environmental impacts to a less than significant
level, where possible. In accordance with CEQA, the impacts are classified as follows:
Class I – Significant and unavoidable impacts
Class II – Significant impacts that can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation
Table ES-1: Summary of Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Aesthetics
Impact AES-4: Introduce new light and
glare to the project site and project
area (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
Impact AES-5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable aesthetic
impacts (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with
implementation of San Francisco Bay
Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (Class I)
Significant and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered
Construction Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Impact AQ-2: Violates air quality
standard or contributes substantially
to an existing or projected air quality
violation (Class I)
Significant and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered
Construction Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Impact AQ-5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable air quality
impacts. (Class I)
Significant and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered
Construction Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial
adverse effect on special-status plant
and wildlife species (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance
and Mitigation
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and
Exclusion Measures
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial
adverse effect on wetlands or
jurisdictional features (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
Impact BIO-6: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts on
biological resources (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance
and Mitigation
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and
Exclusion Measures
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial
adverse change to a known
archeological resource (Class II).
Less than significant
with mitigation
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological
Discovery During Construction
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-10 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact CR-2: Directly impact a
paleontological resource or unique
geologic feature (Class II)
Less than significant
with mitigation
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource
Monitoring
Impact CR-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
cultural resources (Class II)
Less than significant
with mitigation
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological
Discovery During Construction
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource
Monitoring
Geology & Soils
Impact GEO-1: Expose people or
structures to potential risk of loss or
injury associated with seismic hazards
(Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-2: Trigger or accelerate
substantial soil erosion or loss of
topsoil (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-3: Expose people or
structures to substantial safety risks
as a result of liquefaction (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
geology and soils (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No significant impacts identified.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Exposure to known
hazardous contaminants (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious
Materials.
Impact HAZ-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts to
hazards and hazardous materials
(Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious
Materials.
Hydrology & Water Quality
No significant impacts identified.
Land Use & Planning
No significant impacts identified.
Noise & Vibration
Impact N-1: Cause a temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise
levels during construction that would
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
substantially disturb sensitive
receptors (Class II).
Impact N-3: Result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels (Class II).
Less than significant
with Mitigation
MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
Impact N-4: Result in a substantial
temporary increase in ambient noise
levels (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
Impact N-6: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts on
noise (Class II).
Less than significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
Population & Housing
No significant impacts identified.
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
No significant impacts identified.
Transportation & Circulation
Impact TR-1: Create a potentially
dangerous new intersection (Class II).
Less than significant
with mitigation
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at
study intersections in the Existing +
Project condition that exceed
established LOS standards (Class II).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-3: Cause intersection
queues to operate below acceptable
levels under Existing + Project
conditions (Class II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements
to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project
Driveway
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway
Segment Improvements
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-12 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
segments and ramps in the Existing +
Project condition that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I).
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at
study intersections in the Near-Term +
Project condition that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I and
II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las
Positas Boulevard
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-6: Cause intersection
queues to operate below acceptable
levels under Near-Term + Project
conditions (Class I and II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street
MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project
Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/
Project Driveway
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project
Driveway
Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the Near-Term
+ Project conditions that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I
Impact).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp
Metering Improvements MM TR-4.1: Existing
+ Project Freeway Segment Improvements
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at
study intersections in the Cumulative
+ Project conditions that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I and
II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin
Boulevard
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin
Boulevard
MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin
Boulevard
MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan
Street
MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart
Street
MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las
Positas Boulevard
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-9: Cause intersection
queues to operate below acceptable
levels under Cumulative + Project
conditions (Class I and II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton
Street
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project
Driveway
MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-14 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin
Boulevard
Impact TR-10: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the
Cumulative + Project condition that
exceed established LOS standards
(Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway
Segment Improvements
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp
Metering Improvements
Impact TR-11: Conflict with applicable
congestion management program for
designated roads, highway, or
freeways (Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway
Segment Improvements
Impact TR-12: Conflict with adopted
policies, plans or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such
facilities (Class III).
Less than significant None required
Impact TR-13: Increase travel speeds
along roadways that exceed
established LOS standards (Class II ).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement
Design Features for the New Project
Intersection on Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Energy Conservation
Impact ER-1: Encourage activities that
result in the use of large amounts of
fuel or energy, or use these resources
in a wasteful manner (Class III)
Less than Significant None required
1.9.1 Cumulative Impacts
Under the CEQA Guidelines, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a
result of the combination of the project evaluated in the environmental impact report (“EIR”)
together with other projects causing related impacts.” (14 Cal Code Regs §15130(a)(1)). This
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
EIR uses a “list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative
impacts.” (14 Cal Code Regs §15130(b)(1)(A)). Reasonably foreseeable projects that could
contribute to the cumulative effects scenario are described for each relevant resource as
described in this EIR.
The cumulative analysis concludes that the impacts of the project, when combined with
impacts from past, present, and reasonable future projects would create impacts that would be
considered cumulatively significant.
1.9.2 Growth-Inducing Effects
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following guidance regarding growth-
inducing impacts: a project is identified as growth inducing if it “could foster economic or
population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment.” Growth inducing components of the project would relate to labor
requirements for construction. Employment would be unlikely to induce growth in the area.
1.9.3 Significant Irreversible Commitment of Resources
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines defines an irreversible impact as an impact that uses
nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project. Irreversible
impacts can also result from permanent loss of habitat, damage caused by environmental
accidents associated with project construction, or operational resource use.
Construction of the project would necessitate some use and long-term conversion of
agricultural land and vegetation and habitat removal, and the development of the project
would therefore be considered a significant irretrievable commitment of habitat for threatened
and endangered species.
Buildout of the project would commit nonrenewable resources during project construction and
ongoing utility services during project operations. During project operations, oil, gas, and other
nonrenewable resources would be consumed. Therefore, an irreversible commitment of
nonrenewable resources would occur as a result of both short-term and long-term project
operations. Compliance with all applicable building codes, policies and goals, and the
mitigation measures identified in this EIR would ensure that all-natural resources are conserved
to the extent practical.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2Introduction
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to evaluate environmental impacts
associated with the At Dublin development project (the project) in the City of Dublin (State
Clearinghouse No. 2018012027).
The City of Dublin is the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the
project, and as such is the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15367. CEQA requires the
Lead Agency to consider the information contained in the EIR prior to taking any discretionary
action. This EIR is intended to serve as an informational document to be considered by the City
of Dublin and other permitting agencies during their respective processing of permits for the
project.
2.1 Purpose and Authority
This Draft EIR is being analyzed at a project level by the City of Dublin to assess the potential
environmental impacts that may arise in connection with actions related to implementation of
the project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Dublin is the lead agency
for the project and has discretionary authority over the project and project approvals. The
Draft EIR is intended to address all public infrastructure improvements and all future
development that are within the parameters of the project.
CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specific elements. These elements
are contained in this Draft EIR and include:
Table of Contents
Introduction
Executive Summary
Project Description
Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cumulative Impacts
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Growth-Inducing Impacts
Effects Found not to be Significant
Areas of Known Controversy
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-2 | Introduction
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2.1.1 Lead Agency Determination
The City of Dublin is designated as the lead agency for the project. CEQA Guidelines Section
15367 defines the lead agency as “…the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a project.” Other public agencies may use this Draft EIR in the
decision-making or permit process and consider the information in this Draft EIR along with
other information that may be presented during the CEQA process.
This Draft EIR was prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., an environmental consulting
firm. Prior to public review, it was extensively reviewed and evaluated by the City of Dublin.
This Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Dublin as required
by CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel
are provided in the references section at the end of each environmental resource analyzed.
2.1.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Other agencies in addition to the City of Dublin will serve as Responsible and Trustee Agencies,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 and Section 15386, respectively. This Draft EIR will
provide environmental information to these agencies and other public agencies, which may be
required to grant approvals or coordinate with other agencies, as part of project
implementation. These agencies may include but are not limited to the following:
California Department of Transportation
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region
County of Alameda
Dublin Unified School District
Dublin-San Ramon Services District
Zone 7 Water Agency
Actions that are necessary to implement the project that must be taken by other agencies are:
Issuance of Encroachment Permits (Caltrans, County of Alameda)
2.2 Scope of the EIR
2.2.1 Notice of Preparation
This Draft EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the project. The City of Dublin
issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project on January 19, 2018, which circulated
between January 19, 2018 and February 19, 2018, for the statutory 30-day public review
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
period. The scope of this Draft EIR includes the potential environmental impacts identified in
the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP.
Four comment letters were received in response to the NOP. These letters are shown in Table
2-1: NOP Comment Letters and provided in Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Comment
Letters.
Table 2-1: NOP Comment Letters
Affiliation Signatory Date Summary of Relevant Comments
State
Native American Heritage
Commission
Frank Lienert, Associate
Governmental Program
Analyst
January 31,
2018
Consultation with California Native
American tribes.
Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)
Patricia Maurice, District
Branch Chief
February 20,
2018
Extend a Priority Development Area
(PDA) designation to the entire project
site.
Include a transportation demand
management program to reduce
vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Analyze VMT as part of the travel
demand analysis.
Identification of applicable
transportation impact fees for public
transportation improvements.
Encroachment permit requirements
for work within Caltrans right-of-way.
Individuals
Sunil Dasanagadde January 30,
2018
Construct a second high school before
any additional housing.
Y. Keith & Naoko
Takenakla
February 8,
2018
Decrease in property values
Too many residential units / balance of
land uses
2.2.2 Scoping Meeting
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City of Dublin held a public scoping
meeting for the project on January 30, 2018 at Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA.
Approximately 25 members of the public attended the meeting, including a representative of
the applicant team. A summary of their comments are as follows:
Consider the following as Alternatives in the EIR and/or alternatives to the Project:
o Existing PD Zoning
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-4 | Introduction
Draft EIR
10/23/18
o A school; specifically, a high school
o Office uses in addition to the proposed retail uses
o A combination of a school and residential (closer to the existing assumption in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan of 261residental units)
o Commercial uses only – no residential
Carefully consider the assumptions uses to estimate the number of school children
the project would create, especially as it relates to type of units.
A general question on what the project benefits are to the City of Dublin
School overcrowding is a public health and safety concern
Pause project for a couple years to allow time for the (high school) school
overcrowding issue to be resolved
Evaluate impacts to City resources and budget because of the project (i.e. police,
fire, etc.)
Consider the Dublin Unified School District EIR for the proposed expansion of the
existing high school
Traffic Impacts:
o Evaluate the elimination of Northside Drive and the shift in truck traffic into Lowe’s
o Evaluate the left turn from Gleason Drive
2.2.3 Environmental Issues Significant Determination
The NOP identified the potential for significant and insignificant impacts on the environment
related to the following topical areas:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Included for Detailed EIR Analysis
(Potentially Significant)
Excluded from Detailed EIR Analysis
(Insignificant)
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural & Tribal Resources
Energy
Geology & Soils
GHG Emissions & Energy Conservation
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology & Water Quality
Land Use & Planning
Noise and Vibration
Population & Housing
Public Services, Utilities, & Service
Systems
Transportation & Circulation
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
Mineral Resources
2.3 Required Permits and Approvals
Discretionary approvals and permits and authorizations required by the City of Dublin for
implementation of the project. The project would require the following discretionary
approvals:
EIR Certification
General Plan Amendment
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Planned Development Rezone (Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans)
Site Development Review
Vesting Tentative Map
Street Vacation (Northside Drive)
Development Agreement
Master Sign Program/Site Development Review
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-6 | Introduction
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Subsequent ministerial actions would be required for the implementation of the project
including issuance of building permits, grading, encroachment and site improvements.
In addition, the project applicant and the City of Dublin may negotiate and enter into a project-
level Development Agreement.
2.4 Documents Incorporated by Reference
As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this Draft EIR has referenced several technical
studies, analyses, and previously certified environmental documentation. Information from the
documents, which have been incorporated by reference, has been briefly summarized in the
appropriate section(s). The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced
document and the Draft EIR has also been described. The documents and other sources that
have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR include but are not limited to:
City of Dublin, General Plan 1985, as amended 2017
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 1994 updated 2016
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment EIR 1993
City of Dublin, Dublin Municipal Code as amended
City of Dublin, Streetscape Master Plan 2005
Dublin-San Ramon Services District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards 1996
These documents are specifically identified in the respective references sections of this Draft
EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b), the General Plan, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, Municipal Code, and the referenced documents and other sources used in the
preparation of the Draft EIR are available for review at the City of Dublin Community
Development Department.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction | Page 2-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2.5 Documents Prepared for the Project
The following technical studies and analyses were prepared for the project:
Appendix Title
B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (technical data)
C Biological Resources Assessment
D Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
E Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
F Preliminary Drainage Study
G Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan
H Noise Analysis (technical data)
I Water Supply Assessment
J Transportation Impact Assessment (technical data)
2.6 EIR Organization
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15120(c), this EIR contains the information and
analysis required by Sections 15122 through 15131. Each of the required elements is covered
in one of the EIR chapters and appendices, organized as follows.
Executive Summary. A summary description of the project, the alternatives, their respective
environmental impacts and the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Introduction. A discussion of the background, purpose and need for the project, briefly
describing the project, and outlining the public agency use of the EIR.
Project Description. Detailed description of the project.
Environmental Analysis: A comprehensive analysis and assessment of impacts and mitigation
measures for the project. This section is divided into separate chapters for each environmental
resource and contains the environmental settings and impacts of the project. A description of
the approach to cumulative impacts analysis is presented in Chapter 4: Introduction to
Environmental Analysis, and cumulative impacts are at the end of each environmental resource.
Alternatives. This chapter includes a description of the alternatives evaluation process, as well
as a description of alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis and the
rationale thereof. This section also includes an analysis and assessment of impacts for
alternatives retained, including the No Project Alternative.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-8 | Introduction
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Other CEQA Considerations. A discussion of growth-inducing effects, long-term implications of
the project, and significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is
implemented.
EIR Preparers
Appendices
Copies of project-related appendices are available on the City of Dublin’s website at:
https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/
2.7 Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of Dublin filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the
State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code,
Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible
and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well
as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code
21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices,
is available for review at the City of Dublin, Dublin Library and the City of Dublin website.
Agencies, organizations, and interested parties may comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-
day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:
Ms. Amy Million, Principal Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: (925) 833-6610
Fax: (925) 833-6628
Email: amy.million@dublin.ca.gov
Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to all significant environmental
issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at
least 10 days prior to the public hearings on the project, at which the certification of the Final
EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as
part of the record for consideration by decision makers for the project.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
3 Project Description
3.1 Project Location and Setting
3.1.1 Location
As shown in Figure 3-1: Project Location, the approximate 77.7 gross acre project site is in the
City of Dublin, Alameda County, north of Interstate 580 and between Tassajara Road and
Brannigan Street. The project site is located on the Livermore, California, United States
Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map Township 2S, Range 1E, and Section
33 (northern portion) and Township 3S, Range 1E, and Section 4 (southern portion).
3.1.2 Existing Setting
The project site is vacant land and is generally flat with a slight slope from a higher elevation at
the northerly boundary to a slightly lower elevation towards the southerly boundary. At one
time the property was used for agricultural purposes and has remained vacant (except for
temporary seasonal uses) with low lying native and non-native grasses turned periodically
complying with the City of Dublin’s vegetation management regulations. A small group of trees
and shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway.
3.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is surrounded by commercial and office uses to the southwest and
southeast and residential uses to the northwest and northeast as shown in Figure 3-2:
Surrounding Land Uses. Single family medium density residential uses are located to the north.
A broad mix of land uses are located to the east including multi-family residential, general
commercial, and a vacant parcel at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan
Street. Interstate 580 and the City of Pleasanton are located south of the project site. Medium
density residential, parks/public recreation, general commercial, and campus office uses are
located to the west.
3.1.4 Existing Plans and Zoning
Dublin General Plan
Most of the project site is designated General Commercial with varying densities of residential
along Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive. As shown in Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan Land
Use Designations, the southern and western portions of the project site are designated General
Commercial. The northern and eastern portions of the project site are designated Medium
Density Residential, Public/Semi-Public, Medium-High Density Residential, and Neighborhood
Commercial.
The following General Plan land use designations surround the project site: Medium Density
Residential to the north; Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, High
Density Residential, General Commercial, and General Commercial/Campus Office to the east;
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 3-2 | Project Description
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Medium Density Residential, and Parks/Public Recreation and General Commercial and Campus
Office to the west.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
(EDSP EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EDSP EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to
Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum to the EDSP EIR dated May 4, 1993,
assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No.
53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative
on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating
wastewater disposal plans for eastern Dublin. The EDSP EIR evaluated the potential
environmental effects of urbanizing eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30-year period. Since
certification of the EDSP EIR, many implementing projects have been proposed, relying to
various degrees on the certified EDSP EIR.
As part of the certification of the EDSP EIR, the Dublin City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of certain
community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), growth inducement, regional
air quality, noise and aesthetics.
In 2005, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was amended to expand the boundaries
eastward to encompass the Fallon Village development. Following the 2005 amendment, the
buildout potential of the EDSP is 32,023 residents, 13,913 dwelling units, and 29,424 jobs.
As described in Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site Development
below, the EDSP anticipated development of 261 residential units and 902,563 square feet of
commercial on the project site.
Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site Development
Land Use Designation Acres 1 Residential Units
Commercial Square
Footage
General Commercial 60.3 -- 846,153
Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 -- 56,410
Medium Density Residential 4.3 43
Medium-High Density Residential 5.3 106
High Density Residential 3.2 112
Public / Semi – Public 3.3 --
Total 80.1 261 902,563
Notes:
(1) Acreages shown are approximate and were based on information available at the time the Specific Plan was adopted
Source: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, 1993, as amended.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Zoning
As shown in Figure 3-4: Existing Zoning, the project site is zoned Planned Development (PD)
Resolution No. 104-94 as part of the EDSP. The purpose of the PD zone is to:
A. Establish a Planned Development Zoning District through which one or more properties
are planned as a unit with development standards tailored to the site.
B. Provide maximum flexibility and diversification in the development of property.
C. Maintain consistency with, and implement the provisions of, the Dublin General Plan
and applicable Specific Plans.
D. Protect the integrity and character of both residential and non-residential areas of the
City.
E. Encourage efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as
open space areas and topographic features.
F. Provide for effective development of public facilities and services for the site.
G. Encourage use of design features to achieve development that is compatible with the
area.
H. Allow for creative and imaginative design that will promote amenities beyond those
expected in conventional developments.
3.1.5 Airport Planning Designations
Most of the project site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located with the Airport
Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. This area is designated as an area in which current
or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace protection factors may affect
land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA is a designation by the Alameda
County Airport Land Use Commission.
The same portion of the project site is also located within Land Use Compatibility Zone 7 of the
Livermore Municipal Airport, as established in the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. See Figure 11-1: Livermore Municipal Airport Safety Compatibility Zones in
Chapter 11: Hazards & Hazardous Materials
3.2 Project Development Components
The project is a mixed-use development that would allow up to 454,500 square feet of
commercial uses and up to 680 residential units. The project would require an amendment to
the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to modify the existing General Plan land use
designations.
To accommodate the project, the applicant proposes to redistribute and simplify the six existing
General Plan land use designations to four, organized into four Planning Areas (PAs). As shown
in Figure 3-5: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, the proposed land use
designations are consistent with the land use patterns of the surrounding properties. As shown
in Table 3-2: At Dublin Land Use Summary, the proposed new General Plan land use
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 3-4 | Project Description
Draft EIR
10/23/18
designations, from the south to the north, are: General Commercial; Mixed Use; Medium-High
Density Residential and Medium Density Residential.
Table 3-2: At Dublin Land Use Summary
Land Use Designations Gross Acres Res. Units Du/Acre
Floor Area
Ratio
Commercial
sq. ft.
General Commercial 23.7
2 -- -- .4 370,000
Mixed-Use 16.2 300 -- .7 84,500
Medium-High Density Residential 14.0 200
14.3 --
Medium-Density Residential 23.8 180 7.6 -- --
Total 76.9 680 -- -- 454,500
1.Gross residential acreage shall be determined by calculating the area of the site and by adding one-half of the area of abutting
streets, provided that the street width used for calculation shall not be less than 25 feet or more than 50 feet. Public or private
streets within the boundaries of the site, as well as streets abutting the site, shall be calculated within the gross acreage total.
2. Gross acreage includes gross area of PA 1 and Northside Drive (1.6 ac) to be vacated and included in PA 1 project area
Source: City of Dublin, 2018.
3.3 Project Objectives
Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a clearly written statement of objectives be
presented in an EIR to help lead agencies develop a reasonable range of alternatives, and to aid
the decision makers in preparing findings of significant effects or a statement of overriding
considerations, as necessary.
The following project objectives are identified:
Mix of Uses / Quality of Product
1.Provide a balanced mix of residential and commercial uses in the Eastern Extended
Planning Area that integrate into the existing urban systems and provide a safe and
attractive environment for living and working as encouraged by General Plan Policy
2.6.4.A.1.
2.Provide uses that meet the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan’s objective to have higher-
density housing, adjacent to commercial and employment opportunities.
3.Provide land uses and high-quality architecture that complement existing, adjacent land
uses and development.
Economic Growth
4.Have a positive contribution to the local economy through new capital investment, the
creation of new jobs, and the expansion of the tax base.
5.Add commercial, entertainment, and hotel uses that will have a synergy with existing
retail in the City.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
6.Provide a mix of residential and commercial uses that achieves a financially feasible
project.
7.Provide a project that balances housing with job-creating uses.
8.Develop a project that supports the success of the commercial uses through careful site
planning and infrastructure design.
Housing
9.Add to the City’s housing diversity in compliance with Housing Element Program 10 and
General Plan Policy 2.6.1.A.1 by providing a range of housing products, including
apartments, townhomes, and small lot single-family detached homes.
10.Expand and improve the City’s housing supply by developing high-quality housing in a
portion of a City-designated Priority Development Area, which is a location planned for
growth under the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area.
11.Increase housing on the project site beyond what was initially planned under the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which will help in state-wide efforts to alleviate California’s
housing crisis.
Responsible Growth
12.Develop vacant and underutilized land in an urban area.
13.Locate commercial and residential uses where such uses can take advantage of existing
infrastructure and utilities.
14.Provide attractive, well-landscaped commercial uses close to Interstate 580 as a buffer
between the highway and residential uses and to further General Plan Policy 10.5.3.E.
15.Enhance the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard consistent with
General Plan Goal 10.6.2.
Connectivity
16.Complete existing infrastructure to support General Plan buildout conditions consistent
with the East Dublin Specific Plan.
17.Implement the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and enhance bicycle and
pedestrian safety by providing on-site and off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities that
link with existing facilities along Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, and Dublin Boulevard.
18.Reconfigure block size and provide publicly accessible parkways, park corridors and
paths to improve pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial uses.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 3-6 | Project Description
Draft EIR
10/23/18
19.Provide and improve pedestrian connections within the project and across adjacent
arterial streets to facilitate pedestrian activity between neighborhoods and within the
development.
3.4 Land Uses
A conceptual illustration of proposed land uses is shown in Figure 3-6: Illustrative Site Plan.
Renderings of the various land uses are shown in Figures 3-7a-b: Project Renderings. These
land uses are described below, according to the respective proposed General Plan land use
designations.
3.4.1 General Commercial
General Commercial is proposed for approximately 23.7 gross acres on the southerly portion of
the project site within PA 1, south of Dublin Boulevard and north of Interstate 580. The
permitted floor area ratio (FAR) is .20 to .60. Allowable uses include regional- and community-
serving retail, service, and office uses.
PA-1 would include one or two hotels with up to 240 rooms (maximum 74 feet in height),
approximately 215,000 square feet of retail uses, and approximately 3,000 square feet of
community uses for a total of up to 370,000 square feet of commercial uses.
3.4.2 Mixed-Use
Mixed-Use is proposed for approximately 16.2 gross acres in the central portion of the project
site, comprised of PA-2a and PA-2b, north of Dublin Boulevard. The Mixed-Use designation
provides for the combination of medium density residential housing and commercial uses with
an allowable FAR of 0.30 to 1.0.
The total amount of commercial uses in the Mixed-Use PA-2 would be no more than 84,500
square feet.
PA-2a would contain commercial uses including a theater, specialty restaurants, and general
retail uses. PA-2b would contain a five and a half-story, approximately 362,772 square-foot
(272,000 net rentable square feet) apartment building with up to 300 residential units
surrounding a parking garage. The parking garage would be a shared-use facility for both the
residents and retail users. Some portions of the ground floor would contain retail uses up to
8,000 square feet, as well as amenities such as a club room and gym for the apartment
residents.
3.4.3 Medium-High Density Residential
Medium-High Density Residential is proposed for approximately 14.0 gross acres in the central
portion of the project site in PA-2c, south of Central Parkway. The permitted units per gross
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
residential acre are 14.1-25.0. Housing within PA-2c would consist of up to 200 townhomes.
Also included with Medium-High Density land use are public park and private open space.
3.4.4 Medium-Density Residential
Medium-Density Residential is proposed for approximately 23.8 gross acres on the northerly
portion of the project site within PA-3 and PA-4. The permitted units per gross residential acre
are 6.1 to 14.0. Housing within PA-3 and PA-4 would consist of up to 180 small lot single-family
detached units. Also included are parks and other private open space.
3.4.5 Parks and Open Space
Private Open Space
As shown in Figure 3-8: Landscape Master Plan, project development would include privately-
owned plazas, paseos, and gardens located throughout each of the planning areas. These open
space areas, together with the public open space areas described below, would connect the
commercial areas to the residential area and connect the project site to surrounding
neighborhoods and nearby Emerald Glen Park.
The commercial uses within PA-1 would incorporate public plazas with furniture, planting and
lighting. All plaza will be publicly accessible and privately owned and maintained by a
commercial association.
The project envisions a market plaza (the “Porch”) a village green (the “Side Yard”) and multi-
use residential promenade and picnic areas (the “Commons”) which would serve as gathering
places for community events such as outdoor fairs, community table events, live performances
and seasonal venues. 3.3 acres of publicly accessible improved open space envisioned as a
linear park would terminate at the Side Yard. The Side Yard and Commons would be located
centrally within the project, primarily within PA-2c, and function as versatile common outdoor
spaces.
Within PA-2a, the project would provide a privately-owned open space market plaza (the
“Porch”), which is a more urban commercial venue than the “Side Yard”, which is described in
the Public Open Space section below. The Porch would include publicly accessible plazas and a
central gathering area. The Porch, estimated to be 1.19 acres, is designed for passive use with
outdoor seating as its primary function, but also able to be used for outdoor events.
PA-3 would include an approximately 0.85-acre central linear paseo connecting the single-
family residential communities to the Side Yard and Porch. In addition, the residential
communities in PA-3 and -4 would be surrounded by an approximately 1.05- acre greenbelt.
Walls would be interior to the greenbelt to enhance the open space features and connectivity
of the project to the community. The linear paseo and greenbelt would be owned and
maintained by the homeowners’ association. The apartments will provide amenities for its
residents, both within passive and active spaces. The total common useable outdoor space is
approximately 70,520 sf (inclusive of the two roof decks with a combined area of 1,500 sf). The
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 3-8 | Project Description
Draft EIR
10/23/18
apartment proposed common space accounts for 30.4% of net site area. These areas would be
maintained by the apartment owner.
Public Parks & Open Space
As shown in Figure 3-9: Parks & Other Open Space, the project would include both public parks
and private – publicly accessible parks. These park areas would be designed and constructed by
the applicant.
The public open space includes the “Neighborhood Square” in PA-2a and PA-2c, which would be
comprised of a linear park (approximately 1.85 acres) that would terminate in an approximately
0.68 green (the “Side Yard”), for a total of approximately 2.53 acres. The Neighborhood Square
would include a multi-use promenade and picnic areas that would serve as gathering places for
community events such as outdoor fairs, community table events, live performances and
seasonal venues. The Side Yard would be centrally located within the project and function as a
versatile common outdoor space.
The project’s public open spaces also would include a meeting space (the “Community
Facility”), which is planned within PA-1 (approximately 0.20 acres) and would accommodate
indoor and outdoor events, such as weddings and other gatherings. It is planned that both the
Neighborhood Square and Community Facility would be improved by the developer and
dedicated to the City.
3.5 Site Access and Circulation
3.5.1 Vehicular Circulation
As shown in Figure 3-10: Vehicular Access and Circulation, the project would contain several
ingress/egress access points from public roadways. Private streets would be incorporated into
the project to allow for access to the interior residential, commercial and mixed-use
developments. Due to the lower traffic volumes and limited vehicular access, private streets
would be designed with a narrower profile and where the blocks are short and would have low
traffic volumes, may not include features typically associated with public streets including
sidewalks and on-street parking. All internal streets and roadways would be privately owned
and maintained by the respective owner association.
3.5.2 Off-site Roadway Improvements
The project site is surrounded by public roadways which would be improved as follows:
Tassajara Road – Improve approximately 33 feet of right-of-way along the east edge,
completing the outside travel lane(s), Class II bike lane, and approximately 13-foot wide
parkways inclusive of an approximately 6-foot wide sidewalk. These improvements are
intended to complete Tassajara Road to its future General Plan build-out condition. The
improvements would vary between intersections to accommodate turn lane requirements. The
project would add the 4th leg (east leg) and subsequent lanes and movements into and out of
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
this leg to the existing intersection of Tassajara Road and The Shops. The project also proposes
to add a right-in/right-out driveway along the east side of Tassajara Road between Dublin
Boulevard and The Shops.
Dublin Boulevard – Improve approximately 44 feet of right-of-way along the north edge and
approximately 32 feet wide along the south edge (for a total right-of-way width of up to 177
feet), completing the outside travel lane(s), Class II bike lane, and approximately 14-foot wide
parkways inclusive of an approximately 8-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.
These improvements would complete Dublin Boulevard to its General Plan build-out condition.
The improvements would vary between intersections to accommodate turn lane requirements.
Additionally, the project would introduce a new signalized intersection on Dublin Boulevard,
between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. This intersection would modify the existing
raised median on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. In addition,
the westbound left turn lanes at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road would
likely be modified due to the new intersection, as well as the eastbound left turn lane for the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street and new westbound left turn land into
the project. A second eastbound left turn lane at Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street has
been added City assumed improvements. These turn lanes will likely be shortened to fit the
new traffic signal. Pedestrian crosswalks are also proposed at the new traffic signal crossing
northbound and southbound across Dublin Boulevard.
Central Parkway – Expand the right-of-way to a width of up to 109 feet to accommodate the
completion of the outside travel lane in each direction, Class II bike lane, on-street parking, and
parkways inclusive of an approximately 8-foot wide sidewalk on the south side and an
approximately 10-foot wide multi-use trail on the north side. These improvements would
complete Central Parkway to its General Plan build-out condition. The project also includes a
proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing on Central Parkway. The project proposes two right-
in/right-out driveways on the south side of Central Parkway, one approximately 200 feet east of
Tassajara Road and the other approximately 200 feet west of Brannigan Street. In addition, a
right-in/right-out driveway is proposed on the north side of Central Expressway, approximately
200 feet west of Brannigan Street.
Gleason Drive – Expand the right-of-way to a width of up to 123.5 feet to accommodate an
approximately 11-foot wide travel lane in each direction, Class II bike lane, and parkways
inclusive of an approximately 6-foot sidewalk on the south side and 8-foot Class I shared use
path on the north side. These improvements would complete Gleason Drive to its General Plan
build-out condition. The project proposes a right-in/right-out driveway on the north side of
Gleason Drive, approximately 200 feet west of Brannigan Street.
Brannigan Street – Expand the right-of-way to a width of up to 80 feet to accommodate on-
street parking and an approximately 12-foot wide parkway inclusive of an approximately 6-foot
wide sidewalk. These improvements would complete Brannigan Street to its General Plan
build-out condition. The project proposes to add the 4th leg (west leg) at the intersection of
Brannigan Street and Aviano Way. The eastbound approach at this intersection would be stop-
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 3-10 | Project Description
Draft EIR
10/23/18
controlled with a shared left-right turn lane. In addition, the project proposes to add the 4th
leg (west leg) at the intersection of Brannigan Street and Finnian Way. The eastbound
approach at this intersection would be stop-controlled with a shared left-right turn lane. The
project proposes to add two additional driveways on Brannigan Street, south of Dublin
Boulevard, one approximately 200 feet south of Dublin Boulevard, another approximately 350
feet south of Dublin Boulevard, and one driveway at the existing bend along Brannigan Street.
Off-site improvements would complete these segments to their designed build-out condition,
tying into the existing adjacent improved roadways and parkways. In addition to the above,
Northside Drive (both on and off the project site) would be vacated and become private road
over which the respective easements would be granted for public utilities and to the City to
access the water treatment facility. It is anticipated that vacation would occur based on the
General Vacation Procedure in the Streets and Highways Code (8320-8325).
3.5.3 Bicycles, and Pedestrians
The public roadways surrounding the project site would be completed in accordance with the
City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, including the incorporation of Class II bike lanes along
Dublin Boulevard and westbound on Central Parkway.
As shown in Figure 3-11: Pedestrian Network Plan, the project would construct multi-use
pathways, sidewalks, and walkways, for a total of approximately 8.8 miles. Walkways would
extend along the perimeter of the project, providing connections to existing pedestrian
network. In addition, the project would add a mid-block pedestrian crossing on Central
Parkway.
3.5.4 Public Transit
Bus stops suitable for use by Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) would be
constructed on the project frontage streets of Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive, Central Parkway
and Dublin Boulevard.
3.6 Site Preparation and Infrastructure Improvements
3.6.1 Grading
As shown in Table 3-3: Grading Requirements (by Planning Area), the project would require an
estimated 433,000 cubic yards of cut and 526,600 cubic yards of fill for a net import of
approximately 93,600 cubic yards of soil. Excess fill would be utilized on-site to minimize the
import of soils. PA-1 would require the majority of imported soils, PA-2 would generate some
soils export, and PA-3 and PA-4 would require some minor import of soils. The imported soils
would originate from available borrow sites, likely within the Tri-Valley area.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Project Description | Page 3-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 3-3: Grading Requirements (by Planning Area)
Planning Area Cut (CY) Fill (CY)
PA – 1 124,700 238,000
PA - 2A 60,800 35,800
PA – 2B 34,500 36,900
PA – 2C 77,900 74,300
PA-3 113,900 130,800
PA-4 21,200 10,800
Total 433,000 526,600
Net Import -- 93,600
CY – Cubic Yards
Source: RJA, Preliminary Grading Plan, May 2018
3.6.2 Water
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Dublin-San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD), which serves the City of Dublin with potable water and non-potable recycled water.
The project would connect to existing underground potable and non-potable recycled DSRSD
water lines located within the right-of-way of the adjacent roadways. Multiple connections
would be provided for the purposes of achieving a “looped system.”
Potable water would be used for domestic use, while non-potable recycled/reclaimed water
would be used primarily for landscape irrigation.
3.6.3 Wastewater
The project site is located within the boundaries of DSRSD, which serves the City of Dublin with
potable water. The project would connect to existing underground DSRSD sewer lines located
within the right-of-way of the adjacent roadways. Multiple laterals would connect the project
to the sewer line.
3.6.4 Stormwater Management
An on-site storm drainage system would be installed that would collect and convey runoff and
ultimately discharge it to the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system. Drainage for
the project site has been designed to maintain the existing watershed drainage pattern to the
extent feasible, and avoid any impact to downstream watersheds by reducing the post
development runoff for the site to the predevelopment condition, consistent with Municipal
Regional Permit requirements as defined by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 3-12 | Project Description
Draft EIR
10/23/18
3.6.5 Dry Utilities
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) would serve the project with electricity and natural
gas. Effective June 2018, commercial businesses have the option to choose between electricity
from PG&E or East Bay Clean Energy (EBCE), a new community choice aggregation joint powers
authority recently formed and offering service in most of Alameda County. Electricity from
EBCE will be available to residents in the fall of 2018. Residents and commercial businesses will
be automatically enrolled in EBCE with the opportunity to opt out for those who want to
continue to receive their service from PG&E.
3.7 Additionally, portions of the project would include the use of solar
power/photovoltaics. The project would also incorporate electric vehicle
(EV) charging stations for the commercial areas and the apartments.
Project Construction and Phasing
Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, paving,
building construction, and architectural coating. As shown in Figure 3-12: Project Phasing, the
project is anticipated to be completed in two phases over a construction period of
approximately five years. The first phase would include PA-2. The second phase is broken up
into two sub-phases: Phase 2A: comprised of the northern portion of PA-1 and PA-3, Phase 2B
comprised of the southern portion of PA-1and PA-4.
The project would utilize an average of 125 workers a year and would generate approximately
458 daily trips, based on 3.05 daily trips per worker, with a 20 percent increase to account for
material deliveries, and other trips not directly related to site workers.
3.8 References
City of Dublin. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted October 7, 2014.
City of Dublin. City of Dublin General Plan, 1985 amended 2017.
City of Dublin. City of Dublin Municipal Code as amended
City of Dublin. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan1994 amended 2016.
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar. Preliminary Drainage Study, At Dublin, City of Dublin, Alameda County,
California, October 10, 2017.
Shea Properties. General Plan / Specific Plan Amendment Planned Development – Stage 1
Submittal and Project Narrative, October 12, 2017 as amended by subsequent application
materials.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction to Environmental Analysis| Page 4-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
4 Introduction to Environmental Analysis
4.1 Environmental Assessment Methodology
The environmental resource analysis below (by chapter) describes the potential environmental
impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project. This analysis considers
the comments submitted during the scoping process (see Appendix A: Notice of Preparation
and Comment Letters). References to data and/or technical studies are listed at the end of
each chapter.
4.1.1 Methodology
The methodology used to determine impacts consists of three key components, summarized
below.
Environmental Setting. The environmental setting describes existing conditions in the project
site that may change as a result of the construction and operation of the project. Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines (Section 15125(a)), the environmental setting used for the impact analysis
reflects the conditions at the time of the issuance of the Notice of Preparation.
Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards. Each issue area includes a description of current
public policies, regulations, programs, and standards that apply to the project.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation. This section evaluates the environmental impacts
(including cumulative impacts) of the project based on predetermined, specific significance
criteria. In determining the significance of impacts, the assessment considers the ability of
existing regulations and other public agency requirements to reduce impacts. If an adverse
impact is potentially significant despite existing regulations and requirements, mitigation
measures are proposed to reduce or avoid the impact, where feasible. Mitigation measures are
required only for significant adverse impacts. Once impacts and mitigation measures, as
applicable, are presented, the “level of significance after mitigation” is determined.
4.1.2 Impact Significance
While the criteria for determining whether an impact is significant are unique to each issue
area, a uniform classification of impacts is used in this EIR. Each impact is categorized based on
the following definitions:
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures
Class III: Adverse impact; but less than significant, so mitigation is not normally recommended
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 4-2 | Introduction to Environmental Analysis
Draft EIR
10/23/18
No impact.
4.1.3 Mitigation Measures
Where potentially significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are identified. Each
mitigation measure defines the specific requirements to reduce impacts and defines the
timeframe, responsible party, and the mitigation monitoring requirement, if applicable.
Note that due to the location of the proposed uses on the project site, some mitigation
measures apply only to one portion (commercial development, mixed use or residential
development) of the project. Each mitigation measure indicates whether it applies to specific
planning areas, the commercial development, mixed use, residential development or all
components of the project.
4.1.4 Mitigation Monitoring
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 establishes two distinct requirements for agencies
involved in the CEQA process. Subdivisions (a) and (b) of the section relate to mitigation
monitoring and reporting, and the obligation to mitigate significant effects where possible.
Pursuant to subdivision (a), whenever a public agency completes an EIR and makes a finding
pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code taking responsibility for mitigation
identified in the EIR, the agency must adopt a program of monitoring or reporting which will
ensure that mitigation measures are complied with during implementation of the project.
4.2 Effects Not Found to Be Significant
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines §15128, “An EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating
the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be
significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” This chapter of the Draft EIR
describes the resource areas which were found not to pose any potentially significant effects.
Based on the scope of the project, comment letters in response to the NOP, site visits, review of
project applicant materials and technical reports, and additional background research on the
construction and operational features of the project, the following resource topics were found
to not have impacts that would be considered potentially significant. These topics, therefore,
are not subject to further detailed analysis in the EIR.
4.2.1 Agricultural Resources
The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance by the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). It is
designated as Grazing Land, land which the existing vegetation is suited to livestock grazing. No
Williamson Act contract applies to the project site. The project site does not currently comprise
agricultural or forestry uses, and it is designated for a mix of residential and commercial uses
pursuant to the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. There would be
no impact to agricultural and forestry resources.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction to Environmental Analysis| Page 4-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
4.2.2 Mineral Resources
The project site lies within Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1), as mapped by the California
Department of Mines and Geology (DMG). MRZ-1 zones are “areas where adequate
information indicates that no significant mineral despots are present, or where it is judged that
little likelihood exits for their presence”. The project site is not a mineral resource recovery site
and therefore there would be no impact to mineral resources.
4.3 Cumulative Impacts
4.3.1 CEQA Requirements
Under the CEQA Guidelines, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a
result of the combination of the project evaluated in the environmental impact report (“EIR”)
together with other projects causing related impacts” (14 CCR §15130(a)(1)). CEQA PRC §21000
et seq., an EIR must discuss cumulative impacts if the incremental effect of a project, combined
with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable” (14 CCR §15130(a)). Such
incremental effects are to be “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (14 CCR
§15164(b)(1)). Together, these projects compose the cumulative scenario which forms the
basis of the cumulative impact analysis.
Cumulative Impact Analysis Methodology
The area within which a cumulative effect can occur varies by resource. For example, air quality
impacts generally affect a large area (such as the regional Air Basin), while traffic impacts are
typically more localized. For this reason, the geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative
impacts is identified for each resource area in the following chapters.
The analysis of cumulative effects considers a number of variables, including geographic
(spatial) limits, time (temporal) limits, and the characteristics of the resource being evaluated.
The geographic scope of each analysis is based on the topography surrounding the project site
and the natural boundaries of the resource affected, rather than jurisdictional boundaries. The
geographic scope of cumulative effects will often extend beyond the scope of the direct effects,
but not beyond the scope of the direct and indirect effects of the project.
In addition, future projects that comprise the cumulative condition each have their own
implementation schedule, which may or may not coincide or overlap with the project’s
schedule. This is a consideration for short-term impacts from the project. However, to be
conservative, the cumulative analysis assumes that all projects in the cumulative scenario are
built and operating during the operating lifetime of the project.
4.4 References
CA Department of Conservation, 2018. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Accessed
at http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 4-4 | Introduction to Environmental Analysis
Draft EIR
10/23/18
CA Department of Mines and Geology, 2018. California Geological Survey. Accessed at
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
5 Aesthetics
5.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on aesthetics that would be caused by implementation of the
project. Information used to prepare this section came from the following resources:
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 as amended 2017
City of Dublin,Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final EIR, 1994 updated 2016
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Standards and Guidelines, 1996
Project application and related materials
Site Photos
The study area, also known as the viewshed, is defined as the area from which the project
would be seen both on and immediately surrounding the project site. The current condition
and quality of aesthetic resources within the study area were used as the baseline against
which to compare potential aesthetic impacts of the project.
The approach used to evaluate the existing aesthetics conditions consisted of the following
steps:
Reviewing the project application including site plans and elevations, landscape
plans, etc.;
Establishing several representative key viewpoints (KVPs) and photographing the
project site from those viewpoints;
Conducting visual field analyses of the project site and surroundings from the
representative KVPs; and
Utilizing visual simulations from the KVPs to help characterize the level of impact.
5.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding aesthetics
were raised.
5.3 Determination of Existing Visual Quality
KVPs are selected to be representative of the most critical locations from which the project
would be seen. They are selected based on their usefulness in evaluating existing landscapes
and potential impacts on aesthetics with various levels of viewer sensitivity, in different
landscape types and terrain, and from various vantage points. Locations typically considered
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-2 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
for the establishment of KVPs include those: 1) along major or significant travel corridors, 2)
along local roads, 3) along recreational access off-highway vehicle roads and trails, 4) at key
vista points, 5) from publicly accessible vantage points within designated wilderness or other
protected areas, and 6) from locations that provide good examples of the existing landscape
context and viewing conditions.
When analyzing existing aesthetic conditions, the elements of visual quality, viewer concern,
visibility, number of viewers, and duration of view are considered. These parameters are then
factored into an overall rating of viewer sensitivity.
5.4 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on aesthetic conditions in the study area. The current
condition and quality of aesthetic resources was used as the baseline against which to compare
potential impacts of the project.
5.4.1 Regional Landscape
The City of Dublin is located on 14.59 square miles in Eastern Alameda County within the Tri-
Valley Region. The City is approximately 35 miles east of San Francisco and is generally bound
by the City of San Ramon to the north, the City of Livermore to the east, Interstate 580 and the
City of Pleasanton to the south, and the City of Castro Valley and the East Bay Hills to the west.
5.4.2 Project Site
The project site is located approximately four miles east of downtown Dublin, within the
southeastern portion of the City. The property is bordered by single-family residences to the
north, multi-family residential and commercial uses to the east, Interstate 580 to the south, and
Emerald Glen Park along with commercial, residential and campus office uses to the west along
Tassajara Road.
The site is vacant, with the exception of occasional seasonal uses, and was previously utilized
for agricultural purposes. The terrain is generally flat with a slight slope from the north to the
south. The majority of vegetation found on-site is low lying native and nonnative grasses that
are turned periodically for the purposes of weed abatement. A small group of trees and shrubs
is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No grading for development
purposes has occurred to date.
5.4.3 Scenic Routes
Interstate 580 was designated as a Scenic Route by the County of Alameda in 1966 (the City of
Dublin was incorporated in 1982 and recognized this scenic route designation). Tassajara Road
is designated as a scenic corridor within Alameda County.
The EDSP maintains that “it is critical that views of major ridgelands be maintained from the
scenic corridors.” The City of Dublin General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Element
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
states that scenic routes “are the places from which people traveling through Dublin gain their
impression of the City; therefore, it is important that the quality of views be protected.”
5.4.4 Light and Glare
There are no existing sources of light and glare on the project site. Adjacent sources of light
and glare include streetlights on the adjacent roadways and nearby commercial and residential
land uses.
5.5 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
5.5.1 Federal
None applicable.
5.5.2 State
CA Scenic Highway Program
In 1963, the California Legislature established the State’s Scenic Highway Program, which is
intended to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish
the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The state laws governing the Scenic Highway
Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et seq.
The State Scenic Highways program, established by the Streets and Highways Code, is
administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The State Scenic
Highway System includes highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or
have been designated as such.
A scenic corridor is the land generally adjacent to and visible from the highway and is identified
using a motorist’s line of vision. The corridor protection program seeks to encourage quality
development that does not degrade the scenic value of the corridor. Minimum requirements
for scenic corridor protection include:
Regulation of land use and density of development
Detailed land and site planning
Control of outdoor advertising (including a ban on billboards)
Careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping
Careful attention to design and appearance of structures and equipment
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-4 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
5.5.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following goals, policies and implementation
measures as they relate to aesthetic resources:
Goal 10.5.2: Promote a positive regional identity of the City.
Policy 10.5.3.A: Incorporate distinctive design features along regional corridors that reinforce a
positive image of Dublin. Both within the right-of-way and on adjacent private development,
utilize features such as gateway elements, street trees, median planting, special lighting,
separated and ample sidewalks, crosswalks, seating, special signs, street names, landscape,
decorative paving patterns, and public art. Consider undergrounding utilities along these
roadways.
Policy 10.5.3.B: Maintain views through development to distant vistas (i.e. foothills) and view
corridors along regional corridors, wherever feasible.
Policy 10.5.3.C: Incorporate visual screening techniques such as berms, dense and/or fast-
growing landscaping, and appropriately designed fencing where feasible, to ensure that visually
challenging features, such as parking lots, loading docks, storage areas, etc. are visually
attractive as seen from regional corridors.
Policy 10.5.3.D: Provide landscaping and articulated design to soften the visual appearance of
existing and new walls and fences that are adjacent to regional corridors, wherever feasible.
Policy 10.5.3.E: Encourage attractive and high-quality landscaping along the edge of the
freeways and development surrounding on- and off-ramps to provide softer and more
attractive views both to and from the freeways. Landscaping on private property should
complement the buildings and overall site design.
Goal 10.6.2: Create a Sense of Arrival at gateways to the City.
Policy 10.6.3.A: Mark gateways with City identification (i.e. signage) and include enhanced
landscaping and street improvements to highlight Dublin’s identity, consistent with the City’s
Streetscape Master Plan, where feasible (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
Policy 10.6.3.B: Incorporate dramatic and imaginative landscaping, public art, water features, or
other design features when reconstructing streets and/or sidewalks at key gateways into the
City, where feasible (reference: Public Art Master Plan).
Policy 10.6.3.C: Encourage signature building architecture at gateways that are oriented toward
the gateway to create a sense of place.
Implementation Measure 10.6.4.A: Implement the Streetscape Master Plan.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementation Measure 10.6.4.B: Review development adjacent to gateways through the
Planned Development Regulations and the Site Development Review Permit process.
Goal 10.7.2: Ensure quality and compatible design of the built form.
Policy 10.7.3.1.A: Encourage diverse, high quality, attractive, and architecturally appealing
buildings that create distinctive visual reference points, enrich the appearance of functional
gathering spaces, and convey an excellence in architecture, workmanship, quality, and
durability in building materials.
Policy 10.7.3.1.B: Encourage buildings with varied massing, heights, articulation techniques, and
architectural and signage treatments to create visual interest and ensure compatibility with
adjacent uses, in commercial, office, industrial, and mixed-use areas.
Policy 10.7.3.1.C: Ensure that building height, scale and design are compatible with the
character of the surrounding natural and built environment, and are varied in their massing,
scale and articulation.
Policy 10.7.3.1.D: Encourage a variety of site and building designs that are compatible and
consistent with surrounding development, especially where larger scale development is
adjacent to smaller scale and/or more sensitive land uses (i.e. residential, schools, and
churches) to the greatest extent feasible.
Policy 10.7.3.1.E: Avoid the use of long, continuous, straight (building) walls along roadways by
designing appropriate articulation, massing, and architectural features.
Policy 10.7.3.1.F: Create distinctive neighborhoods that exemplify high-quality and varied
design while reinforcing Dublin as one integrated community, in residential areas.
Policy 10.7.3.1.G: Encourage the diversity of garage orientation and setbacks, architectural
styles, building materials, color and rooflines, and other design features, on all sides of all
buildings, in residential areas.
Policy 10.7.3.1.H: Orient buildings toward major thoroughfares, sidewalks, pedestrian
pathways, and gathering spaces, and incorporate clear and identifiable entries where feasible,
in campus office areas.
Policy 10.7.3.1.I: Cluster and connect buildings through a series of pedestrian pathways
designed to work with each other to form a unified design character and create larger
functional spaces, in campus office and commercial areas.
Policy 10.7.3.1.K: Minimize the visual impacts of service/loading areas, storage areas, trash
enclosures, and ground mounted mechanical equipment. When feasible, these elements
should be located behind or to the sides of buildings and screened from views through a
combination of walls/ fencing, and/or landscaping.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-6 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Policy 10.7.3.1.L: Minimize the visual impacts of roof mounted mechanical equipment. When
feasible, such elements should be consolidated and housed in architecturally articulated
enclosures.
Policy 10.7.3.2.A: Utilize more formal landscaping treatments in more densely developed
(urban) areas and utilize more natural landscaping treatments in less dense (suburban) areas,
as appropriate.
Policy 10.7.3.2.B: Achieve neighborhood identities by applying streetscape and landscape
design, entry treatments, signage, and architectural detailing standards, in residential areas
(reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
Policy 10.7.3.2.C: Incorporate setbacks and landscaped buffers for development along collector
and arterial roadways to minimize the impacts from roadway noise, where appropriate.
Policy 10.7.3.2.D: Ensure that landscaping along and adjacent to the public realm is well
maintained and retains a natural appearance.
Policy 10.7.3.2.E: Encourage distinctive landscaping and signage that is aesthetically appealing
from the public realm (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
Policy 10.7.3.2.F: Encourage the use of landscaping on walls to soften and screen their visual
appearance (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
Policy 10.7.3.2.G: Increase the width of existing narrow parkway strips when the opportunity
arises and encourage all new development and redevelopment projects to provide
appropriately sized landscaped parkway strips (reference: Streetscape Master Plan).
Policy 10.7.3.2.H: Preserve mature trees and vegetation, with special consideration given to the
protection of groups of trees and associated undergrowth and specimen trees (reference:
Heritage Tree Ordinance).
Policy 10.7.3.2.I: Preserve views of creeks, hillsides, skylines, or other natural or man-made
landmarks during site planning of new developments, whenever feasible.
Policy 10.7.3.3.A: Encourage gathering spaces and amenities such as mini plazas, courtyards,
benches, seating, shade, trash receptacles, and water fountains, in commercial and office areas.
Policy 10.7.3.3.B: Design attractive gathering spaces with pedestrian amenities such as
landscaping, benches, shade structures, fountains, public art, and attractive lighting.
Policy 10.7.3.3.C: Encourage design treatments that enhance the attractiveness of the
streetscape, public spaces, landscaped areas, and open space.
Policy 10.7.3.4.A: Ensure that perimeter areas incorporate appropriate planting, lighting, and
signage.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Policy 10.7.3.4.B: Ensure that signs are constructed of high quality materials, are compatible
with their surroundings, and make a positive visual contribution to the character of the
community.
Policy 10.7.3.4.D: Incorporate public art where feasible (reference: Public Art Master Plan).
Policy 10.7.3.4.E: Design and locate outdoor lighting around buildings, in parking lots, and along
streets that minimize the effects of glare on adjacent properties, particularly in residential
areas.
Policy 10.7.3.5.A: Provide convenient but not visually dominating parking that incorporates
extensive landscaping to provide shade, promote wayfinding, visually soften views from the
street and surrounding properties, and reduce the heat island effect (generally characterized
with large expanses of paved and under-landscaped surfaces).
Policy 10.7.3.5.B: Buffer and screen large expanses of parking areas from the street, where
practical.
Policy 10.7.3.5.C: Encourage the use of integrated circulation and parking facilities that are
shared among surrounding properties.
Policy 10.8.3.A: Provide safe, visually pleasing, and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle
connections between destinations within a project area by providing wide multi-use paths,
generous sidewalks, and dedicated bicycle lanes on Class I and II Collector and Arterial streets.
Policy 10.8.3.B: Provide clear, identifiable, and ample pedestrian and bicycle pathways that
connect sidewalks, parking areas, building entrances, trails and other site features by using
wayfinding techniques such as signage, landscaping, hardscape, and prominent building
entrances, where feasible (reference: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan).
Policy 10.8.3.C: Provide a continuous and ample network of pedestrian and bicycle routes
within a project area and logical connections to the exterior of the project area and thereby
create safe routes of travel to transit facilities, public gathering spaces, trails, parks, community
centers, schools, City villages, gateways and entries (reference: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan).
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The project site is located within the following Planning Subareas of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan:
1) Town Center – Commercial, along Tassajara Road south of Gleason Drive and north of Dublin
Boulevard. This subarea was envisioned the commercial core for eastern Dublin and is
intended to be a high density, pedestrian-oriented commercial, civic, and entertainment center
for Dublin and the surrounding communities.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-8 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2) Town Center – Residential, along Brannigan Street south of Gleason Drive and north of
Dublin Boulevard. This subarea was envisioned for a large community park and open space
area on the eastern portion and residential on the western side.
3) Tassajara Gateway, area south of Dublin Boulevard. This area was envisioned for high-
quality commercial uses that establishes a positive impression on the thousands of travelers
travelling along Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road.
4) Foothill Residential for the small area of the project on the north side of Gleason Drive. This
area was envisioned for predominantly single-family residential in the lower density range.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following goals and policies as they relate to
aesthetic resources:
Visual Resources - General
Goal: To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character of the natural
landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors
and public spaces.
Policy 6-28: Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources,
such as creeks and major stands of vegetation.
Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of
the back- drop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands - no
development”) are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors.
Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all development visible
from designated scenic corridors.
Tassajara Road Scenic Corridor
Policy 6-29: Development is not permitted on the main ridgeline that borders the planning area
to the north and east, but may be permitted on the foreground hills and ridgelands. Minor
interruptions of views of the main ridgeline by individual building masses may be permissible in
limited circumstances where all other remedies have been exhausted.
Policy 6-30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of
the back- drop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as "visually sensitive ridgelands - no development")
are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors.
Policy 6-31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all development visible
from designated scenic corridors.
Program 6R: The City should require projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to
submit detailed visual analysis with development project applications. Applicants will be
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
required to submit graphic simulations and/or sections drawn from affected travel corridors
through the parcel in question, representing, typical views of the parcel from these scenic
routes. The graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated
landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize the visual impact.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
The Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document was adopted by the City
Council in 1996 as a means of implementing the requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. The Scenic Corridor policies establish standards for projects within the scenic corridor
viewshed. Along the Interstate 580 corridor, the document identified three critical viewpoints
of Dublin’s “Visually Sensitive Ridgelands,” including: Viewpoint 1 from Interstate 580 looking
north up Tassajara Creek, Viewpoint 2 looking northeast to the ridgelands from the Tassajara
Road Interstate 580 overpass, and Viewpoint 3 looking north and northeast from the Fallon
Road overpass.
Standard 1.1 states that from these three designated viewpoints, development shall maintain
generally uninterrupted views to significant natural features. The viewpoint that is material to
this analysis is Viewpoint 2, where the standard is to have structures that do not extend above
the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total horizon
line. The total horizon line is further defined as the limits of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands as
seen from Viewpoint 2 (as shown in Figure 7 of the Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards
document).
Standard 1.2 states that structures adjacent to a scenic corridor, generally within 700 feet of
the scenic corridor, should be allowed to obstruct views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands
from Interstate 580 for not more than 50 percent of the developed frontages. Views may be
maintained by balancing building heights and setbacks so as to allow views over the buildings,
by clustering buildings to allow views through, or by siting parking to preserve views to the hills.
5.6 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
5.6.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for aesthetics were derived from the Environmental Checklist
in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or
supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full range of
potential impacts related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Cause a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings with a State scenic highway.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-10 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings.
Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
Also, given consideration are any General Plan goals, policies, or designations that are designed
to reduce aesthetic impacts. Conflicts with such laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards
can constitute evidence of a significant aesthetic impact. Lastly, a significant aesthetic impact
could occur if the project’s incremental aesthetic impact would be cumulatively considerable.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
Impact Assessment Methodology
To determine potential impacts, the impact significance criteria identified above were applied
to construction and operation of the project. Impacts are identified as being either short-term
or long-term in nature. They are numbered under each impact significance criterion, as are
applicable mitigation measures.
An adverse aesthetic (visual) impact occurs within public view when: (1) an action significantly
changes existing features of the physical environment so that they no longer appear to be
characteristic of the subject locality or region; (2) an action introduces new features to the
physical environment that are significantly uncharacteristic of the region and/or locale; or (3)
aesthetic features of the landscape become significantly less visible (i.e. partially or totally
blocked from view) or are removed. Changes that seem uncharacteristic are those that appear
out of place, discordant, or distracting. The degree of the aesthetic impact depends upon how
noticeable the adverse change may be. The noticeability of an adverse aesthetic impact is a
function of project features, context, and viewing conditions (e.g. angle of view, distance,
primary viewing directions, and duration of view).
The specific factors considered in determining impacts on aesthetics included the following
factors:
1. An understanding of the overall visual sensitivity of the project site;
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2. The resulting contrast of the proposed facilities or activities with existing landscape
characteristics;
3. The degree to which project components would dominate the view of the observer;
4. The extent to which project features or activities would block views of higher value
landscape features; and,
5. An understanding of the overall visual change that would occur in the landscape as a
result of the project.
The components contributing to the assessment of overall visual change are described below.
Visual Contrast
Visual contrast concerns the degree to which a project’s visual characteristics or elements (e.g.
form, line, color, and texture) differ from the same visual elements in the existing landscape.
The degree of contrast can range from low to high. A landscape with forms, lines, colors, and
textures similar to those of the project is more visually absorbent; that is, it is more capable of
accepting those project characteristics than a landscape in which those elements are absent.
Generally, visual absorption is inversely proportional to visual contrast. Visual contrast ranges
from low to high. Contrast can also be exacerbated by visible glare from project components.
Dominance
Dominance is a measure of the proportion of the total field of view occupied by the feature, a
feature’s apparent size relative to other visible landscape features, and the conspicuousness of
the feature due to its location in the view.
A feature’s level of dominance tends to be lower in a panoramic setting compared to a setting
with confined sightlines with a focus on the feature itself. A feature’s level of dominance is
higher if it is near the center of the view, elevated relative to the viewer, or has the sky as a
backdrop. As the distance between a viewer and a feature increases, its apparent size
decreases, and consequently its dominance decreases. The level of dominance ranges from
subordinate to dominant.
View Blockage
The extent to which any previously visible landscape features are blocked from view constitutes
view blockage or impairment. The view is also impaired when the continuity of the view is
interrupted. When considering a project’s features, higher quality landscape features can be
blocked by lower quality project features thus, resulting in adverse aesthetic impacts. The
degree of view blockage can range from none to high.
Visual Change
Visual change is derived from the three components described above—contrast, dominance,
and view blockage—and is a concluding assessment as to the degree of change that would be
caused by a project. The degree of visual change can range from low to high.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-12 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
5.6.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
There are no “no” impacts nor “beneficial” impacts.
5.6.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
To address potential aesthetic impacts associated with the project, simulations from five
viewpoints were prepared and compared to existing conditions. Figure 5-1: Location of Key
Viewpoints identifies the location of simulation viewpoints. The simulations are shown in
Figures 5-2 through 5-6.
Impact AES-1: Adversely affect a scenic vista (Class III).
The General Plan describes a design vision which is the basis for the City’s goals and policies
related to community design. The design vision identifies the need to utilize regional corridors
to promote the positive regional identity of the City through attractive development, unique
landscaping, and preservation of views to rolling hillsides and other prominent natural features.
The General Plan identifies Tassajara Road as a regional corridor, and therefore, per Policy
10.5.3.B, developments must maintain views through the development to distant vistas
wherever feasible.
The General Plan recognizes Tassajara Road as an Alameda County designated scenic route.
The EDSP also recognizes Tassajara Road as a scenic corridor and asserts that views of major
ridgelands be maintained from scenic corridors. The EDSP goals and policies, discussed above,
encourage development that maintains views from scenic corridors to Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands, as shown in EDSP Figure 6.3: Environmental Constraints.
Furthermore, the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards identifies the view
looking northeast to the ridgelands from the Tassajara Road overpass as a designated viewpoint
within the project area. Per the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards,
implementation of developments shall maintain generally uninterrupted views and have
structures that do not extend above the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more
than 25 percent of the total horizon line (the limits of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands as seen
from Viewpoint 2).
The Visually Sensitive Ridgelands identified in EDSP Figure 6.3 are located approximately 2.5
miles northeast of the project site. As shown in Figure 5-6: Simulation Viewpoint 5, views to
the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from the project area are not materially obstructed. The
tallest feature is the proposed hotel (maximum 74 feet in height), which does not extend above
the horizon of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for more than 25 percent of the total horizon
line (Standard 1.1). The total horizon line is further defined as the limits of the Visually
Sensitive Ridgelands as seen from Viewpoint 2 (as shown in Figure 7 of the Scenic Corridor
Policies and Standards document). Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant
impact to views of a scenic vista. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact AES-2: Substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway (Class III).
The City of Dublin General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Element designates I-580 as a
“Scenic Route.” The General Plan indicates that scenic routes “are the places from which
people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the City; therefore, it is important that
the quality of views be protected.” The General Plan indicates that development within the
boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that is adjacent to scenic routes must comply
with applicable goals and policies.
The Specific Plan sets forth a goal that calls for “protecting key visual elements and maintaining
views from major travel corridors” and a policy that indicates that views of visually sensitive
ridgelines in Specific Plan Figure 6.3 shall be maintained by new development. Additionally,
another policy states that new development along scenic routes shall employ high quality
design and visual character.
The southern boundary of the project site is immediately adjacent to and within view of I-580.
The Visually Sensitive Ridgelines identified in Specific Plan Figure 6.3 are located north of the
project site. Views of the visually sensitive ridgelands from Viewpoint 2 identified in the
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor would not be impacts, as described above.
Views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelines from along the I-580 corridor are minimally impacted
as the one-story buildings closest to the freeway are set back and no more than 50 percent of
the developed frontage will obstruct views of the ridgelands.
Collectively, these characteristics would ensure that the project maintains views of the hills and
from the designated vantage points identified by the EDSP. Therefore, the project would not
adversely impact views from a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact AES-3: Substantially alter the visual character of the project site and surrounding area
(Class III).
The project consists of both commercial and residential development that would be
constructed in three phases (see Figure 3-12: Project Phasing). Phase 1 would develop the
commercial uses and residential uses located between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway
within PA-2a, PA-2b and PA-2c. This Phase would include the development of townhomes
south of Central Parkway, the apartment building “wrapped” around a multi-level parking
garage, and commercial and retail uses including the theater and market hall. The maximum
height of the commercial buildings would be 50 feet with the majority of the buildings designed
as one-story commercial buildings measuring approximately 34 feet. The maximum height of
the residential buildings would be 65 feet.
Phase 2A would develop the residential units between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive as
well as a portion of the commercial uses located in PA-1 including the hotel (at a maximum of
74 feet) and one-story community room. Most of the commercial buildings would be typical
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-14 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
one-story commercial structures measuring approximately 30 feet in height. The maximum
height of the residential buildings would be approximately 50 feet.
Phase 2B would develop the single-family residential units north of Gleason Drive and would be
a maximum of 41 feet.
Project development would include plazas, linear parks, paseos, and gardens located
throughout each of the planning areas along with the Porch, Side Yard, and Commons, which
would serve as gathering places for community events. The project would complete pedestrian
walkways and plantings along existing City streets and develop multi-use paths, paseos and
pedestrian walkways to provide connections between the residential, commercial and open
spaces throughout the site. Varied but complementary plantings and hardscape features would
project a modern agrarian aesthetic. The project would utilize setbacks and landscaped buffers
for screening throughout the site. Walls would be interior to the project with the exception of
the continuation of an existing wall located within PA-4. The continuation of the existing wall in
this specific portion of the project would allow for continuity with the existing setbacks,
landscaping, and residential lot configuration adjacent to PA-4 along Gleason Avenue.
The City’s General Plan identifies several key entrances to the City, including the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road, as gateways. General Plan Policies 10.6.3.A, 10.6.3.B and
10.6.3.C describe the use of landscaping, architectural features, signage, and consistency with
the City’s Streetscape Master Plan as measures that would support General Plan Goal 10.6.2
and assist in creating a sense of arrival to the City.
As shown in Figure 5-4a: Simulation Viewpoint 3 and Figure 5-4b: Gateway Perspective View,
the gateway at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road would include low,
board-formed concrete seat-walls along the public sidewalk and grass-covered berms. The
berms would be planted with native grasses and specimen olive trees. A gathering space would
be located behind the berms. A similar, smaller scale version of the low wall, grass-planted
berm and specimen olive trees would be located at the northeast corner of the intersection,
providing views of the project’s Porch area while screening the at-grade parking area from
view.
The project would require a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment to
modify the land use designations to accommodate the proposed development. The subject site
is currently designated with a combination of General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial,
Medium, Medium/High, and High Density Residential land use designations. In addition, a
small portion of the site north of Gleason Drive is designated for Public/Semi-public uses. Thus,
the City has envisioned development of the project site with similar uses as the project, albeit
at different intensities and areas. Accordingly, the project is located in an area with compatible
surrounding uses, including commercial, residential, campus office, and parks/public recreation
uses.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Per Chapter 8.84 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project would be required to have a Master
Sign Program. Adherence to the Master Sign Program would ensure that project signage would
be compatible with the style and character of project and surrounding development and are
well related to each other.
As discussed above and shown in Figure 5-2 through Figure 5-6, the project would not
substantially alter the visual character of the project site and the surrounding area. The
building height, massing and materials are generally consistent with the surrounding land uses
and the project site includes landscaping, sidewalks, and signage that creates a consistent
streetscape. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to the visual
character of the project site and surrounding area. Impacts would be Class III, less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact AES-4: Introduce new light and glare to the project site and project area (Class II).
The project site is vacant land with no existing sources of light or glare, with exception to the
minimal temporary lighting associated with seasonal uses. Nearby sources of light and glare
include street lighting and vehicle traffic along Tassajara Road, Brannigan Street, Dublin
Boulevard, Central Parkway, Gleason Drive as well as freeway lighting and vehicle traffic along
Interstate 580. Other sources of existing lighting and glare in the surrounding area include
surface parking lighting of the commercial uses to the west and southeast, residential uses to
the north and east and the public park to the west.
Implementation of the project would include additional sources of commercial and residential
indoor lighting, outdoor/security lighting, parking area lighting, and illuminated signage.
Residential development pursuant to the project would result in a greater intensity of uses as
compared to existing conditions due to an increased number of structures (residential units),
additional streets, and other land uses that is typical of an urban density development. Exterior
project lighting would consist of wall- and pole-mounted fixtures around the perimeters of
buildings, landscaped areas, pedestrian pathways, streets, and in parking areas on the project
site. Light from these fixtures could spill beyond the project site and result in significant light
and glare impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control,
would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level (Class II).
Mitigation for Impact AES-4
MM AES-4.1 Exterior Lighting Control Plan
To minimize the adverse impact associated with light and glare, the applicant shall submit an
exterior lighting control plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director
prior to issuance of a building permit for vertical construction for building lighting or approval
of the final landscape plan for all other site lighting.
The exterior lighting control plan shall address the design and install all permanent exterior
lighting and all temporary construction lighting such that: (a) lamps and reflectors are not
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-16 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
directly visible from beyond the project site, as feasible; (b) lighting does not cause excessive
reflected glare; (c) direct lighting does not illuminate the nighttime sky; (d) illumination of the
project and its immediate vicinity is minimized; and (e) the lighting mitigation plan complies
with all relevant local policies and ordinances.
The exterior lighting control plan shall include the following:
A photometric study that demonstrates spillover horizontal foot-candle (fc) levels do
not exceed 1.0 fc at the project site boundary.
Identification of the location and direction of light fixtures that take the lighting
control requirements into account;
Lighting design that considers setbacks of project features from the site boundary to
aid in satisfying the lighting control requirements;
Lighting design that incorporates fixture hoods/shielding, with light directed
downward or toward the area to be illuminated;
Light fixtures that are visible from beyond the project boundary shall have cutoff
angles that are sufficient to prevent lamps and reflectors from being visible beyond
the project boundary, except where necessary for security;
Lighting figures that are a minimum necessary brightness, consistent with
operational safety and security; and
Where lights in high illumination areas not occupied on a continuous basis, utilize
timer switches or motion detectors so that the lights operate only when the area is
occupied.
5.6.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative aesthetic impacts includes the project
site viewshed and the visual character of its surroundings in the City of Dublin. Cumulative
projects considered are those that could be seen in proximity to the project site and taken
together would result in a substantial change to the project site viewshed.
Impact AES-5: Contribute to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts (Class II).
The geographic scope of the cumulative aesthetics, light, and glare analysis is the area
surrounding the project site. This is the area within view of the project and, therefore, the area
most likely to experience changes in visual character or experience light and glare impacts.
The area surrounding the project site is entirely developed with the exception of a vacant
parcel just north of Lowe’s which was part of the larger Grafton Station Planned Development.
The project vicinity is characterized by urban development and multi-family residential uses.
Much of the surrounding project area has been developed relatively recently in compliance
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Aesthetics| Page 5-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
with the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the City’s current municipal code
requirements related to design and visual character. Compliance with these standards as well
as the City’s review and approval role in the planning process have ensured a visually
compatible and cohesive development pattern in the surrounding area. Therefore, there is
currently no existing cumulatively significant visual aesthetic impact within the project area.
The project would be developed in several phases over a period of approximately six years. The
project would feature buildings as high as 74 feet (hotel); however, through the use of site
planning techniques such as setbacks, structure placement, and landscaping, the visual
appearance of the project would be softened such that it would be compatible with its
surroundings.
Therefore, with implementation of MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan, the project in
conjunction with other planned and approved projects, would not have a cumulatively
significant impact relating to aesthetics, light, and glare.
5.6.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 5-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Aesthetics summarizes the
environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project
with regard to aesthetics.
Table 5-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Aesthetics
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact AES-1: Adversely affect a
scenic vista (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact AES-2: Substantially damage
scenic resources within a state
scenic highway (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact AES-3: Substantially alter the
visual character of the project site
and project area, or substantially
change a scenic vista (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact AES-4: Introduce new light
and glare to the project site and
project area (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
Impact AES-5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable aesthetic
impacts (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM AES-4.1: Exterior Lighting Control Plan
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 5-18 | Aesthetics
Draft EIR
10/23/18
5.7 References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2015. State Scenic Highway Program.
Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/faq.htm. Accessed
January 23, 2018.
California Department of Finance. 2017. Demographic Research Unit. E-1 Population
Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State January 1, 2016 and 2017. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/. Accessed January
24, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
6 Air Quality
6.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the existing setting of the project site as it relates to air quality; identifies
associated regulatory conditions and requirements; presents the criteria used to evaluate
potential impacts on air quality; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid each
significant impact. The significance of each impact after the incorporation of identified
mitigation measures is included at the end of this chapter.
Information used to prepare this chapter came from the following sources:
Project application and related materials
Air quality data provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Clean Air Plan 2017
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 as amended 2017
6.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding air quality
were raised.
6.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on air quality conditions in the project area. The Regional
Setting provides information on the baseline conditions in the region. The Project Setting
defines the project area and describes baseline conditions for air quality within it.
6.3.1 Climate and Topography
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), which includes
Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San
Mateo County, and Santa Clara County. The Air Basin composes of an area of approximately
5,340 square miles in the San Francisco Bay Area. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) is responsible for local control and monitoring of criteria air pollutants throughout
the Air Basin.
The climate of the Air Basin is determined largely by a high-pressure system that is almost
always present over the eastern Pacific Ocean off the West Coast of North America in the
summer. During winter, the Pacific high-pressure system shifts southward, allowing storms to
pass through the region. During the summer, the large-scale meteorological condition that
dominates the West Coast is a semi-permanent high-pressure cell centered over the
northeastern portion of the Pacific Ocean.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-2 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Climatological conditions, an area’s topography, and the quantity and type of pollutants
released commonly determine ambient air quality. The project site is located in central
Alameda County in the San Francisco Bay Area, in the City of Dublin.
Climate, or the average weather condition, affects air quality in several ways. Wind patterns
can remove or add air pollutants emitted by stationary or mobile sources. Inversion, a
condition where warm air traps cooler air underneath it, can hold pollutants near the ground by
limiting upward mixing (dilution). Topography also affects the local climate, as valleys often
trap emissions by limiting lateral dispersal.
6.3.2 Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
The State and federal Clean Air Acts mandate the control and reduction of certain air
pollutants. Under these Acts, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for certain
“criteria” pollutants. Ambient air pollutant concentrations are affected by the rates and
distributions of corresponding air pollutant emissions, as well as by the climactic and
topographic influences discussed above. The primary determinant of concentrations of non-
reactive pollutants (such as carbon monoxide [CO] and inhalable particulate matter [PM10]) is
proximity to major sources. Ambient CO levels in particular usually closely follow the spatial
and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. A discussion of primary criteria pollutants is
provided below.
Ozone. Ozone (O3) is a colorless gas with a pungent odor. Most ozone in the atmosphere is
formed as a result of the interaction of ultraviolet light, reactive organic gases (ROG), and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX). ROG (the organic compound fraction relevant to ozone formation,
and sufficiently equivalent for the purposes of this analysis to volatile organic compounds, or
VOC) comprises of non-methane hydrocarbons (with some specific exclusions), and NOX
consists of different chemical combinations of nitrogen and oxygen, mainly NO and NO2. A
highly reactive molecule, ozone readily combines with many different components of the
atmosphere. Consequently, high levels of ozone tend to exist only while high ROG and NOX
levels are present to sustain the ozone formation process. Once the precursors have been
depleted, ozone levels rapidly decline. Given these reactions occur on a regional rather than
local scale, ozone is considered a regional pollutant.
Concentrations of ground-level ozone can irritate and cause inflammation of the mucus
membranes and lung airways; cause wheezing, coughing, and pain when inhaling deeply;
decrease lung capacity; and aggravate lung and heart problems.
Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless, gas. CO causes a number of
health problems including fatigue, headache, confusion, and dizziness. The incomplete
combustion of petroleum fuels in on-road vehicles and at power plants is a major cause of CO.
CO is also produced by use of wood stoves and fireplaces, which are more frequently used in
winter months. CO tends to dissipate rapidly into the atmosphere; consequently, violations of
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
the State CO standard are generally associated with major roadway intersections during peak
hour traffic conditions.
Localized CO “hotspots” can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically,
hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the
local CO concentration exceeds the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) of 35.0
parts per million (ppm) or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) of 20.0 ppm.
CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to
the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies),
and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most
susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more
susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of carbon monoxide.
Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary
source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen
oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating
the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant. A
relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in
bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 ppm may occur. Nitrogen dioxide
absorbs blue light and causes a reddish-brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It
can also contribute to the formation of PM10 and acid rain.
NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as
influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or
frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally
found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the
incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate
eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.
Particulate Matter. Suspended particulate matter (PM) consists of airborne dust small enough
to remain suspended in the air for long periods. Fine particulate matter includes particles small
enough to be inhaled, pass through the respiratory system, and lodge in the lungs, with
resultant health effects. Particulate matter can include materials such as sulfates and nitrates,
which are particularly damaging to the lungs. Studies of the health effects resulted in revision
of the Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) standard in 1987 to focus on particulates that are small
enough to be considered “inhalable,” i.e. 10 microns or less in size (PM10). In July of 1997, a
further revision of the federal standard added criteria for PM2.5, reflecting recent studies that
suggested that particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter are of particular concern.
Particulate matter can penetrate lungs and potentially damage the respiratory tract. The
health effects include increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways,
coughing, or difficulty breathing; asthma; chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-4 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Particulate matter also
reduces visibility.
Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is produced by such stationary sources as coal and oil
combustion, steel mills, refineries and pulp and paper mills. The major adverse health effects
associated with SO2 exposure pertain to the upper respiratory tract. SO2 is a respiratory irritant
with construction of the bronchioles occurring with inhalation of SO2 at 5 ppm or more. On
contact with the moist mucous membranes, SO2 produces sulfurous acid, which is a direct
irritant. Concentration rather than duration of the exposure is an important determinant of
respiratory effects. Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway
constriction in some asthmatics.
Lead. Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment, as well as in manufacturing
products. The major sources of lead emissions historically have been mobile and industrial
sources. As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, as discussed below, metal processing
currently is the primary source of lead emissions. The highest level of lead in the air is generally
found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-
acid battery manufacturers.
Historically, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the
air. In the early 1970s, U.S. EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in
gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic
converters. U.S. U.S. EPA completed the ban prohibiting the use of leaded gasoline in highway
vehicles in early 1996.1 As a result of U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from
gasoline, lead concentrations have declined substantially over the past several decades. The
most dramatic reductions in lead emissions occurred prior to 1990 in the transportation sector
due to the removal of lead from gasoline sold for most highway vehicles. Lead emissions were
further reduced substantially between 1990 and 2008, with significant reductions occurring in
the metals industries at least in part as a result of national emissions standards for hazardous
air pollutants.2
Exposure to lead occurs mainly through inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food, water,
soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood, bones, and soft tissues and can adversely affect the
kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause
neurological impairments such as seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders. Even
at low doses, lead exposure is associated with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses and
young children, resulting in learning deficits and lowered IQ.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register Vol. 67, No.101, May 24, 2002.
2 U.S. EPA 2013. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards – External Review Draft.
EPA – 452/P-13-001.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
U.S. EPA and CARB establish ambient air quality standards for major pollutants at thresholds
intended to protect public health. Federal and State standards have been established for
ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, lead, and PM10 and PM2.5.
Criteria air pollutant U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are provided in Table 6-1: Current National and State
Ambient Air Quality Standards. California standards are more restrictive than federal standards
for each of these pollutants, except for lead and the 8-hour average for CO.
Table 6-1: Current National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standards California Standard
Ozone (O3)
1-Hour --- 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NOX)
Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
1-Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SOX)
Annual 0.03 ppm ---
24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm
1-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
Inhalable
Particulates (PM10)
Annual --- 20 μg/m3
24-Hour 150 μg/m3 50 μg/m3
Fine Particulates
(PM2.5)
Annual 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3
24-Hour 35 μg/m3 ---
Lead (Pb)
30-Day Average --- 1.5 μg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average 0.15 μg/m3 ---
ppm = parts per million;
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: CARB, 2016; U.S. EPA, 2016.
6.3.3 Current Ambient Air Quality
Local air districts and CARB monitor ambient air quality to assure that air quality standards are
met, and if they are not met, to also develop strategies to meet the standards. Air quality
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-6 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
monitoring stations measure pollutant ground-level concentrations (typically, ten feet above
ground level). Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the local air basin is
classified as in “attainment” or “non-attainment.” Some areas are unclassified, which means no
monitoring data is available. Unclassified areas are considered to be in attainment. Table 6-2:
Attainment Status of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin summarizes the State and federal
attainment status for criteria pollutants in the Air Basin.
Table 6-2: Attainment Status of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
Pollutant State Standard Federal Standard
Ozone (O3) Non-attainment 1 Non-attainment2
Inhalable Particulates (PM10) Non-attainment3 Unclassified
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Non-attainment3 Unclassified
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment4
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOX) Attainment ---5
Sulfur Dioxide (SOX) Attainment ---6
Lead (Pb) --- Attainment7
Notes:
1. The CARB approved the 8-hour CA ozone standard on April 28, 2005 and became effective May 17, 2006.
2. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075
to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone
concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm. EPA will make
recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1,
2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment
dates varying based on the ozone level in the area.
3. In June 2002, the CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10
4. In April 1998, the Bay Area was re-designated to attainment for the national 8-hour carbon monoxide
standard.
5. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at
each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100ppm (effective January 22, 2010). The US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) expects to make a designation for the Bay Area by the end of 2017.
6. On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is
based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The
existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one
year following U.S. EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA expects to make designation
for the Bay Area by the end of 2017.
7. The final rule for rolling 3-month average was signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective
December 31, 2011.
Non-attainment pollutants are highlighted in Bold.
Source: BAAQMD, 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.
As shown in Table 6-2: Attainment Status of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, although the
BAAQMD is in attainment or unclassifiable as to all NAAQS, it is designated as non-attainment
with respect to the more stringent State PM10 standard and the State’s 8-hour ozone standard.
BAAQMD operates 40 air monitoring stations within the nine Bay Area counties. There are
seven active monitoring stations within Alameda County: Berkeley Aquatic Park, Hayward,
three within Oakland, and two in Livermore. The nearest monitoring stations to the project site
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
is the Livermore monitoring station (approximately 4.8 miles east of the project site). However,
the Livermore monitoring station does not measure PM10 and therefore the Concord
monitoring station summary averages were used. Table 6-3: Ambient Air Quality Data,
summarizes the representative annual air quality data for the project vicinity over the past
three years.
Table 6-3: Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant 2014 2015 2016
Ozone (ppm), Worst 1-Hour 0.093 0.105 0.102
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 1 2
Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.08 ppm) 0 0 0
Ozone (ppm), 8-Hour Average 0.08 0.081 0.085
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.07 ppm) 6 7 4
Carbon Monoxide (ppm), Highest 8-Hour Average no data no data no data
Number of days of above State or Federal standard (>9.0 ppm) -- -- --
Particulate Matter <10 microns, Pg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 40.8 22.5 18.7
Number of days above State standard (>50 Pg/m3) 0 0 0
Number of days above Federal standard (>150 Pg/m3) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, Pg/m3, Worst 24 Hours 42.9 31.1 22.3
Number of days above Federal standard (>65 Pg/m3) 1 0 0
Source: CARB Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System (ADAM) Top Four Summaries from 2014 to 2016.
Given that the BAAQMD is designated as non-attainment for State standards for ozone and
PM10, these are the primary pollutants of concern for the BAAQMD. As indicated in Table 6-3:
Ambient Air Quality Data, there were no federal ozone exceedances at the nearest BAAQMD
monitoring station in 2014, 2015, or 2016. The State 8-hour average exceed six days in 2014,
seven days in 2015, and four days in 2016. The State and federal standards for PM10 were not
exceeded in the three years, and the federal standards for PM2.5 were exceeded for one day in
2014, and none in 2013 and 2014.
6.3.4 Hazardous Air Pollutants/Toxic Air Contaminants
Both the U.S. EPA and CARB regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)/ toxic air contaminants
(TACs). According to Section 39655 of the California Health and Safety Code, a TAC is “an air
pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious
illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” In addition, 189
substances that have been listed as federal hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) pursuant to Section
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-8 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
7412 of Title 42 of the United States Code are TACs under the State’s air toxics program
pursuant to Section 39657 (b) of the California Health and Safety Code.
TACs can cause various cancers, depending on the particular chemicals, their type and duration
of exposure. Additionally, some of the TACs may cause other health effects with short or long-
term exposure. The ten TACs posing the greatest health risk in California are acetaldehyde,
benzene, 1-3 butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene,
formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchlorethylene, and diesel particulate matter (DPM).
Mobile sources of TACs include freeways and other roads with high traffic volumes, while
stationary sources include distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, dry cleaners, and
large gas dispensing facilities. The project site is not located near any major sources of TACs.
For cancer health effects, the risk is expressed as the number of chances in a population of a
million people who might be expected to get cancer over a 70-year lifetime.
6.4 Regulatory Setting
This analysis has been prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and
associated Guidelines (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq. and California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Chapter 3 sections 15000 – 15387) and in accordance with local, State and federal
laws, including those administered by BAAWMD, CARB, and the EPA. The principal air quality
regulatory mechanisms include the following:
Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), in particular, the 1990 amendments;
California Clean Air Act (CCAA);
California Health and Safety Code (H&SC), in particular, Chapter 3.5 (Toxic Air
Contaminants) (H&SC Section 39650 et. seq.) and Part 6 (Air Toxics “Hot Spots”
Information and Assessment) (H&SC Section 44300 et. seq.).
BAAQMD’s Rules and Regulations and air quality planning documents
6.4.1 Federal and State
As discussed below, the federal and State governments have been empowered by FCAA and
CCAA, respectively, to regulate the emission of airborne pollutants and have established
ambient air quality standards for the protection of public health. U.S. EPA is the federal agency
designated to administer air quality regulation, while CARB is the State equivalent in California.
Local control in air quality management is provided by CARB through county-level or regional
(multi-county) air pollution control districts (APCDs). CARB establishes air quality standards and
is responsible for control of mobile emission sources, while the local APCDs are responsible for
enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. CARB has established 14 air basins
statewide.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Federal Clean Air Act
U.S. EPA is charged with implementing national air quality programs. U.S. EPA’s air quality
mandates are drawn primarily from the FCAA. The FCAA was passed in 1963 by the U.S.
Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 FCAA amendments strengthened
previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s.
In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including non-attainment requirements for
areas not meeting NAAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990
FCAA amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection
of air quality in the U.S. The FCAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include
other pollution species.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The FCAA requires U.S. EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS for a number of criteria
air pollutants. The air pollutants for which standards have been established are considered the
most prevalent air pollutants that are known to be hazardous to human health. NAAQS have
been established for the following pollutants: O3, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.
Title III of the Federal Clean Air Act
As discussed above, HAPs are the air contaminants identified by the U.S. EPA as known or
suspected to cause cancer, other serious illnesses, birth defects, or death. The FCAA requires
the U.S. EPA to set standards for these pollutants and reduce emissions of controlled
chemicals. Specifically, Title III of the FCAA requires the U.S. EPA to promulgate National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for certain categories of sources
that emit one or more pollutants that are identified as HAPs. The FCAA also requires the U.S.
EPA to set standards to control emissions of HAPs through mobile source control programs.
These include programs that reformulated gasoline, national low emissions vehicle standards,
Tier 2 motor vehicle emission standards, gasoline sulfur control requirements, and heavy-duty
engine standards.
HAPs tend to be localized and are found in relatively low concentrations in ambient air.
However, they can result in adverse chronic health effects if exposure to low concentrations
occurs for long periods. Many HAPs originate from human activities, such as fuel combustion
and solvent use. Emission standards may differ between “major sources” and “area sources” of
the HAPs/TACs. Under the FCAA, major sources are defined as stationary sources with the
potential to emit more than 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or more than 25 tpy of any
combination of HAPs; all other sources are considered area sources. Mobile source air toxics
(MSATs) are a subset of the 188 HAPs. Of the 21 HAPs identified by the U.S. EPA as MSATs, a
priority list of six HAPs were identified that include: diesel exhaust, benzene, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1, 3-butadiene. While vehicle miles traveled in the United States
are expected to increase by 45 percent over the period 2010 to 2050, a combined reduction of
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-10 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
91 percent in the total annual emissions for the priority MSAT is projected for the same time
period.3
California Clean Air Act
The CCAA, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the State to achieve and maintain the
CAAQS by the earliest practical date. CARB is the State air pollution control agency and is a part
of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). CARB is the agency responsible for
coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California, and
for implementing the requirements of the CCAA. CARB overseas local district compliance with
California and federal laws, approves local air quality plans, submits the State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) to U.S. EPA, monitors air quality, determines and updates area designations and
maps, and sets emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility
engines, off-road vehicles, and fuels.
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
The CCAA requires CARB to establish CAAQS. Similar to the NAAQS, CAAQS have been
established for the following pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, Pb, vinyl chloride,
hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and visibility-reducing particulates. In most cases, the CAAQS are
more stringent than the NAAQS. The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the State
endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies
that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from
transportation and area-wide emission sources and provides districts with the authority to
regulate indirect sources.
Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act
TACs 4 in California primarily are regulated through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the
Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) (Hot Spots Act). As
discussed above, HAPs/TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or
mortality (cancer risk). HAPs/TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are
caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g. dry cleaners).
Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the
regional, State and federal level.
AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Research,
public participation, and scientific peer review are necessary before CARB can designate a
substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and adopted the U.S.
EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. In 1998, DPM was added to CARB’s list of TACs. Once a TAC is
identified, CARB adopts an Airborne Toxic Control Measure for sources that emit that particular
3 Federal Highway Administration, 2016. Updated. Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents.
4 TACs are referred to as HAPs under the FCAA.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
TAC. If a safe threshold exists at which no toxic effect occurs from a substance, the control
measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If no safe threshold exists, the measure
must incorporate Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize emissions.
The Hot Spots Act requires for existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified
level to prepare a toxic emissions inventory and a risk assessment if the emissions are
significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction
measures.
Diesel Exhaust and Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-
thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average). According to CARB, diesel
exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This mixture makes the
evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some chemicals in
diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by
CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under State Proposition 65 or under the Federal
Hazardous Air Pollutants programs.
CARB reports that recent air pollution studies have shown an association between diesel
exhaust and other cancer-causing toxic air contaminants emitted from vehicles and much of the
overall cancer risk from TACs in California. DPM was found to compose much of that risk.
CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources
to reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium- and heavy-
duty diesel trucks that generate the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These
include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in-use public and utility fleet regulations,
and the heavy-duty diesel truck and bus regulations. The regulation requires affected vehicles
to meet specific performance requirements between 2011 and 2023, with all affected diesel
vehicles required to have 2010 model-year engines or the equivalent by 2023. These
requirements are phased in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the
vehicle. With implementation of CARB’s Risk Reduction Plan, DPM concentrations are expected
to be reduced by 85 percent in 2020 from the estimated year-2000 level.5 As emissions are
reduced, risks associated with exposure to emissions also are expected to be reduced.
CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook
In April 2005, CARB released the final version of its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective. This guidance document is intended to encourage local land
use agencies to consider the risks from air pollution before they approve the siting of sensitive
land uses (e.g. residences) near sources of air pollution, particularly TACs (e.g. freeway and
high traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, dry cleaners,
5 CARB. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-12 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
gasoline stations and industrial facilities). These advisory recommendations include general
setbacks or buffers from air pollution sources. However, unlike industrial or stationary sources
of air pollution, the siting of new sensitive land use does not require air quality permits or
approval by air districts, and as noted above, the CARB handbook provides guidance only rather
than binding regulations.
CAPCOA Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects
The California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA), which is a consortium of air
district managers throughout California, provides guidance material to addressing air quality
issues in the State. As a follow up to CARB’s 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, CAPCOA
prepared the Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.6 CAPCOA released this
guidance document to ensure that the health risk of projects be identified, assessed, and avoid
or mitigated, if feasible, through the CEQA process. The CAPCOA guidance document provides
recommended methodologies for evaluating health risk impacts for development projects.
6.4.2 Regional
The BAAQMD regulates air quality in the SFBAAB and is responsible for attainment planning
related to criteria air pollutants and for district rule development and enforcement. The district
inspects stationary sources and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality
and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by law. It
also reviews air quality analyses prepared for CEQA assessments and has published the CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines documents for use in evaluation of air quality impacts.
Air Quality Management Plan
The BAAQMD is responsible for developing a Clean Air Plan, which guides the region’s air
quality planning efforts to attain the CAAQS. The BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan on
April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains district-wide control measures to reduce
ozone precursor emissions (i.e., ROG and NOx), particulate matter, TACs, and greenhouse gas
emissions. The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan in
accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible
measures” to reduce ozone; provides a control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, TACs, and
greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan; reviews progress in improving air quality in
recent years; and establishes emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in both
the short term and through 2050.
The following BAAQMD rules would limit emissions of air pollutants from construction and
operation of the project:
6 CAPCOA. 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Regulation 6, Rule 3. Wood-Burning Devices. The purpose of this rule is to limit
emissions of particulate matter and visible emissions from wood-burning devices
used for primary heat, supplemental heat or ambiance.
Regulation 8, Rule 3. Architectural Coatings. This rule governs the manufacture,
distribution, and sale of architectural coatings and limits the reactive organic gases
content in paints and paint solvents. Although this rule does not directly apply to
the project, it does dictate the ROG content of paint available for use during the
construction.
Regulation 8, Rule 15. Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts. This rule dictates the reactive
organic gases content of asphalt available for use during construction through
regulating the sale and use of asphalt and limits the ROG content in asphalt.
Although this rule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the ROG
content of asphalt for use during the construction.
Regulation 9, Rule 8. Organic Compounds. This rule limits the emissions of nitrogen
oxides and carbon monoxide from stationary internal combustion engines with an
output rated by the manufacturer at more than 50 brake horsepower.
BAAQMD prepared an Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan to satisfy the federal 1-hour
ozone planning requirement because of the Air Basin’s nonattainment for federal and State
ozone standards. The U.S. EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard and adopted an 8-hour
ozone standard. The BAAQMD will address the new federal 8-hour ozone planning
requirements once they are established.
CARE Program
Initiated in 2004, the Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program evaluates and reduces
health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area. The program examines
TAC emissions from point sources, area sources, and on-road and off-road mobile sources with
an emphasis on diesel exhaust. The CARE program is ongoing and encourages community
involvement and input. The technical analysis portion of the CARE program is being
implemented in three phases that include an assessment of the sources of TAC emissions,
modeling, and measurement programs to estimate concentrations of TACs, and an assessment
of exposures and health risks. Throughout the program, information derived from the technical
analyses will be used to focus emission reduction measures in areas with high TAC exposures
and a high density of sensitive populations. Risk reduction activities associated with the CARE
program are focused on the most at-risk communities in the Bay Area. BAAQMD has identified
six affected communities, including San Jose, as in need of immediate action.
For commercial and industrial sources, the BAAQMD regulates TACs using a risk-based
approach. This approach uses a health risk assessment to determine what sources and
pollutants to control as well as the degree of control. A health risk assessment is an analysis in
which human health exposure to toxic substances is estimated and considered together with
information regarding the toxic potency of the substances, to provide a quantitative estimate of
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-14 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
health risks. As part of ongoing efforts to identify and assess potential health risks to the
public, the BAAQMD has collected and compiled air toxics emissions data from industrial and
commercial sources of air pollution throughout the Bay Area.
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality
impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide
recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review
process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of
significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include
recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions.
In June 2010, the BAAQMD’s Board of Directors adopted CEQA thre sholds of significance and an
update of the CEQA Guidelines. In May 2011, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines were amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and
modified procedures for assessing impacts related to risk and hazard impacts.
In May 2017, the BAAQMD published updated Guidelines responding to the 2015 California
Supreme Court Decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (S213478) that CEQA does not generally require an agency to consider the
effects of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents, such as the
effects of toxic air contaminants and fine particulate matter from existing sources on future
residents or users of a project. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court stated that lead agencies still
must evaluate existing environmental conditions to assess whether a project could exacerbate
hazards that are already present. The Supreme Court did not apply a holding to reach a
conclusion on the validity of BAAQMD’s receptor thresholds. Instead, the Supreme Court
remanded the case to the Court of Appeal to decide the question in light of the Court’s opinion.
As of the date of this document, BAAQMD has not formally re-instated the thresholds.7
CALGreen
CALGreen is a set of mandatory green building standards for new construction that went into
effect throughout California on January 1, 2011 and was most recently updated in 2016 with
provisions effective in 2017. These building standards apply to all new public and privately-
constructed commercial and residential buildings. CALGreen is referred to officially as the
California Green Building Standards Code and includes a matrix of mandatory requirements
tailored to residential and non-residential building classifications, as well as two sets of
7 The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) provides grant funding for cleaner-than-required
engines and equipment. Local air districts administer these grants and select which projects to fund.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
voluntary measures (CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2) that provide a host of more stringent
sustainable building practices and features. Among the key mandatory provisions are
requirements that new buildings:
Reduce indoor potable water use by at least 20% below current standards;
Recycle or salvage at least 65%8 of construction waste;
Utilize low VOC-emitting finish materials and flooring systems;
Install separate water meters tracking non-residential buildings’ indoor and outdoor
water use;
Utilize moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape areas;
Receive mandatory inspections by local officials of building energy systems, such as
HVAC and mechanical equipment, to verify performance in accordance with
specifications in non-residential buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet; and
Earmark parking for fuel-efficient and carpool vehicles.
6.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policy as it relates to air quality:
Implementing Policy 7.5.1.A.1: Request that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
establish an air quality monitoring station in Dublin.
Implementing Policy 7.5.1.A.2: Require an air quality analysis for new development projects
that could generate significant air emissions on a project and cumulative level. Air quality
analyses shall include specific feasible measures to reduce anticipated air quality emissions to a
less than significant California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) level.
Guiding Policy 13.3.2.A
1.Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new residential and
commercial development.
2.Encourage designing for solar access.
8 The City of Dublin has a more stringent requirement and requires that at least 65 percent for remodels and 75 percent for new construction
by weight of the total construction and demolition debris generated by a project via reuse or recycling excluding asphalt and concrete debris of
which 100 percent must be diverted, unless the applicant has been granted an infeasible exemption (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.30).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-16 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
3.Encourage energy efficient improvements be made on residential and commercial
properties.
Implementing Policies 13.3.2.B
3. In new commercial and residential parking lots, require the installation of conduit to
serve electric vehicle parking spaces to enable the easier installation of future
charging stations.
4. Encourage the installation of charging stations for commercial projects over a
certain size and any new residential project that has open parking (i.e. not
individual, enclosed garages).
6.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
6.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for air quality were derived from the Environmental Checklist
in the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Exceedance of a CAAQS or NAAQS for any criteria
pollutant (as determined by modeling).
Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the Clean Bay Area 2017.
Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Cumulative impact of any criteria pollutant.
Air Quality Thresholds
Under CEQA, the BAAQMD is an expert commenting agency on air quality within its jurisdiction
or impacting its jurisdiction. Under the FCAA, the BAAQMD has adopted Federal attainment
plans for ozone (O3) and particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5). The
BAAQMD reviews projects to ensure that they would not: (1) cause or contribute to any new
violation of any air quality standard; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing
violation of any air quality standard; or (3) delay timely attainment of any air quality standard
or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones of any Federal attainment
plan.
The BAAQMD Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009) establishes thresholds
based on substantial evidence, and the thresholds are consistent with the thresholds outlined
within the 2010/2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The thresholds have been
developed by the BAAQMD to attain State and Federal ambient air quality standards.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Construction Emissions
The regional construction emissions associated with the project were calculated using the most
recent version of CalEEMod with default inputs for the type and size of proposed land uses,
including the types and number of pieces of equipment that would be used on-site during each
construction phase and off-site vehicle trips that would result from construction activities on
the project site. CalEEMod is a computer model developed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District to estimate air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land
use development projects and is based on parameters that include the duration of construction
activity, area of disturbance, and anticipated equipment used during construction.
The following significance criteria for air quality were derived from BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines and are summarized in Table 6-4: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for
Construction and Operational Emissions.
Table 6-4: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Construction Emissions
Pollutant of Concern Daily Threshold During Construction
ROG 54 lbs./ day
NOx 54 lbs./ day
PM10 82 lbs./day (exhaust only)
PM2.5 54 (exhaust only)
PM10 / PM2.5 (fugitive dust) Best Management Practices
Note:
Project-Level emissions
Source: BAAQMD, 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status
Short-term construction emission thresholds, as stated in BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines, involve identifying the level of construction activity that could result in significant
temporary impacts if not mitigated. Construction activities (e.g., excavation, grading, on-site
vehicle movements) that directly exceed BAAQMD criterion for PM10 PM2.5 would have a
significant impact on local air quality when they are located nearby and upwind of sensitive
receptors (BAAQMD, 2017c). Regarding ozone, construction projects using typical equipment
that temporarily emits ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOX) are accommodated in the emission
inventories of State and federally required air quality management plans and would not have a
significant impact on ozone concentrations (BAAQMD, 2017b).
If construction-related activities exceed the BAAQMD thresholds, the project would be
characterized as contributing substantially to existing or new violations of the CAAQS.
The construction activities associated with residential development pursuant to the project
would generate diesel emissions and dust. Construction equipment that would generate
criteria air pollutants includes excavators, graders, dump trucks, and loaders. It is assumed that
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-18 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
this type of equipment would be used during both grading/demolition and construction. It is
also assumed that all of the construction equipment used would be diesel-powered.
Complete results from CalEEMod and assumptions can be viewed in Appendix B.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions associated with on-site development were also estimated using
CalEEMod. Operational emissions would comprise mobile source emissions, emissions
associated with energy consumption, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are
generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the project site associated with
operation of a project. Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity and natural gas
consumption for space and water heating and cooling. Area source emissions are generated
by, for example, landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural
coatings.
Table 6-5: BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions
Pollutant of Concern Daily Threshold During Operation
Maximum Annual Emissions
During Operations (tpy)
ROG 54 lbs./ day 10
NOx 54 lbs./ day 10
PM10 82 lbs./day 15
PM2.5 54 lbs./day 10
Local CO 9.0 ppm (8- hour average), 20.0 ppm (1-hour average)
Note:
Project-Level emissions
Source: BAAQMD, 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status
The criteria for assessing cumulative impacts on localized air quality (i.e. the cumulative impacts
of CO and PM10) are identical to those for individual project operation. The criteria for
determine a project's cumulative impact on regional ozone levels depends on consistency with
the applicable AQMP. Consistency with the AQMP does not mean that a project will not have a
significant project-specific adverse air quality impact. However, inconsistency with the AQMP is
considered a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. The Association of Bay Area
Governments also provides consistency determinations for population-related projects. A
quantitative CO impact analysis is not required, if the following criteria are met:
Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency
plans.
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to
more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to
more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is
substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban
street canyon, below-grade roadway).
BAAQMD guidelines state that odor impacts would be significant if there have been five
complaints per year averaged over three years within certain screening thresholds. If
construction or operation of the project would emit pollutants associated with odors in
substantial amounts, the analysis should assess the impact on existing or reasonably
foreseeable sensitive receptors.
The BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan was prepared to accommodate growth, meet State and
Federal air quality standards, and minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures
have on the local economy. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, project-
related emissions that fall below the established construction and operational thresholds
should be considered less than significant unless there is pertinent information to the contrary.
If a project exceeds these emission thresholds, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines states
that the significance of a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts should be determined
based on whether the rate of growth in average daily trips exceeds the rate of growth in
population.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
Impact Assessment Methodology
The analysis of air quality impacts conforms to the methodologies recommended in the
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The handbook includes thresholds for emissions
associated with both construction and operation of projects.
6.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
There are no “no” impacts nor “beneficial” impacts.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-20 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
6.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact AQ-1: Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the San Francisco Bay Area 2017
Clean Air Plan. (Class I)
The project site is in the City of Dublin, which is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin (SFBAAB). The BAAQMD is responsible for assuring that the National and California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS and CAAQS) are attained and maintained in the SFBAAB.
The SFBAAB exceeds the state air quality standards for ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM10
and PM2.5). The area is designated nonattainment for federal standards of 8-hour ozone, 24-
hour PM2.5, and State standards for 24-hour and annual PM10, and annual PM2.5.
The project is consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan policies that are applicable to the project.
As discussed in Table 6-6: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures,
the project would comply with city, state, and regional requirements. However, as discussed
below in Impacts AQ-2 and AQ-5, the project would exceed air quality thresholds with MM AQ-
2.1 through AQ-2.4.
Table 6-6: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures
Control Measure Project Consistency
Stationary Source Control Measures
SS21: New Source Review of Toxic
Air Contaminants
Consistent. This EIR has included preparation of a construction health
risk assessment (HRA) (see Impact discussion AQ-3), which found the
project’s toxic air contaminant emissions would result in less than
significant cancer and non- cancer (acute and chronic) impacts to the
nearby sensitive receptors.
SS25: Coatings, Solvents, Lubricants,
Sealants and Adhesives
Consistent. The project would comply with Regulation 8, Rule 3:
Architectural Coatings, which would dictate the ROG content of paint
available for use during construction. The project would also
implement Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Architectural Coating per
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3. MM AQ-2.3 also further restricts the
ROG content of paint to ensure that BAAQMD thresholds are not
exceeded.
SS26: Surface Prep and Cleaning
Solvent
SS29: Asphaltic Concrete
Consistent. Paving activities associated with the project would be
required to utilize asphalt that does not exceed BAAQMD emission
standards in Regulation 8, Rule 15.
SS30: Residential Fan Type Furnaces
Consistent. BAAQMD is the responsible party for implementation of
this regulation and that the project would use the latest central
furnaces that comply with the applicable regulations. The project
would not conflict with BAAQMD's implementation of that measure.
SS31: General Particulate Matter
Emissions Limitation
Consistent. The proposed restaurants would be required to utilize
particulate emissions reduction equipment associated with their
commercial cooking equipment.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Control Measure Project Consistency
SS32: Emergency Back-up
Generators
Consistent. Use of back-up generators by the project is currently
unknown. However, if emergency generators were to be installed they
would be required to meet the BAAQMD’s emissions standards for
back-up generators.
SS33: Commercial Cooking
Equipment
Consistent. If any of the proposed restaurants install a charbroiler, a
catalytic oxidizer system must also be installed pursuant to BAAQMD
Rule 6-2.
SS34: Wood Smoke Consistent. As per Mitigation Measure AQ-4, wood burning fireplaces
would be prohibited at the project.
SS36: Particulate Matter from
Trackout
Consistent. Mud and dirt that may be tracked out onto the nearby
public roads during construction activities shall be removed promptly
by the contractor based on BAAQMD’s requirements.
SS37: Particulate Matter from
Asphalt Operations
Consistent. Paving and roofing activities associated with the project
would be required to utilize best management practices to minimize
the particulate matter created from the transport and application of
road and roofing asphalt.
SS38: Fugitive Dust
Consistent. Material stockpiling and track out during grading activities
as well as smoke and fumes from paving and roofing asphalt
operations shall utilize best management practices to minimize the
creation of fugitive dust.
SS40: Odors Consistent. The project would comply with Regulation 7 to strengthen
odor standards and enhance enforceability.
Transportation Control Measures
TR2: Trip Reduction Programs
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-22 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Control Measure Project Consistency
TR8: Ridesharing and Last-Mile
Connections
Consistent. The project would comply through various design features
including using “smart growth” principles as an urban in-fill
development with a mix of retail, entertainment, and residential uses
adjacent to transit/multi-modal corridors and within two miles of a
BART station. The project facilitates the use of existing bus routes with
stops adjacent to the project site. The Livermore Amador Valley
Transit Authority (LAVTA) runs bus service from the project site (Dublin
Boulevard and Tassajara Road) to the BART station with 15-minute
headways during peak commute hours. Additionally, the project would
improve and complete pedestrian and bicycle connections around its
perimeter and through the project site. Bicycle storage would be
provided in the apartments and bicycle racks would be provided near
the commercial uses. The project would also improve and complete
bicycle lanes and facilities along the perimeter and through the project
site that connect with existing bicycle routes. The project includes
landscaped paseos and pedestrian pathways that would directly
connect residents and retail patrons with adjacent open space,
surrounding neighborhoods and nearby Emerald Glen Park. Sidewalks
on the streets surrounding the project site would be improved and a
10-foot public multi-use trail would be constructed on the north side of
Central Parkway and an on-street bicycle lane along Dublin Boulevard,
Tassajara Road, Central Parkway, and Gleason Drive.
The commercial uses are also planned at a higher density through the
application of shared parking. The shared parking plan would allow
parking to be shared by the apartments and commercial space, along
with shared parking between hospitality uses with complimentary peak
demand.
TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
Facilities
Consistent. The project has existing class II bike lanes along Tassajara
and Dublin Boulevard. Gleason Drive and Central Parkway, east and
west of the project site have class II bicycle lanes. Additionally, the site
has pedestrian connections and crosswalks to adjacent retail and
commercial uses (e.g. Shops at Waterford, Grafton Plaza, Emerald
Glen Park).
TR10: Land Use Strategies
Consistent. The project site is located within 1.5 miles of an existing
BART rail station, adjacent to park and ride lot, and proposed infill and
mixed-use.
TR13: Parking Policies
Consistent. The project is including the required amount of parking as
per the City of Dublin Municipal Code. The project will include 577
shared parking spaces in the mixed-use commercial area. The
commercial area will include 1,048 parking spaces including 119
electric vehicle parking. The residential areas will have 609 parking
spaces.
TR19: Medium and Heavy Duty
Trucks
Not Applicable. Although the project does not involve warehousing or
industrial uses that would generate substantial truck trips, the project
would not conflict with the implementation of this measure.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-23
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Control Measure Project Consistency
TR22: Construction, Freight and
Farming Equipment
Consistent. The project would comply through implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which requires all construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower to meet the Tier 4 emissions standards.
Energy and Climate Control Measures
EN1: Decarbonize Electricity
Generation
Consistent. The project would be constructed in accordance with the
latest building code and green building regulations/ CalGreen. The City
of Dublin has a CalGreen Residential Building Checklist that the project
would comply with. EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand
Buildings Control Measures
BL1: Green Buildings Consistent. The project would be constructed in accordance with the
latest building code and green building regulations/ CalGreen. The
project would comply with the City of Dublin’s CalGreen Residential
Building Checklist.
L2: Decarbonize Buildings
BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation
Consistent. The project would reduce urban heat island effects by
providing green common spaces. The project would construct a
parking structure shared between uses that would provide shade and
reduce surface parking/asphalt and therefore minimize the urban heat
island effect.
Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
NW2: Urban Tree Planting
Consistent. The project would implement a landscape plan that has
been designed to meet the City’s tree requirements in parking lots in
order to reduce the urban heat island phenomenon that occurs in
surface parking lots.
Waste Management Control Measures
WA1: Landfills
Consistent. The waste service provider for the project will be required
to meet the AB 341 and SB 939, 1374, and 1383 requirements that
require waste service providers to divert waste.
WA3: Green Waste Diversion
Consistent. The waste service provider for the project will be required
to meet the AB 341 and SB 939, 1374, and 1383 requirements that
require waste service providers to divert green waste.
WA4: Recycling and Waste
Reduction
Consistent. The waste service provider for the project will be required
to meet the AB 341 and SB 939, 1374, and 1383 requirements that
require waste to be recycled.
Water Control Measures
WR2: Support Water Conservation
Consistent: The project would implement water conservation
measures and low flow fixtures as per the requirements of Title 24 and
CalGreen. The City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.88 has Water-
Efficient Landscaping Regulations which includes various specifications
for plant types, water features, and irrigation design etc.
Source: BAAQMD, 2017. Clean Air Plan and Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-24 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The 2017 Clean Air Plan assumptions for projected air emissions and pollutants in the city are
based on the land use and development projection assumptions in the General Plan. The
project site currently has a primary land use designation of General Commercial with a small
area of Public/Semi-public and Neighborhood Commercial as well as varying densities of
residential along Brannigan Street. The project would require a General Plan amendment,
Specific Plan amendment, a rezone, tentative parcel map, and site development review.
As described below in Impact AQ-2, construction and operational air quality emissions
generated by the project would exceed the BAAQMD’s emissions thresholds despite the
implementation of mitigation measures. These thresholds are established to identify projects
that have the potential to generate a substantial amount of criteria air pollutants.
Because the project would exceed these thresholds, the project would be considered by the
BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants and has the potential to result in
an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or delay timely
attainment of air quality standards and contribute to non-attainment areas in the SFBAAB.
Therefore, the project would potentially conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and impacts
would be significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM AQ-2.1 through AQ-2.4, below.
Impact AQ-2: Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation (Class I).
Construction Impacts
Construction emissions would include the generation of fugitive dust, on-site generation of
construction equipment exhaust emissions, and the off-site generation of mobile source
emissions related to construction traffic. Short-term air quality impacts are predicted to occur
during grading, and construction operations associated with implementation of the project.
Emissions produced during grading and construction activities would cease following
completion of the development.
As discussed in Chapter 3: Project Description, it is assumed that the entirety of the project
would be constructed in two phases (with phase 2 broken into two sub phases) over
approximately five years, beginning in April 2020 with completion by June 2025. Construction
activities would include grading, off-site and on-site infrastructure, paving, building
construction, and architectural coating. The resulting total cut and fill of soils for the project
site is estimated to be approximately 96,300 cubic yards. Construction equipment includes
excavators, rubber-tired dozers, graders, scrapers, trenchers, tractors, and pavers. Exhaust
emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) program defaults. Variables factored into estimating
the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of weather conditions,
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-25
Draft EIR
10/23/18
number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-
site.
Maximum daily emissions for each year of construction has been quantified based upon the
phase durations and equipment types. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been
prepared utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Refer to Appendix B,
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, for the CalEEMod outputs and results.
Table 6-7: Construction Air Emissions, presents the anticipated daily construction emissions
which would remain below their respective thresholds except for ROG and NOX due to the
overlap of several sub-phases.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-26 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 6-7: Construction Air Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds per day)
ROG NOx
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
2020
Unmitigated 33.37 353.09 16.99 15.66
Mitigated1 5.40 26.76 0.65 0.65
2021
Unmitigated 87.32 577.56 22.95 21.25
Mitigated1 52.83 159.79 1.37 1.35
2022
Unmitigated 74.32 416.34 14.95 13.89
Mitigated1 50.57 148.01 1.20 1.18
2023
Unmitigated 60.04 252.67 8.74 8.15
Mitigated1 46.43 109.17 0.78 0.76
2024
Unmitigated 34.99 113.72 2.72 2.56
Mitigated1 30.34 66.37 0.35 0.34
2025
Unmitigated 27.90 56.31 1.26 1.19
Mitigated1 25.58 33.13 0.18 0.18
Maximum Unmitigated 87.32 577.56 22.95 21.25
Maximum Mitigated1 52.83 159.79 1.37 1.35
BAAQMD Significance
Thresholds
54 54 82 54
Threshold Exceeded? No Yes No No
Notes:
1. The reduction/credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigation included in CalEEMod and as typically required by the
BAAQMD (Basic Control Measures and Regulation 6: Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions). The mitigation includes the following: replace
ground cover on disturbed areas quickly, water exposed surfaces twice daily, and proper loading/unloading of mobile and other construction
equipment. Additional mitigation involves compliance with an additional control measure requiring the use of CARB Certified low-NOX
emissions equipment and the use of low volatile organic compound (VOC) coatings (compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3;
Architectural Coatings).
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-27
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Fugitive Dust. The project would require grading of the entire project during the initial phases.
Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill
operations, demolition, and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Dust emissions also vary
substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and
weather conditions. Fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on
local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the
project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential
health hazard to those living and working nearby. The BAAQMD recommends the
implementation of all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, whether or not construction-
related emissions exceed applicable significance thresholds; refer to MM AQ-2.1.
Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust. Exhaust emission factors for typical
diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the CalEEMod program defaults. Variables
factored into estimating the total construction emissions include: level of activity, length of
construction period, number of pieces/types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather
conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported
onsite or offsite.
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport
of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced on site as the
equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials and workers to and from
the site. Emitted pollutants would include ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Despite the
implementation of Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, NOX thresholds would be exceeded
during construction. Therefore, MM AQ-2.2 would be required to reduce NOX emissions.
Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.2, NOX emissions would remain above the BAAQMD’s
thresholds.
ROG Emissions. In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt
and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. In accordance with the
methodology prescribed by the BAAQMD, the ROG emissions associated with paving have been
quantified with CalEEMod. In addition, based upon the size of the buildings, architectural
coatings were also quantified in CalEEMod.
The highest concentration of ROG emissions would be generated during the application of
architectural coatings beginning in 2021. As required by law, all architectural coatings for the
project structures would comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coating.
Regulation 8, Rule 3 provides specifications on painting practices and regulates the ROG
content of paint. As indicated in Table 6-7: Construction Air Emissions, project construction
would result in an exceedance of ROG thresholds despite the implementation of Basic
Construction Measures in MM AQ-1. Therefore, compliance with MM AQ-3 is also required to
require the use of low VOC interior architectural coating (paint and primer) products would be
used. MM AQ-2.3 requires interior architectural coatings to have a VOC content of 20 grams
per liter or less while exterior architectural coating must be less than 100 grams per liter. With
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-28 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
implementation of MM AQ-2.3, construction ROG emissions would not exceed BAAQMD
thresholds.
Total Daily Construction Emissions. As shown in Table 6-7: Construction Air Emissions,
implementation of MM AQ-2.1 through MM AQ-2.3 would reduce construction emissions.
However, NOX emissions would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Operation Impacts
The project would result in long-term operational stationary and vehicular emissions.
Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from
normal daily activities on the project site after occupation. Stationary area source emissions
would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, the
operation of landscape maintenance equipment, generators, and the use of consumer
products. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from
the project site. Operational emissions attributable to the project are shown in Table 6-8:
Project Buildout Operational Emissions-Un-Mitigated and are discussed below.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-29
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 6-8: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Un-Mitigated
Emission Source ROG NOx
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Area 10.67 0.11 0.48 0.48
Energy 0.15 1.32 0.10 0.10
Mobile 4.68 30.75 0.16 0.15
Total Emissions 15.5 32.18 0.74 0.73
BAAQMD Threshold 10 10 15 10
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes Yes No No
Winter Emissions (pounds per day)
Area 439.36 8.79 72.99 72.99
Energy 0.82 7.26 0.57 0.57
Mobile 27.27 182.55 0.95 0.9
Total Emissions 467.45 198.59 74.52 74.46
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes Yes No Yes
Summer Emissions (pounds per day)
Area 439.36 8.79 72.99 72.99
Energy 0.82 7.26 0.57 0.57
Mobile 31.93 177.75 0.94 0.89
Total Emissions 472.11 193.8 74.5 74.45
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes Yes No Yes
Notes:
Area source emissions include natural gas fuel combustion, landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, architectural
coatings, and hearth fuel combustion (i.e., wood stoves, wood fireplaces, natural gas fireplace/stoves).
(1) Applies to Area Source (Direct) emissions of Carbon Monoxide only.
Source: CalEEMod v. 2013.2.2 and Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Stationary Source Emissions
Stationary source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for electrical
energy for the project’s residential uses. Energy is generated from power plants utilizing fossil
fuels. Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the Air Basin and beyond,
and their emissions contribute to the total pollutant burden across air basins. The primary use
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-30 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
of natural gas within the project would be for combustion to produce space heating, water
heating and other miscellaneous heating or air conditioning.
Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions are generally a function of land use (e.g. number of single-family
residential units), activity (e.g. fuel use per residential unit), and emission factor (e.g. mass of
pollutant emitted per fuel usage). These include the following:
Natural gas fuel combustion. This source includes natural gas combustion for water
and space heating, in residential and non-residential buildings.
Hearth fuel combustion. This source includes wood stoves, wood fireplaces, and
natural gas-fired stoves.
Landscape fuel combustion. This source includes exhaust and evaporative emissions
from landscaping equipment, including lawnmowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders,
trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers, used in residential and commercial
applications.
Consumer products. This source category comprises a wide range of products,
including air fresheners, automotive products, household cleaners, and personal
care products.
Architectural coatings. This source includes ROG (similar to VOCs) emissions
resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers,
and other surface coatings, from residential and nonresidential structures.
Energy Source Emissions
Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas (non-
hearth) usage associated with the project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the
project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances,
and electronics.
Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative
emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the p otential air quality impact may
be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all
pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical
smog], and wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a
localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
The amount of mobile source emissions that would be associated with the project is based on
land use designations (e.g. number of single-family residential units; square footage of various
education, recreation, retail, commercial, and industrial uses), trip rates (i.e. the number of
vehicle trips per day per land use unit), assumptions regarding the vehicle fleet (e.g. analysis
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-31
Draft EIR
10/23/18
year, vehicle type and technology class), trip lengths (i.e. miles traveled per trip), and pollutant
emission factors (i.e. mass of pollutant emitted per mile traveled). Project-generated vehicle
emissions have been estimated using CalEEMod. Trip generation rates associated with the
project were based on the project traffic impact analysis (see Tables 17-11 and 17-12). Based
on this analysis, the project would result in an average of approximately 19,327 new daily
weekday vehicle trips and 20,314 new daily weekend vehicle trips.
The project would result in long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and O3
precursors (i.e., ROG and NOX). Project-generated increases in emissions would be
predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. As shown in Table 6-9: Project Buildout
Operational Emissions-Mitigated, daily ROG and NOX thresholds would be exceeded. The
predominant source of ROG emissions is fireplaces. Therefore, MM AQ-2.4 is required to
prohibit the use of wood burning devices (e.g., fireplaces, wood stoves) and ensure compliance
with BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3.
The predominant source of NOX emissions would be mobile sources (i.e., project generated
vehicle trips). The project’s proximity to transit (i.e., 1.5 miles from the Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station) and mix of uses would reduce both the number and length of vehicle trips. Table
6-9: Project Buildout Operational Emissions-Mitigated shows the project’s operational
emissions with the implementation of these mitigation measures and design features. These
project design features include proximity to Dublin/Pleasanton BART station; increasing density
and diversity for the site; improving destination accessibility and pedestrian network. These
design features are identified in the CalEEMod in Appendix B. As indicated in Table 6-9: Project
Buildout Operational Emissions-Mitigated, despite the implementation of MM AQ-2.1 through
AQ-2.4, operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-32 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 6-9: Project Buildout Operational Emissions – Mitigated
Emission Source ROG NOx
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Annual Emissions (tons per year)
Area 7.36 0.09 0.03 0.03
Energy 0.12 1.09 0.09 0.09
Mobile 3.96 24.26 0.09 0.09
Total Emissions 11.44 25.44 0.21 0.2
BAAQMD Threshold 10 10 15 10
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes Yes No No
Winter Emissions (pounds per day)
Area 41.80 6.12 0.75 0.75
Energy 0.67 5.98 0.47 0.47
Mobile 23.01 143.08 0.54 0.51
Total Emissions 65.48 155.17 1.76 1.73
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes Yes No No
Summer Emissions (pounds per day)
Area 41.80 6.12 0.75 0.75
Energy 0.67 5.98 0.47 0.47
Mobile 27.6 141.68 0.53 0.5
Total Emissions 70.07 153.77 1.75 1.72
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Are Thresholds Exceeded? Yes Yes No No
Notes:
Area source emissions include natural gas fuel combustion, landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, architectural
coatings, and hearth fuel combustion (i.e., wood stoves, wood fireplaces, natural gas fireplace/stoves).
(1) Applies to Area Source (Direct) emissions of Carbon Monoxide only.
Source: CalEEMod v. 2013.2.2 and Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2.1 BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
During construction, the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures air
pollution control measures shall be implemented:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-33
Draft EIR
10/23/18
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding
or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
MM AQ-2.2 Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to
the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 Final
off-road emissions standards.
MM AQ-2.3 Architectural Coating
The applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior architectural coating
(paint and primer) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 20 grams
per liter or less while exterior architectural coating must be less than 100 grams per liter.
Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the project, which
shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-34 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
MM AQ-2.4 Prohibition of Wood-Burning Fireplaces
The installation of wood-burning devices shall be prohibited within the development per Bay
Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 6, Rule 3. The purpose of this rule is to limit
emissions of particulate matter and visible emissions from wood-burning devices used for
primary heat, supplemental heat or ambiance. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed for
future property owners to obey. Natural gas fireplaces are acceptable.
Impact AQ-3: Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Class III).
A sensitive receptor is defined by the BAAQMD as the following: Facilities or land uses that
include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants,
such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals and
residential areas. Sensitive receptors closest to the residential project site include residences
east and north of the project site.
Localized Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The primary mobile-source criteria pollutant of local concern is carbon monoxide.
Concentrations of CO are a direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic
flow conditions. Transport of this criteria pollutant is extremely limited; CO disperses rapidly
with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Under certain
meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that
experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy
levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Areas of high CO concentrations, or “hot spots,”
are typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels
of service during the peak commute hours. CO concentration modeling is therefore typically
conducted for intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service
during peak commute hours.
The SFBAAB is designated as attainment for carbon monoxide (CO). Emissions and ambient
concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the SFBAAB with the introduction of the
catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS for CO have been
recorded at nearby monitoring stations since 1991.
As a result, the BAAQMD screening criteria notes that CO impacts may be determined to be less
than significant if a project is consistent with the applicable congestion management plan
(CMP) and would not increase traffic volumes at local intersections to more than 44,000
vehicles per hour, or 24,000 vehicles per hour for locations in heavily urban areas, where
“urban canyons” formed by buildings tend to reduce air circulation.
According to the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project, the project study intersection
with the highest traffic volumes (Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road) would have 10,928
vehicles during the cumulative plus project (worst case) peak hour the cumulative plus project
(worst case) scenario. All other intersections would have fewer total vehicles per hour.
Therefore, the project would not involve intersections with more than 24,000 or 44,000
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-35
Draft EIR
10/23/18
vehicles per hour. As a result, the project would not generate a significant number of vehicle
trips and impacts associated with CO concentrations would be less than significant.
Construction Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust (PM10) would be generated during construction (grading). As detailed in Impact
AQ-2, the project would result in a less than significant dust impact after incorporation of
BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures required in MM AQ-2.1. Therefore, the
project would not expose adjacent receptors to significant amounts of construction dust after
incorporation of mitigation.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust, which
is a known toxic air contaminants (TAC). Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating
at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptor to
the project site are the residences to the east and north of the project site. BAAQMD provides
guidance for evaluating impacts from TACs in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines document. As
noted therein, an incremental cancer risk of greater than 10 cases per million at the Maximally
Exposed Individual (MEI) will result in a significant impact. The BAAQMD considers exposure to
annual PM2.5 concentrations that exceed 0.3 ʅŐͬŵ3 from a single source to be significant. The
BAAQMD significance threshold for non-cancer hazards is 1.0.
Construction TAC and PM2.5 Health Risks
Construction-related activities would result in project-generated emissions of diesel PM from
the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., demolition,
clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other
miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, diesel PM is the primary toxic air
contaminant of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the
construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would
not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating
at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptor to
the project site are the residences to the north on Georgetown Circle, residences to the east on
Brannigan Street, and residences and Emerald Glen Park along Tassajara Road.
CARB identified particulate exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled engines (i.e., diesel PM) as a
TAC in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of diesel PM, as discussed below,
outweighs the potential for all other health impacts (i.e., non-cancer chronic risk, short-term
acute risk) and health impacts from other TACs (CARB 2003), so diesel PM is the focus of this
discussion.
Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term
exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel-powered construction
equipment would be episodic and would occur over several locations isolated from one
another. Additionally, construction activities would be subject to and would comply with
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-36 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
California regulations limiting idling to no more than five minutes, which would further reduce
nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable diesel PM emissions.
Furthermore, even during the most intense year of construction, emissions of diesel PM would
be generated from different locations on the project site rather than in a single location
because different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation and building
construction) would not occur at the same place at the same time.
The EPA recommended screening model AERSCREEN has been used to evaluate potential
health effects to sensitive receptors from construction emissions of diesel particulate matter
(DPM). AERSCREEN is the recommended screening model based on the AERMOD dispersion
model. The model produces estimates of worst-case concentrations without the need for
hourly meteorological data. According to the EPA Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric
Modeling (SCRAM) website, AERSCREEN is intended to produce concentration estimates that
are equal to or greater than the estimates produced by AERMOD with a fully developed set of
meteorological and terrain data.9 Maximum (worst case) PM2.5 exhaust construction emissions
over the entire construction period were used in AERSCREEN to approximate construction DPM
emissions. Risk levels were calculated using the CARB Hotspot Analysis and Reporting Program
(HARP) Risk Assessment Standalone Tool (RAST). The calculations are based on the California
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance document, Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (February 2015).
Results of this assessment indicate that the maximum concentration of PM2.5 during
construction would be 0.003 ʅŐͬŵ3 which is below the BAAQMD 0.3 ʅŐͬŵ3 significance
threshold. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk from project construction is 1.94 per
million, which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Non-cancer hazards for
DPM would be below BAAQMD threshold, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.001 and
an acute hazard index of 0.01. Acute and chronic hazards would be below the BAAQMD
significance threshold of 1.0. As described above, worst-case construction risk levels based on
screening-level modeling (AERSCREEN) and conservative assumptions would be below the
BAAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than significant.
Another potential source of TACs associated with construction-related activities is the airborne
entrainment of asbestos due to the disturbance of naturally-occurring asbestos-containing
soils. The project is not located in an area designated by the State of California as likely to
contain naturally-occurring asbestos (DOC 2000). As a result, construction-related activities
would not be anticipated to result in increased exposure of sensitive land uses to asbestos.
9 US EPA. Air Quality Dispersion Modeling- Screening Models. 2017. https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality-dispersion-modeling-
screening-models
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-37
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Off-Site Stationary Sources
The BAAQMD recommends that all TAC and PM2.5 sources be identified within a 1,000-foot
radius of a project site to identify any risk and health hazards. As described above, the project
site is surrounded primarily by residential uses, commercial uses, and parks.
According to BAAQMD there are three stationary TAC sources located within 1,000 feet of the
project site that consists of two backup generators and a gas dispensing facility. As indicated in
Table 10: Existing Permitted Stationary Sources within 1,000 Feet of the Project Boundary,
these sources have cancer risk, hazard risk, and PM2.5 concentrations below the BAAQMD’s
thresholds. Additionally, although these sources are in the vicinity of the project boundary,
they are approximately 1,000 feet or more away from the location of the closest proposed
sensitive receptor. As indicated in Table 10: Existing Permitted Stationary Sources within 1,000
Feet of the Project Boundary, impacts from TAC sources would be less than significant.
Table 6-10: Existing Permitted Stationary Sources within 1,000 Feet of the Project Boundary
Distance
from
Receptor
(feet) or
MEI 1
Facility
Name Address
Cancer
Risk
Hazard
Risk PM 2.5 Type of Source
Status/
Comments
140 Lowe’s of
Dublin
3750 Dublin
Boulevard 3.0044 0.008382 0.006567 Generator
Updated to
include OEHHA
factor, use
Diesel IC
Multiplier
70
San
Ramon
Valley FPD
STA #36
Tassajara
and Gleason
Drive
N/A N/A N/A Generator Shutdown
1000 Pleasanton
Car wash
4005 Pimlico
Drive 0.0096 0.003172 0 Gas Dispensing
Facility
Includes OEHHA
factor. Use
Distance
Multiplier Tool.
Notes:
1. MEI = Maximally Exposed Individual
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Mobile Sources
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that projects be evaluated for
community risk when they locate sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of freeways, high traffic
volume roadways (10,000 average annual daily trips or more), and/or stationary permitted
sources of TACs. A community health risk assessment was completed for the project site to
identify TAC emission sources within 1,000 feet of the site and their impacts on the project.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-38 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The project would not place sensitive receptors within 1,000-feet of the I-580 freeway (a
mobile TAC source).
However, the project would locate sensitive receptors (residential dwelling units) along
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, both of which have traffic in excess of 10,000 average
daily trips (ADT). The other roadways within 1,000 feet have less than 10,000 ADT. Tassajara
Road has an estimated 20,767 ADT and Dublin Boulevard has an estimated 43,434 ADT during
the future Cumulative Plus Project Scenario. Potential risks from traffic emissions generated
along these roadways were evaluated using an analysis methodology that takes into account
local traffic conditions, site-specific meteorology, and future exposures.
The air dispersion modeling for the mobile source risk assessment was performed using the U.S.
EPA AERMOD dispersion model. AERMOD is a steady-state, multiple-source, Gaussian
dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground
elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources (not a factor in this case).
AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed,
temperature, stability class, and mixing height. Surface and upper air meteorological data was
obtained from CARB. Surface and upper air meteorological data from the Livermore
Monitoring Station was selected as being the most representative for meteorology based on
proximity to the project site.
The emission sources in the model are line volume sources (comprised of numerous adjacent
volume sources) along the Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the project site.
An emission rate for PM2.5 (a proxy for DPM) was calculated using traffic volumes from the
Traffic Study and an Emission FACtor model (EMFAC2017) model run for the Alameda County
portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; refer to Appendix B. Heavy duty vehicle
emissions were assigned a release height of 12 feet (3.7 meters), a plume height of 20 feet (6.3
meters). A release height of 10 feet is the average stack height for trucks and the plume height
is based on EPA guidance for vehicle volume sources.
AERMOD was run to obtain the peak 1-hour and annual average concentration in micrograms
per cubic meter ʅŐͬŵ3] of PM2.5 at the project site. Note that the concentration estimate
developed using this methodology is considered conservative and is not a specific prediction of
the actual concentrations that would occur at the project site any one point in time. Actual 1-
hour and annual average concentrations are dependent on many variables, particularly the
number and type of vehicles traveling during time periods of adverse meteorology.
A health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer
risk calculated on a 70-year lifetime basis, 30-year, and 9-year exposure scenarios. The cancer
risk calculations were based on applying age sensitivity weighting factors for each emissions
period modeled. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small
children to cancer causing TACs. The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are
based on the standardized equations contained in the OEHHA Guidance Manual. Only the risk
associated with the worst-case location of the project was assessed.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-39
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Based on the AERMOD outputs, the highest expected hourly average diesel PM2.5 emission
concentrations at the project site would be 0.077 ʅŐͬŵ3. The highest expected annual average
PM2.5 emission concentrations at the project site would be 0.005 ʅŐͬŵ3, which is below the
BAAQMD’s threshold of 0.3 ʅŐͬŵ3. The analysis for the project assumed the site would not be
occupied until 2022 or later. The calculations conservatively assume no cleaner technology
with lower emissions in future years. Cancer risk calculations are based on 70-, 30-, and 9-year
exposure periods. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk as a result of the project is 2.59 per
million for 70-year exposure, 2.18 per million for 30-year exposure, and 1.57 per million for 9-
year exposure. Additionally, acute and chronic hazards would be 0.031 and 0.001, respectively,
which are below the hazard index threshold of 1.0. Therefore, impacts related to cancer risk,
hazards, and PM2.5 concentrations from mobile sources would be less than significant at the
project site.
Furthermore, in May 2016 the BAAQMD released the Planning Healthy Places guidebook that
provides air quality and public health information for locations throughout the Bay Area. The
BAAQMD also provides web-based interactive maps that show the location of communities and
places throughout the region that are estimated to have elevated levels of fine particulates
and/or TACs. The maps identify where best practices and further study should be applied.
Based on the mapping, the project site is not located in a best practices or further study area.
As indicated above, the project includes the future development of residences that are located
outside of the BAAQMD’s recommended 1,000-foot buffer from freeways. As the project
design maximizes the buffer between potential TAC sources and residential units impacts
associated with TACs related to the project’s on-site receptors would be less-than-significant.
Parking Structure Hotspots
Carbon monoxide concentrations are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological
conditions, and traffic flow. Therefore, parking structures (and particularly subterranean
parking structures) tend to be of concern regarding CO hotspots, as they are enclosed spaces
with frequent cars operating in cold start mode. Approximately 598 parking spaces would be
constructed within the mixed-use parking garage. The project would be required to comply
with the ventilation requirements of the International Mechanical Code (Section 403.5 [Public
Garages]), which requires that mechanical ventilation systems for public garages operate
automatically upon detection of a concentration of carbon monoxide of 25 parts per million 10
(ppm) by approved detection devices. Impacts regarding parking structure CO hotspots would
be less than significant.
10 The 25 ppm trigger is the maximum allowable concentration for continuous exposure in any eight-hour period according to the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-40 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Off-Site Impacts
The project would not be considered a source of toxic air contaminants (TACs) that would pose
a possible risk to off-site uses. The project involves the future development of mixed-use
project that would include commercial and residential uses. The project would not include
stationary sources that emit TACs and would not generate a significant amount of heavy-duty
truck trips (a source of diesel particulate matter [DPM]). Therefore, no impacts to surrounding
receptors associated with TACs would occur.
Cumulative TAC Risk
Cumulative TAC impacts to sensitive receptors were evaluated by adding the cancer risk, PM2.5
concentrations, and Hazard Index from each TAC source within 1,000 feet of the project site
and comparing those to the significance thresholds for cumulative sources. Cumulative TAC
significance thresholds are 100 per million cancer risk, 0.8 ʅŐͬŵ3 annual PM2.5, and 10.0 hazard
index. As shown in Table 6-11: Cumulative TAC Risk, the project would have a less than
significant impact with respect to cumulative community risk.
Table 6-11: Cumulative TAC Risk
Source
Cancer Risk
(in one million)
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index PM 2.5
Lowe’s of Dublin 3.0044 0.008382 0.006567
San Ramon Valley FPD STA #36 N/A N/A N/A
Pleasanton Car wash 0.0096 0.003172 0
Local Roadways (Tassajara Road and
Dublin Boulevard) 2.59 0.031 0.005
Cumulative Total 5.60 0.031 0.012
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 in one million 10.0 0.08
Are Thresholds Exceeded? No No No
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Impact AQ-4: Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (Class III).
According to the BAAQMD, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include
wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food
manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The project does not include any uses
identified by the BAAQMD as being associated with odors.
The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including the
nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of
the receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can still be unpleasant,
leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-41
Draft EIR
10/23/18
local governments and regulatory agencies. Projects with the potential to frequently expose
members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to violate the BAAQMD
standards.
BAAQMD enforces permit and nuisance rules to control odorous emissions from stationary
sources. For instance, BAAQMD Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances) places general limitations
on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds.
Regulation 7 disallows discharge of any odorous substance which causes the ambient air at or
beyond the property line to be odorous and to remain odorous after dilution with four parts of
odor-free air. Given these regulations, and the fact that there are no odorous emissions
existing or proposed on or near the project site, there would be no impact.
6.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographical area for cumulative air emission impacts is the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin, which includes Alameda County.
Impact AQ-5: Contribute to cumulatively considerable air quality impacts (Class I).
Cumulative Construction Emission Impacts
The SFBAAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and
nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards. As discussed above, Table 6-7:
Construction Air Emissions, the project’s construction-related emissions by themselves would
exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for NOx but not the other three criteria pollutants.
Since these thresholds indicate whether an individual project’s emissions have the potential to
affect cumulative regional air quality, it can be expected that the project-related construction
emissions would have cumulatively considerable impacts for NOx. The BAAQMD recommends
Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for all projects whether or not construction-related
emissions exceed the thresholds of significance. Compliance with BAAQMD construction-
related mitigation requirements are considered to reduce cumulative impacts at a Basin-wide
level. As a result, construction emissions associated with the project would result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.
Cumulative Operational Emission Impacts
The BAAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational
emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single
project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards.
Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse
air quality impacts. The BAAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based
on the level above which a project’s individual emissions would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the Basin’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that
exceeds the BAAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-42 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As shown in Table 6-9: Project Buildout Operational Emissions-Mitigated, the project would
result in long-term operational stationary and vehicular emissions. The operational emissions
for ROG and NOx would exceed BAAQMD thresholds. As a result, operational emissions
associated with the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
significant cumulative air quality impacts.
With mitigation identified for the project, MM AQ-2.1 through AQ-2.4, and compliance with
BAAQMD rules and requirements, the cumulative impacts of the project would be reduced;
however, the project’s cumulative contribution to NOX emissions would remain significant and
unavoidable (Class I).
6.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 6-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Air Quality summarizes the
environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project
with regard to air quality.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-43
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 6-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Air Quality
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with
implementation of San Francisco Bay
Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (Class I)
Significant
and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction
Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Impact AQ-2: Violates air quality
standard or contributes substantially
to an existing or projected air quality
violation (Class I)
Significant
and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction
Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
Impact AQ-3: Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations (Class III)
Less than
Significant
None required
Impact AQ-4: Create objectionable
odors (Class III)
Less than
Significant
None required
Impact AQ-5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable air quality
impacts. (Class I)
Significant
and
Unavoidable
MM AQ-2.1: BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures
MM AQ-2.2: Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction
Equipment
MM AQ-2.3: Architectural Coating
MM AQ-2.4: Wood Burning Fireplaces
6.6 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/baaqmd-ceqa-
guidelines_final_may-2012.pdf
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2016. Planning Healthy Places. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/planning-healthy-places
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. Clean Air Plan. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans .
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment
Status. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-
and-attainment-status
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-6-44 | Air Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017c. Current Rules. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-compliance/current-rules
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2009. Health Risk Assessments
for Proposed Land Use Projects. Available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter
Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016. Current Air Quality Standards.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/ds.htm
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018. Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement
System (ADAM) Top Four Summaries from 2014 to 2016. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
City of Dublin. 2013. Climate Action Plan Update. Available at:
https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5799/Dublin-Climate-Action-Plan-Update-
2013.
Federal Highway Administration, 2016. Updated. Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic
Analysis in NEPA Documents.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2016. NAAQS Table. Available
online: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2013. Policy Assessment for the
Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/46963ceebabd621905256cae0053d5c6/ab
1476f97f51b242852578b90065bb04!OpenDocument.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
7 Biological Resources
7.1 Introduction
This section describes the effects on biological resources that would be caused by
implementation of the project. It addresses existing environmental conditions in the affected
area, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts, and recommends measures to reduce or
avoid adverse impacts anticipated from project construction and operation. In addition,
existing laws and regulations relevant to biological resources are described. In some cases,
compliance with these existing laws and regulations would serve to reduce or avoid certain
impacts that might otherwise occur with implementation of the project.
This section references the following technical reports that were prepared for the project and
can be found in Appendix C:
WRA, Biological Resources Assessment, 2018
WRA, At Dublin Wetland Delineation Report, 2018
WRA, Rare Plant Survey Report, 2018
7.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding biological
resources were raised.
7.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on existing biological resources conditions in the project area.
The current condition and quality of biological resources was used as the baseline against which
to compare potential impacts of the project.
7.3.1 Project Setting
The project site is vacant land and is generally flat with a slight slope from a higher elevation at
the northerly boundary to a slightly lower elevation towards the southerly boundary. At one
time, the property was used for agricultural purposes and is currently vacant (except for
seasonal temporary uses). The project site is characterized by low lying native and non-native
grasses that is turned (disced) periodically for the purposes of weed abatement. A small group
of trees and shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No
grading for development purposes has occurred to date.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-2 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
7.3.2 Methodology
Literature Search and Review of Existing Data
The assessment of biological resources for the project began with a review of all available
documents and species and habitat data provided by the project applicant, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and other
agencies. Biological resource data sources included, but were not limited to, the following:
CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to determine special-status
plants, wildlife, and vegetation communities that have been documented within the
vicinity of the project site.
Aerial photographs, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, United States
Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps.
Previously prepared reports and regional planning documents (general plan policies,
Habitat Conservation Plans [HCPs], Environmental Impact Reports [EIRs], and
published scientific literature).
In addition to the literature search and review of existing data, descriptions and analysis in this
section are based on the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) prepared by WRA, provided in
Appendix C-1. The methodology of the BRA is described below.
Biological Resources Assessment
On December 7, 2017, the project site was traversed on foot to determine: (1) plant
communities present within the project site, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat
for any special-status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present. All plant
and wildlife species encountered were recorded and are summarized in the BRA. Appendix C-2
provides a list of species-status species that have been documented in the vicinity and
summarizes the potential for occurrence for each of these species based on observed habitat
suitability, proximity of known occurrences, or the direct observation of a species.
Prior to the initial site visit, online soil survey data for the project area, the USGS 7.5-minute
quadrangle map for Livermore, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory data, rainfall data and
wetlands determination (WETS) precipitation data, and available aerial photographs of the
project site were reviewed to identify potential sensitive habitats and areas for further
investigation. Biological communities present in the project site were classified based on
existing plant community descriptions described in A Manual of California Vegetation, Online
Edition (CNPS 2018a; CDFW 2018b). However, in some cases it is necessary to identify variants
of community types or to describe non-vegetated areas that are not described in the literature.
Biological communities were classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by CEQA and
other applicable laws and regulations.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
7.3.3 Biological Communities
As shown in Figure 7-1: Biological Communities on the Project Site biological communities on
the project site consist of 76.24 acres of non-sensitive ruderal habitat and 0.66 acres of
sensitive seasonal wetlands.
Non-sensitive Biological Communities
Ruderal
The project site contains ruderal habitat, comprised primarily of disced and mowed areas of
disturbed vegetation. Ruderal areas are primarily composed of ruderal herbaceous vegetation
dominated by non-native annual species, such as slim oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome
(Bromus diandrus), soft chess (B. hordeaceus), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). Native
species, such as common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia) and tarweed fiddleneck (A.
lycopsoides), are also present. The project site has been disced for weed abatement, with small
margins of intact ruderal vegetation along the margins and southwest of Northside Drive.
Sensitive Biological Communities
Seasonal Wetland
The 0.66 acres of seasonal wetlands occur as five separate topographic depressions and one
flat-to-sloping area where seasonal inundation and/or saturation occurs during the rainy
season. Four wetlands had varying levels of apparent regular disturbance, including discing and
use as a parking area for vehicles.
Vegetation within these seasonal wetlands is sparse and is dominated by a mixture of non-
native grasses and forbs, all of which are adapted to high levels of disturbance. Commonly
observed species include Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum
hyssopifolia), and curly dock (Rumex crispus).
Given the highly altered and regularly disturbed nature of the project site, as well as the lack of
a dominance by or characteristic presence of species associated with vernal pools, the wetlands
are classified as seasonal wetlands rather than vernal pools.
City of Dublin Protected Trees
There are no trees defined as “heritage trees” under the City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance
present on site. There are several remnant trees located on the abandoned homestead area in
the northern portion of the project site. These trees exceed 24 inches in diameter at four (4)
feet six (6) inches above natural grade; however, are not species included under the definition
of heritage trees.
Additionally, two coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) saplings less than 24 inches in diameter are
located north of Gleason Drive. At 24 inches these are too small to be included under the
definition heritage trees.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-4 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
7.3.4 Special-Status Species
Special Status Plant Species
Based on a review of the resources and databases described above, 62 statewide special-status
plant species were documented in the project area. Of these, nine species were documented in
the CNDDB as occurring within a five-mile buffer of the project area as shown in Figure 7-2:
Special-Status Plant Species Documented within Five Miles of the Project Site.
Within the project site, three special-status plant species were identified or have the potential
to occur, namely:
Local and State special-status plant, Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii); CNPS Rank 1B.1; Present
State special-status plant, San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana); CNPS Rank
1B.2; Moderate Potential
State special-status plant, Saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum); CNPS Rank 1B.2;
Moderate Potential
Local rare plant species, Northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), was also identified
within the project site. However, only native populations of Northern California black walnut
are considered specials-status, and the Northern California black walnut individuals within the
project site are remnant ornamental planting, therefore not considered special-status species.
Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii)
Congdon’s tarplant is an annual herb in the composite family (Asteraceae) that typically blooms
from May to October. It often grows in alkaline soils, sometimes described as heavy white clay,
in valley and foothill grassland habitats ranging from 0 to 755 feet (0 to 230 meters) in
elevation.
As shown in Figure 7-3: Congdon’s Tarplant on the Project Site, 371 individuals of Congdon’s
tarplant were observed in the seasonal wetland in the southeastern corner, as well as in
scattered locations along the eastern boundary of the project site.
San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana)
San Joaquin spearscale is an annual herb in the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) that
typically blooms from April to October. It often grows in seasonal alkali sink scrub and wetlands
in chenopod scrub, alkali meadow, and valley and foothill grassland habitat at elevations
ranging from 0 to 2,740 feet. San Joaquin spearscale is known to occur throughout northern
California.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
No occurrence of San Joaquin spearscale was observed during the site visit, however, there
were 36 CNDDB records found within the greater vicinity of the project area and 17 Consortium
of California Herbaria (CCH) records from Alameda County. The nearest documented
occurrence is from May 2002 and is centered on the project site; however, the location
description is imprecise and is “mapped by CNDDB as best guess”. The most recent
documented occurrence is from August 2012 near Tassajara Road, approximately six miles
north of the project site. San Joaquin spearscale has a moderate potential to occur in the
project area due to the presence of mesic areas and alkaline substrate and the fact that this
species has been documented near the project area in disced conditions (CDFW 2018a).
Saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum)
Saline clover is an annual herb in the pea family (Fabaceae) that typically blooms from April to
June. It generally grows in mesic, alkali sites in marsh, swamp, valley and foothill grassland, and
vernal pool habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 980 feet. Saline clover is also known to
occur throughout northern California.
No occurrence of saline clover was observed during the site visit, however there were two
CNDDB records found in the project area, and five CCH records in Alameda County. The nearest
known occurrence is from May 2002, approximately 0.5 mile east of the project site, which may
now be absent. The most recent documented occurrence is from April 2006, in the Springtown
area, seven miles east of the project site.
Saline clover has a moderate potential to occur in the project site due to the presence of
seasonally inundated depressions and alkaline substrate and the fact that this species has been
documented near the project site in disced conditions.
Special Status Wildlife Species
Based on a review of the resources and databases described above, 37 special-status wildlife
species were documented in the project area. Of these, 14 species were documented in the
CNDDB (CDFW 2018a) as occurring within a five-mile buffer of the project site as shown in
Figure 7-4: Special-Status Wildlife Species within Five Miles of the Project Site. Three special-
status wildlife species were observed or were considered to have moderate or high potential to
occur in the project site and are discussed below.
Within the project site, three special-status wildlife species were identified as having the
potential to occur, namely:
Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia); CDFW Species of Special Concern;
USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern; High Potential
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); CDFW Species of Special Concern; USFWS
Bird of Conservation Concern; Moderate Potential
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); CDFW Fully Protected Species; High Potential
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-6 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
Burrowing owl typically favors flat, open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse shrub land
ecosystems. These owls prefer annual or perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or
nonexistent tree or shrub canopies. This species is dependent on burrowing mammals to
provide the burrows that are characteristically used for shelter and nesting, and in northern
California is typically found in close association with California ground squirrels (Spermophilus
beecheyi).
Burrowing owls were documented within the project site (CNDDB occurrence number 671) in
2004 and 2009. During the December 7, 2017 site visit, ground squirrels and ground squirrel
burrow complexes were observed throughout the project site. In addition, multiple debris piles
were present within the project site, which may provide additional nesting habitat for the
species. Vegetation height within the project site is variable and, in some areas, may be
suitable for the species throughout the year, including during nesting season (February 1 –
August 31). Although no burrowing owls were observed on the project site during the
December 2017 site visit, due to the presence of suitable nesting and foraging habitat, as well
as previous occurrences of burrowing owl within the project site, the species has a high
potential to occur.
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Loggerhead shrike is a year-round resident or winter visitor in lowlands and foothills
throughout California. This species is associated with open country with short vegetation and
scattered trees, shrubs, fences, utility lines, and/or other perches. The loggerhead shrike nests
in trees and large shrubs; nests are usually placed three to ten feet off the ground.
No occurrence of Loggerhead shrike was observed during the December 7, 2017 site visit. The
trees located in the northwestern portion of the project site provide suitable habitat to support
nesting by this species. Grasslands within the project site may also provide sufficient area to
support foraging by the species. While the project site is surrounded by development, due to
the presence of potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat, this species has a moderate
potential to occur.
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)
White-tailed kite is a resident in open to semi-open habitats throughout the lower elevations of
California, including grasslands, savannahs, woodlands, agricultural areas and wetlands.
Vegetative structure and prey availability seem to be more important habitat elements than
associations with specific plants or vegetative communities. Nests are constructed mostly of
twigs and are placed in trees, often at habitat edges. Nest trees are highly variable in size,
structure, and immediate surroundings, ranging from shrubs to trees greater than 150 feet tall.
This species preys upon a variety of small mammals, as well as other vertebrates and
invertebrates.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The project site contains open habitat for foraging by this species, as well as shrubs and trees
suitable for nesting. A white-tailed kite was observed foraging on the December 7, 2017 site
visit. White-tailed kite has a high potential to occur.
Special-Status Wildlife Species Unlikely to Occur within the Project Site
As described in the BRA, seven federally-listed wildlife species have been documented in the
vicinity, but are unlikely to inhabit the project site. These are California Red-Legged Frog (Rana
draytonii), California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes
macrotis), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), longhorn fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta longiantenna), Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and Callippe
silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe).
7.3.5 Critical Habitat
The project site is not located within any units designated as critical habitat according to the
Federal Endangered Species Act (described below).
7.3.6 Wildlife Movement Corridor
The project site does not fall within any identified wildlife corridors or natural habitat blocks.
The project site is surrounded by roadways, two of which are multi-lane roadways. There are
several vacant lots west of Arnold Road. However, there is greater than one mile of residential
and commercial development separating the project site from the vacant lots, preventing
dispersal into the project site.
7.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
7.4.1 Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) provisions protect federally listed threatened and
endangered species and their habitats from unlawful take and ensure that federal actions do
not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Under the ESA, “take” is defined as “to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
of the specifically enumerated conduct.” USFWS regulations define harm to mean “an act which
actually kills or injures wildlife.” Such an act “may include significant habitat modification or
degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering” (50 CFR § 17.3).
Critical habitat is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as “(i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species on which are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation of the species, and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species upon a determination by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-8 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
of the Interior (Secretary) that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” The
effects analyses for designated critical habitat must consider the role of the critical habitat in
both the continued survival and the eventual recovery (i.e., the conservation) of the species in
question, consistent with the recent Ninth Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Activities that may result in “take” of individuals are
regulated by the USFWS. The USFWS produced an updated list of candidate species December
2, 2016 (72 FR 69034). Candidate species are not afforded any legal protection under ESA;
however, candidate species typically receive special attention from federal and State agencies
during the environmental review process.
Waters of the United States
Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (Jurisdictional Waters) are
subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under provisions of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899).
These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce,
including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other
waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all
impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the U.S.,” tributaries of waters
otherwise defined as “Waters of the U.S.,” the territorial seas, and wetlands (termed Special
Aquatic Sites) adjacent to “Waters of the U.S.” (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3).
Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by USACE. The placement of
fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of USACE. No USACE permit would
be effective in the absence of State water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. As a part of the permit process USACE works directly with USFWS to assess
project impacts on biological resources.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Raptors (e.g. eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected under both Federal and
State regulations. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, possessing, or
trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
7.4.2 State
California Endangered Species Act
Provisions of California Endangered Species Act (CESA) protect State-listed Threatened and
Endangered species. CDFW regulates activities that may result in “take” of individuals (“take”
means “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”).
Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of “take” under
the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) Code. Additionally, the CDFW Code
contains lists of vertebrate species designated as “fully protected” (§§ 3511 [birds], 4700
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
[mammals], 5050 [reptiles and amphibians], 5515 [fish]). Such species may not be taken or
possessed.
In addition to federal and State-listed species, CDFW also has produced a list of Species of
Special Concern to serve as a “watch list.” Species on this list are of limited distribution or the
extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations
may be imminent. Species of Special Concern may receive special attention during
environmental review, but they do not have statutory protection.
Birds of prey are protected under the CDFG Code. Section 3503.5 states it is “unlawful to take,
possess, or destroy any birds of prey (in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes) or to take,
possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this Code
or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction-related disturbance during the
breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead
to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive
effort is considered “take” by CDFW. Under Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the State Fish and
Wildlife Code, activities that would result in the taking, possessing, or destroying of any birds-
of-prey, taking or possessing of any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA, or the
taking, possessing, or needlessly destroying of the nest or eggs of any raptors or non-game
birds protected by the MBTA, or the taking of any non-game bird pursuant to CDFG Code
Section 3800 are prohibited.
Waters of the State
The State Water Resources Control Board is the State agency (together with the Regional Water
Quality Control Boards [RWQCB]) charged with implementing water quality certification in
California. The project falls under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.
CDFW potentially extends the definition of stream to include “intermittent and ephemeral
streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams (USGS), and watercourses with
subsurface flows. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance
can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-
dependent terrestrial wildlife” (CDFG, 1994). Such areas of the project were determined using
methodology described in A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements,
Sections 1600-1607 (CDFG, 1994).
Activities that result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream; or which
substantially change its bed, channel, or bank; or which utilize any materials (including
vegetation) from the streambed, may require that the project applicant enter into a Streambed
Alteration Agreement with the CDFW.
Fish and Game Code (Sections 2050 through 2098)
Sections 2050 through 2098 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) outline the protection
provided to California’s rare, endangered, and threatened species. Section 2080 of the CFGC
prohibits the taking of plants and animals listed under the CESA. Section 2081 established an
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-10 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
incidental take permit program for state-listed species. Also, the Native Plant Protection Act of
1977 (FGC Section 1900, et seq.) gives the CDFW authority to designate state endangered,
threatened, and rare plants and provides specific protection measures for designated
populations.
The CDFW has also identified many “Species of Special Concern”. Species with this status have
habitats that have been reduced substantially, such that their populations may be threatened.
These populations are monitored and may receive special attention during environmental
review. While they do not have statutory protection, they may be considered rare under CEQA
and thereby warrant specific protection measures.
Sensitive species, which would qualify for listing, but are not currently listed, are also given
protection under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 (“Mandatory Findings of
Significance”) identifies a substantial reduction in numbers of a rare or endangered species as a
significant effect. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 (“Rare or Endangered Species”) provides for
assessment of unlisted species as rare or endangered under CEQA if the species can be shown
to meet the criteria for listing. Unlisted plant species on the California Rare Plant Ranking
(CRPR) system lists 1A, 1B, and 2 would typically be considered under CEQA.
7.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policies as it relates to biological
resources:
Guiding Policy 7.2.1.A.1: Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality
and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource.
Guiding Policy 7.2.1.A.2: Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use and to
allow stream maintenance and improvements as necessary, while respecting the privacy of
owners of property abutting stream corridors.
Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
Guiding Policy 7.4.1.A.1: Protect oak woodlands.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs as
it relates to biological resources:
Policy 6-15: Avoid development and potentially destructive activities in areas with high-value
habitat including:
northern riparian forest
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
arroyo willow riparian woodland
freshwater marsh
Exceptions may only be granted where an owner's reasonable beneficial use of the land cannot
be otherwise provided.
Policy 6-16: To ensure long-term protection, high- value habitat areas either should be
dedicated as public open space or restricted from potentially harmful development and
activities with deed restrictions and design standards.
Policy 6-17: Impacts to sensitive wildlife species that occur in the planning area will be avoided
wherever possible. Mitigation programs will be required as necessary to reduce or eliminate
impacts on special status species.
Policy 6-21: Direct disturbance or removal of trees or native vegetation cover should be
minimized and should be restricted to those areas actually designated for the construction of
improvements.
Policy 6-22: All areas of disturbance should be revegetated as quickly as possible to prevent
erosion. Native trees (preferably those species already on site), shrubs, herbs, and grasses
should be used for revegetation of areas to remain as natural open space. The introduction of
non-native plant species should be avoided.
Program 6K: The City of Dublin shall establish and maintain a liaison with resource
management agencies (i.e., California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) for the purpose of monitoring compliance with specific
plan policies. These agencies should be consulted and involved throughout the planning and
development process of individual properties in order to avoid violations of state and federal
regulations and ensure that specific issues and concerns are recognized and addressed.
Program 6L: The City shall require development applicants to conduct a pre-construction survey
within 60 days prior to habitat modification (clearing construction and road site, etc.) to verify
the presence or absence of sensitive species, especially the San Joaquin kit fox, nesting raptors,
the red-legged frog, western pond turtles, the California tiger salamander, and other species of
special concern.
Program 6N: The use of rodenticides and herbicides within the project area should be restricted
to avoid impacts on wildlife. The City shall require any poisoning programstobedonein
cooperation with and under supervision of the Alameda County Department of Agriculture.
Herbicides should be used only selectively within the project area, should be carefully applied in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and used only for control of non-native pest
plant species.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-12 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance
The City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 regulates the preservation of heritage trees
through its development review and permit approval process. Sections 5.60.080 to 5.60.100
includes tree protection regulations. Heritage trees are defined as:
Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a trunk or main
stem of twenty-four (24) inches or more in diameter at four (4) feet six (6) inches above natural
grade; a tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit,
use permit, site development review of subdivision map; or a tree required to be planted as a
replacement for an unlawfully removed tree.
A tree permit is required for the removal of any heritage tree as defined above on public or
private property. Furthermore, the City may require additional conditions barring the issuance
of a tree removal permit including that one (1) or more replacement trees be planted of a
designated species, size, and location.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
The project site is in Conservation Zone 3 (CZ-3) of the East Alameda County Conservation
Strategy (EACCS). The EACCS is intended to provide effective framework to protect, enhance,
and restore natural resources. Conservation priorities are described as guidelines to protect
the resources known to occur in the conservation zones. Relevant policies for CZ-3 are:
Protection of known occurrences of San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana)
and surveys of other potential habitat
Protection of known occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii) and surveys of other potential habitat
Protection of known California tiger salamander (CTS; Ambystoma californiense) and
California red-legged frog (CRLF; Rana draytonii) breeding habitat, sufficient upland
habitat surrounding those sites, and connections between breeding and upland
habitat
Protection of CTS and CRLF critical habitat
7.4.4 Other Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
California Native Plant Society
The mission of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Program is to develop
current, accurate information on the distribution, ecology, and conservation status of
California's rare and endangered plants, and to use this information to promote science-based
plant conservation in California. Once a species has been identified as being of potential
conservation concern, it is put through an extensive review process. Once a species has gone
through the review process, information on all aspects of the species (listing status, habitat,
distribution, threats, etc.) are recorded on the online CNPS Inventory. The program currently
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
recognizes more than 2,300 plant taxa (species, subspecies and varieties) as rare or endangered
in California (CNPS List, 2015).
Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which might not have designated
status under State endangered species legislation, are defined as follows:
List 1A – Plants considered by the CNPS to be extinct in California
List 1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere
List 2 – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere
List 3 – Plants about which we need more information – a review list
List 4 – Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
In addition to the list designations above, the CNPS adds a Threat Rank as an extension added
onto the CNPS List and designates the level of endangerment by a 1 to 3 ranking, with 1 being
the most endangered and 3 being the least endangered and are described as follows:
0.1 – Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat)
0.2 – Fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat)
0.3 – Not very threatened in California (low degree/immediacy of threats or no current
threats known
The combined definition and Threat Rank (such as 1B.1) provides an overall classification of the
species.
7.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
7.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for biological resources were derived from the Environmental
Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or
supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full range of
impacts related to the project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria:
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or
USFWS.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-14 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed or critical habitat for these
species.
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marshes, vernal
pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinances.
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural
Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state
HCP.
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
7.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans
applicable to the project site and therefore there would be no impacts.
7.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect on special-status plant and wildlife species
(Class II).
Three special-status plant species and three special-status wildlife species have a moderate or
high potential to occur within the project site.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Special-Status Plant Species
As described in the BRA, of the 62-statewide special-status plant species known to occur in the
project area, Congdon’s tarplant was observed during the site assessment and has a high
potential to occur and San Joaquin spearscale and Saline clover have a moderate potential to
occur in the project site. Most of the species found in the review of background literature
occur in high-quality vernal pool habitat, in different plant communities, often at higher
elevations, or in high-quality grassland habitat. Because of the history of disturbance and
change in hydrologic regime, the grassland and seasonal wetlands in the project site are likely
too low in quality to support most of these other special-status plant species.
Proposed development of the project site would have a significant impact on these special
status plant species. Implementation of MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and
Mitigation would avoid or minimize impacts to these special-status plant species to a less-than-
significant level (Class II).
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Of the 37 special-status wildlife species known to occur in the project area, three were
determined to have a high to moderate potential to occur on the project site, namely Western
Burrowing Owl, and the Loggerhead shrike and White-tailed kite, both described below as
nesting birds.
Habitat suitability for other grassland-associated species in the project site has been reduced by
repeated discing, surrounding development, and major roads acting as dispersal barriers.
These factors have also dramatically reduced or eliminated the potential for riparian and
aquatic species to occur on the project site. Similarly, all seasonal wetland habitat suitable for
vernal pool crustaceans have been eliminated through repeated discing. Bats are also unlikely
to roost within the project site, due to the lack of suitable thermal conditions and roost
structures present.
Potential impacts to the three special-status wildlife species with a high to moderate potential
to occur on the project site are discussed below.
Western Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl has been documented within the project site and there is a high potential for
this species to inhabit ground squirrel burrows present on-site. As determined during the site
survey, the project site is not currently inhabited by this species, however, there still is the
continued potential to support this species.
Project activities, including vegetation removal and ground disturbance, may affect this species
by causing auditory, vibratory, and/or visual disturbance of a sufficient level to cause
abandonment of the site or active nests, or by removing foraging habitat or access to burrows,
which are required to support nesting. This would result in a potentially significant impact
under CEQA. Implementation of MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion
Measures would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level (Class II).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-16 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Nesting Birds
The project has the potential to impact special-status and non-special-status native nesting
birds (i.e., Loggerhead shrike and White-tailed kites) protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and/or California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Baseline p rotections for most native
birds under federal law and state codes include active nests (those with eggs or young).
Recently, the U.S. Department of the Interior issued guidance clarifying that the MBTA only
applies to intentional/deliberate killing, harm, or collection of covered species (including active
nests). According to the guidance, unintentional impacts to birds/nests that occur within the
context of otherwise lawful activities are not violations of the MBTA. However, ambiguity
remains regarding application of the CFGC, as well as the extent to which minimization and
avoidance measures are still required under the MBTA. Therefore, avoidance of nesting birds is
considered a “best practice” in the San Francisco Bay region and avoids potential enforcement
action by the CDFW. Nesting bird pre-construction survey obligations are a common
component of various permits and authorizations, including CEQA documents and even local
grading permits, and as such may be deemed applicable to project activities within the project
area.
Project activities, such as vegetation removal and ground disturbance associated with
development, would have the potential to affect these species by causing direct mortality of
eggs or young, or by causing auditory, vibratory, and/ or visual disturbance of a sufficient level
to cause abandonment of an active nest. If project activities occur during the nesting season,
which extends from February 1 through August 31, nests of both special-status and non-special-
status native birds could be impacted by construction and other ground disturbing activities.
Implementation of MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures would reduce this potential
impact to a less-than-significant level (Class II).
Mitigation for Impact BIO-1
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and Mitigation
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable
to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be
conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species with
potential to occur within the project area. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and
Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be
conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and
identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or
during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of
concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If any of the species are
found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required:
1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status species are
present within or adjacent to the project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project
on the species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity
exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including
construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas.
Activity exclusion zones for special-status plant species shall be established prior to
construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall
be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its
equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no
construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat
site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a
qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions.
2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant or other special-
status species within the project area are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or
occupied habitat of special-status plants shall be compensated for through the
acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences.
Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall
provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved
habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing
the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that
demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. A mitigation plan identifying
appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 shall be developed in
consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement
of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant or other species with potential to
occur within the project area. A mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the
following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s
tarplant or other special-status species, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is
approved to sell credits for special-status plants, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public
agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and
management of existing populations of special-status plants.
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable
to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-18 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey
Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified
biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Western burrowing owl on the project
site.
The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities
and the second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be
conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the
surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth below shall be followed.
Implement Avoidance Measures
If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the
project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of
construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls.
A pre-construction survey shall be performed prior to start of ground disturbance
activities. This survey will occur regardless of the time of year, as burrowing owls
may use the project site during the non-nesting season. The survey shall be
performed according to the standards set forth by the Staff Report for Burrowing
Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012).
The project site should be managed to prevent burrowing owl from occupying the
site prior to any project activities
All suitable burrows should be closed by hand once it has been determined that the
burrow is unoccupied.
Maintenance of the property to ensure burrows are not rebuilt will be necessary
throughout the year to preclude the presence of burrowing owl and suitable
burrowing owl habitat. Maintenance should occur approximately every 8 weeks,
and burrows should be inspected prior to closure to ensure no burrowing owl are
present. The frequency of burrow closure may be adjusted based upon ground
squirrel and burrow reestablishment progress.
The debris within the project site should be removed.
If discing is chosen as a preferred method for burrow maintenance, it is
recommended that any sensitive biological resources (populations of rare plants,
wetland boundaries and any active bird nests, etc.) be flagged by a qualified
biologist and avoided.
Conduct Burrow Exclusion
If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground-
disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a
Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report.
Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan
If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and project activities may result
in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project
applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include
replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved
by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of
the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the plan shall be reviewed and
accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities.
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
Prior to obtaining the first site grading building or other permit for development activities from
February 1 to August 31, the applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the
Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
Pre-construction Breeding Bird Surveys
No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the
nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist
to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged
and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance may vary based on species and
conditions, but is typically at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. This mitigation
measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur
outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31).
Impact BIO-2: Have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive natural communities or riparian
habitat (Class III).
As shown in Table 7-1: Summary of Biological Communities in Project Area, the project site
contains 76.24 acres of non-sensitive ruderal habitat comprised primarily of disced and mowed
areas of disturbed vegetation. These biological communities are not considered sensitive
natural communities or riparian habitat, and therefore impacts would be less than significant.
Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands or jurisdictional features (Class II).
Development of the project site as proposed would result in direct and permanent impacts to
0.66 acre of seasonal wetlands. The direct loss of these wetland features is considered a
potentially significant impact under CEQA. These wetlands are likely within the jurisdiction of
the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA and the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and the
Porter-Cologne Act. Implementation of MM BIO-3.1: Design Development Area to Minimize
Effects to Preserved Wetland, and Obtain and Comply with Resource Agency Approvals would
reduce this potentially significant impact to wetlands to a less-than-significant level (Class II).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-20 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Mitigation for Impact BIO-3
MM BIO-3.1 Wetland Mitigation Plan
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable
to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
The project applicant shall the acquire the appropriate applicable permit(s) (e.g. Section 404,
Section 401, Porter-Cologne) from the respective regulating agency(s) (i.e. USACE and/or
RWQCB). A If necessary, aA wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish
suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values
or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies.
This may include the 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. The
wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the applicable regulatory agency
(USACE and/or RWQCB) and the City.
The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization and
compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the
designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided or project design measures.
Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetlands or other
waters. The final mitigation ratio (the amount of wetlands and other water created or
preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource
agency(s) and result in no net loss of wetland habitat value or acreages. The wetland mitigation
plan shall include the following:
1. Description of wetland types and their expected functions and values;
2. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation
wetlands over a period of time to be determined by the resource agencies;
3. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created
or preserved;
4. An implementation schedule showing the construction or preservation of mitigation
areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and
5. A description of legal protection of the preserved wetlands (such as dedication of fee
title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation
organization, government agency or mitigation bank).
Impact BIO-4: Have a substantial adverse effect on wildlife movement. (Class III).
The project site is surrounded on four sides by roadways which create an anthropogenic barrier
to dispersal around the project site and precludes the primary function of a habitat corridor, to
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
link two separated but occupied habitats. Therefore, given that the project site is bounded by
urban development, the project site does not function as a wildlife corridor connecting two or
more areas of occupied habitat, and impacts would be less than significant.
Impact BIO-5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances (Class III).
Heritage Tree Ordinance
The project site does not contain any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye or sycamore
trees that are 24 inches in diameter as measured 4.5 feet above natural grade. Therefore, the
project would not be subject to the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance and no significant impacts
would occur.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
The project site is in Conservation Zone 3 (CZ-3) of the EACCS. The EACCS is a guidance
document that is used by the City for public projects, but compliance is not mandated for
private development as it is not an adopted or approved plan that requires a consistency
determination under CEQA. Therefore, no conflicts would occur and impacts would be less
than significant.
7.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic extent for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to biological resources
includes the City of Dublin, which contains suitable and occupied habitat of Congdon’s tarplant,
San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-
tailed kite. This area may alsoHowever, based on professional judgement and field surveys, the
project site does not support core, critical, or unique populations essential to recovery and
long-term survival of these species.
Impact BIO-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources (Class
II).
As stated above, the project would not result in a net loss of riparian habitat and would not
result in a loss of any heritage trees.
The project would affect 0.66 acres of seasonal wetlands, which would considerably contribute
to the significant cumulative biological impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably
future projects. Implementation of MM BIO-3.1 would reduce the project’s contribution to
less-than-cumulatively considerable.
The project’s impacts to Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, Western
Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-tailed kite would be reduced through adherence
to MM BIO-1.1. MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3. Although past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects may result in impacts to special-status plants and special-status
wildlife, such impacts would be site-specific and could be mitigated through adherence to
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-22 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
similar standard mitigation. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to
any significant cumulative impact on wetlands to less than cumulatively considerable. As such,
cumulative impacts to special-species plants and wildlife species would be less than significant.
7.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 7-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources summarizes
the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the
project with regard to biological resources.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-23
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 7-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial
adverse effect on special-status
plant and wildlife species (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and
Mitigation
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion
Measures
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
Impact BIO-2: Have a substantial
adverse effect on sensitive natural
communities or riparian habitat
(Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required
Impact BIO-3: Have a substantial
adverse effect on wetlands or
jurisdictional features (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
Impact BIO-4: Have a substantial
adverse effect on wildlife
movement. (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required
Impact BIO-5: Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinances
(Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required
Impact BIO-6: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts
on biological resources (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and
Mitigation
MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion
Measures
MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures
MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan
7.6 References
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017. Candidate Conservation | Candidate
Notice of Review. Available at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-
do/cnor.html.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2018a. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online
Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Available at:
http://vegetation.cnps.org.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2018b. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online
Edition. Sacramento, California. Available online at: http://vegetation.cnps.org. most
recently accessed: March 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-24 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants
of California
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018a. California Natural Diversity
Database. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Data Branch,
Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, California. Available
online at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data
WRA, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment for the At Dublin Development Project, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
8 Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
8.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on cultural and tribal cultural resources that could be caused by
implementation of the project. The following discussion addresses existing environmental
conditions in the affected area, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts, and
recommends measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts anticipated from project
construction and operation. In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to cultural and
paleontological resources are described. In some cases, compliance with these existing laws
and regulations would serve to reduce or avoid certain impacts that might otherwise occur with
implementation of the project.
The term “cultural resources” encompasses historic, archaeological, and paleontological
resources, and burial sites. It includes:
Historic Resources: Historic resources are associated with the recent past. In California, historic
resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the
State’s history.
Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of prehistoric human activities and
cultures. Archaeological resources are generally associated with indigenous cultures.
Paleontological Resources: Paleontology is the study of plant and animal fossils.
Burial Sites: Burial sites are formal or informal locations where human remains, usually
associated with indigenous cultures, are interred.
The term “tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value
to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of
Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of
Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code.
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section
5024.1.
8.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, the following comments regarding
cultural resources were received and are addressed in this section:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-2 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The National American Heritage Commission provided general guidance on consultation with
California Native American tribes and CEQA requirements
8.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on cultural resources conditions in the greater project area,
which includes the greater Tri-Valley area. The current condition and quality of cultural
resources was used as the baseline against which to compare potential impacts of the project.
8.3.1 Prehistory
The Tri-Valley sub-region compromises of the cities of Dublin, San Ramon, Pleasanton, and
Livermore, and portions of both Alameda County and Contra Costa County. Existing
archaeological records are derived from excavations related to construction in areas south of I-
580. These archaeological surveys make up the primary source of information on prehistoric
life in the greater Livermore-Amador Valley area.
The first discoveries of buried archaeological sites were found in the Arroyo Mocho area south
of I-580 on the banks of streams. Analysis of materials taken from these sites indicate that
trading occurred with Native American peoples throughout central and northern California.
These prehistoric sites appear to have been abandoned during certain periods mainly due to
regular flooding. To date, several village sites on the northern and southern borders of the
arroyo’s seasonal marsh, known in historic times as Willow Marsh, were found buried under
varying amounts of silt material. The precise retreat of these inhabitants is unclear since similar
sites on dry ground are rare for the Livermore and Amador valleys and have not been located in
nearby foothills, nor on the project site.
As one possible explanation, there is evidence that the entire Livermore-Amador Valley area
was abandoned for several hundred years and the inhabitants migrated south through Sunol
and west to the San Francisco Bay. This group of people, presently named the “Meganos”
people, have been traced from an early origin in the Sacramento Valley through the Concord
drainage and to the San Francisco Bay margin.
By 500 or 600 A.D., the valley and the hills in the EDSP area were repopulated by the ancestors
of the modern day Ohlones. Archaeological sites have been found in areas of higher ground
near watercourses in Pleasanton and Livermore along the San Ramon drainage. However, none
of these sites were located in the EDSP area.
Prehistoric Use of the Project Area
For the indigenous population, the EDSP area was likely used for seed gathering from grasses
and acorn harvesting, as well as vegetation along the watercourses were denser flowing from
the hills into Willow Marsh. Main habitation sites were situated along the marsh edges in the
earliest period and then migrated to higher grounds south and west of the marsh
approximately 1,500 years ago.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
8.3.2 Historic Resources
Considerable alteration to the natural landscape occurred during the period of Anglo-American
farming and ranching. All the drainages running through the EDSP area show signs of
considerable siltation and erosion caused by cattle grazing and dry farming. Native grasses,
mainly bunchgrass, have been replaced with European grasses. Large native trees have been
removed or replaced with eucalyptus along drainages and at the locations of the ranches and
homes found in the canyons. Oak, cottonwood, and willow trees can be found sporadically
throughout the EDSP area.
8.3.3 Archaeological Resources
Six reports were found from previous archaeological surveys inside the EDSP area,
concentrating on the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center complex. The Santa Rita Rehabilitation is
approximately 0.56 mile west of the project.
8.3.4 Historic Sites
Although the California Archaeological Inventory located at Sonoma State University does not
record any historic resources inside the EDSP area, numerous structures are listed in The
Thompson and West Historic Atlas of 1878. The 1878 Historic Atlas lists 16 structures within
the EDSP area. Twelve of the historic sites identified to date in the EDSP are considered either
in-use structures of farming complexes. Of these historic resources inventoried above, none
are located within the project site.
8.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
8.4.1 Federal
National Register of Historic Places Eligibility
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended through 2000) authorizes the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), a program for the preservation of historic
properties (“cultural resources”) throughout the Nation. The eligibility of a resource for NRHP
listing is determined by evaluating the resource using criteria defined in 36 CFR 60.4 as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and
culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and
local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, association, and:
That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history;
That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction;
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-4 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
That represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or,
That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or
history.
Unless a site is of exceptional importance, it is not eligible for listing in the NRHP until 50 years
after it was constructed.
All properties change over time. Therefore, it is not necessary for a property to retain all its
historic physical features or characteristics to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. The property
must, however, retain enough integrity to enable it to convey its historic identity; in other
words, to be recognizable to a historical contemporary. The National Register recognizes seven
aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity:
Location – the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the
historic event occurred.
Design – the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of
a property.
Setting – the physical environment of a historic property.
Materials – the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period
of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
Workmanship – the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any
given period in history or prehistory.
Feeling – a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of
time.
Association – the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic
property (National Park Service, 1990).
To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of these
aspects. To properly assess integrity, however, significance (why, where, and when a property
is important) must first be fully established. Therefore, the issues of significance and integrity
must always be considered together when evaluating a historic property.
Executive Order 11593 (May 13, 1971), 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 8921 as
incorporated into Title 7, United States Code
Executive Order 11593, Protection of the Cultural Environment, orders the protection and
enhancement of the cultural environment through providing leadership, establishing State
offices of historic preservation, and developing criteria for assessing resource values.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Title 42, United States Code, Section 1996
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act protects Native American religious practices, ethnic
heritage sites, and land uses.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (1990), Title 25, United
States Code
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) defines “cultural items,”
“sacred objects,” and “objects of cultural patrimony;” establishes an ownership hierarchy;
provides for review; allows excavation of remains under certain conditions, but stipulates
return of the remains according to ownership; sets penalties for violations; calls for inventories;
and provides for return of specified cultural items.
8.4.2 State
CEQA, Archaeological Resources
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines contain specific standards for determining the significance of
impacts to archaeological sites (PRC §21083.2; 14 CCR §15064.5(c)). If the lead agency
determines that the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources,
the EIR must address those archaeological resources (PRC §21083.2(a)). A “unique
archaeological resource” is defined as an “archaeological artifact, object, or site” that, without
merely adding to the current body of knowledge:
Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and
in which there is a demonstrable public interest;
Has a special or particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best
available example of its type; or
Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person. (PRC §21083.2(g)).
Under CEQA, significant impacts on non-unique archaeological resources need not
be addressed in an EIR. (PRC §21083.2(a), (h)).
The limitations in PRC §21083.2 relating to unique archaeological resources do not apply to
archaeological sites that qualify as “historical resources.” (PRC §21083.2(l)). If a lead agency
finds that an archaeological site is a historical resource, impact assessment is governed by PRC
§21084.1, which provides standards for identification of historical resources (14 CCR
§15064.5(c)(2). See §§13.58, 20.94-20.98). The CEQA Guidelines also provide that public
agencies should seek to avoid effects that could damage a "historical resource of an
archaeological nature" when it is feasible to do so (14 CCR §15126.4(b)(3)).
Native American Consultation
Prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005,
California Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4 (commonly referred to as Senate
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-6 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Bill (SB) 18) require a city or county to consult with local Native American tribes that are on the
contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The purpose is to
preserve or mitigate impacts to places, features, and objects described in Public Resources
Code Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 (Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship,
religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine located on public property) that are located within
a city or county’s jurisdiction. SB 18 also states that a city or county shall protect the
confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of
those places, features, and objects identified by said Native American consultation.
The City sent a letter to ten tribes under SB18 and one under AB52. No response for
consultation were received.
Native American Historic Resource Protection Act; Archaeological, Paleontological, and
Historical Sites; Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites (Pub. Res. Code §
5097-5097.994)
Public Resources Code Section 5097 specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the
unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal public lands.
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.9 states that no public agency or private party on
public property shall “interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American
Religion.” The Code further states that:
“No such agency or party [shall] cause severe or irreparable damage to any Native
American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred
shrine…except on a clear and convincing showing that the public interest and necessity
so require.”
California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or
recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall
be no further excavation or disturbance of the find or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered
has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the
human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage
Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site
and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave
goods.
Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 prohibits excavation or removal of any
“vertebrate paleontological site…or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical
feature, situated on public lands, except with express permission of the public agency having
jurisdiction over such lands.” Public lands are defined to include lands owned by or under the
jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority or public corporation, or any
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
agency thereof. Section 5097.5 states that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of
archaeological, historical, or paleontological materials or sites located on public lands is a
misdemeanor.
CEQA, Historic Resources
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines contain specific standards for determining the significance of
impacts on “historical resources” (PRC §21084.1, 14 CCR §15064.5). A resource listed in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or determined by the State Historical Resources
Commission to be eligible for listing in the Register, must be treated as an “historical resource”
for purposes of CEQA. PRC §21084.1; 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1). A resource designated as
historically significant in a local register of historical resources, or identified as significant in an
approved historical resources survey, is presumed to be significant. The presumption of
significance may be overcome if the agency concludes, based on a preponderance of the
evidence, that the site is not historically or culturally significant (PRC §21084.1; 14 CCR
§15064.5(a)(2)).
A lead agency may also find that a site that does not meet any of these criteria should be
treated as a historical resource under CEQA (PRC §21084.1; 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(4)). A lead
agency may find that “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript” is
historically significant or significant in the “cultural annals of California” provided that its
determination is “supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record” (14 CCR
§15064.5(a)(3)). The guidelines also note that a resource ordinarily should be considered
historically significant if it meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical
Resources (14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)).
California Register of Historical Resources
To be determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), a
property must be significant at the local, State, or national level under one or more of the
following four criteria as defined in Public Resources Code 5024.1 and CEQA Guideline
15064.5(a).
It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of the history and cultural heritage of California
and the United States.
It is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California’s
past.
It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values.
It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the state and the nation.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-8 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, a significant property must also retain
integrity. Properties eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain enough of their historic
character to convey the reason(s) for their significance. Integrity is judged in relation to
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
8.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policy as it relates to cultural and tribal
resources:
Guiding Policy 7.7.1.A.2: Follow State regulations as set forth in Public Resources Code Section
21083.2 regarding discovery of archaeological sites, and Historical Resources, as defined in
Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs as
it relates to cultural and tribal resources:
Policy 6-24: The presence and significance of archaeological or historic resources will be
determined, and necessary mitigation programs formulated, prior to development approvals
for any of the sites identified in the cultural resource survey prepared for this plan.
Policy 6-25: The discovery of historic or prehistoric remains during grading and construction will
result in the cessation of such activities until the significance and extent of those remains can
be ascertained by a certified archaeologist.
Policy 6-26: All properties with historic resources which may be impacted by future
development shall be subjected to in-depth archival research to determine the significance of
the resource prior to any alteration.
Policy 6-27: Where the disruption of historic resources is unavoidable, encourage the adaptive
re-use or restoration of historic structures (such as the old school house, several barns, and
Victorian residences currently in the area) whenever feasible.
ACTION PROGRAM: Cultural Resources
Program 6P: The City of Dublin shall require the following actions as part of the application
process for development within eastern Dublin:
Site Sensitivity: Based on the first stage cultural resource survey of the area
conducted as background for the Plan, the City will make a determination of
whether the subject site has been identified as having prehistoric or historic
resources potentially located on it.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Research: For those sites with potential resources, a second level of detailed
research and field reconnaissance will be required to determine the level of
archaeological or historical significance. This research will be the responsibility of
the development applicant, and be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. The
research will be consistent with the guidelines for prehistoric and historic resources
provided in the cultural resources survey prepared for eastern Dublin.
Mitigation: For those sites that contain significant resources, a mitigation plan must
be developed which is consistent with the policies in this Specific Plan and current
CEQA guidelines concerning cultural resources.
City of Dublin Municipal Code
Section 8.48.020 Archaeology Regulations of the Dublin Municipal Code states that in the event
that archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic artifacts are discovered during any
construction or excavation, the following regulations shall apply:
A. Cessation of construction activities. Construction and/or excavation activities shall cease
immediately and the Department of Community Development shall be notified.
B. Procedure. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether any such
materials are significant prior to resuming ground breaking construction activities.
Standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds and discovery of human remains shall
be followed as prescribed in Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
8.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
8.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for cultural and tribal resources were derived from the
Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been
amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full
range of potential impacts related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource (CEQA
Guideline 15064.5).
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
(CEQA Guideline 15064.5).
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-10 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
8.5.2 Impact Assessment Methodology
For cultural resources, impact assessment is based on a comparison of known resource
locations with the placement of ground disturbing project activities that have the potential to
remove, relocate, damage, or destroy the physical evidence of past cultural activities. If such
ground disturbance overlaps recorded site locations, then a direct impact may occur. Historical
buildings and structures may be directly impacted if the nearby setting and context is modified
substantially, even if the building or structure itself is not physically affected. Indirect impacts
may occur if activities occur near, but not directly on, known cultural resources.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
8.5.3 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Known Historical or Archaeological Resources
As described above, the historic-period resources identified within the project site were
formally evaluated for CRHR-eligibility and found to be ineligible under CEQA. Neither does the
project site qualify as unique archaeological resources. Therefore, the construction of the
project would not impact any known historical resources or unique archaeological resources as
defined by CEQA, and therefore there would be no impact.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The project site is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k). The City sent a letter to ten tribes under SB18 and one under AB52 and no
response for consultation were received. Therefore, the project site is not considered to be of
cultural value to a California Native American tribe as the construction of the project would not
impact any known tribal cultural resources as defined by CEQA, and there would be no impact.
8.5.4 Impacts of the Project
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change to a previously unknown historic or
archeological resource (Class II).
Of the historic resources inventoried in the 1878 Historic Atlas, none of the historic sites are
located within the project site. In addition, no historic sites were identified in the NRHP and
CRHR databases. Nonetheless, there is always the possibility that previously unknown historic
resources exist below the ground surface within the project site. This is a potentially significant
impact.
Implementation of MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction would
reduce impacts to a level of less-than-significant level.
Mitigation for Impact CR-1
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction
If buried historic or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, operations
shall stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate
the resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. The applicant shall include a
standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of
this requirement. If the resource does not qualify as a significant resource, then no further
protection or study is necessary. If the resource does qualify as a significant resource then the
impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the resource cannot be avoided, adverse
impacts to the resource shall be addressed. The archaeologist shall make recommendations
concerning appropriate mitigation measures that shall be implemented to protect the
resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-12 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Any previously undiscovered resources found
during construction within the project area should be recorded on appropriate Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria.
Impact CR-2: Directly impact a paleontological resource or unique geologic feature (Class II).
The project area is not located in an area that is considered likely to have paleontological
resources present. Fossils of plants, animals, or other organisms of paleontological significance
have not been discovered at the project site, nor has the site been identified to be within an
area where such discoveries are likely. The type of depositional environment at the project
area typically does not present favorable conditions for the discovery of paleontological
resources. In this context, the project would not result in impacts to paleontological resources
or unique geologic features. However, if significant paleontological resources are discovered,
implementation of MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring would reduce impacts to a
less-than-significant level (Class II).
Mitigation for Impact CR-2
MM CR-2.1 Paleontological Resource Monitoring
In the event a fossil(s) is discovered during construction for the project, excavations within 50
feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a
qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.
The applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction
contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the paleontological resources are found
to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a
qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall
be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for
paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include (1) the results of any
geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area, (2) specific details of the construction
plans for the project area, (3) background research, and (4) limited subsurface investigation
within the project area.
If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of
further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment.
After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods,
findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared
and submitted to the Director of Community Development.
Impact CR-3: Inadvertently disturb human remains (Class III).
No known human remains are located on the project site. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, if human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation
or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources | Page 8-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In general, these provisions require that the County
Coroner be notified immediately.
If the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner is required to notify the
Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The most likely descendant of the
deceased Native American is notified by the Commission and given the chance to make
recommendations for the remains. If the Commission is unable to identify the most likely
descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be reinterred
with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further
subsurface disturbance. If recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American
Heritage Commission will mediate the problem.
With implementation of existing regulations, the impact would be less than significant (Class III)
and no mitigation is required.
8.5.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic extent of cumulative impacts to cultural resources is dependent on the
resource under discussion. For example, a cumulative impact to a historic architectural district
would extend across the district, while the cumulative impact to individual archaeological or
paleontological resources may accumulate across the City of Dublin, depending on the nature
of the resources.
Impact CR-4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on cultural resources (Class II).
The project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects,
could result in significant impacts to archaeological resources. However, projects located in an
archaeologically sensitive area is required to conduct archaeological monitoring during
construction, which would reduce cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level. In
addition, MM CR-1.1 and CR-2.1 would apply to the project, ensuring that its contribution to
cumulative impacts would not be considerable.
The project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects,
could result in significant cumulative impacts to paleontological resources through accidentally
discovery or destruction. The project’s contribution to those cumulative effects would be
reduced through MM CR-1.1 and CR-2.1. Therefore, the project would not considerably
contribute to cumulative impacts to paleontological resources.
As stated above, project-level impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
Standard regulatory requirements and procedures are required of other present and
reasonably foreseeable future projects, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-8-14 | Cultural & Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
8.5.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 8-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Cultural Resources summarizes the
environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project
with regard to cultural resources.
Table 8-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Cultural Resources
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact CR-1: Cause a substantial
adverse change to a known
archeological resource (Class II).
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During
Construction
Impact CR-2: Directly impact a
paleontological resource or unique
geologic feature (Class II)
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring
Impact CR-3: Inadvertently disturb
human remains (Class III)
Less than
significant
None required
Impact CR-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
cultural resources (Class II)
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During
Construction
MM CR-2.1: Paleontological Resource Monitoring
8.6 References
City of Dublin General Plan 1985 updated 2017. Website:
https://www.dublin.ca.gov/171/General-Plan
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
9 Geology & Soils
9.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on geology and soils that would be caused by implementation of
the project. Information used to prepare this section came from the following resources:
ENGEO, AT Dublin Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, 2018 (see Appendix D) 11
City of Dublin,Dublin General Plan 1985, as amended 2017
Online reference materials
9.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding geology and
soils were raised.
9.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on geology and soils conditions in the project area. The
current soils condition was used as the baseline against which to compare potential impacts of
the project.
9.3.1 Subsurface Conditions
Dublin is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, which is characterized as near
parallel, northwest trending mountain ranges and valleys. As shown in Figure 9-1: Soils on the
Project Site, the online soil survey of the project site from the California Soil Resources Lab
(CSRL 2018) indicates that the project site contains four native soil mapping units: Clear Lake,
Sycamore, Linne and Sunnyvale.
Clear Lake Series. The Clear Lake series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils located on
plains and flat basins, which formed in alluvium derived from sandstone andshale. A
representative profile for the series consists of a very dark gray (N 3/0) clay layer, 39 inches
thick, with few faint redoximorphic concentrations in the upper 13 inches. A light olive brown
(2.5Y 5/4) clay layer with light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) masses of iron accumulations occurs
below this layer to a depth of approximately 60 inches. This soil is a very hard, firm, and very
sticky clay. This soil type is listed as hydric (USDA 2018b), but the two soil mapping units in this
series that are present within the Project Area are drained (Clear Lake clay, drained, 3 to 7
percent slopes, and Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14), and any hydric
soil indicators observed within these mapping units may be relict.
11 This report was prepared on behalf of the project applicant and peer reviewed by Kimley-Horn & Associates.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-2 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Sycamore Series. The Sycamore series consists of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium
from sedimentary rock on floodplains. Typically, Sycamore soils contain grayish-brown (2.5Y
5/2), slightly acidic, slightly clay loam A horizons that are approximately 15 inches thick; grayish
brown and light brownish-gray (2.5Y 4/4), distinctly mottled, mildly to moderately alkaline, silt
loam B horizons that extend to a depth of 27 inches; and stratified light brownish-gray and pale
brown (10YR 6/3) mottled loam, fine sandy loam and loamy fine sand calcareous C horizons.
This soil type is listed as hydric (USDA 2018b).
Linne Series. The Linne series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils on hills with
slopes of 5 to 75 percent. They formed in material weathered from fairly soft shale and
sandstone and have medium to very rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. In a
typical profile, the surface layer is composed of black (10YR 2/1), moderately alkaline clay loam
that extends nine inches in depth. This soil is underlain by black to very dark gray (10YR 3/1),
moderately alkaline clay loam that extends up to 29 inches in depth. From 29 to 32 inches, the
soil is composed of gray and light brownish gray (10YR 5/1 and 6/2), moderately alkaline sandy
clay loam. From 32 to 36 inches, the soil is composed of very pale brown and white (10YR 7/2
and 8/2) moderately alkaline fine sandy loam. Lastly, from 36 to 51 inches, the soil is
comprised of light gray and pale yellow (2.5Y 7/2 and 8/4) moderately alkaline mudstone. This
soil type is listed as hydric.
Sunnyvale Series.The Sunnyvale series consists of poorly drained, calcareous soils on nearly
level valley floors north of Pleasanton. The surface soil is gray, granular, slightly calcareous,
heavy clay loam. Sunnyvale soils are often used for irrigated row crops, for pasture, and for
dry-farmed grain. A representative profile for the Sunnyvale series consists of an Ap horizon
from 0 to 6 inches with dark gray to very dark grey (N4/ - N3/) silty clay. Similar colors are seen
in an Alc2 horizon of silty clay from 6 to 14 inches in depth. A Clca horizon extends from 14 to
34 inches in depth, with light grey to dark grey (N7/ - N3/) silty clay. This soil type is listed as
hydric.
9.3.2 Seismicity
The San Francisco Bay Area contains numerous active earthquake faults. The active faults
mapped within 20 miles of the site are listed in Table 9-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity. An
active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as one that has had surface
displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years) (Bryant and Hart, 2007).
Figure 9-2: Regional Fault Zones shows the approximate locations of these faults and significant
historic earthquakes recorded within the San Francisco Bay Region.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 9-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity
Fault Segment
Distance from
Project Site
(miles)
Direction from Project
Site (miles)
Maximum
Characteristic
Magnitude
Mount Diablo Thrust 2.8 North 6.7
Calaveras 3.6 West 7.0
Greenville 8.2 Northeast 7.0
Hayward-Rodgers 10.4 West 7.3
Green Valley 14.8 Northwest 6.8
Great Valley 19.0 East 6.9
Source: ENGEO, 2018
The bedrock formations in the area south of Mount Diablo and north of the Livermore Valley
have been folded and cut by thrust faults that typically dip toward the north, according to
geologic mapping by Crane (1995) and Graymer, et al. (1996). Geologic studies by Unruh and
Sawyer (1997) suggest that the core of Mount Diablo may be underlain at depth (several
thousand feet) by an active “blind” thrust fault system (a “blind” thrust fault does not extend to
the surface).
According to Unruh and Sawyer (1997), movement on the blind thrust fault system is
responsible for the uplift of Mount Diablo and the folding of the rocks in the site vicinity. Unruh
and Sawyer believe that surface effects of the deeply buried blind thrust fault system are
typically relatively slow, diffuse, and distributed vertical movements associated with the growth
of folds. According to their cross sections, the leading edge of the buried Mount Diablo thrust
fault may exist at depths of three to five miles somewhere near the Tassajara Anticline, located
approximately four miles to the north of the site.
Seismic Hazards
Fault Rupture
Fault rupture is a seismic hazard that affects structures sited above an active fault. The hazard
from fault rupture is the movement of the ground surface along a fault during an earthquake.
Typically, this movement takes place during the short time of an earthquake, but it also can
occur slowly over many years in a process known as creep. Most structures and underground
utilities cannot accommodate the surface displacements of several inches to several feet
commonly associated with fault rupture or creep.
Ground Shaking
The severity of ground shaking depends on several variables such as earthquake magnitude,
epicenter distance, local geology, thickness, seismic wave-propagation properties of
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-4 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
unconsolidated materials, groundwater conditions, and topographic setting. Ground shaking
hazards are most pronounced in areas near faults or with unconsolidated alluvium.
Based on observations of damage from recent earthquakes in California (e.g., San Fernando
1971, Whittier-Narrows 1987, Landers 1992, Northridge 1994), ground shaking is responsible
for 70 to 100 percent of all earthquake damage. The most common type of damage from
ground shaking is structural damage to buildings, which can range from cosmetic stucco cracks
to total collapse. The overall level of structural damage from a nearby large earthquake would
likely be moderate to heavy, depending on the characteristics of the earthquake, the type of
ground, and the condition of the building. Besides damage to buildings, strong ground shaking
can cause severe damage from falling objects or broken utility lines. Fire and explosions are
also hazards associated with strong ground shaking.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction tends to occur in loose, saturated fine-grained sands, course silts, or clays with low
plasticity. The liquefaction process typically occurs at depths less than 50 feet below the
ground surface, although liquefaction can occur at deeper intervals, given the right conditions.
The most susceptible zone occurs at depths shallower than 30 feet below the ground surface.
Liquefaction can lead to several types of ground failure, depending on slope conditions and the
geological and hydrological settings, of which the four most common types of ground failure
are: 1) lateral spreads, 2) flow failures, 3) ground oscillation, and 4) loss of bearing strength.
A liquefaction potential analysis was conducted by ENGEO for the project site indicating that
the interbedded layers of clay sand and sandy clay will settle approximately three inches due to
cyclic softening and liquefaction.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a failure within a nearly horizontal soil zone that causes the overlying soil
mass to move toward a free face or down a gentle slope. Generally, the effects of lateral
spreading are most significant at a free face or the crest of a slope and diminish with distance
from the slope. Based on the lack of a laterally continuous layer of potentially liquefiable soil at
the site and general flatness of the project site, the risk of lateral spreading is low.
Ground Lurching
Ground lurching is a result of the rolling motion imparted to the ground surface during energy
released by an earthquake. Such rolling motion can cause ground cracks to form in weaker
soils. The potential for the formation of these cracks is considered greater at contacts between
deep alluvium and bedrock. Such an occurrence is possible at the project site as in other
locations in the Bay Area region, but based on the site location, the offset is expected to be
minor.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Flooding
Flooding is not expected at the project site based on site elevation and distance from water
sources.
Expansive Soils
Samples of existing near-surface soil were tested for plasticity index (PI) to estimate expansive
potential. The existing near-surface soil samples tested yielded PIs ranging from 11 to 55,
which indicate moderately high expansion potential.
Expansive soil can change in volume with changes in moisture. They can shrink or swell and
cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow
foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soil can be
reduced by: (1) using a rigid mat foundation that is designed to resist the settlement and heave
of expansive soil, (2) deepening the foundations to below the zone of moisture fluctuation, i.e.
by using deep footings or drilled piers, and/or (3) using footings at normal shallow depths, but
bottomed on a layer of select fill having a low expansion potential.
9.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
9.4.1 Federal
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program was established by the U.S. Congress
when it passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law 95–124. In
establishing the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Congress recognized that
earthquake-related losses could be reduced through improved design and construction
methods and practices, land use controls and redevelopment, prediction techniques and early
warning systems, coordinated emergency preparedness plans, and public education and
involvement programs. The four basic goals remain unchanged:
1. Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerate
their implementation.
2. Improve techniques for reducing earthquake vulnerabilities of facilities and systems.
3. Improve earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods, and their use.
4. Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
Several key federal agencies contribute to earthquake mitigation efforts. There are four
primary National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program agencies:
1. National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department of Commerce
2. National Science Foundation
3. United States Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland
Security
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-6 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementation of National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program priorities is accomplished
primarily through original research, publications, and recommendations to assist and guide
state, regional, and local agencies in the development of plans and policies to promote safety
and emergency planning.
International Building Code
Published by the International Code Council, the scope of this code covers major aspects of
construction and design of structures and buildings, except for 3-story one- and two-family
dwellings and town homes. The 2012 International Building Code replaced the 1997 Uniform
Building Code and contains provisions for structural engineering design. Published by the
International Conference of Building Officials, the 2012 International Building Code (IBC)
addresses the design and installation of structures and building systems through requirements
that emphasize performance. The IBC includes codes governing structural as well as fire- and
life-safety provisions covering seismic, wind, accessibility, egress, occupancy, and roofs.
9.4.2 State
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), provides building codes and standards for design and
construction of structures in California.
Chapter 16 of the CBC contains definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to
calculate seismic forces on structures. Chapter 33 of the CBC contains requirements relevant to
the construction of underground transmission lines. Building permits for all projects are
reviewed to ensure compliance with the CBC.
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 2621-2630
(formerly the Special Studies Zoning Act), regulates development and construction of buildings
intended for human occupancy to avoid the hazard of surface fault rupture. This Act
categorizes faults as active, potentially active, and inactive. Historic and Holocene age faults
are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially
active, and pre-Quaternary age faults are considered inactive. These classifications are
qualified by the conditions that a fault must be shown to be “sufficiently active” and “well
defined” by detailed site-specific geologic explorations to determine whether building setbacks
should be established.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, PRC, Sections 2690–2699, of 1990 directs the California
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology [now called California Geological
Survey (CGS)] to delineate Seismic Hazard Zones. The purpose of the act is to reduce the threat
to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and
mitigating seismic hazards.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Cities, counties, and State agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by
CGS in their land-use planning and permitting processes. The act requires that site-specific
geotechnical investigations be performed prior to permitting most urban development projects
within seismic hazard zones.
9.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policy as it relates to geology and soils:
Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1: Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for
stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board or any
subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of the
Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses.
Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to insure site design that
minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.
Guiding Policy 8.2.1.A.1: Geologic hazards shall be mitigated or development shall be located
away from geologic hazards to preserve life, protect property, and reasonably limit the financial
risks to the City of Dublin and other public agencies that would result from damage to poorly
located public facilities.
Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.1: Structural and Grading Requirements
All structures shall be designed to the standards delineated in the Dublin Building
Code and Dublin’s Grading Ordinance. A “design earthquake” shall be established by
an engineering geologist for each structure for which ground shaking is a significant
design factor.
Structures intended for human occupancy shall be at least 50 feet from any active
fault trace; freestanding garages and storage structures may be as close as 25 feet.
These distances may be reduced based on adequate exploration to accurately locate
the fault trace.
Generally, facilities should not be built astride potential rupture zones, although
certain low-risk facilities may be considered. Critical facilities that must cross a fault,
such as oil, gas, and water lines, shall be designed to accommodate the maximum
expected offset from fault rupture. Site specific evaluations shall determine the
maximum credible offset.
A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for all subdivisions. Any
other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as a road or a building on hillside
terrain, must also have such a study. Each of the hazards described in the Seismic Safety
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-8 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
and Safety Element must be evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be prepared by a
registered engineering geologist.
Detailed geologic studies will be required at the tentative subdivision map stage for
all projects within the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary on the Geologic Hazards and
Constraints map, and for other projects if the preliminary investigation indicates a potential
geologic hazard. Proposals for mitigation should be included at this stage. The detailed
analysis for projects in the Landslide Hazard Area Boundary must consider:
o Cumulative effect of new development on a partially developed slide;
o Effects of septic leach systems, garden watering, and altered drainage patterns;
o Impact of a maximum credible earthquake;
o Where applicable, passage of the Calaveras Fault through or under landslide
deposits;
o Debris flow and other downslope hazards (especially common east of Dublin). Care
must be taken not to locate structures in the path of potential debris flows.
o Where published maps identify or show “ancient” or Quaternary slides on sites of
proposed development, their stability must be analyzed, and effects of the proposed
development on the area's stability must be evaluated by a soils engineer.
o If the preliminary report indicates liquefaction potential, an engineering analysis and
design, if necessary, to mitigate liquefaction hazards, shall be required for all
structures planned for human occupancy.
o Evaluation for shrink-swell potential shall be included with all soils reports and
design recommendations formulated where the potential is present. These analyses
and recommendations shall include public streets and utilities, to reduce future
public repair costs.
o A surface fault rupture evaluation, as outlined by the State of California for Special
Studies Zones (Alquist-Priolo Act), shall be required for all development within the
Revised Special Studies Zones as shown on the Geologic Hazards and Constraints
map.
o The fault rupture evaluation should be conducted after building sites are specifically
defined. Sites situated outside of this zone but within the Preliminary Zones
(Slossen, 1973) shall be evaluated if proposed for multifamily dwellings or for public
or recreational facilities.
o Any changes in grading or building design that would be significantly affected by
geologic hazards or soils conditions, or in turn would significantly alter geologic or
soils conditions, shall be accompanied by a re-analysis of those conditions. In
addition, any conditions discovered during excavation or grading that significantly
depart from the previously described geologic and soils setting shall be evaluated.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.3J: Post-earthquake or damage reconstruction of existing
structures shall be permitted only if mitigating factors are incorporated.
Implementing Policy 8.2.1.B.4: Data Review and Collection
All required reports and data shall be reviewed by the Alameda County Geologist or
a consulting engineering geologist. This individual shall participate in the review
process from the earliest proposal stage to completion of the project.
A file of all geologic and soils reports and grading plans shall be maintained as
reference material for future planning and design on each site as well as on adjacent
sites.
City and developer shall endeavor to fully disclose hazards to present and future
occupants and property owners.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policy as it relates to
geology and soils:
Policy 6-43: New development shall be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a
result of construction activities and the alteration of site drainage characteristics.
Program 6H: The City should enact and enforce an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance
establishing performance standards to ensure maintenance of water quality and protection of
stream channels. The ordinance should regulate grading and development activities adjacent
to streams and wetland areas and require revegetation of all ground disturbances immediately
after construction to reduce erosion potential. Until such an ordinance is in place, the City shall
require project applicants to provide a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan as part
of the project submittal.
Dublin Municipal Code
Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 7.32 adopts the 2016 CBC; as such, all new construction within
the city limits is required to adhere to its seismic safety standards. The City of Dublin
Community Development Department, Building and Safety Division, is responsible for the
administration and enforcement of the Building Code.
9.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
9.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for geology & soils were derived from the Environmental
Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or
supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full range of
impacts related to the project.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-10 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria:
Result in triggering or acceleration of geologic processes, such as landslides,
substantial soil erosion, or loss of topsoil during construction.
Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury where there is high
potential for seismically induced ground shaking, landslides, liquefaction,
settlement, lateral spreading, and/or surface cracking.
Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury where there is high
potential for earthquake-related ground rupture near major fault crossings.
Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury where corrosive,
expansive or other unsuitable soils are present.
Result in soils that are unable to support an on-site wastewater disposal system
(septic).
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
9.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Exposure to Earthquake-Related Ground Rupture
The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map as mapped
by the State Geologist. The closest known fault to the project site is the Mount Diablo Thrust
fault, located approximately 2.8 miles north of the project site. There are no known or
potentially active faults located within or adjacent to the project site. Based on the distance of
the project site from the Mount Diablo Thrust fault, the project would not expose people or
structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
fault rupture, and therefore there would be no impact.
Landslide Susceptibility
The project site is relatively flat and is not located in an area that would be affected by a
landslide. Therefore, there would be no impact.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
On-site Wastewater Disposal System
The project would involve disposal of wastewater via a sanitary sewer, and there would be no
septic systems under the project. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Extraction of Mineral Resources
There are no mines or quarries within 1,000 feet of the project site; nor is the project site
within a known mapped oil or gas field, and therefore there would be no impact.
9.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact GEO-1: Expose people or structures to potential risk of loss or injury associated with
seismic hazards (Class II).
Ground Shaking
An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region
could cause considerable ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in the
past. To mitigate the shaking effects, all structures will be required to be designed using sound
engineering judgment and the current California Building Code (CBC) requirements, as a
minimum.
As part of the project applicant’s building permit application, they would be required to submit
a design-level geotechnical report. This report would provide recommendations on the
appropriate level of soil engineering and building design necessary to minimize ground-shaking
hazards. Accordingly, MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Recommendations is proposed, requiring the applicant to submit a design-level geotechnical
report to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The implementation of this mitigation
measure would ensure that the project is not exposed to strong ground shaking hazards and
impacts would be less than significant.
Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Ground Lurching
The Preliminary Geotechnical Report indicated that based on the lack of a laterally continuous
layer of potentially liquefiable soil and the general flatness of the project site, the risk of lateral
spreading is low. In addition, based on the site location, the occurrence of ground lurching is
expected to be minor.
Liquefaction tends to occur in loose, saturated fine-grained sands, course silts, or clays with low
plasticity. The liquefaction potential analysis indicated that interbedded layers of clay sand and
sandy clay will settle approximately three inches due to cyclic softening and liquefaction. Based
on the high end of the calculated total liquefaction settlements, site improvements on the
project site should be designed to withstand a differential settlement of 1½ inches over a 30-
foot distance and perform as intended. To mitigate the differential settlement for structures,
the Preliminary Geotechnical Report recommends post-tensioned mat foundations for the
residential structures and commercial structures.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-12 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
With incorporation of MM GEO-1.1 Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Recommendations to implement geotechnical report recommendations into the final project
design and construction documents for the project, and compliance with the CBC and General
Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant (Class II).
Mitigation for Impact GEO-1
MM GEO-1.1 Implement Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Recommendations
The project applicant shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design-
level geotechnical investigation that incorporates the recommendations in the Preliminary
Geotechnical Exploration. The design-level geotechnical report shall address, but not be limited
to, site preparation and grading, building foundations, and CBC seismic design parameters. A
design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted in conjunction with Building
Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin. Recommendations
from the design-level geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the final project design and
construction documents for each phase of the project.
Impact GEO-2: Trigger or accelerate substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil (Class II).
The project would involve grading, building construction, and paving activities that could result
in erosion and sedimentation. Based on site elevation and distance from water sources,
flooding is not expected to occur at the project site.
The topsoil is expected to have a low to moderate permeability level for stormwater infiltration
in grassy swales or permeable pavers, unless subdrains are installed. Thus, limited stormwater
infiltration is assumed to occur on the project site. However, the Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration recommends a Civil Engineer review pertinent information relating to possible
flood levels for the project site based on final pad elevations and provide appropriate design
measures for development of the project, if recommended.
Projects involving construction on sites that are one acre or more are required to prepare and
implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies how the discharger
will protect water quality during construction activities. These measures include, but are not
limited to: design and construction of cut and fill slopes in a manner that will minimize erosion,
protection of exposed slope areas, control of surface water flows over exposed soils, use of
wetting or sealing agents or sedimentation ponds, limiting soil excavation in high winds,
construction of beams and runoff diversion ditches, and use of sediment traps, such as hay
bales. (Also see Chapter 12: Hydrology & Water Quality.)
Because the near-surface soil is moderately to highly expansive, the Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration recommends restricting the amount of surface water infiltration near structures,
pavements, flatwork, and slabs-on-grade. This may be accomplished by:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Selecting landscaping that requires little or no watering, especially within three feet
of structures, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.
Using low precipitation sprinkler heads.
Regulating the amount of water distributed to lawn or planter areas by installing
timers on the sprinkler system.
Providing surface grades to drain rainfall or landscape watering to appropriate
collection systems and away from structures, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.
Preventing water from draining toward or ponding near building foundations, slabs-
on-grade, or pavements.
Avoiding open planting areas within three feet of the building perimeter.
With incorporation of MM GEO-1.1 to implement the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
recommendations into the final project design and construction documents for the project, and
compliance with the CBC and General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant (Class
II).
Impact GEO-3: Expose people or structures to substantial safety risks as a result of liquefaction
or expansive soils (Class II).
Ground Failure Including Liquefaction
Laboratory samples of soils in the project area exhibit moderate to high shrink/swell potential
with variations in moisture content. The Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration includes
recommendations including the use of post-tensioned mat foundations, keeping exposed soils
moist prior to placement of concrete for foundation construction, and recommendations for
compaction of clay soil to reduce the swell potential of the clay.
With incorporation of MM GEO-1.1 to implement these Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
recommendations into the final project design for the project, and compliance with General
Plan policies, expansive soil conditions would be abated, and impacts would be less than
significant (Class II).
9.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Because geologic impacts are site-specific and highly dependent upon the structural
characteristics of individual projects, cumulative geologic hazards and soils impacts are
generally confined to the project site and immediate vicinity.
Impact GEO-4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable effects on geology and soils (Class II).
Most geologic-related impacts from development are site-specific and, if properly designed,
would not result in worsening of the environmental or public health and safety. Cumulative
development would be subject to site-specific geologic and/or soils constraints; pursuant to the
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-9-14 | Geology & Soils
Draft EIR
10/23/18
City of Dublin requirements, a registered geotechnical engineer would investigate site-specific
conditions and minimize exposure to hazards or constraints with implementation of their
recommendations.
Cumulative development would also involve the exposure of an increased number of people
and/or structures to risk of earthquakes and their associated geologic hazards. New
construction would be required to comply with the most current CA Building Code (CBC), which
establishes building standards to minimize risk based on the geologic and seismic conditions of
the region in which a project is located.
With administration of these requirements, the incorporation of MM GEO-1.1 to implement
Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration recommendations, and adherence to the CBC, cumulative
geologic and soils impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
9.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 9-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Geology & Soils summarizes the
environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project
with regard to geology & soils.
Table 9-2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Geology & Soils
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact GEO-1: Expose people or
structures to potential risk of loss or
injury associated with seismic
hazards (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-2: Trigger or accelerate
substantial soil erosion or loss of
topsoil (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-3: Expose people or
structures to substantial safety risks
as a result of liquefaction (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration Recommendations
Impact GEO-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
geology and soils (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM GEO-1.1: Implement Preliminary Geotechnical
Exploration Recommendations
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Geology & Soils | Page 9-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
9.6 References
CGS (California Geological Survey). 2018. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, CGS Special
Publication #42. Available at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/Sp42.pdf.
Accessed March 13, 2018.
City of Dublin. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan.
ENGEO Inc. 2018. At Dublin Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration.
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018a. WETS
Station Livermore NCDC #4997, 1971-2000 analysis. http://agacis.rcc-
acis.org/06111/wets/results. Most recently accessed: January 2018.
USDA United States Department of Agriculture. 2018b. National List of Hydric Soils. Natural
Resources Conservation Service. Available online at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2018. Earthquake Hazards Program, National Seismic
Hazard Map website. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/. Accessed March 13, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
10.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions that would be
caused by implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section came from
the following resources:
Project application and related materials
Air quality data provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Clean Air Plan 2017
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 amended 2017
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update, 2013
The study area for climate change and the analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is broad
because climate change is influenced by world-wide emissions and their global effects.
However, the study area is also limited by the CEQA Guidelines [Section 15064(d)], which
directs lead agencies to consider an “indirect physical change” only if that change is a
reasonably foreseeable impact that may be caused by the project. This analysis limits
discussion to those physical changes to the environment that are not speculative and are
reasonably foreseeable.
10.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding greenhouse
gas emissions were raised.
10.3 Environmental Setting
10.3.1 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere
and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate—such as wind patterns,
precipitation, and storms—over an extended period of time. Gases that absorb and re-emit
infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs are present in
the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary
reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal
contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (CEQA Guidelines § 15364.5). Water
vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its
atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-2 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
evaporation. Table 10-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases, described the primary GHGs
attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties.
GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4
are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-
products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing associated with
agricultural practices and landfills. GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the
environment because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to climate change.
Climate change is by definition a cumulative impact because it occurs worldwide. Although
emissions of one single project do not cause climate change, GHG emissions from multiple
projects (past, present and future) throughout the world could result in a cumulative impact
with respect to climate change.
Man-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include
fluorinated gases and SF6 (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA], 2006).
Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs). The GWP of a GHG is
the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale
(generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference
gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions,
referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted
multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane CH4
has a GWP of 28, meaning its global warming effect is 28 times greater than carbon dioxide on
a molecule per molecule basis (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[IPCC], 2014).
The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the
natural heat trapping effect of GHGs, Earth’s surface would be about 34° C cooler (CalEPA,
2006). However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, particularly the
consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the
concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring
concentrations.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human
activities. Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration
of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic
outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.
The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as
coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The
atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the
atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global
Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary
human-related sources of N2O include agricultural soil management, sewage
treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N2O is
produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in
wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years.
The Global Warming Potential of N2O is 298.
Methane (CH4)
Methane, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of
chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure
conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills.
Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume.
Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice
cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. Natural sources of CH4
include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland
soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years and the Global
Warming Potential is 25.
Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile
air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the
continued phase out of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and HCFCs gains momentum.
The 100-year Global Warming Potential of HFCs range from 124 for HFC-152 to
14,800 for HFC-23.
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about
60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes,
between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum
production and semiconductor manufacturing. Global Warming Potentials range
from 6,500 to 9,200.
Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or
ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable,
insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s
surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants,
and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Global Warming Potentials for CFCs range
from 3,800 to 14,400.
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a
lifetime of 3,200 years. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric
power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor
manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The Global Warming Potential of SF6 is 23,900.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-4 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Greenhouse Gas Description
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs)
HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses
of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the
Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out.
The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by
2030. The 100-year Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-123
to 1,800 for HCFC-142b.
Nitrogen trifluoride
Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7)
as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in electronics manufacture for semiconductors
and liquid crystal displays. It has a high global warming potential of 17,200.
Source: Compiled from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, April 11, 2018
(https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases); U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018; IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007; National Research Council, Advancing the
Science of Climate Change, 2010; U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, April 2010;
10.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,511 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e in 2016 (United States
Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], April 2018). Total U.S. emissions have increased
by 2.4 percent from 1990 to 2016 but decreased by 12 percent below 2005 levels in 2016, after
accounting for sequestration from the land sector (U.S. EPA, 2018). In 2016, fossil fuel
combustion accounted for 93.5 percent of CO2 emissions (U.S. EPA, April 2018). Important
drivers influencing emissions levels include: (1) changes in demand for energy, and (2) a general
decline in the carbon intensity of fuels combusted for energy in recent years by non-transport
sectors of the economy.
Based upon the California Air Resources Board (CARB) California Greenhouse Gas Inventory-
2017 Edition (CARB, June 2017), California produced 440.4 MMT CO2e in 2015. The major
source of GHGs in California is transportation, contributing 39 percent of the state’s total GHG
emissions. Industrial activity is the second largest source, contributing 23 percent of the state’s
GHG emissions (CARB, June 2017). California’s relatively high emissions compared to other
states are due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. CARB has
projected statewide unregulated GHG emissions for the year 2020 will be 507 MMT CO2e
(CARB, January 2013). These projections represent the emissions that would be expected to
occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions.
The City of Dublin has roughly 62 percent of total CO2e coming from transportation, 18 percent
from commercial and industrial uses, roughly 17 percent from residential, and the remaining
2.5 percent from solid waste and water & wastewater (City of Dublin, 2013); refer to Table 10-
2: City of Dublin CAP Reduction Goal Analysis. Additionally, an updated inventory was
conducted in 2015 and found at that 57 percent total CO2e is from transportation, 18 percent is
from commercial and industrial uses, 19 percent is from residential, and 6 percent is from solid
waste and water (wastewater was not included because it is not treated within the City’s
boundaries).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-2: City of Dublin CAP Reduction Goal Analysis
Emissions Summary Year Emissions (MTCO2e)
GHG Emissions Inventory 2010 328,155
GHG BAU Emissions Forecast 2020 374,790
Reductions from State GHG reduction measures 2020 -63,460
Forecast after State Reductions 2020 311,330
Reductions from Local GHG reduction measures 2020 -38,920
Forecast after State and Local Reductions 2020 272,410
Compared to 2010 Baseline -17 %
Item Year Persons
Service Population (SP) 2010 65,040
Service Population (SP) 2020 85, 200
Item Year MTCO2e/ SP
GHG Efficiency Metric 2010 5.04
GHG Efficiency BAU Metric 2020 4.40
GHG Efficiency Goal Metric 2020 3.20
Source: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update, 2013. Table 13- Dublin Community-Wide Emissions Analysis.
10.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
10.4.1 Federal
To date, no national standards have been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets,
nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and
GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the
federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its
associated effects.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of
national GHG emissions:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-6 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable
Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in
2022.
Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by
model year 2020, and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks
and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling
products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation,
energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler
efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding. The U.S. EPA authority to
regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. U. S.
EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the
existing Clean Air Act and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the U.S. EPA finalized an
endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs
(carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4], nitrous oxide [N2O], hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs],
perfluorocarbons [PFCs], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]) constitute a threat to public health and
welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing Act and the U.S. EPA’s
assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the EPA’s regulatory actions.
Federal Vehicle Standards. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, the
George W. Bush Administration issued Executive Order 13432 in 2007 directing the U.S. EPA,
the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that
reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008.
In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars
and light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule
regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016.
In 2010, President Barack Obama issued a memorandum directing the Department of
Transportation, Department of Energy, U.S. EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards
regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure.
In response to this directive, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal
GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed
standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average
industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved
solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017–2021,
and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking. On
January 12, 2017, the U.S. EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions
standards for model years 2022–2025 cars and light trucks.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011,
the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-
duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans, and vocational vehicles. According to the U.S. EPA, this regulatory program will
reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by 6 to 23 percent over
the 2010 baselines.
In August 2016, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program
related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase
two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and
model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and
sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by
approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over
the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. It should be noted that the U.S. EPA has
received petitions for reconsideration of these standards.
Clean Power Plan and New Source Performance Standards for Electric Generating Units. On
October 23, 2015, the U.S. EPA published a final rule (effective December 22, 2015)
establishing the carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing stationary sources: electric
utility generating units (80 FR 64510–64660), also known as the Clean Power Plan. These
guidelines prescribe how states must develop plans to reduce GHG emissions from existing
fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units. The guidelines establish CO2 emission performance
rates representing the best system of emission reduction for two subcategories of existing
fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units: (1) fossil-fuel-fired electric utility steam-generating
units and (2) stationary combustion turbines. Concurrently, the U.S. EPA published a final rule
(effective October 23, 2015) establishing standards of performance for GHG emissions from
new, modified, and reconstructed stationary sources: electric utility generating units (80 FR
64661–65120). The rule prescribes CO2 emission standards for newly constructed, modified,
and reconstructed affected fossil-fuel-fired electric utility generating units. The U.S. Supreme
Court stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan pending resolution of several lawsuits.
Additionally, in March 2017, President Trump directed the U.S. EPA Administrator to review
the Clean Power Plan to determine whether it is consistent with current executive policies
concerning GHG emissions, climate change, and energy.
Presidential Executive Order 13693. Presidential Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal
Sustainability in the Next Decade, signed in 2015, seeks to maintain federal leadership in
sustainability and greenhouse gas emission reductions. Its goal is to reduce agency Scope 1 and
2 GHG emissions by at least 40 percent by 2025, foster innovation, reduce spending, and
strengthen communities through increased efficiency and improved environmental
performance. Sustainability goals are set for building efficiency and management, energy
portfolio, water use efficiency, fleet efficiency, sustainable acquisition and supply chain
greenhouse gas management, pollution prevention, and electronic stewardship.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-8 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Presidential Executive Order 13783. Presidential Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy
Independence and Economic Growth (March 28, 2017), orders all federal agencies to apply
cost-benefit analyses to regulations of GHG emissions and evaluations of the social cost of
carbon, nitrous oxide, and methane.
10.4.2 State
CARB is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control
programs in California. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s
contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential
for severe long-term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects.
Assembly Bill 1493
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), referred to as “Pavley,” requires CARB to develop and adopt
regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions
from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act
preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles
beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I took effect for model years starting in 2009 to
2016, and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG” covers
2017 to 2025.
Under Pavley, fleet average emission standards were intended to reach 22 percent reduction
from 2009 levels by 2012 and 30 percent by 2016. The Advanced Clean Cars program
coordinates the goals of the Low Emissions Vehicles (LEV), Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and
Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025,
when the rules would be fully implemented, new automobiles would emit 34 percent less
GHGs. Statewide CO2e emissions would be reduced 3 percent by 2020 and 12 percent by 2025.
The reduction would increase to 27 percent in 2035 and even further to 33 percent reduction in
2050 (CARB, 2013).
Assembly Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32),
the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005
emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05), and requires CARB to prepare a
Scoping Plan that outlines the main state strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020
deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and
verification of statewide GHG emissions. Additional development of these measures and
adoption of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end of 2013. Key elements of the
Scoping Plan include:
Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building
and appliance standards.
Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other programs to
create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of
California’s GHG emissions (adopted in 2011).
Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout
California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several
Sustainable Communities Strategies have been adopted).
Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies,
including California’s clean car standards, heavy-duty truck measures, the Low
Carbon Fuel Standard (amendments to the Pavley Standard adopted 2009;
Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (adopted 2009).
Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on gasses
with high global warming potential, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the
State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation (CARB 2008).
After completing a comprehensive review and update process, CARB approved a 1990
statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT CO2e. CARB approved the Scoping on
December 11, 2008. The Scoping Plan includes measures to address GHG emission reduction
strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other
measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e. g Low Carbon
Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted and
implementation activities are ongoing.
In May 2014, CARB approved the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2014 Scoping Plan
update defined CARB’s climate change priorities for the next 5 years and sets the groundwork
to reach post-2020 goals set forth in EO S-3-05. The 2014 update highlighted California’s
progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the
original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the State’s longer-term GHG reduction
strategies with other State policy priorities, such as for water, waste, natural resources, clean
energy and transportation, and land use (CARB, 2014).
In 2016, the Legislature passed SB 32, which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of
40 percent below 1990 levels. With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB
197, which provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 14,
2017 CARB adopted a second update to the Scoping Plan 12. The 2017 Scoping Plan details how
the State will reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15
and codified by SB 32. Other objectives listed in the 2017 Scoping Plan are to provide direct
12 California Air Resources Board,California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.Accessed May 9, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-10 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
GHG emissions reductions; support climate investment in disadvantaged communities; and,
support the Clean Power Plan and other Federal actions. These measures include increasing
the Renewable Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and extending the cap-and-trade
program to 2030 and providing the revenue towards climate programs, disadvantage
communities, and projects like the high-speed rail. The 2017 Scoping Plan also includes a 50
percent reduction in petroleum use in vehicles, increasing energy efficiency savings at existing
buildings, carbon sequestration in the land base, and reducing methane, black carbon, and
other short-live climate pollutants.
The AB 32 Scoping Plan also identifies a cap-and-trade program as one of the strategies
California will employ to reduce the GHG emissions. Under the cap-and-trade program, an
overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors will be established and facilities subject to
the cap will be able to trade permits (allowances) to emit GHGs. The program began on
January 1, 2012, with an enforceable compliance obligation beginning with the 2013 GHG
emissions and extending until 2030.
Senate Bill 1368
SB 1368 (Emission Performance Standards) is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the
California Public Utilities Commission to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for
the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated
with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for
energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean,
combined cycle natural gas power plant. The new law effectively prevents California’s utilities
from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants
located in or out of the State. The California Public Utilities Commission adopted the
regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007. The regulations implementing SB 1368
establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly
owned utilities, of 1,100 lbs. CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh).
Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in September 2008, enhances the State’s ability to reach AB 32 goals
by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from
vehicles for 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the state’s 18 major
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy”
(SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On September 23, 2010, CARB adopted final regional
targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035.
Senate Bills 1078 and X1-2 and Executive Orders S-14-08 and S-21-09
These bills enact the renewable electricity standards for the State. SB 1078 requires California
to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the
due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, then-Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of
their load with renewable energy by 2020. The existing RPS requires retail sellers to supply 20
percent of their total electrical load from renewable energy sources by 2010. SB 350 (see
below) extended this goal to 50 percent by 2050.
To meet this new goal, a substantial increase in the development of wind, solar, geothermal,
and other “RPS eligible” energy projects will be needed. Executive Order S-14-08 seeks to
accelerate such development by streamlining the siting, permitting, and procurement processes
for renewable energy generation facilities. To this end, S-14-08 issues two directives: (1) the
existing Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative will identify renewable energy zones that can
be developed as such with little environmental impact, and (2) the California Energy
Commission (CEC) and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) will collaborate to
expedite the review, permitting, and licensing process for proposed RPS-eligible renewable
energy projects.
Executive Order S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the
State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB
approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23.
SBX1-2, which codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal.
Assembly Bill 1493
AB 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards), enacted on July 22, 2002, required
CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and
light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by
automakers and by the U.S. EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The U.S. EPA
subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission
standards for model years 2009–2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years
2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34
percent fewer CO2e emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.
Senate Bill 350
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 was signed into law on October 7, 2015,
SB 350 implements the goals of Executive Order B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are to
increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent
(with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027) and to double the energy
efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers through energy
efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator (ISO) to
develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these
markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United
States.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-12 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Senate Bill 32
Signed into law in September 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target
in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). CARB also must adopt rules
and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible,
and cost-effective GHG reductions to achieve 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Executive Orders
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs through the use of
executive orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions
of state agencies.
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established
the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels.
By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.
By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels
that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was codified in AB 32. Because the 2050 target is
only contained in an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local
governments or the private sector.
Executive Order S-01-07. Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S 01-07 mandates that a
statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation
fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In particular, the executive order established a Low
Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to
coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, CARB, the University of California,
and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon
intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard on April 23,
2009.
Executive Order S-13-08. Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the
California Natural Resources Agency development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation
Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and
exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.
Executive Order S-14-08. Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 expands the
State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020.
Executive Order S-21-09. Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S-21-09 directs CARB to
adopt regulations to increase California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33 percent by
2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, requiring
20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action
Plan II.
Executive Order B-30-15. Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 established a
California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to
update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMCO2e. The
2030 target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below
1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by Executive Order S-3-05. The executive order also requires the
State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue
its climate change research program, among other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in
2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below
1990 levels.
California Regulations and Building Codes
Title 20- Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The California Energy Commission adopted
Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) on October 11,
2006. The regulations were approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on
December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances
and non-federally regulated appliances. While these regulations are now often viewed as
“business-as-usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states and they reduce
GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.
Title 24- California Building Code. The California Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission adopted energy conservation standards for new residential and
nonresidential buildings in June 1977 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s
energy consumption. These standards were most recently revised in 2016 and went into effect
on January 1, 2017 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). The standards
are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy
efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity;
therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG
emissions.
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green
building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code was adopted as part of the
California Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Part 11, Title 24, CCR). The green building
standards that became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code established voluntary
standards on planning and design for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess
of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and
internal air contaminants. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local
governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green
building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect January 1,
2017.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-14 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
10.4.3 Regional & Local
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, and is responsible for
attainment planning related to criteria air pollutants and for district rule development and
enforcement. The district inspects stationary sources and responds to citizen complaints,
monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and
regulations required by law. It also reviews air quality analyses prepared for CEQA
assessments, and has published the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines documents for use in
evaluation of air quality (including GHG) impacts.
East Bay Community Energy
East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) is a new community choice aggregation local power supplier
that will begin serving customers in 2018. All accounts with PG&E will be automatically
enrolled into EBCE’s default product “Bright Choice” which is 80 percent carbon-free.
Customers have the option to opt up to a 100 percent carbon-free product (same price as
PG&E) or opt out and remain with PG&E.
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin’s General Plan contains the following policy as it relates to GHG emissions:
Energy Efficiency and Conservation in New Development
Guiding Policy 13.3.2.A:
1. Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new residential and
commercial development.
2. Encourage designing for solar access.
3. Encourage energy efficient improvements be made on residential and commercial
properties.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2.B
1. New development proposals shall be reviewed to ensure lighting levels needed for a
safe and secure environment are provided - utilizing the most energy-efficient fixtures
(in most cases, LED lights) - while avoiding over-lighting of sites. Smart lighting
technology (e.g. sensors and/or timers) shall also be employed in interior and exterior
lighting applications where appropriate.
2. New development projects shall install LED streetlights in compliance with the City’s LED
light standard.
3. In new commercial and residential parking lots, require the installation of conduit to
serve electric vehicle parking spaces to enable the easier installation of future charging
stations.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
4. Encourage the installation of charging stations for commercial projects over a certain
size and any new residential project that has open parking (i.e. not individual, enclosed
garages).
5. Encourage buildings (and more substantially, whole neighborhoods) to be designed
along an east-west axis to maximize solar exposure. Where feasible, require new
development projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun
screens to reduce energy use; and to use regenerative energy heating and cooling
source alternatives to fossil fuels.
6. Continue to implement parking lot tree planting standards that would substantially cool
parking areas and help cool the surrounding environment. Encourage landscaping
conducive to solar panels in areas where appropriate.
7. Promote and encourage photovoltaic demonstration projects in association with new
development.
Consider creating a recognition program for commercial or residential projects that
install large-scale solar or wind energy systems and to publicly commend and
acknowledge businesses or individuals that construct or remodel buildings that save
more energy than required by Title 24 or by the Cal Green Building Code.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP)
The City of Dublin prepared a 2010 Climate Action Plan (CAP), which calculated 2010 baseline
emissions inventory of GHGs for the City, as well as adopted an emission reduction goal of 20
percent below a business-as-usual scenario by 2020. The City’s efficiency measure for 2020 is
projected to be 4.22 MTCO2e per service population per year, which is significantly below
BAAQMD’s GHG efficiency based metric of 6.6 MT CO2e per service population per year. The
2010 CAP includes 34 reduction measures that are organized into three broad categories: 1)
transportation and land use measures; 2) energy measures; and 3) solid waste and recycling
measures.
In 2013, the City of Dublin updated their CAP, which established a new reduction target of 15
percent below 2010 emissions by 2020. The CAP Update identifies a variety of measures to
achieve the City’s GHG reduction target. City’s efficiency measure for 2020 under the CAP
Update is projected to be 3.2 MTCO2e per service population per year, which is significantly
below BAAQMD’s GHG efficiency based metric of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year.
The CAP also implemented an additional 11 new reduction measures. The City has determined
that the reduction target should reduce the impacts from activities under the CAP to a less than
significant level under CEQA. If a project were consistent with the applicable emissions
reduction target, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact due to
GHG emissions and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15183.5, 15064 and 15130.
Green Building Ordinance
In 2009, the City passed a Green Building Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 7.94) requiring
residential projects over 20 units to reach 50 points on the GreenPoint Rated system or achieve
LEED for Homes. GreenPoint Rated is a green building program administered by the nonprofit
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-16 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
organization Build It Green with assistance from StopWaste. The GreenPoint Rated system
includes five categories: energy efficiency, resource conservation, indoor air quality, water
conservation, and community. The City is currently in the process of adopting 2013 California
Green Building Standards Code, which will also reduce water use in existing buildings.
10.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
10.5.1 Significance Thresholds
According to the adopted Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG
emissions from a project would be significant if the project would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment; and/or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) approach to developing a
threshold of significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project
would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to
reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move towards climate stabilization. If a project
would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute
considerably to a significant cumulative impact. Stationary-source projects include land uses
that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would
require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs
exceed these levels, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a
cumulatively significant impact to global climate change. BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds
are as follows:
Compliance with a Qualified Climate Action Plan; or
Meet one of the following thresholds:
o 1,100 MT CO2eq/year (yr.); or
o 4.6 MTCO2eq/service population (sp)/yr. (residents and employees).
It should be noted that the BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for
construction-related GHG emissions. However, the BAAQMD recommends quantification and
disclosure of construction GHG emissions. The BAAQMD also recommends that the Lead
Agency should make a determination on the significance of these construction generated GHG
emission impacts in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals, as required by the Public
Resources Code, Section 21082.2. The Lead Agency is encouraged to incorporate best
management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as feasible and
applicable.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
For CEQA analyses, project-related GHG impacts can be categorized as either direct or indirect.
Direct emissions refer to those emitted by stationary sources at the project site or caused by
project activity on-site, and these emissions are normally within control of the project sponsor
or applicant. Indirect emissions include those emissions that are not within the direct control
of the project sponsor or applicant, but may occur as a result of the project, such as the motor
vehicle emissions induced by the project. Indirect emissions include emissions from any off-site
facilities used for project support as a result of the construction or operation of a project, and
these emissions are likely to occur outside the control of the project far off-site or even outside
of California.
Construction-phase GHG emissions are quantified as part of the air quality impact assessment
(see Chapter 6, Air Quality, and Appendix B for supporting calculations). These one-time
emissions can be amortized over the life of the project to describe an equivalent annual
emission rate. To amortize the construction emissions over the life of the project, the total
GHG emissions due to construction are divided by the expected project operating life (i.e., 30
years for this project). The amortized construction emissions can then be added to the annual
operational GHG emissions.
The effects of the project are also considered based on whether the project implements
reduction strategies identified in AB32, SB 32, 2017 Scoping Plan, the Governor’s Executive
Order S-14-08, or other strategies to help reduce GHGs to the level proposed by the Governor.
If so, it could reasonably follow that the project would not result in a significant contribution to
the cumulative impact of global climate change.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
10.5.2 Study Methodology
Calculations of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of project
effects. The analysis focuses on CO2, CH4, and N2O because these GHGs comprise 98.9 percent
of all GHG emissions by volume (IPCC, 2007) and are the GHG emissions that the project would
emit in the largest quantities. Fluorinated gases—such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—were also
considered for the analysis. However, fluorinated gases are primarily associated with industrial
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-18 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
processes, and the project does not include an industrial component. Emissions of all GHGs are
converted into their equivalent weight in CO2 (CO2e). Minimal amounts of other main GHGs
(such as CFCs) would be emitted; however, these other GHG emissions would not substantially
add to the calculated CO2e amounts. Calculations are based on the methodologies discussed in
the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change white paper (January 2008) and included the use of the
California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol (January 2009).
Construction Emissions
To estimate the annual emissions that would result from construction activity associated with
the project, GHGs from construction projects were quantified and amortized over a 30-year
period. The emissions were then added to the annual average operational emissions and
compared to the applicable operational thresholds.
According to the construction information provided by the applicant, the project would include
an estimated total of 50,000 cubic yards of soil imported and no export. The material will only
be imported to Planning Area 1 (PA-1), the southern portion of the city that is proposed to
include commercial uses. The imported dirt will come from available borrow sites, preferably
within the Tri-Valley area.
This analysis assumes that construction would last approximately 62 months. Annualizing total
construction GHG emissions using this methodology accurately accounts for temporary
construction emissions as part of the project’s annual GHG emissions, which are compared to
the applicable annual GHG threshold. Based on these assumptions, construction emissions
were estimated individually using CalEEMod.
Operational Emissions
Emissions from transportation sources for the project were quantified using CalEEMod and are
based on project trip generation from the Traffic Impact Study. Operational emissions from
energy use (electricity and natural gas use) for the project were also estimated using CalEEMod
(see Appendix B). The default values on which CalEEMod are based include the CEC-sponsored
California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) for non-residential land uses and Residential
Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) for residential land uses. This methodology is considered
reasonable and reliable for use, as it has been subjected to peer review by numerous public and
private stakeholders, and in particular by the CEC. It is also recommended by CAPCOA (January
2008).
Emissions associated with area sources—including consumer products, landscape maintenance,
and architectural coating—were calculated in CalEEMod based on standard emission rates from
CARB, U.S. EPA, and district supplied emission factor values CalEEMod User’s Guide (CAPCOA,
2016). Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on
the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable
organic content of waste CalEEMod User’s Guide (CAPCOA, 2016). Waste disposal rates by land
use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was based on data provided
by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). CalEEMod also
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
estimates the land uses contribution of GHG emissions associated with supplying and treating
water and wastewater. Emissions are based on electricity intensity factors for various phases of
providing and treating water. Electricity intensity is from the California Energy Commission’s
2006 document Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California.
10.5.3 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
There are no “no” impacts or “beneficial” impacts.
10.5.4 Impact Analysis
Global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative impact of GHG emissions. Therefore, there
is no project-level analysis.
Impact GHG-1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (Class III).
Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The project would include direct and indirect GHG emissions. Direct operational-related GHG
emissions for the project would include emissions from area and mobile sources, while indirect
emissions are from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would result in direct emissions of CO2,N2O, and CH4 from the
operation of construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers
to and from the project site. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized
over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational
emissions.13 Total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined
and are presented in Table 10-3, Project Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The
CalEEMod outputs are contained within the Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Data. As shown in Table 10-3, the project would result in 38,935 MTCO2e (1,298 MTCO2eq/yr.
when amortized over 30 years).
13 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality
Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-20 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-3: Project Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year Emissions (MTCO2e)
2020 3,199.87
2021 10,570.39
2022 12,053.11
2023 8,392.37
2024 3,548.45
2025 1,170.48
Total Construction Emissions 38,934.67
Annualized over 30 years 1,297.82
Notes:
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.
Operational Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the project. GHG emissions would
result from direct emissions such as project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of
natural gas, operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also
result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the
project, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the project site, the
emissions associated with solid waste generated from the project site, and any fugitive
refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. Table 10-4: Project Operation-Related
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, summarizes the total GHG emissions associated with project. As
shown, the project would generate approximately 14,800.21 metric tons of CO2e annually.
Table 10-4: Project Operation-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source Emissions (MTCO2e)
Area 43.97
Energy 4,282.28
Mobile 8,748.64
Waste 223.15
Water and Wastewater 204.35
Construction (annualized) 1,297.82
Total Operational Emissions 14,800.21
Notes:
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project
specific land use data. The primary GHG emission sources calculated by CalEEMod include
hearths and landscape equipment. As noted in Table 10-4, the project would result in 43.97
MTCO2e/year of area source GHG emissions.
Mobile Source. CalEEMod relies upon trip data within the Traffic Impact Study and project
specific land use data to calculate mobile source emissions. The project would directly result in
8,748.64 MTCO2e/year of mobile source-generated GHG emissions; refer to Table 10-4.
Energy Consumption. Energy consumption emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and
project-specific land use data. Electricity and natural gas would be provided to the project site
via Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). The project would indirectly result in 4,282.28 MTCO2e/year
due to energy consumption; refer to Table 10-4. It should be noted that Dublin electricity
customers can directly enroll in the choice energy group East Bay Community Energy, which
would further reduce the energy emissions. This analysis conservatively assumes all energy
would be provided by PG&E.
Water Demand. The project’s water supply would be provided by local groundwater and
imported surface water. Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water treatment and
transport would result in 204.35 MTCO2e/year; refer to Table 10-4.
Solid Waste. Solid waste associated with operations of the project would result in 223.15
MTCO2e/year; refer to Table 10-4.
Operational emissions for the years 2000, 2030, and 2050 were modeled using CalEEMod.
CalEEMod emission factor incorporate compliance with some, but not all, applicable rules and
regulations regarding energy efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency, and other GHG reduction
policies, as described in the CalEEMod User’s Guide (CAPCOA, 2016). The reductions obtained
from each regulation and the source of the reduction amount used in the analysis are described
below.
The following regulations are incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors:
Pavley I motor vehicle emission standards
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
2016 title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
The following regulations have not been incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors and
require alternative methods to account for emission reductions provided by the regulations:
Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program (extends to model year 2025)
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)
Green Building Code Standards (indoor water use)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-22 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Outdoor Water)
Pavley II/LEV III standards have not been incorporated in the latest version of CalEEMod.
Reductions from standards are calculated by adjusting the CalEEMod GHG passenger car and
light truck emission factors by CARB’s estimated three percent reduction expected from the
vehicle categories subject to the regulation by 2020.
RPS is not accounted for in the current version of CalEEMod. Reductions from RPS are
addressed by revising the electricity emission intensity factor in CalEEMod to account for the
utility complying with the 33 percent renewable mandate by 2020. For the year 2020, 2030,
and 2050 analyses it was assumed that the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) would
achieve the 33 percent renewable energy goal for 2020 and the 50 percent renewable energy
goal established by EO B-30-15 and SB 350. Additionally, as noted above, Dublin electricity
customers can directly enroll in the choice energy group East Bay Community Energy, which
would further reduce energy emissions. This analysis conservatively assumes all energy would
be provided by PG&E.
Energy savings from water conservation resulting from the Green Building Code Standards for
indoor water use and California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for outdoor water
use are not included in CalEEMod. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 mandates a 20 percent
reduction in urban water use that is implemented with these regulations (CDWR, 2018).
Benefits of the water conservation regulations are applied in the CalEEMod mitigation
component. Adjustments were also made for project design features that would reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Year 2030 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
To determine if the project meets the 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions over 1990 levels
by 2030 as codified in AB 197 and SB 32, the project’s GHG emissions have been calculated for
the year 2030 and compared to the year 2000 emissions, since that is the nearest year available
in CalEEMod to the year 1990. CalEEMod uses historical consumption rates and emissions
factors to calculate the past scenario emissions. As shown in Table 10-5: City of Dublin CAP
Consistency Analysis - Operational Year 2030, the project would generate 24,623 MTCO2eper
year for the year 2000 conditions and 13,150 MTCO2e per year for the year 2030 conditions,
which results in a 47 percent reduction in GHG emissions over what the project would create if
it was developed in 2000, which is the nearest year to 1990 available in the CalEEMod model.
The project would meet the 40 percent reduction requirement over year 1990 by 2030, as
required by AB 197 and SB 32.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-23
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-5: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis - Operational Year 2030
Emission Source
MT CO2e per year
2000 BAU Scenario
2030 Project
Scenario
Percent
Reduction
Area 44.27 43.97 1%
Energy 4,758.11 3,931.31 17%
Mobile 17,820.68 7,449.71 58%
Waste 446.30 223.15 50%
Water 255.43 204.35 20%
Construction 1,297.82 1,297.82 0%
Total Emissions 24,622.61 13,150.31 47%
AB 197 and Sb 32 Requirements 40%
Does the Project Meet the Reduction Target? Yes
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B CalEEMod output
The project would include additional energy efficiency and GHG reduction design features per
City’s Climate Action Plan, including LED streetlights, efficient outdoor lighting, options for
photovoltaic solar systems, solar ready buildings, and drought tolerant and water efficient
landscaping. The project also reduces transportation GHG emissions by applying smart growth
principles as an urban in-fill development with a mix of retail, entertainment, and residential
uses adjacent to transit/multi-modal corridors and within two miles of a BART station. The
project facilitates the use of existing bus routes with stops adjacent to the project site. The
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) runs bus service from the project site
(Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road) to the BART station with 15-minute headways during
peak commute hours. Additionally, the Project would improve and complete pedestrian and
bicycle connections around its perimeter and through the Project site. Bicycle storage would be
provided in the apartments and bicycle racks would be provided near the commercial uses. The
project would also improve and complete bicycle lanes and facilities along the perimeter and
through the project site that connect with existing bicycle routes.
Additionally, the commercial uses are also planned at a higher density through the application
of shared parking. The shared parking plan would allow parking to be shared by the
apartments and commercial space, along with shared parking between hospitality uses with
complimentary peak demand. As shown in Table 10-5: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis-
Operational Year 2030, the project would meet the 40 percent reduction requirement over year
1990 by 2030, as required by AB 197 and SB 32 and impacts would be less than significant.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-24 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Year 2050 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Executive Order S-3-05 provides an aspirational goal of reducing GHG emissions in California of
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The year 2050 analysis has been included in this DSEIR
in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San
Diego Association of Governments (Cleveland v. SANDAG), filed July 13, 2017, which stated
“First, the parties agree that the EIR should consider the Plan’s long-range greenhouse gas
impacts for the year 2050.” Cleveland v. SANDAG also stated that EIRs “must include detail
sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to
consider meaningfully the issues raised by the project.”
The year 2050 analysis is provided differently than the year 2030 analysis, because Executive
Order S-3-05 is not an adopted GHG reduction plan within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.4(b)(2), and there are no adopted plans or implementation measures to achieve
this reduction goal at this time. As stated in Cleveland v. SANDAG, “the Attorney General
…[has] advised that the EO 2050 target can inform CEQA analysis, there is no legal requirement
to use it as a threshold of significance. Under the CEQA Guidelines and case law, SANDAG [lead
agency] retains the discretion to select certain GHG emission reduction thresholds and not
select others.”
Furthermore, the court in Cleveland v. SANDAG stated:
SANDAG did not abuse its discretion in declining to adopt the 2050 goal as a measure of
significance in light of the fact that the Executive Order does not specify any plan or
implementation measures to achieve its goal. In its response to comments, the EIR said:
It is uncertain what role regional land use and transportation strategies can or should
play in achieving the EO’s 2050 emissions reduction target. A recent California Energy
Commission report concludes, however, that the primary strategies to achieve this
target should be major ‘decarbonization’ of electricity supplies and fuels, and major
improvements in energy efficiency [citation omitted].
Therefore, the impacts of the project’s GHG emissions in 2050 are provided for information and
disclosure purposes only in this document, and no significance determination on the project’s
impacts is made.
Table 10-6: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis- Operational Year 2050, shows the
combined construction and operational GHG emissions for the year 2050 and compared to the
year 2000 emissions, since that is the nearest year available in CalEEMod to the year 1990.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-25
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-6: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis- Operational Year 2050
Emission Source
MT CO2e per year
2000 BAU Scenario
2050 Project
Scenario
Percent
Reduction
Area 44.27 43.97 1%
Energy 4,758.11 3,931.31 17%
Mobile 17,820.68 7,463.76 58%
Waste 446.30 223.15 50%
Water 255.43 204.35 20%
Construction 1,297.82 1,297.82 0%
Total Emissions 24,622.61 13,164.36 47%
AB 197 and Sb 32 Requirements 40%
Does the Project Meet the Reduction Target? Yes
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. See Appendix B CalEEMod output
As shown in Table 10-6: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis- Operational Year 2050, the
project would generate 24,623 CO2e per year for the year 2000 conditions and 13,164 MT CO2e
per year for the year 2050 conditions, which results in a 47 percent reduction in GHG emissions
over what the project would create if it were developed in 2000, which is the nearest year to
1990 available in the CalEEMod model. The year 2050 emission calculations include the
anticipated emission reductions associated with implementation of State GHG emission
reduction regulations that have gone into effect by 2030. However, emissions reductions from
the State’s Cap and Trade program, which applies to GHG emissions from utilities and fuels
utilized for vehicles is not accounted for in the CalEEMod model, which would result in lower
GHG emissions from energy and mobile sources than what is presented in Table 10-6. If
emissions reductions from the State’s Cap and Trade program are offset for energy production
and fuel consumption, approximately 90 percent of GHG emissions from new projects would be
offset.
Summary
For 2030, the project would be within the AB 197 and SB 32 reduction requirement
of a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions over year 1990. The project in 2030
would have a 47 percent reduction. Impacts would be less than significant.
For 2050, the project emissions would be similar to 2030 and the trajectory is
towards greater emissions reductions would occur through technological
improvements and future regulations that are not currently in place. The estimated
emissions levels are provided for information and disclosure purposes only. No
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-26 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
significance determination for the project’s 2050 GHG emissions is made.
Impact GHG-2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Class III).
To address this potential impact for 2020, project consistency with the City of Dublin CAP is
used for this analysis. The CAP is a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy under CEQA,
which can be used to determine the significance of GHG emissions from a project (CEQA
Guidelines section 15183.5). BAAQMD also recognizes the use of a CAP as a significance
threshold for a project’s GHG emissions. Therefore, if the project is consistent with the CAP,
then the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to global climate
change in 2020.
In July 2013, the City of Dublin adopted their Final CAP, which provides goals and associated
reduction measures in the sectors of energy use, transportation, land use, water, solid waste,
and off-road equipment. The City’s CAP constitutes a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and has
been utilized in this analysis for determining the level of significance of the project’s GHG
emissions. Impact GHG-1 provides a quantitative analysis of the thresholds provided in the CAP
for 2030. For 2020, the analysis of the project’s cumulative contribution to climate change and
GHG emissions is the analysis of the project’s consistency with the applicable CAP measures
that is provided in Table 10-7, Project Consistency with the City of Dublin CAP. The project
would be consistent with the applicable CAP reduction measures. Thus, the project would help
implement the CAP, and would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. A less than significant impact would occur
in this regard.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-27
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 10-7: Project Consistency with Applicable City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Control
Measures
Control Measure Project Consistency
A. Community-wide Measures
A.1. Transportation and Land Use Measures
A.1.1. Transit-Oriented
Development
Consistent. The project is located within 1.5 miles of the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
A.1.2. High-Density Development
Consistent. The project consists of 300 units apartment units
in addition to a mix of 380 single-family homes and
townhomes.
A.1.3. Mixed-Use Development Consistent. The project consists of commercial, residential,
parks, hotel and retail within a 77-acre site.
A.1.4. Bicycle Parking
Requirements Consistent. The project includes bicycle parking spaces
A.1.5. Streetscape Master Plan
Consistent. Street trees are included on the Landscape
Master Plan as per the City of Dublin Streetscape Master
Plan.
A.1.6. Multi-Modal Map
Consistent. The project is located within 1.5 miles of the
Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station, adjacent to I-580, other
major arterials, and bicycle lanes. The project includes
various multi-use paths and walkways that connect the
residents and retail patrons with adjacent open space,
surrounding neighborhoods and nearby Emerald Glen Park.
A.1.7.
Electric and Plug In-Hybrid
Charging Stations at the
Library
Not applicable. The project would include 119 electric
vehicle parking spaces. The City is the responsible party for
this measure. The project would not conflict with
implementation.
A.1.8.
General Plan Community
Design and Sustainability
Element
Not applicable. The City is the responsible party for this
measure. The project would not conflict with
implementation.
A.1.9. Work with LAVTA to
Improve Transit
Not applicable. The City is the responsible party for this
measure. The project would not conflict with
implementation.
A.1.10. Bikeways Master Plan
Not applicable. The City is the responsible party for this
measure. The project would not conflict with
implementation. The project includes connections to
existing bikeways.
A.1.11. West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station
Not applicable. While the project is not located within the
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, it is 1.5 miles from the
East Dublin / Pleasanton BART station and will provide high
density mixed-uses near a transit stop.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-28 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Control Measure Project Consistency
A.1.12. City Design Strategy
Consistent. The project includes walkways and connections
between neighborhoods through the internal park system.
The project provides a variety of open spaces for users.
A.2. Energy Measures
A.2.1. Green Building Ordinance
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this
measure. The project would be required to comply with
these standards.
A.2.2. Energy Upgrade California
Not applicable. This measure establishes countywide
building retrofit measures and specifications for energy
efficiency, water and resource conservation, and indoor air
quality and health. As the project does not include existing
structures, this measure does not apply.
A.2.3. Solar Conversion Programs
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the City of Dublin’s ability to enact
these programs. These programs could benefit the project
and lower project emissions.
A.2.4. Reduce Solar Installation
Permit Fee
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the City of Dublin’s ability to enact
these programs. These programs could benefit the project
and lower project emissions.
A.2.5.
LED Streetlight
Specifications for new
Projects
Consistent. The project would be required to comply with
the city’s LED streetlight specifications.
A.2.6. California Youth Energy
Services Program
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the City of Dublin’s ability to enact
these programs.
A.2.7.Implementation of Green
Shamrock program
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the City of Dublin’s ability to enact
these programs.
A.2.8. Direct Commercial Energy
Outreach
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the City of Dublin’s ability to enact
these programs.
A.2.9. Behavioral Energy Change
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the City of Dublin’s ability to enact
these programs.
A.3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
A.3.1.
Construction and
Demolition Debris
Ordinance
Consistent. The project would comply with the city’s
requirement of 100 percent of asphalt and concrete being
recycled and a minimum of 75 percent of other materials.
A.3.2. Citywide Diversion Goal of
75 percent
Consistent. The project would comply with the city’s goal of
diverting 75 percent of waste from the landfill.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-29
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Control Measure Project Consistency
A.3.3. Tiered Rate Structure for
Garbage and Recycling
Consistent. This is a municipal measure. However, the
project would comply with the city’s tiered rate structure
which encourages recycling and composting.
A.3.4. Commercial Recycling
Program
Consistent. This is a municipal measure. However, the
project would comply with the city’s free commercial
recycling program for businesses.
A.3.5. Commercial Food Waste
Collection Program
Consistent. This is a municipal measure. However, the
project would encourage food composting for its commercial
uses.
A.3.6. Promote Commercial
Recycling
Consistent. This is a municipal measure. The project would
encourage recycling in the commercial areas.
A.3.7. Promote Multi-family
Recycling
Consistent. This is a municipal measure. However, the
project would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact
these measures. Effective January 2020 the project would
not conflict with the city’s ability to enact organics collection
of food scraps for residents of multi-family properties for
compliance with SB 1383.
A.3.8. Curbside Residential
Recycling Program
Consistent. This is a municipal measure. The project would
be included in the city’s organics program that includes
curbside pickup of food waste and yard waste for residential
neighborhoods. A.3.9. Curbside Organics
Collection Program
A.3.10. Reusable Bag Ordinance
Consistent. The commercial uses within the project site
would comply with the Alameda County Waste Management
Reusable Bag Ordinance.
B. Municipal Operations Measures
B.1. Transportation and Land Use Measures
B.1.1. City Hybrid Vehicles
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
B.1.2. Commute Alternative
Program
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
B.1.3. Green Fleet Policy for City
Vehicles
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
B.2. Energy Measures
B.2.1. LEED Silver Requirement
for New City Buildings > $3
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-30 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Control Measure Project Consistency
B.2.2. Window Film on the Civic
Center
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
B.2.3. LED Park Lights
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
B.2.4. Energy Action Plan
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
B.3. Solid Waste and Recycling Measures
B.3.1. Bay-Friendly Landscaping
Policy
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
C. Public Outreach Programs
C.1.Great Race for Clean Air
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
C.2. Spare the Air Resource
Team
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
C.3.
Work with Schools on Go
Green Recycling and
Composting
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
C.4. AVI Educational
Presentations
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
C.5. Promote Bike to Work Day
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
C.6. Outreach at the Farmers
Market
Not applicable. This is a municipal measure. The project
would not conflict with the city’s ability to enact the
measure.
Source: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan, 2013 and Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan
The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHGs
(carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the requirements in AB 32, the ARB
adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008, which outlines actions
recommended to obtain that goal. The Scoping Plan provides a range of GHG reduction actions
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-31
Draft EIR
10/23/18
that include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-
monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as the cap-and-trade
program, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. As shown in Table 10-8:
Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures, the project is consistent with
most of the strategies, while others are not applicable to the project.
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to
achieve the 2030 target. These measures build upon those identified in the First Update to the
Climate Change Scoping Plan (2013). Although a number of these measures are currently
established as policies and measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or
adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be
adopted as required to achieve statewide GHG emissions targets. As such, impacts related to
consistency with the Climate Change Scoping Plan would be less than significant.
Table 10-8: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Transportation California Cap-
and-Trade
Program Linked to
Western Climate
Initiative
Regulation for the
California Cap on
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Market-
Based Compliance
Mechanism October
20, 2015 (CCR 95800)
Consistent. The Cap-and-Trade Program applies to
large industrial sources such as power plants, refineries,
and cement manufacturers. However, the regulation
indirectly affects people who use the products and
services produced by these industrial sources when
increased cost of products or services (such as electricity
and fuel) are transferred to the consumers. The Cap-
and-Trade Program covers the GHG emissions
associated with electricity consumed in California,
whether generated in-state or imported. Accordingly,
GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects’
electricity usage are covered by the Cap-and-Trade
Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program also covers fuel
suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers and
transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from
such fuels and from combustion of other fossil fuels not
directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first
compliance period.
California Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Standards
Pavley I 2005
Regulations to Control
GHG Emissions from
Motor Vehicles
Consistent. This measure applies to all new vehicles
starting with model year 2012. The project would not
conflict with its implementation as it would apply to all
new passenger vehicles purchased in California.
Passenger vehicles, model year 2012 and later,
associated with construction and operation of the
project would be required to comply with the Pavley
emissions standards.
2012 LEV III
Amendments to the
California Greenhouse
Gas and Criteria
Consistent. The LEV III amendments provide reductions
from new vehicles sold in California between 2017 and
2025. Passenger vehicles associated with the site would
comply with LEV III standards.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-32 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Pollutant Exhaust and
Evaporative Emission
Standards
Low Carbon Fuel
Standard
2009 readopted in
2015. Regulations to
Achieve Greenhouse
Gas Emission
Reductions
Subarticle 7. Low
Carbon Fuel
Standard CCR 95480
Consistent. This measure applies to transportation
fuels utilized by vehicles in California. The project
would not conflict with implementation of this measure.
Motor vehicles associated with construction and
operation of the project would utilize low carbon
transportation fuels as required under this measure.
Regional
Transportation-
Related Greenhouse
Gas Targets.
SB 375. Cal. Public
Resources Code §§
21155, 21155.1,
21155.2, 21159.28
Consistent. The project would provide development in
the region that is consistent with the growth projections
in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) (Plan Bay Area 2040).
Goods Movement Goods Movement
Action Plan January
2007
Not applicable. The project does not propose any
changes to maritime, rail, or intermodal facilities or
forms of transportation.
Medium/Heavy-Duty
Vehicle
2010 Amendments to
the Truck and Bus
Regulation, the
Drayage Truck
Regulation and the
Tractor-Trailer
Greenhouse Gas
Regulation
Consistent. This measure applies to medium and heavy-
duty vehicles that operate in the state. The project
would not conflict with implementation of this measure.
Medium and heavy-duty vehicles associated with
construction and operation of the project would be
required to comply with the requirements of this
regulation.
High Speed Rail Funded under SB 862 Not applicable. This is a statewide measure that cannot
be implemented by a project applicant or Lead Agency.
Electricity and
Natural Gas
Energy Efficiency Title 20 Appliance
Efficiency Regulation
Consistent. The project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure. The project would
comply with the latest energy efficiency standards. Title 24 Part 6 Energy
Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Non-
Residential Building
Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code
Standards
Renewable Portfolio
Standard/Renewable
Electricity Standard.
2010 Regulation to
Implement the
Renewable Electricity
Standard (33% 2020)
Consistent. The project would provide the option to
home buyers to include photovoltaic solar systems.
Photovoltaic systems would be installed on the rooftops
of commercial buildings. All structures that do not
include solar PV panels will be “solar ready,” as required
by City Municipal Code sections 7.94.060 and 7.94.070.
The project would obtain electricity from the electric
utility, PG&E, or from East Bay Community Energy.
SB 350 Clean Energy
and Pollution
Reduction Act of 2015
(50% 2030)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-33
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
PG&E obtained 33 percent of its power supply from
renewable sources in 2016. Therefore, the utility would
provide power when needed on site that is composed of
a greater percentage of renewable sources.
Million Solar Roofs
Program
Tax incentive program Consistent. This measure is to increase solar
throughout California, which is being done by various
electricity providers and existing solar programs.
Homeowners within the project would be able to take
advantage of incentives that are in place at the time of
construction.
Water Water Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The project would comply with the
California Green Building Standards Code, which
requires a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use.
The project would also comply with the City’s Water-
Efficient Landscaping Regulations (Chapter 8.88 of the
Dublin Municipal Code).
SBX 7-7—The Water
Conservation Act of
2009
Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance
Green Buildings Green Building
Strategy
Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The State is to increase the use of green
building practices. The project would implement
required green building strategies through existing
regulation that requires the project to comply with
various CalGreen requirements. The project includes
sustainability design features that support the Green
Building Strategy.
Industry Industrial Emissions 2010 CARB Mandatory
Reporting Regulation
Not applicable. The project does not include industrial
land uses.
Recycling and
Waste
Management
Recycling and Waste Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The project would not conflict with
implementation of these measures. The project is
required to achieve the recycling mandates via
compliance with the CALGreen code. The City has
consistently achieved its state recycling mandates. AB 341 Statewide 75
Percent Diversion Goal
SB 1383 Mandatory
Organics Diversion
Forests Sustainable Forests Cap and Trade Offset
Projects
Not applicable. The project site is in an area designated
for urban uses. No forested lands exist on-site.
High Global
Warming
Potential
High Global
Warming Potential
Gases
CARB Refrigerant
Management Program
CCR 95380
Not applicable. The regulations are applicable to
refrigerants used by large air conditioning systems and
large commercial and industrial refrigerators and cold
storage system. The project is not expected to use large
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-34 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
systems subject to the refrigerant management
regulations adopted by CARB.
Agriculture Agriculture Cap and Trade Offset
Projects for Livestock
and Rice Cultivation
Not applicable. The project site is designated for urban
development. No grazing, feedlot, or other agricultural
activities that generate manure occur currently exist on-
site or are proposed to be implemented by the project.
Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB), California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 and CARB, Climate Change
Scoping Plan, December 2008.
Consistency with Plan Bay Area
The project would be consistent with the overall goals of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission’s Plan Bay Area 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy in concentrating new development in locations where there is existing infrastructure
as the project would develop the project site to provide a mix of land uses. The project is
located approximately 1.5 miles of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, adjacent to I-580, other
major arterials, and bicycle lanes. The project includes various multi-use paths and walkways
that connect the residents and retail patrons with adjacent open space, surrounding
neighborhoods and nearby Emerald Glen Park. The project would provide housing and mixed
uses on an infill location near transit. These project design features are consistent with the GHG
reduction planning efforts and housing performance targets outlined in Plan Bay Area 2040.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area 2040
and impacts would be less than significant.
10.5.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Table 10-9: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures
for the project with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.
Table 10-9: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact GHG-1: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
construction-related greenhouse gas
emissions (Class III).
Less than Significant None required.
Impact GHG-2: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
long-term operations-related
greenhouse gas emissions (Class III).
Less than Significant None required.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Page 10-35
Draft EIR
10/23/18
10.6 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. Clean Air Plan. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
(updated May 2017). Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-
and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Air Quality Standards and
Attainment Status. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-
qualitystandards- and-attainment-status. Accessed March 20, 2017.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change:
Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. CalEEMod User’s Guide
Version 2016.3.2. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/mwg-
internal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=WyxrYFLEwisGHCGagrwXbLpEoQlsK2Ey4aPiERcP1
NA,&dl
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan, Framework for
Change, as Approved December 2008, Pursuant to AB32. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013. Annual Report to the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee on Assembly Bill 32. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/jlbcreports/jan2013jlbcreport.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014. AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scoping plan/scoping plan.htm
California Air Resources Board (CARB). January 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping
Plan. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data – 2017 Edition.
Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). January 2009. General Report Protocol, Reporting
Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1. Available at:
http://www.sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/fliers/files/ccar_grp_3-
1_january2009_sfe-web.pdf
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2018. The Water Conservation Act of 2009.
Available at: http://wdl.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 10-36 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft EIR
10/23/18
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to
Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Available at:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04-
03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). April 2010. Climate Action Team Biennial
Report. Final Report. Available at:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/
City of Dublin. Climate Action Plan Update. July 2013. Available online:
https://dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5799
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis
Report, the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report. Available at: http://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/index.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis
Report, the Fifth IPCC Assessment Report. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
US EPA. April 2018. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
US EPA. April 2018. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-
1990-2016
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
11 Hazards & Hazardous Materials
11.1 Introduction
This section describes effects of hazards and hazardous materials that would result from
implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section came from the
following resources:
ENGEO Incorporated, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2018 (see Appendix E)
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985, as amended November 2017
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final EIR, 1994, updated 2016
11.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding hazards and
hazardous materials were raised.
11.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on the potential for hazardous conditions on the project site.
11.3.1 Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials, as defined by the California Code of Regulations, are substances with
certain physical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to human
health or the environment when handled, disposed, or otherwise managed improperly.
Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories, based on their properties:
Toxic – causes human health effects
Ignitable – has the ability to burn
Corrosive – causes severe burns or damage to materials
Reactive – causes explosions or generates toxic gases
A hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be
recycled. The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. If
handled, disposed, or otherwise handled improperly, hazardous materials and hazardous waste
can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne
releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater having concentrations of hazardous
material constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as
hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of
Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20-24 contain technical descriptions of toxic
characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-2 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
11.3.2 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
A Phase 1 ESA was prepared by ENGEO in January 2018 to determine the presence or absence
of hazardous materials on the project site. This assessment included a review of local, state,
tribal, and federal environmental record sources, standard historical sources, aerial
photographs, fire insurance maps and physical setting sources. A reconnaissance of the
property was conducted to review site use and current conditions to check for the storage, use,
production or disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials and interviews with
persons knowledgeable about current and past site use. The findings are summarized as
follows.
Existing Conditions
The Phase I ESA identified 11 Federal USGS wells located within one mile of the project site.
The closed well, Well Number 1, is located less than one-half-mile east-southeast of the
property, and 20 groundwater level measurements were observed, which ranged between 34.9
feet and 36.9 feet below the ground.
No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), historical RECs, nor controlled RECs were
identified on the property. However, ENGEO identified the following conditions that could pose
an environmental concern:
One five-gallon bucket containing petroleum hydrocarbon material and one five-
gallon bucket containing petroleum hydrocarbon spilt material (middle parcel APN
985-52-24).
Approximately nine drums in poor condition (middle parcel APN 985-52-24).
Minor stained soil with odors (middle parcel APN 985-52-24).
Minor stressed vegetation under abandoned tractors (middle parcel APN 985-52-
24).
Solid waste debris (middle parcel AP: 985-52-24 and southern parcel APN 985-51-5).
Abandoned Zone 7 water supply well (middle parcel APN 985-52-24).
Records Search
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) performed a search of federal, state, and local
databases listing contaminated sites, brownfield sites (a development site having the presence
or potential presence of hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminate), underground storage
tank sites, waste storage sites, toxic chemical sites, contaminated well sites, clandestine drug
lab sites, and other sites containing hazardous materials. The project site and adjacent sites
were not listed on any databases.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Topographic Maps and Aerial Photographs
ENGEO reviewed historical USGS topographic maps and aerial photographs provided by EDR of
the project site dating back to 1906. In the 1906 map, no structures were identified. Structures
do appear in 1953 and disappear by 1998.
In the aerial photographs the project site was vacant or used as agricultural land in 1939 and
four structures appear on the site in 1949. The site appears to have historically been used as
agricultural row crops based on 1966 and 1968 aerial photographs.
Hazardous Building Materials
The Phase I ESA concluded that asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint were not a
concern because of the absence of buildings on the project site.
11.3.3 Livermore Municipal Airport
The Livermore Municipal Airport is located in the western portion of Livermore, immediately
south of I-580, and approximately two miles from the project site. The airport is owned and
operated by the City of Livermore.
The Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) indicates that 600 aircraft
were based at the airport in 2008, with that number projected to increase to 900 by 2030. The
airport averaged 394 operations per day in 2014 (143,810 operations annually).
Most of the project site, excluding the most northerly portion, is located with the Airport
Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District. This area is designated as an area in which current
or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety and/or airspace protection factors may affect
land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The AIA is a designation in the ALUCP by the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission.
As shown in Figure 11-1: Livermore Municipal Airport Safety Compatibility Zones, the same
portion of the project site is also located within Land Use Compatibility Zone 7 (Area of
Influence) of the Livermore Municipal Airport, as established in the ALUCP.
11.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
The management of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes is regulated at federal, state,
and local levels, including, among others, through programs administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); agencies within the California Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA), such as the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC);
federal and state occupational safety agencies; and the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health. Regulations pertaining to flood hazards are discussed in Chapter 12:
Hydrology & Water Quality, and regulations for geologic and soil-related hazards are discussed
in Chapter 9: Geology and Soils.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-4 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
11.4.1 Federal
Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid
Waste Act
The federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) established a program administered by the U.S. EPA for the regulation of the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was
amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HSWA), which affirmed and extended
the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law
(U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 103) provides broad federal authority to respond directly to
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or
the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned
hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous
waste at these sites; and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible
party can be identified. CERCLA also enables the revision of the National Contingency Plan
(NCP). The NCP (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation [CFR], Part 300) provides the guidelines
and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities
List. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October
17, 1986.
Clean Water Act/SPCC Rule
The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq., formerly the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972), was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA
requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the
regulation of point source and certain non-point source discharges to surface water. Those
discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit process (CWA Section 402). In California, NPDES permitting authority is delegated to,
and administered by, the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project is
within the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB.
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the California State Water Resources Control
Board to issue NPDES General Construction Storm Water Permit (Water Quality Order 99-08-
DWQ), referred to as the “General Construction Permit.” Construction activities can comply
with and be covered under the General Construction Permit provided that they:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which
specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction
pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of
erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters;
Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other
waters of the nation; and
Perform inspections of all BMPs.
NPDES regulations are administered by the RWQCB. Projects that disturb one or more acres
are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the Construction General Permits.
As part of the CWA, U.S. EPA oversees and enforces the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation
contained in Title 40 of the CFR, Part 112 (Title 40 CFR, Part 112) which is often referred to as
the “SPCC rule” because the regulations describe the requirements for facilities to prepare,
amend and implement Spill Prevention and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plans. A facility is subject
to SPCC regulations if a single oil (or gasoline, or diesel fuel) storage tank has a capacity greater
than 660 gallons, the total above ground oil storage capacity exceeds 1,320 gallons, or the
underground oil storage capacity exceeds 42,000 gallons, and if, due to its location, the facility
could reasonably be expected to discharge oil into or upon the “Navigable Waters” of the
United States.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
OSHA’s mission is to ensure the safety and health of America's workers by setting and enforcing
standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and
encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. OSHA staff establishes
and enforces protective standards and reaches out to employers and employees through
technical assistance and consultation programs. OSHA standards are listed in Title 29 CFR Part
1910.
OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER) applies
to five distinct groups of employers and their employees. This includes any employees who are
exposed or potentially exposed to hazardous substances — including hazardous waste — and
who are engaged in one of the following operations:
Clean-up operations — required by a governmental body, whether federal, State,
local, or other involving hazardous substances — that are conducted at uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites;
Corrective actions involving clean-up operations at sites covered by RCRA as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.);
Voluntary clean-up operations at sites recognized by federal, state, local, or other
governmental body as uncontrolled hazardous waste sites;
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-6 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Operations involving hazardous wastes that are conducted at treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities regulated by Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 264
and 265 pursuant to RCRA, or by agencies under agreement with U.S. EPA to
implement RCRA regulations; and
Emergency response operations for releases of, or substantial threats of releases of,
hazardous substances regardless of the location of the hazard.
11.4.2 State
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985
The California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, known as the Hazardous
Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act or the Business Plan Act, requires
businesses using hazardous materials to prepare a plan that describes their facilities,
inventories, emergency response plans, and training programs. Businesses must submit this
information to the County Environmental Health Division. The Environmental Health Division
verifies the information and provides it to agencies responsible for protection of public health
and safety and the environment. Business Plans are required to include emergency response
plans and procedures in the event of a reportable release or threatened release of a hazardous
material, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
Immediate notification to the administering agency and to the appropriate local
emergency rescue personnel.
Procedures for the mitigation of a release or threatened release to minimize any
potential harm or damage to persons, property, or the environment.
Evacuation plans and procedures, including immediate notice, for the business site.
Business Plans are also required to include training for all new employees, and
annual training, including refresher courses, for all employees in safety procedures
in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material.
Hazardous Waste Control Act
The Hazardous Waste Control Act created the State hazardous waste management program,
which is similar to but more stringent than the federal RCRA program. The act is implemented
by regulations contained in Title 26 of the CCR, which describes the following required aspects
for the proper management of hazardous waste: identification and classification; generation
and transportation; design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities; treatment standards; operation of facilities and staff training; and closure of facilities
and liability requirements. These regulations list more than 800 materials that may be
hazardous and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing of such waste. Under
the Hazardous Waste Control Act and Title 26, the generator of hazardous waste must
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
complete a manifest that accompanies the waste from generator to transporter to the ultimate
disposal location. Copies of the manifest must be filed with the DTSC.
Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
(Unified Program) required the administrative consolidation of six hazardous materials and
waste programs (Program Elements) under one agency, a Certified Unified Program Agency
(CUPA). The Program Elements consolidated under the Unified Program are Hazardous Waste
Generator and On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs (a.k.a. Tiered Permitting);
Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank SPCC; Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and
Inventory Program (a.k.a. Hazardous Materials Disclosure or “Community-Right-To-Know”);
California Accidental Release Prevention Program (Cal ARP); Underground Storage Tank (UST)
Program; and Uniform Fire Code Plans and Inventory Requirements.
The Unified Program is intended to provide relief to businesses complying with the overlapping
and sometimes conflicting requirements of formerly independently managed programs. The
Unified Program is implemented at the local government level by CUPAs. Most CUPAs have
been established as a function of a local environmental health or fire department. Some CUPAs
have contractual agreements with another local agency, a participating agency, which
implements one or more Program Elements in coordination with the CUPA.
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC)
DTSC is a department of Cal EPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates
hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous
waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the
authority of the federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20,
Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste
are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and
emergency planning. Government Code §65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List)
includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, Department of Health Services (DHS)
lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the California Water Resources
Control Board as having UST leaks and have had a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials
into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites that have had a
known migration of hazardous waste/material.
California Office of Emergency Services (OES)
To protect the public health and safety and the environment, the California OES is responsible
for establishing and managing statewide standards for business and area plans relating to the
handling and release or threatened release of hazardous materials. Basic information on
hazardous materials handled, used, stored, or disposed of (including location, type, quantity,
and the health risks) needs to be available to firefighters, public safety officers, and regulatory
agencies. The information must be included in these institutions’ business plans to prevent or
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-8 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
mitigate the damage to the health and safety of persons and the environment from the release
or threatened release of these materials into the workplace and environment.
These regulations are covered under Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code
Article 1– Hazardous Materials Release Response and Inventory Program (Sections 25500 to
25520) and Article 2– Hazardous Materials Management (Sections 25531 to 25543.3). CCR Title
19, Public Safety, Division 2, Office of Emergency Services, Chapter 4–Hazardous Material
Release Reporting, Inventory, and Response Plans, Article 4 (Minimum Standards for Business
Plans) establishes minimum statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business Plans
(HMBP). These plans shall include the following: (1) a hazardous material inventory in
accordance with Sections 2729.2 to 2729.7; (2) emergency response plans and procedures in
accordance with Section 2731; and (3) training program information in accordance with Section
2732. Business plans contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks
of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of in the State. Each business shall prepare a
HMBP if that business uses, handles, or stores a hazardous material or an extremely hazardous
material in quantities greater than or equal to the following: 500 pounds of a solid substance,
55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, a hazardous compressed gas in any
amount, or hazardous waste in any quantity.
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is the primary agency
responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA
standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. The employer is required to
monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure (8 CCR
Sections 337-340). The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of
safety equipment, accident-prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings.
11.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan contains the following policies as it relates hazards and
hazardous materials.
Guiding Policy 8.3.4.A.1: Maintain and enhance the ability to regulate the use, transport, and
storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take appropriate action
during emergencies.
Guiding Policy 8.3.4.A.2: Minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from
contaminated sites.
Implementing Policy 8.3.4.B.2: As part of the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan,
the City has adopted a Hazardous Materials Response Plan. The City will periodically review the
Plan to prepare for and respond to emergencies related to hazardous materials.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementing Policy 8.3.4.B.3: Periodically review and enforce the City’s ordinances regulating
the handling, transport, and storage of hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
Implementing Policy 8.3.4.B.4: Require site-specific hazardous materials studies for new
development projects where there is a potential for the presence of hazardous materials from
previous uses on the site. If hazardous materials are found, require the clean-up of sites to
acceptable regulatory standards prior to development.
Guiding Policy 8.4.1.A.1: All proposed land uses within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) shall be
reviewed for consistency with the safety compatibility policies and airspace protection policies
of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Livermore Municipal Airport.
Implementing Policy 8.4.1.B.1: Adopt an Airport Overlay Zoning District to ensure that all
proposed development within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) is reviewed for consistency with
all applicable Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
policies.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs as
it relates to hazards and hazardous materials:
Policy 11-1 Prior to issuance of building permits for site-specific Phase I (and if necessary Phase
II) environmental site assessments shall be made available to the Community Development
Director, with appropriate documentation that all recommended remediation actions have
been completed.
Alameda County – Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) governs land use around
Livermore Municipal Airport. The ALUCP was adopted by the Alameda County Airport Land Use
Commission in 2012.
The ALUCP should act as a guide for the Airport Land Use Commission and local jurisdictions in
safeguarding the general welfare of the public. The ALUCP establishes that the following
“specific characteristics” are to be avoided: (1) glare or distracting lights that could be mistaken
for airport lights; (2) sources dust, heat, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot vision; (3)
sources of steam or other emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable
air that generate turbulence within the flight path; (4) sources of electrical interferences with
aircraft communications or navigation; or (5) features that create an increased attraction for
wildlife including landfills or agricultural and recreational uses that attract large flocks of birds.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-10 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
11.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
11.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for hazards & hazardous materials were derived from the
Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been
amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full
range of potential impacts related to this project. An impact of the project would be
considered significant and would require mitigation if it would meet one of the following
criteria.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment.
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, result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
11.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
The nearest school to the project site is Kolb Elementary School, located 0.5 miles east of the
project site. Therefore, the project would not affect an existing or proposed school within the
designated rate of one-quarter mile and this threshold is not evaluated further. The project site
is also not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5; therefore, this threshold is not evaluated further.
The project site is not located within the area of or within the direct vicinity of an emergency
response plan. Therefore, this threshold is not further evaluated.
The project site is not located adjacent to wildlands that would put the property at risk for fires.
Therefore, this threshold is not further evaluated.
11.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact HAZ-1: Exposure to known hazardous contaminants (Class II).
The project site is currently undeveloped and has not supported urban development in the
past. Although Phase I ESA concluded there were no Recognized Environmental Conditions
(RECs) or historical RECs on the site, the following deleterious materials were observed:
One 5-gallon bucket of petroleum hydrocarbon containing material and one 5-gallon
bucket of petroleum hydrocarbon containing spilt material (middle parcel APN 985-
52-24).
Approximately nine drums in poor condition (middle parcel APN 985-52-24).
Minor stained soil with odors (middle parcel APN 985-52-24).
Minor stressed vegetation under abandoned tractors (middle parcel APN 985-52-
24).
Solid waste debris (middle parcel AP: 985-52-24 and southern parcel APN 985-51-5).
Abandoned Zone 7 water supply well (middle parcel APN 985-52-24).
Based on the land uses being proposed, the disturbance of these deleterious materials could
result in the exposure of hazardous contaminants into the environment. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM HAZ-1.1 Disposal of Deleterious
Materials would reduce this impact to less than significant.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-12 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Mitigation for Impact HAZ-1
MM HAZ-1.1 Disposal of Deleterious Materials.
Prior to any ground disturbance on the middle parcel (APN 985-52-24), the project applicant
shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to properly dispose of the observed
deleterious materials, and any others discovered during remediation. Additionally, the
applicant shall close the abandoned Zone 7 water supply well in accordance with applicable
regulatory agency requirements.
Impact HAZ-2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions. (Class III).
Project construction activities may involve the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous
materials. These materials may include chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil,
hydraulic oil, lubricating grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other
substances used during construction. Construction of the project would also require the use of
gasoline and diesel-powered heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, water pumps, and
air compressors. Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during
construction activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations regarding the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials.
Compliance with these statutes and regulations would ensure that human health and the
environment are not exposed to hazardous materials.
The project would develop a mixed-use of commercial and residential uses on the project site.
The project’s end uses would not involve the routine use of large qualities of hazardous
materials. Small quantities of hazardous materials would be used as part of daily operations,
including cleaning solvents (e.g., degreasers, diesel, paint thinners, and aerosol propellants),
paints, disinfectants, and fertilizers. These substances would be stored in secure areas and
would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements.
If future commercial users propose to use, handle, or store hazardous materials or waste in
quantities that are regulated by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health,
they would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan documenting basic
information on the location, type, quality, and health risks of hazardous materials and/or
waste. Transport of these materials would be performed by commercial vendors who would be
required to comply with applicable federal and state regulations.
For the residential portion of the project, there would be a less than impact to the transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials, since residential development does not use, store or
transport significant quantities of hazardous materials. To the extent there are potentially
hazardous materials used in construction, the impacts would be less than significant due to
compliance with regulatory requirements, and no mitigation would be required.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR did not identify any significant impacts associated with
hazardous materials.
Impact HAZ-3: Create aviation hazards for persons residing or working in the project area (Class
III).
Most of the project site is located with the Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District.
This area is designated as an area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight,
safety and/or airspace protection factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on
those uses.
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan establishes that the following “specific characteristics”
are to be avoided in the AIA: 1) Glare or distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport
lights; 2) Sources of dust, heat, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot vision; 3) Sources of
steam or other emissions that may cause thermal plumes or other forms of unstable air that
generate turbulence within the flight path; 4) Sources of electrical interferences with aircraft
communications or navigation; or 5) Features that create an increased attraction for wildlife
including landfills or agricultural and recreational uses that attract large flocks of birds.
The project’s does not: 1) Propose any exterior lights that could be mistaken for airport lights;
2) Propose any uses or activities that emit substantial amounts of dust, heat, steam, or smoke;
3) Propose any uses or activities that would generate electrical interference; or 4) Have
features that could attract large flocks of birds (e.g., a pond). As such, the project would be
compatible with the flight hazards policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and
impacts would be less than significant.
11.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographical area for the analysis of cumulative impacts involving risks associated with
hazards and hazardous materials is the is the project site and adjacent properties.
Impact HAZ-4: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials (Class II).
Most hazards and hazardous materials impacts from development are site-specific and if
properly designed would not result in additive worsening of the environmental or public health
and safety. Cumulative development would be subject to site-specific hazards and/or
hazardous materials constraints; pursuant to the City of Dublin’s building requirements.
Nevertheless, development of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments
could cumulatively increase the potential for exposure of people throughout the City of Dublin
to existing soil contamination from ground disturbance during construction; hazards associated
with the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials for any industrial projects; wildland
fire hazards from development in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone; and compliance with the
Alameda County Emergency Response and/or Evacuation Plans because of the addition of
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 11-14 | Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Draft EIR
10/23/18
residents and employees in areas without adequate emergency access. Therefore, an overall
increase in the potential for exposure to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildland fires could
occur as development occurs. The project’s potential contribution to this cumulative increase
would be less than significant based on the primary site-specific nature of potential impacts,
compliance with regulatory requirements, and implementation of MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of
Deleterious Materials.
11.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 11-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hazards & Hazardous Materials
summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures
for the project with regard to hazards & hazardous materials.
Table 11-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact HAZ-1: Exposure to known
hazardous contaminants (Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious Materials.
Impact HAZ-2: Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials, or through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions. (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact HAZ-3: Create aviation
hazards for persons residing or
working in the project area (Class III)
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact HAZ-4: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts
to hazards and hazardous materials
(Class II).
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM HAZ- 1.1: Disposal of Deleterious Materials.
11.6 References
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2008. Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in LRA in Alameda County.
http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/alameda/fhszl_map.1.pdf
City of Dublin. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 1994 updated 2016.
County of Alameda. 2012. Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. August.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hazards & Hazardous Materials | Page 11-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
12 Hydrology & Water Quality
12.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on water resources (hydrology and water quality) that would be
caused by implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section came from
the following resources:
Aerial photography
Project application and related materials
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, Preliminary Drainage Study, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix F)
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018
(see Appendix G)
Dublin-San Ramon Services District, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015.
12.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding hydrology
and water quality were raised.
12.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on the existing conditions of the project site and vicinity for
hydrology and water quality.
12.3.1 Surface Water
Watershed
The project site is located within the Livermore Drainage Unit which is one of two major
drainage basins in the Alameda Creek Watershed, and east of Tassajara Creek, which runs in a
north-south direction. Tassajara Creek is a natural watercourse north of Interstate 580; but is
channelized south of Interstate 580, prior to its convergence with Arroyo Mocho. Arroyo
Mocho flows south to Arroyo De La Laguna, which empties into the San Francisco Bay.
The project site is located in the service area of the Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD),
which serves the City of Dublin with potable water and non-potable recycled water. Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, known as Zone 7, supplies wholesale
water to DSRSD.
Flooding
Flood Insurance Rate maps partition flood areas into three zones: Zone A for areas of 100-year
flood; Zone B for areas of 500-year flood; and Zone C for areas of minimal flooding. The
National Flood Insurance Program 100-year floodplain is considered the base flood condition.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-2 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
This is defined as a flood event of a magnitude that would be equaled or exceeded an average
of once during a 100-year period. Floodways are defined as stream channels plus adjacent
floodplains that must be kept free of encroachment as much as possible so that the 100-year
floods can be carried without substantial increases (no more than one foot) in flood elevations.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM), the majority of the project site is within Zone X (areas of the 0.2% annual
chance flood; areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depth of less than one
foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1%
annual chance flood), except the southerly portion of PA-1, which lies within zone AH (flood
depth of one to three feet) with a base flood elevation of 349.0. (FEMA, 2009). As shown in
Figure 12-1: Flood Hazard Areas, the southerly portion of the project site is located within the
100-year floodplain.
12.3.2 Groundwater
The project is within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin which extends about 14 miles
from the Pleasanton Ridge east to the Altamont Hills and about three miles from the Livermore
Upland north to the Orinda Upland. Principal streams providing surface drainage include
Arroyo Valle, Arroyo Mocho, and Arroyo Las Positas, with Alamo Creek, South San Ramon
Creek, and Tassajara Creek as minor streams. All streams converge on the west side of the
basin to form Arroyo de la Laguna, which flows south and joins Alameda Creek in Sunol Valley.
Some geologic structures restrict the lateral movement of groundwater, but the general
groundwater gradient is to the west, then south towards Arroyo de la Laguna. Elevations
within the basin range from about 600 feet in the east, near the Altamont Hills, to about 280
feet in the southwest, where Arroyo de la Laguna flows into Sunol Groundwater Basin. Average
annual precipitation ranges from 16 inches on the valley floor to more than 20 inches along the
southeast and northwest basin margins.
The floor of the Livermore Valley and portions of the upland areas on all sides of the valley
overlie groundwater-bearing materials. The materials are continental deposits from alluvial
fans, outwash plains, and lakes. They include valley-fill materials, the Livermore Formation, and
the Tassajara Formation. Under most conditions, the valley-fill and Livermore sediments yield
adequate to large quantities of groundwater to all types of wells. The quality of water
produced from these rocks ranges from poor to excellent, with most waters in the good to
excellent range.
Total storage capacity of the basin is estimated at about 500,000 acre-feet (af). Groundwater
storage was estimated at 219,000 af in 1999.
Zone 7 has maintained an annual hydrologic inventory of supply and demand since 1974. The
inventory describes the balance between groundwater supply and demand. Under average
hydrologic conditions, the groundwater budget is essentially in balance. Groundwater budget
inflow components include natural recharge of 10,000 acre-feet, artificial recharge of 10,900 af,
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
applied water recharge of 1,740 acre-feet, and subsurface inflow of 1,000 af. Groundwater
budget outflow components include urban extraction of 10,290 af, agricultural extraction of
190 af, other extraction and evaporation associated with gravel mining operations of 12,620 af,
and subsurface outflow of 540 af.
Zone 7 extracts groundwater from the Livermore Valley Main Groundwater Basin (Main Basin)
which contains high-yielding aquifers and good quality groundwater. The Main Basin has an
estimated storage capacity of approximately 254,000 af. California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) has not identified the Main Basin as a basin in overdraft or a basin expected
to be in overdraft. The Main Basin is considered a storage facility and not a long-term source of
water supply because Zone 7 only pumps groundwater it has artificially recharged using its
surface water supplies.
DSRSD, the City of Pleasanton, the City of Livermore, and California Water Service Company
have agreements with Zone 7 limiting their extraction of the long-term sustainable yield of the
Main Basin. This agreement, along with Zone 7’s other groundwater management activities,
keeps the groundwater budget in balance under average hydraulic conditions. Each of these
entities, known as retailers, has a groundwater pumping quota (GPQ) and are responsible for a
fee if they pump in excess of their GPQ.
DSRSD groundwater supply is pumped by Zone 7 from Mocho well No. 4, a Zone 7 installed
well located in the Mocho well field. Groundwater from Mocho No.4 is blended with water
from other Zone 7 water supplies and is delivered to DSRSD to meet its total water demand.
Zone 7 conducts a program of groundwater replenishment by recharging imported surface
water via its streams ("in-stream recharge") for storage in the Main Basin. Zone 7's operational
policy is to maintain the balance between the combination of natural and artificial recharge and
withdrawal, ensuring that groundwater levels do not drop below the historic low level of
128,000 af. Zone 7 plans to recharge 9,200 afy on average, which means that Zone 7 can pump
an equivalent 9,200 afy on average from the Main Basin.
12.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
12.4.1 Federal and State
Clean Water Act
Under the Clean Water Act of 1972, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) is authorized to regulate the discharge of pollutants in the waters of the United States and
to regulate water quality standards for surface waters. The U.S. EPA has delegated authority
for implementing water quality regulations to the California State Water Resources Control
Board (State Water Board), which has nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB).
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
State Water Board regulates water quality through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act of
1969, which contains a complete framework for the regulation of waste discharges to both
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-4 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
surface waters and groundwater of the state. On the regional level, the project falls under the
jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, which is responsible for the implementation of
state and federal water quality protection statutes, regulations and guidelines.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
municipal storm water discharges in the City of Dublin are regulated under the San Francisco
Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted November
19, 2015. The Municipal Regional Permit is overseen by the RWQCB.
The City of Dublin is a member agency of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, which
assists municipalities and other agencies in Alameda County with implementation of the
Municipal Regional Permit. Provision C.3 addresses post-construction stormwater
management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that add and/or
replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area. Provision C.3 requires the
incorporation of site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures into
development projects to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-
stormwater discharges, and to prevent increases in runoff flows. Low Impact Development
(LID) methods are to be the primary mechanism for implementing such controls.
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management. This
Municipal Regional Permit provision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase
in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. Increases in runoff
flow and volume must be managed so that the post-project runoff does not exceed estimated
pre-project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause
increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other
adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force.
The Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map developed by the Alameda Countywide
Clean Water Program indicates that Dublin drains primarily to earthen channels; therefore,
projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface and increase impervious
surface over pre-project conditions are subject to hydromodification management
requirements.
In addition, projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to
comply with the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No.
CAS000002 (Construction General Permit). Construction General Permit activities are regulated
at a local level by the RWQCB.
To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a project applicant must provide a
Notice of Intent, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other documents
required by Attachment B of the Construction General Permit. Activities subject to the
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as
grubbing or excavation. The permit also covers linear underground and overhead projects such
as pipeline installations.
The Construction General Permit uses a risk-based permitting approach and mandates certain
requirements based on the project risk level (Level 1, 2, or 3). The project risk level is based on
the risk of sediment discharge and the receiving water risk. The sediment discharge risk
depends on project location and timing (such as wet season versus dry season activities). The
receiving water risk depends on whether the project would discharge to a sediment-sensitive
receiving water. The determination of the project risk level would be made by project
applicants when the Notice of Intent is filed (and more details of the timing of the construction
activity are known).
The performance standard in the Construction General Permit is that dischargers minimize or
prevent pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges
through the use of controls, structures, and best management practices (BMPs). A SWPPP must
be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer that meets the certification requirements in the
Construction General Permit. The purpose of the SWPPP is: 1) to help identify the sources of
sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges, and 2) to
describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other
pollutants in stormwater as well as non-stormwater discharges resulting from construction
activity. Operation of BMPs must be overseen by a qualified SWPPP practitioner who meets
the requirements outlined in the permit.
Section 303(d) and Total Maximum Daily Loads
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each state to identify water bodies that
are impaired, and which consequently require further action to support their beneficial uses.
Once a water body is identified as impaired, the state is required to establish a Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) for each pollutant that is a source of impairment. A TMDL is a calculation of
the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality
standards, which will ensure the protection of beneficial uses. The Basin Plan establishes
TMDLs and the attainment strategies that need to be implemented to meet the standards.
TMDL attainment strategies are implemented by the RWQCB through National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), implemented by the Congress of the United
States in 1968, enables participating communities to purchase flood insurance. Flood insurance
rates are set according to flood-prone status of property as indicated by FIRMs developed by
FEMA. FIRMs identify the estimated limits of the 100-year floodplain for mapped watercourses,
among other flood hazards. As a condition of participation in the NFIP, communities must
adopt regulations for floodplain development intended to reduce flood damage for new
development through such measures as flood proofing, elevation on fill, or floodplain
avoidance.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-6 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Senate Bill 610
Senate Bill (SB) 610 was passed on January 1, 2002, amending California state law to require
detailed analysis of water supply availability for large development projects. An SB 610 Water
Supply Assessment (WSA) must be prepared if the following three conditions are met: 1) the
project is subject to CEQA under Water Code Section 10910; 2) the project meets criteria to be
defined as a “Project” under Water Code Section 10912; and 3) the applicable water agency’s
current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) does not account for the water supply
demand associated with the project. A project would meet the definition of “Project” per
Water Code Section 10912 if it is:
A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units;
A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000
persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space;
A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or
having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms;
A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned
to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having
more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this
subdivision; or
A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the
amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project (DWR, 2003b).
12.4.2 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies
associated with hydrology and water quality that are relevant to the project:
Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1: Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for
stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board or any
subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of the
Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses.
Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to ensure site design that
minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.1: Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater
resources that serve the community.
Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.2: Protect water quality by minimizing stormwater runoff and providing
adequate stormwater facilities.
Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.3: To minimize flooding in existing and future development, design
stormwater facilities to handle design-year flows based on buildout of the General Plan.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.1: Support Zone 7’s efforts to complete planned regional storm
drainage improvements.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.2: With the goal of minimizing impervious surface area,
encourage design and construction of new streets to have the minimum vehicular travel lane
width possible while still meeting circulation, flow, and safety requirements for all modes of
transportation.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.3: Discourage additional parking over and above the required
minimum parking standards for any land use unless the developer can demonstrate a need for
additional parking.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.5: Review design guidelines and standard details to ensure that
developers can incorporate clean water runoff requirements into their projects.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.6: Maximize the runoff directed to permeable areas or to
stormwater storage by appropriate site design and grading, using appropriate detention and/or
retention structures, and orienting runoff toward permeable surfaces designed to manage
water flow.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.7: Review development plans to minimize impervious surfaces
and generally maximize infiltration of rainwater in soils, where appropriate. Strive to maximize
permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground through such means as
bioretention areas, green strips, planter strips, decomposed granite, porous pavers, swales, and
other water permeable surfaces. Require planter strips between the streetandthesidewalk
within the community, wherever practical and feasible.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.8: Continue conducting construction site field inspections to
ensure proper erosion control and materials/waste management implementation to effectively
prohibit non-stormwater discharges.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs as
it relates to hydrology and water quality:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-8 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Program 6H: The City should enact and enforce an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance
establishing performance standards to ensure maintenance of water quality and protection of
stream channels. The ordinance should regulate grading and development activities adjacent
to streams and wetland areas, and require revegetation of all ground disturbances immediately
after construction to reduce erosion potential. Until such an ordinance is in place, the City shall
require project applicants to provide a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan as part
of the project submittal.
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWC)
The ACFCWC is responsible for protecting county citizens from flooding by maintaining flood
channels and natural creeks within Alameda County. As a condition of receiving a drainage
permit, drainage plans for development projects must be reviewed by the ACFCWC to ensure
that they are consistent with its policies and regulations pertaining to runoff, stormwater
management and detention, flooding, and erosion. In addition, development projects that
involve work within the ACFCWC right-of-way or that involve construction, modification, or
connection to ACFCWC facilities are required to obtain a Flood Encroachment Permit and must
comply with ACFCWC standards and specifications.
12.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
12.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for hydrology & water quality were derived from the
Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been
amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full
range of potential impacts related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, create any
substantial new sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise degrade surface water or
groundwater quality.
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge,
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table (e.g. 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).
Place within a watercourse or flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows, or otherwise substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
an area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flood-related damage
on- or offsite.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite.
Result in or be subject to damage from inundation by mudflow.
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
12.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Based on the site’s location, it would not be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. Therefore, these thresholds are not evaluated further in this chapter.
12.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact HYD-1: Contribute to the depletion of local groundwater supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge (Class III).
The project could substantially deplete local groundwater supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge if it:
Affected groundwater basin in overdraft conditions;
Caused the affected groundwater basin to be in overdraft;
Caused a substantial local groundwater level drawdown at wells in the area; or
Redirected natural recharge to the basin, such as through the introduction of
impervious areas that prevent infiltration.
As further described in Chapter 16: Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems, the project
would generate a potable water demand of 229 afy and a recycled water demand of 28 afy.
The project water demand, inclusive of potable, recycled, and groundwater, would be higher
than the demand included for the project site in the DSRSD’s 2015 UWMP.
However, the DSRSD net resulting water demand is lower than the water demand identified in
the UWMP due to the reduced water demands from four planned developments in the DSRSD
service area including The Green, Grafton Plaza, Lennar Homes, and Gale Ranch. Therefore, the
project would not exceed the capacity of the groundwater production system. Furthermore,
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-10 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
DWR has not identified the Main Basin as a basin in overdraft or a basin expected to be in
overdraft. Thus, the project would not cause the groundwater basin to be in overdraft, and it
would not result in substantial local groundwater level drawdown at wells in the area.
According to the Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan (Appendix G), the project would
result in 51.32 acres (approximately 66.74 percent of the project site) of net impervious
surfaces. An increase in impervious surfaces from the primarily pervious existing condition
could reduce groundwater recharge. Site acreage and impervious surface acreage identified in
the Stormwater Management Plan include building footprints, public and private street
pavement, sidewalks, walkways and driveways. Pursuant to the Stormwater Control Plans,
however, stormwater would be reduced through inclusion of bioretention, Silva Cells with
bioretention, and landscaping throughout the project site. These features would allow for
infiltration and replenishment of the groundwater basin.
In conclusion, the project would not result in groundwater overdraft, substantial local
groundwater level drawdown; or substantially redirect stormwater such that natural basin
recharge would be precluded. Impacts to local groundwater would be less than significant
(Class III).
Impact HYD-2: Increase stormwater runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces (Class III).
The rate and amount of surface runoff is determined by multiple factors, including the
following: amount and intensity of precipitation; amount of other imported water that enters a
watershed; and amount of precipitation and imported water that infiltrates to the
groundwater. Infiltration is determined by several factors, including soil type, antecedent soil
moisture, rainfall intensity, the amount of impervious surfaces within a watershed, and
topography. The rate of surface runoff is largely determined by topography and the intensity of
rainfall over time. The project would not alter any precipitation amounts or intensities, nor
would it require any additional water to be imported into the project site. However,
construction would include earth-disturbing activities which may affect site-specific infiltration
and permeability during construction (temporary) and operation (permanent).
As shown in Figure 12-2: Preliminary Hydromodification Management Plan, on-site operations
would include a drainage system that would collect and convey runoff and ultimately discharge
it to the City of Dublin’s municipal storm drainage system. In accordance with the C.3 provision
of the Municipal Regional Storm Water Permit (MRP), the project utilizes the flow based
method (the “4 percent method”) to determine the sizing of the bioretention and Silva Cells.
The 4 percent method is based on a runoff inflow of 0.2 inches per hour, with an infiltration
rate through the biotreatment soil of five inches per hour (0.2 inches/hour divided by five
inches/hour = 0.04). The 0.04 sizing factor is applied to the to the total drainage area
contributing runoff to the treatment measure. For example, 1,742 square feet of bioretention
area would be needed to treat a one-acre paved site using the 4 percent method.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The Dublin Ranch West Side Storm Drain Benefit District, adopted March 18, 2008, allocated
flow from watershed PA-1, PA-2 and PA-3 for design of the storm drain system that has since
been constructed. Below is a summary of the allocated 15-year peak flows for the project:
Watershed PA-1 = 24.52 cubic feet/second (cfs)
Watershed PA-2a and 2b = 26.21 cfs
Watershed PA-2c = 25.19 cfs
Watershed PA-3 = 19.60 cfs
Watershed PA-4 = not a part of the Dublin Ranch Master Drainage Watershed
Watershed “Tassajara” = not a part of the Dublin Ranch Master Drainage Watershed
The majority of the project site, including parcels PA-2 and PA-3, as well as Dublin Boulevard,
Central Parkway and Brannigan Street, is located within the Dublin Ranch Master Drainage
Watershed. Most drainage from the project site is discharged into the existing underground
storm drain system in the public streets surrounding the project site. The existing storm drain
system has been previously constructed in accordance with the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master
Plan infrastructure improvements. Thus, the watersheds and drainage connection points for
each development parcel and surrounding public streets have been previously identified and
hydraulically sized as part of the revised SWMP for Dublin Ranch (March 2003), and the Dublin
Ranch Drainage Master Plan (March 2006).
As a part of the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan improvements, a water quality/detention
basin was constructed at the downstream end of the Dublin Ranch Development Watershed
adjacent to Interstate 580. This water quality/detention basin treats stormwater runoff for the
properties that were included in the Dublin Ranch Development Watershed, including parcels
PA-2 and PA-3. The stormwater quality/detention pond was constructed to meet the mandates
in California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Order No.
R2-2003-0031, Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certification for Dublin Ranch
Project, Dublin and Livermore, Alameda County.
Impervious surface area within PA-1, PA-4, Gleason Drive and Tassajara Road were not included
in the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan, therefore full compliance to the MRP C.3
Requirements and Zone 7 flood control requirements shall be met within the project
boundaries.
Tables 12-1 through 12-6 show the criteria used to determine the drainage boundary and
treatment area for each drainage management area (DMA).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-12 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 12-1: PA-1 Water Quality Boundary
Area
(Acres)
Proposed
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Allocated
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Impervious
Surface Area
Required to be
Treated
(Acres)
Treatment Area
Provided
(Acres)
PA-1 Boundary 22.21 17.33 0 17.33 0.888
Brannigan
Street within
PA-1 Boundary
0.21 0.16 0 0.16 0.008
Total PA-1A: 22.42 17.49 0 17.49 0.896
Notes:
1. Impervious surface areas for PA-1 include building footprints, pavement, sidewalks and walkways.
2. Impervious surface areas for public streets include street pavement and sidewalks.
3. Impervious Surface Area Required to be Treated = the treatment area that is not allocated to the downstream water quality/detention
basin per the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
4. Allocated Impervious Surface Area = the calculated impervious surface area based on the amount of runoff allocated to the downstream
water quality/detention basin.
5. Treatment Area Provided is calculated using the 4 percent method.
Source: RJA, Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix G).
Table 12-2: PA-2a Water Quality Boundary
Area
(Acres)
Proposed
Imperious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Allocated
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Impervious
Surface Area
Required to be
Treated
(Acres)
Treatment Area
Provided
(Acres)
PA-2a Boundary 9.75 8.10 5.85 2.24 0.39
100% of Dublin
Boulevard along
PA-2a Boundary
2.38 2.00 1.43 0.58
0.095
Tassajara Road
within PA-2a
Boundary
0.53 0.42 0.32 0.10
0.021
Total PA-2a: 12.66 10.52 7.60 2.92 0.506
Notes:
1. Impervious surface areas for single-family include building footprints, pavement, sidewalks, walkways and driveways.
2. Impervious surface areas for public streets include street pavement and sidewalks.
3. Impervious Surface Area Required to be Treated is the treatment area that is not allocated to the downstream water quality/detention
basin per the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
4. Allocated Impervious Surface Area = the calculated impervious surface area based on the amount of runoff allocated to the downstream
water quality/detention basin.
5. Treatment Area Provided is calculated using the 4 percent method.
Source: RJA, Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix G).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 12-3: PA-2b Water Quality Boundary
Area
(Acres)
Proposed
Imperious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Allocated
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Impervious
Surface Area
Required to be
Treated
(Acres)
Provided Water
Quality
Treatment
Area (Acres)
PA-2b Boundary 4.91 4.05 2.95 1.10 0.196
100% of Dublin
Blvd. along
PA-2b Boundary
1.15 0.97 0.69 0.28
0.046
Brannigan
Street within
PA-2b Boundary
0.36 0.28 0.22 0.06
0.014
Total PA-2b: 6.42 5.30 3.86 1.44 0.257
Notes:
1. Impervious surface areas for PA-2B include apartment footprints, pavement, sidewalks, walkways and driveways.
2. Impervious surface areas for public streets include street pavement and sidewalks.
3. Impervious Surface Area Required to be Treated is the treatment area that is not allocated to the downstream water quality/detention
basin per the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
4. Allocated Impervious Surface Area = the calculated impervious surface area based on the amount of runoff allocated to the downstream
water quality/detention basin.
5. Treatment Area Provided is calculated using the 4 percent method.
Source: RJA, Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix G).
Table 12-4: PA-2c Water Quality Boundary
Area
(Acres)
Proposed
Imperious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Allocated
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Impervious
Surface Area
Required to be
Treated
(Acres)
Provided Water
Quality
Treatment
Area (Acres)
PA-2c Boundary 12.80 8.71 7.68 1.03 0.512
50% of Central
Parkway 1.12 0.82 0.67 0.15 0.045
Tassajara Road
within PA-2c
Boundary
0.46 0.36 0.28 0.08
0.018
Brannigan
Street within
PA-2c Boundary
0.21 0.15 0.13 0.02
0.008
Total PA-2c: 14.59 10.04 8.76 1.28 0.584
Notes:
1. Impervious surface areas for PA-2C include townhouse footprints, pavement, sidewalks, walkways and driveways.
2. Impervious surface areas for public streets include street pavement and sidewalks.
3. Impervious Surface Area Required to be Treated is the treatment area that is not allocated to the downstream water quality/detention
basin per the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
4. Allocated Impervious Surface Area = the calculated impervious surface area based on the amount of runoff allocated to the downstream
water quality/detention basin.
5. Treatment Area Provided is calculated using the 4 percent method.
Source: RJA, Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix G).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-14 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 12-5: PA-3 Water Quality Boundary
Area
(Acres)
Proposed
Imperious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Allocated
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Impervious
Surface Area
Required to be
Treated
(Acres)
Provided Water
Quality
Treatment
Area (Acres)
PA-3 Boundary 18.53 11.71 11.12 0.59 0.741
50% of Central
Parkway 1.12 0.95 0.67 0.28 0.045
Gleason Drive
within PA-3
Boundary
0.66 0.55 0.40 0.15
0.026
Tassajara Road
within PA-3
Boundary
0.65 0.51 0.39 0.12
0.026
Brannigan
Street 0.34 0.24 0.20 0.04 0.014
Total PA-3: 21.30 13.96 12.78 1.18 0.852
Notes:
1. Impervious surface areas for PA-3 include house footprints, street pavement, sidewalks, walkways and driveways.
2. Impervious surface areas for public streets include street pavement and sidewalks.
3. Impervious surface Area Required to be Treated is the treatment area that is not allocated to the downstream water quality/detention
basin per the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
4. Allocated Impervious Surface Area = the calculated impervious surface area based on the amount of runoff allocated to the downstream
water quality/detention basin.
5. Treatment Area Provided is calculated using the 4 percent method.
Source: RJA, Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix G).
Table 12-6: PA-4 Water Quality Boundary
Area
(Acres)
Proposed
Imperious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Allocated
Impervious
Surface
Area(Acres)
Impervious
Surface Area
Required to be
Treated
(Acres)
Provided Water
Quality
Treatment
Area (Acres)
PA-4 Boundary 2.27 1.42 0 1.42 0.091
Gleason Drive
within PA-4
Boundary
1.59 0.51 0 0.51
0.064
Tassajara Road
within PA-4
Boundary
0.07 0.06 0 0.06
0.003
Brannigan
Street within
PA-4 Boundary
0.12 0.06 0 0.06
0.005
Total PA-4: 4.05 2.05 0 2.05 0.162
Notes:
1. Impervious surface areas for PA-4 include house footprints, street pavement, sidewalks, walkways and driveways.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2. Impervious surface areas for public streets include street pavement and sidewalks.
3. Impervious Surface Area Required to be Treated is the treatment area that is not allocated to the downstream water quality/detention
basin per the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
4. Allocated Impervious Surface Area = the calculated impervious surface area based on the amount of runoff allocated to the downstream
water quality/detention basin.
5. Treatment Area Provided is calculated using the 4 percent method.
Source: RJA, Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix G).
Drainage for the project site has been designed to maintain the existing watershed drainage
pattern and avoid any impact to downstream watersheds by reducing the post development
runoff for the site to the predevelopment condition by incorporating low impact development
features such as bioretention and Silva Cells to treat and reduce stormwater pollutants from
entering into the municipal separate storm drain system. The grading design maintains the
north/south sloping layout of the land, matches existing grades along project perimeters,
minimizes the use of retaining walls, while minimizing the earthwork cut and fill.
As shown in Figure 12-3: Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, stormwater flows from
PA-1 would be treated on-site using bioretention and a hydromodification storage vault.
Stormwater runoff from PA-1 would be collected through an existing 42” storm drain pipe near
the southeasterly corner of PA-1 and conveyed to an existing triple 14’x9’ underground box
culvert bypassing the existing water quality and detention basin.
Stormwater flows from PA-2a and PA-2b would be treated on-site using bioretention and
conveyed to an existing 48” storm drain in Brannigan Street and an existing 18” storm drain in
Dublin Boulevard, and then to a connected 60” storm drain in Dublin Boulevard east of
Brannigan Street and a 96” storm drain in Grafton Street south of Dublin Boulevard. The 96”
storm drain (connected to the water quality/detention basin with a 36” storm drain) eventually
discharges into three existing 9’x14’ box culverts under Interstate 580.
Stormwater flows from PA-2c would be treated on-site using bioretention and conveyed to an
existing 42” storm drain in Brannigan Street between Central Parkway and Finnian Way. Runoff
would continue to the existing 48” storm drain south of Finnian Way, which would eventually
discharge into the water quality/detention basin and the three existing 9’x14’ box culverts
under Interstate 580.
Stormwater flows from PA-3 would be treated on-site using bioretention placed in the central
open space located in the middle of the site, and then discharged into the existing 42” storm
drain in Brannigan Street south of Central Parkway. The 42” storm drain conveys storm runoff
into the water quality/detention basin and the three existing 9’x14’ box culverts under
Interstate 580.
Stormwater flows from PA-4 would be treated on-site using bioretention, Silva Cells, and a
hydromodification storage vault and then conveyed to the existing drainage inlets near the
intersection of Gleason Drive and Tassajara Road. Tassajara Road runoff would be captured by
existing stormwater inlets and conveyed to the existing storm drain system along the west side
of Tassajara Road. Flow from the existing Tassajara Road storm drain lines do not flow to the
water quality/detention basin.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-16 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Development would include earth-disturbing activities, which may affect site-specific
infiltration and permeability during construction (temporary) and operation (permanent). As
described above, the project would result in 51.32 acres (66.74 percent of the project site) of
net impervious surfaces, which would increase stormwater flows. The Dublin Ranch West Side
Storm Drain Benefit District allocated 15-year peak flows from watershed PA-1, PA-2 and PA-3
for design of the storm drain system. Table 12-7: Stormwater Flows for a 15-Year Storm Event
summarizes the post development flow compared to the allocated 15-year peak flows.
Table 12-7: Stormwater Flows for a 15-Year Storm Event
Watershed
Allocated Flow
(cfs)
Post Development Flow
(cfs)
PA-1 24.52 30.13
PA-2a & PA-2b 26.21 26.85
PA-2c 25.19 13.88
PA-3 19.60 19.30
PA-4 0.00 6.89
Notes: cfs = cubic feet per second
Source: RJA, Preliminary Drainage Study, At Dublin, 2018 (see Appendix F).
Post development flow for each watershed within the project site was determined using criteria
in accordance with the 2016 ACFCWC Manual. As shown in Table 12-7, the post development
flow from PA-1 for a 15-year storm event is higher than the allocated flow. As discussed
previously, stormwater runoff from PA-1 would not discharge to the water quality/detention
basin. On-site bioretention and hydromodification storage are proposed to reduce flows from
PA-1 to a level below the allocated flow. The Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) was used to
calculate the hydromodification storage volume and design. For modeling, PA-1 was broken
into 10 uniform DMAs and the total storage volume required was determined to be 37,800
cubic feet.
The post development flow from PA-2a and PA-2b for a 15-year storm event exceeds the
allocated flow. Stormwater runoff from PA-2a and PA-2b would discharge to the downstream
water quality/detention basin, thus hydromodification storage is not required for PA-2a and 2b.
The post development flow from PA-2c and PA-3 for a 15-year storm event is less than the
allocated flow for those watershed areas. Stormwater runoff from both PA-2c and PA-3 would
discharge to the downstream water quality/detention basin, thus hydromodification storage is
not required for PA-2c or PA-3.
The Dublin Ranch Master Drainage Watershed did not include PA-4, thus there is not an
associated allocation for this watershed. Stormwater runoff from PA-4 would not discharge to
the water quality/detention basin, but would be conveyed to the Tassajara Road storm drain
system. Bioretention and an underground storage vault is included in the preliminary design to
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
reduce the flow and mimic the pre-development flow condition. BAHM modeling was used to
calculate the hydromodification storage volume and design. PA-4 was broken into 2 DMAs and
the total storage volume required was determined to be 3,600 cubic feet.
Although the project would increase the amount of impervious surface area within the project
site, the use of on-site treatment and detention would prevent a substantial increase in
stormwater flows. Thus, the project would not result in an increase in stormwater runoff due
to an increase in impervious surfaces. Impacts would be less than significant (Class III).
Impact HYD-3: Substantially alter drainage patterns on- or off-site that would result in the
storm water transport of contaminants, pollutants, bacteria, salts, and sediment into
downstream facilities (Class III).
Regulations under two State stormwater permits are applicable to this impact: 1) The Municipal
Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Provision C.3 Requirements (MRP) and 2) The NPDES
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance
Activities (Construction General Permit).
Construction General Permit
Because the project would disturb more than one acre of land, the project applicant would be
required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board and
apply for coverage under the Construction General Permit. As part of the NOI application
process a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be submitted for review and
approval prior to commencing construction.
In addition to potential sediment transport, construction activities require the use of gasoline-
and diesel-powered heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, water pumps, and air
compressors and chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating
grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, and glues. An accidental release of any
of these substances could degrade the quality of the surface water runoff and adversely affect
receiving waters.
To address this potential impact, the project applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide
Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives:
(1) All pollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with
construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with
construction activity are controlled;
(2) Where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Quality Control Board
permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled,
or treated;
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-18 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
(3) Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or
elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater
discharges from construction activity; and
(4) Stabilization BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are
completed.
The SWPPP is required to be consistent with the BMP requirements as described in the most
recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best
Management Handbook-Construction or the Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook
Construction Site BMPs Manual. The project applicant has prepared preliminary erosion
control plans which follow CASQA guidelines and which includes silt fences, fiber rolls, drop
inlet protection and curb inlet sediment barriers, and rocked construction site entrances.
Construction BMPs include soil preparation, hydroseeding, wind erosion control, water
conservation practices, and stockpile management.
MRP Provision C.3 Requirements
The Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) adopted by the RWQCB, requires the
implementation of post construction stormwater treatment measures minimizing long term
water quality impacts by using low impact development, site design and source control
measures. Pursuant to the RWQCB requirements, the project applicant has prepared a
Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) (see Appendix G).
As detailed in the SWMP, the project site is divided into individual DMA’s to determine the best
approach for stormwater management within the project site. Where possible within PA-1, 2a,
and 2b, roof drainage from the buildings would be discharged into bioretention areas situated
along the perimeter of the site and in landscape islands in parking areas. Within PA-2c,
bioretention would be placed in the central landscaped Commons to allow for treatment of
roof runoff, private streets and walkways. PA-3 would include bioretention in residential
paseos to treat the required impervious surface areas. The linear nature and lot configuration
of PA-4 would require the use of Silva Cells with bioretention along edges of the parking spaces
to provide the required treatment for the lots and streets. As shown in Tables 12-1 through 12-
6, the project provides sufficient water quality treatment areas pursuant to water quality
requirements.
Given that the project would meet the water quality requirements required by the Construction
General Permit and MRP Provision C.3 Requirements, the impact would be less than significant
(Class III) and no mitigation is necessary.
Impact HYD-4: Place structures which would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year
flood hazard area (Class III).
According to FIRM map number 06001C328G, the majority the project is outside of a 100-year
flood hazard area. A portion of PA-1 is currently within the AH zone with a flood depth of 1-3
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
feet. As shown in 12-1: Flood Hazard Areas, implementation of the project would include an
import of soils to elevate structures within PA-1 above the 100-year flood elevation level; thus,
as a part of the design process, the project applicant would seek a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. A CLOMR describes the changes that can be expected as a result
of the project and states whether these changes would be in accordance with NFIP regulations.
In accordance with the comments and instructions provided in the CLOMR, the project
applicant would initiate a request for a LOMR which would modify the associated FIRM map to
show the elevation and hydrology alterations to the regulatory floodway resulting from the
project. The raised elevations within PA-1 and the associated CLOMR and LOMR process would
reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level and no mitigation is required.
12.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographical area for cumulative hydrology impacts is the Alameda Creek Watershed.
Impact HYD-5: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on hydrology & water quality
(Class III).
Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects could contribute to cumulatively
considerable impacts on hydrology and water quality, including an increase the amount of
impervious surfaces in the area, which would decrease the area available for water percolation
and groundwater recharge. However, the WSA for the project provides verification of sufficient
water supply to serve the project. Per the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), DSRSD has
adequate water supply to meet demands of future projects during normal, dry, and multiple-
dry years through 2035. UWMP water demand estimates, including groundwater, are based on
the full General Plan build out of the municipalities within the DSRSD service area. Thus, the
future water demand estimates would account for the water supply and potential demands of
reasonably foreseeable future projects as well as the project.
Stormwater discharges from the project and other new developments in the City would be
required to comply with the Construction General Permit, MRP Provision C.3 requirements, and
incorporate appropriate site-specific LID and source and treatment control measures.
Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the project and other new developments
would not increase stormwater runoff or substantially alter drainage patterns. The project,
combined with present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in less-than-
significant cumulative impacts to stormwater quantity and water quality.
12.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 12-8: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hydrology & Water Quality
summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures
for the project with regard to hydrology & water quality.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-12-20 | Hydrology & Water Quality
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 12-8: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Hydrology & Water Quality
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact HYD-1: Contribute to the
depletion of local groundwater
supplies or interfere with
groundwater recharge (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact HYD-2: Increase stormwater
runoff due to the increase in
impervious surfaces (Class II).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact HYD-3: Substantially alter
drainage patterns on- or off-site that
would result in the storm water
transport of pollutants, bacteria,
salts, and sediment into
downstream facilities (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact HYD-4: Place structures
which would impede or redirect
flood flows within a 100-year flood
hazard area? (Class III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
Impact HYD-5: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable effects on
hydrology and water quality (Class
III).
Less than
Significant
None required.
12.6 References
CASQA (California Stormwater Quality Association). 2003. “Construction Handbook.”
Dublin-San Ramon Services District. 2015. Urban Water Management Plan.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2003. “Guidebook for Implementation of
Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 to assist water suppliers, cities, and counties
in integrating water and land use planning.” Available at:
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/use/sb_610_sb_221_guidebook/guidebook.pdf
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2003. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin
118 Update 2003. Available at:
https://www.water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/groundwater/bulletin118/basindescriptions/2-10.pdf
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map Number
06001C0328G. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=dublin%2C%20ca#searchresultsanc
hor
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Hydrology & Water Quality | Page 12-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Mackay & Somps. 2006. Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar. 2018. Preliminary Drainage Study, At Dublin. (see Appendix F)
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar. 2018. Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, At Dublin. (see
Appendix G)
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United
States: A Delineation Manual. Available at:
http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/pdf/Ordinary_High_
Watermark_Manual_Aug_2008.pdf.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Land Use & Planning | Page 13-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
13 Land Use & Planning
13.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on land use and planning that would be caused by
implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section came from the
following resources:
City of Dublin, Dublin General Plan, 1985 as amended 2017
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final EIR, 1994 updated 2016
City of Dublin, Dublin Municipal Code, as amended
13.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding land use and
planning were raised.
13.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on the existing conditions of the project site and vicinity for
land use.
13.3.1 Project Site Land Uses
The project site was previously used for agricultural purposes and has remained vacant, with
exception to seasonal uses and consists of low lying native and non-native grasses turned
periodically for the purposes of weed abatement and fire hazard management. A small group
of trees and shrubs is located near the corner of Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. No
grading for development has occurred to date.
13.3.2 Land Uses in the Project Site Vicinity
West
Tassajara Road forms the western boundary of the project site. Medium density residential,
parks/public recreation, general commercial, and campus office uses are located to the west.
North
Undeveloped land contemplated for future residential development form the northern
boundary of the project site just north of Gleason Drive. Single family medium density
residential uses are located to the north.
East
Brannigan Street forms the eastern boundary of the project site. A broad mix of land uses are
located to the east including multi-family residential, general commercial, and a vacant parcel
at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Brannigan Street
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-13-2 | Land Use & Planning
Draft EIR
10/23/18
South
Interstate 580 forms the southern boundary of the project site. The City of Pleasanton is
located south of the project site.
13.3.3 Livermore Municipal Airport
The Livermore Municipal Airport 14 is located in the western portion of the City of Livermore,
south of I-580 and approximately two miles southeast from the project site. The airport is
owned and operated by the City of Livermore and features two parallel runways: 7L /25R and
7R/25L, 5,255 feet in length and 2,699 feet in length, respectively.
The majority of the project site is also located within Land Use Compatibility Zone 7 of the
Airport Influence Area, as established in the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan.
13.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines recommends the evaluation of a project’s potential
conflicts with: 1) Physically divide an established community, 2) Conflict with any applicable
land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency having jurisdiction over a project adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and 3) any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Applicable local land
use plans and ordinances for land use are described below. See Chapter 6: Air Quality for a
discussion of the project’s consistency with applicable federal, State, and local air quality plans.
13.4.1 State
State Aeronautics Act
The State Aeronautics Act requires each county with an airport to establish an Airport Land Use
Commission to regulate land use around airports, to protect public safety and ensure that land
uses near airports do not interfere with aviation operations. The Livermore Executive Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan regulates land use around Livermore Municipal Airport by requiring
compliance with the applicable policies. In certain circumstances, local governments have the
ability to override the decisions of the Airport Land Use Commission by a two-thirds vote.
14 The City of Livermore refers to the airport as “Livermore Municipal Airport” while the Alameda County Airport
Land Use Commission refers to the airport as “Livermore Executive Airport”. This EIR will refer to it as “Livermore
Municipal Airport” except in instances where the “Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Plan” is discussed.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Land Use & Planning | Page 13-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
13.4.2 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan is the comprehensive planning document governing
development within the City, and contains goals, policies, and programs describing the
community’s vision for economic viability, livable neighborhoods, and environmental
protection.
The General Plan, as amended, establishes policies for the orderly growth and development of
the City of Dublin. Among other purposes, the General Plan identifies policies necessary to
protect and enhance those features and services which contribute to the quality of life of the
community in which it serves.
The General Plan is a comprehensive policy plan which sets forth a series of written statements
(goals, policies and objectives) defining the direction, character and composition of future land
use development, and establishes guidelines (policies and actions) necessary to attain
conformance with the plan. It is made up of 12 elements and various maps which accompany
the elements. The elements are: 1) Land Use 2) Parks & Open Space 3) Schools, Public Lands &
Utilities 4) Circulation & Scenic Highways, 5) Housing, 6) Conservation, 7) Seismic Safety &
Safety, 8) Noise, 9) Community Design & Sustainability, 10) Economic Development, 11) Water
Resources, 12) Energy Conservation. The General Plan Land Use Plan Map visually represents
the physical relationship of all portions of the text, including development densities.
General Plans are reviewed annually and should be updated every three years to ensure that
the most recent technical data, community goals and state law requirements are recognized.
Major updates typically occur every 10 to 30 years, depending on changes in land use patterns,
growth and development pressures, and new regulations.
As shown in Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan Designations, the southern and western portions
of the project site is designated General Commercial in the General Plan. The northern and
eastern portions of the project site are designated Medium Density Residential, Public/Semi-
Public, Medium/High Density Residential, and Neighborhood Commercial in the General Plan.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) serves as the zoning ordinance for the eastern portion
of the City of Dublin. The EDSP provides a framework to guide future land use and
development decisions in eastern Dublin. For projects within the EDSP area, policies and
standards in the Specific Plan will take precedence over more general policies and standards
applied throughout the rest of the city.
The project site is located within the following Planning Subareas of the EDSP: 1) Town Center –
Commercial, along Tassajara Road south of Gleason Drive and north of Dublin Boulevard; 2)
Town Center – Residential, along Brannigan Street south of Gleason Drive and north of Dublin
Boulevard; 3) Tassajara Gateway, area south of Dublin Boulevard; and 4) Foothill Residential for
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-13-4 | Land Use & Planning
Draft EIR
10/23/18
the small area of the project on the north side of Gleason Drive. The Specific Plan’s description
of the land use concept for each Subarea is described as follows:
Town Center – Commercial Subarea
This subarea represents the commercial core for eastern Dublin. The area is intended to be a
high density, pedestrian-oriented commercial, civic, and entertainment center for Dublin and
the surrounding communities. The subarea consists of two distinct parts; the General
Commercial area and the Neighborhood Commercial area.
The General Commercial area, which extends along Tassajara Road, is intended to include uses
with a broader market area and a greater orientation to the motoring public, including a full
range of regional and community retail, service, office, and restaurant uses. Ideally, a major
community shopping center, with supermarket, drug store, hardware store, liquor store, and
other supporting retail and service uses would be located in this area.
Town Center – Residential Subarea
This subarea is generally located in the area bounded by Dublin Boulevard on the south, Fallon
Road on the east, Gleason Drive on the north and Hacienda Drive on the west. The residential
subarea is bisected by the Town Center--Commercial subarea. A community park and open
space occupy the eastern portion of the subarea and residential is designated for the western
portion.
Tassajara Gateway Planning Subarea
This subarea is located at the Tassajara Road interchange with I-580 and includes the areas on
either side of Tassajara Road between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard. The land use concept for
the Tassajara Gateway encourages the development of uses that will benefit from their location
at the intersection of the area's two major east-west travel corridors (I- 580 and Dublin
Boulevard) with the major north-south corridor (Tassajara Road). The area is favored for uses
that depend on the location’s high visibility and convenient vehicular access. Uses which fit
these criteria might include activities such as hotels, campus office, conference center,
restaurants, and quality regional retail.
Foothill Residential Subarea
This subarea includes most of the Specific Plan area north and east of the Town Center subarea.
Land use in this subarea is predominantly single-family residential. Other uses include schools
and parks.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) is a guidance document intended to
provide a framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda
County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts
resulting from infrastructure and development studies. The City of Dublin adopted the EACCS
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Land Use & Planning | Page 13-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
as its guidance document for public projects and uses the document to provide input for
managing biological resources and conservation priorities during project-level planning and
environmental planning. For privately sponsored development projects such as this project,
proponents are encouraged to consult the EACCS for guidance, but compliance with the
document is not mandatory.
Alameda County - Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan governs land use around
Livermore Municipal Airport. This Plan was adopted by the Alameda County Airport Land Use
Commission in 2012.
The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) should act as a guide for the Airport Land Use
Commission and local jurisdictions in safeguarding the general welfare of the public. To guide
future development, the ALUCP provides compatibility criteria for noise, safety and airspace
protection.
As stated in the ALUCP, in comparison to noise, safety is in many respects a more difficult
concern to address in airport land use compatibility policies. The primary reason for this
difference is that safety policies address uncertain events which may occur with occasional
aircraft operations, whereas noise policies deal with known, quantifiable, and more or less
predictable events which do occur with every aircraft operation.
In regard to airspace protection whether a particular object constitutes an airspace obstruction
depends upon the height of the object relative to the runway elevation and its proximity to the
airport. The acceptable height of objects near an airport is most commonly determined by
application of standards set forth in Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77.
13.4.3 Zoning
The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance implements the land use designations of the General Plan.
As shown in Figure 3-4: Existing Zoning, the project site is designated Planned Development
(PD).
The purpose of the PD zone is to:
A. Establish a Planned Development Zoning District through which one or more properties
are planned as a unit with development standards tailored to the site.
B. Provide maximum flexibility and diversification in the development of property.
C. Maintain consistency with, and implement the provisions of, the Dublin General Plan
and applicable Specific Plans.
D. Protect the integrity and character of both residential and non-residential areas of the
City.
E. Encourage efficient use of land for preservation of sensitive environmental areas such as
open space areas and topographic features.
F. Provide for effective development of public facilities and services for the site.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-13-6 | Land Use & Planning
Draft EIR
10/23/18
G. Encourage use of design features to achieve development that is compatible with the
area.
H. Allow for creative and imaginative design that will promote amenities beyond those
expected in conventional developments
13.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
13.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for land use & planning were derived from the Environmental
Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or
supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full range of
potential impacts related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Physically divide an established community.
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 program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
13.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Physically Divide an Established Community
The project would not physically divide an established community because it is located in within
the City limits and would be compatible with surrounding land uses. In addition, existing
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Land Use & Planning | Page 13-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
roadway connections to the surrounding community would be maintained. Therefore, there
would be no impact.
The environmental effects related to compatibility between proposed on-site land uses and
adjacent land uses during both construction and operation are described in the respective
impact section of the following environmental resource chapters: Aesthetics, Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation and Circulation.
Within the Boundaries of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
The project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
or Natural Community Conservation Plan, and therefore there would be no impact. The
impacts to biological resources are presented in Chapter 7.
13.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact LU-1: Substantially conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (Class III)
General Plan Amendment
As shown in Figure 3-5: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations, the project would
include a General Plan amendment that would re-designate the project site from six to four
land use designations. With City Council approval of the project and certification of the EIR, the
project would be consistent with applicable land use plan, policy, and regulations. And
environmental impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Ordinances and Regulations
The project would be required to comply with all applicable City of Dublin ordinances and
regulations. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with all Conditions of
Approval, as augmented by the decision-makers.
13.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic area for the analysis of cumulative impacts to land use and planning is the
greater Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, where land use changes could interact with land use
changes under the project to result in cumulative effects.
Impact LU-2: Contribute to cumulatively considerable land use impacts (Class III).
Land use impacts would be cumulatively considerable if the project, in conjunction with other
past, present, reasonably foreseeable future projects, would be designed or otherwise
conditioned to maintain consistency with adopted land use plans and ordinances or be
amended with the appropriate mitigation and conditions of approval.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-13-8 | Land Use & Planning
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As described above, the project, with implementation of the General Plan amendment, would
be consistent with the City’s General Plan and the EDSP. All feasible mitigation measures to
address environmental impacts of the project have been described in this EIR.
Implementation of future projects requiring a change in the General Plan land use designation
would require discretionary approval, similar to this project review and approval process. It is
reasonably assumed that these projects would be designed or otherwise conditioned to
maintain consistency with adopted land use plans and ordinances or be amended with the
appropriate mitigation and conditions of approval.
As described above, the project would be consistent with applicable land use goals, policies and
objectives of the General Plan. Mitigation measures to address potential environmental
impacts of the project have been included in this EIR. Given the project’s consistency, as well as
the potential for other projects in the cumulative impact scenario to be generally consistent
with the land use policy framework, overall cumulative land use consistency impacts would be
less than significant.
13.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 13 -1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Land Use & Planning summarizes
the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the
project with regard to land use & planning.
Table 13-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Land Use & Planning
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact LU-1: Substantially conflict
with an applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect
(Class III).
Less Than Significant None required.
Impact LU-2: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable land use
impacts (Class III).
Less Than Significant None required.
13.6 References
None.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
14 Noise & Vibration
14.1 Introduction
This section describes the potential noise effects that would be caused by implementation of
the project. Information used to prepare this section came from the following resources:
Project application and related materials
City of Dublin,General Plan, 1985 amended 2017
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final EIR, 1994 updated 2016
City of Dublin, General Plan Noise Element
14.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, no comments regarding noise and
vibration were raised.
14.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on the existing conditions of the project site and vicinity for
noise and vibration.
14.3.1 General Information on Noise
To describe environmental noise and to assess impacts on areas sensitive to community noise,
a frequency weighting measure that simulates human perception is customarily used. The
frequency weighting scale known as A-weighting best reflects the human ear’s reduced
sensitivity to low frequencies and correlates well with human perceptions of the annoying
aspects of noise. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) is cited in most noise criteria. In general,
a difference of more than 3 dBA is a perceptible change in environmental noise, while a 5 dBA
difference typically causes a change in community reaction. An increase of 10 dBA is perceived
by people as a doubling of loudness.
As shown in Table 14-1: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels, people experience a wide range of
sounds in the environment. Excessive noise is not only undesirable but may also cause physical
and/or psychological damage. The amount of annoyance or damage caused by noise is
dependent primarily upon: the amount and nature of the noise, the amount of ambient noise
present before the intruding noise, and the activity of the person working or living in the area.
Environmental and community noise levels rarely are of sufficient intensity to cause irreversible
hearing damage, but disruptive environmental noise can interfere with speech and other
communication and be a major source of annoyance by disturbing sleep, rest, and relaxation.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-2 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 14-1: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels
Noise Level (dBA) Indoor Noise Source Outdoor Noise Source
0 (Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing) (Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing)
10-20 Broadcast/ recording studio
30
Library
Bedroom at night, concert hall
(background)
Quiet rural nighttime
40 Theater, large conference room
(background) Quiet urban/ suburban nighttime
50 Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban daytime
60 Large business office Heavy traffic at 300 feet
70
Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
Normal Speech at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower, 100 feet
Commercial area
80 Garbage disposal at 3 feet Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph
90 Food blender at 3 feet Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
100 Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
110 Rock band
Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013
Decibels are logarithmic units that conveniently compare the wide range of sound intensities to
which the human ear is sensitive. Therefore, the cumulative noise level from two or more
sources will combine logarithmically, rather than linearly (i.e., simple addition). For example, if
two identical noise sources produce a noise level of 50 dBA each, the combined noise level
would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. Sound is generally propagated by spherical spreading according
to the “inverse square law,” where the sound energy decreases with the square of the distance.
As such, the sound pressure level would be reduced by 6 decibels per doubling of distance from
a ground-level stationary or point source. For a noise source which is relatively long, such as a
constant stream of highway traffic (line source), the sound pressure spreads at a rate of three
decibels per doubling of distance. At very large distances, beyond several hundred feet, wind
and temperature gradients influence sound propagation. Changes in noise levels due to wind
are generally short-term without persistent directional winds, where some hours may be one or
two decibels louder than others within the margin of precision of this assessment.
The community noise environment and the consequences of human activities cause noise levels
to be widely variable over time. For simplicity, sound levels are usually best represented by an
equivalent level over a given time period (Leq) or by an average level occurring over a 24-hour
period. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is a single value for any desired duration, which
includes all of the time-varying sound energy in the measurement period, usually 1 hour. Given
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
the sensitivity to noise increases during evening and nighttime hours when people are trying to
sleep, 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties
added to quiet-time sounds. The Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL, is a measure of the
day-night noise exposure, with a 5-decibel penalty added to evening sounds (7:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dBA addition to nighttime sounds (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The Ldn, or
day-night average sound level, is equal to the 24-hour equivalent sound level (in dBA) with a 10
decibel penalty applied to nighttime sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Community noise levels are closely related to the intensity of human activity and land use.
Noise levels are generally considered low when ambient levels are below 45 dBA Leq, moderate
in the 45 to 60 dBA Leq range, and high above 60 dBA Leq. In wilderness areas, the Ldn noise
levels can be below 35 dBA. In small towns or wooded and lightly used residential areas, the
Ldn is more likely to be approximately 50 or 60 dBA. Levels of approximately 75 dBA Leq are
more common in busy urban areas (e.g. downtown Los Angeles), and levels up to 85 dBA Leq
occur near major freeways and airports.
Although people often accept the higher levels associated with very noisy urban residential and
residential-commercial zones, the surrounding land uses dictate what noise levels would be
considered acceptable or unacceptable. Lower levels are expected in rural or suburban areas
than what would be expected for commercial or industrial zones. Nighttime ambient levels in
urban environments are about 7 decibels lower than the corresponding daytime levels. In rural
areas, away from roads and other human activity, the day-to-night difference can be
considerably less. Areas with full-time human occupation that are subject to nighttime noise
are often considered objectionable because of the likelihood of disrupting sleep. Noise levels
higher than 45 dBA Ldn at night can result in the onset of sleep interference effects. At 70 dBA
Ldn, sleep interference effects become considerable (U.S. EPA, 1974).
14.3.2 General Information on Vibration
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium, in which the motion’s amplitude can
be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. There are several different
methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the
maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to
describe vibration impacts to buildings. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most
frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is
defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (Vdb) is
commonly used to measure RMS. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers
required to describe vibration. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by heavy equipment
or traffic on rough roads attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration so
that potential impact areas are confined to short distances (i.e., within 200 feet or less) from
the source (FTA, 2006). The general human response to different levels of groundborne
vibration velocity levels is described in Table 14-2: Human Response to Different Levels of
Groundborne Vibration.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-4 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 14-2: Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration
Vibration Velocity Level Human Reaction
65 Vdb Approximate threshold of perception for many people.
75 Vdb
Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and
distinctly perceptible. Many people find transit vibration at this
level annoying.
85 Vdb Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of
events per day.
90 Vdb Difficulty with tasks such as reading computer screens.
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006.
14.3.3 Project Setting
In the City of Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Figure 9-1: 2011 Existing Noise Exposure
Contours shows contours of 70 and 75 dB near I-580, 60 and 65 dB along Dublin Boulevard, 60
and 65 dB along Tassajara Road, and 60 dB along Gleason Drive. Figure 9-2 shows Projected
Noise Contours in 2035 and shows an increase of 70 dB along Dublin Boulevard.
The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are those associated with the
operations of adjacent residential uses to the north and east, commercial uses to the east and
west. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence,
short-term, or long-term/continuous noise.
14.3.4 Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure standards and guidelines for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise
sensitivities associated with each of these uses. Residences, hospitals, schools, guest lodging,
libraries, and churches are treated as the most sensitive to noise intrusion and therefore have
more stringent noise exposure targets than other uses, such as manufacturing or agricultural
uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance.
Sensitive receptors near the project site include: residences 80 feet east of the site, 50 feet
north of the site, and 800 feet west of the site. Additionally, the proposed on-site residences
would be a sensitive receptor.
14.3.5 Existing Ambient Noise Measurements
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, Kimley-Horn and Associates
conducted six short-term noise measurements on February 21, 2018 (see Appendix B). The
weather was 55 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with calm winds under five miles per hour (mph) and
clear skies when measurements were taken. The noise measurement sites were representative
of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site. The 10-
minute measurements were taken between 11:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. The noise
measurements were taken during the midday hours, as the midday hours typically have the
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
highest daytimenoise levels in urban environments. The sound level meter and microphone
were mounted on a tripod five feet above the ground. Short-ter m (Leq) measurements are
considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels and
sources of noise measured at each location are listed in Table 14-3: Existing Noise
Measurements.
Table 14-3: Existing Noise Measurements
Site No. Location
Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA) Peak Time
1 Northwest of project site, adjacent to
Emerald Glen Park and Tassajara Road 61.5 53 72.1 87.2 11:37 am
2 West of project site, approximately 600
feet south of Central Parkway 62.3 51.8 73.4 86.8 12:03 pm
3 Southwest portion of the site,
approximately 900 feet north of I-580 72 59.9 84 104.4 12:38 pm
4 Southeast corner of project site,
approximately 700 feet north of I-580 53.8 50.7 61.5 91.6 1:08 pm
5
Southeast of the project site,
approximately 350 feet south of Central
Parkway
45.4 42.3 51.7 94.2 1:34 pm
6 North of the project site, approximately
550 feet east of Tassajara Road 48 35.8 64.6 87.6 1:52 pm
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2018
As shown in Table 14-3: Existing Noise Measurements, the ambient recorded noise levels
ranged from 45.4 dBA to 72 dBA Leq near the project site. The maximum noise levels in the
project vicinity ranged from 86.8 dBA to 104.4 dBA. The field survey noted the most commonly
present noises in the project vicinity are produced by automotive vehicles (cars, trucks, buses,
and motorcycles) on local roadway traffic, I-580 traffic, birds, and pedestrians. Traffic moving
along streets and freeways produces a sound level that remains relatively constant and is
therefore a component of the city’s minimum ambient noise level. Vehicle noise varies with
the volume, speed, and type of traffic. Slower traffic produces less noise than fast moving
traffic. Trucks typically generate more noise than cars. Infrequent or intermittent noise also is
associated with some vehicles, including sirens, vehicle alarms, slamming of doors, garbage and
construction vehicle activity, and honking of horns. These noises add to urban noise and are
regulated by a variety of agencies (as described below).
14.3.6 Existing Roadway Noise Levels
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the project vicinity.
This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and existing traffic volumes from the project traffic
impact analysis (Kimley-Horn 2017). The noise prediction model calculates the average noise
level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-6 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (also referred to as energy rates)
used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified
for California by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data
indicates that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that
medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily
noise levels along roadway segments in proximity to the project site are included in Table 14-3:
Existing Traffic Noise Measurements.
As depicted in Table 14-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels, the existing traffic-generated noise level
on project-vicinity roadways currently ranges from 54.7 to 72.3 dBA CNEL. As previously
described, CNEL is 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.
Table 14-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment ADT
CNEL at 100 feet from
Centerline of Roadway (dBA)
Hacienda Drive
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 6,140 65.0
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 8,563 66.4
Dublin Boulevard to I-580 WB Ramps 22,787 70.7
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB Ramps 23,691 71.6
I-580 EB Ramps to Owens Drive 22,042 71.7
South of Owens Drive 11,121 68.3
Tassajara Road
Fallon Road to Gleason Drive 12,413 69.2
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 12,356 69.3
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 15,392 69.0
Dublin Boulevard to I-580 WB Ramps 26,899 71.6
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB Ramps 33,502 72.1
Saint Rita Road
I-580 EB Ramps to Las Positas Boulevard 24,913 72.3
Brannigan Street
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 851 55.4
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway Segment ADT
CNEL at 100 feet from
Centerline of Roadway (dBA)
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 741 54.7
South of Dublin Boulevard 1,178 56.7
Fallon Road
Tassajara Road to Gleason Drive 5,954 65.0
South of Gleason Drive 7,148 66.6
Gleason Drive
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 5,154 64.3
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 6,147 65.0
Brannigan Street to Fallon Road 2,748 61.5
Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 3,655 63.5
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 3,555 63.3
Brannigan Street to Fallon Road 3,128 62.8
Dublin Boulevard
West of Hacienda Drive 16,419 69.9
Hacienda Drive to Toyota Drive 14,649 69.4
Toyota Drive to Glynnis Rose Drive 17,978 70.3
Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road 17,459 70.2
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 13,532 68.8
Brannigan Street to Grafton Street 11,434 68.3
Grafton Street to Keegan Street 9,753 67.6
Keegan Street to Lockhart Street 7,809 66.3
Lockhart Street to Fallon Road 4,425 63.9
Notes: ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level.
Data source: Based on traffic data within the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn, 2018. Refer to Appendix B of the Noise Technical
Memorandum (EIR Appendix G) for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, 2018
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-8 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
14.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
14.4.1 Federal
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration
The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has recommended
noise criteria related to traffic-generated noise. Recommendations contained in the May 2006
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment prepared by FTA can be used as guidance to
determine whether or not a change in traffic would result in a substantial permanent increase
in noise. Under the FTA standards, the allowable noise exposure increase is reduced with
increasing ambient existing noise exposure, such that higher ambient noise levels have a lower
allowable noise exposure increase. Table 14-5: Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway
Noise Exposure shows the significance thresholds for increases in traffic-related noise levels.
These standards are applicable to project-impacts on existing sensitive receptors.
Table 14-5: Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure
Existing Noise Exposure
(dBA Ldn or Leq)
Allowable Noise Exposure Increase
(dBA Ldn or Leq)
45-50 7
50-55 5
55-60 3
60-65 2
65-74 1
75+ 0
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006.
The FTA also recommends vibration impact thresholds to determine whether groundborne
vibration would be “excessive.” According to FTA, groundborne vibration impact criteria for
residential receptors are 72 Vdb for frequent events, 75 Vdb for occasional events, and 80 Vdb
for infrequent events (FTA, 2006). The FTA recommends an 80 Vdb threshold for infrequent
events at residences and buildings where people normally sleep and 83 Vdb threshold at
institutional buildings with primarily daytime uses.
In terms of groundborne vibration impacts on structures, the FTA states that groundborne
vibration levels in excess of 100 Vdb would damage fragile buildings, and levels in excess of 95
Vdb would damage extremely fragile historic buildings. The threshold for this project is 80 Vdb
for infrequent events at residences and buildings where people normally sleep (e.g. residential
neighborhoods).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. §651 et seq.), the United
States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted
regulations (29 CFR §1910.95) designed to protect workers against the effects of occupational
noise exposure. These regulations list limits on noise exposure levels as a function of the
amount of time during which the worker is exposed. The regulations further specify
requirements for a hearing conservation program (§1910.95(c)), a monitoring program
(§1910.95(d)), an audiometric testing program (§1910.95(g)), and hearing protection
(§1910.95(i)). There are no federal laws governing community noise.
14.4.2 State
California Building Code
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations contains standards for allowable interior noise
levels associated with exterior noise sources. The standards apply to new hotels, motels,
dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family residences.,
which are specifically excluded from the municipal code. The standards require interior noise
level attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room. Multi-
family residential structures proposed where the CNEL would exceed 60 dBA requires an
acoustical analysis showing that the proposed building design would achieve the prescribed
allowable interior noise standard.
In 1974, the California Commission on Housing and Community Development adopted noise
insulation standards for multi-family residential buildings (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of
Regulations). Title 24 establishes standards for interior room noise (attributable to outside
noise sources). The regulations also specify that acoustical studies must be prepared whenever
a multi-family residential building or structure is proposed to be located near an existing or
adopted freeway route, expressway, parkway, major street, thoroughfare, rail line, rapid transit
line, or industrial noise source, and where such noise source or sources create an exterior CNEL
(or Ldn) of 60 dBA or greater. Such acoustical analysis must demonstrate that the residence has
been designed to limit intruding noise to an interior CNEL (or Ldn) of at least 45 dBA.
California Noise Control Act of 1973
Sections 46000 through 46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California
Noise Control Act, find that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare, and
that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic
damage. The Act also finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in
urban, suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State has a
responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and
abatement of noise. It is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians
that is free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-10 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
14.4.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan establishes residential, commercial, and
industrial land use compatibility standards for noise measured at the property line of the
receiving land use. The land use compatibility noise criteria provide the basis for decisions on
location of land uses in relation to noise sources and for determining noise mitigation
requirements.
Table 14-6: Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix shows the City of Dublin’s Land Use
Compatibility for Community Noise Environments standards for specific land uses. As indicated,
the normally acceptable exterior noise level is 70 dBA CNEL or less for office, retail, and
commercial land uses (the types of land uses proposed for development with implementation
of the project). Noise levels over 75 dBA CNEL are considered normally unacceptable for new
development of these types of land uses. For residential land uses, the normally acceptable
exterior noise level is 60 dBA CNEL or less and noise levels over 70 dBA CNEL are considered
normally unacceptable.
Table 14-6: Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix
Land Use Category
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable*
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 61-70 71-75 Over 75
Motels, hotels 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80
Schools, churches, nursing homes 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80
Neighborhood parks 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70
Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75
Notes:
*Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows
and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Source: City of Dublin General Plan Noise Element, 1993, as amended. Table 9.1
General Plan Policies
The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to project-related
potential noise impacts:
Guiding Policy 9.2.1.A.1: Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by Table 9.1:
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments.
Implementing Policy 9.2.1.B.4: Noise impacts related to all new development shall be analyzed
by a certified acoustic consultant.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementing Policy 9.2.1.B.5: Request demonstration of ability to mitigate noise prior to
approval of light rail or bus service in the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way Transportation
Corridor.
A depressed rail line or noise walls close to the tracks could make light rail a good neighbor.
Implementing Policy 9.2.1.B.6: Review all multi-family development proposals within the
projected 60 CNEL contour for compliance with noise standards (45 CNEL in any habitable
room) as required by State law.
Because the General Plan designates almost all residential sites subject to 60 or greater CNEL
for multifamily development, this standard will be effective in Dublin. Project designers may
use one or more of four available categories of mitigation measures: site planning, architectural
layout (bedrooms away from noise source, for example), noise barriers, or construction
modifications.
Implementing Policy 9.2.1.B.7: Review all non-residential development proposals within the
projected CNEL 65 dBA contour for compliance with exterior noise transmission standards as
required by the California Green Building Standards Code.
The noise element specifies that project designers may use one or more of four available
categories of mitigation measures: site planning, architectural layout (bedrooms away from
noise source, for example), noise barriers, or construction modifications.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policy as it relates to
noise and vibration:
Policy 6-44: Require development along the I-580 frontage to provide adequate mitigation to
conform to the State Land Use Compatibility Standards for noise and policies and standards in
the City of Dublin's Noise Element.
City of Dublin Municipal Code
Noise regulations listed in the City of Dublin’s Municipal Code are enacted for the purpose of
securing and promoting the public health, comfort, safety, welfare, and prosperity and the
peace and quiet of the city and its inhabitants. The goal is to maintain and preserve the quiet
atmosphere of the city, and to implement programs and enact legislation consistent with the
objectives and goals set forth in the Noise Element of the General Plan and aimed at retaining
noise levels throughout the city acceptable values established in the General Plan.
Code Section 5.28.020 prohibits any person within the City to make any loud, or disturbing, or
unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or
endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity
present in the area. Section 8.36.060(C)(3) states that lots less than 5,000 square feet with
mechanical equipment that generates noise (such as swimming pool, spa, and air conditioning
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-12 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
equipment) on the property shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line
to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time. For lots 5,000 square feet or larger, mechanical
equipment that generates noise when located within a required setback as allowed by this
subsection, and within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence, or an existing paved patio
area on adjoining property, shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line
to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time.
14.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
14.5.1 Significance Criteria
CEQA does not define what construction or operational noise level increase would be
considered substantial. Typically, a noise increase of 3 dBA Ldn or greater at a residential
receptor would be considered significant when existing ambient noise levels are between 60
and 65 dBA Ldn (FICON, 1992). A noise increase of 5 dBA Ldn or greater at the receptor would
be considered a significant impact when existing ambient noise levels are less than 60 dBA Ldn
(FICON, 1992). Noise due to construction activities is usually considered to be less than
significant in terms of CEQA compliance if the construction activity is temporary and the use of
heavy construction equipment and noisy activities are limited to daytime hours. As indicated
above, the City of Dublin does not have separate noise standards for construction.
The following significance criteria for noise were derived from the Environmental Checklist in
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been amended or supplemented,
as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full range of potential impacts
related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies (refer to Impact N-1).
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels (refer to Impact N-2).
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact N-3).
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact N-4).
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels (refer to Impact N-5).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Impact N-5).
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
Impacts Assessment Methodology
Construction
The analysis of noise impacts considers the effects of both temporary construction-related
noise and operational noise associated with long-term project-related activities, including,
without limitation, project-generated traffic.
The FHWA has developed the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which has become
the industry accepted standard model for calculating construction noise levels at specific
receptor locations. Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a conservative,
reasonable worst-case estimate of actual temporary construction noise. The modeling for this
project has analyzed construction noise impacts according to various building phases, as types
of equipment used generally change according to various phases of construction. The modeled
receptor locations represent the closest existing receiving land uses to the east, north, west,
and south of the project site. The construction noise modeling assumptions and outputs are
provided in Appendix B of this EIR.
Operational
Traffic noise impacts are assessed using the U.S. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Model input data includes without- and with-project average daily
traffic volumes on adjacent roadway segments, day/night percentages of autos, medium and
heavy trucks, vehicle speeds, ground attenuation factors, and roadway widths. The roadway
speeds are based on the posted speed limits observed during site visits. The model analyzed
the noise impacts from the nearby roadways onto the project vicinity, which consists of the
area that has the potential of being impacted from the on-site noise sources as well as the
project-generated traffic on the nearby roadways. The roadway traffic model input
assumptions are presented in Appendix J.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-14 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
14.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
There are no “no” impacts nor “beneficial” impacts.
14.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact N-1: Cause a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction
that would substantially disturb sensitive receptors (Class II).
There are two types of short-term noise impacts associated with construction, increase in
traffic flow on local streets and noise generated from equipment.
Construction Traffic Noise
Construction noise may be generated by large trucks moving materials to and from the project
site. Large trucks would be necessary to deliver building materials as well as remove dump
materials and cut soil. Excavation and cut and fill would be required, resulting in grading of
approximately 50,000 net cubic yards to be exported from the site. Based on the CalEEMod
default assumptions for this project, as analyzed in the air quality section of this document, the
project would generate the highest number of daily trips during the building construction
phase. The model estimates that the project would generate up to 3,321 worker trips and
1,053 vendor trips over the entire construction duration. Because of the logarithmic nature of
noiselevels,a doublingof the trafficvolume(assumingthatthespeed and vehicle mixdo notalso
change) would result in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. As shown in the existing traffic conditions
discussion, all roadway segments in the immediate project vicinity have greater than 1,008
average daily trips (ADT). Therefore, project construction trips would result in an average of
two trips daily over the almost five-year construction period on modeled roadway segments in
the project vicinity and would not double the existing traffic volumes.
The State of California establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public roads
using a pass-by test procedure. Pass-by noise refers to the noise level produced by an
individual vehicle as it travels past a fixed location. The pass-by procedure measures the total
noise emissions of a moving vehicle with a microphone. When the vehicle reaches the
microphone, the vehicle is at full throttle acceleration at an engine speed calculated for its
displacement.
For heavy trucks, the State pass by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dB. The
State pass by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons gross vehicle
rating) is also 80 dB at 15 meters from the centerline. According to the FHWA, dump trucks
typically generate noise levels of 76 dBA and flatbed trucks typically generate noise levels of 74
dBA, at a distance of 50 feet from the truck (FHWA, 2006). As such, noise from truck trips
associated with the project would not exceed FTA threshold levels of 90 dBA (one-hour Leq)or
80 dBA (eight-hour Leq) (FTA, 2006).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Equipment Noise
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase
of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by
construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators,
can reach high levels. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may
involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower
power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents,
which would last less than one minute, such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the
hydraulic movement of machinery lifts.
Table 14-7: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels, shows typical noise levels associated
with activities during various phases of construction at a distance of 50 feet from the noise
source. Typical construction noise levels range from about 81 to 85 dBA at this distance. Noise
levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from point
sources, such as industrial machinery. As shown in Table 14-7: Typical Construction Equipment
Noise Levels, typical construction noise levels would range from about 75 dBA to 89 dBA at 50
feet from the source of construction noise. The loudest piece of equipment (jack hammer)
would reach maximum noise levels of 89 dBA at 50 feet from the source.
Table 14-7: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Onsite
Typical Level
(dBA) 50 Feet
from the
Source
Typical Level
(dBA) 400 Feet
from the
Source
Typical Level
(dBA) 800 Feet
from the
Source
Typical Level
(dBA) 1,000
Feet from the
Source
Typical Level
(dBA) 1,600
Feet from the
Source
Air Compressor 78 60 54 52 48
Backhoe 78 60 54 52 48
Bobcat Tractor 78 60 54 52 48
Concrete Mixer 79 61 55 53 49
Bulldozer 82 64 58 56 52
Jack Hammer 89 71 65 63 59
Pavement Roller 80 62 56 54 50
Street Sweeper 82 64 58 56 52
Man Lift 75 57 51 49 45
Dump Truck 76 58 52 50 46
Notes:
1) The distances shown in this table represent minimum distances at which sources can be located from construction activity before a
potentially significant impact would occur.
2) Noise levels based on actual maximum measured noise levels at 50 feet (Lmax).
3) Noise levels assume a noise attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance.
Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (2006) Users Guide Table 1
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-16 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Project construction related noise would be generated during minor demolition, site-
preparation, grading, paving, and building. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of
which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These
various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on-site.
Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the types and
sizes of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of
operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.
Because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment, the site preparation
(grading) phase is expected to be the loudest phase of construction. The site preparation
construction phase is expected to require the use of graders, scrapers, tractors, front-end
loaders, backhoes, and haul trucks. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction
equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at
lower power settings.
The FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model was used to calculate the worst-case
construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors surrounding the project site during
construction. The modeled receptor locations represent the closest existing receiving land uses
to the north as well as future on-site sensitive receptors constructed during the initial phases
that could potentially occupied during the final construction phases. Noise levels at other
sensitive receptors located to the east and west would be further away and would experience
lower construction noise levels than the closest receptors modeled. A worst-case scenario was
modeled assuming each piece of modeled equipment would operate simultaneously at the
nearest reasonable locations to each modeled receptor for each construction phase of the
project. Overall, average daily project construction noise levels would be much lower than this
worst-case scenario since all equipment would not always operate simultaneously and would
also produce less noise as the equipment operates toward the center of the project site further
from off-site receptors. Table 14-8: Project Construction Average Noise Levels identifies the
estimated construction noise levels at the closest receptors.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 14-8: Project Construction Average Noise Levels
Construction Phase/Activity
Receptor Location Estimated Exterior
Construction Noise
Level (dBA Leq) 2 Land Use Direction Distance1
Demolition/Site
Preparation/Grading3 Off-Site Residential
North 300 72.8
East 300 72.8
Paving
Off Site Residential
North 300 69.5
East 300 69.5
On-Site Residential Adjacent 100 79.0
Building
Off-Site Residential
North 300 70.2
East 300 70.2
On-Site Residential Adjacent 100 79.7
Notes:
1. Distance is from the nearest receptor to the closest construction activity area of the project site.
2. Derived from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), Jan 2006. Refer to Appendix B of EIR Appendix I
for noise modeling assumptions and results.
3. No on-site residences would be built or occupied during the initial construction phases (demolition, site preparation, or grading).
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
The City of Dublin’s Municipal Code (Section 5.28.020) prohibits any person within the City from
making any loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which
annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace, or safety of any
reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area.
As shown in Table 14-8: Project Construction Average Noise Levels, worst-case construction
noise levels at the closest off-site sensitive receptors could reach 72.8 dBA Leq. Worst-case
construction noise levels at the closest occupied on-site receptors could reach 79.7 dBA. MM
N-1.1 requires numerous construction best management practices and requires that loud noise-
generating construction would occur only during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
and would reduce construction noise impacts or minimize the severity of the impacts through a
variety of noise abatement methods. Implementation of the construction noise best
management practices would ensure that construction noise would not result in annoyance or
disturbance or injury or endangerment of the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable
person of normal sensitivity residing in the project vicinity. With implementation of MM N-1.1,
impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation for Impact N-1
MM N-1.1 Construction Noise Reduction
To reduce the effects of construction noise, the City of Dublin shall ensure that the project
applicants include the following on all construction contracts for the project:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-18 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The project shall submit a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies
measures proposed to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents.
All construction operations shall comply with local noise standards and be limited to
normal daylight hours. All stationary equipment shall be adequately muffled and
located away from sensitive receptors. The construction contractor shall limit all on-site
noise-producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of
equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily.
The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine- driven
equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the
equipment.
The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as
possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a
construction project area. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors
nearest the project site.
The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines.
The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site
equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction- related
noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project
construction.
The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would
be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a
complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours
of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early,
bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem,
as deemed acceptable by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. The
construction contractor shall conspicuously post the contact name and telephone
number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site.
Impact N-2: Temporarily generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
(Class III).
Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the project would be primarily
associated with construction-related activities. Construction on the project site would have the
potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the
specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. Ground vibration generated
by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with
increases in distance. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site
often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the
lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to
slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely
reach levels that damage structures.
Construction-related ground vibration is normally associated with impact equipment such as
pile drivers, jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment, such
as dozers and trucks. Vibration decreases rapidly with distance.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published standard vibration velocities for
construction equipment operations. In general, depending on the building category of the
nearest buildings adjacent to the potential pile driving area, the potential construction vibration
damage criteria vary. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete
with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.50 inch per second
(in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe and would not result in any construction
vibration damage. The FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations for non-
engineered timber and masonry buildings (i.e., 0.20 inch/second) appears to be conservative.
The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage.
Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of
human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or
structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any
cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary
substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between
vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration
generated by construction equipment. The City of Dublin does not provide numerical vibration
standards for construction activities. Therefore, this impact discussion uses FTA standard of
0.20 inch/second PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings
and human annoyance.
Construction of the project could potentially include impact-pile driving or drilling for the
multifamily parking garage. The nearest structures to any of the construction activities include
residences that are within approximately 50 feet and the nearest sensitive receptors from the
parking garage are residents that are more than 250 feet to the east. Table 14-9: Typical
Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, identifies vibration levels feet for typical construction
equipment. Based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment
operations that would be used during project construction would range from 0.003 to 0.644
inch/second PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity. It is also acknowledged that
construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated
at the point closest to the nearest structure. At the closest sensitive receptors approximately
50 feet away, vibration from typical equipment for residential construction (i.e., excluding pile
drivers) would range from 0.001 to 0.024 inch/second PPV. At 250 feet (i.e., the closest
distance for sensitive receptors to the parking garage) vibration from pile drivers would be
0.020 inch/second PPV. Therefore, vibration from construction activities experienced at the
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-20 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
nearest building would be expected to be below the 0.20 inch/second PPV significance
threshold.
Table 14-9: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment Type
Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 Feet (inches per
second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
50 Feet (inches per
second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
250 Feet (inches per
second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.024 0.003
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.024 0.003
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.020 0.002
Rock Breaker 0.059 0.016 0.002
Jackhammer 0.035 0.001 0.001
Small Bulldozer/Tractor 0.003 0.001 0.000
Pile Driver (impact) 0.644 0.23 0.020
Pile Driver (sonic) 0.170 0.06 0.005
Notes:
Calculated using the following formula:
PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where:
PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in inch per second of the equipment adjusted for the distance
PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in inch per second from Table 12-2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Guidelines
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
As noted above, the 0.20 inch/second PPV threshold is conservative because the construction
vibration damage criteria for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Buildings would
be better represented by the 0.50 inch/second PPV significance threshold (construction
vibration damage criteria for a reinforced concrete, steel or timber buildings). Once
operational, the Project would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Because construction
equipment vibration levels would be below the significance thresholds, impacts would be less
than significant (Class III).
Impact N-3: Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels (Class II).
Implementation of the project would create new sources of noise in the project vicinity. The
major noise sources associated with the project that would potentially impact existing and
future nearby residences include the following:
Mechanical equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.);
Slow moving delivery/supply trucks on the project site, approaching and leaving the
loading areas;
Activities at the loading areas (i.e., maneuvering and idling trucks, banging and
clanging of equipment);
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by);
and
Landscape maintenance activities.
Traffic Noise
Implementation of the project would generate increased traffic volumes along study roadway
segments. According to the traffic impact analysis, the project would result in a net total of 19,
327 average daily weekday trips, which would result in noise increases on project area
roadways. In general, traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people,
while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable (Caltrans, 2009). Generally, traffic volumes on
project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels
to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3
dBA are considered to be less than significant.
Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the project were calculated using the
FHWA’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic noise modeling was
conducted for conditions with and without the project, based on traffic volumes obtained from
the project Traffic Impact Study (Kimley-Horn 2018). The highest traffic noise level increase
with implementation of the project would occur along Brannigan Road between Gleason Drive
and Central Parkway under existing plus project conditions. As shown in Table 14-10: Existing
and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, the project would result in an increase of 3.4 dBA
under existing plus project conditions on this roadway segment. However, the existing plus
project noise level would remain under the 60 dBA CNEL allowed by City of Dublin noise
standards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Table 14-10: Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway
Existing Noise
Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing + Project
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)Change
Significant
Impact
Hacienda Drive
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 65.0 65.0 0 No
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 66.4 66.6 0.2 No
Dublin Boulevard to I-580 WB Ramps 70.7 71.0 0.3 No
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB Ramps 71.6 71.8 0.2 No
I-580 EB Ramps to Owens Drive 71.7 71.8 0.1 No
South of Owens Drive 68.3 68.6 0.3 No
Tassajara Road
Fallon Road to Gleason Drive 69.2 69.2 0 No
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-22 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway
Existing Noise
Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing + Project
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL) Change
Significant
Impact
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 69.3 69.4 0.1 No
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 69.0 69.2 0.2 No
Dublin Boulevard to I-580 WB Ramps 71.6 72.2 0.6 No
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB Ramps 72.1 72.5 0.4 No
Saint Rita Road
I-580 EB Ramps to Las Positas Boulevard 72.3 72.6 0.3 No
Brannigan Street
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 55.4 58.8 3.4 No
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 54.7 57.5 2.7 No
South of Dublin Boulevard 56.7 58.9 2.2 No
Fallon Road
Tassajara Road to Gleason Drive 65.0 65.0 0 No
South of Gleason Drive 66.6 66.6 0 No
Gleason Drive
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 64.3 64.3 0 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 65.0 65.0 0 No
Brannigan Street to Fallon Road 61.5 61.9 0.4 No
Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 63.5 64.4 0.9 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 63.3 64.2 0.9 No
Brannigan Street to Fallon Road 62.8 63.1 0.3 No
Dublin Boulevard
West of Hacienda Drive 69.9 70.4 0.5 No
Hacienda Drive to Toyota Drive 69.4 70.1 0.7 No
Toyota Drive to Glynnis Rose Drive 70.3 70.9 0.6 No
Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road 70.2 70.9 0.7 No
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-23
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway
Existing Noise
Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing + Project
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL) Change
Significant
Impact
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 68.8 70.1 1.3 No
Brannigan Street to Grafton Street 68.3 68.5 0.2 No
Grafton Street to Keegan Street 67.6 67.9 0.3 No
Keegan Street to Lockhart Street 66.3 66.6 0.3 No
Lockhart Street to Fallon Road 63.9 64.1 0.2 No
Source: Noise modeling is based on traffic data within the At Dublin Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn, 2018.
The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates evaluated near term and
near term plus project conditions. These analyses help develop a forecast of future traffic
volumes in the study area under “Near-term Conditions” without the project. This forecast
provides a baseline to measure the Project’s impacts related to traffic. The year 2025 was
selected for analysis based on the predicted opening year for the project. Table 14-11: Near
Term and Near Term Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, shows the noise levels on the various
roadway segments studies in the traffic analysis.
Table 14-11: Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway
Near Term
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Near Term +
Project Noise
Level (dBA CNEL) Change
Significant
Impact
Hacienda Drive
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 65.0 65.0 0.0 No
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 67.1 67.3 0.1 No
Dublin Boulevard to I-580 WB Ramps 71.9 72.1 0.2 No
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB Ramps 72.6 72.8 0.2 No
I-580 EB Ramps to Owens Drive 72.9 73.0 0.1 No
South of Owens Drive 69.5 69.7 0.2 No
Tassajara Road
Fallon Road to Gleason Drive 69.8 69.9 0.1 No
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 70.0 70.1 0.1 No
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-24 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway
Near Term
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Near Term +
Project Noise
Level (dBA CNEL) Change
Significant
Impact
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 69.3 69.6 0.3 No
Dublin Boulevard to I-580 WB Ramps 72.9 73.5 0.5 No
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB Ramps 73.1 73.4 0.4 No
Saint Rita Road
I-580 EB Ramps to Las Positas Boulevard 73.3 73.6 0.3 No
Brannigan Street
Gleason Drive to Central Parkway 55.6 58.7 3.2 No
Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 55.1 57.5 2.4 No
South of Dublin Boulevard 57.3 59.4 2.1 No
Fallon Road
Tassajara Road to Gleason Drive 65.8 65.8 0.0 No
South of Gleason Drive 67.2 67.2 0.0 No
Gleason Drive
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 64.3 64.3 0.0 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 65.1 65.2 0.1 No
Brannigan Street to Fallon Road 61.6 62.0 0.3 No
Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 63.8 64.6 0.8 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 63.8 64.7 0.8 No
Brannigan Street to Fallon Road 63.4 63.6 0.3 No
Dublin Boulevard
West of Hacienda Drive 71.5 71.8 0.3 No
Hacienda Drive to Toyota Drive 71.0 71.5 0.5 No
Toyota Drive to Glynnis Rose Drive 71.7 72.2 0.5 No
Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road 71.7 72.2 0.5 No
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-25
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway
Near Term
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Near Term +
Project Noise
Level (dBA CNEL) Change
Significant
Impact
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street 71.3 72.1 0.8 No
Brannigan Street to Grafton Street 71.1 71.2 0.2 No
Grafton Street to Keegan Street 70.6 70.8 0.2 No
Keegan Street to Lockhart Street 68.5 68.8 0.3 No
Lockhart Street to Fallon Road 66.3 66.5 0.2 No
Source: Noise modeling is based on traffic data within the At Dublin Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn, 2018.
As shown in Table 14-11: Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, Brannigan
Street between Gleason Drive to Central Parkway and Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard
would have an increase of 3.2 dBA CNEL and 2.4 dBA CNEL, respectively, from near term to near
term plus project. This increase is not a significant impact as the resulting noise level is
acceptable according to the City of Dublin, see Table 14-6: Land Use/Noise Compatibility
Matrix.
Therefore, traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. The project would not result in a
doubling of traffic on project area roadways. Moreover, project traffic would traverse and
disperse over project area roadways, where existing ambient noise levels already exist.
Mechanical Equipment
Regarding mechanical equipment, the project would generate stationary-source noise
associated with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. Such HVAC units
typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dBA at a reference distance of 100 feet from
the operating units during maximum heating or air conditioning operations. As stated above,
the nearest existing sensitive receptors are located more than 100 feet from the commercial
and mixed-use areas of the project site. Single family residential areas in PA-4 would be
adjacent to existing residences (north of Gleason Drive). However, the mechanical equipment
associated with the proposed residences would be similar to the existing uses and would also
be buffered by a proposed road and existing and proposed setbacks and would be
approximately 100 feet away from the closest residences. Given that existing and project-
related sensitive receptors would be located beyond 100 feet from on-site HVAC units, noise
generated by HVAC units would not result in a significant impact.
Slow Moving Trucks (Deliveries) and Loading Areas
Potential noise impacts with the project’s retail uses would be associated primarily with truck
deliveries. The primary noise associated with truck deliveries is the arrival and departure of
trucks. Noise sources at a truck loading area may include maneuvering and idling trucks, truck
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-26 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
refrigeration units, forklifts, banging and clanging of equipment (i.e., hand carts and roll-up
doors), and voices of truck drivers and employees. The greatest potential for noise impacts
would be to on site residents in the proposed mixed-use area (Planning Area 2) as these would
be the closest sensitive receptors to commercial/retail areas. The residents in the mixed-use
area would be approximately 100 feet away from the closest potential truck loading areas. The
closest off-site sensitive receptors would be located 400 feet or more away from proposed
commercial loading areas and in most cases, would not have a direct line of sight to the loading
areas.
Delivery truck loading/unloading activities typically result in maximum noise levels from 75 dBA
Lmax at 50 feet. These activities are expected to occur intermittently throughout the day, as
trucks arrive and leave the parking lot areas for deliveries. Delivery truck noise at the existing
off-site receptors would be attenuated to 56.9 dBA and would not exceed the City’s Normally
Acceptable standard of 60 dBA. However, at the closest proposed on-site receptors
(approximately 100 feet away), 75 dBA at 50 feet would attenuate to 69 dBA.
Noise levels 61 to 70 dBA are considered Conditionally Acceptable according to the City’s
General Plan Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. Conditionally acceptable exposure requires
noise insulation features in building design. Conventional construction, but with closed
windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Therefore, MM
N-3.1 requires all residential units to be designed to ensure that interior noise levels in
habitable rooms from exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dBA, in compliance with Title 24 of
the California Code of Regulations and City Implementing Policy H. Further, the project would
be required to comply with MM N-3.1, which require a detailed acoustical study demonstrating
that all residential units would meet the City’s 60 dBA exterior noise standard for all patios,
balconies, and common outdoor living areas through any necessary noise reduction features
(barriers, berms, enclosures, etc.). Compliance with MM N-3.1 would result in a less than
significant impact.
Parking Areas
The project includes the construction of a surface parking and a parking structure in PA-2 as
well as surface parking in PA-1. Typical parking lot activities include people conversing, doors
shutting, engines starting up, or vehicles idling generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to
63 dBA at 50 feet.15 These activities are expected to occur intermittently throughout the day, as
visitors and employees arrive and leave the parking lot areas. As such, noise associated with
parking lots and garages is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise
standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. While the
15 The reference noise levels are typical noise levels based on previous experience. These levels are also
consistent with data within the Anthem Winery Use Permit Modification Environmental Noise Assessment,
prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. (May 26, 2016).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-27
Draft EIR
10/23/18
instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up,
and car pass-bys may be an annoyance, noise levels are not a significant impact.
The nearest off-site receptors would be the residences located approximately 400 feet to the
east from the nearest parking lot and the nearest on-site sensitive receptors would be
proposed residences approximately 100 feet away. At these distances, noise levels would
attenuate to 45 dBA and 57 dBA, respectively. As parking lot noise levels would not exceed the
City’s 60 dBA standard, project-related parking lot noise impacts would be less than significant.
On-Site Mobile Noise
Future residents at the project site would be exposed to mobile traffic noise along Tassajara
Road, Brannigan Street, Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway, and Gleason Drive. Table 14-11:
Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels identifies the combined noise levels
of traffic noise at the future residences on the site. Residences facing Tassajara Road would
experience interior noise levels ranging up to approximately 74 dBA, which would exceed the
City’s 60 dBA Normally Acceptable exterior standard for residential uses and the City’s 45 dBA
interior standard per the State Building Code and City Implementing Policy H.
Therefore, the project would be required to comply with MM N-3.1, which require a detailed
acoustical study demonstrating that all residential units would meet the City’s 60 dBA exterior
noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas through any
necessary noise reduction features (barriers, berms, enclosures, etc.). Further, MM N-3.1 also
requires all residential units to be designed to ensure that interior noise levels in habitable
rooms from exterior sources (including vehicles on adjacent roadways) shall not exceed 45 dBA,
in compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and City Implementing Policy
H. Compliance with MM N-3.1 would result in a less than significant impact.
Overall, implementation of MM N-3.1 and adherence to Municipal Code requirements, noise
impacts associated with traffic, mechanical equipment, deliveries, loading/unloading activities,
and parking lot noise would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation for Impact N-3
MM N-3.1 Noise Attenuation
Prior to issuance of building permits for Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4, a detailed acoustical study
based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and
submitted to the Community Development Department to demonstrate that all residential
units would meet the City’s 60 dBA exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and
common outdoor living areas. In addition, the acoustical study shall demonstrate that interior
noise levels at all residential units at the project site would meet the City’s 45 dBA threshold.
This mitigation measure complies with the applicable sections of the California Building Code
(Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and City Implementing Policy H. The necessary
noise reduction may be achieved by implementing noise control measures at the receiver
locations. Where closed windows are required to achieve the interior 45 dBA CNEL limit,
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-28 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
project plans and specifications shall include ventilation as required by the California Building
Code. The final grading and building plans shall incorporate the required noise barriers (patio
enclosure, wall, berm, or combination wall/berm), and the property owner/developer shall
install these barriers and enclosures.
Impact N-4: Result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels (Class II).
As discussed in Impact Statement N-1, project construction would generate short-term noise
due to the operation of heavy equipment. The heavy equipment would primarily be used
during the grading phase and would involve the use of graders and scrapers (i.e., non-impact
equipment). It should be noted that only minor cuts and fills are necessary for the areas of the
project site that are in proximity to sensitive receptors as the project site is relatively flat.
As shown in Table 14-8: Project Construction Average Noise Levels, project construction would
generate worst-case noise levels up to 72.8 dBA at the closest off-site sensitive receptors.
During grading, the equipment travels around the graded area to move earth. From the
perspective of a sensitive receptor, the equipment approaches, passes by, and then recedes
into the distance. Peak noise levels would thus be periodic, intermittent, and temporary during
brief pass-by periods when construction equipment operates at the far extent of the grading
limits. Ambient noise levels are measured over a long-term period and consider noise levels
during the daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (i.e., 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
Noise standards for changes in ambient conditions (such as CNEL) are also designed to consider
the level of noise over a long duration such as 24 hours. As discussed above, construction
activities would not produce sustained changes in ambient noise levels.
Instead, construction equipment would travel throughout the site and would be focused on the
interior of the site, thus not occurring near sensitive receptors for extended periods of time.
Accordingly, the construction activities have limited ability to the influence the ambient noise
levels. Furthermore, the project would implement noise-attenuating measures that would
further minimize potential construction noise impacts (refer to MM N-1.1). The project is not
considered a new development that can materially increase ambient CNEL. Finally, even if the
project could create substantial increase in ambient noise levels (which it cannot) the noise
ordinances of the applicable jurisdictions exempt construction noise activity performed within
certain hours. MM N-1 mandates that the project adhere to the construction hour limitations.
Implementation of MM N-1 also requires best management practice construction noise
reduction measures and restrictions on permissible hours of construction would therefore
ensure construction noise would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels.
As a result, the project would not create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Implementation of MM N-1 would result in less than significant impacts.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-29
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact N-5: Result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels due to private or public
airports (Class III).
The nearest public airport is the Livermore Municipal Airport located approximately 2.5 miles
southwest of the project site. The Airport Executive Land Use Compatibility Plan shows the
project within Zone 7 as shown in Figure 11-1: Livermore Municipal Airport Safety Compatibility
Zones. According to the ALUC, no restrictions on residential development shall apply to
portions of Zone 7 that extend beyond the boundary of the Airport Protection Area. Although,
the project is partially within the Airport Influence Area, it is not within the airport protection
Area and is outside of the 55 CNEL noise contour. There are no private airstrips near the
project site. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
14.5.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area for the analysis of cumulative impacts to noise is the City of Dublin.
Impact N-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on noise (Class II).
Cumulative Construction Noise
The project’s construction activities would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient
noise levels with the implementation of MM N-1.1 and MM N-3.1. There would be periodic,
temporary, significant noise impacts that would cease upon completion of construction
activities. The project would contribute to and construction noise impacts should other
development proximate to the project site occur concurrent with the project.
However, based on the noise analysis above, impacts from the project’s noise would be less
than significant with mitigation. Based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from
its source, noise impacts from on-site activities and other stationary sources would be limited
to the project site and vicinity. Thus, cumulative operational noise impacts from related
projects, in conjunction with project-specific noise impacts, would not be cumulatively
significant.
Cumulative Operational Noise
Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over
existing conditions with the development of the project and other foreseeable projects.
Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local
roadways due to buildout of the project and other projects in the vicinity. Cumulative increases
in traffic noise levels were estimated by comparing the Existing Plus Project and Opening Year
scenarios to existing conditions. The traffic analysis considers cumulative traffic from future
growth assumed in the traffic mode, as well as cumulative projects identified by the City of
Dublin.
A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant
when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold.
The following criteria is used to evaluate the combined effect of the cumulative noise increase.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-30 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Combined Effect. The cumulative with Project noise level (“Cumulative With
Project”) would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over
“Existing” conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable
exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there may be a significant noise
increase due to the project in combination with other related projects (combined
effects), it must also be demonstrated that the project has an incremental effect. In
other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the project.
The following criteria have been used to evaluate the incremental effect of the cumulative
noise increase.
Incremental Effects. The “Cumulative With Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in
noise over the “Cumulative Without Project” noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria
have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and reduces as distance
from the source increases. Consequently, only the project and growth due to occur in the
general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Table 14-12: Cumulative Plus
Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels identifies the traffic noise effects along
roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site for “Existing,” “Cumulative Without
Project,” and “Cumulative With Project,” conditions, including incremental and net cumulative
impacts.
First, it must be determined whether the “Future With Project” increase above existing
conditions (Combined Effects) is exceeded. As indicated in the table, the Proposed Project does
not exceed the combined effects criterion. Next, under the Incremental Effects criteria,
cumulative noise impacts are defined by determining if the forecast ambient (“Future Without
Project”) noise level is increased by 1 dB or more. As shown in the table, the incremental
effects criterion is not exceeded. Based on the significance criteria set forth in this EIR, none of
the roadway segments would result in significant impacts because they would not exceed
either the combined or the incremental effects criteria. The project would not result in long-
term mobile noise impacts based on project-generated traffic as well as cumulative and
incremental noise levels. Therefore, the project, in combination with cumulative background
traffic noise levels, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. The project’s
contribution to would not be cumulatively considerable.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-31
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 14-12: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Existing
Cumulative
Without
Project
Cumulative
With
Project
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
dBA @
100 Ft
from
Centerline
dBA @ 100
Ft from
Centerline
dBA @ 100
Ft from
Centerline
dBA
Difference:
Existing
and
Cumulative
With
Project
dBA
Difference:
Cumulative
Without
and With
Project
Hacienda Drive
Gleason Drive to Central
Parkway 65.0 65.6 65.6 0.5 0 No
Central Parkway to Dublin
Boulevard 66.4 68.3 68.4 2.0 0.1 No
Dublin Boulevard to I-580
WB Ramps 70.7 73.8 73.9 3.2 0.1 No
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB
Ramps 71.6 73.9 74.0 2.4 0.1 No
I-580 EB Ramps to Owens
Drive 71.7 74.2 74.4 2.7 0.1 No
South of Owens Drive 68.3 71.1 71.3 3.0 0.2 No
Tassajara Road
Fallon Road to Gleason Drive 69.1 70.8 70.9 1.8 0.1 No
Gleason Drive to Central
Parkway 69.3 70.6 70.8 1.5 0.2 No
Central Parkway to Dublin
Boulevard 68.9 70.0 70.2 1.3 0.3 No
Dublin Boulevard to I-580
WB Ramps 71.5 73.6 73.9 2.4 0.4 No
I-580 WB Ramps to I-580 EB
Ramps 72.0 73.7 74.0 1.9 0.3 No
Saint Rita Road
I-580 EB Ramps to Las
Positas Boulevard 72.2 73.7 73.9 1.7 0.2 No
Brannigan Street
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-32 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway Segment
Existing
Cumulative
Without
Project
Cumulative
With
Project
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
dBA @
100 Ft
from
Centerline
dBA @ 100
Ft from
Centerline
dBA @ 100
Ft from
Centerline
dBA
Difference:
Existing
and
Cumulative
With
Project
dBA
Difference:
Cumulative
Without
and With
Project
Gleason Drive to Central
Parkway 55.4 57.7 59.8 4.4 2.1 No
Central Parkway to Dublin
Boulevard 54.7 58.1 59.4 4.7 1.3 No
South of Dublin Boulevard 56.7 63.4 64.2 7.5 0.8 No
Fallon Road
Tassajara Road to Gleason
Drive 65.0 68.2 68.2 3.2 0 No
South of Gleason Drive 66.6 69.8 69.8 3.2 0 No
Gleason Drive
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara
Road 64.3 65.1 65.2 0.9 0.1 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan
Street 64.9 66.1 66.2 1.3 0.1 No
Brannigan Street to Fallon
Road 61.5 62.9 63.2 1.7 0.3 No
Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara
Road 63.5 65.4 66.0 2.5 0.5 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan
Street 63.3 65.4 66.0 2.7 0.5 No
Brannigan Street to Fallon
Road 62.8 65.0 65.2 2.4 0.2 No
Dublin Boulevard
West of Hacienda Drive 69.9 72.7 72.9 3.0 0.3 No
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-33
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Roadway Segment
Existing
Cumulative
Without
Project
Cumulative
With
Project
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
dBA @
100 Ft
from
Centerline
dBA @ 100
Ft from
Centerline
dBA @ 100
Ft from
Centerline
dBA
Difference:
Existing
and
Cumulative
With
Project
dBA
Difference:
Cumulative
Without
and With
Project
Hacienda Drive to Toyota
Drive 69.4 72.8 73.2 3.8 0.4 No
Toyota Drive to Glynnis Rose
Drive 70.2 73.4 73.8 3.5 0.4 No
Glynnis Rose Drive to
Tassajara Road 70.2 73.7 74.0 3.8 0.3 No
Tassajara Road to Brannigan
Street 68.8 73.4 73.9 5.1 0.5 No
Brannigan Street to Grafton
Street 68.2 72.8 73.0 4.8 0.2 No
Grafton Street to Keegan
Street 67.6 72.6 72.7 5.2 0.2 No
Keegan Street to Lockhart
Street 66.3 71.2 71.3 5.1 0.2 No
Lockhart Street to Fallon
Road 63.9 71.8 71.9 8.0 0.1 No
Source: Noise modeling is based on traffic data within the At Dublin Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley-Horn, 2018.
14.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 14-13: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Noise summarizes the
environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project
with regard to noise.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-14-34 | Noise & Vibration
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 14-13: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Noise
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact N-1: Cause a temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise
levels during construction that would
substantially disturb sensitive
receptors (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
Impact N-2: Temporarily generate
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise. (Class III).
Less than significant None required.
Impact N-3: Result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels (Class II).
Less than significant
with Mitigation
MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
Impact N-4: Result in a substantial
temporary increase in ambient noise
levels (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
Impact N-5: Result in a substantial
increase in ambient noise levels due to
private or public airports (Class III).
Less than Significant None required.
Impact N-6: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts on
noise (Class II).
Less than significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
14.6 References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. pp.
248 – 249. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tens_complete.pdf.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplemental to the
Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook.
(FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02). Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/index.cf
m
FICON (Federal Interagency Committee on Noise). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected
Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August. Available at:
http://www.gsweventcenter.com/GSW_RTC_References/1992_0801_FICON.pdf
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Final Report. Available at:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Noise & Vibration | Page 14-35
Draft EIR
10/23/18
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Ma
nual.pdf
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels of
Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate
Margin of Safety. Available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000L3LN.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=E
PA&Index=Prior+to+1976&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRe
strict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFiel
dOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C70thr
u75%5CTxt%5C00000001%5C2000L3LN.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymou
s&SortMethod=h%7C-
&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i4
25&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=
Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Population & Housing | Page 15-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
15 Population & Housing
15.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on population and housing that would be caused by
implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section came from the
following resources:
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 amended 2017
City of Dublin, Housing Element, 2014
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC), Plan Bay Area
15.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, the following comment regarding
population and housing was raised:
Consider the assumptions used to estimate the number of school children the
project would create, especially as it relates to type of units.
15.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on population and housing conditions in the project area.
15.3.1 Population Characteristics
Alameda County
Alameda County has a current population of approximately 1,645,359 persons (DOF, 2017).
The County is forecasted to grow nearly 41 percent from 2000 to 2040. Table 15-1: City of
Dublin and Alameda County Existing and Forecasted Population shows population numbers for
the County and City as determined by the California Department of Finance (DOF). DOF
estimates that the population of Alameda County will increase to 1,958,389 by 2035. As
identified in the table, the population in Alameda County is forecasted to grow nearly 53
percent between 1990 and 2035.
City of Dublin
As of January 2017, the City of Dublin has a population of 59,686 persons representing
approximately four percent of Alameda County’s population (DOF, 2017). As shown in Table
15-1: City of Dublin and Alameda County Existing and Forecasted Population the population in
Dublin is expected to increase to 76,000 by 2035. The City of Dublin would see a population
increase of 227 percent between 1990 and General Plan Build-Out at 2035, while the County
would experience a 53 percent increase over the same time period.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-15-2 | Population & Housing
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 15-1: City of Dublin and Alameda County Existing and Forecasted Population
1990 2000 2017 2035 Percent Increase
1990-2035
Dublin 23,229 29,973 59,686 76,000 227%
Alameda County 1,279,182 1,443,741 1,645,359 1,958,389 53%
Source: City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element, 2014.; DOF, 2017.
15.3.2 Housing Characteristics
Alameda County
As shown in Table 15-2: Housing Units for City of Dublin and Alameda County, the County has
an estimated 596,936 housing units with an average of 2.81 persons per household (DOF,
2017).
As reported by the DOF, the vacancy rate is a measure of the availability of housing in a
community. It also demonstrates how well the types of units available meet the market
demand. A low vacancy rate suggests that households may have difficulty finding housing
within their price range; a high supply of vacant units may indicate either the existence of a
high number of desired units, or an oversupply of units. The vacancy rate for housing in
Alameda County is estimated to be 4.1 percent (DOF, 2017).
Table 15-2: Housing Units for City of Dublin and Alameda County
2017 Persons per Household Vacancy Rate
Dublin 20,931 2.81 4.2 %
Alameda County 596,936 2.81 4.1 %
Source: Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5, 1/1/2017.
City of Dublin
According to the Department of Finance, the City of Dublin has approximately 20,931 housing
units with an average of 2.81 persons per household in 2017. The vacancy rate for housing in
the City is similar to that of Alameda County, 4.2 percent.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determines the regional housing needs
allocation (RHNA) by income category for each community in the region based on employment
activities, community patterns, types and tenure of housing needs, and others. The City of
Dublin’s allocation are shown in Table 15-3: City of Dublin Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
The City is required to ensure that sufficient sites that are planned and zoned for housing are
available to accommodate its need and to implement proactive programs that facilitate and
encourage the production of housing commensurate with its housing needs. The extremely low
income and very low-income need are approximately 35 percent of the total RHNA allocation.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Population & Housing | Page 15-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 15-3: City of Dublin Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Income Category RHNA Units Approved Remaining RHNA
Extremely Low Income
796 26 770
Very Low Income
Low Income 446 39 407
Moderate Income 425 14 411
Above Moderate Income 618 2,638 -2,020
Total 2,285 2,717 -432
Source: City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element, 2014; City of Dublin Housing Element Annual Report, 2017.
15.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
15.4.1 Federal
There are no applicable federal regulations applicable to the project.
15.4.2 State
California Housing Element Law
Government Code Sections 65580–65589.8 include provisions related to the requirements for
housing elements of local government general plans. Among these requirements, some of the
necessary elements include an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and
constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. Additionally, to assure that counties and
cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the State housing
goals, the statute calls for local jurisdictions to plan for, and allow the construction of, a share of
the region’s projected housing needs. The share is known as the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA for the Bay Area is based on a Regional Housing Needs Plan
(RHNP) developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for a nine-county area
that includes Alameda County and the City of Dublin. The City’s RHNA that covers the period
from 2015 through 2023 includes 2,285 units.
15.4.3 Local
Association of Bay Area Governments
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the official comprehensive regional
planning agency for the San Francisco Bay area, which is composed of nine counties, including
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and
Sonoma. ABAG produces growth forecasts on four-year cycles so that other regional agencies,
including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD), can use the forecast to make funding and regulatory
decisions. ABAG projections are also the basis for the Regional Transportation Plan and
regional Ozone Attainment Plan. The general plans, zoning regulations, and growth
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-15-4 | Population & Housing
Draft EIR
10/23/18
management programs of local jurisdictions inform the ABAG projections. The ABAG
projections are also developed to reflect the impact of “smart growth” policies and incentives
that could be used to shift development patterns from historical trends toward a better jobs-
housing balance, increased preservation of open space, and greater development and
redevelopment in urban core and transit-accessible areas throughout the ABAG region.
In July 2017, ABAG and the MTC adopted Plan Bay Area 2040 and its associated Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). The second such regional housing and transportation plan adopted by
MTC and ABAG, Plan Bay Area 2040 is a long-range blueprint to guide transportation
investments and land-use decisions through 2040, while meeting the requirements of
California’s landmark 2008 Senate Bill 375, which calls on each of the state’s 18 metropolitan
areas to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy to accommodate future population
growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks.
The Action Plan portion of Plan Bay Area 2040 also focuses on economic development,
particularly improving transportation access to jobs, increasing middle-wage job creation and
maintaining the region’s infrastructure. Another focus of the Action Plan is resilience in terms
of enhancing climate protection and adaptation efforts, strengthening open space protections,
creating healthy and safe communities, and protecting communities against natural hazards.
City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element
The City of Dublin updated and adopted its Housing Element on November 18, 2014. Dublin’s
Housing Element, which focuses on the regional housing needs for the period between 2015
and 2023, includes all the mandatory sections as identified by California law, including an
inventory of land parcels that could accommodate its RHNA as set by ABAG. The element
outlines housing production objectives, describes strategies to achieve those objectives,
examines the local need for special needs populations, identifies adequate sites for housing
production serving various income levels, analyzes constraints to new development, and
evaluates the Housing Element’s consistency with other General Plan elements. A list of
relevant Housing Element goals and policies are provided below.
Policy 4-19: Encourage employment-generating uses which provide a broad range of job
types and wage/salary scales.
Policy 6.3.A: Encourage housing of varied types, sizes and prices to meet current and future
needs of all Dublin residents.
Implementing Policy 2.1.2.C: Require a mixture of dwelling types in large projects.
Guiding Policy 2.1.3.A: Avoid abrupt transition between single-family development and higher
density development on adjoining sites.
Implementing Policy 6.4.E: Require a percentage of units in large multi-family projects to be
rented for a specified period of time.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Population & Housing | Page 15-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The Affordable Housing Program
The City of Dublin has Inclusionary Zoning Regulations that requires residential development to
include a certain percentage of affordable housing. Developers may choose to satisfy a portion
of the obligation through the payment of a fee in-lieu of construction, with the funds being
deposited into the City’s affordable housing fund. As of June 30, 2017, the fund had an
available balance of $12,189,714. The City also adopted a nonresidential development
affordable housing impact fee to fund affordable housing to serve the workforces of new
nonresidential development. The proceeds are deposited into the affordable housing fund
program.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and EIR were adopted in May 1993 to evaluate the
potential environmental effects of urbanizing eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30-year period. The
buildout potential of the EDSP is 32,023 residents, 13,913 dwelling units, and 29,424 jobs. The
project is located in the EDSP area.
15.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
15.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for population & housing were derived from the
Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been
amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full
range of potential impacts related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure.)
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitation the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-15-6 | Population & Housing
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
15.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Displace existing housing or substantial people (No Impact).
The project site does not include any existing housing and therefore would not displace existing
housing or people. Implementation of the project would not displace substantial people, nor
would it require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As a result, no impacts
would occur.
15.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact POP-1: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly
(Class III).
According to the City of Dublin General Plan, the average household has 2.7 persons per unit
(2016). Therefore, the proposed Project is estimated to add a maximum population of
approximately 1,132 residents. As shown in Table 15-4: Additional Population Generated by
Project, this would lead to a three percent increase in the City’s 2017 population. A three
percent increase would still be within the range of population growth forecast by DOF, which is
76,000 by 2035. Therefore, the project’s population growth would be consistent with DOF’s
projections for the City.
Table 15-4: Additional Population Generated by Project
Dublin Current Population
Population generated by
Project1 Percent of Total Population
59,686 1,836 3 %
Source: Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5, 1/1/2017.
Note:
1- Based on 2.7 people per unit from Dublin General Plan, 2017.
Table 15-5: Buildout Potential of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, shows the forecasted growth
of the EDSP area. The project would provide 454,500 square feet or four percent of the
planned general commercial for the EDSP area and 50 percent of the proposed commercial
area for the project site in the EDSP. The project is only four percent of the forecasted
residential units for the EDSP plan area. While the project would increase the population
projections for the City, by increasing the number of units allowed from 261 to 680, the project
still represents a small fraction of the planned buildout for the EDSP overall; would be
consistent with the nature of surrounding development; and would be within the estimate of
population growth estimated by DOF and the City’s Housing Element. In addition, the
development that has actually occurred under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is less than was
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Population & Housing | Page 15-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
originally. For all of these reasons, impacts associated with increased population growth would
be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Table 15-5: Buildout Potential of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
EDSP EDSP Project Site Proposed Project
% of EDSP
overall
% of EDSP
Project site
Residential (units) 17,970 261 680 4% 261%
Commercial (square feet) 10,575,000 902,563 454,500 4% 50%
Population 42,669 705 1,836 4% 260%
Source: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, 1993, as amended.
15.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative population and housing impacts includes
the City of Dublin.
Impact POP-2: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on population and housing
(Class III).
The project would have a maximum of 1,836 residents. Table 15-1: City of Dublin and Alameda
County Existing and Forecasted Population estimates the City of Dublin would have a
population of 76,000 at General Plan Buildout in 2035, of which the project would represent
less than three percent. Therefore, the project would not cause a cumulatively considerable
impact on population and housing and no mitigation is required.
15.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 15-6: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Population & Housing summarizes
the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the
project with regard to population & housing.
Table 15-6: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Population & Housing
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact POP-1: Induce substantial
population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly (Class III).
Less than
significant
None required.
Impact POP-2: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts
on population and housing (Class III).
Less than
significant
None required.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-15-8 | Population & Housing
Draft EIR
10/23/18
15.6 References
DOF (California Department of Finance). 2010a. Demographic Information. Reports and
Research Papers. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-
2009, with 2000 Benchmark. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/Estimates/E-4/2011-20/
_____. 2017b. Demographic Research Unit. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
the State January 1, 2016 and 2017. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/p-3/
_____. 2017c. Demographic Information. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties and the State, 2001-2009, with 2000 Benchmark. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2009/
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
16 Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
16.1 Introduction
This section describes effects on public services, utilities, and service systems that would be
caused by implementation of the project. The discussion addresses existing environmental
conditions in the affected area, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts, and
recommends measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts anticipated from project
construction and operation. In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to public
services, utilities, and service systems are described. In some cases, compliance with these
existing laws and regulations would serve to reduce or avoid certain impacts that might
otherwise occur with the implementation of the project.
Information used to prepare this section came from the following resources:
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final EIR, 1994 updated 2016
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 amended 2017
City of Dublin, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2015
Dublin San Ramon Services District, At Dublin Project Water Supply Assessment,
2018 (see Appendix I)
Dublin San Ramon Services District, Wastewater Treatment and Biosolids Facilities
Master Plan, 2017
Dublin San Ramon Services District, Water System Master Plan, 2016
Dublin San Ramon Services District, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015
Dublin Unified School District, 7-Year Student Population Projections, February 5,
2018
Dublin Unified School District, School Facilities Needs Analysis, May 2017
Project application and related materials
Zone 7 Water Agency, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015
16.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project, the following comments regarding
public services quality were raised:
Water shortages, particularly during consecutive years of drought
Evaluate impacts to City resources and budget due to the project (i.e. police, fire,
etc.)
Consider what the project benefits are to the City of Dublin
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-2 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
School overcrowding is a public health and safety concern
Pause project for a couple years to allow time for the school (high school)
overcrowding issue to be resolved
16.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on public services, utilities, and service systems in the project
area. Physical impacts to public services, utilities, and service systems are usually associated
with population in-migration and growth in an area, which increase the demand for a particular
service, leading to the need for expanded or new facilities.
16.3.1 Public Services
Police Protection
The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement to the City of Dublin on a
contract basis (known locally as “Dublin Police Services”). Criminal investigations, crime
prevention, and some business office functions are performed at the Dublin Civic Center (100
Civic Center), while dispatch and some data processing functions are handled at Sheriff’s Office
facilities in Oakland and San Leandro.
Dublin Police Services have 55 sworn officers and four Sheriff’s technicians assigned to the duty
station at the Dublin Civic Center. Four City of Dublin civilian employees provide support
services for Dublin Police Services.
The Dublin Police Services responded to 37,323 calls for service in 2016 with an average
response time to priority calls in just over five minutes. This response time meets the Alameda
County Sheriff’s Office standards and the industry average of five minutes.
Fire Protection and Emergency Response Services
The Alameda County Fire Department provides fire protection, emergency medical services,
and public assistance to the City of Dublin. The Fire Department serves approximately 508
square miles and has a service population of 394,000 people. The Fire Department includes
three specialized response teams: Hazardous Materials Unit, Urban Search and Rescue Unit,
and Water Rescue Team Unit.
As shown in Table 16-1: Alameda County Fire Department Stations in the City of Dublin, the Fire
Department has four stations and one fire bureau in the City of Dublin, three of which are
staffed (shaded) and the other are used for reserve purposes.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-1: Alameda County Fire Department Stations in the City of Dublin
Station
Number Address Distance to
At Dublin
15 5325 Broder Road 1.1 miles This station houses the apparatus and equipment
for the Reserve Firefighters of the ACFD.
16 7494 Donohue Drive 3.4 miles
This station has one engine company, a patrol, a
water tender, and an air support unit. The
response area is primarily the west and central
Dublin.
17 6200 Madigan Road 0.6 miles
This station houses an engine and a truck company,
one Type 3 engine, and a water rescue boat.
Central Dublin is its primary response area but also
responds to the west, central core, and eastern
most sections of the City.
18 4800 Fallon Road 0.8 miles
This station has an engine company, one patrol,
and a bulldozer. Its response area covers the
eastern most portions of Dublin, urban wildland
interface areas, and Highway 580.
Fire
Prevention
Bureau
100 Civic Plaza 2.5 miles
Performs plan reviews and inspections of new
construction. The Bureau reviews building plans to
ensure compliance with applicable fire codes and
regulations.
Note: Shaded stations are staffed.
Source: Alameda County Fire Department, 2017.
The Fire Department is organized into four battalions consisting of 27 engine companies, five
tiller trucks, two Quints, and one heavy rescue vehicle. The Fire Department has 486
authorized positions and 100 reserve firefighters. The Fire Department also staffs specialized
response teams for hazardous materials, urban search and rescue, and water rescue. Stations
16 and 18 are staffed with one engine company and three personnel. Station 17, closest to the
project site, is staffed with one engine and one tiller truck with three personnel each for a total
of six personnel.
In 2016-2017, the Fire Department responded to 3,108 calls from the City of Dublin and 40,921
Countywide.16 The Fire Department’s average response times are reported to the City of Dublin
on a quarterly basis. According to the September 1, 2017 Standards of Cover Review, prepared
by Citygate Associates, the Fire Department responds to 90 percent of all incidences within 7
minutes, 23 seconds. This is within the Department-wide call to arrival goal of 7 minutes, 30
seconds.
16 https://www.acgov.org/fire/about/statistics.htm. Accessed January 17, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-4 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Aid Agreements
The Fire Department has mutual and automatic mutual aid agreements with the Livermore-
Pleasanton Fire Department, the San Ramon Valley Fire Department, and the Camp Parks Fire
Department.8 These agreements help to ensure service is sent based on shortest response
times and may result in a mix of different agencies responding to a particular call. In the case of
a wildland fire within the State Responsibility Areas of the County, CAL FIRE’s ground and air
resources are also available. The Fire Department also participates in the California Master
Mutual Aid Plan that allows source requests to be filled from an agency outside Alameda
County.
Schools
Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides K-12 educational services to the City of Dublin.
As of Fall 2017, DUSD had a total enrollment of 11,242 students, 542 certified staff members,
and 326 classified staff. DUSD operates 11 schools; seven elementary (TK-5), two middle (6-8),
and two high schools (one comprehensive, one alternative).17 The Cottonwood Creek School (a
K-8 site) will open in Fall 2018 giving the District a total of 8 elementary sites. DUSD also offers:
Pathways, an alternative option for elementary students; Independent Study; Dublin Adult
School; Home/Hospital Instruction for those with serious physical or mental health issues;
Home Schooling for K-6th grade; Online Program for Students; and various programs for
students with disabilities.18
While most school districts in California experiences a reduction in student enrollment and
funding following the downturn in the economy post 2007, student enrollment in the DUSD
continued to increase.
As a result, as shown in Table 16-2: Dublin School District Existing Student Capacity, student
enrollment for elementary and middle school grade levels exceeds current capacity.
17 https://www.dublin.k12.ca.us/domain/1053. Accessed January 17, 2018 and Dublin Unified School District, 7-
Year Student Population Projections, February 5, 2018
18 https://www.dublin.k12.ca.us/Page/4830. Accessed January 18, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-2: Dublin School District Existing Student Capacity
Grade Level
Existing Facilities
Capacity
Student Enrollment
(2017)
Excess/ (Deficit)
Capacity
Elementary School (TK-5) 5,194 5,956 (762)
Middle School (6-8) 1,450 2,532 (1,082)
High School (9-12) 3,180 2,754 426
Total 9,824 11,242 (1,418)
Source: DUSD, “School Facilities Need Analysis”, May 2017.
Elementary Schools
The DUSD is composed of seven elementary schools serving 5,956 transitional kindergarten (TK)
to grade 5 (TK-5) students as of Fall 2017. The Cottonwood Creek Elementary (K-8) will open in
Fall 2018 giving the District a total of eight elementary schools.
The project site is served by Kolb Elementary School (0.5 miles east) south of Gleason Drive and
Green Elementary School (0.8 miles northeast) north of Gleason Drive. Other nearby schools
include Dougherty Elementary School (0.8 miles west) and Cottonwood Creek Elementary (1.5
miles west, as of Fall 2018).
Middle School
There are currently two middle schools in the DUSD (Wells and Fallon) along with the
Cottonwood Creek K-8 that will open in the Fall of 2018. These two middle schools served
2,532 grade 6-8 students as of Fall 2017. The project site is served by Fallon Middle School,
located 0.5 miles northeast of the project site.
High School
The DUSD currently operates one comprehensive high school, Dublin High School, located four
miles west of the project site. As of Fall 2017, there were 2,754 9-12 high school students
enrolled in the District with Dublin HS serving 2,584 students, and Valley Continuation High
serving the remaining 45 students.
Parks
The City of Dublin’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) establishes the goals, standards,
policies, and action programs to guide the City of Dublin in the acquisition, development and
management (operations and maintenance) of Dublin’s park and recreation facilities through
the ultimate build-out of the City in accordance with the General Plan.
As shown in Table 16-3: Dublin Parks and Sport Facilities Existing Service Levels and Standards,
the Master Plan establishes park standards for neighborhood and community parks and sport
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-6 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
facilities. Comparisons to the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) standards are
also shown for reference.
Table 16-3: Dublin Parks and Sport Facilities Existing Service Levels and Standards
Park & Sport Facilities NRPA Standard
City of Dublin
Standard
Existing Level of
Service (2015) 2
Neighborhood Park 1 1-2 1.9 2.109
Community Park 1 5-8 3.3 3.144
Baseball Fields 1 per 5,000 1 per 3,500 1 per 3,237
Softball Fields 1 per 5,000 1 per 15,000 1 per 10,357
Soccer Fields 1 per 10,000 1 per 3,500 1 per 3,237
Swimming Pool 1 per 20,000 400 sf. per 1,000 192 sf. per 1,000
Tennis Courts 1 per 2,000 1 per 2,700 1 per 2,725
Basketball Courts 1 per 5,000 1 per 4,300 1 per 4,315
Cricket Fields -- 1 per 40,000 1 per 51,784
Volleyball Courts 1 per 5,000 1 per 17,000 1 per 17,261
Notes:
1. Acres per 1,000 population
2. Bold/shaded box indicates deficit (below City standard)
Source: City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2015.
The City currently has 290 acres of community and neighborhood parks, sports fields, and open
space areas for hiking and biking. At buildout, the City of Dublin envisions a 380-acre park
system. With the existing and planned park acreage resulting in a 11.5-acre deficit compared to
the need at General Plan build-out, the Master Plan identifies six potential future sites for a
park totally approximately 21 acres. One potential future site for a two-acre Neighborhood
Square is south of Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road.
The nearest community park is Emerald Glen Park located directly adjacent to the project site
on the west side of Tassajara Road. The closest neighborhood parks are Bray Commons (0.4
miles east) and Ted Fairfield Park (0.5 miles north).
Community Facilities
As shown in Table 16-4: City of Dublin Community Facilities, the Parks and Community Services
Department operates five community centers.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-4: City of Dublin Community Facilities
Name Address
Distance from
Project Site Facilities
Dublin Civic
Center 100 Civic Plaza 2.5 miles
Council Chambers: Theater-style seating for 142,
panel seating for 11, two podiums, and two built-in
screens.
Regional Meeting Room: 80 for dining and 125 for
assembly.
Dublin Public
Library
Community
Room
200 Civic Plaza 2.55 miles
1,830 square foot Community Room that is
available for rent for up to 122 people.
Dublin Senior
Center
7600 Amador Valley
Boulevard 3.3 miles
Ballroom seats 248 for dining, raised stage, casual
seating nook, and two patios
Lounge area with fireplace and furniture
Shannon
Community
Center
11600 Shannon Avenue 3.8 miles 6,000 square foot room that fits 300 for dining
Heritage Park
and Museums 6600 Donlon Way 3.7 miles The Old St. Raymond Church and Sunday School
Barn are available for rentals
Source: City of Dublin Parks & Community Services, 2017. Accessed January 18, 2018.
16.3.2 Utilities and Service Systems
Water
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) provides potable water and non-potable recycled
water service to the City of Dublin and the Dougherty Valley portion of the City of San Ramon.
DSRSD’s water service population is approximately 70,000.
Potable Water
DSRSD obtains its water supply from Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District, Zone 7 (Zone 7), a multi-purpose agency that oversees water-related issues in the
Livermore-Amador Valley. Zone 7 is a State Water Project contractor that wholesales treated
water to four retail water agencies in the Tri-Valley area (DSRSD, City of Livermore, City of
Pleasanton, and California Water Service Company-Livermore District). It also retails non-
potable water supplies for irrigated agricultural use, retails treated water to several direct
customers, provides and maintains flood control facilities, and manages groundwater and
surface water supplies in its service area. DSRSD has a groundwater pumping quota (GPQ) of
645 acre-feet/year in the Livermore Valley Main Groundwater Basin (Main Basin), which Zone 7
pumps on DSRSD’s behalf as part of its water contract.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-8 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
DSRSD’s water supply is augmented with recycled water from its Recycled Water Treatment
Facilities. DSRSD owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant that treats wastewater
from Dublin, South San Ramon, and Pleasanton. The wastewater treatment plant includes
conventional secondary treatment facilities, as well as tertiary and advanced recycled water
treatment facilities. The DSRSD - East Bay Municipal Utility Recycled Water Authority (DERWA)
operates the San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program, a multi-phased project that
distributes recycled water from the Recycled Water Treatment Facilities to portions of DSRSD’s
and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) service areas.
Zone 7 uses a combination of water supplies and water storage facilities to meet the municipal
and industrial demands of its retailers. These include the following:
Imported surface water from the State Water Project;
Imported surface water transferred from the Byron Bethany Irrigation District;
Local surface water runoff captured in Del Valle Reservoir;
Local groundwater extracted from the Livermore Valley Groundwater Main Basin;
Local storage in the Chain-of-Lakes; and
Non-local groundwater storage in the Semitropic Water Storage District and Cawelo
Water District.
A full discussion of these water supply sources can be found in the Zone 7’s Urban Water
Management Plan (2015).
Recycled Water
DSRSD currently treats and distributes recycled water to water customers in its service area and
portions of the EBMUD. Recycled water is produced from DSRSD's regional wastewater
treatment facilities.
DSRSD began its recycled water program in the early 1990's by adopting Resolution No. 42-92
in August 1992. The resolution set priorities and policies for the use and promotion of recycled
water service within and outside DSRSD's water service area. DSRSD then adopted the "Water
Recycling Business Plan Framework" in 1993, to establish the DSRSD Recycled Water Enterprise.
Since that time, recycled water has been an important part of water planning at DSRSD.
In that same year, the City of Dublin certified an EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan. The DSRSD service plan for eastern Dublin is predicated upon
the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation. Potable water supply requests to Zone 7 by
DSRSD for Eastern Dublin under the "Contract between Zone 7 and DSRSD for a Municipal &
Industrial Water Supply," are the net of the eastern Dublin total water demands, less the
recycled water provided by DSRSD.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
In 1995, DSRSD began providing recycled water to Dougherty Valley. Similar to eastern Dublin,
the DSRSD service plan for Dougherty Valley is also predicated upon the use of recycled water
for landscape irrigation.
Summary of Current and Projected Future Water Supplies
Table 16-5: DSRSD Current and Projected Future Water Supplies, provides a summary of
DSRSD’s current and projected future water supplies as presented in the DSRSD 2015 UWMP.
As noted above, DSRSD’s future potable water demand will likely be lower than projected in the
2015 UWMP, and thus potable supplies required from Zone 7 will also likely be lower. DSRSD’s
future recycled water demand will likely be higher than projected in the 2015 UWMP; however,
recycled water supplies are anticipated to increase per a recent agreement with the City of
Pleasanton.
Table 16-5: DSRSD Current and Projected Future Water Supplies
2015
Actual 1 2020 2 2025 2 2030 2 2035 2 2040 2
Water Purchased from Zone 7, afy 7,445 13,678 14,554 15,223 15,840 15,840
Recycled Water, afy 2,579 3,905 4,117 4,203 4,203 4,203
Total, afy 10,024 17,583 18,671 19,426 20,043 20,043
Notes:
1. Actual 2015 supplies are from Table 6-11 of the DSRSD 2015 UWMP (June 2016). Includes GPQ if 645 afy.
2. Projected supplies are from Table 6-9 of the DSRSD 2015 UWMP (June 2016). Includes GPQ if 645 afy.
Source: DSRSD, At Dublin Water Supply Assessment, 2018. (See Appendix I).
Project Site Facilities
A series of water lines ranging from 12 inches (along Brannigan Street) to as large as 20 inches
(along Dublin Boulevard) surround the project site.
Wastewater
DSRSD provides wastewater collection and treatment service to the City of Dublin as well as to
the southern portion of the City of San Ramon. The wastewater service population is
approximately 154,000.
Collection System
DSRSD’s collection system consists of 207 miles of 6-inch- to 42-inch-diameter pipe. The
collection system includes two inverted siphons, two creek crossings that are within the open
channel, and one lift station.
The project would connect to existing underground DSRSD sewer lines located within the right-
of-way of the adjacent roadways. Major sanitary sewer facilities include a 30-inch pipe on
Dublin Boulevard, a 15-inch pipe on Tassajara Road, and 10-inch pipes on both Brannigan Street
and Gleason Drive.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-10 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Treatment Facility
DSRSD owns and operates the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility in the City of
Pleasanton, which treats wastewater from the cities of Dublin, South San Ramon, and
Pleasanton. The wastewater treatment facility includes conventional secondary treatment
facilities, as well as tertiary and advanced recycled water treatment facilities.
Conventional secondary wastewater treatment facilities include primary sedimentation,
activated sludge secondary treatment, secondary sedimentation, chlorine disinfection, and
effluent pumping. The Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility has a treatment capacity of
17.0 million gallons per day (mgd). As of July 2017, the facility treats an average of 10.74 mgd
during dry-weather and 12.48 mgd during wet-weather.
The Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency disposes of treated wastewater for
DSRSD and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. The agency’s pipeline transports treated
wastewater from the DSRSD and Livermore treatment plants 16 miles to San Lorenzo, where it
is discharged into a deep-water outfall in San Francisco Bay.
Storm Drainage
The City of Dublin maintains storm drain pipes and inlets that are on public streets or that carry
water which originates on a public street. Drainage facilities that are located on private
property are maintained by private property owners. Private drainage facilities may include
(but are not limited to) V-ditches or channels on residential or commercial property, and drain
inlets in parking lots.
Runoff that leaves the project site enters either a 42-inch-diameter line in Arnold Road or an
84-inch-diameter line into a storm drainage structure on the north side of I-580. From there,
runoff is conveyed south under I-580 via a triple set of 54-inch-diameter storm drains to Chabot
Canal. Chabot Canal conveys stormwater to Arroyo Mocho, which outlets into South San
Ramon Creek, which becomes Arroyo de La Laguna, and ultimately Alameda Creek, which is
tributary to San Francisco Bay.
Solid Waste
The City of Dublin has an existing franchise agreement with Amador Valley Industries for
residential and commercial garbage, recycling, and organics collection. Single family residences
are provided with recycling and organics service with their trash subscription. Multi-family
residences have access to recycling services. Commercial businesses must subscribe to
recycling and organics service the same way they subscribe to garbage collection. Solid waste
generated within the City is received at the Altamont Landfill which has a total estimated
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
permitted capacity of 124 million cubic yards. The Altamont Landfill is approximately 52% full
and has a disposal capacity through 2045. 19, 20
Electricity
Electricity in City of Dublin is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). In 2012 (the most
recent year for which data is provided), the electricity mix comprised 27 percent natural gas, 21
percent nuclear, 11 percent large hydroelectric, 19 percent renewables, and 21 percent
unspecified (PG&E, 2012).
Natural Gas
PG&E operates one of the largest natural gas distribution networks in the country, including
48,850 miles of natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines (PG&E, 2015a). Service is
provided to 4.3 million accounts statewide. A transmission gas pipeline runs parallel to the
southern boundary of the City, south of Interstate 580, and small-diameter pipelines serve the
City (PG&E, 2015b).
16.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
16.4.1 Federal
Wastewater
Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, more commonly known as the Clean Water
Act (CWA), regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the U. S. under
the CWA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) implements pollution
control programs and sets wastewater treatment standards.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Dublin are regulated under the San
Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted
October 14, 2009 and revised November 28, 2011. The Municipal Regional Permit is overseen
by the Regional Water Board.
The City of Dublin is a member agency of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, which
assists municipalities and other agencies in Alameda County with implementation of the
19 http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/01-aa-0009/Detail/. Accessed February 20, 2018.
20 http://altamontlandfill.wm.com/sustainability/index.jsp. Accessed February 20, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-12 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Municipal Regional Permit. Provision C.3 addresses post-construction stormwater
management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that add and/or
replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area. Provision C.3 requires the
incorporation of site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures into
development projects to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-
stormwater discharges and to prevent increases in runoff flows. Low Impact Development (LID)
methods are to be the primary mechanism for implementing such controls.
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management. This
Municipal Regional Permit provision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase
in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. Increases in runoff
flow and volume must be managed so that the post-project runoff does not exceed estimated
pre-project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause
increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other
adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. The Hydromodification
Management Susceptibility Map, developed by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program,
indicates that the Community Plan area drains primarily to earthen channels and therefore
projects implemented under the Community Plan that create and/or replace one acre or more
of impervious surface and increase impervious surface over pre-project conditions are subject
to hydromodification management requirements.
16.4.2 State
Police Services
All law enforcement agencies within California are organized and operate in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the California Penal Code. This code sets forth the authority, rules
of conduct, and training for police officers.
Fire Protection
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 8 Sections 1270 "Fire Prevention" and
6773 "Fire Protection and Fire Equipment" the California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal/OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and
emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the
handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use
of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all fire-fighting and
emergency medical equipment.
Fire Protection
The California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of
buildings and the use of premises. Fire hazards are addressed mainly through the application of
the State Fire Code that addresses access, including roads, and vegetation removal in high fire
hazard areas, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
hazards safety, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new and
existing buildings and premises.
California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety
Code. This includes regulations for building standards (as also set forth in the California
Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as
extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire
suppression training.
Emergency Response
The State passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to prepare a
Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, which sets forth measures by
which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS could
result in the State withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event
of an emergency disaster.
Schools
Senate Bill (SB) 50
Senate Bill (SB) 50 (1998), which is funded by Proposition 1A, limits the power of cities and
counties to require mitigation of developers as a condition of approving new development and
provides instead authorizes school districts to impose fees in amounts limited by law. SB 50
anticipated that the state would fund have of new school facilities construction and the
remainder would be funded by the local school district. SB 50 provides for three levels of
statutory impact fees. The level depends on whether state funding is available; whether the
school district is eligible for state funding; and whether the school district meets certain
additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year-round schools, and the percentage of
moveable classrooms in use. Consistent with this authority, the DUSD currently implements a
Level 2 fee of $11.20 per square foot of new residential development and $0.56 per square foot
of new commercial development.
California Government Code sections 65995-65998 sets forth provisions to implement SB 50
and limits the City’s discretion to mitigate for development’s impact on schools. Specifically, in
accordance with Section 65995(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and
complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but
not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in
governmental organization or reorganization…on the provision of adequate school facilities.”
The school district, rather than the City, is responsible for implementing the specific methods
for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.
Furthermore, Government Code section 65995(i) provides that: “A state or local agency may
not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not
limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-14 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073 on the basis of a person's
refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to
this section or pursuant to Section 65995.5 or 65995.7, as applicable.”
California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1) states that the governing board of any school
district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any
construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction
or reconstruction of school facilities.
California Government Code, Section 65995(b), and Education Code Section 17620
SB 50 amended California Government Code Section 65995, which contains limitations on
Education Code Section 17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess
development fees within school district boundaries. Government Code Section 65995(b)(3)
requires the maximum square footage assessment for development to be increased every two
years, according to inflation adjustments. On January 27, 2016, the State Allocation Board
(SAB) approved increasing the allowable amount of statutory school facilities fees (Level I
School Fees) from $3.36 to $3.39 per square foot of assessable space for residential
development of 500 square feet of more, and from $0.54 to $0.55 per square foot of
chargeable covered and enclosed space for commercial/industrial development (SAB, 2016).
School districts may levy high fees if they apply to the SAB and meet certain conditions.
The Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002 (Proposition 47)
This act was approved by California voters in November 2002 and provides for a bond issue of
$13.05 billion to fund necessary education facilities to relieve overcrowding and to repair older
schools. Funds will be targeted at areas of greatest need and must be spent according to strict
accountability measures. Funds will also be used to upgrade and build new classrooms in the
California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California
to provide adequate higher education facilities to accommodate growing student enrollment.
Parks and Recreation
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) states that “the legislative body
of a City or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement
of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational
purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative or parcel map.” Requirements of the
Quimby Act apply only to the acquisition of new parkland and do not apply to the physical
development of new park facilities or associated operations and maintenance costs. The
Quimby Act seeks to preserve open space needed to develop parkland and recreational
facilities; however, the actual development of parks and other recreational facilities is subject
to discretionary approval and is evaluated on a case-by-case basis with new residential
development. The City of Dublin has adopted park fees as allowed by the Quimby Act, as
described in greater detail below.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Water Supply
Senate Bill 610
Senate Bill (SB) 610 amended the Public Resources and Water Codes as they pertain to
consultation with water supply agencies and water supply assessments. SB 610 requires Water
Supply Assessments (WSA) for “projects” as that term is defined by Water Code Section 10912,
which are subject to CEQA. The project does meet the definition of a project as specified in
Water Code Section 10912 and has not been the subject of a previously adopted WSA or
included in a WSA for a larger project; thus, a WSA is required and included as Appendix I.
Senate Bill 221
Whereas SB 610 requires a written assessment of water supply availability, SB 221 requires lead
agencies to obtain an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply prior to approval
of certain specified subdivision projects. For this purpose, water suppliers may rely on an
Urban Water Management Plan (if the project is accounted for within the UWMP), a Water
Supply Assessment prepared for the project, or other acceptable information that constitutes
“substantial evidence.”
“Sufficient water supply” is defined in SB 221 as the total water supplies available during
normal, single-dry and multiple-dry water years within the 20-year (or greater) projection
period that are available to meet the projected demand associated with a project, in addition to
existing and planned future uses. The project would develop more than 500 dwelling units and
is therefore subject to the requirements of SB 221. The WSA provides verification of sufficient
water supply to serve the project.
California Urban Water Management Planning Act
The California Urban Water Management Planning (UWMP) Act requires urban water suppliers
to prepare an UWMP every five years and to file this plan with the Department of Water
Resources, the California State Library, and any city or county within which the supplier
provides water supplies. All urban water suppliers, either publicly or privately owned, providing
water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or
supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet annually are required to prepare an UWMP (CWC §10617).
The UWMP Act was enacted in 1983. Over the years, it has been amended in response to
water resource challenges and planning imperatives confronting California. A significant
amendment was made in 2009 as a result of the governor’s call for a statewide 20 percent
reduction in urban water use by 2020. Colloquially known as 20x2020, the Water Conservation
Act of 2009 (also referred to as SB X7-7) required urban retail water suppliers to establish water
use targets for 2015 and 2020 that would result in statewide water savings of 20 percent by
2020. Beginning in 2016, urban retail water suppliers are required to comply with the water
conservation requirements in SB X7-7 to be eligible for state water grants or loans.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-16 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Wastewater
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is the local division of the SWRCB that has oversight authority
over the project. SWRCB is a State department that provides a definitive program of actions
designed to preserve and enhance water quality and to protect beneficial uses of water in
California. NPDES permits allow RWQCB to collect information on where the waste is disposed,
what type of waste is being disposed, and what entity is disposing of the waste. RWQCB is also
charged with conducting inspections of permitted discharges and monitoring permit
compliance.
Solid Waste
California Integrated Waste Management Act
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires that cities and
counties divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills as of January 1, 2000, through source
reduction, recycling, and composting. AB 939 also establishes a goal for all California counties
to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.
To help achieve this goal, the Act requires that each city and county prepare a Source Reduction
and Recycling Element to be submitted to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle), a department within the California Natural Resources Agency, which administers
programs formerly managed by the State’s Integrated Waste Management Board and Division
of Recycling.
As part of CalRecycle’s Zero Waste Campaign, regulations affect what common household items
can be placed in the trash. Household materials—including fluorescent lamps and tubes,
batteries, electronic devices and thermostats—that contain mercury are no longer permitted in
the trash and must be disposed separately.
In 2007, SB 1016 amended AB 939 to establish a per capita disposal measurement system. The
per capita disposal measurement system is based on a jurisdiction’s reported total disposal of
solid waste divided by a jurisdiction’s population. CalRecycle sets a target per capita disposal
rate for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction must submit an annual report to CalRecycle with an
update of its progress in implementing diversion programs and its current per capita disposal
rate.
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act requires adequate space in all
developments to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials and organics. The
Act requires CalRecycle to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency relating
to adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development
projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own,
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
governing adequate areas in development programs for collection and loading of recyclable
materials.
CALGreen Building Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) came into effect for all projects
beginning after January 1, 2011. Effective January 1, 2017, Section 4.408, Construction Waste
Reduction Disposal and Recycling, mandates that, in the absence of a more stringent local
ordinance, a minimum of 65 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris must
be recycled or salvaged. The Code requires the applicant to have a waste management plan for
on-site sorting of construction debris.
The City of Dublin has a more stringent requirement and requires that at least 65 percent for
remodels and 75 percent for new construction by weight of thetotal construction and
demolition debris generated by a project via reuse or recycling excluding asphalt and concrete
debris of which 100 percent must be diverted, unless the applicant has been granted an
infeasible exemption. The modified diversion requirement is equal to the maximum feasible
diversion rate established by the WMP Compliance Official for the project (Dublin Municipal
Code Chapter 7.30).
16.4.3 Regional
Zone 7 Water Agency
Zone 7 is responsible for providing flood protection to the residents of Eastern Alameda
County. Zone 7 owns and maintains drainage facilities within the Dublin city limits. Drainage
plans for development projects must be reviewed by Zone 7 to ensure that the project does not
propose any impacts to downstream facilities. In addition, development projects that involve
work within Zone 7’s right-of-way or that involve construction, modification, or connection to a
Zone 7 facility are required to obtain an Encroachment Permit and comply with Zone 7
standards and specifications.
Dublin San Ramon Services District
DSRSD adopted Ordinance No. 323 in 2009 that set forth its Emergency Response Plan. This
plan is implemented when the DSRSD Board of Directors declares a drought emergency. The
plan sets forth Stages 1 through 4 that consist of incrementally more stringent water reduction
measures for activities such as landscape irrigation, swimming pools and spas, water theme
parks, ornamental water features, and washing of pavement, autos, boats, and buildings. The
plan was most recently invoked beginning in 2014 and remained in effect until 2017.
Multi-Jurisdictional Local Government Hazard Mitigation Plan for The San Francisco Bay Area
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) prepared and adopted a Local Hazards
Mitigation Plan in 2005. The purpose of the Plan is to serve as a catalyst for a dialogue on
public policies needed to mitigate the natural hazards that affect the San Francisco Bay Area.
The overall strategy of the Plan is to utilize a multi-jurisdictional effort to maintain and enhance
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-18 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
the disaster resistance of the region, and to fulfill the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000 for all local governments to develop and adopt this type of plan.
Alameda County Emergency Operations Plan
The purpose of the Alameda County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is to establish policies
and procedures and assign responsibilities to effective management of emergency operations
within Alameda County.
The County’s responses to disasters is based on five phases:
1. Prevention;
2. Preparedness;
3. Response;
4. Recovery; and
5. Mitigation.
During each phase, there are specified activities, operational capabilities and effective
responses to a given disaster. The County’s Primary Emergency Operating Centers (EOC) is in
Dublin at 4985 Broder Blvd approximately one-mile northwest of the project site. The EOC is
equipped with emergency power generators, radios, telephones, maps, and can be staffed 24-
hours per day.
16.4.4 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies
associated with public services and utilities that are relevant to the project:
Guiding Policy 3.4.2.1: Provide active parks and facilities which are adequate to meet citywide
needs for open space, cultural, and sports facilities, as well as the local needs of the Eastern
Extended Planning Area.
Guiding Policy 3.4.2.2: Establish a trail system with connections to planned regional and sub-
regional systems, including north-south corridors such as East Bay Regional Park District’s trail
along Tassajara Creek north to Mt. Diablo State Park.
Implementing Policy 3.4.2.B.1: Require land dedication and improvements for the parks
designated in the General Plan for the Eastern Extended Planning Area and based on a standard
of 5 net acres per 1,000 residents. Collect in-lieu park fees as required by City policies.
Guiding Policy 4.4.1.A.1: Ensure that adequate solid waste disposal capacity is available, to
avoid constraining development, consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementing Policy 4.4.1.B.3: Prior to project approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that
capacity will exist in solid waste disposal facilities for their project prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Implementing Policy 4.4.1.B.4: Large scale projects should be required to submit a plan that
demonstrates how they will contribute toward the City’s State mandated diversion
requirement.
Guiding Policy 4.5.1.A.1: Expand sewage treatment and disposal capacity to avoid constraining
development consistent with the Dublin General Plan.
Implementing Policy 4.5.1.B.1: Prior to project approval, developers shall demonstrate that
adequate capacity will exist in sewage treatment and disposal facilities for their projects prior
to the issuance of building permits.
Guiding Policy 4.6.1.A.1: Base General Plan proposals on the assumption that water supplies
will be sufficient and that local wells could be used to supplement imported water if necessary.
Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.
Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1: Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for
stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board or any
subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of the
Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses.
Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to ensure site design that
minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.
Guiding Policy 12.3.1.A.1: Work with Zone 7 and DSRSD to secure an adequate water supply for,
and provide water delivery to, existing and future customers in Dublin.
Implementing Policy 12.3.1.B.1: In anticipation of planned future growth, continue working
with DSRSD and Zone 7 to plan and provide for sufficient future water supplies.
Guiding Policy 12.3.2.A.1: Increase water conservation efforts and strive to maximize water use
efficiency in existing residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and grounds.
Guiding Policy 12.3.2.A.2: Support DSRSD in extending recycled water service to established
areas of Dublin.
Guiding Policy 12.3.3.A.1: Promote the conservation of water resources in new development
Implementing Policy 12.3.3.B.1: Continue implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape
Regulations, which requires grouping plants with the same water requirements together
(hydrozoning), the installation of water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil
moisture-based irrigation controls, and the minimal use of turf.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-20 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementing Policy 12.3.3.B.2: Support DSRSD’s ongoing efforts to extend recycled water
infrastructure (“purple pipe”) to new locations.
Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.1: Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater
resources that serve the community.
Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.2: Protect water quality by minimizing stormwater runoff and providing
adequate stormwater facilities.
Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.3: To minimize flooding in existing and future development, design
stormwater facilities to handle design-year flows based on buildout of the General Plan.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.1: Support Zone 7’s efforts to complete planned regional storm
drainage improvements.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.2: With the goal of minimizing impervious surface area,
encourage design and construction of new streets to have the minimum vehicular travel lane
width possible while still meeting circulation, flow, and safety requirements for all modes of
transportation.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.3: Discourage additional parking over and above the required
minimum parking standards for any land use unless the developer can demonstrate a need for
additional parking.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.5: Review design guidelines and standard details to ensure that
developers can incorporate clean water runoff requirements into their projects.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.6: Maximize the runoff directed to permeable areas or to
stormwater storage by appropriate site design and grading, using appropriate detention and/or
retention structures, and orienting runoff toward permeable surfaces designed to manage
water flow.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.7: Review development plans to minimize impervious surfaces
and generally maximize infiltration of rainwater in soils, where appropriate. Strive to maximize
permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground throughsuchmeansas
bioretention areas, green strips, planter strips, decomposed granite, porous pavers, swales, and
other water-permeable surfaces. Require planter strips between the street and the sidewalk
within the community, wherever practical and feasible.
Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.8: Continue conducting construction site field inspections to
ensure proper erosion control and materials/waste management implementation to effectively
prohibit non-stormwater discharges.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs as
it relates to public services, utilities and service systems:
GOAL: To ensure that fire protection services in eastern Dublin are consistent with standards
maintained in the rest of the city.
Policy 8-5: Time the construction of new facilities to coincide with new service demand in order
to avoid periods of reduced service efficiency. The first station will be sited and construction
completed prior to completion of initial development in the planning area.
Program 8F: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms (e.g., Mello Roos District, developer
financing with reimbursement agreements, etc.) to cover upfront costs of capital improvements
(i.e., fire stations and related facilities and equipment).
Program 8H: Based on approval by the City, incorporate applicable Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority (DRFA) recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire
safety and prevention into the requirements for development approval. Require that the
following DPFA design standards are incorporated where appropriate:
Use of non-combustible roof materials in all new construction.
Available capacity of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI fire flow from project fire hydrants on
public water mains. For groupings of one-family and small two-family dwellings not
exceeding two stories in height, the fire flow requirements are a minimum of 1,000
GPM. Fire flow requirements for all other buildings will be calculated based on
building size, type of construction, and location.
Automatic fire alarm systems and sprinklers in all non-residential structures for
human use.
Compliance with DRFA and City minimum road widths, maximum street slopes,
parking recommendations, and secondary access road requirements.
GOAL: Provide adequate police services to the eastern Dublin planning area to ensure the
health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents, workers, and visitors.
Policy 8-4: Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise “beats” as needed in order to
establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in eastern Dublin.
Program 8E: Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department
recommendations on project design that affects traffic safety and crime prevention.
GOAL: To provide an adequate water system for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
Policy 9-1: Water Conservation. Require the following as conditions of project approval in
eastern Dublin:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-22 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Use of water-conserving devices such as low-flow showerheads, faucets, and toilets.
Support implementation of the DSRSD Water Use Reduction Plan and
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water conservation.
Require all developments to meet the BMPs of the Memorandum of Understanding
regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, of which DSRD is a signatory.
Water efficient irrigation systems within public rights-of-way, median islands, public
parks, recreation areas and golf course areas (see Program 9B on Water
Reclamation).
Drought resistant plant palettes within public rights-of-way, median islands, public
parks, recreation areas and golf course areas.
Ensure that highly invasive plant species that could out-compete native species and
threaten wildlife habitat are not used in these areas. Species which should be
prohibited include, but are not limited to: Acacia, Algerian Ivy, Bamboo, Mattress
Vine, Black Locust, Blue Gum Eucalyptus, Castor Bean, Cotoneaster, English Ivy,
French Broom, Fountain Grass, Giant Reed, German Ivy, Gorse, Ice Plant, Pampas
Grass, Periwinkle, Pyracantha, Scotch Broom, Spanish Broom, Tamarisk, Tree of
Heaven, and Tree Tobacco.
Water efficient irrigation and landscaping systems for residential, commercial,
institutional, and industrial areas in accordance with AB325.
Adoption of a water efficient landscape ordinance by the City of Dublin that will
apply to eastern Dublin development.
Encourage the use of recycled water during construction for compaction and dust
control.
Program 9B: Water Reclamation. Require the following as conditions of project approval in
eastern Dublin:
Implementation of DSRSD and Zone 7 findings and recommendations on uses of
reclaimed water to augment existing water supplies.
Construction of a recycled water distribution system in eastern Dublin as well as
necessary offsite facilities to support recycled water use. Constructionofsucha
recycled water system will require approval of the use of recycled water for
landscape irrigation by DSRSD, Zone 7 and the San Francisco Bay Area Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
Program 9E: DSRSD Standards. Require that design and construction of all water and recycled
water system facility improvements be in accordance with DSRSD policies, standards and
master plans.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-23
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Program 9F: Consistency With Resource Management Policies. Require the siting of water
system infrastructure to be consistent with the Resource Management Policies of this plan.
Program 9G: Implementation Responsibilities. Require the Developer to obtain proper
approvals; refer to attached Table 9.1, Water Service Matrix of Implementation responsibilities.
Program 9H: DSRSD Service. Require a “will-serve” letter from DSRSD prior to grading permit
approval.
GOAL: To provide adequate wastewater collection, treatment and disposal for the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area.
Program 9K: Recycled Water Distribution System. Require development within the Project to
fund a recycled water distribution system computer model reflecting the proposed Specific Plan
land uses and verify the conceptual backbone reclaimed water distribution system presented
on Figure 9.3.
Program 9M: Design Level Wastewater Investigation. Require eastern Dublin applicants to
prepare (in coordination with DSRSD) a detailed wastewater capacity investigation or
supplement the information in the Specific Plan, which reflects the phased development
approach matched against the allocation of sewer permits. Such an investigation shall include,
at a minimum, a thorough estimate of planned land uses at the site and estimated wastewater
flows to be generated at the site. Base the estimation of the wastewater flows for sewer
permits on the DSRSD approved wastewater flow factors.
Program 9N: DSRSD Service. Require a “will-serve” letter from DSRSD prior to grading permit
approval.
Program 9O: DSRSD Standards. Coordination with DSRSD Policies, Standards and Master Plans.
Require design and construction of all wastewater systems to be in accordance with DSRSD
service policies, procedures, design and construction standards and master plans.
Program 9P: Onsite Wastewater Treatment. In conjunction with DSRSD, discourage onsite
wastewater treatment systems such as package plants and septic systems in accordance with
the policies of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Program 9Q: Connection to Public Sewers. Require all developments in the Specific Plan be
connected to public sewers. Exceptions to this requirement, in particular septic tank systems,
will only be allowed upon receipt of written approval from Alameda County Environmental
Health Department and DSRSD.
Program 9R: Implementation Responsibilities. Require developers obtain proper approvals;
refer to attached Table 9.2, Wastewater Service Matrix of Implementation Responsibilities.
GOAL: To provide adequate storm drainage facilities for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-24 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Policy 9-7: Require drainage facilities that will minimize any increased potential for erosion or
flooding.
GOAL: To reduce the total flow of waste to landfill by promoting waste reduction, source
separation, curbside collection, and other recycling alternatives to landfilling.
Policy 8-8: Encourage the separation of recyclable materials from the general waste stream by
supporting the development of a recycling collection system and facilities.
Program 8K: Prepare a solid waste management plan for eastern Dublin which includes the
following:
Specific areas designated for the collection of recyclable materials in multifamily and
commercial areas, with coordination as needed for pick-up.
GOAL: To provide a full complement of community services and facilities as needed in eastern
Dublin.
Policy 8-9: Coordinate with Pacific Gas and Electric and Pacific Bell in planning and scheduling
future facilities which will serve eastern Dublin.
Program 8-L: Require project applicants to provide documentation that electric, gas, and
telephone service can be provided to all new development.
City of Dublin Municipal Code
The City of Dublin Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the City. The Municipal Code is
organized by Title, Chapter, and Section.
The City’s Fire Code, which is Section 5.08.020, regulates permit processes, emergency access,
hazardous material handling, and fire protection systems, including automatic sprinkler services,
fire extinguishers, and fire alarms. The Fire Code contains specialized technical regulations
related to fire and life safety in the city.
City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted in 2015 by the City Council.
The goal of the plan is to build and maintain parks and facilities that both enhance the positive
image of the City and meet the needs of the City into the future. The Plan establishes goals,
standards, guiding policies, and action programs to guide the City of Dublin in the acquisition,
development, and management (operations and maintenance) of Dublin’s park and recreation
facilities through the ultimate build-out of the City in accordance with the General Plan.
Local Impact Fees
Pursuant to SB 50 and Government Code Section 65994, Dublin Unified School District charges
development fees on a per-square-foot basis for commercial and industrial uses.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-25
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Additionally, the City has fire, public facilities, noise mitigation and traffic impact fees.
16.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
16.5.1 Significance Criteria
The following significance criteria for public services, utilities, & service systems were derived
from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria
have been amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements
and the full range of impacts of the project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered 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 following public
services: Fire protection, Police protection, schools, parks, other public facilities.
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
Require or result in the construction of a new water storm drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
effects.
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs.
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-26 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
Public Services
Police and fire service providers were contacted to ascertain the current average response
times, estimated response times, and current service levels that would be utilized in this impact
analysis. Impacts to these public services would be considered significant if average response
times, service ratios or other performance standards could not be met, such that the
construction of new or expanded facilities would be required to maintain said ratios, response
times and/or other performance standards. The evaluation of school impacts is limited to
those effects with the potential to result in the need for construction of new classrooms or
placement of portable classrooms.
Utilities
Utility providers were contacted to ascertain utility services available to the project. Impacts to
these utilities would be considered significant if utility service standards could not be met, such
that the construction of new or expanded facilities would be required to maintain availability of
utilities.
16.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations
The project would be located within City limits and would be provided solid waste collection
and disposal services by a licensed contractor requiring compliance with federal, state, and
local solid waste regulations. Therefore, there would be no impact.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-27
Draft EIR
10/23/18
16.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Project
Impact PSU-1: Introduce in a new service population requiring the construction of new or
altered police, fire protection, or emergency medical services facilities (Class III).
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The nearest fire station (Station No. 17 is located 0.6 miles from the project site. Using an
average travel speed of 25 miles per hour, a fire engine dispatched from the station would
reach the project in less than two minutes, which is less than their eight-minute average for 90
percent of all incidents and well within the allowable travel time to meet the Fire Department's
response time objective of five minutes for single unit and ten minutes for multiple unit
responses to the source. The Alameda County Fire Department indicated that it would be
expected to serve the project with existing stations. The project site would be served with
vehicle access point from all surrounding roadways and thus would meet California Fire Code
requirements for emergency access.
Although the addition of new residents and commercial services to the project site would
increase the demand for fire services, implementation of the project is not anticipated to have
an adverse effect on response times for fire protection and emergency services and would not
affect the Fire Department’s ability to serve the project.
The project would be required to comply with all applicable State building and fire codes.
These codes require a development plan that provides for fire protection systems, ingress and
egress, maximum occupancy limitations, and construction techniques and materials dictated by
the proposed use of the structure (refer to the City of Dublin’s Municipal Code, Chapter 5.08,
Fire Code). Specifically, the Fire Department would review the development plan for
conformance with locally-defined performance standards, including the California Fire Code, as
adopted by the Fire Department, and California Building Code standards. Site access, capacity
of the water mains, road widths and turning radii, road grades, surfacing, load bearing
capability, sprinkler systems, stand pipes, smoke detectors, and fire alarms would also be
reviewed for consistency with Fire Department standards.
The project will be required to fund on-site and off-site improvements consistent with existing
City regulations and requirements. The City would collect public facilities fees (per Chapter
7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code) from the project applicant to help off-set fire
protection-related capital improvements and on-going maintenance expenses incurred by the
project prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Police Services
The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, acting as Dublin Police Services, would serve the project
with law enforcement services. The project would require additional police protection services
associated with additional residential dwelling units and commercial uses. The project would
be expected to generate 400 to 500 emergency calls annually.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-28 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Although the addition of new residents and commercial services to the project site would
increase the demand for police services, implementation of the project is not anticipated to
have an adverse effect on response times for police services and would not affect the Sheriff’s
Office ability to serve the project.
The project would be required to comply with Chapter 7.32.300 (Building Security) and Chapter
7.32.310 (Nonresidential building security) of the City’s Building Code, which includes building
standards aimed at reducing law enforcement calls within the City. In addition, the City would
collect public facilities fees (Chapter 7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code) to help off-set
police service capital improvements and on-going maintenance expenses incurred by the
project prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that the project will not cause impacts
on law enforcement services.
For these reasons, the project would not trigger the need to construct new police, fire, or
emergency facilities or alter existing facilities. Therefore, impacts would be Class III, less than
significant.
Impact PSU-2: Require the construction of new or expanded educational facilities (Class III).
The project would result in the construction of up to 680 residential units. The project site is
served by Kolb Elementary School (0.5 miles east) south of Gleason Drive and Green Elementary
School (0.8 miles northeast) north of Gleason Drive. It is also served by Fallon Middle School,
located 0.5 miles northeast, and Dublin High School located four miles to the west.
Project vs. Projected Student Enrollment
Using the student generation rates identified in Table 16-6: Dublin Unified School District
Student Generation Rates by Housing Type, the total estimated number of students attending
public schools were calculated for the project, as shown in Table 16-7: Estimated Project
Student Generation vs. DUSD Projections. The analysis indicates that there would be 168
elementary students, 104 middle school students, and 58 high school students, for a total of
330 new students.
Table 16-6: Dublin Unified School District Student Generation Rates by Housing Type
School Level
Housing Type
Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Multi Family
Elementary School (K-5) 0.464 0.317 0.142
Middle School (6-8) 0.178 0.125 0.049
High School (9-12) 0.159 0.072 0.074
Source: DUSD, 7 Year Population Projection February 5, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-29
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-7: Estimated Project Student Generation vs. DUSD Projections
Residential Type
Students Generated
Total Elementary School Middle School High School
180 Single Family Units (Detached) 84 57 26 167
200 Medium-High Density Units (attached) 36 25 10 71
300 Multifamily Units 48 22 22 92
Total (A) 168 104 58 330
DUSD Projected Increase for the Project Site 1 (B) 145 85 93 323
Difference (A-B) 23 19 (35) 7
Notes:
1. Includes Study Areas 106, 120A, and 102.
Source: DUSD, 7 Year Population Projection February 5, 2018.
The DUSD’s 7-Year Student Population Projections (Davis, 2018), projected future student
population by Study Area based on future anticipated residential development between 2017
and 2024. Proposed residential development in project site includes Study Areas 106, 120A,
and 102. Study Area 102 includes a portion of the project site, however, the remainder the
Study Area is built out.
As shown in Table 16-7: Estimated Project Student Generation vs. DUSD Projections, the
project would generate more elementary and middle-school students than projected, but less
high-school students, with a net total of seven more students than projected. However,
regardless of the projections, the DUSD is experiencing student capacity constraints, to which
the project would contribute, as described below for each school that would be served by the
project site.
Kolb Elementary School
With a projected net of growth of about 34.4%, the Kolb Elementary School (ES) attendance
area is expected to have the sixth largest growth at the TK-5 level by Fall 2024. In Fall 2017,
Kolb ES had 675 TK-5 students living within its attendance area. Kolb Elementary School is
projected to grow by 232 TK-5 students resulting with a total student population of 907 by Fall
of 2024. The District indicates that similar to other areas in Dublin, most of the projected
growth is due to the 548 residential units that are anticipated over the next seven years, which
includes growth associated with the project site. An actual school capacity of 938 gives Kolb
just enough room to absorb the TK-5 resident student projected growth, however, portable
classrooms may be needed if the District plans to take in a significant amount of transfers over
the projected time frame.
Green Elementary School
Green ES is projected to experience the least amount of growth over the next seven years. As
of Fall 2017, there were 840 TK-5 students living within Green’s attendance area. This area is
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-30 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
projected to experience a net growth of 176 TK-5 students, or a 21% net growth. A relatively
small amount of residential development is projected within this attendance area as this area is
largely built-out. Most of the growth in this area is attributed to the positive in-migration
pattern that the District has been experiencing over the last three years. The school currently
has a capacity of 893 students. However, due to potential expansion of the school’s service
boundary, the school could reach its capacity by Fall 2020.
Elementary Schools District-Wide
With a total projected elementary student population of 8,282 by Fall 2024 and a net growth of
2,326 TK-5 students, some of the existing elementary schools within the District will not be able
to absorb the projected student growth. Projections indicate the potential need for one flexible
K-8 site, aside from the Cottonwood Creek K-8, be constructed within the eastern or central
portion of the District where most of the student growth is expected to occur.
Cottonwood Creek K-8
When the Cottonwood Creek K-8 school opens next Fall 2018, it will help relieve the student
population growth that has been and will continue to occur over the next seven years. As of
Fall 2017 this attendance area had a total student population of 176 grade 6-8 students. This
area is projected to double its 6-8 student population to 375 grade 6-8 students through Fall
2024. A combined total of K-8 student population of 1,048 is projected for this area by Fall
2024. The Cottonwood Creek K-8 school is projected to accommodate this student population
through Fall 2024.
Fallon Middle School
As of Fall 2017, there were 1,408 6-8 students living within the Fallon Middle School attendance
area. It is projected that this area could grow by as many as 427 grade 6-8 students through
Fall 2024 when a total of 1,835 grade 6-8 students are expected due to a projected 1,554 new
residential units, which includes growth associated with the project site. Another growth factor
is the larger class size “bubble” in the elementary schools that will eventually graduate through
to the middle schools. While Cottonwood Creek K-8 will absorb a portion of Fallon’s grade 6-8
resident population, Fallon Middle school is still projected to reach its designed capacity by Fall
2020.
Middle-Schools District-Wide
Over the next seven years, the District’s 6-8 student population is expected to continue to
grow. Currently (Fall 2017), the DUSD accommodates 2,532 6-8 students, which is project to
reach 3,945 6-8 students by 2024 (1,413 additional students). Projected net new 6-8 student
growth through 2024 is expected to be 766 at Wells MS, 427 at Fallon MS, and 199 at
Cottonwood Creek K-8. The addition of Cottonwood Creek K-8 will help absorb some of the
projected middle school student population growth within the southeastern portion of the
District. However, projected demand indicates the potential need to construct one more
flexible K-8 site within the central portion of the District where most of the resident student
growth is expected to occur.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-31
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Dublin High School
As of Fall 2017, Dublin High School had a total of 2,629 grade 9-12 students within its
attendance area (the entire District boundary). It is projected that the District will have about
4,434 grade 9-12 students living within the boundary by Fall of 2024. This represents a net
growth of 1,805 students (68.7%). The District indicates that much of this projected growth is
due to the 4,848 residential units that are projected for construction by Fall 2024 (which
includes growth associated with the project site), as well as the “bubble” of larger class sizes at
the elementary grades that are due to graduate through to high school.
Based on these projections, Dublin High School could be faced with a student enrollment of
more than 4,595 by 2024, 1,415 students more than its current capacity of 3,180. This
projected demand indicates the need to construct an additional high school, preferably in the
eastern or central portion of the District where most of the resident student growth is expected
to occur.
To address this need, the DUSD Board of Trustees directed the Superintendent to create a
Community Review Committee to review, analyze, and recommend potential land options for a
future high school. Their final report, Community Review Committee Report: Study of Potential
Sites for a Future High School, dated February 6, 2018, looked at 11 sites. Of these, five sites
were recommended for further consideration, namely DiManto A and DiManto B&C (both part
of the project site), as well as Fallon Middle School, Fallon Sports Park and the Promenade.
On June 12, 2018, the DUSD Board approved the selection of the 23.4-acre Promenade site as
their preferred location for the development of a new high school with a proposed enrollment
of up to 2,500 students. The site would be accessed from both Central Parkway and Dublin
Boulevard and would include multi-story buildings, sport fields, an internal access road, and
approximately 400 parking spaces. Construction is estimated to be completed by 2022.
School Impact Fees
In accordance with Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code, the project would be
required to pay school impact fees at the time of the building permit issuance. The DUSD
currently implements a Level 2 fee of $11.20 per square foot of residential development and
$0.56 per square foot for commercial and industrial uses. These fees are used by the DUSD to
mitigate impacts associated with long-term operation and maintenance of school facilities.
The project applicant’s fees would be determined at the time of the building permit issuance
and would reflect the most current fee amount established by the DUSD. School fees from
residential and commercial uses would help fund necessary school service and facilities
improvements to accommodate anticipated population and school enrollment growth within
the DUSD service area and would allow for the DUSD to allocate these funds as deemed
necessary. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, payment of development fees is “full
and complete mitigation” for impacts on schools. Therefore, the increased demand on the
DUSD is considered a less than significant impact (Class III) on school services, and no mitigation
is required.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-32 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact PSU-3: Create a need for new or expanded park and recreational facilities (Class III).
Implementation of the project would increase the demand for neighborhood and community
parks due to the projected increase in the residential population generated by the project. As
shown in Table 16-8: Community and Neighborhood Park Requirements, the project would not
provide enough neighborhood or community parks (based on 680 residential units being
constructed).
Table 16-8: Community and Neighborhood Park Requirements
Park Type
City Standard
(acres/ 1,000 population)
Park
Requirement1 Parks Provided2 Net Difference
Community Park 3.3 5.72 0.20 (5.52)
Neighborhood Park 1.7 2.95 2.47 (0.48)
Total 5.0 8.67 2.67 (6.0)
1. Based on 680 residential units; 380 Single-Family/Townhomes and 300 Multifamily
2. Sheet L0.2, Project Plans dated May 16, 2018
The Parks and Community Services Department Public Facilities Fee would be applied to
development at the project site. The Public Facilities Fees would vary according to the size of
residential units, the location of the development, and a credit for the dedication of land and
funding for construction of the parks. With payment of the City’s public facilities fees (Chapter
7.78 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code), the project would have a less than significant impact
(Class III) on park and recreation facilities in the City, and no mitigation is required.
Impact PSU- 4: Require new or expanded water supplies or water treatment facilities (Class III).
DSRSD would serve the project with potable water service. The project would connect to the
existing water lines located with the surrounding roadways. Connections would be looped for
redundancy.
DSRSD has adopted standard unit water use factors for use in potable water demands based on
proposed land use, number of dwelling units or square footage, and whether recycled water is
proposed for exterior water uses. The DSRSD calculated that the interior water use factor for
the Residential - Medium Density residential uses would be 255 gallons per day per dwelling
unit (gpd/du) and the factor for Residential (Medium-High Density) would be 160 gpd/du. The
interior water use factor calculated for the Residential (High Density) use, a part of the Mixed
Use proposed for the project, would have an interior water factor of 135 gpd/du. Commercial
Retail, also a part of the Mixed-Use proposed for the project, would have a factor of 0.156
gpd/ft2 for interior water use and 267.8 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre) for exterior water
use. Based on a recent evaluation of actual potable water use for hotels within the DSRSD
service area from 2013-2017, DSRSD determined that hotel water demand per hotel room is
115 gpd. Based on this, the Retail potable water use factor for the project increased from 0.14
gpd/ft2 to 0.156 gpd/ft2 to account for additional potable water use for up to 240 hotel rooms.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-33
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As shown in Table 16-9: Project Potable Water Demand, the project would generate a potable
water demand of 229 acre-feet per year (afy).
Table 16-9: Project Potable Water Demand
Use
Interior Water Use
Factor
Exterior Water Use
Factor
Potable Water
Demand (afy)
Residential Medium Density 255 gpd/du -- 54.7
Residential Medium-High Density 160 gpd/du -- 38.1
Residential High Density (part of Mixed Use)
135 gpd/du --46.7
Commercial-Retail (part of Mixed Use) 0.156 gpd/ft2 267.8 gpd/acre 19.7
Commercial-Retail 0.156 gpd/ft2 267.8 gpd/acre 70.0
Total 229
Notes:
1. Land uses, areas and quantities per At Dublin land Use Plan- Proposed (sheet A0.3) dated January 17,2018.
2. The Commercial -Retail land use Includes 150,000 square feet of hotel (240 rooms).
3. Potable water use based on DSRSD unit water demand factors (2016 DSRSD Water System Master Plan).
4. The Commercial -Retail interior water use factor Is higher than the 0.14 gpd/ft2 provided for in the 2016 DSRSD Water System
Master Plan, as it accounts for a hotel water use factor of 115 gpd/room (based on historical hotel water use data within the
DSRSD water service area).
5. Potable water demand includes unaccounted-for water, assuming 6% potable water loss (per the 2016 DSRSD Water System
Master Plan).
6. Recycled water use assumed for irrigation for all proposed land uses.
7. Recycled water factors (% irrigable and % Irrigated with recycled water) based on 2016 Water System Master Plan. Unit irrigation
demand assumed to be 48 inches per year.
8. Recycled water factor for Residential High Density/Commercial - Retail corresponds to Mixed Use land use (2016 Water System
Master Plan).
Source: DSRSD, At Dublin Project Water Supply Assessment, February 2018.
DSRSD operates an extensive water recycling program. Recycled water is produced from
DSRSD’s regional wastewater treatment facilities and distributed to water customers in its
service area. It is assumed that recycled water would be used for project irrigation if available.
DSRSD has adopted standard unit water use factors for use in recycled water demands based
on proposed land use and acreage, residential density, plant factor, and percent of irrigable
area and percent assumed to be irrigated with recycled water. Table 16-10: Project Recycled
Water Demand shows the project demand for recycled water would be 28 afy.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-34 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-10: Project Recycled Water Demand
Use
Percent
of Area
Irrigable
Percent of
Irrigation
with
Recycled
Water
Unit
Demand,
inches/yr.
Normal
Irrigation
Demand
(afy)
Plant Type
Factor
Recycled
Water
Demand
(afy)
Residential Medium
Density 15% 30% 48 4.2 0.9 3.8
Residential Medium-High
Density 10% 80% 48 4.5 0.9 4.0
Residential High Density
(part of Mixed Use) 15% 100% 48 9.6 0.9 8.6
Commercial-Retail (part of
Mixed Use)
Commercial-Retail 15% 100% 48 13.9 0.8 11.1
Total 28
Notes:
1. Land uses, areas and quantities per AT Dublin land Use Plan- Proposed (sheet A0.3) dated January 17,2018.
2. The Commercial -Retail land use Includes 150,000 square feet of hotel (240 rooms).
3. Potable water use based on DSRSD unit water demand factors (2016 DSRSD Water System Master Plan).
4. The Commercial -Retail interior water use factor Is higher than the 0.14 gpd/ft2 provided for in the 2016 DSRSD Water System
Master Plan, as it accounts for a hotel water use factor of 115 gpd/room (based on historical hotel water use data within the
DSRSD water service area).
5. Potable water demand includes unaccounted-for water, assuming 6% potable water loss (per the 2016 DSRSD Water System
Master Plan).
6. Recycled water use assumed for irrigation for all proposed land uses.
7. Recycled water factors (% irrigable and % Irrigated with recycled water) based on 2016 Water System Master Plan. Unit irrigation
demand assumed to be 48 inches per year.
8. Recycled water factor for Residential High Density/Commercial-Retail corresponds to Mixed Use land use (2016 Water System
Master Plan).
Source: DSRSD, and Kimley-Horn, 2018.
According to the Zone 7 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the 2015 water
demand was projected to be 72,100 afy, and 2035 water demand was projected to be 92,800
afy. The sustainable yield for the Main Basin, the portion of the Livermore Valley Groundwater
Basin serving Zone 7, is 13,400 afy, which is approximately 11 percent of the operational
storage.
The UWMP indicates that potable water demand for the site based on existing land uses is 185
afy. As shown in Table 16-9: Project Potable Water Demand, the project potable water demand
would be 44 afy higher than the demand included for the site in the UWMP. However, as
concluded in the At Dublin Water Supply Assessment (see Appendix I), the DSRSD net resulting
potable water demand is lower than the potable water demand identified in the UWMP due to
the reduced potable water demands from four proposed developments that were included the
UWMP that are no longer being pursued, The Green, Grafton Plaza, Dublin Ranch Subarea 3,
and Gale Ranch (Amarante).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-35
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Furthermore, Zone 7 is planning for water supply programs and projects to meet the water
demands of its customers through buildout of their adopted General Plans. According to the
UWMP, Zone 7 does not anticipate any water supply shortage during Normal, Single Dry, and
Multiple Dry water years through 2035. DSRSD plans to continue to manage potable water
demands within its water service area through conservation efforts and its recycled water
program. However, if supply shortages should occur, DSRSD may invoke its Water Shortage
Contingency and Drought Plan, described in its UWMP. Therefore, DSRSD finds that the
projected potable water demands for the project can be met by DSRSD during Normal, Single
Dry, and Multiple Dry water years for a 20-year projection with no water supply shortage.
The recycled water demand for the site based on existing land uses is seven afy. As shown in
Table 16-10: Project Recycled Water Demand, the project potable water demand would be
higher than the demand identified in the UWMP. The availability of source water limits
production of recycled water, especially during peak demand periods. DSRSD anticipates that
production constraints on recycled water will be resolved, however, the irrigation demands for
the project can be met with potable water through the potable water offset described above
during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry water years for a 20-year projection with no water
shortage. In any event, if sufficient recycled water supplies are not available, DSRSD has
adequate potable water supplies available to meet the project’s irrigation demands.
Each water district served by Zone 7 has a “Groundwater Pumping Quota” (GPQ). Averages are
maintained by allowance of a carryover limited to 20% of the GPQ. Water Agencies must pay a
recharge fee for any groundwater pumped exceeding their GPQ and any carryover. Zone 7
pumps only water that has been recharged as part of its artificial recharge program using its
surface water supplies. Zone 7 only utilizes its stored groundwater under emergency or
drought conditions, when there may be insufficient surface water supply available, or in a
deliberate effort to help reduce the salt loading in the Main Basin. Zone 7 plans to recharge
9,200 afy on average, which means that Zone 7 can pump an equivalent 9,200 afy on average
from the Main Basin. The demand of approximately 257 afy of water generated by the project
would not exceed the capacity of the groundwater production system, and no new wells or
treatment plants would be required. Therefore, construction and operational impacts to water
supply would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact PSU-5: Require the construction or expansion of new wastewater treatment facilities
(Class III).
Conservatively, if all of the project’s water use exits the project site as wastewater, the project
would generate 264,209 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd). This wastewater would exit this
site via existing connections to the wastewater line installed beneath Gleason Drive, Dublin
Boulevard, Brannigan Street and Tassajara Road. Wastewater lines would be constructed as a
part of the project beneath Central Avenue.
The project’s wastewater would be accommodated within the DSRSD Wastewater Treatment
Plant. Per the DSRSD 2017 Wastewater Treatment and Biosolids Facilities Master Plan, DSRSD’s
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-36 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Wastewater Treatment Plant has a total capacity of 75 million gallons per day (mgd). As
discussed above, DSRSD’s WSA indicates that the water demand for the project would exceed
the water demand DSRSD accounted for on the project site resulting from existing land uses,
but that the increased wastewater demand is offset by the reduced water demands of projects
included in the UWMP. As discussed in Impact PSU-4, these planned developments have a
reduced water demand than what had been previously accounted for within the DSRSD’s
assumptions. Thus, the wastewater generated by the project site would also be offset by the
net reduction in water demand resulting from the four developments discussed above.
Therefore, construction and operational impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
Impact PS-6: Require the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities (Class III).
The rate and amount of surface runoff is determined by multiple factors, including the amount
and intensity of precipitation; amount of other imported water that enters a watershed; and
amount of precipitation and imported water that infiltrates to the groundwater. Infiltration is
determined by several factors, including soil type, antecedent soil moisture, rainfall intensity,
the amount of impervious surfaces within a watershed, and topography. The rate of surface
runoff is largely determined by topography and the intensity of rainfall over a given period of
time.
Based on preliminary engineering plans and as discussed in Chapter 12: Hydrology and Water
Quality, the project would result in 51.32 acres of net new impervious surface on the project
site, and would entail construction of a new stormwater collection, retention, and treatment
system. This would be accomplished through construction of on-site bio-retention, silva cells,
and landscaping. Based on preliminary estimates, post-construction stormwater flows for a
10-year storm event would be 11.63 cubic feet per second, compared to 12.37 cubic feet per
second under existing conditions. Table 12-2: Stormwater Flows for a 10-Year Storm Event
summarizes the preliminary calculation of stormwater flows that would result from the project.
Given that post stormwater run-off would not exceed existing pre stormwater runoff
conditions, impacts from the project would be less than significant (Class III).
Impact PSU-7: Generate solid waste that would exceed the capacity of area landfills (Class III).
Solid waste generated by operation of the project is shown in Table 16-11: Proposed Project
Estimated Daily Solid Waste Generation.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-37
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-11: Proposed Project Estimated Daily Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Unit
lbs. per Unit
per Day1
Total lbs. per
Day
Commercial
Retail 215,000 sf 0.046 9,890
General
Commercial 80,000 sf 0.013 1,040
Residential 680 du 12.23 8,316
Hotel 240 units 4.00 960
Total -- -- 20,206
Notes:
1. U.S. Census 2009–2013 American Community Survey and CalRecycle, 2015b
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2018
The 20,206 pounds of daily solid waste generated by the project would represent 0.18 percent
of the Altamont Landfill permitted maximum daily throughput of 11,150 tons per day. As
described above, the Altamont Landfill has adequate capacity.
The project would also generate waste during the construction phase. As stated above,
CalGREEN Section 4.408, Construction Waste Reduction Disposal and Recycling, mandates that
in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance, a minimum of 65 percent of non-hazardous
construction (and demolition) debris must be recycled or salvaged. Adherence to the Building
Code would reduce total waste generated by demolition and construction, and the waste would
be appropriately sorted disposed at landfills with adequate capacity.
Construction and operational impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
16.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic area for the analysis of cumulative public service and utility service impacts is
the service area of provider.
Impact PSU-8: Contribute to cumulatively considerable public services, utilities and service
system impacts (Class III).
Public Services
Regarding police and fire protection services, the General Plan includes provisions to provide
adequate public services at projected buildout. The project, combined with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not exceed those projections, and impacts to
police and fire protection services would be less than significant.
Regarding schools, the Dublin Unified School District is nearing capacity for the majority of its
schools by 2024. State law deems new developments’ payment of the fees imposed by the
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-38 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
DUSD, the amounts of which are restricted by law, adequate mitigation to address impacts to
public schools. Developers of present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be
required to pay these fees and therefore impacts to schools would be less than significant.
Utilities
Regarding water demand, the DSRSD has analyzed water demand through 2035—inclusive of
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects—and finds that adequate entitlement
and groundwater pumping capacity exists to serve that development (See Appendix I – Water
Supply Assessment).
Wastewater generation from cumulative projects would similarly be accommodated within the
DSRSD’s Wastewater Treatment Facility’s total capacity of 17 million gallons per day (mgd), well
above their current average treatment rates of 10.5 mgd during dry-weather and 10.9 mgd
during wet-weather.
Regarding stormwater, the project would ensure that no net increase in stormwater would
leave the project site during a peak storm event, and would avoid cumulatively significant
stormwater impacts to downstream waterways at times when capacity is most constrained.
The project would implement standard pollution prevention measures during construction to
ensure that downstream water quality impacts are minimized to the greatest extent possible.
In addition, the project would provide water quality measures to prevent pollution during
project operations. Stormwater facilities in the project vicinity either have or will be required
to have capacity to serve both the project and planned future development in the service area.
Increases in runoff flow and volume from future development must be managed so that the
post-project runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, in accordance
with Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g. Therefore, the project, in conjunction with
other planned and approved projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related
to storm drainage
Regarding electricity and gas, their impacts are addressed in Chapter 17 Energy Consumption.
Lastly, the Altamont Landfill has estimated a closure year of 2045, which is based upon
anticipated tipping tonnage and volume, as well as capacity. Solid waste generation from past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be accommodated within those
capacities.
In conclusion, cumulative impacts to public services, utilities and service systems would be less
than significant (Class III).
16.5.5 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Table 16-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Public Services summarizes the
environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the project
with regard to public services.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems | Page 16-39
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 16-12: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact PSU-1: Introduce in a new
service population requiring the
construction of new or altered
police, fire protection, or emergency
medical services facilities (Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU-2: Require construction
of new or expanded educational
facilities (Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU-3: Create a need for
new or expanded park and
recreational facilities (Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU-3: Require new or
expanded water supplies or water
treatment facilities (Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU- 4: Require new or
expanded water treatment facilities
(Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU-5: Require the
construction or expansion of new
wastewater treatment facilities
(Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PS-6: Require the
construction or expansion of
stormwater drainage facilities (Class
III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU-7: Generate solid waste
that would exceed the capacity of
area landfills (Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
Impact PSU-8: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable public
services, utilities and service system
impacts (Class III).
Less than
Significant None required.
16.6 References
CalRecycle. 2015a. Solid Waste Facilities, Sites, and Operation. Available at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/
CalRecycle. 2015b. Waste Characterization. Service Sector: Estimate Solid Waste Generation
and Disposal Rates. Available at:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-16-40 | Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
Draft EIR
10/23/18
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Service.htm. Accessed
October 15, 2015.
Ciceron, Ferdinand. 2008. Sanitary Sewer Design Standards. City of Oakland. Engineering
Design & ROW Management Division. Department of Engineering and Construction.
Community & Economic Development Agency.
Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2018. AT Dublin Project Water Supply Assessment.
Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2018. AT Dublin Project Utilities Analysis.
Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2015. Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
http://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/plans-studies
Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2017. Wastewater Treatment and Biosolids Facilities
Master Plan. Available at: http://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/plans-studies
Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2016. Water System Master Plan. Available at:
http://www.dsrsd.com/about-us/library/plans-studies
Dublin Unified School District, 7-Year Student Population Projections, February 5, 2018
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2012. Electric Power Mix Delivered to Retail Customers. Available
online: http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/electric/energymix/.
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2015a. Company Profile. Available online:
http://www.pge.com/en/about/company/profile/index.page.
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2015b. Gas Transmission Pipelines. Web page:
http://www.pge.com/en/safety/systemworks/gas/transmissionpipelines/index.page.
Waste Management, Inc., 2018. Sustainability. Available at:
http://altamontlandfill.wm.com/sustainability/index.jsp. Accessed February 20, 2018.
Zone 7 Water Agency. 2015. Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
http://www.zone7water.com/images/pdf_docs/water_supply/urban_water_mgmt_pla
n_2015.pdf
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17 Transportation & Circulation
17.1 Introduction
This section describes environmental effects on transportation and circulation that would be
caused by implementation of the project. Information used to prepare this section is
referenced from the following resources:
Aerial photography
Project application and related materials
Alameda County Transportation Commission, Congestion Management Program 2017
Caltrans, Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies 2002
City of Dublin, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2014
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Final EIR, 1994 updated 2016
City of Dublin, General Plan 1985 amended 2017
City of Dublin, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan 2013
City of Dublin, Dublin IKEA Final Transportation Assessment January 2018
City of Livermore, General Plan 2014
City of Pleasanton, General Plan 2009
City of Pleasanton, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan 2010
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000.
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010.
Caltrans, Highway Design Manual (HDM) 6th Edition
Tri-Valley Transportation Council, Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for
Routes of Regional Significance 2017
17.2 Scoping Issues Addressed
During the public comment scoping period for the project the following comments related to
transportation and circulation were received and are addressed in this section:
Project impacts on traffic and transportation
Efforts to reduce vehicles miles traveled (VMT)
Evaluate the elimination of Northside Drive and the shifting of large truck traffic for
Lowe’s Home Improvement
Evaluate the left turn from Gleason Drive onto Tassajara Road
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-2 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.3 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on transportation and circulation conditions in the project
area.
17.3.1 Existing Roadway Network
The project area is shown in Figure 17-1: Study Intersections. Regional access to the project
site is from Interstate 580 (I-580). Regional project traffic is anticipated to primarily use the I-
580 ramps at Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. Local roadways serving the
project site include: Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Central Parkway, Brannigan Street and
Gleason Drive. Project driveways would be located on Gleason Drive, Central Parkway, Dublin
Boulevard, Tassajara Road, and Brannigan Street. Additional details are provided below for the
existing street and highway system including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
State Highways
Interstate 580 (I-580)
I-580 is part of the interstate freeway system and is located directly to the south of the project
site. I-580 extends east-west connecting the project to the San Francisco Bay Area in the west
and the City of Livermore in the east. The posted speed limit on I-580 is 65 miles per hour (mph)
in the project area.
I-580 express lanes were recently opened in 2016 and are in operation Monday through Friday
from 5:00am to 8:00pm. I-580 is a designated route of regional significance in the Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance.
Principal Arterials
Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard is an east-west principal arterial that bisects the southern portion of the
project site. This roadway serves existing residential, office, and retail land uses. A Kaiser
medical office building is currently under construction on the undeveloped parcel south of
Dublin Boulevard between Keegan Street and the existing Fallon Gateway retail center.
Construction has also begun on a residential development (Apex Homes) south of Dublin
Boulevard and east of Grafton Street.
On-street parking is not permitted along this roadway and the posted speed limit is 45 mph in
the project area. Dublin Boulevard is a divided roadway that varies between four lanes and six
lanes in the project area.
Sidewalks exist along both sides of the roadway in the project area, except for along the project
frontage, as well as other undeveloped parcels west of the project area.
Class II bike lanes typically exist along Dublin Boulevard, except along the project frontage and
other undeveloped parcels west of the project area.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Tassajara Road
Tassajara Road is a north-south principal arterial extending along the project site (west side). It
provides access to Camino Tassajara to the north, which connects to the City of San Ramon and
unincorporated Contra Costa County. I-580 eastbound and westbound ramps are located on
this roadway.
On-street parking is not permitted on this road and the posted speed limit is 45 mph in the
project area. North of Somerset Lane, the roadway varies between four divided lanes and two
undivided lanes. It is a five-lane divided roadway from Somerset Lane to Cascade Creek
Lane/Dublin Ranch Drive (two northbound lanes, three southbound lanes), a four-lane divided
roadway from Cascade Creek Lane/Dublin Ranch Drive to Central Parkway, a five-lane divided
roadway (two northbound lanes, three southbound lanes) from Central Parkway to I-580
ramps, and a six-lane divided roadway from I-580 ramps south into Pleasanton.
Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes exist along most of Tassajara Road. No sidewalks exist along
the Project frontage.
Hacienda Drive
Hacienda Drive is a north-south principal arterial located west of the project site and extends
approximately two and a half miles from the City of Dublin in the north, to the City of
Pleasanton in the south. The roadway connects nearby offices, corporate campuses, and retail
to local single family and multifamily residential land uses. I-580 eastbound and westbound
ramps are located on this roadway. A new IKEA store is proposed west of Hacienda Drive, east
of Arnold Road, and between Martinelli Way to the north and I-580 to the south.
On-street parking is not permitted on this road and the posted speed limit is 35 mph. It is a
three-lane divided roadway (two northbound lanes, one southbound lane) from Gleason Drive
to Central Parkway, a five-lane divided roadway (two northbound lanes, three southbound
lanes) from Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard, and a six-lane divided roadway from Dublin
Boulevard south into Pleasanton.
Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes exist along both sides of this roadway.
Minor Arterials
Brannigan Street
Brannigan Street is a two-lane, north-south minor arterial extending along the project site (east
side). The roadway extends approximately 0.75 miles and primarily serves residential land uses,
with a Lowes Home Improvement center and retail located south of Dublin Boulevard.
On-street parking is striped and permitted along approximately 0.25 miles of this roadway and
the posted speed limit is 25 mph in the project area.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-4 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Sidewalk exists along Brannigan Street, except along the Project frontage and along the
undeveloped parcel south of Dublin Boulevard where Brannigan Street is a private street. No
bike lanes exist along this roadway.
Central Parkway
Central Parkway is a three-mile two-lane divided east-west minor arterial that extends through
the northern portion of the project site and serves residential land uses, as well as the offices
located at the west end, Emerald Glen Park just west of Tassajara Road, and the James
Dougherty Elementary School located east of Hacienda Drive.
On-street parking is not permitted along this roadway except for a few short segments near
residential uses on the east end of the roadway and in front of the elementary school. The
posted speed limit is 35 mph in the project area.
Sidewalks exist along both sides of Central Parkway for a majority of the roadway. Notable
sidewalk gaps exist along both sides of the project frontages and along the frontage of
undeveloped land east of Arnold Road. Class II bike lanes exist along both sides of Central
Parkway, except for along the north side of the project frontage, where no bike facilities exist.
Fallon Road
Fallon Road is a north-south minor arterial extending east of the Project site near the City of
Dublin eastern border. The roadway primarily serves residential land uses, with retail located at
the south end near the I-580 ramps. Westbound and eastbound ramps provide access to I-580.
On-street parking is not permitted along this roadway and the posted speed limit is 45 mph
north of the I-580 ramps. The speed limit is 40 mph north of Bent Tree Drive (through Tassajara
Road). Fallon Road is a divided roadway in the project area and varies from four lanes in
between the I-580 ramps and Central Parkway, six lanes from Central Parkway to Gleason Drive,
and four lanes from Gleason Drive to Tassajara Road.
Sidewalks exist along both sides of Fallon Road from south of Central Parkway to Signal Hill
Drive/Kingsmill Terrace. Gaps exist in the sidewalk on Fallon Road including: north of Signal Hill
Drive/Kingsmill Terrace, and near Dublin Boulevard to south of Stoneridge Drive/Jack London
Boulevard. Class II bike lanes exist along this roadway from north of I-580 ramps to Tassajara
Road. No bike lanes exist south of the I-580 ramps.
Gleason Drive
Gleason Drive is two-mile east-west minor arterial extending north along the project site. The
roadway primarily serves residential land uses, as well as the offices located at the west end of
the road and Emerald Glen Park west of Tassajara Road.
On-street parking is not permitted along this roadway and the posted speed limit is 40 mph.
Gleason Drive is a four-lane divided roadway, except for a one-block stretch along the Project
frontage, where it is a two-lane divided roadway.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes exist along Gleason Drive, except for along the project
frontage, where no sidewalks or bike facilities exist.
17.3.2 Pedestrian Facilities
Existing pedestrian facilities in the project area include sidewalks along the west side of
Tassajara Road and on the east side of Brannigan Street from Dublin Boulevard to beyond the
northern project site boundary. Sidewalks also exist on both sides of Gleason Drive, Central
Parkway, and Dublin Boulevard from Tassajara Road to the east and from Brannigan Street to
the west. No sidewalks currently exist along the project frontage.
17.3.3 Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities are divided into four classes. Class I bike paths are physically separated from
motor vehicle lanes and offer two-way bicycle travel. Class II bike lanes on roadways are
marked by signage and pavement striping. Painted buffers may separate the vehicle travel lanes
from the bike lane and green bike lane pavement coloring are used to highlight potential
conflict zones between vehicles and cyclists. Class III bike routes share the travel lane with
motor vehicles and have signs and sharrow striping to guide bicyclists on paved routes. Class IV
bike facilities are protected cycletracks that provide a physical barrier between motor vehicles
and cyclists. Figure 17-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities shows the bicycle facilities in the project
area.
Direct access to bicycle facilities is provided adjacent to the project site including Class I bike
paths along Brannigan Street and Finnian Way and Class II bike lanes along Tassajara Road,
Gleason Drive, Central Parkway, and Dublin Boulevard.
17.3.4 Transit Facilities
Tri-Valley Wheels has multiple transit routes in the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore.
Many routes (such as Route 1, 3, 10R, etc.) operate within the project area, but do not operate
near the project site. Only routes that service the nearby area of the project are described in
this section. Figure 17-3: Existing Transit Facilities shows the transit facilities in the project area.
Route 2 is a local bus route that operates between the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to
Positano Hills. In the project area, Route 2 operates on Central Parkway, Tassajara Road,
Brannigan Street, and Gleason Drive. On weekdays, Route 2 operates between 6:33 AM to 9:19
AM and between 3:21 PM to 6:51 PM on 60-minute headways. Route 2 does not operate on
Saturdays or Sundays. The closest bus stop is on Central Parkway at Glynnis Rose Drive.
Route 30R is a local bus route that operates between the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
to the Sandia Laboratory in Livermore, CA. In the vicinity of the project site, Route 30R operates
on Dublin Boulevard. On weekdays, Route 30R operates between 5:02 AM to 12:45 AM (of the
following day) in 15-minute to 30-minute headways. On weekends, Route 30R operates
between 5:09 AM to 12:42 AM (of the following day) in 60-minute headways. the closest bus
stop is on Dublin Boulevard at Glynnis Rose Drive and Grafton Street.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-6 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Route 501 is a Dublin School Route that operates between Dublin High School to Positano Hills.
In the vicinity of the project site, Route 501 operates on Gleason Drive and Tassajara Road. It
operates between 6:31 AM to 7:32 AM and 3:40 PM to 4:34 PM with 5-minute to 30-minute
headways. The service is only provided on school days. The closest bus stop area is at the
intersection of Tassajara Road at Gleason Drive.
Route 502 is a Dublin School Route that operates between Dublin High School to the
intersection of Central Parkway and Chancery Lane. In the vicinity of the project site, Route 502
operates on Tassajara Road and Central Parkway. It operates one morning and one afternoon
bus from 7:09 AM to 7:35 AM and 3:40 PM to 4:13 PM, respectively. The service is only
provided on school days. Near the project site, there is a bus stop along Central Parkway at
Glynnis Rose Drive and Chancery Lane.
Route 504 is a Dublin School Route that operates between Dublin High School to the
intersection of Gleason Drive and Brannigan Street. In the vicinity of the project site, Route 504
operates on Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, and Gleason Drive. It operates one morning and
one afternoon bus from 7:08 AM to 7:35 AM and 3:40 PM to 4:1 PM, respectively. The service is
only provided on school days. The closest bus stops are Gleason Drive at Tassajara Road and
Brannigan Street.
17.3.5 Study Intersections & Segments
The study intersections are those through which the majority of the project-generated traffic
would traverse, and where potential traffic impacts would be most likely to occur. Study
intersections were based on City of Dublin and Caltrans traffic impact study guidelines, based
on the expected project-generated trips, assumed trip distribution, and engineering judgement.
Roadway segments, as required for the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda
CTC) Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS), were also included.
Because regional access to the project site is from the I-580 ramps (at Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road, and Fallon Road), the freeway segments east and west of these ramps were included for
the traffic analysis.
Study intersections and segments were also selected in consultation with City of Dublin staff.
As shown in Figure 17-1: Study Intersections the following intersections, freeway segments, and
roadway segments were analyzed as part of the traffic analysis:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Study Intersections
1. Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr [DUB] 22. Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. [DUB]
2. Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy [DUB] 23. Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. [DUB]
3. Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. [DUB] 24. Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. [DUB]
4. Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps [CAL] 25. Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. [DUB]
5. Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps [CAL] 26. Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. [DUB]
6. Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. [PLS] 27. Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps [CAL]
7. Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. [DUB] 28. Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps [CAL]
8. Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. [DUB] 29. El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd.
[PLSLIV]
9. Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct [DUB] 30. Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. [DUB]
10. Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. [DUB] 31. Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. [DUB]
11. Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. [DUB] 32. Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. [DUB]
12. Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy [DUB] 33. Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. [DUB]
13. Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd* [DUB] 34. Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. [DUB]
14. Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd* [DUB] 35. Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd.* [DUB]
15. Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way [DUB] 36. Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. [DUB]
16. Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps [CAL] 37. Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. [DUB]
17. Tassajara Rd. /Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps –
Pimlico Dr. [CAL]
38. Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. [DUB]
18. Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. [PLS] 39. Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. [DUB]
19. Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. [DUB] 40. Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. [DUB]
20. Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way [DUB] 41. Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. [DUB]
21. Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. [DUB]
* Includes both weekday and weekend intersection analysis.
[DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation, [LIV] – City of Livermore
Study Freeway Segments
a. I-580 from Dougherty Rd to Hacienda Dr. [CAL] c. I-580 from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road [CAL]
b. I-580 from Hacienda Dr. to Tassajara Rd [CAL] d. I-580 from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard [CAL]
[CAL] – California Department of Transportation
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-8 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Study Roadway Segments
Dublin Blvd (Eastbound and Westbound)
Hacienda Dr. to Fallon Rd
Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara Rd (Northbound and Southbound)
Gleason Dr. to Las Positas Blvd
Hacienda Dr. (Northbound and Southbound)
Gleason Dr. to Owens Drive
Fallon Rd (Northbound and Southbound)
Gleason Dr. to Stoneridge Drive
Gleason Dr. (Eastbound and Westbound)
Hacienda Dr. to Fallon Rd
17.3.6 Traffic Analysis Methodology
Level of Service
Traffic conditions are measured by average daily traffic (ADT), peak hour traffic volumes, level
of service (LOS), average delay, and volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. Average daily traffic is the
total number of vehicles passing through a segment of the roadway, in both directions, on an
average day. Peak hour volumes are the total number of vehicles passing through a roadway
segment during the peak hour in the weekday morning (AM), weekday afternoon/evening
(PM), or weekend midday (MID).
Signalized Intersections
Signalized intersections were analyzed based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000
method using Synchro software. The HCM 2000 method evaluates signalized intersection
operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Control
delay is the delay that is attributed to the particular traffic control device at the intersection,
and includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final
acceleration delay.
Unsignalized Intersections
LOS at unsignalized intersections is based on the HCM 2000 method using Synchro software.
This method is applicable for both two-way (SSSC or TWSC) and all-way stop-controlled (AWSC)
intersections. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, delay is calculated for each stop-
controlled movement and for the uncontrolled left turns, if any, from the main street. For two-
way stop controlled intersections, the overall average delay and LOS are reported, as are the
delay and LOS for the worst intersection movement. For all-way stop controlled intersections,
the overall intersection average delay and LOS are reported.
Table 17-1: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria summarizes the relationship
between control delay and LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description
Average Control Delay
(Seconds Per Vehicle)
Signalized Unsignalized
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable
traffic signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. < 10.0 < 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression
and/or short cycle lengths. > 10.0 to 20.0 > 10.0 to 15.0
C
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle
failures begin to appear.
> 20.0 to 35.0 > 15.0 to 25.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high
volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and
individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to 55.0 > 25.0 to 35.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55.0 to 80.0 > 35.0 to 50.0
F
Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very
long cycle lengths.
> 80.0 > 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000; Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010
Freeway Mainline Segments
Freeway mainline segments were analyzed using HCM 2010 methodology as defined in the
Highway Capacity Software (HCS) 2010. This method determines LOS based on the freeway
density, as shown in Table 17-2: Freeway Facilities LOS Criteria.
Freeway Ramps
Freeway ramps were analyzed using HCM 2010 methodology as defined in the Highway
Capacity Software (HCS) 2010. This method determines LOS based on density for merging (i.e.
on-ramps) and diverging (i.e. off-ramps) locations, as shown in Table 17-2: Freeway Facilities
LOS Criteria.
For on-ramp locations with ramp metering activated, a ramp metering analysis was conducted
to determine if the volume demand would result in vehicle queues extending onto the adjacent
arterial due to the ramp meters. The analysis compares the volume demand to the ramp
metering rate to determine if the potential queues would exceed the on-ramp storage capacity.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-10 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 2 Freeway Facilities LOS Criteria
Level of
Service
Density
(Passenger Cars Per Mile Per Lane)
Basic Segments Merge/Diverge
A < 11.0 < 10.0
B > 11.0 to 18.0 > 10.0 to 20.0
C > 18.0 to 26.0 > 20.0 to 28.0
D > 26.0 to 35.0 > 28.0 to 35.0
E > 35.0 to 45.0 > 35.0
F > 45.0 Demand Exceeds Capacity
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000; Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010
Alameda CTC Roadway Segments
Roadway segments were analyzed based on volume to capacity (v/c) methodology. This
method determines LOS based on v/c, as shown in Table 17-3: ACTC Roadway Segment LOS
Criteria.
Table 17-3 Alameda CTC Roadway Segment LOS Criteria
Level of
Service v/c Ratio
A < 0.60
B > 0.61 to 0.70
C > 0.70 to 0.80
D > 0.81 to 0.90
E > 0.91 to 1.0
F > 1.0
Source: Alameda CTC, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Study Conditions
This traffic analysis evaluates project impacts under the following traffic conditions:
1.Existing - Based on existing counts collected in June 2016, December 2017, and January
2018.
2.Existing + Project - Based on existing counts plus traffic generated by the project.
Project traffic was manually added to the count generated volumes.
3.Near-Term (2025) - Based on volumes from the City of Dublin travel demand forecast
model, which include approved and pending projects in the area. Phases 1 and 2 of the
Kaiser Dublin Medical Center and the proposed IKEA Retail Center project on the north
side of Interstate 580 are included in the near-term projects.
4.Near-Term (2025) + Project - Based on near-term volumes plus traffic generated by the
project. Project traffic was manually added to the model generated volumes.
5.Cumulative (2040) - Based on volumes from the City of Dublin travel demand forecast
model. This horizon year will assume full build-out of the City General Plan.
6.Cumulative (2040) + Project - Based on cumulative volumes plus traffic generated by
the project. Project traffic was manually added to the model generated volumes.
17.3.7 Existing Conditions
Intersections
Existing lane geometry for study intersections are shown in Figure 17-4: Existing Traffic
Geometry and Control.
Existing traffic counts were collected in May and June 2016, March 2017, September 2017,
December 2017, and January 2018. All traffic counts were collected while local schools were in
session. Where volume imbalances were observed in the count data, volumes were
conservatively balanced upwards.
Existing conditions traffic volumes at study intersections are shown in Figure 17-5: Existing Peak
Hour Turning Movement Volumes.
As shown in Table 17-4: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project – Weekday, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS)
under Existing conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29)
o Operates at LOS E during PM Peak
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-12 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As shown in Table 17-5: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project – Saturday, all study intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Existing
conditions during the Saturday peak hours.
Freeway Segments
Freeway segments were analyzed between each interchange along I-580 between Dougherty
Road and Airway Boulevard. Volumes were obtained from the Caltrans Performance
Measurement System (PeMS) website for the same days in December 2017 as the majority of
the intersection traffic counts. These freeway volumes are based on observed throughput of
each freeway segment, and not the demand volumes. In instances where there is congestion at
a downstream bottleneck, the observed volumes would be less than the true demand volumes.
The express lanes on each segment were not included in the freeway analysis.
As shown in Table 17-6: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Freeway Segment LOS without
project, all study freeway segments operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under Existing
conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours because the volumes for the westbound
direction in the AM peak hour and the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak
hour are constrained by downstream bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway
analysis do not reflect the true volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
Freeway Ramps
Freeway ramps were analyzed at each interchange along I-580 between Hacienda Drive and
Fallon Road. Volumes were obtained from intersection turning movement counts. The
mainline volumes were obtained from the freeway mainline segment analysis described above.
As shown in Table 17-7: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Freeway Ramp LOS without
project, all study freeway ramps operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under Existing
conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.
Freeway ramps with ramp metering were analyzed for on-ramps where the project would add
vehicles. The following on-ramps were analyzed during the specified peak periods when ramp
meters were active:
WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
On-ramp volumes were obtained from intersection turning movement counts. For locations
with an HOV lane, the on-ramp volume was separated into high-occupancy vehicles (HOV) and
single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) based on HOV and SOV volumes collected in PeMS. It should
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
be noted that the PeMS data for the WB I-580 diagonal on-ramp from Hacienda Drive did not
have volumes in the HOV lane, and therefore it was conservatively assumed that all vehicles
would use the SOV lane. The ramp metering rates were provided by the City of Dublin for each
on-ramp location and the storage lengths for each on-ramp were measured using Google aerial
maps. It was assumed that each vehicle in queue is equivalent to 25 feet per vehicle.
As shown in Table 17-8: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Ramp Metering Analysis without
Project, the vehicle queues for on-ramps with ramp metering are contained within the available
on-ramp storage except at the following on-ramps:
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
For the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak hour, the SOV volume of 636
vehicles exceeds the ramp metering rate of 480 vph and therefore the vehicle queues extend
onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,100 feet and exceeds the 1,080-foot
storage). It was observed in the field that the queues would extend onto Tassajara Road just
south of Dublin Boulevard.
17.3.8 Near-Term Conditions
Intersections
To evaluate Near-Term + Project conditions, it is necessary to develop a forecast of future
traffic volumes under “Near-Term conditions”. This forecast provides a baseline against which
to measure the project’s traffic impacts. The City of Dublin uses a travel demand forecast model
to estimate future roadway volumes based on land use information and the future roadway
network. The year 2025 was selected for analysis based on the predicted opening year for the
project.
The travel demand forecast model was adjusted to address land uses that were determined to
be inconsistent with known development. The following highlights these updates:
Updated the Kaiser traffic area zone (TAZ) to assume 4,000 jobs for Phases 1A and 1B,
which are expected to be completed in 2025.
Updated the TAZ’s east of Fallon Road consistent with the Alameda County
Transportation Commission (ACTC) travel demand forecast model.
Adjusted the centroid connector for the TAZ on the southwest corner of Tassajara Road
and Dublin Boulevard to restrict left turns onto Tassajara Road.
Removed the existing General Plan land use designations for the TAZ’s on the project
site.
Traffic volumes under “Near-Term conditions” are shown in Figure 17-6: Near-Term Peak Hour
Turning Movement Volumes.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-14 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The following roadway improvements were assumed for the Near-Term conditions without the
Project:
Tassajara Road / I-580 Eastbound Ramps (Intersection #17)
o Add second southbound left turn lane.
Dublin Boulevard / Fallon Road (Intersection #26)
o Construct second eastbound left turn lane. Add second northbound left turn
lane.
Fallon Road / I-580 Westbound Ramps (Intersection #27)
o Widen to three through lanes in each direction on Fallon Road and a partial
cloverleaf ramp system.
Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street (Intersection #39)
o Add second westbound left turn lane. This improvement is a mitigation from the
Kaiser project and will be completed before the Kaiser project opens.
Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street (Intersection #40)
o Extend the westbound left turn lane by 100 feet. This improvement is a
mitigation from the Kaiser project and will be completed before the Kaiser
project opens.
The following roadway improvements were assumed for the Near-Term conditions with the
Project:
Tassajara Road / Gleason Drive (Intersection #11)
o Add a 3rd northbound through lane.
o Add a 2nd eastbound through lane.
o The westbound approach will become two left turn lanes, two through lanes,
and one right turn lane (185 feet).
Tassajara Road / Central Parkway (Intersection #12)
o Add a northbound left turn lane and a 3
rd northbound through lane.
o Convert the westbound shared through-right lane into a separate through lane
and a separate right turn lane (190 feet).
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14)
o Widen to three (3) eastbound through lanes (with fourth eastbound receiving
lane) at the intersection. Widen Dublin Boulevard to three eastbound lanes
between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street.
o Widen to three (3) northbound through lanes and two (2) northbound right turn
lanes
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
o Add third westbound through lane.
Brannigan Street / Gleason Drive (Intersection #19)
o The eastbound approach will become one left turn lane, two through lanes, and
one right turn lane (130 feet).
Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #23)
o Add westbound through lane.
o Convert the southbound shared through-right lane into a separate through lane
and a separate right turn lane (225 feet).
o The eastbound approach will become one left turn lane, three through lanes,
and one right turn lane.
Near-Term lane geometry for study intersections are shown in Figure 17-7: Near-Term Traffic
Geometry and Control.
As shown in Table 17-4: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project – Weekday, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under
Near-Term conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14)
o Operates at LOS E during the PM Peak
Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Intersection #18)
o Operates at LOS E during the PM Peak
El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
The following gateway intersections operate at LOS E, but this is acceptable based on the City of
Pleasanton LOS standards for gateway intersections:
Hacienda Drive / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #5)
o Operates at LOS E during the AM Peak
Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #17)
o Operates at LOS E during the PM Peak
As shown in Table 17-5: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project – Saturday, all study intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Near-Term
conditions during the Saturday peak hours with the exception of:
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14)
o Operates at LOS F during the Saturday Peak
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-16 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Freeway Segments
Freeway segments were analyzed between each interchange along I-580 between Dougherty
Road and Airway Boulevard. Volumes were calculated by growing the existing volumes based
on the growth from the ACTC travel demand forecast model for each segment.
As shown in Table 17-6: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Freeway Segment LOS without
project, all study freeway segments operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under Near-
Term conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
WB I-580 between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive (Segment a)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road (Segment b)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (Segment c)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard (Segment d)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
Similar to the Existing conditions, each freeway segment is actually over capacity and should be
operating at LOS F because the volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and
the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream
bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway analysis do not reflect the true
volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
Freeway Ramps
Freeway ramps were analyzed at each interchange along I-580 between Hacienda Drive and
Fallon Road. Volumes were obtained from the intersection turning movement counts in the
Near-Term condition. The mainline volumes were obtained from the freeway mainline
segment analysis mentioned previously.
As shown in Table 17-7: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Freeway Ramp LOS without
project, all study freeway ramps operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under Near-Term
conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
WB I-580 off-ramp to Hacienda Drive
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Tassajara Road
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 loop on-ramp from northbound Fallon Road
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
WB I-580 off-ramp to Fallon Road
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 loop on-ramp from Fallon Road
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour
Freeway ramps with ramp metering were analyzed for on-ramps where the project would add
vehicles. The following on-ramps were analyzed during the specified peak periods when ramp
meters were active:
WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
As shown in Table 17-8: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Ramp Metering Analysis without
Project, the vehicle queues for on-ramps with ramp metering are contained within the available
on-ramp storage except at the following on-ramps:
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
For the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the SOV volume of 388
vehicles exceeds the ramp metering rate of 300 vph and therefore the vehicle queues extend
onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,000 feet and exceeds the 490-foot
storage). This assumed that the metering rate of 300 vph would not change from the existing
metering rate. To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be increased to 400 vph,
however, this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to this on-ramp.
For the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak hour, the SOV volume of 767
vehicles exceeds the ramp metering rate of 480 vph and therefore the vehicle queues extend
onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,100 feet and exceeds the 1,080-foot
storage). This also assumed that the metering rate of 480 vph would not change from the
existing metering rate. To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be increased to
800 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on WB I-580 adjacent to this on-
ramp.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-18 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.3.9 Cumulative Conditions
Intersections
To evaluate Cumulative + Project conditions, it is necessary to develop a forecast of future
traffic volumes in the project area under Cumulative Conditions. This forecast provides a
baseline against which to measure the project’s traffic impacts under Cumulative conditions.
The City of Dublin travel demand forecast model was used to estimate future 2040 roadway
volumes based on land use information and the future roadway network.
The travel demand forecast model was adjusted to address land uses that were determined to
be inconsistent with known development. The following highlights these updates:
Adjusted the centroid connector for the TAZ on the southwest corner of Tassajara Road
and Dublin Boulevard to restrict left turns out onto Tassajara Road.
Removed the uses for the TAZ’s on the project site.
Traffic volumes under Cumulative conditions are based on the peak hour forecasts determined
in collaboration with City Dublin staff and are shown in Figure 17-8: Cumulative Peak Hour
Turning Movement Volumes.
The following roadway improvements were assumed in the Cumulative analysis:
Hacienda Drive / Owens Drive (Intersection #6)
o Convert southbound through lane to third southbound left turn lane, and
convert eastbound through lane to third eastbound left turn lane
Dublin Boulevard / Fallon Road (Intersection #26)
o Reconfigure the NB approach to be three left turn lanes, three through lanes,
and two right turn lanes
o Reconfigure the SB approach to be two left turn lanes, three through lanes, and
one right turn lane
o Reconfigure the EB approach to be two left turn lanes, three through lanes, and
two right turn lanes
o Reconfigure the WB approach to be three left turn lanes, three through lanes,
and one right turn lane
Fallon Road / I-580 Westbound Ramps (Intersection #27)
o Add one southbound through lane, widen northbound to three through lanes
and right turn lane
Fallon Road / I-580 Eastbound Ramps (Intersection #28)
o Add one northbound through lane and one southbound through lane
El Charro Road / Stoneridge - East Jack London (Intersection #29)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
o Add southbound through lane. NB approach becomes one northbound left turn
lane, three northbound through lanes, and two northbound right turn lanes
The following assumptions were assumed as identified in the City’s General Plan.
Tassajara Road
o Widen Tassajara Road to six lanes between North Dublin Ranch Road and Dublin
Boulevard
o Widen Tassajara Road to eight lanes between Dublin Boulevard and I-580 WB
Ramps
Fallon Road
o Widen Fallon Road to six lanes between Positano Parkway and Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Boulevard
o Widen Dublin Boulevard to six lanes between Brannigan Street and Fallon Road
o Extend Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to North Canyons Parkway
Near-Term lane geometry for study intersections are shown in Figure 17-9: Cumulative Traffic
Geometry and Control.
As shown in Table 17-4: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project - Weekday, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under
Cumulative conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3)
o Operates at LOS F during PM Peak
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14)
o Operates at LOS E during the AM Peak
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Intersection #18)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street (Intersection #23)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street (Intersection #24)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Fallon Road / Gleason Drive (Intersection #25)
o Operates at LOS E during the AM Peak
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-20 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #26)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street (Intersection #39)
o Operates at LOS E during the PM Peak
Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street (Intersection #40)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
The following gateway intersections operate at LOS E or worse, but are acceptable based on the
City of Pleasanton LOS standards for gateway intersections:
Hacienda Drive / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #5)
o Operates at LOS E during AM Peak
o Operates at LOS E during PM Peak
Hacienda Drive / Owens Drive (Intersection #6)
o Operates at LOS F during PM Peak
Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road / WB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #16)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #17)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Fallon Road/El Charro Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #28)
o Operates at LOS E during the AM Peak
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
As shown in Table 17-5: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project – Saturday, all study intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Cumulative
conditions during the Saturday peak hours.
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14)
o Operates at LOS F during the Saturday Peak
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Freeway Segments
Freeway segments were analyzed between each interchange along I-580 between Dougherty
Road and Airway Boulevard. Volumes were calculated by growing the existing volumes based
on the growth from the ACTC travel demand forecast model for each segment.
As shown in Table 17-6: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Freeway Segment LOS without
project, all study freeway segments operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under
Cumulative conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of:
WB I-580 between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive (Segment a)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road (Segment b)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (Segment c)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard (Segment d)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
Similar to Existing conditions, each freeway segment is actually over capacity and should be
operating at LOS F because the volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and
the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream
bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway analysis do not reflect the true
volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
Freeway Ramps
Freeway ramps were analyzed at each interchange along I-580 between Hacienda Drive and
Fallon Road. Volumes were obtained from the intersection turning movement counts in the
Cumulative condition. The mainline volumes were obtained from the freeway mainline
segment analysis described above.
As shown in Table 17-7: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Freeway Ramp LOS without
project, all study freeway ramps operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under Cumulative
conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with exception of:
WB I-580 off-ramp to Hacienda Drive
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Tassajara Road
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 loop on-ramp from northbound Fallon Road
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-22 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Fallon Road
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak Hour
Freeway ramps with ramp metering were analyzed for on-ramps where the project would add
vehicles. The following on-ramps were analyzed during the specified peak periods when ramp
meters were active:
WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
As shown in Table 17-8: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Ramp Metering Analysis without
Project, the vehicle queues for on-ramps with ramp metering are contained within the available
on-ramp storage except at the following on-ramps:
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
For the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the SOV volume of 392
vehicles exceeds the ramp metering rate of 300 vph and therefore the vehicle queues extend
onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,000 feet and exceeds 490-foot storage).
This assumed that the metering rate of 300 vph would not change from the existing metering
rate. To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be increased to 400 vph, however,
this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to this on-ramp.
For the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak hour, the SOV volume of 816
vehicles exceeds the ramp metering rate of 480 vph and therefore the vehicle queues extend
onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,100 feet and exceeds 1,080-foot storage).
This also assumed that the metering rate of 480 vph would not change from the existing
metering rate. This also assumed that the metering rate of 480 vph would not change from the
existing metering rate. To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be increased to
800 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on WB I-580 adjacent to this on-
ramp.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-23 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 4: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS without Project – Weekday # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 1 Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 11.5 B 11.3 B 11.1 B 11.3 B 14.2 B 11.6 B 2 Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 22.8 C 21.0 C 22.9 C 20.6 C 20.0 C 22.3 C 3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 44.5 D 37.7 C 41.4 D 39.6 D 47.5 D 126.4 F 4 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.3 A 6.2 A 7.4 A 28.4 C 8.7 A 29.8 C 5 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 39.9 D 11.3 B 60.7 E 19.5 B 76.9 E 78.8 E 6 Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. Signal PLS N/A 18.0 B 34.3 C 20.6 C 47.4 D 23.4 C 121.0 F 7 Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. Signal DUB D 16.0 B 18.7 B 16.2 B 17.8 B 16.3 B 24.5 C 8 Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. Signal DUB D 11.7 B 14.8 B 10.7 B 16.4 B 11.4 B 19.6 B 9 Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct. Signal DUB D 8.1 A 8.8 A 8.6 A 8.0 A 10.9 B 6.9 A 10 Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. Signal DUB D 15.8 B 17.7 B 14.3 B 17.5 B 17.7 B 23.9 C 11 Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 40.9 D 36.5 D 50.3 D 38.7 D 39.5 D 39.8 D 12 Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy Signal DUB D 30.7 C 24.5 C 32.7 C 26.0 C 31.9 C 23.9 C 13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops (Future Project Dwy. #1) Signal DUB D 9.1 A 16.6 B 9.3 A 17.5 B 9.6 A 11.8 B 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 40.3 D 45.8 D 50.3 D 97.6 F 146.9 F 259.2 F 15 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way Signal DUB D 7.1 A 22.8 C 6.1 A 25.0 C 6.1 A 19.2 B 16 Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.8 A 9.8 A 13.8 B 50.5 D 44.8 D 113.9 F 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin Page 17-24 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 17 Tassajara Rd./Santa Rita Rd./ I-580 EB Ramps – Pimlico Dr. Signal CAL/PLS N/A 42.5 D 42.8 D 45.4 D 67.1 E 52.4 D 117.4 F 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 30.9 C 32.8 C 40.9 D 69.6 E 137.0 F 207.2 F 19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 36.3 D 14.0 B 37.9 D 14.0 B 42.9 D 14.3 B 20 Brannigan St / Aviano Way (Future Project Dwy. #2) SSSC DUB D 2.9 A 3.3 A 3.1 A 3.2 A 3.2 A 2.3 A Worst Approach 13.5 B 9.3 A 14.0 B 9.4 A 13.8 B 10.0 B 21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 24.6 C 16.2 B 25.4 C 18.2 B 24.2 C 19.0 B 22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St. (Future Project Dwy. #3) AWSC DUB D 7.9 A 8.1 A 8.0 A 8.2 A 8.0 A 8.8 A 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D15.5 B 18.2 B 17.2 B 27.4 C 148.1 F 365.7 F 24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 15.9 B 10.7 B 7.4 A 11.3 B 20.0 C 128.7 F 25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 33.1 C 15.0 B 35.5 D 14.4 B 72.2 E 18.9 B 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 13.5 B 14.8 B 19.8 B 21.0 C 42.0 D 100.6 F 27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 8.8 A 11.0 B 15.8 B 37.9 D 26.7 C 31.4 C 28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.9 A 8.7 A 12.7 B 12.6 B 76.1 E 102.0 F 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal PLSLIV D 44.0 D 58.2 E 52.3 D 89.7 F 132.2 F 262.1 F 30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-25 Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 11.1 B 9.2 A 17.9 B 33.4 D 22.7 C 57.7 E 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 10.6 B 9.1 A 17.5 B 25.0 C 26.2 C 155.4 F 41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 21.7 C 22.4 C 16.8 B 21.5 C 25.1 C 21.5 C Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC), or does not exist (DNE). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown with bold text. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin Page 17-26 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 5: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS without Project – Saturday # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops (Future Project Dwy. #1) Signal DUB D 18.6 B 20.3 C 13.7 B 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 39.3 D 72.4 F 106.4 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC), or does not exist (DNE). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown with bold text. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-27 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 6: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Freeway Segment LOS without Project # Study Segment (I-580) Dir Lanes Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS a Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive WB 5 8,976 35.0 D 7,601 27.5 D 11,155 55.6 F 7,974 29.3 D 11,382 59.0 F 9,878 41.6 E EB 7 8,128 20.5 C 7,625 19.2 C 8850 22.3 C 8,669 21.8 C 9,755 24.8 C 8,669 21.8 C b Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road WB 5 9,352 37.5 E 6,606 23.4 C 11,447 60.0 F 7,147 25.5 C 11,550 61.8 F 8,304 31 D EB 5 6,621 23.4 C 7,358 26.4 D 7311 26.2 D 8,675 33.1 D 8,085 29.9 D 8,632 32.9 D c Tassajara Road to Fallon Road WB 5 8,583 32.6 D 6,474 22.9 C 10,843 51.5 F 7,327 26.3 D 10,953 52.9 F 8,550 32.4 D EB 5 5,619 19.8 C 7,233 25.9 C 6270 22.1 C 8,419 31.7 D 6,775 24.0 C 8,011 29.5 D d Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard WB 5 8,434 31.7 D 6,451 22.8 C 10,757 50.5 F 7,131 25.5 C 10,757 50.5 F 8,081 29.8 D EB 5 5,673 20.0 C 7,553 27.3 D 5989 21.1 C 8,877 34.4 D 6,261 22.1 C 8,266 30.8 D Notes: 1. Segments operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown with bold text. 2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software. 3. For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis. 4. Express lanes not included in this analysis. 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin Page 17-28 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 7: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Freeway Ramp LOS without Project Interchange (I-580) Dir Ramp Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Hacienda Drive WB Diagonal On-ramp 27.1 C 23.8 C 38.9 E 24.8 C 40.9 E 35.0 D Loop On-ramp 22.0 C 8.9 A 32.9 D 23.1 C 35.1 E 24.9 C Off-ramp 29.4 D 20.8 C 43.8 F 22.5 C 44.6 F 26.1 C EB Diagonal On-ramp 19.3 B 23.3 C 20.9 C 28.2 D 12.4 B 28.3 D Loop On-ramp 18.6 B 10.7 B 20.2 C 23.2 C 22.5 C 22.9 C Off-ramp 16.9 C 15.4 B 18.5 C 17.7 C 20.6 D 17.7 C Tassajara Road WB Diagonal On-ramp 31.4 D 10.4 B 40.3 E 21.4 C 41.1 E 24.0 C Loop On-ramp 9.0 A 17.5 B 27.7 C 7.7 A 27.7 C 8.6 A Off-ramp 26.5 C 19.8 B 38.5 F 24.0 C 39.4 F 26.4 C EB Diagonal On-ramp 17.6 B 21.0 C 19.8 B 24.5 C 21.1 C 23.0 C Loop On-ramp 20.3 C 27.5 C 22.1 C 30.4 D 23.9 C 30.8 D Off-ramp 23.1 C 22.6 C 26.5 C 26.8 C 30.0 D 29.1 D Fallon RoadWB Diagonal On-ramp 28.5 D 22.3 C 37.8 E 13.4 B 38.7 E 29.0 D Loop On-ramp 30.2 D 24.3 C 49.6 F 29.7 D 50.1 F 28.4 D Off-ramp 25.5 C 19.2 B 37.3 F 21.4 C 37.3 F 24.4 C EB Diagonal On-ramp 13.5 B 27.0 C 21.7 C 31.8 D 25.5 C 28.9 D Loop On-ramp 23.3 C 28.9 D 24.4 C 33.2 F 24.1 C 28.6 D Off-ramp 24.3 C 29.5 D 27.6 C 33.6 D 32.7 D 32.6 D Notes: 1. Ramps operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown with bold text. 2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software. 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-29 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 8: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Ramp Metering Analysis without Project On-ramp Peak Hour Storage Length (ft) SOV Metering Rate (vph) Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040) SOV Volume (vph) Max Queue (ft) SOV Volume (vph) Max Queue (ft) SOV Volume (vph) Max Queue (ft) WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp AM 700 540 385 0 385 0 385 0 EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp PM 490 300 309 225 388 > 1,000 392 > 1,000 WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 1,080 480 636 > 1,100 767 > 1,100 816 > 1,100 EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp PM 830 450 368 0 386 0 433 0 WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 685 300 255 0 255 0 275 0 EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp PM 925 240 273 825 273 825 273 825 Notes: 1. SOV = Single-occupancy vehicles; Ramp meter analysis was performed for SOV lanes only. HOV lanes were assumed to operate with a 900 vph metering rate and therefore would not have any queues extend onto the arterial. 2. SOV volumes were calculated based on HOV to SOV ratios from PeMS on-ramp volumes. 3. Ramps with vehicle queues exceeding the on-ramp storage and extending onto the adjacent arterial are shown with bold text. 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-30 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.3.10 Intersection Queuing
As congestion increases, it is common for traffic at intersections to form lines of stopped (or
queued) vehicles. Intersection queue lengths were determined for each turn lane and
measured as the distance that vehicles will back up in each direction approaching an
intersection. Queuing analysis was performed for intersections with significant impacts as a
result of the additional project trips. Synchro software calculates the 95th percentile queues
based on HCM 2000 methodology which accounts for fluctuations in traffic and where 95
percent of the time during the peak period, traffic volumes will be less than or equal to the
queue determined by the analysis. It is used as a benchmark for determining deficiencies as a
standard transportation engineering practice. A typical vehicle length of 25 feet was used in the
queuing analysis. An operational deficiency was assumed to occur if the queue increases by one
or more vehicles and the vehicle queue exceeds the turn pocket length. A summary of the
queuing results for all intersections is provided in Appendix J.
17.3.11 Roadway Analysis Using SimTraffic
Within the City of Dublin, there are roadways that are congested in the peak hours and are
considered over capacity with downstream congestion that can result in lower throughput
volumes than the actual demand. Under these conditions, the individual intersection LOS
analysis can be misleading in describing the actual traffic operations. Therefore, to better
represent corridor congestion, particularly along Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road, a
SimTraffic model was developed based on the Synchro model inputs. The SimTraffic model
accounts for intersection spacing, as well as upstream and downstream congestion.
The SimTraffic analysis was used to further evaluate the traffic operations along congested
corridors in the City of Dublin. The following are additional measures of effectiveness (MOE’s)
that were used to describe each corridor:
Corridor Travel Time (average minutes per vehicle)
Corridor Delay (average minutes per vehicle)
Average Corridor Speed (mph)
Length of Corridor Queues (feet)
These MOE’s were measured for each condition along the following corridors:
Eastbound Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road
Westbound Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road
Northbound Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road between Pimlico Drive and Gleason Drive
Southbound Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road between Pimlico Drive and Gleason Drive
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-31
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17-9: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis without Project summarizes
the MOE’s for each without project condition.
Existing
As shown in Table 17-9: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis without
Project, the travel times are less than seven (7) minutes for each corridor in the Existing
condition. The SimTraffic simulation shows minimal queuing from each approach at the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road.
Near-Term
The travel times are relatively minimal, with the exception of the travel time for eastbound
Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road in the Near-Term PM peak hour.
The majority of this travel time is travelling eastbound along Dublin Boulevard and approaching
the Tassajara Road intersection with Dublin Boulevard. The SimTraffic simulation shows
minimal queuing from each approach at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara
Road, except for the eastbound approach in the PM peak hour. The queues extend
approximately 4,400 feet (0.8 miles) from Tassajara Road to the intersection of Hacienda Drive.
Cumulative
During Cumulative conditions, the project area is over capacity as modeled and there is
considerable congestion, resulting to high travel times.
In the Cumulative AM peak hour condition, the travel times are high at approximately 37
minutes for westbound Dublin Boulevard. The majority of this travel time is from the
westbound delay east of Tassajara Road. The queues extend from Tassajara Road to past Fallon
Road. Also in the Cumulative AM peak hour condition, the travel times are high at
approximately 25 minutes for eastbound Dublin Boulevard. The majority of this travel time is
from the eastbound delay west of Tassajara Road. The queues extend from Tassajara Road to
Hibernia Drive.
In the Cumulative PM peak hour condition, the travel times are high at approximately 72
minutes for westbound Dublin Boulevard. The majority of this travel time is from the
westbound delay east of Tassajara Road. The queues extend from Tassajara Road to past Fallon
Road. Also in the Cumulative PM peak hour condition, the travel times are high at
approximately 35 minutes for eastbound Dublin Boulevard. The majority of this travel time is
from the eastbound delay west of Tassajara Road. The queues extend from Tassajara Road to
Hacienda Drive.
It should be noted that the congestion in these models are during Cumulative conditions
without the project, highlighting the fact that Dublin Boulevard is projected to operate with
considerable delays, even without additional traffic associated with the project.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-32 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 9: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis without Project Corridor Direction Length (miles) Existing Near-term Cumulative AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Travel Time (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 5.4 6.3 5.0 22.9 25.4 34.7 WB 2.1 4.4 4.7 9.3 6.3 37.0 71.5 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 2.9 3.3 4.0 5.3 5.1 9.6 SB 1.0 4.3 5.9 4.5 3.8 4.4 4.1 Delay (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 2.6 3.6 2.6 15.7 18.0 22.5 WB 2.1 2.0 2.3 4.9 3.8 22.2 53.7 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 1.6 2.0 2.6 3.9 3.7 6.7 SB 1.0 2.9 4.0 3.1 2.4 3.1 2.7 Average Speed (mph) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 24 20 25 8 7 4 WB 2.1 28 26 17 20 5 2 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 17 11 10 8 7 4 SB 1.0 11 10 10 14 12 13 Length of Queue (feet) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 Negligible 750 Negligible 4,400 3,700 4,400 WB 2.1 Negligible Negligible 2,600 Negligible Past Fallon Rd Past Fallon Rd Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 Negligible 450 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,800 SB 1.0 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Notes: 1. Analysis performed using SimTraffic software. 2. Traffic conditions in the Cumulative scenario are oversaturated, resulting in excessive travel times and delays. 3. Free flow travel time for Dublin Blvd between Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd is 2.8 minutes and free flow travel time for Tassajara Rd between Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr is 1.6 minutes. 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-33
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.3.12 Alameda County Transportation Commission Roadway Segment Analysis
The Alameda CTC roadway segment analysis was performed to comply with its congestion
management plan (CMP). In the CMP, development projects generating more than 100 PM
peak hour trips are analyzed to determine its impact on the Metropolitan Transportation
System (MTS) roadways.
The Alameda CTC travel demand forecast model was used to determine the Near-Term and
Cumulative traffic volumes in the PM peak hour. The analysis can be found in Appendix J. The
following summarizes the without project conditions:
Near-Term
Under the Near-Term condition, the following segments operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour:
Eastbound Dublin Boulevard from:
o Hacienda Drive to Hibernia Drive
o Hibernia Drive to Myrtle Drive
o Myrtle Drive to John Monego Court
o John Monego Court to Glynnis Rose Drive
o Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road
o Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street
o Brannigan Street to Keegan Street
o Keegan Street to Lockhart Street
o Lockhart Street to Fallon Road
Cumulative
Under the Cumulative condition, the following segments operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour:
Eastbound I-580 from:
o Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound Dublin Boulevard from:
o Hacienda Drive to Hibernia Drive
o Hibernia Drive to Myrtle Drive
o Myrtle Drive to John Monego Court
o John Monego Court to Glynnis Rose Drive
o Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road
o Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-34 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
o Brannigan Street to Keegan Street
o Keegan Street to Lockhart Street
o Lockhart Street to Fallon Road
Southbound Fallon Road from:
o I-580 WB to I-580 EB
17.3.13 Vehicle Miles of Travel
In response to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has updated
CEQA guidelines to include new transportation-related evaluation metrics. Draft guidelines
were developed in August 2014, with updated draft guidelines prepared in January 2016, which
incorporated public comments from the August 2014 guidelines. OPR released final proposed
Guidelines on November 27, 2017. The final proposed Guidelines include a new Section
15064.3 on vehicle miles of travel (VMT) analysis and thresholds. OPR also released a Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. New Guidelines Section 15064.3 states
that they do not take effect until January 1, 2020 unless the lead agency adopts them earlier.
Neither the City of Dublin nor the Alameda CTC has established any standards or thresholds on
VMT. Therefore, the new guidelines have not yet been adopted and are not in effect at this
time.
The final guidelines may change based on the comments received during the Natural Resources
Agency formal administrative rulemaking process for adoption under the Administrative
Procedure Act. Since there are no standards in effect on VMT analysis, a preliminary
assessment of the VMT generated by the project was prepared for information and disclosure
purposes only. No determination on the significance of VMT impacts is made in this document
since none is legally required.
The VMT for the City of Dublin and for the project were determined from the City of Dublin
travel demand forecast model. As shown in Table 17-10: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative
VMT Summary the project reduces the average trip length for each condition.
Table 17- 10: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative VMT Summary
Condition
Average Trip Length (miles)
City of Dublin At Dublin Reduction
Existing 7.60 7.29 -4.1%
Near-Term 7.54 7.14 -5.3%
Cumulative 7.60 6.77 -10.9%
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-35
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.4 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
17.4.1 Federal
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination toward people with
disabilities and guarantees that they have equal opportunities as the restofsocietytobecome
employed, purchase goods and services, and participate in government programs and services.
The ADA includes requirements pertaining to transportation infrastructure. The Department of
Justice’s revised regulations for Titles II and III of the ADA, known as the 2010 ADA Standards
for Accessible Designs, set minimum requirements for newly designed and constructed or
altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities
to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. These standards apply to
accessible walking routes, curb ramps, and other facilities.
17.4.2 State
California Complete Streets Act of 2008
This act requires that the circulation elements of local general plans accommodate a balanced,
multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and
highways in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the
jurisdiction. Users are defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons
with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and riders of public transportation.
California Transportation Development Act
The Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act (SB 325) (also known as the Transportation Development Act
[TDA]) was enacted in 1971 to improve public transportation services and encourage regional
transportation coordination. This law provides funding to be allocated to transit- and non-
transit-related purposes that comply with regional transportation plans. The TDA provides two
funding sources: 1) the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which is derived from a ¼ cent of the
general sales tax collected statewide, and 2) the State Transit Assistance fund (STA), which is
derived from the statewide sales tax on diesel fuel.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The Steinberg Act (SB 743) (also known as the Environmental Act) was enacted in 2013 to shift
the focus of transportation analysis from driver delay to reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
creating multimodal networks, and promoting mixed land uses. SB 743 requires the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide alternative
level of service metrics for transportation impact evaluations. The alternative criteria must
encourage greenhouse gas emissions reductions, support the development of multimodal
transportation networks, and promote a diversity of land uses. In August 2014, OPR released a
preliminary discussion draft of changes to the CEQA Guidelines for review and comment, and
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-36 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
the office is currently developing a revised draft for further review and comment. Under the
new guidelines, measurements of transportation impacts may include vehicle miles traveled,
vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips
generated.
17.4.3 Regional
Alameda County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Program
The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) manages the county’s one-cent
transportation sales tax and services as the county’s congestion management agency. ACTC
requires that projects that generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips analyze project impacts
to the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional
Significance
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) is a joint powers authority formed pursuant to the
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement establishing the Tri-Valley Transportation County, among
the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon,
Dublin and the Town of Danville. The TVTC oversees the expenditures of the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fund. The TVTC requires that projects that generate more than
100 peak hour vehicle trips must circulate the analysis to all TVTC jurisdictions. This circulation
can be a part of the CEQA process.
17.4.4 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies
associated with transportation that are relevant to the project:
Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.1: Design streets to (1) include sufficient capacity for projected traffic, (2)
minimize congested conditions during peak hours of operation at intersections, (3) serve a
variety of transportation modes including vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, and variety
of users including people with disabilities, children, and seniors, (4) provide continuity with
existing streets, and (5) allow convenient access to planned land uses.
Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.3: The goals, policies, and implementation measures for street design in
Section 10.8 of the Community Design and Sustainability Element should be consulted when
new streets are being designed and/or existing streets are being modified.
Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.4: Reserve right-of-way and construct improvements necessary to allow
streets to accommodate projected vehicular traffic with the least friction.
Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.6: The City shall strive to phase development and roadway improvements
so that the operating Level of Service (LOS) for intersections in Dublin does not exceed LOS D.
However, intersections within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area (including the
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-37
Draft EIR
10/23/18
intersections of Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road and Village Parkway/Interstate 680 on-
ramp) are excluded from this requirement and may operate at LOS E or worse as long as the
safety for pedestrians and bicyclists is maintained and impacts to transit travel speeds are
minimized.
Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.7: The City will comply with all provisions of the Alameda County
Congestion Management Program and will review proposed development projects to ensure
compliance with this Program.
Implementing Policy 5.2.2.B.1: Design streets according to the forecasted demand and
maximum design speeds listed above, and to the detailed standards set forth in the City of
Dublin’s Street Design Standards and Standard Plans which are maintained by the Public Works
Department, as well as the listed Additional Policies.
Implementing Policy 5.2.2.B.2: Design and construct all roads in the City’s circulation network
as defined in Figure 5-1 [Exhibit 3.6-4a] as well as bicycle and pedestrian networks as defined in
the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Guiding Policy 5.2.3.A.1: Provide an integrated multi-modal circulation system that provides
efficient vehicular circulation while providing a design that allows safe and convenient travel
along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities,
seniors, children, youth, and families; and encourages pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other
non-automobile transportation alternatives.
Implementing Policy 5.2.3.B.1: Provide continuity with existing streets, include sufficient
capacity for projected traffic, and allow convenient access to planned land uses.
Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.1: Support improved local transit as essential to a quality urban
environment, particularly for residents who do not drive.
Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.2: Support the development of a community that facilitates and
encourages the use of local and regional transit systems.
Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.3: Encourage improvements in the Enhanced Pedestrian Areas to
improve the walkability of these areas.
Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.4: Maintain enhanced signal coordination and limit intersection delays on
major and RAPID transit routes to minimize delays to transit service.
Implementing Policy 5.3.1.B.2: Require dedication of land and the construction of
improvements to support the use of public transit in the community. Improvements could
consist of bus turnouts, shelters, benches, real time arrival information, and other facilities that
may be appropriate.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-38 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementing Policy 5.3.1.B.4: Capitalize on opportunities to connect into and enhance
ridership on regional transit systems including BART, LAVTA and any future light rail systems.
Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.1: Plan for all users by creating and maintaining Complete Streets that
provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including streets,
roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system) through a
comprehensive, integrated transportation network that meets the requirements of currently
adopted transportation plans and serves all categories of users.
Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.2: Be context aware by maintaining sensitivity to local conditions and
needs in both residential and business districts as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas, and
will work with residents, merchants, and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense of
place ensues.
Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.6: Encourage developers to implement Complete Streets in private
transportation infrastructure by providing guidance during the development approval process.
Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.1: Provide safe, continuous, comfortable and convenient bikeways
throughout the City.
Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.2: Improve and maintain bikeways and pedestrian facilities and support
facilities in conformance with the recommendations in the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan.
Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.3: Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate
alternative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation.
Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.4: Provide comfortable, safe, and convenient walking routes throughout
the City and, in particular, to key destinations such as Downtown Dublin, the BART Stations,
schools, parks, and commercial centers.
Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.2: Improve bikeways, bicycle support facilities, and pedestrian
facilities in accordance with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in conjunction with
development proposals.
Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.3: Ensure on-going maintenance of bikeways, bicycle support
facilities and pedestrian facilities that are intended for public use and located on private
property in conjunction with development proposals.
Guiding Policy 5.6.1.A.1: Designate and accommodate truck routes to minimize noise nuisance
on residential arterial streets.
Implementing Policy 5.6.1.B.1: Take advantage of opportunities to provide long-term truck
parking facilities.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-39
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Guiding Policy 5.9.1.A.1: Continue the city’s program of requiring developers to contribute fees
and/or improvements to help fund off-site improvements related to their projects.
City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sets forth the following policies relevant to transportation:
Policy 4-24: Require all employment-related development to provide convenient and attractive
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-related facilities to encourage alternate modes of commuting to
and from work.
Policy 4-31: Establish a convenient, multi-use, all-weather network of trails, including bike
lanes, to link planning area parks, recreation facilities, schools, employment centers and major
open space areas to each other and to the surrounding community.
Policy 5-3: Plan development in eastern Dublin to maintain Level of Service D or better as the
average intersection level of service at all intersections within the Specific Plan area during AM,
PM and midday peak periods. The average intersection level of service is defined as the hourly
average.
Policy 5-12: BART service to the eastern Dublin/Pleasanton station orients local transit service
to provide transit connections between the BART station and all portions of the Specific Plan
area.
Policy 5-13: Establish design guidelines for residential and commercial development so that
there are clear and safe pedestrian paths between building entrances and transit service stops.
Policy 5-14: Provide transit shelters at major limit stops and bus pullouts on major collector,
arterial and major arterial streets.
Policy 5-18: Provide convenient and secure bicycle parking and support facilities at key
destinations in eastern Dublin, such as schools, recreation areas, transit stops and commercial
centers.
Policy 5-21: Require all non-residential projects with 50 or more employees to participate in a
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program.
17.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
17.5.1 Significance Criteria
CEQA Criteria
The following significance criteria for transportation and circulation were derived from the
Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. These significance criteria have been
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-40 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
amended or supplemented, as appropriate, to address lead agency requirements and the full
range of potential impacts related to this project.
An impact of the project would be considered significant and would require mitigation if it
would meet one of the following criteria.
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of 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.
Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited
to LOS standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
Result in inadequate emergency access.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
City of Dublin
Impacts to City of Dublin intersections could be considered significant if the project would
result in any of the following:
The project conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures
of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of 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. A significant
impact could be identified:
o If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within motor vehicle delay
ranges associated with LOS D or better (average control delay equal to or less
than 55 seconds per vehicle) without the project and the project is expected to
cause the facility to operate at a LOS E or F;
o If at a study, signalized intersection where the motor vehicle level of service is E,
the project would cause an increase in the average delay for any of the critical
movements of six (6) seconds or more.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-41
Draft EIR
10/23/18
If at a study, signalized intersection where the motor vehicle level of service is LOS F, the
project would cause (a) the overall volume-to-capacity (“V/C”) ratio to increase 0.03 or
more or (b) the critical movement V/C ratio to increase 0.05 or more.
A queuing impact would be identified if:
o Project traffic causes the 95th percentile queue in a turn pocket to extend
beyond the turn pocket by more than 25 feet (i.e., the length of one vehicle) into
adjacent traffic lanes that operate (i.e., move) separately from the turn lane; or
o If the 95th percentile queue already exceeds that turn pocket length under no
project conditions, the project traffic lengthens the queue by more than 25 feet.
If the operations of an unsignalized study intersection is projected to decline with the
addition of project traffic, and if the installation of a traffic signal based on the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Peak-Hour Signal Warrant (Warrant 3)
would be warranted.
For intersections that meet the above criteria, capacity-enhancing measures that do not
degrade other modes of travel will be considered, including upgrading or installing signal
equipment, extending left-turn pocket storage, providing non-motorized facilities to reduce
vehicular demand, enhancing capacity on a parallel route and/or enhancing transit access to a
site. The determination of a significant impact and the appropriate mitigation measure will
consider the City’s Complete Streets policy.
Impacts to transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities could be identified if the project conflicts with
adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities; specifically:
A pedestrian impact is considered significant if it would:
o Disrupt existing pedestrian facilities;
o Interfere with planned pedestrian facilities; or
o Create inconsistencies with adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines,
policies, or standards.
A bicycle impact is considered significant if it would:
o Disrupt existing bicycle facilities;
o Interfere with planned bicycle facilities;
o Create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or
standards; or
o Not provide secure and safe bicycle parking in adequate proportion to
anticipated demand.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-42 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
A transit impact is considered significant if it would result in development that is
inaccessible to transit riders or would generate transit demand that cannot be met by
existing or planned transit in the area.
Transportation-related impacts could also be identified if:
The project substantially increases traffic hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses.
The project results in inadequate emergency access.
City of Pleasanton
Impacts to City of Pleasanton intersections could be considered if the project would result in
any of the following:
For signalized intersections located in Pleasanton, an impact would be assessed if the
addition of project traffic results in the deterioration of a signalized intersection from
LOS D (or better) to LOS E or LOS F. Assessments of impacts were based on HCM 2000
method. There are a few exceptions to the LOS standard, including the City of
Pleasanton Gateway intersections. Gateway intersections include all ramp terminal
intersections on I-580. For the Gateway intersections, the LOS standard could be below
D when no reasonable mitigation exists or the necessary mitigation is contrary to other
goals and policies of the City.
For signalized intersections located in Pleasanton, an impact would be assessed at an
intersection projected to operate at LOS E or F prior to the addition of project traffic, if
the project adds 10 or more peak-hour trips.
The exceptions are the following gateway intersections:
El Charro Road at I-580 EB ramps
Fallon Road at I-580 WB ramps
Santa Rita Road at I-580 EB ramps
Santa Rita Road at I-580 WB ramps
Hacienda Drive at I-580 EB ramps
Hacienda Drive at I-580 WB ramps
Hacienda Drive at Owens Drive
These gateway intersections may have a LOS below LOS D if no reasonable mitigation exists or if
the necessary mitigation is contrary to other goals and policies of Pleasanton. These standards
are identified in the City of Pleasanton General Plan (2009).
Mitigations for these significant impacts would be required to improve the intersection to at or
better than without project conditions.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-43
Draft EIR
10/23/18
City of Livermore
As stated in the City of Livermore General Plan, intersections in Livermore shall not exceed mid-
level LOS D (average control delay of 45 seconds or less for a signalized intersection), with the
exception of gateway intersections. The following would be considered a LOS impact:
If the project were to worsen the LOS from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS
E or LOS F, this would be considered a significant impact.
For a signalized intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F without the
project, and the project were to add any peak hour trips, this would be considered a
significant impact.
Mitigations for these significant impacts would be required to improve the intersection to at or
better than without project conditions.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
Impacts to intersections on Routes of Regional Significance as defined by the TVTC would be
considered significant if:
A signalized intersection is projected to operate within delay ranges associated with
less-than-capacity conditions for motor vehicles (i.e., LOS E or better with an average
control delay of equal to or less than 80 seconds per vehicle) without the project and
the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at [LOS] F;
At a study signalized intersection where the motor vehicle level of service is LOS F prior
to the addition of project traffic, the project would cause (a) the overall volume-to-
capacity (“V/C”) ratio to increase 0.03 or more or (b) the critical movement V/C ratio to
increase 0.05 or more.
Intersections in downtown areas and/or specifically exempted by local jurisdictions are exempt
from this TVTC standard.
Although the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance,
September 2017, specifies the use of the 2010 HCM method for evaluating intersection
operations, the City of Dublin has not yet adopted use of the 2010 HCM method. Therefore, for
the purposes of this assessment, the 2000 HCM method is used to assess impacts under the
TVTC criteria. The 2000 HCM method tends to produce more conservative results for motor
vehicle operations and use of the 2000 HCM method would capture potential impacts under
the TVTC criteria.
Alameda County Transportation Commission
The Alameda CTC does not have adopted thresholds of significance for Congestion
Management Plan (CMP) land use analysis purposes. Past analyses within the City of Dublin
have used the following criteria to assess roadway segment impacts:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-44 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
For a roadway segment of the Alameda CTC Congestion Management Program (CMP)
Network, the project would cause (a) the LOS to degrade from LOS E or better to LOS F
or (b) the V/C ratio to increase 0.02 or more for a roadway segment that would operate
at LOS F without the project.
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) endeavors to maintain a target LOS at
the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State Highway facilities (Caltrans 2002); however,
Caltrans recognizes that achieving LOS C/LOS D may not always be feasible. A standard of LOS E
or better on a peak-hour basis was used as the planning objective for the evaluation of
potential impacts of this development on Caltrans facilities, as that is the standard set for
Caltrans facilities in the study area by the Alameda CTC.
Significance Classifications
The significance of each impact is identified according to the classifications listed below.
Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
Class III: Adverse impact but less than significant; no mitigation recommended.
Class IV: Beneficial impact; mitigation is not required.
No Impact.
17.5.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impacts
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
ADA-compliant spaces are not required for single-family dwelling units. Therefore, there would
be no impact.
Change in Air Traffic Patterns
The project site is more than two miles from an airport or private air strip and would not result
in a change in air traffic patterns. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Supporting Alternative Transportation
The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Emergency Access & Hazards
The project includes multiple vehicular access points from public streets surrounding the
project site, meeting or exceeding California Fire Code requirements. Furthermore, the final
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-45
Draft EIR
10/23/18
site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency
access. Therefore, there would be no impact.
17.5.3 Trip Generation Estimates
Trip generation estimates were prepared for weekday and Saturday traffic conditions (worst
case). In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic accessing and departing
the project site is estimated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours and Saturday peak hour.
Through empirical research, data have been collected that correlate common land uses with
their propensity for producing traffic. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard
trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the traffic increases that would result
from a new development. Project trip generation was estimated by applying the proposed land
uses and then size to the appropriate trip generation rates published in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
Pass-By Reduction
Pass-by trips are credited to account for vehicle trips that will already be on the roadways and
will likely stop as they pass by the project site. Although data published in ITE’s Trip Generation
Handbook, 3rd Edition indicates that a pass-by rate greater than 15 percent could be applied to
retail land uses in the PM peak hour, Caltrans Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines require that
only a maximum 15 percent pass-by reduction rate can be applied, and was assumed in this
analysis.
Internal Capture
Given the mixed-use characteristics of the project, there is the potential for interaction among
uses internal to the project site. These types of trips are considered “captured” within the site.
Based on the ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, a 3.4 percent and 5 percent internal
capture reduction was applied to the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
As shown in Table 17-11: Proposed Project Trip Generation – Weekday, the project would
generate 19,327 net new daily trips, with 748 net new trips (325 in and 423 out) occurring
during the AM peak hour and 1,545 net new trips (809 in and 736 out) occurring during the PM
peak hour for a typical weekday.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-46 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 11: Proposed Project Trip Generation – Weekday
Land Use Size Unit
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Residential Single-Family
Detached (ITE 210) 1 180 DU 9.92 1,786 0.74 33 100 133 0.99 113 66 179
Residential Condominium
(ITE 220) 2 200 DU 7.36 1472 0.46 21 71 92 0.55 69 40 109
Residential Apartments
(ITE 220)2 300 DU 7.43 2228 0.45 31 104 135 0.52 99 58 157
Hotel (ITE 310) 3 240 Rooms 9.51 2282 0.48 68 47 115 0.64 79 75 154
Mixed-Use (ITE 820) 4 295 1,000 sf 42.53 12,546 1.01 185 114 299 4.10 581 629 1,210
Internal Capture
Trip Reduction
(Day: 4%, AM: 3.4%, PM: 5%) -813 -13 -13 -26 -45 -45 -90
Pass-By
Retail Only Trip Reduction
(PM: 15% after IC) -174 -87 -87 -174
Net New Project Trips 19,327 325 423 748 809 736 1,545
Notes:
[IC] - Internal Capture
1. Single Family Detached Housing - ITE Code 210; Based on ITE equation.
2. Multifamily Housing - ITE Code 220; Based on ITE equation.
3. Hotel - ITE 310; Based on ITE equation.
4. Shopping Center – ITE 820; Based on ITE equation.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 10th Edition, 2017; Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018
As shown in Table 17-12: Proposed project Trip Generation – Saturday, the project would
generate 20,314 net new daily trips, with 1,928 net new trips (1,021 in and 905 out) occurring
during the peak hour for a typical Saturday.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-47
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 12: Proposed Project Trip Generation – Saturday
Land Use Size Unit
Daily Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate In Out Total
Residential Single-Family Detached
(ITE 210) 1 180 DU 9.54 1,718 0.93 90 77 169
Residential Condominium
(ITE 220) 2 200 DU 8.14 1,628 0.7 76 64 140
Residential Apartments
(ITE 220) 2 300 DU 8.14 2,442 0.7 113 97 210
Hotel (ITE 310) 3 240 Rooms 8.19 1,966 0.72 97 76 173
Mixed-Use (ITE 820) 4 295 1,000 sf 46.12 13,606 4.5 691 637 1,328
Internal Capture
Trip Reduction
(Day: 4%, Peak: 5%) 5 -854 50 50 100
Pass-By
Retail Only Trip Reduction
(Peak: 15% after IC) 6 -192 -96 -96 -192
Net New Project Trips 20,314 1,021 905 1,928
Notes:
[IC] - Internal Capture
1. Single Family Detached Housing - ITE Code 210; Based on ITE equation.
2. Multifamily Housing - ITE Code 220; Based on ITE equation.
3. Hotel - ITE 310; Based on ITE equation.
4. Shopping Center – ITE 820; Based on ITE equation.
5. Saturday internal capture is not available from ITE. Weekday daily and PM peak data is used in the table above.
6. Saturday pass-by trip reduction data is not available from ITE. Weekday PM peak data is used in the table above.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 10th Edition, 2017; Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018
17.5.4 Trip Distribution
Trip distribution estimates the destinations to and origins from which the project would travel.
The project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. The directional distribution
of project-generated traffic to and from the site was developed based on a select zone analysis
from the City of Dublin travel demand forecast model in the Existing, Near-Term, and
Cumulative years, and adjusted based on existing traffic patterns, discussions with City staff,
and knowledge of the project area. Figure 17-10: Project Trip Distribution shows the
distribution of project trips throughout the project area for each condition. The peak hour trips
generated by the proposed uses were then assigned to the roadway system.
Figure 17-11: Project Site Plan shows the site plan with the various access points for each
project parcel. Project trip assignments to the network are shown in Figure 17-12a: Existing
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-48 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Project Trip Assignment Turning Movement Volumes, Figure 17-12b: Near-Term Project Trip
Assignment Turning Movement Volumes, and Figure 17-12c: Cumulative Project Trip
Assignment Turning Movement Volumes.
Project trips added to Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative volumes are shown in Figure 17-13:
Existing + Project Turning Movement Volumes, Figure 17-14: Near-Term + Project Turning
Movement Volumes and Figure 17-15: Cumulative + Project Turning Movement Volumes,
respectively.
17.5.5 Proposed Project Driveways and Intersections
As shown in Figure 17-11: Project Site Plan, the project is proposing 12 project driveways
and/or intersections:
x Intersection #13 – Tassajara Road / The Shops / Project Driveway #1
x Intersection #20 – Brannigan Street / Aviano Way / Project Driveway #2
x Intersection #22 – Brannigan Street / Finnian Way / Project Driveway #3
x Intersection #30 – Tassajara Road (north of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #4
x Intersection #31 – Tassajara Road (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #5
x Intersection #32 – Gleason Drive / Project Driveway #6
x Intersection #33 – Central Parkway (east of Tassajara Rd) / Project Driveway #7
x Intersection #34 – Central Parkway (west of Brannigan St) / Project Driveway #8
x Intersection #35 – Dublin Boulevard / Project Driveway #9
x Intersection #36 – Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #10
x Intersection #37 – Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #11
x Intersection #38 – Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #12
Vehicle Queuing
A queuing analysis was completed for the outbound approach for each project driveway to
determine the number of lanes needed and the necessary lane length. Table 17-13: Project
Driveway Lane Lengths Summary summarizes the lanes needed and the lengths.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-49
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 13: Project Driveway Lane Lengths Summary
Intersection
# Intersection Movement # of Lanes Lane Length
13 Tassajara Road / The Shops /
Project Driveway #1
WB Left
WB Thru/Right
1
1
190
50
20 Brannigan Street / Aviano Way /
Project Driveway #2 EB Left/Thru/Right 1 60
22 Brannigan Street / Finnian Way /
Project Driveway #3 EB Left/Thru/Right 1 205
30 Tassajara Road (north of Dublin
Blvd) / Project Driveway #4 WB Right 1 50
31 Tassajara Road (south of Dublin
Blvd) / Project Driveway #5 WB Right 1 435
32 Gleason Drive / Project Driveway #6 SB Right 1 50
33 Central Parkway (east of Tassajara
Rd) / Project Driveway #7 NB Right 1 50
34 Central Parkway (west of Brannigan
St) / Project Driveway #8
SB Right
NB Right
1
1
50
60
35 Dublin Boulevard / Project
Driveway #9
NB Left
NB Thru/Right
SB Left
SB Thru/Right
2
1
1
1
365
75
125
445
36 Brannigan Street (south of Dublin
Blvd) / Project Driveway #10 EB Left/Right 1 195
37 Brannigan Street (south of Dublin
Blvd) / Project Driveway #11 EB Left/Right 1 305
38 Brannigan Street (south of Dublin
Blvd) / Project Driveway #12 EB Left/Thru 1 220
Impact TR-1: Create a potentially dangerous new intersection. (Class II)
The project is proposing a new full access mid-block traffic signal on Dublin Boulevard between
Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. This traffic signal would provide access to Planning Area
(PA) 1 south of Dublin Boulevard and PA-2a and PA-2b north of Dublin Boulevard in addition to
an existing intersection at Brannigan Street. The project is proposing this signalized
intersection to allow vehicles exiting PA-1 to make a left turn onto westbound Dublin Boulevard
(in addition to Brannigan Street intersection), and then another left turn onto southbound
Tassajara Road to access I-580. Alternatively, vehicles could exit the proposed right-in and right-
out access along Tassajara Road opposite the Dublin Corporate Way intersection; however,
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-50 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
currently no left turn movement exist thus limiting direct connection from Tassajara Road
southbound to I-580.
This new traffic signal would provide pedestrians and bicyclists a controlled pathway across
Dublin Boulevard. Without this traffic signal, pedestrians would need to cross Dublin Boulevard
at the intersection of Tassajara Road or Brannigan Street. There are no final design plans for
the proposed intersection. Therefore, the intersection design should follow the City of Dublin’s
Pedestrian and Bicycle Design Guidelines to promote a safe design for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Pedestrian features should include crosswalks on the north, south, and eastall legs of
the intersection. The west leg may not include a crosswalk because it is anticipated that the
northbound left turn and eastbound right turn vehicular movements will be heavily used and
therefore would potentially conflict with pedestrians on the west leg of the intersection.
Pedestrian countdown signals should be installed for each pedestrian movement across the
intersection. Since the distance across Dublin Boulevard is long, a mid-block median refuge
should be installedBicycle features shouldmay include colorized pavement for the bicycle lane
on the eastbound approach to emphasize the bicycle right-of-way as there are expected to be a
high volume of eastbound right turning vehicles crossing the bicycle lane to enter the project
site south of Dublin Boulevard.
The existing distance between these two signalized intersections is approximately 1,000 feet
centerline to centerline. The proposed traffic signal would bisect this roadway segment along
Dublin Boulevard into approximately 550 feet and 450 feet for the segment to the west of the
signal and for the segment to the east of the signal, respectively.
These short distances are not typical for the installation of traffic signals. The City of Dublin
General Plan roadway standards state that intersections with median openings shall be spaced
no closer than 750 feet. In special circumstances, such as “T” intersections, intersection spacing
less than 750 feet may be allowed with the approval of the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
Typically, traffic signals are at least 1,000 feet apart to minimize traffic spill over to adjacent
signals, limit frequent stops, optimize progression of signals, and reduce the occurrences of
vehicles queued and blocking intersections. The spacing of the signals also play an important
role in safety considerations for access to adjacent land uses.
It should be noted that the two traffic signals on Dublin Boulevard, west of Tassajara Road, are
spaced less than 1,000 feet apart but the land uses accessing these intersections are
significantly different than the project in location, access, and intensity. The intersections of
Dublin Boulevard and John Monego Court (Intersection #9), Dublin Boulevard and Glynnis Rose
Drive (Intersection #10), and Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Intersection #14) are spaced
660 feet apart and 730 feet apart, respectively. With these shorter distances between the
traffic signals, there are instances in which the eastbound queues on Dublin Boulevard
propagate back from Tassajara Road, and into the Glynnis Rose Drive intersection in the PM
peak hour indicating an existing concern about short spaced intersections.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-51
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As will be described in Sections 17.5.7 and 17.5.8, there is heavy congestion in the PM peak
hour on westbound Dublin Boulevard approaching the intersection of Tassajara Road in the
Near-term and Cumulative conditions. The westbound left turn lane at the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road is particularly congested with queues that would extend
through the new mid-block traffic signal. Therefore, a traffic issues arise given the heavy
congestion and short distances along Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Project site, causing in
potentially dangerous roadway condition, resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of
MM TR-1.1 would reduce this impact to less than significant (Class III).
Implementation of MM TR-1.1 would also reduce the arterial travel times on Dublin Boulevard.
The project increases the travel time by more than double the without project travel time
under Existing conditions, from 5 minutes to 13 minutes.
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
Prior to approval of the first building permit for development in Planning Area 1 or 2, the
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that design features
have been incorporated into the development plans that prohibit northbound and southbound
left turn movements onto Dublin Boulevard at the new intersection during the weekday and
weekend time periods (defined below); or alternative improvements have been incorporated
that modify or eliminate the need for the prohibited turn movements. Time periods are
defined as:
Weekday = 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
Weekday = 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM
Weekend Peak = 10:30 AM to 2:30 PM
Should the City determine that queuing impacts extend beyond these time periods, the City
may modify these time periods accordingly to ensure impacts remain less than significant.
Design features could include:
Moveable bollards,
Gated lane control systems,
Raised curbs,
Temporary traffic control devices,
Changeable message signs,
Flashing signal heads,
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-52 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Modifying the ingress/egress circulation on Brannigan Street and/or Tassajara Road,
and/or
Other means as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director.
At any such time after full build-out and occupancy of the project, the applicant may submit
additional traffic analysis to the City, that would be independently verified, demonstrating that
the time periods may be adjusted or that the prohibited turning movements are no longer
required, such that impacts are maintained at a less than significant level, as deemed
acceptable by the Public Works Director.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would thereby reduce impacts to less than
significant (Class II).
17.5.6 Existing + Project Impact Analysis
Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Existing + Project condition that
exceed established LOS standards (Class I).
Weekday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-14: Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Existing + Project conditions
during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersections
under each jurisdiction:
City of LivermorePleasanton
The project would add trips to the following intersection that is already operating at an
unacceptable LOS:
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) (Class II)
o The project adds 69 trips to the intersection in the AM peak hour and causes the
intersection to continue to operate at LOS E.
MM TR-2.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However,
since the mitigation is located in the City of Livermore Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot
guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure, the impacts remains significant and
unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-16: Mitigated Existing +
Project Transportation Delay & LOS.
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-53
Draft EIR
10/23/18
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Pleasanton impact criteria, but not
the TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this
impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Livermore Pleasanton to pay
the project’s proportionate fair share (2 percent) for improvements to the intersection of El
Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal
timing splits by adjusting the maximum green time for each movement to better match the
vehicle demand for that particular movement. The primary change would be to increase the
split for the eastbound left turn movement due to the high eastbound left turn traffic volumes.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Livermore Pleasanton impact criteria,
but not the TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria,
this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall submit a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The
project applicant shall be responsible for fully funding and implementing the TDM program.
The TDM program shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant/ engineer in
coordination with the project applicant and City staff. The TDM program may include but not
be limited to the following measures:
Implement a subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or
subsidized rate to all employees.
Provide a shuttle service between the project site and the East Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station.
Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent, per Section 132(F) of
federal tax code, where an employer can offer its employees a monthly subsidy for
public transit.
Join City Car Share or similar program as a "Biz Prime" member and pay for
membership of a minimum of 5% employees.
Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20% of car spaces, or a number approved by the
City.
Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-54 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Partner with local businesses (e.g. Kaiser Medical Center) in the formation of a
Transportation Management Association (TMA)
Facilitate employer-sponsored carpooling and ride-matching programs.
Provide preferential carpool parking.
Implement a guaranteed ride home program.
Provide an on-site car share program.
Encourage employee flexible work scheduling practices to avoid peak-hour travel
(flex time, staggered shifts, compressed work schedules, etc.).
Co-sponsor a transportation fair once a year with At Dublin businesses. Invite
Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute alternative service providers to
attend and distribute commute alternative information. Provide refreshments to
participants.
Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees regarding
511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program, Wheels/LAVTA, shuttles to
regional transit, City CarShare program, and other relevant alternative
transportation options.
Distribute information quarterly regarding transportation alternatives by email to all
employees.
Provide a kiosk(s) with brochures, and similar items that provide information about
the TDM program. Create a website with similar information.
Appoint a Commute Coordinator to facilitate information dissemination.
The project applicant shall be required to submit a yearly report on/or before September 30
detailing the current status of the TDM measures, summarizing the program’s effectiveness,
identifying any changes to the TDM measures that occurred in the previous year, and
identifying additional steps to be taken, if necessary, to reduce traffic impacts. Additional
details regarding TDM monitoring shall be developed as part of the development of the TDM
program.
Saturday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-15: Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Existing + Project condition
during the Saturday peak hours.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-55 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 14: Existing and Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 1 Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 11.5 B 11.3 B 11.5 B 11.3 B 2 Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 22.8 C 21.0 C 24.0 C 20.6 C 3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 44.5 D 37.7 D 48.4 D 39.6 D 4 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.3 A 6.2 A 7.4 A 6.3 A 5 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 39.9 D 11.3 B 43.3 D 12.2 B 6 Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. Signal PLS N/A 18.0 B 34.3 C 18.2 B 35.1 D 7 Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. Signal DUB D 16.0 B 18.7 B 15.9 B 18.4 B 8 Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. Signal DUB D 11.7 B 14.8 B 11.5 B 14.8 B 9 Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct. Signal DUB D 8.1 A 8.8 A 8.0 A 8.7 A 10 Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. Signal DUB D 15.8 B 17.7 B 15.2 B 16.9 B 11 Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 40.9 D 36.5 D 33.5 C 34.3 C 12 Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy Signal DUB D 30.7 C 24.5 C 22.5 C 17.4 B 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 9.1 A 16.6 B 13.1 B 17.4 B 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 40.3 D 45.8 D 39.0 D 47.0 D 15 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way Signal DUB D 7.1 A 22.8 C 7.0 A 21.9 C 16 Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.8 A 9.8 A 8.3 A 14.8 B 17 Tassajara Rd. / Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps – Pimlico Dr. Signal CAL/PLS N/A 42.5 D 42.8 D 44.6 D 52.6 D 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 30.9 C 32.8 C 31.1 C 33.1 C 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-56 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 36.3 D 14.0 B 40.5 D 36.7 D 20 Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way SSSC DUB D 2.9 A 3.3 A 4.3 A 4.5 A Worst Approach 13.5 B 9.3 A 17.9 C 12.4 B 21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 24.6 C 16.2 B 28.4 C 18.0 B 22 Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. AWSC DUB D 7.9 A 8.1 A 8.2 A 9.3 A 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 15.5 B 18.2 B 16.5 B 16.7 B 24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 15.9 B 10.7 B 6.9 A 10.4 B 25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 33.1 C 15.0 B 33.1 C 15.0 B 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 13.5 B 14.8 B 13.9 B 15.4 B 27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 8.8 A 11.0 B 8.8 A 11.3 B 28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.9 A 8.7 A 7.9 A 8.9 A 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal PLSLIV D 44.0 D 58.2 E 44.1 D 59.0 69 trips E 30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.1 A Worst Approach 8.6 A 9.1 A 31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.3 A Worst Approach 11.0 B 17.3 C 32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.1 A Worst Approach 10.3 B 9.0 A 33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A Worst Approach 9.2 A 0.0 A 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-57 Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.8 A 0.4 A Worst Approach 11.9 B 11.3 B 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 13.5 B 30.2 C 36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.6 A 1.0 A Worst Approach 9.2 A 10.2 B 37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.4 A Worst Approach 9.1 A 9.9 A 38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.7 A 1.3 A Worst Approach 9.1 A 9.7 A 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 11.1 B 9.2 A 11.1 B 9.4 A 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 10.6 B 9.1 A 10.6 B 9.0 A 41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 21.7 C 22.4 C 21.8 C 22.5 C Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. 9. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-58 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 15: Existing and Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing Existing + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 18.6 B 21.3 C 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 39.3 D 44.0 D 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 40.6 D 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-59 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 16: Mitigated Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Existing + Project Mitigated Existing + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal PLSLIV D 59.0 E 43.5 D 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-61
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact TR-3: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Existing +
Project conditions (Class II).
As shown in Table 17-17: Existing + Project Queuing Analysis, the following intersections would
exceed the available storage length and increase the queue length by more than the significant
threshold of 25 feet during the weekday and weekend AM and PM peak period. A summary of
the queuing results for all study intersections is provided in Appendix J.
Table 17- 17: Existing + Project Queuing Analysis
# Intersection
Peak
Period
Turning
Movement
Storage
Length
(ft.)
Queue Length (ft.)
Variance
Without
Project
With
Project
2 Hacienda Dr /
Central Pkwy AM Peak WBL 190 207 260 53 feet (2 veh)
3 Hacienda Dr /
Dublin Blvd AM Peak WBL 250 235 290 55 feet (2 veh)
13 Dublin Blvd / The
Shops SAT Peak NBL 205 168 231 63 feet (3 veh)
14 Tassajara Rd /
Dublin Blvd PM Peak EBL 220 266 315 49 feet (2 veh)
17 Santa Rita Rd /
EB I-580 Ramps PM Peak SBL 405 668 693 25 feet (1 veh)
The following intersections have significant queuing impacts in the Existing + Project conditions:
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway (Intersection #2) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 53
feet in the AM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.1 would extend the westbound left turn pocket by 55 feet from
190 feet to 245 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 55 feet would mitigate the
project’s increase in the queue by 53 feet and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the project’s proportionate
fair share (17%) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway. The
improvements shall consist of extending the westbound left turn pocket by 55 feet from 190
feet to 245 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be modified to lengthen the turn
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-62 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
pocket. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 55
feet in the AM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.2 would reduce the westbound left turn queue by 37 feet to 253
feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of
250 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby
reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (7 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the
westbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact
Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the eastbound left turn lane by 49
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.3 would reduce the eastbound left turn queue by 37 feet to 278
feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the without project queue of 266 feet.
The queue is reduced to be within one vehicle length of the without project queue and thereby
reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (15 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the
eastbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact
Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #17) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the southbound left turn lane by 25
feet in the PM peak hour.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-63
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Implementation of MM TR-3.4 would extend the southbound left turn pocket by 25 feet from
405 feet to 430 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 25 feet would mitigate the
project’s increase in the queue by 25 feet. However, since the intersection is located in the City
of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation
measure, the impacts remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shallprovidetheCityof
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (16 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Santa
Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps. The improvements shall consist of extending the southbound left
turn pocket by 25 feet from 405 feet to 430 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be
modified to lengthen the turn pocket.
Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project Driveway (Intersection #13) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 63
feet in the SAT peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.5 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 24 feet to 207
feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of
205 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby
reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project
Driveway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the entirety (100
percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The
improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn movement.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs.
Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Existing
+ Project condition that exceed established LOS standards. (Class I)
As shown in Table 17-18: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Analysis, all freeway segments
operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hour under the Existing + Project
condition. However, as mentioned previously, each freeway is actually over capacity and
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-64 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
should be operating at LOS F because the volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak
hour and the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by
downstream bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway analysis do not reflect
the true volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
Table 17- 18: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Analysis
#
Study Segment
(I-580) Dir Lanes
Existing + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Vol (vph)
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph)
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
a Dougherty Road to
Hacienda Drive
WB 5 9,081 35.7 E 7,762 28.3 D
EB 7 8,213 20.7 C 7,841 19.8 C
b Hacienda Drive to
Tassajara Road
WB 5 9,427 38.1 E 6,715 23.8 C
EB 5 6,679 23.7 C 7,506 27.1 D
c Tassajara Road to
Fallon Road
WB 5 8,609 32.7 D 6,533 23.1 C
EB 5 5,647 19.9 C 7,283 26.1 D
d Fallon Road to
Airway Boulevard
WB 5 8,469 31.9 D 6,532 23.1 C
EB 5 5,712 20.2 C 7,622 27.6 D
Notes:
1. Segments operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded
light blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
3. For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to
be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis.
4. Express lanes not included in this analysis.
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would require the applicant to pay their proportional share to
fund regional roadway improvements. This Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fund is
calculated from the average peak hour vehicle trips. Additional information on the program
can be found on the TVTC website. These improvements may include the second phase of I-
680/I-580 interchange improvements, widening of State Route 84 through Pigeon Pass, and
other planned roadway system modifications that would relieve freeway congestion in the
study area. The I-680/I-580 interchange project should help to alleviate congestion on
westbound I-580 as vehicles going from westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 have only one
lane through the connector loop at the interchange and this creates a queue on I-580 since the
throughput of the loop ramp less than the demand, particularly due to the slow speeds by
trucks using the loop ramp. The State Route 84 widening project from Pigeon Pass to I-680
should help to provide additional capacity on State Route 84 and divert more traffic from I-580
between I-680 and State Route 84. However, as the construction timing of these
improvements is unknown as full funding has not been identified, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable (Class I).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-65
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
(TVTC) to pay all applicable regional transportation impact fees related to freeway
improvements.
I-580 Freeway Ramps
Table 17-19: Existing + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis shows the volume, density, and level of
service for each freeway ramp with the project trips added. Based on this analysis, the LOS at
each freeway ramp would remain at an acceptable level resulting in no impact.
Table 17- 19: Existing + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis
Interchange
(I-580)
Dir Ramp
Existing + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS
Hacienda Drive
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 27.4 0.3 C 24.2 0.4 C
Loop On-ramp 22.0 0.0 C 20.9 12.0 C
Off-ramp 29.7 0.3 D 21.1 0.3 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 19.6 0.3 B 24.0 0.7 C
Loop On-ramp 18.7 0.1 B 20.4 9.7 C
Off-ramp 17.1 0.2 C 15.9 0.5 C
Tassajara Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 32.0 0.6 D 20.3 9.9 C
Loop On-ramp 21.0 12.0 C 17.5 0.0 B
Off-ramp 26.6 0.1 C 20.0 0.2 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 17.7 0.1 B 21.2 0.2 C
Loop On-ramp 20.6 0.3 C 28.0 0.5 C
Off-ramp 23.7 0.6 C 23.5 0.9 C
Fallon Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 28.7 0.2 D 22.5 0.2 C
Loop On-ramp 30.3 0.1 D 24.6 0.3 C
Off-ramp 25.6 0.1 C 19.5 0.3 B
Diagonal On-ramp 21.1 7.6 C 27.0 0.0 C
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-66 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Interchange
(I-580)
Dir Ramp
Existing + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS
EB
Loop On-ramp 23.4 0.1 C 29.1 0.2 D
Off-ramp 24.5 0.2 C 29.9 0.4 D
Notes:
1. Ramps operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded light
blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
Freeway ramps with ramp metering were analyzed for on-ramps where the project would add
vehicles. The following on-ramps were analyzed during the specified peak periods when ramp
meters were active:
WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
As shown in Table 17-20: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Analysis, the vehicle queues for on-
ramps with ramp metering are contained within the available on-ramp storage except at the
following on-ramps:
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
For the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak hour, the project increases
the SOV volume to 678 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 480 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,100
feet and exceeds the 1,080-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate
could be increased to 660 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on WB I-580
adjacent to this on-ramp.
Table 17- 20: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Analysis
On-ramp Peak
Hour
Storage
Length (ft)
SOV
Metering
Rate (vph)
Existing Existing + Project
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
WB I-580 Hacienda
Drive Diagonal On-ramp AM 700 540 385 0 415 0
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-67
Draft EIR
10/23/18
On-ramp Peak
Hour
Storage
Length (ft)
SOV
Metering
Rate (vph)
Existing Existing + Project
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive
Loop On-ramp PM 490 300 309 225 309 225
WB I-580 Tassajara
Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 1,080 480 636 > 1,100 678 > 1,100
EB I-580 Santa Rita
Road Loop On-ramp PM 830 450 368 0 403 0
WB I-580 Fallon Road
Diagonal On-ramp AM 685 300 255 0 256 0
EB I-580 El Charro Road
Loop On-ramp PM 925 240 273 825 284 1,100
Notes:
1. SOV = Single-occupancy vehicles; Ramp meter analysis was performed for SOV lanes only. HOV lanes were assumed to operate with a 900
vph metering rate and therefore would not have any queues extend onto the arterial.
2. SOV volumes were calculated based on HOV to SOV ratios from PeMS on-ramp volumes.
3. Ramps with vehicle queues exceeding the on-ramp storage and extending onto the adjacent arterial are shown with bold text.
For the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the project increases the
SOV volume to 284 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 240 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is 1,100 feet and
exceeds the 925-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be
increased to 300 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to
this on-ramp. Implementation of MM TR-4.2 would reduce the queues to less than significant,
however, because this is a Caltrans facility and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee
implementation of this mitigation the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of
Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at
the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak period. Increasing the ramp
metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Tassajara Road. In addition, the project
applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to
review the ramp metering rates at the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak
period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on El Charro Road.
However, since the City of Dublin does not have control over ramp metering rates at this
location, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-68 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.5.7 Near-Term + Project Impact Analysis
Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Near-Term + Project condition
that exceed established LOS standards.
Weekday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-21: Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Near-Term + Project condition
during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersections
under each jurisdiction:
City of Dublin
The project would increase the critical movement’s average delay by six (6) or more seconds in
the PM peak hour, further degrading the following already deficient LOS E intersection:
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.0 to 1.4 (a 0.4 increase)
during the PM peak hour and causes the intersection to continue to operate at
an unacceptable LOS F.
This intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the Near-Term without Project
and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle capacity. The intersection already
includes triple left turns in the westbound and northbound direction, which are the critical
turning movements. Furthermore, it is not feasible to extend the signal timing cycle length,
since it is at 200 seconds in the Near-Term (2025) conditions, and consequently, it is not
possible to further coordinate signal timing with adjacent traffic signals.
Given these conditions, project impacts to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard under the Near-Term + Project condition would remain significant and unavoidable
(Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is also considered significant and
unavoidable (Class I).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-69
Draft EIR
10/23/18
City of Pleasanton
The project would add 10 or more trips, degrading the intersection from an acceptable LOS D to
an unacceptable LOS E or F or the project and further degrading the following already deficient
LOS E or F intersection.:
Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Intersection #18) (Class II)
o The project adds 278 trips to the intersection in the PM peak hour and causes
the intersection to continue to operate at an LOS E.
MM TR-5.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However,
since the intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot
guarantee implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable
(Class I). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project
Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday.
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard.
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita
Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of
the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to 115
seconds.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Pleasanton impact criteria, but not
the TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this
impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
City of Livermore
The project would add trips to the following intersection that is already operating at an
unacceptable LOS:
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) (Class II)
o The project adds 70 trips to the intersection in the PM peak hour and causes the
intersection to continue to operate at an LOS F.
Implementation of MM TR-2.1 would reduce impacts. However, since the intersection is
located in the City of PleasantonLivermore and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-70 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project
Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Livermore Pleasanton impact criteria,
but not the TVTC criteria since the project does not increase the intersection v/c by 0.03 or the
critical v/c by 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-
significant (Class III).
Saturday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-23: Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Near-Term + Project conditions
during the Saturday peak hours with the exception of the following intersections under each
jurisdiction:
City of Dublin
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class III)
o The intersection operates at LOS F with and without the project, but the v/c does
not increase be 0.03 or more and the critical v/c does not increase by 0.05 or
more during the Saturday peak hour.
It should be noted that this is also not an impact under TVTC criteria because although the
intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS F, the Project does not increase the v/c by 0.03 or
more and does not increase the critical v/c by 0.05 or more. Therefore, under TVTC criteria,
this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
Implementation of the project would cause the following new intersection to operate at an
unacceptable LOS:
Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #35) (Class II)
o The project proposes a new intersection for the project driveway on Dublin
Boulevard that will operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the Near-term +
Project Saturday peak hour.
MM TR-1.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS C in the Saturday peak hour and
thereby reduce impacts to less-than-significant (Class II). Mitigation analysis results are shown
in Table 17-24: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Saturday.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-71 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 21: Near-Term and Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term Near-Term + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 1 Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 11.1 B 11.3 B 11.1 B 11.3 B 2 Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 22.9 C 20.6 C 24.1 C 21.2 C 3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 41.4 D 39.6 D 45.4 D 44.0 D 4 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.4 A 28.4 C 7.5 A 28.5 C 5 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 60.7 E 19.5 B 62.8 E 25.3 C 6 Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. Signal PLS N/A 20.6 C 47.4 D 21.0 C 50.8 D 7 Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. Signal DUB D 16.2 B 17.8 B 16.3 B 18.7 B 8 Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. Signal DUB D 10.7 B 16.4 B 10.9 B 17.2 B 9 Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct. Signal DUB D 8.6 A 8.0 A 8.6 A 9.1 A 10 Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. Signal DUB D 14.3 B 17.5 B 14.2 B 17.4 B 11 Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 50.3 D 38.7 D 36.2 D 33.0 C 12 Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy Signal DUB D 32.7 C 26.0 C 23.5 C 18.5 B 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 9.3 A 17.5 B 12.7 B 19.3 B 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd* Signal DUB D 50.3 D 97.6 90.6 F 52.0 D 97.4 254.5 F 15 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way Signal DUB D 6.1 A 25.0 C 6.2 A 23.3 C 16 Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 13.8 B 50.5 D 18.9 B 79.8 E 17 Tassajara Rd. / Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps – Pimlico Dr. Signal CAL/PLS N/A 45.4 D 67.1 E 46.8 D 101.0 F 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-72 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term Near-Term + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 40.9 D 69.6 E 44.5 D 76.3 278 trips E 19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 37.9 D 14.0 B 41.6 D 33.7 C 20 Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way SSSC DUB D 3.1 A 3.2 A 4.6 A 4.7 A Worst Approach 14.0 B 9.4 A 18.8 C 12.5 B 21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 25.4 C 18.2 B 29.6 C 19.1 B 22 Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. AWSC DUB D 8.0 A 8.2 A 8.4 A 9.4 A 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 17.2 B 27.4 C 12.6 B 22.3 C 24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 7.4 A 11.3 B 5.0 A 11.4 B 25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 35.5 D 14.4 B 35.5 D 14.5 B 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 19.8 B 21.0 C 20.1 C 22.4 C 27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 15.8 B 37.9 D 16.4 B 42.8 D 28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 12.7 B 12.6 B 13.1 B 13.5 B 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 52.3 D 89.7 F 52.9 D 92.5 70 trips F 30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A Worst Approach 8.7 A 9.3 A 31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.3 A Worst Approach 13.3 B 22.6 C 32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.1 A 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-73 Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term Near-Term + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Worst Approach 12.0 B 9.7 A 33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A Worst Approach 9.5 A 0.0 A 34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.8 A 0.4 A Worst Approach 12.1 B 11.4 B 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 25.6 C 26.4 C 36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.6 A 1.0 A Worst Approach 9.3 A 10.5 B 37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.3 A Worst Approach 9.2 A 10.1 B 38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.6 A 1.2 A Worst Approach 9.1 A 9.9 A 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 17.9 B 33.4 D 18.4 B 34.1 C 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 17.5 B 25.0 C 17.5 B 26.3 C 41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 16.8 B 21.5 C 16.9 B 21.5 C Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-74 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 9. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 Table 17- 22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term + Project Mitigated Near-Term + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 97.4 F 88.3 F 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 76.3 E 54.2 D 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 92.5 F 69.5 E 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-75 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 23: Near-Term and Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term Near-Term + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 20.3 C 29.5 C 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 130.6 1.18 F 119.4 1.12 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 59.2 E 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-76 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Near-Term + Project Mitigated Near-Term + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 119.4 F 119.4 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 59.2 E 30.7 C 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-77
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact TR-6: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Near-Term +
Project conditions (Class I and II).
As shown in Table 17-25: Near-Term + Project Queuing Analysis, the following intersections
would exceed the available storage length and increase the queue length by more than the
significant threshold of 25 feet during the weekday AM and PM peak period. A summary of the
queuing results for all study intersections is provided in the Appendix.
Table 17- 23: Near-Term + Project Queuing Analysis
# Intersection Peak
Period
Turning
Movement
Storage
Length (ft.)
Queue Length (ft.)
Variance Without
Project
With
Project
2 Hacienda Dr / Central
Pkwy AM Peak WBL 190 208 263 55 feet (2 veh)
3 Hacienda Dr / Dublin
Blvd
AM Peak
WBL 250
239 294 55 feet (2 veh)
PM Peak 179 290 111 feet (4 veh)
13 Dublin Boulevard / The
Shops SAT Peak NBL 205 207 318 111 feet (4 veh)
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin
Blvd
AM Peak NBL 325 372 420 48 feet (2 veh)
PM Peak
WBL 350 482 683 201 feet (8 veh)
NBL 325 604 641 37 feet (1 veh)
23 Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street PM Peak EBL 275 147 327 180 feet (7 veh)
The following intersections have significant queuing impacts in the Near-term + Project
conditions:
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway (Intersection #2) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 55
feet in the AM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.1 would extend the westbound left turn pocket by 55 feet from
190 feet to 245 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 55 feet would mitigate the
project’s increase in the queue by 55 feet and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3) (Class II)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-78 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 55
feet in the AM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 111
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.2 would reduce the westbound left turn queue by 35 feet to 259
feet in the AM peak hour, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn
pocket storage length of 250 feet. In the PM peak hour, implementation of MM TR-3.2 would
reduce the westbound left turn queue by 25 feet to 265 feet. The queue is reduced to be
contained within the available storage and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I and II)
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 48
feet in the AM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 201
feet in the PM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 37
feet in the PM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 66
feet in the SAT peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 70
feet in the SAT peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 39 feet to 381
feet in the AM peak hour, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the without project
queue of 372 feet. The queue is reduced to be within one vehicle length of the without project
queue and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the westbound left turn queue to be
contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions. Therefore,
the queuing impact to the westbound left turn movement in the PM peak hour and SAT peak
hour remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 24 feet to 617
feet in the PM peak hour, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the without project
queue of 604 feet. The queue is reduced to be within one vehicle length of the without project
queue and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the northbound left turn queue to be
contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions in the SAT
peak hour. Therefore, the queuing impact to the westbound left turn movement in the SAT
peak hour remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-79
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-6.1: Near-term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (15%) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length in the AM peak hour to
be 155 seconds and adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn movement in the PM
Peak hour. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the
project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street (Intersection #23) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the eastbound left turn lane by 180
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-6.2 reduce the eastbound left turn queue by 37 feet to 290 feet,
which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of 275
feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby reducing
impacts to less than significant (Class II).
MM TR-6.2: Near-term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (6 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the
eastbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact
Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
Dublin Boulevard / The Shops (Intersection #13) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 111
feet in the SAT peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.5 and MM TR-6.3 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by
98 feet to 220 feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket
storage length of 205 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage
and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-80 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project
Driveway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the entirety (100
percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The
improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length at this intersection from 110 seconds
to 120 seconds. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the
project applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs.
Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Near-
Term + Project conditions that exceed established LOS standards (Class I Impact).
As shown in Table 17-26: Near-Term + Project Freeway Segment Analysis, all freeway segments
operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hour under the Near-term + Project
condition for the eastbound segments, but operate at an unacceptable LOS for all of the
westbound segments.
However, as mentioned previously, each freeway segment is currently over capacity and should
be operating at LOS F because the volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour
and the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by
downstream bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway analysis do not reflect
the true volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-81
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 24: Near-Term + Project Freeway Segment Analysis
#
Study Segment
(I-580)
Dir Lanes
Near-Term + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Vol (vph) Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph) Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
a Dougherty Road to
Hacienda Drive
WB 5 11,262 57.2 F 8,121 30.1 D
EB 7 8,935 22.5 C 8,886 22.4 C
b Hacienda Drive to
Tassajara Road
WB 5 11,523 61.3 F 7,244 25.9 C
EB 5 7,369 26.5 D 8,823 34.0 D
c Tassajara Road to
Fallon Road
WB 5 10,870 51.9 F 7,386 26.6 D
EB 5 6,296 22.2 C 8,473 31.9 D
d Fallon Road to
Airway Boulevard
WB 5 10,793 50.9 F 7,212 25.8 C
EB 5 6,025 21.3 C 8,952 34.8 D
Notes:
1. Segments operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded
light blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
3. For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to
be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis.
4. Express lanes not included in this analysis.
I-580 Freeway Ramps
Table 17-27: Near-Term + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis displays the volume, density, and
level of service for each freeway ramp with the project trips added. Locations shaded in light
blue were identified as having a significant impact.
The following I-580 freeway ramps were identified as having a significant impact:
WB I-580 off-ramp to Hacienda Drive in the AM peak hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Tassajara Road in the AM peak hour
WB I-580 loop on-ramp from Fallon Road in the AM peak hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Fallon Road in the AM peak hour
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would require the applicant to pay their proportional share to
fund regional roadway improvements. These improvements may include the second phase of I-
680/I-580 interchange improvements, widening of State Route 84 through Pigeon Pass, and
other planned roadway system modifications that would relieve freeway congestion in the
study area. However, as the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as full
funding has not been identified, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-82 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 25: Near-Term + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis
Interchange
(I-580)
Dir Ramp
Near-Term + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS
Hacienda Drive
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 39.2 0.3 E 25.2 0.4 C
Loop On-ramp 32.9 0.0 D 23.1 0.0 C
Off-ramp 44.4 0.6 F 22.8 0.3 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 21.1 0.2 C 29.1 0.9 D
Loop On-ramp 20.3 0.1 C 23.8 0.6 C
Off-ramp 18.7 0.2 C 18.2 0.5 C
Tassajara Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 40.9 0.6 E 22.2 0.8 C
Loop On-ramp 27.7 0.0 C 18.5 10.8 B
Off-ramp 38.7 0.2 F 24.5 0.5 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 19.9 0.1 B 24.7 0.2 C
Loop On-ramp 22.3 0.2 C 31.0 0.6 D
Off-ramp 27.1 0.6 C 27.4 0.6 C
Fallon Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 38.1 0.3 E 13.5 0.1 B
Loop On-ramp 49.8 0.2 F 30.0 0.3 D
Off-ramp 37.6 0.3 F 21.7 0.3 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 21.7 0.0 C 22.5 -9.3 C
Loop On-ramp 24.5 0.1 C 33.0 -0.2 F
Off-ramp 27.8 0.2 C 34.0 0.4 D
Notes:
1. Ramps operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded light
blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
Freeway ramps with ramp metering were analyzed for on-ramps where the project would add
vehicles. The following on-ramps were analyzed during the specified peak periods when ramp
meters were active:
WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-83
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As shown in Table 17-28: Near-term + Project Ramp Metering Analysis, the vehicle queues for
on-ramps with ramp metering are contained within the available on-ramp storage except at the
following on-ramps:
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
For the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the project does not
increase the SOV volume. The queuing deficiency occurs without the project and the project
does not exacerbate the issue. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
For the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak hour, the project increases
the SOV volume to 811 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 480 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,100
feet and exceeds 1,080-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be
increased to 800 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on WB I-580 adjacent to
this on-ramp.
Table 17- 26: Near-term + Project Ramp Metering Analysis
On-ramp Peak
Hour
Storage
Length (ft)
SOV
Metering
Rate (vph)
Near-term Near-term + Project
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
WB I-580 Hacienda
Drive Diagonal On-ramp AM 700 540 385 0 416 0
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive
Loop On-ramp PM 490 300 388 > 1,000 388 > 1,000
WB I-580 Tassajara
Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 1,080 480 767 > 1,100 811 > 1,100
EB I-580 Santa Rita
Road Loop On-ramp PM 830 450 386 0 424 0
WB I-580 Fallon Road
Diagonal On-ramp AM 685 300 255 0 256 0
EB I-580 El Charro Road
Loop On-ramp PM 925 240 273 825 285 1,125
Notes:
1. SOV = Single-occupancy vehicles; Ramp meter analysis was performed for SOV lanes only. HOV lanes were assumed to operate with a 900
vph metering rate and therefore would not have any queues extend onto the arterial.
2. SOV volumes were calculated based on HOV to SOV ratios from PeMS on-ramp volumes.
3. Ramps with vehicle queues exceeding the on-ramp storage and extending onto the adjacent arterial are shown with bold text.
For the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the project increases the
SOV volume to 285 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 240 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is 1,125 feet and
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-84 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
exceeds the 925-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be
increased to 300 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to
this on-ramp.
Implementation of MM TR-4.2 would apply to this impact. In addition, MM TR-7.1 would
improve the impact. However, since the intersection is a Caltrans facility, the City of Dublin
cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and
unavoidable (Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-7.1: Near-term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of
Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at
the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing the ramp
metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Hacienda Drive.
17.5.8 Cumulative + Project Impact Analysis
Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Cumulative + Project conditions
that exceed established LOS standards.
Weekday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-29: Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the “Cumulative + Project
Conditions” during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following
intersections under each jurisdiction:
City of Dublin
The project degrades the intersection from an acceptable to an unacceptable LOS per the
following; 1) increases the critical movement’s average delay by six (6) or more seconds of an
already deficient LOS E facility, or 2) increases the v/c ratio of an already deficient LOS F facility
by 0.03 for the overall intersection or 0.05 for the critical movement.
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3) (Class II)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 2.17 to 2.44 (a 0.27
increase) during the PM peak hour.
MM TR-8.1 would improve the critical v/c movement from 2.44 to 1.95, less than the 2.17
critical v/c movement under without project conditions during the PM peak hour and therefore,
impacts would be less than significant (Class II). Although this intersection would continue to
operate at an unacceptable LOS F, the mitigation improves the intersection to better than
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-85
Draft EIR
10/23/18
without project conditions. Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated
Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday.
MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (10 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal timing splits.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and also the
TVTC criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by
more than 0.05. Since MM TR-8.1 would improve the critical v/c movement to better than
without project conditions, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant
with mitigation (Class II).
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I)
o The project increases the critical movement delay from 145.5 to 191.9 seconds
(a 46.4-second increase) during the AM peak hour and causes the intersection to
continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F. In the PM peak hour, the project
increases the critical movement v/c from 1.32 to 1.61 (a 0.29 increase) and
causes the intersection to continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F.
As discussed previously, this intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the
Near-Term without Project and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle capacity
and the project’s impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis
results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS –
Weekday.
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is also considered significant and
unavoidable (Class I).
Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #23) (Class II)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.37 to 1.46 (a 0.09
increase) during the PM peak hour.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-86 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
MM TR-8.2 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour and
therefore, impacts would be less than significant (Class II). Mitigation analysis results are shown
in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday.
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (8 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Brannigan Street /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adding a second northbound left turn lane
of equal length. The south leg of this intersection will likely need to be widened to fit the
additional northbound left turn lane. Since the western side of Brannigan Street fronts the
project, it is recommended that this improvement be installed as part of the project to prevent
future widening after the project has been constructed. Because this improvement project is
not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair
share of the improvement costs.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Since MM TR-8.2 would improve the LOS to an acceptable LOS D, under TVTC
criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation (Class II).
Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #26) (Class II)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.48 to 1.54 (a 0.06
increase) during the PM peak hour. The intersection would continue to operate
at an unacceptable LOS F.
MM TR-8.3 would improve the critical v/c movement from 1.54 to 1.27, less than the 1.48
critical v/c movement under without project conditions during the PM peak hour and therefore,
impacts would be less than significant (Class II). Although this intersection would continue to
operate at an unacceptable LOS F, the mitigation improves the intersection to better than
without project conditions. Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated
Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday.
MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (2 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Fallon Road /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of installing a westbound right turn overlap
phase. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Since MM TR-8.3 would improve the critical v/c to better than without project
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-87
Draft EIR
10/23/18
conditions, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation
(Class II).
Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street (Intersection #39) (Class II)
o The project increases the critical movement delay from 161.1 to 170.2 seconds
(a 9.1-second increase) during the PM peak hour. The intersection would
continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS E.
MM TR-8.4 would improve the critical movement delay from 170.2 to 133.6 seconds, less than
the 161.1 seconds under without project conditions during the PM peak hour and therefore,
impacts would be less than significant (Class II). Although this intersection would continue to
operate at an unacceptable LOS E, the mitigation improves the intersection to better than
without project conditions. Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated
Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday.
MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (5 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard /
Keegan Street. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the cycle length to 150 seconds.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, but not the
TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact
is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street (Intersection #40) (Class II)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 2.59 to 2.66 (a 0.06
increase) during the PM peak hour. The intersection would continue to operate
at an unacceptable LOS F.
MM TR-8.5 would improve the critical v/c movement to 1.05, less than 2.59 during the PM peak
hour and therefore, impacts would be less than significant (Class II). Although this intersection
would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS E, the mitigation improvestheintersection
to better than without project conditions. Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30:
Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday.
MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (4 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard /
Lockhart Street. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the cycle length to 150 seconds.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-88 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Since MM TR-8.5 would improve the critical v/c to better than without project
conditions, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation
(Class II).
City of Pleasanton
The project degrades the intersection from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E or F
or the project would add 10 or more trips, further degrading the already deficient LOS E or F
intersection.The project would add 10 or more trips, further degrading the already deficient
LOS E intersection:
Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Intersection #18) (Class I)
o The project adds 127 trips and 261 trips to the intersection in the AM and PM
peak hour, respectively, and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an
LOS F for both peak hours.
MM TR-8.6 would reduce the delay to less than the Cumulative condition. However, since the
intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee
implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project
Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday.
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita
Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of
the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to 145
seconds.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Pleasanton impact criteria, and the
TVTC criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the v/c by more
than 0.03. Since MM TR-8.6 would improve the v/c to better than without project conditions,
under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation (Class II).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-89
Draft EIR
10/23/18
City of Livermore
The project would add trips to the following intersection that is already operating at an
unacceptable LOS:
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) (Class II)
o The project adds 45 trips and 99 trips to the intersection in the AM and PM peak
hour, respectively, and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an LOS
F for both peak hours.
Implementation of MM TR-2.1 would reduce impacts. However, since the intersection is
located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of
the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis
results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS –
Weekday.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Livermore Pleasanton impact criteria,
but not the TVTC criteria because although the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS F,
the v/c does not increase by 0.03 or more and the critical v/c does not increase be 0.05 or
more. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
Saturday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-31: Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Cumulative + Project Conditions
during the Saturday peak hours with the exception of the following intersections under each
jurisdiction:
City of Dublin
The project increases the v/c ratio of an already deficient LOS F facility by 0.05 for the critical
movement.
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.20 to 1.62 (a 0.42
increase) during the Saturday peak hour. The intersection continues to operate
at an LOS F with the project.
As discussed above, this intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the
Cumulative without Project and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle
capacity and the project’s impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
However, to help reduce the severity of the impact, a transportation demand management
(TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. The TDM program is set forth in
Mitigation Measure TR-2.2.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-90 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is also considered significant and
unavoidable (Class I). Implementation of the project would cause the following new
intersection to operate at an unacceptable LOS:
Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #35) (Class II)
o The project proposes a new intersection for the project driveway on Dublin
Boulevard that will operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the Saturday peak
hour.
Implementation of MM TR-1.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the
Saturday peak hour and thereby reduce impacts to less-than-significant (Class II). Mitigation
analysis results are shown in Table 17-32: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay
& LOS - Saturday.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, but not the
TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact
is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-91 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 27: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 1 Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 14.2 B 11.6 B 14.3 B 11.9 B 2 Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 20.0 C 22.3 C 21.8 C 23.0 C 3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 47.5 D 126.4 2.17 F 52.4 D 147.7 2.44 F 4 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 8.7 A 29.8 C 8.8 A 32.1 C 5 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 76.9 E 78.8 E 76.8 E 86.8 F 6 Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. Signal PLS N/A 23.4 C 121.0 F 23.6 C 128.2 F 7 Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. Signal DUB D 16.3 B 24.5 C 16.7 B 26.8 C 8 Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. Signal DUB D 11.4 B 19.6 B 12.1 B 21.0 C 9 Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct. Signal DUB D 10.9 B 6.9 A 11.5 B 7.9 A 10 Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. Signal DUB D 17.7 B 23.9 C 18.3 B 29.7 C 11 Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 39.5 D 39.8 D 33.5 C 37.7 D 12 Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy Signal DUB D 31.9 C 23.9 C 23.7 C 23.9 C 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 9.6 A 11.8 B 12.2 B 19.6 B 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd* Signal DUB D 146.9 145.5 F 259.2 1.32 F 88.8 191.9 F 183.6 1.61 F 15 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way Signal DUB D 6.1 A 19.2 B 6.2 A 18.3 B 16 Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 44.8 D 113.9 F 55.8 E 145.3 F 17 Tassajara Rd. / Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps – Pimlico Dr. Signal CAL/PLS N/AD 52.4 D 117.4 F 55.5 E 143.9 F 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-92 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 137.0 F 207.2 F 144.9 127 trips F 214.9 261 trips F 19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 42.9 D 14.3 B 43.3 D 15.6 B 20 Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way SSSC DUB D 3.2 A 2.3 A 4.6 A 4.0 A Worst Approach 13.8 B 10.0 B 18.1 C 13.6 B 21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 24.2 C 19.0 B 27.8 C 23.3 C 22 Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. AWSC DUB D 8.0 A 8.8 A 8.4 A 10.3 B 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 148.1 F 365.7 1.37 F 16.8 B 104.9 1.46 F 24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 20.0 C 128.7 F 21.7 C 60.1 E 25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 72.2 E 18.9 B 72.3 E 19.0 B 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 42.0 D 100.6 1.48 F 43.0 D 101.0 1.54 F 27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 26.7 C 31.4 C 28.2 C 34.3 C 28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 76.1 E 102.0 F 78.8 E 108.7 F 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 132.2 F 262.1 F 135.2 45 trips F 264.0 99 trips F 30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.1 A Worst Approach 8.7 A 9.5 A 31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.4 A Worst Approach 15.1 C 30.9 D 32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.1 A 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-93 Draft EIR 10/23/18 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Worst Approach 13.2 B 10.5 B 33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A Worst Approach 10.2 B 0.0 A 34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.7 A 0.3 A Worst Approach 12.1 B 10.9 B 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 9.5 A 46.8 D 36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.4 A 1.4 A Worst Approach 12.4 B 22.6 C 37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.1 A Worst Approach 12.0 B 17.8 C 38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.2 A 0.7 A Worst Approach 11.8 B 17.7 C 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 22.7 C 57.7 161.1 E 23.0 C 61.4 170.2 E 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 26.2 C 155.0 2.59 F 26.5 C 162.9 2.66 F 41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 25.1 C 21.5 C 25.0 C 21.5 C Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan. 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-94 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 9. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 Table 17- 30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative + Project Mitigated Cumulative + Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 147.7 F 142.4 F 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 88.8 F 183.6 F 88.8 F 183.6 F 18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 144.9 F 214.9 F 119.1 F 170.3 F 23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 104.9 F 47.8 D 26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 101.0 F 80.2 F 29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 135.2 F 264.0 F 80.8 F 141.6 F 39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 61.4 E 57.2 E 40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 162.9 F 81.3 F 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-95 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 31: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. 8. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative Cumulative + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 13.7 B 24.6 C 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 223.4 1.20 F 156.1 1.62 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 78.6 E 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-97 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 28: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday Notes: 1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation 2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound 3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection. 4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC). 5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections, instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds. 6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease. 7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue. Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018 # Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold Cumulative + Project Mitigated Cumulative + Project Saturday Peak Hour Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 156.1 F 156.1 F 35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 78.6 E 35.0 D 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-99
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact TR-9: Cause intersection queues to operate below acceptable levels under Cumulative +
Project conditions (Class I and II).
As shown in Table 17-33: Cumulative + Project Queuing Analysis, the following intersections
would exceed the available storage length and increase the queue length by more than the
significant threshold of 25 feet during the weekday and weekend AM and PM peak period. A
summary of the queuing results for all study intersections is provided in the Appendix J.
Table 17- 29: Cumulative + Project Queuing Analysis
# Intersection
Peak
Period
Turning
Movement
Storage
Length (ft.)
Queue Length (ft.)
Variance
Without
Project
With
Project
2 Hacienda Drive / Central
Parkway AM Peak WBL 190 200 253 53 feet (2 veh)
3 Hacienda Dr / Dublin Blvd
AM Peak
WBL 250
239 287 48 feet (2 veh)
PM Peak 705 800 95 feet (4 veh)
13 Dublin Boulevard / The
Shops SAT Peak NBL 205 220 329 109 feet (4 veh)
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd
AM Peak
WBL 350
489 551 62 feet (7 veh)
PM Peak
647 813 166 feet (7 veh)
NBL 325 642 676 34 feet (1veh)
23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd
AM Peak
NBL 250
162 296 134 feet (5 veh)
PM Peak
731 1037 306 feet (12 veh)
EBL 275 194 370 176 feet (7 veh)
24 Dublin Boulevard / Grafton
Street PM Peak
EBL 220 342 426 84 feet (3 veh)
WBL 230 342 478 136 feet (5 veh)
The following intersections have significant queuing impacts in the Cumulative + Project
conditions:
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway (Intersection #2) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 53
feet in the AM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.1 would extend the westbound left turn pocket by 55 feet from
190 feet to 245 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 55 feet would mitigate the
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-100 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
project’s increase in the queue by 53 feet and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 48
feet in the AM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 95
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.2 would reduce the westbound left turn queue by 24 feet to 263
feet in the AM peak hour, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn
pocket storage length of 250 feet. In the PM peak hour, implementation of MM TR-3.2 would
reduce the westbound left turn queue by 72 feet to 728 feet. The queue is reduced to be
contained within the available storage and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I and II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 62
feet in the AM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 166
feet in the PM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 34
feet in the PM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 211
feet in the SAT peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 48
feet in the SAT peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the westbound left turn queue to be
contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions in the AM
peak hour, PM peak hour, and SAT peak hour. Therefore, the queuing impact to the westbound
left turn movement in the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and SAT peak hour remains significant
and unavoidable (Class I).
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 24 feet to 652
feet in the PM peak hour, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the without project
queue of 642 feet. The queue is reduced to be within one vehicle length of the without project
queue in the PM peak hour and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
Implementation of MM TR-6.1 would not reduce the northbound left turn queue to be
contained within the storage pocket or to better than without project conditions in the SAT
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-101
Draft EIR
10/23/18
peak hour. Therefore, the queuing impact to the westbound left turn movement in the SAT
peak hour remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street (Intersection #23) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 134
feet in the AM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the eastbound left turn lane by 176
feet in the PM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 306
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-8.2 reduce the northbound left turn queue by 185 feet to 111 feet in
the AM peak hour, which is less than the existing turn pocket storage length of 250 feet. The
queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby reducing impacts to
less than significant (Class II).
Implementation of MM TR-6.2 reduce the eastbound left turn queue by 75 feet to 295 feet,
which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of 275
feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby reducing
impacts to less than significant (Class II).
Implementation of MM TR-8.2 reduce the northbound left turn queue by 560 feet to 477 feet in
the PM peak hour, which is less than the without project queue length of 731 feet. The queue
is reduced to be less than the without project queue and thereby reducing impacts to less than
significant (Class II).
Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street (Intersection #24) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the eastbound left turn lane by 84
feet in the PM peak hour.
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 136
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-9.1 would extend the eastbound left turn pocket by 85 feet from
220 feet to 305 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 85 feet would mitigate the
project’s increase in the queue by 84 feet and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
Implementation of MM TR-9.1 would extend the westbound left turn pocket by 140 feet from
230 feet to 370 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 140 feet would mitigate the
project’s increase in the queue by 136 feet and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant
(Class II).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-102 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (5 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard /
Grafton Street. The improvements shall consist of extending the eastbound left turn pocket by
85 feet from 220 feet to 305 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be modified to
lengthen the turn pocket. The improvements shall also consist of extending the westbound left
turn pocket by 140 feet from 230 feet to 305 feet. There is an existing raised median that can
be modified to lengthen the turn pocket. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic
Impact Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the
improvement costs.
Dublin Boulevard / The Shops (Intersection #13) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 109
feet in the SAT peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.5 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 95 feet to 234
feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the without project queue length of 220
feet. The queue is reduced to be the same as the without project queue and thereby reducing
impacts to less than significant (Class II).
Impact TR-10: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the
Cumulative + Project condition that exceed established LOS standards. (Class I)
As shown in Table 17-34: Cumulative + Project Freeway Segment Analysis, all freeway segments
operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hour under the Cumulative + Project
condition for the eastbound segments, but operate at an unacceptable LOS for all of the
westbound segments. However, as described above, each freeway is actually over capacity and
should be operating at LOS F because the volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak
hour and the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by
downstream bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway analysis do not reflect
the true volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would help to reduce travel delays along the study freeway
segments. However, as the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as full
funding has not been identified, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-103
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 30: Cumulative + Project Freeway Segment Analysis
#
Study Segment
(I-580) Dir Lanes
Cumulative + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Vol (vph)
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph)
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
a Dougherty Road to
Hacienda Drive
WB 5 11,454 60.2 F 9,982 42.6 E
EB 7 9,814 25.0 C 8,826 22.3 C
b Hacienda Drive to
Tassajara Road
WB 5 11,604 62.7 F 8,375 31.4 D
EB 5 8,128 30.1 D 8,744 33.5 D
c Tassajara Road to
Fallon Road
WB 5 10,977 53.3 F 8,606 32.7 D
EB 5 6,799 24.1 C 8,058 29.7 D
d Fallon Road to
Airway Boulevard
WB 5 10,787 50.9 F 8,152 30.2 D
EB 5 6,293 22.2 C 8,327 31.2 D
Notes:
1. Segments operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded
light blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
3. For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to
be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis.
4. Express lanes not included in this analysis.
I-580 Freeway Ramps
Table 17-35: Cumulative + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis shows the volume, density, and level
of service for each freeway ramp with the project trips added. Locations shaded in light blue
were identified as having a significant impact.
The following I-580 freeway ramps were identified as having a significant impact:
WB I-580 off-ramp to Hacienda Drive in the AM peak hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Tassajara Road in the AM peak hour
WB I-580 loop on-ramp from Fallon Road in the AM peak hour
WB I-580 off-ramp to Fallon Road in the AM peak hour
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would help to reduce travel delays along the study freeway
segments. However, as the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as full
funding has not been identified, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-104 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 31: Cumulative + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis
Interchange
(I-580)
Dir Ramp
Cumulative + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln)
ȴ
Density LOS
Hacienda Drive
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 41.1 0.2 E 35.2 0.2 E
Loop On-ramp 35.1 0.0 E 24.9 0.0 C
Off-ramp 45.0 0.4 F 26.4 0.3 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 23.5 11.1 C 29.1 0.8 D
Loop On-ramp 22.7 0.2 C 23.4 0.5 C
Off-ramp 20.7 0.1 D 18.1 0.4 C
Tassajara Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 41.6 0.5 E 24.6 0.6 C
Loop On-ramp 27.7 0.0 C 8.6 0.0 A
Off-ramp 39.6 0.2 F 26.6 0.2 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 21.2 0.1 C 23.2 0.2 C
Loop On-ramp 24.1 0.2 C 27.3 -3.5 C
Off-ramp 30.4 0.4 D 30.3 1.2 D
Fallon Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 39.0 0.3 E 29.2 0.2 D
Loop On-ramp 50.3 0.2 F 28.9 0.5 D
Off-ramp 37.5 0.2 F 24.6 0.2 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 25.2 -0.3 C 29.0 0.1 D
Loop On-ramp 24.2 0.1 C 31.6 3.0 D
Off-ramp 32.8 0.1 D 32.9 0.3 D
Notes:
1. Ramps operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded light
blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
Freeway ramps with ramp metering were analyzed for on-ramps where the project would add
vehicles. The following on-ramps were analyzed during the specified peak periods when ramp
meters were active:
WB I-580 Hacienda Drive Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 Santa Rita Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Fallon Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-105
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As shown in Table 17-36: Cumulative + Project Ramp Metering Analysis, the vehicle queues for
on-ramps with ramp metering are contained within the available on-ramp storage except at the
following on-ramps:
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
WB I-580 Tassajara Road Diagonal On-ramp (AM Peak Hour)
EB I-580 El Charro Road Loop On-ramp (PM Peak Hour)
For the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the project does not
increase the SOV volume. The queuing deficiency occurs without the project and the project
does not exacerbate the issue. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
For the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak hour, the project increases
the SOV volume to 847 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 480 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is greater than 1,100
feet and exceeds 1,080-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be
increased to 900 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on WB I-580 adjacent to
this on-ramp.
Table 17- 32: Cumulative + Project Ramp Metering Analysis
On-ramp Peak
Hour
Storage
Length (ft)
SOV
Metering
Rate (vph)
Near-term Near-term + Project
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
WB I-580 Hacienda
Drive Diagonal On-ramp AM 700 540 385 0 403 0
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive
Loop On-ramp PM 490 300 392 > 1,000 392 > 1,000
WB I-580 Tassajara
Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 1,080 480 816 > 1,100 847 > 1,100
EB I-580 Santa Rita
Road Loop On-ramp PM 830 450 433 0 466 400
WB I-580 Fallon Road
Diagonal On-ramp AM 685 300 275 0 276 0
EB I-580 El Charro Road
Loop On-ramp PM 925 240 273 825 281 1,025
Notes:
1. SOV = Single-occupancy vehicles; Ramp meter analysis was performed for SOV lanes only. HOV lanes were assumed to operate with a 900
vph metering rate and therefore would not have any queues extend onto the arterial.
2. SOV volumes were calculated based on HOV to SOV ratios from PeMS on-ramp volumes.
3. Ramps with vehicle queues exceeding the on-ramp storage and extending onto the adjacent arterial are shown with bold text.
For the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the project increases the
SOV volume to 281 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 240 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is 1,025 feet and
exceeds the 925-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-106 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
increased to 300 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to
this on-ramp.
Implementation of MM TR-4.2 and MM TR-4.2 would apply to this impact. However, since the
City of Dublin does not have control over ramp metering rates at this location, the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
17.5.9 Alameda County Transportation Commission Roadway Segment Analysis
Impact TR-11: Conflict with applicable congestion management program for designated roads,
highway, or freeways (Class I)
A separate analysis of regional roadways is required to comply with requirements of the
Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). The Alameda CTC requires the
analysis of project impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways identified in
the congestion management plan (CMP) for development projects that would generate more
than 100 PM peak-hour trips, which applies to this project.
Project trips were added to each MTS roadway segment and the v/c ratios were calculated.
The analysis can be found in Appendix J. Significant impacts were identified if the project would
worsen the roadway LOS on a MTS facility from an acceptable LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F,
or if the project increased a roadway segment already operating at LOS F without the project,
and the project increased the v/c ratio by 0.02 or more.
Near-Term + Project
Under the Near-Term + Project condition, the following segments would continue to operate at
an unacceptable LOS F in the PM peak hour with the project:
Eastbound Dublin Boulevard from:
o Hacienda Drive to Hibernia Drive
o Hibernia Drive to Myrtle Drive
o Myrtle Drive to John Monego Court
o John Monego Court to Glynnis Rose Drive
o Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road
o Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street
Cumulative + Project
Under the Cumulative + Project condition, the following segments would continue to operate at
an unacceptable LOS F in the PM peak hour and were significantly impacted by the project:
Eastbound I-580 from:
o Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-107
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Eastbound Dublin Boulevard from:
o Hacienda Drive to Hibernia Drive
o Hibernia Drive to Myrtle Drive
o Myrtle Drive to John Monego Court
o John Monego Court to Glynnis Rose Drive
o Glynnis Rose Drive to Tassajara Road
o Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street
o Brannigan Street to Keegan Street
o Keegan Street to Lockhart Street
o Lockhart Street to Fallon Road
Eastbound Dublin Boulevard
The General Plan calls for the eventual build-out of Dublin Boulevard to three lanes in each
direction. To fully mitigate conditions to an acceptable LOS would require the construction of
one and possible two additional lanes (up to five total in each direction) to increase the capacity
of the roadway by 800 vehicles per hour per lane and therefore reduce the v/c ratio. This
improvement would require the acquisition of a substantial amount of new right-of way and is
contradictory to the City’s Complete Streets Policy, and therefore is not considered feasible.
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would help to reduce travel delays along eastbound Dublin
Boulevard. However, because there is no feasible mitigation that would reduce the LOS to an
acceptable level, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Eastbound I-580
To fully mitigate conditions to an acceptable LOS would require construction of an additional
eastbound lane on I-580 between Fallon Road and Airway Boulevard. This improvement would
increase the capacity of the roadway by 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane and therefore reduce
the v/c ratio. However, this improvement is not considered feasible given lack of sufficient
right-of-way and that the freeway was recently improved with two new HOV lanes. It would
also potentially conflict with plans to extend BART along I-580 to the City of Livermore.
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would help to reduce travel delays along eastbound I-580.
However, because there is no feasible mitigation that would reduce the LOS to an acceptable
level, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-108 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.5.10 Public Transit, Bicycles and Pedestrian
Impact TR-12: Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities. (Class III)
Public Transit
The project proposes access for pedestrians to use public transit. Sidewalks and crosswalks are
proposed adjacent to the project site to allow for pedestrians to access the bus stops nearby.
Route 2 has its closest bus stop on Central Parkway at Glynnis Rose Drive. Route 30R has its
closest bus stop on Dublin Boulevard at Glynnis Rose Drive and Grafton Street. Route 501 has
its closest bus stop area at the intersection of Tassajara Road at Gleason Drive. Route 502 has
its closest bus stop along Central Parkway at Glynnis Rose Drive and Chancery Lane. Route 504
has its closest bus stops on Gleason Drive at Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. Each of
these bus stops are connected to the project site via pedestrian walkways.
There should be sufficient capacity on the existing transit system to accommodate the potential
for added transit riders.
Given the Project provides access to transit and should not generate excess transit demand to
the existing transit system, impacts are considered less than significant (Class III).
Pedestrians
The project proposes to construct sidewalks fronting the project site along Tassajara Road,
Central Parkway, Dublin Boulevard, Brannigan Street and Gleason Drive. Within the project
site, there would be a multi-use pathway in the north/south direction located between Finnian
Way and Gleason Drive that provides pedestrians access throughout the site. There are also
internal streets with sidewalks located on each parcel that provide pedestrian access north-
south and east-west for each parcel.
All pedestrian walkways would be designed to City standards. The project applicant will be
required to provide construction staging plans for review to ensure that at pedestrian access
along the site is maintained or detours are provided.
Given these improvement and requirements to conform to City regulations, impacts are
considered less than significant (Class III).
Bicycle
The project would maintain existing bike facilities adjacent to the project site along Tassajara
Road and Central Parkway. The project would construct a new Class II bike lane on Gleason
Drive between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street, and on Dublin Boulevard between
Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street, and thereby address current gaps in the network.
The City of Dublin bicycle parking standards adhere to the California Green Building Standards
Code, which requires that for long-term bicycle parking in buildings that occupy 10 or more
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-109
Draft EIR
10/23/18
tenants, bicycle parking provided should equal to 5 percent of the tenant vehicular parking with
a minimum of one space. Therefore, when the final site plan is determined, bicycle parking will
need to comply with these standards.
Construction of these bicycle improvements and compliance with City bike parking standards
will result in impacts being less than significant (Class III).
17.5.11 SimTraffic Impact Analysis
Impact TR-13: Increase travel speeds along roadways that exceed established LOS standards.
As noted previously, there are roadways in Dublin that are congested in the peak hours and are
considered at capacity due to downstream congestion that can result in lower throughput
volumes than the actual demand. Under these conditions, the individual intersection level of
service analysis can be misleading in describing the actual traffic operations. Therefore, to
better represent corridor congestion, particularly along Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road, a
SimTraffic model was developed based on the Synchro model inputs. The SimTraffic model
accounts for intersection spacing, as well as upstream and downstream congestion.
The SimTraffic analysis was used to evaluate the traffic operations along congested corridors in
the City of Dublin. The following are measures of effectiveness (MOE’s) that were used to
describe each corridor:
Corridor Travel Time (average minutes per vehicle)
Corridor Delay (average minutes per vehicle)
Average Corridor Speed (mph)
Length of Corridor Queues (feet)
The average corridor speed can be converted to an arterial LOS based on definitions in the
Highway Capacity Manual. For an urban street, the LOS of an arterial is based on the urban
street class and the average travel speed. The urban street class is based on the free-flow
speed. For Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road, within the study area, the posted speed limit
ranges from 35 mph to 45 mph. Therefore, both arterials can be considered a Class II urban
street. Based on this classification, the following outlines the LOS criteria based upon average
travel speed:
LOS A = > 35 mph
LOS B = > 28-35 mph
LOS C = > 22-28 mph
LOS D = > 17-22 mph
LOS E = > 13-17 mph
LOS F = <= 13 mph
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-110 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17-37: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis with Project summarizes
the MOE’s for each condition with the project.
Existing + Project
The travel times would be as high as 13 minutes for westbound Dublin Boulevard in the Existing
+ Project AM peak hour, with the project adding 8 minutes. The majority of this travel time
occurs traveling westbound on Dublin Boulevard and approaching Tassajara Road. The
SimTraffic simulation shows queuing from Tassajara Road to past Grafton Street (approximately
2,600 feet). This queue would extend through the proposed new traffic signal on Dublin
Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. This may result in vehicles blocking
the new intersection.
In the PM peak hour, there would be congestion for northbound left turn vehicles out of the
new signalized project driveway. These vehicles would queue on the project site due to the
lack of sufficient green time for the northbound left turn movement. Due to the high volumes
on eastbound and westbound Dublin Boulevard, the side-street minor approach receives less
green time. In addition, the westbound left turn lanes at the intersection of Tassajara Road and
Dublin Boulevard are saturated, making it difficult for vehicles exiting the project site to enter
into this westbound left turn lane. To allow for better progression on the northbound approach
out of the project site, more green time would need to be given to this phase, as well as
potentially coordinating this intersection with the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin
Boulevard. However, this has its own challenges because the cycle length for the intersection
of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard is much higher than the adjacent intersections along
Dublin Boulevard and is the reason for that intersection currently operating in an
uncoordinated operation.
Near-Term + Project
The travel times would be as high as 32 minutes for westbound Dublin Boulevard in the Existing
+ Project AM peak hour, with the project adding 22 minutes. The majority of this travel time
occurs traveling westbound on Dublin Boulevard and approaching Tassajara Road. The
SimTraffic simulation shows queuing from Tassajara Road to Lockhart Street (approximately
4,100 feet). This queue would extend through the proposed new traffic signal on Dublin
Boulevard between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. This may result in vehicles blocking
the new intersection. In the PM peak hour, the travel times are 35 minutes, with the project
adding 28 minutes.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-111 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Table 17- 33: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative SimTraffic Analysis with Project Corridor Direction Length (miles) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing Ex + Project Difference Existing Ex + Project Difference Travel Time (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 5.4 5.9 0.5 6.3 7.3 0.9 WB 2.1 4.4 12.4 7.9 4.7 7.5 2.8 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 2.9 3.0 0.0 3.3 3.4 0.1 SB 1.0 4.3 6.1 1.8 5.9 7.6 1.8 Delay (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 2.6 3.1 0.5 3.6 4.5 0.9 WB 2.1 2.0 6.2 4.2 2.3 4.7 2.4 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 1.6 1.6 0.1 2.0 2.0 0.1 SB 1.0 2.9 4.7 1.8 4.0 6.0 2.1 Average Speed (mph) and LOS in parentheses Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 24 (C) 22 (D) -2 20 (D) 18 (D) -2 WB 2.1 28 (C) 14 (E) -14 26 (C) 18 (D) -8 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 17 (E) 16 (E) -1 11 (F) 10 (F) -1 SB 1.0 11 (F) 9 (F) -2 10 (F) 8 (F) -2 Length of Queue (feet) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 Negligible Negligible 0 750 750 0 WB 2.1 Negligible 2,600 2,600 Negligible 1,800 1,800 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 Negligible Negligible 0 450 Negligible -450 SB 1.0 Negligible 1,900 1,900 Negligible Negligible 0 Notes: 1. Analysis performed using SimTraffic software. 2. Traffic conditions in the Cumulative scenario are oversaturated, resulting in excessive travel times and delays. 3. Free flow travel time for Dublin Blvd between Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd is 2.8 minutes and free flow travel time for Tassajara Rd between Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr is 1.6 minutes. 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin Page-17-112 | Transportation & Circulation Draft EIR 10/23/18 Corridor Direction Length (miles) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Near-term NT + Project Difference Near-term NT + Project Difference Travel Time (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 5.0 5.9 0.9 22.9 9.1 -13.9 WB 2.1 9.3 31.6 22.2 6.3 34.4 28.1 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 4.0 4.6 0.6 5.3 4.5 -0.8 SB 1.0 4.5 9.7 5.3 3.8 4.9 1.1 Delay (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 2.6 3.4 0.9 15.7 6.5 -9.2 WB 2.1 4.9 14.7 9.8 3.8 11.9 8.1 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 2.6 3.3 0.7 3.9 3.2 -0.8 SB 1.0 3.1 8.4 5.3 2.4 3.5 1.1 Average Speed (mph) and LOS in parentheses Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 25 (C) 22 (D) -3 8 (F) 15 (E) 7 WB 2.1 17 (E) 7 (F) -10 20 (D) 9 (F) -11 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 10 (F) 8 (F) -2 8 (F) 9 (F) 1 SB 1.0 10 (F) 5 (F) -5 14 (E) 11 (F) -3 Length of Queue (feet) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 Negligible Negligible 0 4,400 750 -3,650 WB 2.1 2,600 4,100 1,500 Negligible 3,400 3,400 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 1,000 1,800 800 1,000 1,000 0 SB 1.0 Negligible 2,600 2,600 Negligible Negligible 0 Notes: 1. Analysis performed using SimTraffic software. 2. Traffic conditions in the Cumulative scenario are oversaturated, resulting in excessive travel times and delays. 3. Free flow travel time for Dublin Blvd between Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd is 2.8 minutes and free flow travel time for Tassajara Rd between Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr is 1.6 minutes. 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-113 Draft EIR 10/23/18 Corridor Direction Length (miles) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Cumulative Cum + Project Difference Cumulative Cum + Project Difference Travel Time (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 25.4 8.4 -17.0 34.7 30.2 -4.5 WB 2.1 37.0 47.5 10.5 71.5 82.3 10.8 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 5.1 5.0 -0.1 9.6 15.0 5.4 SB 1.0 4.4 7.0 2.6 4.1 4.0 -0.1 Delay (min) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 18.0 5.7 -12.3 22.5 19.7 -2.8 WB 2.1 22.2 26.3 4.1 53.7 51.3 -2.5 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 3.7 3.6 -0.1 6.7 9.1 2.4 SB 1.0 3.1 5.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 -0.1 Average Speed (mph) and LOS in parentheses Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 7 (F) 16 (E) 9 4 (F) 5 (F) 1 WB 2.1 5 (F) 4 (F) -1 2 (F) 2 (F) 0 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 7 (F) 8 (F) 1 4 (F) 3 (F) -1 SB 1.0 12 (F) 8 (F) -4 13 (F) 13 (F) 0 Length of Queue (feet) Dublin Blvd btw Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd EB 2.1 3,700 750 -2,950 4,400 4,400 0 WB 2.1 Past Fallon Rd Past Fallon Rd 0 Past Fallon Rd Past Fallon Rd 0 Tassajara Rd btw Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr NB 1.0 1,000 1,000 0 1,800 Past Pimlico Dr 800 SB 1.0 Negligible 1,400 1,400 Negligible 600 600 Notes: 1. Analysis performed using SimTraffic software. 2. Traffic conditions in the Cumulative scenario are oversaturated, resulting in excessive travel times and delays. 3. Free flow travel time for Dublin Blvd between Hacienda Dr and Fallon Rd is 2.8 minutes and free flow travel time for Tassajara Rd between Pimlico Dr and Gleason Dr is 1.6 minutes. 5.1.s
Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-115
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Similar to the Existing + Project condition, in the PM peak hour, there would be congestion
issues for northbound left turn vehicles out of the new signalized project driveway. There
would also be congestion issues with vehicles exiting the right-in and right-out driveway along
Tassajara Road near Dublin Corporate Way. Many of these vehicles would be trying to enter
the northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, but
since this movement is already saturated, the vehicles exiting would not be able to enter onto
northbound Tassajara Road. In actuality, vehicles would either enter the northbound through
lanes at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard or use the traffic signal on
Dublin Boulevard.
Cumulative + Project
The travel times would be as high as 48 minutes for westbound Dublin Boulevard in the Existing
+ Project AM peak hour, with the project adding 10 minutes. The majority of this travel time
occurs traveling westbound on Dublin Boulevard and approaching Tassajara Road. The
SimTraffic simulation shows queuing from Tassajara Road to past Fallon Road. This queue
would extend through the proposed new traffic signal on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara
Road and Brannigan Street. This may result in vehicles blocking the new intersection. In the
PM peak hour, the travel times are 82 minutes, with the project adding 11 minutes.
Similar to the Existing + Project condition, in the PM peak hour, there would be congestion
issues for northbound left turn vehicles out of the new signalized project driveway. There
would also be congestion issues with vehicles exiting the right-in and right-out driveway along
Tassajara Road near Dublin Corporate Way. Many of these vehicles would be trying to enter
the northbound left turn lane at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, but
since this movement is already saturated, the vehicles exiting would not be able to enter onto
northbound Tassajara Road. In actuality, vehicles would either enter the northbound through
lanes at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard or use the traffic signal on
Dublin Boulevard.
Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #35)
Each direction of Dublin Boulevard as it approaches Tassajara Road would experience queues
extending to Hacienda Drive in the eastbound direction and east of Fallon Road in the
westbound direction. This occurs in the Cumulative conditions with the project. The
installation of the new traffic signal along Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara Road and
Brannigan Street further disrupts the traffic flow along the corridor. Particularly in the
westbound direction in the PM peak hour, the high number of vehicles making the westbound
left turn from Dublin Boulevard onto southbound Tassajara Road to get to I-580 conflicts with
the new traffic signal. Vehicles exiting the project site, making a northbound left turn onto
westbound Dublin Boulevard cannot proceed through the new traffic signal due to the over
saturated receiving lanes on westbound Dublin Boulevard.
The project would degrade the following roadway segments from an acceptable to an
unacceptable LOS:
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-116 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
WB Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road (Existing + Project AM)
o LOS C to LOS E
WB Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road (NT + Project PM)
o LOS D to LOS F
MM TR-1.1 would improve the average speed and LOS to an acceptable LOS D in the Existing +
Project weekday AM peak hour and thereby reduce impacts to less-than-significant (Class II).
However, MM TR-1.1 would not improve the average speed and LOS to an acceptable LOS D in
the Near-term + Project weekday PM peak hour. Therefore, the impact would remain
significant and unavoidable (Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
17.5.12 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Table 17-38: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Transportation and Circulation,
summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures
for the project with regard to transportation and circulation.
Table 17- 34: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Transportation and Circulation
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact TR-1: Create a potentially
dangerous new intersection
(Class II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
Impact TR-2: Increase travel
delays at study intersections in
the Existing + Project condition
that exceed established LOS
standards (Class II).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London
Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-3: Cause intersection
queues to operate below
acceptable levels under Existing +
Project conditions (Class II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to
Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-117
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the
Existing + Project condition that
exceed established LOS
standards (Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment
Improvements
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-5: Increase travel
delays at study intersections in
the Near-Term + Project
condition that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I
and II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements
to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London
Boulevard
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-6: Cause intersection
queues to operate below
acceptable levels under Near-
Term + Project conditions (Class I
and II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street
MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway
Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the Near-
Term + Project conditions that
exceed established LOS
standards (Class I Impact).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project
Freeway Segment Improvements
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-118 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact TR-8: Increase travel
delays at study intersections in
the Cumulative + Project
conditions that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I
and II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street
MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street
MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London
Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-9: Cause intersection
queues to operate below
acceptable levels under
Cumulative + Project conditions
(Class I and II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway MM
TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard
Impact TR-10: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the
Cumulative + Project condition
that exceed established LOS
standards (Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment
Improvements
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-119
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
Impact TR-11: Conflict with
applicable congestion
management program for
designated roads, highway, or
freeways (Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment
Improvements
Impact TR-12: Conflict with
adopted policies, plans or
programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of
such facilities (Class III).
Less than
significant
None required
Impact TR-13: Increase travel
speeds along roadways that
exceed established LOS
standards (Class II ).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-120 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.5.13 References
Alameda County Transportation Commission, Congestion Management Program, December
2017.
Caltrans, Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, December 2002.
Caltrans, Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition, December 2015.
City of Dublin, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, October 7, 2014.
City of Dublin, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 2013.
City of Dublin, Dublin IKEA Final Transportation Assessment, January 2018.
City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan 1985 amended 2016.
City of Dublin, General Plan, 1985 amended 2017.
City of Livermore, General Plan, Amended December 2014.
City of Pleasanton, General Plan, July 21, 2009.
City of Pleasanton, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, April 2017.
Transportation Research Board, HCM 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, December 2010.
Transportation Research Board, HCM 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, 2010.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council, Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for
Routes of Regional Significance, September 2017.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
18 Energy Conservation
According to Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, the goal of conserving energy implies
the wise and efficient use of energy including decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil and
increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. The project would be constructed to Title 24
standards, which would reduce energy demand as compared to traditional development.
Therefore, the project would not result in substantial or wasteful consumption of energy.
This section describes the existing setting of the project site as it relates to energy conservation;
identifies associated regulatory conditions and requirements; presents the criteria used to
evaluate potential impacts related to use of fuel and energy upon implementation of the
project; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid each significant impact. The
significance of each impact after the incorporation of identified mitigation measures is included
at the end of this section.
18.1 Environmental Setting
This section presents information on the existing energy consumption in the region and project
vicinity. This information serves as the baseline for assessing the project’s impacts related to
energy conservation.
18.1.1 California’s Energy Use and Supply
Californians consumed 285,701 gigawatt hours (GWh)21 of electricity in 2016, which is the most
recent year for which data is available. Of this total, Alameda County consumed 10,815 GWh
(CEC, 2018a). In 2016, the California electricity mix included natural gas (36.48 percent), coal
(4.13 percent), large hydroelectric plants (10.21 percent), and nuclear (9.18 percent). The
remaining 25.45 percent was supplied from renewable resources, such as wind, solar,
21 A watt hour is a unit of energy equivalent to one watt of power expended for one hour. For example, a typical light bulb is 60
watts, meaning that if it is left on for one hour, 60-watt hours have been used. One kilowatt equals 1,000 watts. The
consumption of electrical energy by homes and businesses is usually measured in kilowatt hours (kWh). Some large
businesses and institutions also use megawatt hours (MWh), where one MWh equals 1,000 kWh. One gigawatt equals 1,000
megawatts, or 1,000,000 kilowatts. The energy output of large power plants over long periods of time, or the energy
consumption of jurisdictions, can be expressed in gigawatt hours (GWh).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-2 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric facilities (CEC, 2018b). In 2015, the state
consumed 2,177,467 million cubic feet 22 of natural gas (EIA, 2018).
Energy usage is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy usage in
California was 7,676 trillion BTU in 2015 (the most recent year for which this specific data is
available), which equates to an average of 197 million BTU per capita. Of California’s total
energy usage, the breakdown by sector is 39 percent transportation, 24 percent industrial, 19
percent commercial, and 18 percent residential. Electricity and natural gas in California are
generally consumed by stationary users such as residences and commercial and industrial
facilities, whereas petroleum consumption is generally accounted for by transportation-related
energy use.23 In 2016, taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) in California
accounted for 15,297,030,909 gallons of gasoline.24
In 2002, California established its Renewable Portfolio Standard program25 with the goal of
increasing the annual percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix by the
equivalent of at least 1 percent of sales, with an aggregate total of 20 percent by 2017. The
California Public Utilities Commission subsequently accelerated that goal to 2010 for retail
sellers of electricity (Public Utilities Code Section 399.15(b)(1)). Then-Governor Schwarzenegger
signed Executive Order S-14-08 in 2008, increasing the target to 33 percent renewable energy
by 2020. In September 2009, then-Governor Schwarzenegger continued California’s
commitment to the Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order S-21-09, which
directs the California Air Resources Board under its Assembly Bill (AB) 32 authority to enact
regulations to help the State meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent
renewable energy by 2020. In September 2010, the California Air Resources Board adopted its
Renewable Electricity Standard regulations, which require all of the state’s load-serving entities
to meet this target. In October 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill
350, which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their
electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030.
Additional energy efficiency measures beyond the current regulations are needed to meet
these goals as well as the AB 32 greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal of reducing statewide
GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (see Chapter 6, Air Quality, and Chapter 10, Greenhouse
22 100 cubic feet (CCF) is approximately the energy equivalent to burning 100 cubic feet of natural gas. 100 CCF of natural gas
equals 103,700 a British Thermal Unit (BTU). A BTU is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound
of water by one degree Fahrenheit. A kBTU is 1,000 BTUs. A therm is 100,000 BTUs.
23 EIA (US Energy Information Administration), California State Profile and Energy Estimates, updated April 19, 2018,
http://www.eia.gov/state/data.cfm?sid=CA#ConsumptionExpenditures and
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_te.html&sid=US&sid=CA, accessed May 2,
2018.
24 California Board of Equalization, Net Taxable Gasoline Sales, 2016,
https://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/reports/mvf_10_year_report.pdf, accessed September 28, 2017.
25 The Renewable Portfolio Standard is a flexible, market-driven policy to ensure that the public benefits of wind, solar,
biomass, and geothermal energy continue to be realized as electricity markets become more competitive. The policy ensures
that a minimum amount of renewable energy is included in the portfolio of electricity resources serving a state or country.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Gases, for a discussion of AB 32). Part of the effort in meeting California’s long-term reduction
goals include reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50 percent, increasing from one-
third to one-half of California’s electricity derived from renewable sources, doubling the
efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; reducing the
release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants, and managing farm
and rangelands, forests, and wetlands so they can store carbon (CEC, 2016).
18.1.2 Current Energy Providers
Electricity Providers
Currently, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity to Alameda County
businesses and residents. Effective June 2018, commercial businesses have the option to
choose between electricity from PG&E or East Bay Clean Energy (EBCE), a new community
choice aggregation joint powers authority recently formed and offering service in most of
Alameda County. Electricity from EBCE will be available to residents in the fall of 2018.
Residents and commercial businesses will be automatically enrolled in EBCE with the
opportunity to opt out for those who want to continue to receive their service from PG&E.
EBCE offers two energy options, Brilliant 100 and Bright Choice. Brilliant 100 is energy sourced
from 100% carbon-free energy and Bright Choice offers 85% carbon free energy. EBCE
estimates that the Bright Choice energy portfolio offers 7% higher carbon free content
compared to PG&E’s basic energy portfolio.
The PG&E 2016 power mix was as follows:
17 percent natural gas
24 percent nuclear
33 percent renewables
12 percent large hydroelectric,
14 percent unspecified power (PG&E, 2018b).
As of this date, the exact power mix that EBCE will offer customers is unavailable, however
EBCE’s Scheduling Coordinator and Energy Portfolio Manager, Northern California Power
Agency, has determined that EBCE is on track to serve EBCE Bright Choice customers in 2018
with the following:
Over 38% qualified renewable energy
Over 85% carbon-free energy (over 38% renewable and over 47% carbon-free large
hydro)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-4 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Natural Gas Provider
PG&E operates one of the largest natural gas distribution networks in the country, including
42,141 miles of natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines (PG&E, 2018a). In all, PG&E
delivers gas to approximately 4.3 million customer accounts in Northern and Central California,
including in Alameda County.
As shown in Table 18-1: Electricity Consumption in Alameda County 2006-2016 and Table 18-2:
Natural Gas Consumption in Alameda County 2006-2016, both electricity and natural gas
consumption in Alameda County has remained relatively constant between 2006 and 2016.
Table 18-1: Electricity Consumption in Alameda County 2006-2016
Year
Electricity Consumption
(in millions of kilowatt hours)
2006 11,186
2007 11,742
2008 11,184
2009 10,365
2010 10,729
2011 10,990
2012 10,603
2013 10,635
2014 10,319
2015 10,258
2016 10,815
Source: CEC, 2018a.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 18-2: Natural Gas Consumption in Alameda County 2006-2016
Year
Natural Gas Consumption
(in millions of therms)
2006 431
2007 415
2008 436
2009 421
2010 422
2011 423
2012 411
2013 423
2014 361
2015 355
2016 361
Source: CEC, 2018a.
Transportation Fuel
California’s transportation sector uses roughly half of the energy consumed in the state. In
2016, Californians consumed approximately 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline and three billion
gallons of diesel fuel, which were down from 15 billion gallons of gasoline and 2.8 billion gallons
of diesel in 2008 (BOE, 2018a; 2018b).
Fuel Consumption
As shown in Table 18-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in Alameda County 2009-2019, on-road
automotive fuel and heavy-duty diesel fuel consumption in Alameda County has remained
steady since 2009.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-6 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 18-3: Automotive Fuel Consumption in Alameda County 2009-2019
Year
On-Road Automotive Fuel
Consumption (Gallons)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle/Diesel Fuel
Consumption (Gallons)
2009 549,822,000 125,827,000
2010 546,108,000 122,139,000
2011 534,708,000 127,202,000
2012 532,188,000 127,749,000
2013 534,200,000 130,467,000
2014 544,124,000 125,911,000
2015 559,640,000 126,586,000
2016 573,529,000 134,589,000
2017 562,071,000 135,711,000
2018 (projected) 551,105,000 136,591,000
2019 (projected) 539,782,000 137,597,000
Source: California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2017.
18.2 Applicable Regulations, Plans, and Standards
This section presents legislation and regulations specifically related to energy conservation. See
also Chapter 6: Air Quality, Chapter 11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Chapter 17:
Transportation & Circulation, for other policies related to energy use. See Chapter 16: Public
Services, Utilities, and Service Systems for policies related to water consumption.
18.2.1 Federal
National Energy Conservation Policy Act
The National Energy Conservation Policy Act serves as the underlying authority for Federal
energy management goals and requirements. Signed into law in 1978, it has been regularly
updated and amended by subsequent laws and regulations. This act is the foundation of most
Federal energy requirements.
Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 sets equipment energy efficiency standards and seeks to reduce
reliance on non-renewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand
on these resources. For example, under the Act, consumers and businesses can attain Federal
tax credits for purchasing fuel-efficient appliances and products, including hybrid vehicles;
constructing energy-efficient buildings; and improving the energy efficiency of commercial
buildings. Additionally, tax credits are available for the installation of qualified fuel cells,
stationary micro-turbine power plants, and solar power equipment.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Executive Order 13693 (Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade), signed in 2015,
seeks to maintain Federal leadership in sustainability and GHG emission reductions. Its goal is
to reduce agency Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions 26 by at least 40 percent by 2025, foster
innovation, reduce spending, and strengthen communities through increased efficiency and
improved environmental performance. Sustainability goals are set for building efficiency and
management, energy portfolio, water use efficiency, fleet efficiency, sustainable acquisition
and supply chain GHG management, pollution prevention, and electronic stewardship.
Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007
The Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007 sets Federal energy management
requirements in several areas, including energy reduction goals for Federal buildings, facility
management and benchmarking, performance standards for new buildings and major
renovations, high-performance buildings, energy savings performance contracts, metering,
energy-efficient product procurement, and reduction in petroleum use and increase in
alternative fuel use. This act also amends portions of the National Energy Policy Conservation
Act.
18.2.2 State
Assembly Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32),
the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of
reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005
emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05) and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping
Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In
addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of
statewide GHG emissions. Reductions in overall energy consumption have been implemented
to reduce emissions. See Chapter 10 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) for a further discussion of AB
32.
2008 California Energy Action Plan Update
The 2008 Energy Action Plan Update provides a status update to the 2005 Energy Action Plan II,
which is the State’s principal energy planning and policy document (CPUC and CEC, 2008). The
plan continues the goals of the original Energy Action Plan, describes a coordinated
implementation plan for State energy policies, and identifies specific action areas to ensure that
California’s energy is adequate, affordable, technologically advanced, and environmentally
sound. First-priority actions to address California’s increasing energy demands are energy
26 In GHG inventories, direction emissions are Scope 1; indirect emissions from consumption of purchased electricity, heat or
steam are Scope 2; and other indirect emissions (such as extraction and production of purchases materials and fuels,
transport in vehicles not controlled by the reporting entity, outsourced activities) are Scope 3.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-8 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
efficiency, demand response (i.e., reduction of customer energy usage during peak periods in
order to address system reliability and support the best use of energy infrastructure), and the
use of renewable sources of power. If these actions are unable to satisfy the increasing energy
and capacity needs, the plan supports clean and efficient fossil-fired generation.
California Green Building Standards Code
The 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, as specified in Title 24, Part 11 of the
California Code of Regulations, specifies building standards to improve public health, safety,
and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of
building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable
construction practices in five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water
efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental
quality. The provisions of this code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction,
replacement, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every
building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures
throughout California.
Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in
Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, were established in 1978 in response to a
legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated
periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency
technologies and methods. The California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted an update in
2013, and these new standards became effective on January 1, 2017 (CEC, 2017c).
2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The California Energy Commission adopted Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR
Sections 1601 through 1608) on October 11, 2006. The regulations were approved by the
California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include
standards for both Federally regulated appliances and non-Federally regulated appliances.
While these regulations are now often viewed as “business-as-usual,” they exceed the
standards imposed by all other states and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy
demand.
Senate Bill 1078 and 107; Executive Order S-14-08, S-21-09, and SB 2X
SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-
owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their
supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the
target date to 2010. In November 2008, then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive
Order S-14-08, which expands the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard to 33 percent
renewable power by 2020. In September 2009, then-Governor Schwarzenegger continued
California’s commitment to the Renewable Portfolio Standard by signing Executive Order S-21-
09, which directs the CARB under its AB 32 authority to enact regulations to help the state meet
its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. In April 2011,
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Governor Brown signed SB 2X, which legislated the prior Executive Order S-14-08 renewable
standard.
Executive Order B-30-15 and Senate Bill 350
In April 2015, the Governor issued Executive Order B-30-15, which established a GHG reduction
target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 350 (Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015)
advanced these goals through two measures. First, the law increases the renewable power
goal from 33 percent renewables by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. Second, the law requires the
CEC to establish annual targets to double energy efficiency in buildings by 2030. The law also
requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to direct electric utilities to establish
annual efficiency targets and implement demand-reduction measures to achieve this goal.
Senate Bill 32
In September 2016, the Governor signed into legislation SB 32, which builds on AB 32 and
requires the state to cut GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. With SB 32,
the Legislature also passed AB 197, which provides additional direction for updating the
Scoping Plan to meet the 2030 GHG reduction target codified in SB 32. CARB has published a
draft update to the Scoping Plan and has received public comments on this draft, but has not
released the final version.
Recent CEQA Litigation
In California, Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173 (“CCEC”),
the Court observed that CEQA Guidelines Appendix F lists environmental impacts and mitigation
measures that an EIR may include. Potential issues that may require EIR discussion include:
The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and
fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation,
maintenance, and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials
may be discussed.
The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements
for additional capacity.
The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.
The effects of the project on energy resources.
The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use
of efficient transportation alternatives.
18.2.3 Local
City of Dublin General Plan
The City of Dublin General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions that encourage the
conservation of energy in the Community Design and Sustainability Element and the Energy
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-10 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Conservation Element. Below are the policies specifically related to energy that would be
applicable to the project.
Goal 10.9.2: Encourage Sustainability to provide a high quality of life and to preserve resources
and opportunities.
Policy 10.9.3(C): Consider environmentally sensitive and energy-efficient building siting, which
minimize impacts from wind, provides shade, reduces stormwater runoff, and maximizes
opportunities for passive solar design, where feasible.
Policy 10.9.3(F): Encourage alternative modes of transportation by providing priority parking for
carpool and alternative energy vehicles, bicycle racks/lockers, showers for employees, and easy
access to adjacent regional trails and transit stops.
Implementation Measure 10.9.4(A): Facilitate environmental and energy-efficient design
guidelines that promote good design for new construction.
Implementation Measure 10.9.4(H): Investigate modifications to the Building Code to require
integrated, comprehensive, and well-designed sustainable building practices (i.e. water and
energy efficiency, resource allocations, and site planning).
Guiding Policy 13.3.2(A)(1): Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new
residential and commercial development.
Guiding Policy 13.3.2(A)(2): Encourage designing for solar access.
Guiding Policy 13.3.2(A)(3): Encourage energy efficient improvements be made on residential
and commercial properties.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(1): New development proposals shall be reviewed to ensure
lighting levels needed for a safe and secure environment are provided—utilizing the most
energy-efficient fixtures (in most cases, LED lights)—while avoiding over-lighting of sites. Smart
lighting technology (e.g. sensors and/or timers) shall also be employed in interior and exterior
lighting applications where appropriate.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(2): New development projects shall install LED streetlights in
compliance with the City’s LED light standard.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(3): In new commercial and residential parking lots, require the
installation of conduit to serve electric vehicle parking spaces to enable the easier installation of
future charging stations.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(4): Encourage the installation of charging stations for
commercial projects over a certain size and any new residential project that has open parking
(i.e. not individual, enclosed garages).
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(5): Encourage buildings (and more substantially, whole
neighborhoods) to be designed along an east-west axis to maximize solar exposure. Where
feasible, require new development projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds,
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use; and to use regenerative energy heating and
cooling source alternatives to fossil fuels.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(6): Continue to implement parking lot tree planting standards
that would substantially cool parking areas and help cool the surrounding environment.
Encourage landscaping conducive to solar panels in areas where appropriate.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(7): Promote and encourage photovoltaic demonstration projects
in association with new development.
Implementing Policy 13.3.2(B)(8): Consider creating a recognition program for commercial or
residential projects that install large-scale solar or wind energy systems and to publicly
commend and acknowledge businesses or individuals that construct or remodel buildings that
save more energy than required by Title 24 or by the Cal Green Building Code.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The Specific Plan features a comprehensive multi-modal transportation and circulation system.
The intent is to achieve important environmental benefits, such as reduced air and noise
pollution, and increased energy conservation, through the reduction in the number and length
of daily vehicle trips associated with new development.
Additionally, through the recycling of organic and man-made materials the total amount of
solid waste that needs to be disposed of in landfills can be greatly reduced, saving not only land
but also energy and natural resources.
The City of Dublin’s Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following policies and programs as
it relates to transportation and building energy conservation:
Policy 4.1: Maintain a reasonable balance in residential and employment-generating land uses
by adhering to the distribution of land uses depicted in Figure 4-1, Land Use Map.
Policy 4-13: Locate community-oriented commercial development in the "Town Center" within
walking distance or a short ride from most residents, and conveniently served by transit. Policy
4-14: Encourage the development of neighbor-hood serving retail and service uses in the
"Village Centers" in order to reduce daily vehicle trips, and contribute to the identity and
character of the outlying residential areas.
Policy 4-17: Avoid dispersion of commercial uses along major collectors and arterials in a linear
(i.e., "strip") development pattern that is oriented solely to vehicular traffic.
Policy 4-18: Encourage the creation of a pedestrian-oriented shopping environment in the
Town and Village Centers, while still accommodating the safe movement of vehicular traffic.
Policy 4-19: Encourage mixed-use development in the commercial areas of the Town and
Village Centers that contributes to the social, cultural, and economic vitality of the commercial
districts.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-12 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Policy 5-2: Require all development to provide a balanced orientation toward pedestrian,
bicycle, and automobile circulation.
Policy 5-17: Establish a bicycle circulation system which helps to serve the need for non-
motorized transportation and recreation in eastern Dublin that is consistent with the Dublin
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Policy 8-7: Support ACWMA efforts to develop alternate disposal facilities for organic waste in
the Tri-Valley area, particularly for composting and reuse of organic material.
Policy 8-8: Encourage the separation of recyclable materials from the general waste stream by
supporting the development of a recycling collection system and facilities.
18.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The analysis below generally follows Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that
the goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy, including decreasing
overall per capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing
reliance on renewable energy sources. According to Appendix F, the analysis should include a
description of energy conservation measures included as part of the project and should
consider whether a project would result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption
of energy.
18.3.1 Significance Criteria
Based upon the criteria derived from Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project
would result in a significant impact related to energy conservation if it would:
Result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy during
project construction or operation
18.3.2 Summary of No and/or Beneficial Impact
There are no “no” impacts nor “beneficial” impacts.
18.3.3 Impact Assessment Methodology
In determining whether implementation of the project would result in the inefficient, wasteful
or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy, this analysis considers the recommendations of
Appendix F (as described above), which states that environmental impact analyses of energy
conservation may include:
1. The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel
type for each stage of the project’s life cycle including construction, operation,
maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials
maybe discussed.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-13
Draft EIR
10/23/18
2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for
additional capacity.
3. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.
4. The effects of the project on energy resources.
5. The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of
efficient transportation alternatives.
This section analyzes energy consumption on three sources of energy that are relevant to the
project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with new
development, as well as the fuel necessary for project construction. The analysis of project
electricity/natural gas usage is based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
modeling, which quantifies energy use for occupancy. The results of the CalEEMod modeling
are included in Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis of this Draft EIR.
Modeling related to project energy consumption was based primarily on the default settings in
the computer program for Alameda County. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated
using CalEEMod outputs for the project and the California Air Resources Board’s Emissions
Factor 2017 (EMFAC2017) computer program for typical daily fuel usage in Alameda County.
Construction fuel consumption was calculated based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and
conversion ratios from the Climate Registry.
Energy consumption impacts are analyzed below according to topic. Mitigation measures
directly correspond with an identified impact.
Impact ER-1: Would implementation of the project result in the inefficient, wasteful or
unnecessary consumption of energy during project construction or operation. (Class III)
Construction (Short-Term)
The energy consumption associated with buildout of the project includes electricity usage
associated with water usage for dust control, diesel fuel consumption from on-road hauling
trips and off-road construction diesel equipment, and gasoline consumption from on-road
worker commute and vendor trips. The methodology for each category is discussed below.
This analysis relies on the construction equipment list and operational characteristics, as stated
in Chapter 6 (Air Quality) and Chapter 10 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), as well as Appendix B:
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis. Quantifications of construction energy
consumption are provided for the project.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-14 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Electricity Usage
Water Consumption for Construction Dust Control
Electricity usage associated with water consumption for construction dust control is calculated
based on total water consumption and the energy intensity for supply, distribution, and
treatment of water.
The total number of gallons of water usage is calculated based on acreage disturbed during
grading and site preparation, as well as the daily water consumption rate per acre disturbed.
The total acres disturbed are calculated using the methodology described in Chapter
4.2 of Appendix A of the CalEEMod® User’s Guide (Grading Equipment Passes).
The water application rate of 3,020 gallons per acre per day is from Air and Waste
Management Association’s Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
The energy intensity value is based on the CalEEMod® default energy intensity per gallon of
water for Alameda County.
As summarized in Table 18-4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction, the total
electricity consumption associated with water consumption for construction dust control would
be approximately 524,951 kWh (525 megawatt hours [MWh]) over the duration of buildout of
the project.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-15
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 18-4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction
Source
Project
Construction Usage
Alameda County Annual
Energy Consumption
Percentage
Increase
Countywide
Electricity Use Megawatt Hours (MWh)
Water Consumption 1 525
10,815,000
0.0049%
On-Road Construction Trips 2 0.4 0.0000%
Construction Electricity Total 525 0.0049%
Diesel Use Gallons
On-Road Construction Trips 2 1,123,387
137,597,000
0.8164%
Off-Road Construction Equipment 3 1,148,177 0.8344%
Construction Diesel Total 2,271,565 1.6509%
Gasoline Gallons
On-Road Construction Trips 2 1,161,076
551,105,000
0.2151%
Construction Gasoline Total 1,161,076 0.2151%
Notes:
1. Construction water use estimated based on acres disturbed per day per construction sequencing and estimated water use per acre
(AWMA 1992).
2. On-road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per
mile from EMFAC2017 in Alameda. Electricity demand based on VMT and calculated average electric vehicle fuel economy for 2015 models
(in kWh per mile) from the DOE Fuel Economy Guide.
3. Off-road mobile source fuel usage based on a fuel usage rate of 0.05 gallons of diesel per horsepower (hp)-hour from USEPA.
Abbreviations:
CalEEMod: California Emission Estimation Model; EMFAC: Emission Factor Model 2017; kWh: kilowatt-hour; MWh: megawatt-hour.
Sources: AWMA, 1992; DOE 2016; USEPA 1996.
On-Road Electric Vehicle Trips
The EMFAC2017 model includes the fraction of electric vehicles projected to be in the on-road
fleet during construction. Using this data, electricity consumption related to electric vehicle
traffic was estimated. The electric vehicles included in the EMFAC2017 model are all in the
light-duty auto and light-duty truck category, and as such would only exist in the construction
worker fleet, not the vendor and haul truck fleets. The efficiency of electric vehicles in kilowatt-
hours per vehicle mile travelled (kWh/mile) are the model year 2015 average for current model
electric vehicles (USDOE 2016). Total electricity usage from the on-road worker fleet during
construction would be approximately 383 kWh (0.4 MWh) over the duration of buildout of the
project.
Diesel Usage
On-Road Construction Trips
The diesel usage associated with on-road construction mobile trips is calculated based on
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-16 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
CalEEMod default diesel fleet percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in miles per gallon. VMT
for the entire construction period is calculated based on the total (See Chapter 6: Air Quality
and Chapter 10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Construction fuel consumption was calculated
based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry.
As summarized in Table 18-4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction, the total diesel
consumption associated with on-road construction trips would be approximately 1,123,387
gallons over the duration of buildout of the project.
Off-Road Construction Equipment
The construction diesel usage associated with the off-road construction equipment is calculated
based on CalEEMod emissions outputs and conversion ratios from the Climate Registry. As
summarized in Table 18-4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction, the total diesel
consumption associated with off-road construction equipment is approximately 1,148,177
gallons for duration of buildout the project.
Gasoline Usage
On-Road Construction Trips
The gasoline usage associated with on-road construction mobile trips is calculated based on
VMT from vehicle trips (i.e., worker, vendor, and hauling), the CalEEMod default gasoline fleet
percentage, and vehicle fuel efficiency in miles per gallon using the same methodology as the
construction on-road trip diesel usage calculation discussed above. As summarized in Table 18-
4: Project Energy Consumption During Construction, the total gasoline consumption associated
with on-road construction trips would be approximately 1,161,076 gallons over the duration of
buildout the project.
Analysis
In total, construction of the project would consume approximately 525,400 kWh (525 MWh) of
electricity, 2,271,565 gallons of diesel, and 1,161,076 gallons of gasoline.
As indicated in the environmental setting above, Californians consumed 285,701 GWh of
electricity in 2016, of which Alameda County consumed 10,815 GWh. Extrapolating this
consumption over a five-year period, Californians would consume approximately 1.43 million
GWh and Alameda County would consume approximately 54,075 GWh. Therefore,
construction electricity consumption would represent approximately 0.0038 percent of the
electricity consumption in the state, and 0.0049 percent of the electricity consumption in
Alameda County.
In 2015, Californians consumed approximately 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline and 3 billion
gallons of diesel fuel. Extrapolated over a five-year period, Californians would consume 75.5
billion gallons of gasoline and 15 billion gallons of diesel. Alameda County annual diesel
consumption was 137,597,000 gallons and gasoline consumption was 539,782,000 gallons.
Extrapolated over a five-year period, Alameda County would consume 688 million gallons of
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-17
Draft EIR
10/23/18
diesel and 2.7 billion gallons of gasoline. Project construction gasoline consumption would
represent 0.04 percent of gasoline consumption in the County, and construction diesel
consumption would represent 0.33 percent of diesel consumption in the County over the
approximately five-year construction period.
Therefore, based on the project’s relatively low construction fuel use proportional to State and
County consumption, the project would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies
or resources. New capacity/additional sources of construction fuel are not anticipated to be
required.
Furthermore, there are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of
construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction
sites in the region or state. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur
during construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use for
more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required
to comply with the latest EPA and CARB engine emissions standards. These engines use highly
efficient combustion engines to minimize unnecessary fuel consumption.
The project would entail construction activities that would consume energy, primarily in the
form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools).
MM AQ-2.1 requires that engine idling for construction equipment is to be limited and that all
equipment is properly tuned and maintained to the manufacturer’s specifications. Additionally,
the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance requires that 100 percent of asphalt
and concrete be recycled and a minimum of 50 percent of all other materials be recycled.
Recycling construction and demolition waste not only keeps it from being transported to the
landfill, but also reduces the “upstream” energy consumption from the manufacturing of virgin
material in the first place. The project would be required to comply with this ordinance.
Construction activities would be required to monitor air quality emissions using applicable
regulatory guidance such as the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. This requirement indirectly relates
to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced as a
result of monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, this results in reduced
energy consumption. There are no aspects of the project that would foreseeably result in the
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction activities.
As described above, the project’s fuel from the entire construction period would increase fuel
use in the County by less than one percent (i.e., project construction would represent 0.043
percent of gasoline consumption and 0.33 percent of diesel consumption in the County over a
five-year period). It should be noted that the CEQA Guideline Appendix F criteria requires the
project’s effects on local and regional energy supplies and on the requirements for additional
capacity to be addressed. A less than one percent increase in construction fuel demand is not
anticipated to trigger the need for additional capacity. Additionally, use of construction fuel
would be temporary and would cease once the project is fully developed. As such, project
construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies. It is noted
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-18 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction
activities.
As stated above, there are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of
construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction
sites in the region or state. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption
associated with the project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than
other similar development projects of this nature. Therefore, potential impacts are considered
less than significant.
18.3.4 Operations (Long-Term)
The energy consumption associated with operation of uses pursuant to the project would
include building electricity, water, and natural gas usage, as well as fuel usage from on-road
vehicles. The methodology for each category is discussed below. Note that this energy
resources analysis is consistent with the analysis presented in Chapter 6 and Chapter 10.
Quantifications of operational energy consumption are provided for the project.
Transportation Energy Demand
The gasoline and diesel usage associated with on-road vehicular trips is calculated based on
total VMT from the Chapter 6 and Chapter 10 analyses, as well as the average fuel efficiency
from EMFAC2017 model. The EMFAC2017 fuel efficiency data incorporate the Pavley Clean Car
Standards and the Advanced Clean Cars Program.27 As summarized in Table18-5: Project Annual
Energy Consumption During Operations, the total gasoline and diesel consumption associated
with on-road trips would be approximately 698,385 gallons per year and 223,350 gallons per
year, respectively.
The EMFAC2017 model includes the fraction of electric vehicles projected to be in the on-road
fleet during the assumed first year of operation; however, the fraction of the fleet that is
electric is assumed to continue to increase, allowing a decrease in gasoline and diesel
consumption. The electricity consumption related to electric vehicle traffic during operation
was estimated based on the EMFAC2017 fleet mix and the model year 2015 average kWh/mile
for current model electric vehicles (USDOE 2016). Total electricity usage from the on-road
transportation during operation is approximately 32,449 kWh per year (32 MWh per year).
27 The California Air Resources Board EMFAC 2017 Technical Documentation (March 2018) notes that
emissions are estimated with all current controls active, except Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS). The reason for
excluding LCFS is that most of the emissions benefits due to the LCFS come from the production cycle (upstream
emissions) of the fuel rather than the combustion cycle (tailpipe). As a result, LCFS is assumed to not have a
significant impact on CO2 emissions from EMFAC’s tailpipe emission estimates.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-19
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 18-5 Project Annual Energy Consumption During Operations
Source Project Operational
Usage
Alameda County Annual Energy
Consumption
Percentage Increase
Countywide
Electricity Use Megawatt Hour/Year (MWh/year)
Building 1 10,466
10,815,000
0.0968%
Water 1 430 0.0040%
Mobile 2 32 0.0003%
Total Electricity 10,929 0.1011%
Natural Gas Use Therms/year
Building 1 228,312 361,000,000 0.0632%
Diesel Use Gallons/Year
Mobile 2 223,350 137,597,000 0.1623%
Gasoline Use Gallons/Year
Mobile 2 698,385 539,782,000 0.1294%
Notes:
1. The electricity, natural gas, and water usage are based on project-specific estimates and CalEEMod defaults.
2. Calculated based on the mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fleet-average fuel consumption (in gallons per
mile) from EMFAC2017. For electric vehicles, model year 2015 electric vehicle fuel economy is used from the DOE Fuel Economy Guide.
Abbreviations: CalEEMod: California Emission Estimation Model; EMFAC2014: California Air Resources Board Emission Factor Model; kBTU:
thousand British Thermal Units; kWh: kilowatt-hour; MWh: Megawatt-hour.
Sources: AWMA, 1992; DOE 2016; USEPA 1996.
Electricity Usage
Building Envelope
The electricity usage associated with the building envelopes constructed pursuant to the
project is based on CalEEMod defaults. As summarized in Table18-5: Project Annual Energy
Consumption During Operations, the buildings would consume 10,466,231 kWh (approximately
10.47 GWh) of electricity per year.
Water Consumption
The electricity usage associated with operational water consumption is estimated based on the
annual water consumption and the energy intensity factor is the CalEEMod default energy
intensity per gallon of water for Alameda County. Project area water use is based on the water
demand per square foot factors in CalEEMod.
Natural Gas Usage
Building Envelope
The methodology used to calculate the natural gas usage associated with the building
envelopes constructed pursuant to the project is based on CalEEMod default usage rates. As
summarized in Table18-5: Project Annual Energy Consumption During Operations, the building
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-20 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
envelope would consume 22,831,243 thousand British Thermal Units (kBTU) (228,312 therms)
of natural gas per year.
Analysis
Operation of uses implemented pursuant to the project would annually consume
approximately 10.5 million kWh of electricity, 22.8 million kBTU of natural gas, 223,350 gallons
of diesel, and 698,385 gallons of gasoline.
Californians consumed 285,701 GWh of electricity in 2016, of which Alameda County consumed
10,815 GWh. The project’s operational electricity consumption would represent 0.004 percent
of the electricity consumption in the state, and 0.10 percent of the energy consumption in
Alameda County. Regarding natural gas, Californians consumed 12,739 million therms (or
1,273.9 billion kBTUs) of natural gas and 361 million therms of natural gas in Alameda County in
2016. Therefore, the project’s operational natural gas consumption would represent 0.002
percent of the natural gas consumption in the state and 0.06 percent of the natural gas
consumption in the County.
In 2015, Californians consumed approximately 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline and 3 billion
gallons of diesel fuel. Project operational consumption of gasoline and diesel would represent
0.004 percent of gasoline and 0.007 percent of diesel consumption statewide. Project
operational consumption of gasoline and diesel would represent 0.13 percent of gasoline and
0.16 percent of diesel consumption in the County.
Therefore, operation of uses under the project would not substantially affect existing energy or
fuel supplies or resources. The project would comply with applicable energy standards and
new capacity would not be required. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Energy Efficiency Measures
As discussed above, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential
Buildings create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption, and provide
energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings. These standards are
incorporated within the California Building Code and are expected to substantially reduce the
growth in electricity and natural gas use. For example, requirements for energy efficient
lighting, heating and cooling systems, and green building materials are expected to save
additional electricity and natural gas. These savings are cumulative, doubling as years go by.
The project would include additional energy efficiency measures per City’s Climate Action Plan.
For example, the project would install LED streetlights where streetlights needed. The project
also would include energy-efficient outdoor lighting for community and publicly accessible
outdoor spaces where feasible. Full cut-off lights and automated outdoor lights on commercial
buildings and in publicly accessible places, including open space and parking lots, that adjust for
time and seasons will also be utilized.
Photovoltaic solar systems and on-demand water heating systems would be included an option
for home buyers. Photovoltaic systems would be installed on the rooftops of commercial
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-21
Draft EIR
10/23/18
buildings. On-demand water heating systems would also be included where applicable.
Additionally, all structures that do not include solar photovoltaic panels will be “solar ready,” as
required by City Municipal Code sections 7.94.060 and 7.94.070. Energy Star appliances and
low-flow toilets would be installed for the residential units and low-flow toilets and “smart”
control systems would be installed for the commercial uses. Light-colored cool roofs will be
used for the apartments and commercial buildings and pavement will be light-colored
throughout the project.
Regarding water energy conservation, the project would incorporate drought-tolerant
landscaping in commonly-owned areas in the residential and commercial portions of the site.
Recycled water and water-efficient irrigation controls would also be used in the landscape
areas. A comprehensive water conservation strategy would be development as applicable to
each respective land use as part of the project plan development. Buildings would also
incorporate water-efficient fixtures and appliances, in compliance with Title 24.
The project also reduces transportation energy usage by applying “smart growth” principles as
an urban in-fill development with a mix of retail, entertainment, and residential uses adjacent
to transit/multi-modal corridors and within two miles of a BART station. The project facilitates
the use of existing bus routes with stops adjacent to the project site. The Livermore Amador
Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) runs bus service from the project site (Dublin Boulevard and
Tassajara Road) to the BART station with 15-minute headways during peak commute hours.
Additionally, the Project would improve and complete pedestrian and bicycle connections
around its perimeter and through the Project site. Provide bicycle storage would be provided in
the apartments and bicycle racks would be provided near the commercial uses. The project
would also improve and complete bicycle lanes and facilities along the perimeter and through
the project site that connect with existing bicycle routes. The project includes landscaped
paseos and pedestrian pathways that would directly connect residents and retail patrons with
adjacent open space, surrounding neighborhoods and nearby Emerald Glen Park. Sidewalks on
the streets surrounding the project site would be improved and a 10-foot public multi-use trail
would be constructed on the north side of Central Parkway and an on-street bicycle lane along
Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Central Parkway, and Gleason Drive.
The project would increase the permitted residential density to permit more residential units
than allowed under the existing zoning. The commercial uses are also planned at a higher
density through the application of shared parking. The shared parking plan would allow parking
to be shared by the apartments and commercial space, along with shared parking between
hospitality uses with complimentary peak demand.
Furthermore, both electricity providers in Alameda County, EBCE and PG&E, are subject to
California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities,
electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from
eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 50
percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-22 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as
sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat.
The project would be required to adhere to all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy
efficiency, including the latest Title 24 standards. Considering these requirements in addition to
the project design features described above, the project would not result in the inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. Therefore, potential impacts are
considered less than significant.
The project would generate less-than-significant impacts related to energy use. Additionally,
the project would incorporate various building and transportation energy saving design
features (described above) and comply with the latest State Building Code (Title 24, Part 6 of
the California Code of Regulations), which further minimize energy consumption towards the
California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan’s (CEESP) goal to have 100 percent of new
homes achieve zero net energy beginning in 2020. The latest Building Code approved by the
California Energy Commission reduces energy use in new homes by 28 percent compared to the
previous (2013) version of the code. Additionally, the California Plumbing and Green Building
Codes require water efficient fixtures that would reduce water consumption and water related
energy use. For example, the code requires automatic irrigation systems utilizing weather
and/or soil moisture based irrigation controllers. The code also requires the installation of high
efficiency toilets (HET) with a maximum of 1.28 gallons per flush, install kitchen faucets, bath
faucets, and shower heads that are 20 percent more efficient than typical low-flow plumbing
fixtures.
18.3.5 Cumulative Impacts
Construction and operations associated with implementation of the project would result in the
consumption of fuel and energy, but it would not do so in a wasteful manner. The consumption
of fuel and energy would not be substantial in comparison to statewide electricity, natural gas,
gasoline, and diesel demand; refer to Table 18-5 and Table 18-6. New capacity or supplies of
energy resources would not be required. Additionally, the project would be subject to
compliance with all Federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency.
The anticipated project impacts, in conjunction with cumulative development in the site
vicinity, would increase urbanization and result in increased energy consumption. Potential
land use impacts are site-specific and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. Each
cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which
would address potential energy consumption impacts and identify necessary mitigation
measures, where appropriate.
As noted above, the project would not result in significant energy consumption impacts. The
project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary with regard to energy.
Thus, the project and identified cumulative projects are not anticipated to result in a significant
cumulative impact. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Energy Conservation | Page 18-23
Draft EIR
10/23/18
18.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Table 18-6 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Energy Conservation) summarizes
the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures for the
project with regard to energy conservation.
Table 18-6: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Energy Conservation
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact ER-1: Encourage activities that result in the
use of large amounts of fuel or energy, or use these
resources in a wasteful manner (Class III)
Less than Significant None required
18.4 References
Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA). 1992. Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
California State Board of Equalization (BOE.) 2018a. Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons. Available at:
http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF_10_Year_Report.pdf. Accessed May 2,
2018.
California State Board of Equalization (BOE). 2018b. Taxable Diesel Gallons 10-year Report.
Available at: http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/Diesel_10_Year_Report.pdf.
Accessed May 2, 2018.
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). 2016. CalEEMod User’s Guide. Available at:
http://www.caleemod.com/.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016a. Energy Consumption Data Management Service.
Electricity Consumption by County. Available at:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed May 2, 2018.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016. Final Integrated Energy Policy Report Update.
Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2016_energypolicy. Accessed May 2, 2018.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018a. Electricity Consumption by County. Available at:
htpp://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov. Accessed May 2, 2017.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018b. Energy Almanac, California’s Electricity Data.
Available at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html.
Accessed May 2, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-18-24 | Energy Conservation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018c. California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/. Accessed May 2, 2018.
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). 2016. CalEEMod User’s Guide. Available at:
http://www.caleemod.com/.
California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission (CPUC and CEC). 2008.
2008 Update, Energy Action Plan. Available at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-100-2008-001/CEC-100-2008-
001.PDF.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2018a. Company Profile. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/profile/profile.page.
Accessed May 2, 2018.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2017b. PG&E’s 2016 Electric Power Mix Delivered to Retail
Customers. Available at:
http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/electric/energymix/. Accessed
May 2, 2018.
United States Department of Energy (USDOE). 2016. Model Year 2015 Fuel Economy Guide.
Available at: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG2015.pdf. Accessed
May 2, 2018.
United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2018. California Natural Gas Total
Consumption. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1490_sca_2a.htm
Accessed May 2, 2018.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Alternatives | Page 19-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
19 Alternatives
This section describes the CEQA requirements related to alternatives and describes the process
used to define alternatives to the project. It describes three alternatives to the project and
provides a comparative analysis for each of these alternatives to the project. It includes the
evaluation of the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA, and a comparison of alternatives.
Finally, it identifies the environmentally superior alternative.
19.1 CEQA Requirements for Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR “…describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to
the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every
conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially
feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.” (CEQA
Guidelines §15126.6(a))
To comply with this requirement, the City of Dublin evaluated possible alternatives based on
the following factors:
Does the alternative accomplish most of the basic project objectives?
Is the alternative potentially feasible (from economic, environmental, legal, social,
technological standpoints)?
Does the alternative avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project?
Alternatives need be environmentally superior to the project in only some, not all,
respects.
Is the alternative reasonable and realistic? An EIR need not consider an alternative
whose effect cannot reasonably be ascertained or whose implementation is remote and
speculative, because unrealistic alternatives do not contribute to a useful analysis.
19.2 Consistency with Project Objectives
The basic purpose of an EIR's discussion of alternatives is to suggest ways project objectives
might be achieved at less environmental cost. Accordingly, alternatives must be able to meet
most project objectives, but they need not have to meet all of them. As stated in the CEQA
Guidelines, the EIR’s alternatives analysis should focus on alternatives that can eliminate or
reduce significant environmental impacts even if they would impede attainment of project
objectives to some degree or be more costly (14 CCR §15126.6(b)). The alternatives discussed
must, however, be able to attain most of the basic objectives of the project (14 CCR
§15126.6(a)).
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-19-2 | Alternatives
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The determination of whether to eliminate or retain alternatives in this EIR was based on each
alternative’s ability to meet most or all of the project objectives (see Chapter 3: Project
Description), even if the alternative may be more costly than the project.
19.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration
19.3.1 Alternative Location
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) sets forth considerations to be used in evaluating an
alternative location. The section states that the “key question” is whether any of the significant
effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by relocating the project. The
CEQA Guidelines identify the following factors that may be taken into account when addressing
the feasibility of an alternative location:
Site suitability
Economic viability
Availability of infrastructure
General Plan consistency
Other plans or regulatory limitations
Jurisdictional boundaries
Whether the project applicant can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access
to the alternative site
The CEQA Guidelines establish that only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen the
project’s environmental effects are feasible and would meet most of the project objectives
should be considered as alternative locations for the project.
Because of Alameda County Measure D, which effectively prohibits new urban development
outside of city limits in eastern Alameda County, only sites located within the current Dublin
city limits are considered feasible.
Given the size of the project and the broad mix of uses proposed, it was determined that there
are no other suitable undeveloped parcels that do not already have a pending application nor
have existing entitlements in the City of Dublin that could accommodate the land uses
envisioned for the project. Additionally, the project applicant does not own or otherwise
control property of a similar size.
For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
19.3.2 High School Project
During the public scoping process, comments were made recommending a project that includes
land appropriated for the development of a new high school.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Alternatives | Page 19-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
As described in Chapter 16 – Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems, the Dublin Unified
School District (DUSD) has identified the need for a second high school, preferably in eastern
Dublin, to address future student enrollment growth that exceeds capacity. To address this
need, the DUSD Board of Trustees directed the Superintendent to create a Community Review
Committee to review, analyze, and recommend potential land options for a future high school.
Their final report, Community Review Committee Report: Study of Potential Sites for a Future
High School, dated February 6, 2018, looked at 11 sites (see image below). Of these, five sites
were recommended for further consideration, namely DiManto A and DiManto B&C (both part
of the project site), as well as Fallon Middle School, Fallon Sports Park and the Promenade.
The report noted that advantages of the DiManto A and B&C sites include their size,
configuration, location, and adjacent commercial uses. Challenges identified include the fact
that the project site is already being considered for development (the project that this EIR is
analyzing), the higher acquisition costs based on current zoning, and the risk of a protracted
timely and added complexity if DUSD is compelled to pursue eminent domain to acquire the
parcel(s).
On June 12, 2018, the DUSD Board approved the selection of the 23.4-acre Promenade site as
their preferred location for the development of a new high school with a proposed enrollment
of up to 2,500 students. As shown in the figure below, the site could be accessed from both
Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard and would include multi-story buildings, sport fields, an
internal access road, and approximately 400 parking spaces. Construction is estimated to be
completed by 2022.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-19-4 | Alternatives
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Source: DUSD, June 12, 2018.
While it is recognized by the community and the DUSD that a portion of the project site could
be developed as a new high school, this alternative was eliminated for several reasons. First, as
documented in the City’s General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City has long-
considered the project site as appropriate for a mixed of commercial and residential uses.
Therefore, a land use designation change from these uses to a Public use would represent a
significant change in City policy.
Second, the DUSD is a separate governmental entity from the City of Dublin and as such,
responsible for the development and operation of their facilities. This includes acting as the
Lead Agency under CEQA to analyze the potential environmental impacts of specific projects
they wish to pursue. The City of Dublin can only act as a Responsible Agency to review and
issue the appropriate permits associated with a DUSD project application.
Thirdly, the development of a high school on a portion of the project site would result in a
failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6. These objectives (summarized) include: 1) Provide a balanced mix of residential and
job-creating commercial uses, including high-density housing, that is financially feasible; 2) Add
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Alternatives | Page 19-5
Draft EIR
10/23/18
commercial, entertainment, and hotel uses that will have a synergy with existing retail in the
City; 3) Add to the City’s housing diversity in compliance with Housing Element Program 10 and
General Plan Policy 2.6.1.A.1 by providing a range of housing products; 4) Expand and improve
the City’s housing supply by developing high-quality housing in a portion of a City-designated
Priority Development Area, which is a location planned for growth under the Sustainable
Communities Strategy for the Bay Area: 5) Increase housing on the project site beyond what
was initially planned under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which will help in state-wide efforts
to alleviate California’s housing crisis.
Fourthly, as described above, the DUSD has selected the Promenade as their preferred site for
the construction of a new high school.
For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
19.3.3 Commercial Only Project
During the public scoping process, comments were made recommending future development
that was commercial only (e.g. offices and retail), with no residential development. Like the
High School Project alternative, this alternative would preclude the development of a mixed-
use commercial and residential project as contemplated in the City’s General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. It would also fail to meet most of the basic project objectives as they
relate to the development of residential uses. For these reasons, this alternative was
eliminated from further consideration.
19.4 Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative
19.4.1 Description
In addition to studying a reasonable range of alternatives based on the criteria set forth above,
CEQA requires the EIR to analyze a “no-project” alternative. Consideration of the No Project
Alternative is required by Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis of the No
Project Alternative must discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation
was published (March 25, 2015), as well as: “what would be reasonably expected to occur in
the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent
with available infrastructure and community services” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e)(2)).
The requirements also specify that: “If disapproval of the project under consideration would
result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this ‘no
project’ consequence should be discussed” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e)(3)(B)).
19.4.2 Impact Analysis
The No Project Alternative would not advance any of the project objectives and the project site
would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. No disturbance or new development
would occur, thereby eliminating the potential for impacts on any of the environmental
resources analyzed in this EIR. Accordingly, this alternative would avoid all of the project’s
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-19-6 | Alternatives
Draft EIR
10/23/18
significant impacts (including significant and unavoidable impacts), as well as the need to
implement any mitigation measures.
19.5 Alternative 2 – Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
19.5.1 Description
The Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Alternative would allow development
consistent with existing land use designations and development densities as described in the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As shown in Figure 3-3: Existing General Plan
and Land Use Designations, this includes designations of Neighborhood Commercial, General
Commercial, Medium High Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Public/Semi-
Public. Most the site is designated General Commercial. As shown in Table 3-1: Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Anticipated Project Site Development, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan assumed
development of 261 residential units and 902,563 square feet of commercial.
As shown in Table 19-2: Alternative 2 Land Use Summary & Comparison, this alternative would
have 419 fewer residential units and 448,063 more square feet of commercial uses in
comparison to the project.
Table 19-2: Alternative 2 Land Use Summary & Comparison
Land Use Designations Gross Acres Res. Units Du/Acre
Floor Area
Ratio
Commercial
sq. ft.
General Commercial 60.3 -- -- .4 846,153
Neighborhood Commercial 3.7 -- -- .35 56,140
Medium Density Residential 4.3 43 10 -- --
Medium-High Density Residential 5.3 106 20 -- --
High Density Residential 3.2 112 109 -- --
Public / Semi-Public 3.3 -- -- -- --
Total 261 902,563
Proposed Project 76.9 680 -- -- 454,500
Difference (419) 448,063
19.5.2 Impact Analysis
Because the entirety of the project site is assumed to be disturbed, impacts to Cultural & Tribal
Resources, Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, and
construction related Air Quality/GHG Emissions and Noise would be similar to the project. Also,
because the types of land uses would be similar and subject to the site and architectural design
review, impacts to aesthetics would also be similar.
Impacts to Public Services, Utilities, & Service Systems, would generally be similar as this
alternative would be developing urban uses, similar to that proposed; with both needing
infrastructure to service the site, as well as police, fire, and emergency services.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Alternatives | Page 19-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Because the number people living on the project site would be less, impacts to population and
housing would be reduced, however, impacts would not be significant for this alternative,
similar to the project.
As shown in Table 19-2: Alternative 2 Trip Generation Comparison, Alternative 2 would
generate considerably more trips as compared to the project.
Table 19-2: Alternative 2 Trip Generation Comparison
Scenario
Trip Generation
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
Hour
Alternative 2 – Existing General Plan 27,721 740 2,387 3,486
Proposed Project 19,327 748 1,545 1,928
Difference +8,394 -8 +842 +1,558
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Because Alternative 2 would result in more traffic trips, operational impacts to air quality would
be greater. The greater number of traffic trips would correspond to more operational noise
impacts as well.
19.6 Alternative 3 – Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan
19.6.1 Background & Context
This alternative is derived from recommendations made by the City of Dublin Commercial
Development Task Force (CDTF), as documented in their Final Summary of Key
Recommendations Report, July 2014. The CDTF was created by the Dublin City Council in March
2014 to examine the potential for additional commercial development throughout Dublin. As
shown in Figure 19-1: Commercial Development Task Force Opportunity Sites, City staff
identified five “opportunity sites” that were the key focus of the CDTF, namely: 1) Downtown
Dublin; 2) The Green at Park Place; 3) Dublin Land Company (the project site); 4) The
Promenade/Grafton Plaza; and 5) the Chen property.
The purpose of the CDTF was is to engage residents and seek their input regarding the
remaining undeveloped commercial properties in Dublin. The CDTF was charged with the
following three tasks:
1. Classify the desirability of existing commercial sites for future development
2. Define desirable design principles to shape the vision of future commercial
development
3. Identify additional economic development incentives to attract and retain
commercial uses
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-19-8 | Alternatives
Draft EIR
10/23/18
The project site was identified as Dublin Land Company (DLC) – Parcel 1 (I-580 to Dublin
Boulevard), Parcel 2 (Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway, and Parcels 3 & 4 (Center Park to
the northern boundary, north of Gleason Drive). The CDTF made following land use
recommendations:
DCL Parcel 1
A4-1. There is support for the existing land use of General Commercial which allows both office
and retail commercial.
A4-2. There is strong support for office uses at this site which should be a priority over retail.
A4-3. Office development should and would complement Dublin Corporate Center and
Gateway Medical to the west across Tassajara Road.
A4-4. Do not consider an auto dealership at this location.
DCL Parcel 2
A4-5. Create a “main street” lifestyle experience which incorporates a sense of place, walkable,
with gathering areas.
A4-6. Provide opportunities for retail, restaurant and neighborhood serving uses.
A4-7. This site provides a prime location for retail uses since it is on the “going home” side of
Tassajara Road.
A4-8. Uses should complement, but not necessarily duplicate, those uses already located at
The Shops at Waterford.
A4-9. Develop this parcel as a neighborhood commercial/lifestyle oriented walkable shopping
center.
A4-10. A mixed-use residential development, similar in orientation to The Shops at Waterford,
is supported here if it includes a strong retail component.
A4-11. The construction timing for the residential portion of a mixed-use development should
be tied to the construction of any retail component.
DLC - Parcels 3 & 4
A4-12. These parcels are best suited for medium-density residential.
A4-13. Residential uses should be considered based on existing adjacent uses and the
proximity to Emerald Glen Park.
A4-14. Residential development is supported on Parcels 3 and 4 if there is a strong commercial
component on Parcel 2.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Alternatives | Page 19-9
Draft EIR
10/23/18
19.6.2 Description
Based on the recommendations above, particularly recommendation A4-3, this alternative
assumes the development of office use south of Dublin Boulevard. This 23-acre area would be
developed at a 0.3 floor-area-ratio (FAR) for a total of 300,564 square feet. The land uses north
of Dublin Boulevard would remain the same as the project. As shown in Table 19-3: Alternative
3 Land Use Summary & Comparison, this alternative would result in a reduction of 69,436 sf. of
commercial land use.
Table 19-3: Alternative 3 Land Use Summary & Comparison
Land Use Designations Gross Acres Res. Units Du/Acre
Floor Area
Ratio
Commercial
sq. ft.
Office 23.2 -- -- .3 300,564
Mixed-Use 16.1 300 -- .7 84,500
Medium-High Density Residential 14.1 200 14.2
Medium-Density Residential 23.5 180 7.7 -- --
Total -- 680 -- -- 385,064
Proposed Project 76.9 680 -- -- 454,500
Difference -- 0 -- -- (69,436)
19.6.3 Impact Analysis
Because the entirety of the project site is assumed to be disturbed, impacts to Cultural & Tribal
Resources, Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, and
construction related Air Quality/GHG Emissions and Noise would be similar to the project. Also,
because the types of land uses would be similar and subject to the site and architectural design
review, impacts to aesthetics would also be similar.
Impacts to Public Services, Utilities, & Service Systems, would generally be similar as this
alternative would be developing urban uses, similar to that proposed; with both needing
infrastructure to service the site, as well as police, fire, and emergency services.
Because there would be no change in the number people living on the project site, impacts to
population and housing would be similar to the project.
As shown in Table 19-4: Trip Generation for Alternative 3, Alternative 3 would generate
considerably less trips as compared to the project.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-19-10 | Alternatives
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 19-4: Alternative 3 Trip Generation Comparison
Scenario
Trip Generation
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
Hour
Alternative 3 – Commercial 12,765 764 1,027 909
Proposed Project 19,327 748 1,545 1,928
Difference -6,562 +16 -518 -1,019
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, 2018.
Because Alternative 3 would result in fewer traffic trips, operational impacts to air quality
would be less, but would still remain significant and unavoidable. The reduced number of
traffic trips would correspond to less operational noise impacts as well.
19.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The qualitative environmental effect of each alternative in relation to the project are
summarized in Table 19-5: Comparison of Alternatives.
Table 19-5: Comparison of Alternatives
Topic
Alternative 1
No Project
Alternative 2
Existing General Plan
and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan
Alternative 3
Commercial
Development Task
Force Land Plan
Aesthetics Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Air Quality Less impact Similar Impact Less impact
Biological Resources Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Cultural & Tribal Cultural
Resources
Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Geology & Soils Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less impact Greater impact Less impact
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Hydrology & Water Quality Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Land Use & Planning Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Noise & Vibration Less impact Similar Impact Less impact
Population & Housing Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Public Services, Utilities &
Service Systems
Less impact Similar impact Similar impact
Transportation & Circulation Less impact Greater impact Less impact
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Alternatives | Page 19-11
Draft EIR
10/23/18
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior
alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR
must also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives.
In this case, the No Project Alternative has less impact on all topical subjects. Therefore, of the
three remaining alternatives, Alternative 3 Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan
would be environmentally superior because it achieves the greatest reduction in daily, weekday
AM peak-hour, and weekday PM peak-hour trip generation. This would result in the greatest
reductions in the severity of the significant unavoidable transportation impacts, and a
corresponding reduction in air quality and noise impacts. Therefore, the Alternative 3
Commercial Development Task Force Land Plan is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Other CEQA Considerations | Page 20-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
20 Other CEQA Considerations
20.1 Growth-Inducing Effects
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following guidance on growth-
inducing impacts: a project is identified as growth inducing if it “could foster economic or
population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment.”
A project can have direct and/or indirect growth-inducement potential. Direct growth
inducement would result if a project involves construction of new housing. A project can have
indirect growth-inducement potential if it would establish substantial new permanent
employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial or governmental enterprises) or if it
would involve a substantial construction effort with substantial short-term employment
opportunities and indirectly stimulate the need for additional housing and services to support
the new employment demand.
Similarly, under CEQA, a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle
to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public
service. Increases in population could tax existing community service facilities, requiring
construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. The CEQA
Guidelines also require analysis of the characteristics of projects that may encourage and
facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or
cumulatively.
The project’s 680 residential units would directly result in a population increase of 1,836
persons, based on the General Plan average of 2.7 person per household. This population
increase would not represent a substantial increase in housing and/or residents. Furthermore,
this amount of growth would be within existing growth projections for the City. Equally, the
increase in population would not represent a substantial indirect growth inducement factor.
Residential development on the project site would not propose new infrastructure that would
induce substantial growth in the project site vicinity that was not previously considered for
development. Residential development on the project site, like other development in the
project site vicinity, would connect to existing utilities and occur within an urbanized area
adequately served by transportation systems and infrastructure.
The project would develop up to 454,500 sf. of new commercial uses. Using a standard
employment estimate of one job per 500 sf., the project would employ an estimated 909
workers. This number of jobs is not large enough to induce significant population growth in the
area. In addition, the California Employment Development Department indicates that the
Alameda County labor force totaled 847,800 persons as of December 2017. Of this figure,
25,200 persons were unemployed. This indicates that there is a large enough pool of labor in
Alameda County to fill the project’s employment opportunities such that it would be unlikely
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-20-2 | Other CEQA Considerations
Draft EIR
10/23/18
that substantial numbers of people would relocate to the East Bay. Similarly, short-term
construction jobs would likely be filled by existing residents of the City of Dublin and the region.
Based on the foregoing analysis, growth-inducing impacts would be less than significant.
20.2 Significant Irreversible Commitment of Resources
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that irreversible commitments of
resources should be evaluated to assure that such consumption is justified. Uses of
nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be
irreversible because a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse
thereafter unlikely, and certain types of impacts may commit future generations to similar uses.
Changes that Commit Future Generations to Similar Uses
The project would change the current land use designation and zoning of the project site and
commit future generations to similar land uses. Depending on market demand, the commercial
uses could change or be replaced in the future. However, residential development, once
constructed, is rarely replaced by new uses within the first few generations after construction.
Use of Nonrenewable Resources
Construction of the project would consume natural resources (gasoline, sand and gravel,
asphalt, oil, etc.) during construction activities. During operation of both the commercial and
the residential uses, energy would be consumed for lighting, heating/cooling, and
transportation. Neither the construction nor operation would consume nonrenewable
resources in amounts substantially different from or greater than typical urban development or
similar land uses. The project would not affect agricultural resources or mineral resources or
access to such resources. Therefore, the project would not involve a large commitment of
nonrenewable resources.
Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
The project may include storage of hazardous materials, such as cleaning products and other
products, which would not be regarded as sufficient to create a significant hazard to the public.
All hazardous materials would be subject to existing storage, handling, and disposal regulations
that limit the potential exposure to workers and the public.
20.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts:
Air Quality. The project would cause construction impacts associated with the release
of nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite
implementation of MM AQ-2.2, construction-related NOx emissions would remain
significant and unavoidable. The project would also cause operational impacts
associated with the release of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx that would exceed
BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.4, operational
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Other CEQA Considerations | Page 20-3
Draft EIR
10/23/18
emissions from ROG and NOx would remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts
would occur through cumulative conditions.
Near-Term + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would increase the critical delay
movement by more than six (6) seconds to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard (#14). This intersection would also experience an increase in queuing due to
the project of more than 25 feet during the weekday AM and PM peak periods and the
weekend peak period. This intersection was determined to be over capacity with no
feasible mitigation available. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and
unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas
Boulevard (Int #18). The project adds 278 trips in the PM peak hour to an already
deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-5.1 would improve the operations to an
acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton, the
City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation and therefore it
remains significant and unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of El Charro Road / Stoneridge
Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Int #29). The project adds 70 trips in the PM peak hour
to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-2.1 would improve the
operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of
Livermore, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation
and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would contribute new trips to
facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels; namely, Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard (#14), Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (#18), El Charro Road / Jack
London Boulevard (#29), Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (#35). All feasible
mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts to levels better than without
project conditions; except for the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
(#14). No feasible mitigation is available for this intersection, similar to the Near-term +
Project conditions. In addition, Intersections #18 and #29 are located outside of the City
of Dublin, and therefore the implementation of the mitigations cannot be guaranteed.
Arterials. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested study
roadway segments along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. These arterials are
already over capacity in the future conditions and operate at LOS F based on average
travel speeds from the SimTraffic analysis. Since there are no feasible mitigations to
improve the average travel speeds to LOS D or better, the residual significance is
significant and unavoidable.
Freeways. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested project
study freeway segments from Dougherty Road to Airway Boulevard on I-580. These
segments are already over capacity and should be operating at LOS F because the
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-20-4 | Other CEQA Considerations
Draft EIR
10/23/18
volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak hour and the volumes for the
eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by downstream bottlenecks.
While the project would be required to pay their proportional share of traffic impact
fees, these freeway segments will continue to operate in an over capacity manner.
Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable.
Ramp Metering. The project would contribute new trips to the Hacienda Drive loop on-
ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak, to the Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp to WB I-580 in
the AM peak, and to the El Charro Road loop on-ramp to EB I-580 in the PM peak. Each
of these on-ramps have queues that exceed the on-ramp storage and extend onto the
arterial with project traffic added. While the project would be required to pay their
proportional share of traffic impact fees, the improvements cannot be guaranteed since
it is under Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and
unavoidable.
Congestion Management Program. The project would contribute new trips to
Congestion Management Program facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels
(freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to
mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to
a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available.
Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable.
The EDSP EIR also included the impacts identified above as significant and unavoidable as
follows:
Air Quality. Project development as a result of dust deposition, construction equipment
emissions, mobile source emissions of ROf and NOx, and stationary source emissions.
(Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E)
Traffic and Circulation. I-580 (Impact 3.3/B, E), intersection of Santa Rita Road and I-580
EB Ramps (Impact 3.3/I), and the intersections of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive
and Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M)
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
EIR Preparers| Page 21-1
Draft EIR
10/23/18
21 EIR Preparers
21.1 City of Dublin
Luke Sims, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
Amy Million, Principal Planner
21.2 EIR Preparers
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Bill Wiseman, Planning Practice Leader
Casey Schooner, Senior Planner
Sophia Lai, Environmental Planner
Noemi Wyss, Environmental Planner
Ben Huie, Transportation Practice Leader
Connie Leung, Transportation Planner
Jacob Mirabella, Transportation Planner
Colin Ogilvie, Transportation Planner
WRA, Inc.
Phil Greer, Senior Biologist
Kari Dupler, Senior Wetland Biologist
3070953.1
5.1.s
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: 19. Exhibit A to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Draft EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin
Final EIR | October 2018
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin
Final EIR | October 2018
State Clearinghouse No. 2018012027
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Table of Contents | Page i
Final EIR
10/23/18
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR 2-1
3 Changes to the Draft EIR 3-1
List of Tables
Table 2-1: List of Written Comments Received on the Draft EIR ............................................... 2-1
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Introduction| Page 1-1
Final EIR
10/23/18
1 Introduction
The At Dublin Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was circulated for a 45-day public
review period from July 6, 2018, to August 20, 2018, as assigned by the State of California
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and consistent with CEQA
regulations. Copies of the document were distributed to state, regional, and local agencies, as
well as organizations and individuals, for their review and comment.
This At Dublin Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with
CEQA and state and local CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the
City, as CEQA Lead Agency. This Final EIR, together with the Draft EIR, technical appendices,
and other written documentation prepared during the EIR process, as those documents may be
modified by the City Council at the time of certification, will constitute the Final EIR, as defined
in the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, and the City of Dublin’s environmental document
reporting procedures.
1.1 Document Organization and Framework
This FEIR is organized as follows: Section 1 provides a brief introduction to this report. Section
2 provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the Draft EIR. This section
also contains individual comments followed thereafter by responses. To facilitate review of the
responses, an index number (e.g., 1-1, 1-2, 2-1) has been assigned to each comment and to its
corresponding responses. Section 3 contains changes to the Draft EIR as a result of the
comments by agencies and interested persons.
City staff has reviewed the comment letters, draft responses and information generated in the
course of preparing the responses and determined that none of this material constitutes
significant new information that requires a recirculation period for further public comment
under CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project
will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft EIR.
Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the
severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there
would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in Section
15088.5.
1.2 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds
persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be, “on
the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the
environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.
Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation
measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental
effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is
determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-2 | Introduction
Final EIR
10/23/18
the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and geographic scope of
the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research,
study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to
comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not
need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full
disclosure is made in the EIR.”
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-1
Final EIR
10/23/18
2 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
2.1 Agency, Organization, and Individual Comments on the Draft EIR
This section includes all written comments received on the Draft EIR and the City’s responses to
each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for
reference purposes. Where sections of the Draft EIR are excerpted in this document, the
sections are shown indented. Changes to the Draft EIR text are shown in underline for
additions and strikeout for deletions.
The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft EIR during
the public review period:
Table 2-1: List of Written Comments Received on the Draft EIR
Comment Letter
No. Commenting Agency / Organization / Individual Date
Agencies
1 California Department of Transportation, District 4 August 20, 2018
2 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board July 24, 2018
3 Alameda County Transportation Commission August 16, 2018
4 Dublin San Ramon Services District August 16, 2018
5 City of Pleasanton August 20, 2018
Organizations
6 Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union No.
304 August 15, 2018
7 Dublin Residents for Responsible Development August 20, 2018
Individuals
8 Christina Wu August 17, 2018
9 Shannon Wing August 17, 2018
10 Akira and Shannon Wing August 17, 2018
11 Estela Victoria August 20, 2018
12 Patricia Burroughs August 20, 2018
Received Post Deadline
13 City of Livermore August 23, 2018
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-2 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
Response to Comment Letter #1: California Department of Transportation, District 4
Response to Comment 1-1: Multimodal Planning
A discussion of secondary impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists from the proposed project has
been added to the Draft EIR in Sections 17.5.5-17.5.8 for relevant mitigation measures. No new
significant impacts have been identified.
Regarding the proposed project parking supply, the request is to provide parking based on the
City’s Zoning Ordinance, except for the multi-family apartments in PA-2b. Adequacy of parking
supply is not an environmental impact under CEQA. A shared parking analysis was conducted
to identify possible ways to reduce parking for the proposed commercial uses north and south
of Dublin Boulevard. The study concluded that a majority of the commercial uses have similar
peak parking demand throughout the day and therefore a parking reduction was not
recommended. The proposed parking for the commercial uses would meet City zoning
requirements.
A parking occupancy study was also prepared for the residential units. The project applicant is
proposing fewer parking spaces (1.75 parking spaces/unit) than required by the City of Dublin
Municipal Code (2.0 parking spaces/unit). The parking occupancy study conducted a case study
analysis of an existing 260-unit residential apartment (88 at Alhambra Place), which is located
adjacent to a commercial development, with parking spaces designated for residents,
residential guests, and commercial patrons, similar to the proposed At Dublin project. The
parking occupancy study concluded that based on the observed peak parking demand of 1.04
occupied residential tenant parking spaces/occupied unit at the 88 at Alhambra Place
apartments, the applicant proposed rate of 1.60 residential tenant parking spaces/unit for At
Dublin exceeds the estimated parking demand.
Regarding the recommendation to include a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program, a new MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program has been added to the EIR help reduce traffic impacts, which would also reduce
impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. The applicant also has agreed to the TDM
mitigation measure.
Response to Comment 1-2: Transportation Impact Fees
For mitigation measures that include a fair share payment, the project’s proportionate
percentage was identified in Sections 17.5.5-17.5.8 for relevant mitigation measures and the
timing of the payment has been identified in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
These mitigation measures are consistent with CEQA requirements for mitigating significant
impacts.
The proposed project would not generate any significant impacts to the pedestrian and bicycle
network. The project is proposing to add pedestrian walkways and sidewalks throughout the
project site and along all street frontages including, Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road,
Brannigan Street, Central Parkway, and Gleason Drive where there are existing gaps to the
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-3
Final EIR
10/23/18
pedestrian network. The project is also proposing to add buffered bicycle lanes along Gleason
Drive, Central Parkway, and Dublin Boulevard to close the existing gaps in the bicycle network.
These improvements would address the project’s added demand to the pedestrian and bicycle
network.
In addition, the project would not cause a significant impact on transit services. The City of
Dublin has implemented a transit signal priority system along Dublin Boulevard and queue jump
lanes at some intersections along Dublin Boulevard. These improvements minimize the impacts
to transit on the City of Dublin roadways. The project would also pay its fair share towards the
Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) regional transportation impact fees. These fees would
address the project’s regional impacts.
Response to Comment 1-3: Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Planning Area
Prior to completion of field work for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), maps and records
on file at the California Archaeological Inventory located at Sonoma State University were
checked for evidence of recorded historic and prehistoric resources inside the GPA planning
area, and to determine which areas had been subject to prior archaeological field inspections.
At least ten reports were found of previous archaeological surveys inside the planning area.
Only one of these surveys revealed evidence of aboriginal uses on the lands of Chang Su-O-Lin,
which is not on the project site. As part of the EDSP EIR, a field inspection of the entire
planning area was conducted in July 1988. The survey strategy employed was a mixed general
and intuitive field reconnaissance. A general field reconnaissance was employed in areas
considered least likely to contain either prehistoric or historic materials. These consisted of the
steeper hillsides found at the center and eastern edges of the site where the degree of slope,
exposure to wind and lack of nearby water made prehistoric or historic use highly unlikely. A
number of these areas were inspected by walking transects of 200 feet apart whenever slope
provided or were surveyed en route to areas of more sensitivity. All the upper slopes were
inspected for evidence of usage of exposed rock, but this effort was abandoned when it was
discovered that little to no exposed rock existed.
A mixed general and intensive survey strategy was employed in other areas more likely to
reveal historic or prehistoric use. These areas included the drainages throughout the planning
area, and all land on the southern slope running from the 1-580 corridor past the 500-foot
contour. The Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center was also surveyed except for its western portion
which had restricted access at the time.
The field surveys identified a total of six prehistoric locations which contain cultural materials,
either associated with what may be midden, or which are not apparently associated with any
visible midden deposit. Additionally, there are four locations along the southern and eastern
flanks of the Chang Su-0-Lin property where isolated probable ground stone implements were
discovered in 1985. None of the prehistoric locations were located within the At Dublin project
site.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-4 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
At Dublin Project Site
The historic-period resources identified within the project site were formally evaluated for
CRHR-eligibility and found to be ineligible under CEQA. The project site does not qualify as
unique archaeological resources. Furthermore, the project site is not listed or eligible for listing
in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). The City sent a letter to ten tribes under
SB18 and one under AB52 and no response for consultation were received.
As described in MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological Discovery During Construction, if buried
historic or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop
within 50 feet of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to evaluate the
resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. The archaeologist shall make
recommendations concerning appropriate mitigation measures that shall be implemented to
protect the resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in
accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The Draft EIR determined that implementation of MM CR-1.1: Historic or Archaeological
Discovery During Construction would reduce impacts to a level of less-than-significant level.
Response to Comment 1-4: Encroachment Permit
The project will comply with all applicable legal requirements for the issuance of any
encroachment permit from Caltrans.
Response to Comment 1-5: Lead Agency and Review Status
Comment noted. The Draft EIR was submitted to thirty-three (33) state, regional and local
agencies including MTC, the Association of Bay Area Governments, and the Alameda County
Transportation Commission for review and comment.
Response to Comment Letter #2: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Response to Comment 2-1: Biological Resources – Wetland Mitigation Plan
As noted, CEQA requires that a project's potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures
should be presented in sufficient detail for readers of the CEQA document to evaluate the
likelihood that the proposed mitigation will actually reduce impacts to a less than significant
level. Mitigation measures must be feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements, or other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4).
Mitigation Measure BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan requires that prior to obtaining the first
site grading, building or other permit for development activities involving ground disturbance,
the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable to the Community
Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following: The project
applicant shall the acquire the appropriate applicable permit(s) (e.g. Section 404, Section 401,
Porter-Cologne) from the respective regulating agency(s) (i.e. USACE and/or RWQCB).
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-5
Final EIR
10/23/18
Furthermore, the mitigation identifies specific performance criteria that the project applicant
will need to adhere to when preparing the wetland mitigation plan. This includes establishing
suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values
or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies.
To provide further clarity with respect to what will be required in the preparation of the
wetland mitigation plan, MM BIO-3.1: Wetland Mitigation Plan has been revised, as shown
below in Chapter 3: Changes to the Draft EIR.
Since the mitigation measures sets forth all the standards the wetlands mitigation plan must
meet, the preparation of a detailed wetland mitigation plan for analysis in the EIR is not
required under CEQA.
Response to Comment 2-2: Biological Resources – Use of the Eastern Alameda County
Conservation Strategy
The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) is a guidance document intended to
provide a framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda
County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts
resulting from infrastructure and development studies. The City of Dublin adopted the EACCS
as its guidance document for public projects and uses the document to provide input for
managing biological resources and conservation priorities during project-level planning and
environmental planning. For privately sponsored development projects such as this project,
proponents are encouraged to consult the EACCS for guidance, but compliance with the
document is not mandatory.
Response to Comment 2-3: Hydrology & Water Quality – Post-construction Stormwater
Management
The Revised Stormwater Management Plan for Dublin Ranch, City of Dublin, CA prepared by
Balance Hydrologics, Inc in collaboration with MacKay & Somps dated March 2003, included
disconnected roof downspouts as a specific site design feature that can reduce the impacts of
impervious surfaces on peak flows. All Parcels in PA-2 and PA-3 will include disconnected roof
downspouts as well as incorporate additional site design measures such as creating self-
retaining areas in larger landscape spaces, using landscape as a drainage feature, and planting
interceptor trees to slow and disperse stormwater flow prior to entering the City’s storm drain
system. On-site treatment will include bioretention areas with raised subdrains allowing for
infiltration into the subsoil. These low impact development practices will help mitigate peak
flows that contribute to creek hydromodification, prior to discharging flows into the Dublin
Ranch Regional Stormwater Pond. In addition, Storm capture underground storage vaults are
providing approximately 41,000 cubic feet of storage in PA-1 and PA-4 combined.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-6 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
Response to Comment Letter #3: Alameda County Transportation Commission
Response to Comment 3-1: Receipt of the Notice of Preparation and Notice of Public Scoping
Meeting
The City of Dublin has updated ACTC’s contact information to its project notification list and the
agency received the notice of the availability of the Draft EIR, Final EIR and public meetings.
Response to Comment 3-2: Transportation Impact Fees
Mitigation Measure TR-4.1 requires the project applicant to pay its fair share of the TVTC
regional transportation impact fees that will assist in improvements to the I-680/I-580
interchange and roadway widening along State Route 84. The I-680/I-580 interchange
improvement project will help to alleviate congestion on westbound I-580 by adding additional
capacity on the westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 connector loop. The State Route 84
widening project from Pigeon Pass to I-680 should help to provide additional capacity on State
Route 84 and divert more traffic from I-580 between I-680 and State Route 84.
The TVTC regional transportation impact fees are calculated based on the average peak hour
vehicle trips. More details on the fee can be found on the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
website. These additional details have been incorporated into the discussion of Impact TR-4, as
shown in Chapter 3: Changes to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 3-3: Alameda CTC Analysis
The I-580 express lanes were not analyzed because these facilities include dynamic pricing that
would alter vehicle demand. Any increase in the demand for this facility by the project would
be counterbalanced by an increase in pricing to maintain the same demand before and after
the project is built. Therefore, depending on how the dynamic pricing system is programmed,
the demand and operations of the express lanes will likely be managed to operate acceptably at
all times. Since the demand for the Express Lanes would remain the same before and after the
project due to dynamic pricing, demand changes from the project only affect the general-
purpose lanes and these impacts and mitigations are addressed in the DEIR.
SR-84 was not analyzed because it is not anticipated that the proposed project would send trips
to SR-84. SR-84 is a connector for vehicles traveling between I-680 south of Pleasanton and I-
580 east of Livermore. The vehicle trips that would travel to these destinations would not use
SR-84. Therefore, this project would not impact SR-84.
Response to Comment 3-4: Transit Service Analysis
There is no specific CEQA criteria (e.g. level of service) or City/agency policy that quantifiably
addresses transit delay. The City of Dublin significance criteria considers transit impacts for
developments that are inaccessible to transit riders or would generate transit demand that
cannot be met by existing or planned transit in the area. However, based on a qualitative
analysis as described in the Draft EIR, it is anticipated that the transit service operating on the
adjacent roadway network to the project would not be significantly impacted. The City of
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-7
Final EIR
10/23/18
Dublin has implemented a transit signal priority system along Dublin Boulevard and queue jump
ability at some of the key intersections along Dublin Boulevard. These improvements have
improved transit service and reduced transit delays on the City of Dublin roadways. For transit
routes on I-580, transit buses utilize the I-580 express lanes, which utilize dynamic pricing to
offset additional demand.
Transit users associated with the proposed project would use these existing transit services
which have sufficient capacity and no additional buses or transit facilities would be required.
Therefore, there would be no transit service impacts.
Response to Comment 3-5: Transportation Demand Management Program
A Transportation Demand Program has been added to the EIR (MM TR-2.2: Implementation of
a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program), as described in Response to Comment
1-1, and shown in Chapter 3: Changes to the Draft EIR. The TDM program describes how the
program will be funded and implemented.
Response to Comment 3-6- Bicycle Lanes
Tassajara Road between the I-580 WB ramps and the I-580 EB ramps is under the City of
Pleasanton’s jurisdictional boundary and is under Caltrans Right of Way. The City of Dublin has
no control over this area. Therefore, any proposed improvements would need to be
coordinated with the City of Pleasanton, Caltrans, and the City of Dublin. The proposed project
does not result in impacts on the proposed bicycle lane along Tassajara Road between I-580 WB
ramps and I-580 EB Ramps. Proposed bicycle lanes on roadways adjacent to the project would
connect to the City of Dublin bicycle network and the Tassajara Road I-580 overcrossing, as well
as other I-580 overcrossings.
Response to Comment 3-7- Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impacts
Additional bicycle and pedestrian safety discussion has been included in Draft EIR Section 17.5.5
Proposed Project Driveways and Intersections. The new traffic signal on Dublin Boulevard
would be required to be consistent with the City of Dublin’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Design
Guidelines to promote a safe design for pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian features would
include crosswalks on all legs of the intersection, as well as fully Accessible Signal features for
disabled individuals as per the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices – California
edition. Bicycle features may include colored pavement for the buffered bicycle lane on all
approaches to emphasize the bicycle right-of-way as there are expected to be a high volume of
turning vehicles crossing the bicycle lane to enter the project site.
Response to Comment Letter #4: Dublin San Ramon Services District
Response to Comment 4-1: Utilities – Concurrence with the Water Supply Assessment
The agency notes that a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was performed which determined
that adequate water supply is available for this project and the agency concurs with the
conclusions as stated in the Draft EIR. Comment noted.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-8 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
Response to Comment Letter #5: City of Pleasanton
Response to Comment 5-1: Pleasanton LOS Policy
Analysis of the intersection of El Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard was
revised in the EIR, consistent with the City of Pleasanton LOS policies. This revision did not
change the results of the analysis because the City of Pleasanton and the City of Livermore have
the same LOS D threshold for this intersection.
Response to Comment 5-2- Study Intersections, Including Gateway Intersections
Study Intersections
As part of the scoping phase and prior to initiating the traffic analysis, the City of Dublin
submitted a list of proposed traffic study intersections to be analyzed for the project to the City
of Pleasanton. The City of Pleasanton responded by recommending the following additional six
intersections to the traffic analysis: 1) Fallon Road at I-580 WB Ramps, 2) Fallon Road at I-580
EB Ramps, 3) El Charro Road at Stoneridge Drive/E Jack London Boulevard, 4) Hacienda Drive at
I-580 WB ramps, 5) Hacienda Drive at I-580 EB Ramps, and 6) Hacienda Drive at Owens Drive.
The City of Dublin included these six recommended intersections in the traffic analysis for the
Draft EIR.
Gateway Intersections
Regarding the “gateway” condition, the City of Pleasanton General Plan states that a “gateway”
intersection is exempt from the City’s LOS D threshold (Pleasanton General Plan Circulation
Element Policy 5, Program 5.1.) The Circulation Element explains the reason behind this
exemption as follows:
“All traffic entering and leaving the Pleasanton circulation network flows through
gateway intersections (listed in Table 3-4). These intersections are also key arrival
points into the city where street design, buildings, and landscaping are used to create an
inviting entrance into Pleasanton. These locations have been designed to accommodate
the Pleasanton-based traffic but have experienced increased volumes of cut-through
traffic that impact the level of service. Mitigation measures can be used to improve
level of service. However, the elimination of landscaping and significant road widening
may result in a loss of visual character and pedestrian convenience at the intersections.
Improvement also may encourage additional cut-through traffic, thereby reducing the
effectiveness of the intersection improvements and reducing the level of service
downstream of these intersections.” (page 3-6 and 3-8)
Consistent with this policy, the level of service tables and figures in the Circulation Element
(Table 3-7 and Figure 3-6) note that the gateway intersection are exempt from LOS. The
Circulation Element states that:
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-9
Final EIR
10/23/18
“At buildout, except for exempted Downtown and gateway intersections, the entire city
would operate at level of service D or better with all improvement measures
implemented, as detailed in Table 3-8 and Figure 3-7”. (page 3-12)
The Draft EIR for the City of Pleasanton General Plan analyzed the traffic impacts associated
with the exemption policy which would result in gateway intersection operating below LOS D.
It should also be noted that the Final Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes
of Regional Significance (Tri-Valley Transportation Council, September 2017) states as part of
their Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) is to maintain an intersection LOS
of E or better. However, in local jurisdictions where LOS standards for downtown areas have
been established for Routes of Regional Significance, the LOS in the adopted General Plan shall
govern (pages 13-14).
The City of Pleasanton uses their own travel demand forecast model that is different from that
used in the At Dublin EIR, which was based on the Countywide traffic model. The City of
Pleasanton’s model uses forecasted Cumulative volumes based on existing traffic, added traffic
from approved and pending developments, and planned buildout development under their
current General Plan. For adjacent jurisdictions including the City of Dublin, the City of
Pleasanton’s traffic model assumes land uses as identified in their respective general plans.
As described in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis (March 2015),
all gateway intersections analyzed in the At Dublin Draft EIR would operate at an acceptable
LOS C or better under cumulative (2040) conditions. Furthermore, given the fact that the At
Dublin project includes land uses that would generate less traffic than those assumed in the
City of Dublin’s General Plan and the City of Pleasanton’s travel demand forecast model,
forecasted cumulative traffic volumes as these intersections would be even less. Therefore,
when using the City of Pleasanton travel demand forecast model for City of Pleasanton’s
gateway intersections, it would be highly unlikely that the proposed At Dublin project would
result in any “gateway” intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS using the City of
Pleasanton travel demand forecast model.
In conclusion, because the General Plan’s analysis of future traffic conditions states that
gateway intersections are exempt from the LOS D threshold, and traffic volumes for these
gateway intersections would operate at an accept LOS under the cumulative plus project level
using the City of Pleasanton’s traffic model, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary. This
interpretation is also consistent with regional transportation policies as identified by the Tri-
Valley Transportation Council.
Response to Comment 5-3: Project Trip Generation
The trip generation for the proposed project does not include a trip credit for the previous uses
assumed on the project site. Therefore, the trips shown on Figure 17-12c are solely new trips.
In reference to the project generating 842 fewer trips than the Existing General Plan, that was
strictly a comparison of the proposed project to the Existing General Plan, showing that the
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-10 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
proposed project is less intense than the approved General Plan uses. However, for traffic
impact analysis purposes, the impacts of the proposed project were determined based on a
future baseline with no vehicle trips generated from the project site.
Response to Comment 5-4: Freeway Ramp Metering Rates
The City of Dublin will work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to modify the ramp
metering rates as needed. The language for the freeway ramp mitigations has been revised to
add the City of Pleasanton as part of the coordination with the City of Dublin and Caltrans.
These revisions are included in Mitigation Measure TR-4.2 and Mitigation Measure TR-7.1.
Response to Comment 5-5: Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
See Response to Comment 3-6.
Response to Comment Letter #6: Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union
No. 304
Response to Comment 6-1: Draft EIR Adequacy
The commenter makes general comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Without specific
comments, no specific response cannot be provided. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR
complies with all CEQA requirements and recirculation is not required.
Response to Comment Letter #7: Dublin Residents for Responsible Development
Response to Comment 7-1: Summary of CEQA Concerns
The commenter summarizes their CEQA concerns which are discussed in greater detail in the
following pages of their letter. The commenter’s specific comments, including those of SWAPE
and Mr. Cashen, which were attached as exhibits to the letter, are addressed in Response to
Comment 7-5 through Response to Comment 7-35.
Response to Comment 7-2: Statement of Interest
The commenter summarizes the parties that are contributors to the comment letter. No
response is necessary.
Response to Comment 7-3: Summary of CEQA Concerns
See Response to Comment 7-1. With regard to the statement on CEQA legal requirements, the
law speaks for itself and no response is required.
Response to Comment 7-4: Air Quality – General
This comment makes general statements regarding Draft EIR conclusions and mitigation
measures and summarizes later more specific comments. Refer to Responses to Comments 7-5
through 7-18 for responses to specific comments.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-11
Final EIR
10/23/18
Response to Comment 7-5: Air Quality – Project Emissions
The comment suggests that the theater, specialty restaurants, and general retail uses should be
modeled separately in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).
The Draft EIR modeled these uses consistent with the project plan set, project description, and
the project traffic study. While the emissions modeling in the Draft EIR did not input specific
land use categories for the theater and restaurants, the overall building square footages and
total trip generation accurately represent the project. The emissions calculated by CalEEMod
are primarily based on the building area of land uses and the daily trip generation. These
criteria in the CalEEMod run are consistent with the corresponding project information to yield
accurate results. Therefore, this perceived discrepancy would have a nominal (if any) effect on
the modeled emissions results. It would not change any of the significance conclusions on air
quality impacts in the Draft EIR. The comment incorrectly claims that the project’s proposed
land uses are unaccounted for and that emissions are greatly underestimated. It should be
noted that the modeling conducted by the commenter’s consultant overstate the proposed
building square footage and the daily trip generation. For example, the commenter’s
consultant modeled 4,500 square feet of additional retail uses beyond what is actually
proposed by the project, and also modeled 22,622 daily vehicle trips, which is 3,295 daily trips
more than the 19,327 trips identified in the project traffic study. Furthermore, the
commenter’s modeling is also overstated as it does not consider project design features such as
the proposed mix of uses and development density. As such, the commenter uses inaccurate
and overstated modeling to attempt inflate emissions.
The comment also incorrectly claims that the Draft EIR incorrectly applies mitigation measures
prior to disclosing construction emissions. Table 6-7 shows project construction emissions with
and without mitigation. Draft EIR Table 6-8 shows project buildout operational emissions
without mitigation. Draft EIR Table 6-9 clearly shows that despite the implementation of
mitigation measures, operational emissions would exceed BAAQMD Thresholds for ROG and
NOx.
Additionally, applying Tier 4 mitigation to welders represents a two pound per day difference in
NOX emissions. This represents approximately 0.3 percent and 1 percent of the project’s
maximum unmitigated and mitigated emissions, respectively. The application of Tier 4
mitigation to welders in CalEEMod does not substantially alter the emissions modeling
conducted for the project. The Draft EIR conclusion on impacts and required mitigation would
not change if the analysis was changed to remove the application of Tier 4 mitigation to
welders. This conclusion is based on a model run that removed the application of the Tier 4
mitigation to welders.
The comment makes the claim that equipment meeting Tier 4 standards is the hardest
equipment to procure. This is an incorrect statement. This statement is based on a California
Industry Air Quality Coalition White Paper from 2010. Tier 4 equipment was phased in over the
period of 2008 to 2015. Beginning in 2015, all new off-road engines sold in the United States
are required to be Tier 4-compliant and most larger construction firms already meet or exceed
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-12 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
the Tier 4 minimum requirement. Tier 4 equipment is routinely used at construction sites
throughout California. Numerous CEQA documents have relied on mitigation for construction
equipment to meet Tier 4 emission standards to reduce air quality impacts to a less-than-
significant level. In addition, MM AQ-2.2 in the Final EIR is clarified to specify that Tier 4 Final
off-road emissions standards are required.
The volume of earthwork necessary for project construction was revised from 50,000 cubic
yards to 96,600 cubic yards over the course of preparation of the Draft EIR. The updated
earthwork volumes were modeled, and the associated emissions are reported in the Draft EIR.
However, the CalEEMod outputs provided in Appendix B inadvertently reflect the original
earthwork volume. It should be noted that due to the length of construction the increase in
earthwork only resulted in approximately 0.5 pounds of additional NOX emissions per day
during construction. The changes in the other pollutants were nominal (i.e., less than 0.5
pounds per day). The minor discrepancy has been corrected in the Final EIR, which includes the
latest CalEEMod outputs. There are no changes to the magnitude of impacts, mitigation
measures, or conclusions in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 7-6: Air Quality Construction Emissions Impacts
The modeling conducted by the commenter’s consultant overstate the proposed building
square footage and the daily trip generation and does not consider project design features such
as the proposed mix of uses and development density (refer to Response to Comment 7-5,
above). The commenter uses inaccurate and overstated modeling to attempt inflate emissions.
Even with the commenter’s changes to the analysis, the impacts, mitigation, and conclusions on
significance for AQ impacts in Draft EIR would not change because the air quality thresholds of
significance for construction would not be exceeded, and therefore the level of significance
would not change. Overall, this comment refers to previous comments and does not identify a
specific concern with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or note a specific issue or comment related
to the Draft EIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no further response is necessary. See
Response to Comment 7-1.
Response to Comment 7-7: Air Quality – Impacts
The construction mitigation measures suggested in the comment are already required in the
Draft EIR (e.g., emissions controls for diesel engines and repowering of older equipment is
addressed in MM AQ-2.2, which requires Tier 4 construction equipment) or are duplicative.
The vehicle inventory system is required by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District’s “Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices”. Furthermore, mitigation
measures are considered feasible and required if they would reduce an impact that is
significant and unavoidable. The Draft EIR determined that impacts associated with ROG and
NOX would be significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that GHG emissions were
determined to be less than significant with no mitigation required. Therefore, findings on
infeasibility of GHG mitigation measures proposed by the commenter is not required for GHG
impacts. Please also refer to Response to Comment 7-11 on project GHG reduction measures.
The following table discusses each of the commenter’s suggested mitigation measures. As
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-13
Final EIR
10/23/18
indicated below, the project would implement most of the measures identified in the
comment. The project is consistent with all applicable measures.
Require implementation of diesel control
measures recommended by the Northeast
Diesel Collaborative (NEDC), including using
emission control technology and retrofitting
diesel generators on site to reduce PM
emissions and fueling equipment with ultra-
low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel
blend.
Consistent. The BAAQMD requires that all
construction equipment, diesel trucks, and
generators be equipped with Best Available
Control Technology for emission reductions
of NOX and PM. The use of equipment
meeting CARB Tier 4 emissions standards is
required per Draft EIR Mitigation Measure
MM AQ-2.2. The BAAQMD Best Available
Control Technology is consistent with the
NEDC controls. Repower or replace older construction
equipment engines.
Use electric and/or hybrid construction
equipment.
Consistent. Refer above. Additionally,
equipment less than 50 horsepower would
comply. Also, the BAAQMD is administering
more than $11 million in annual Carl Moyer
Program funding available for projects
throughout the Bay Area. This funding is
available for the purchase of hybrid, zero-
and near-zero-emissions equipment, and for
fueling and charging infrastructure as part of
alternative-fuel or battery-electric project
types.
Implement a construction vehicle inventory
tracking system to ensure compliances with
construction mitigation measures.
Consistent. The project would comply with
this measure through BAAQMD enforcement
and the City’s monitoring and inspection
process and well as the project’s Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Implement the "Enhanced Exhaust Control
Practices," that are recommended by the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD) and is
aimed at achieving NOX and PM reductions.
The SMAQMD Enhanced Exhaust Control
Practices include the following:
Consistent. As noted above, the use of
equipment meeting CARB Tier 4 emissions
standards is required per Draft EIR Mitigation
Measure MM AQ-2.2. Implementation of
this measure would require the project to
develop a plan demonstrating that the off-
road equipment (more than 50 horsepower)
to be used in the construction project (i.e.,
owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles)
would achieve a project wide fleet-average
20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-14 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
1. The project representative shall submit to
the lead agency a comprehensive inventory
of all off-road construction equipment, equal
to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will
be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours
during any portion of the construction
project.
The inventory shall include the horsepower
rating, engine model year, and projected
hours of use for each piece of equipment.
The project representative shall provide the
anticipated construction timeline including
start date, and name and phone number of
the project manager and on-site foreman.
This information shall be submitted at least 4
business days prior to the use of subject
heavy-duty off-road equipment.
The inventory shall be updated and
submitted monthly throughout the duration
of the project, except that an inventory shall
not be required for any 30-day period in
which no construction activity occurs.
2. The project representative shall provide a
plan for approval by the lead agency
demonstrating that the heavy- duty off-road
vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used
in the construction project, including owned,
leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will
achieve a project wide fleet-average 20%
NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction
compared to the most recent California Air
Resources Board (ARB) fleet average.
This plan shall be submitted in conjunction
with the equipment inventory.
Acceptable options for reducing emissions
may include use of late model engines, low-
emission diesel products, alternative fuels,
reduction compared to the most recent ARB
fleet average.
Acceptable options for reducing emissions
include the use of late model engines, low-
emission diesel products, alternative fuels,
engine retrofit technology, after-treatment
products, add-on devices such as particulate
filters, and/or other options as such become
available.
Consistent with BAAQMD requirements and
in order to comply with Draft EIR Mitigation
Measure MM AQ-2.2, all construction
equipment, diesel trucks, and generators
would be equipped with Best Available
Control Technology for emission reductions
of NOx and PM. The BAAQMD Best Available
Control Technology is identical to the
SMAQMD requirements that require
reductions in NOX and particulate matter
emissions (20 and 45 percent, respectively)
below the CARB fleet average.
All contractors would be required to use
equipment that meets CARB’s most recent
certification standard for off-road heavy-duty
diesel engines.
Diesel powered construction equipment
idling time would be required to be reduced
to two minutes.
Additionally, the opacity requirements are
required in BAAQMD Regulation 6
(Particulate Matter), Rule 1 (General
Requirements).
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-15
Final EIR
10/23/18
engine retrofit technology, after-treatment
products, and/or other options as they
become available. The District’s Construction
Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify
an equipment fleet that achieves this
reduction.
3. The project representative shall ensure
that emissions from all off-road diesel-
powered equipment used on the project site
do not exceed 40% opacity for more than
three minutes in any one hour.
Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent
opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired
immediately.
Non-compliant equipment will be
documented, and a summary provided to the
lead agency and District monthly. A visual
survey of all in-operation equipment shall be
made at least weekly.
A monthly summary of the visual survey
results shall be submitted throughout the
duration of the project, except that the
monthly summary shall not be required for
any 30-day period in which no construction
activity occurs. The monthly summary shall
include the quantity and type of vehicles
surveyed as well as the dates of each survey.
Use passive solar design, including orient
buildings and incorporate landscaping to
maximize passive solar, heating during cool
seasons, and minimize solar heat gain during
hot seasons.
Consistent. Cool roofs would not reduce a
significant and unavoidable impact and
findings on infeasibility of measures are not
required. Nevertheless, cool roof materials
are planned for the commercial buildings and
the multi-family apartments.
The BAAQMD also recommends planting
shade trees within 40 feet of the south side
or within 60 feet of the west sides of
properties. The planting of shade trees as
defined by BAAQMD is met for most of the
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-16 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
site, inclusive of shading from existing and
proposed buildings. A very small portion
(less than 5%) area cannot comply with
BAAQMD requirements due to site layout,
available space, and project density goals.
Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by
utilizing design features such as limiting the
hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
Consistent. This would be implemented per
City safety and security guidelines.
Develop and follow a "green streets guide"
that requires use of minimal amounts of
concrete and asphalt; installation of
permeable pavement to allow for storm
water infiltration; and use of groundcovers
rather than pavement to reduce heat
reflection.
Consistent. These measures would not
reduce a significant and unavoidable impact
and findings on infeasibility of measures are
not required. However, the project does
minimize concrete and maximize the use of
groundcover. The project has incorporated
weather/ moisture sensing irrigation
systems, low flow volume irrigation
(subsurface drip and individual tree
bubblers), hydro-zone specific
planting/irrigation layouts, recycled water for
most of the landscaping. Additionally, the
landscape plan has incorporated a significant
amount of areas with a drought tolerant
plant palette. The BAAQMD also
recommends implementing water-sensitive
urban design practices in new construction.
Implement project design features such as:
Shade HVAC equipment from direct sunlight,
install high-efficiency HVAC with hot-gas
reheat and provide education on energy
efficiency to residents and customers.
Consistent. Shading HVAC equipment from
direct sunlight and the use of high efficiency
HVAC would not reduce a significant and
unavoidable impact and findings on
infeasibility of measures are not required.
These measures would not quantifiably
reduce emissions. The commercial
development incorporates the following
features: tankless water heaters, solar
panels, HVAC duct sealing, interior day light,
rainwater collection systems to be used on
common area landscapes, low- water use
appliances and fixtures, smart meters and
programmable thermostats.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-17
Final EIR
10/23/18
The for sale residential will comply with Title
24, GBC standards that are required at time
of issuance of building permits.
The BAAQMD also recommends the
installation of solar water heaters, tank- less
water heaters, solar panels on residential and
commercial buildings, HVAC duct sealing,
rainwater collection systems in residential
and Commercial Buildings, low-water use
appliances and fixtures; Require smart
meters and programmable thermostats, and
green roofs. Maximizing interior day light
and increasing roof/ceiling insulation is also
required. The project would comply with the
BAAQMD measures as described above.
Meet "reach" goals for building energy
efficiency and renewable energy use.
Consistent. The project would meet Title 24
energy Efficiency goals, and GBC standards.
Requirements for “reach” goals are not
required to mitigate a significant unavoidable
impact.
Require all buildings to become "LEED"
certified.
Consistent. New construction will comply
with Title 24, GBC standards, which will
require certification in accordance with state
guidelines. Requirements specifically for
LEED certification are not required to reduce
a significant and unavoidable impact.
Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that
needed for safety and security purposes.
Consistent. Limits on outdoor lighting would
not reduce a significant and unavoidable
impact and findings on infeasibility of
measures are not required. Nevertheless, this
would be implemented per City safety and
security guidelines.
Require use of electric or alternatively fueled
sweepers with HEPA filters.
Not Feasible/Not Applicable. Street
sweepers are operated by the City and the
project has no control over this equipment.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-18 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
Include energy storage where appropriate to
optimize renewable energy generation
systems and avoid peak energy use.
Not Feasible/Not Applicable. This is a GHG
emissions reduction measure. As noted
above, the project’s GHG emissions impacts
are less than; therefore, this is not required
as mitigation measure.
Plant low-VOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in
parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions
from parked vehicles.
Consistent. The tree palette for the project
includes many low-VOC emitting shade trees,
which are planned to be used within the
parking areas and other common use areas.
Use CARB-certified or electric landscaping
equipment in project and tenant operations;
and introduce electric lawn, and garden
equipment exchange program.
Consistent. Compliance with CARB-certified
equipment less than 50 horse power would
be used as part of common area
maintenance.
Install an infiltration basin to provide an
opportunity for 100% of the storm water to
infiltrate on-site.
Consistent. This water quality measure
would not reduce a significant and
unavoidable impact and findings on
infeasibility of measures are not required.
Nevertheless, the commercial development
incorporates rainwater collection systems to
be used on common area landscapes.
The Dublin Ranch water quality/detention
basin would provide C.3 off site treatment
compliance to most of PA-2 and PA- 3. On
site Bio Retention and Silva Cells will be used
to provide C.3 treatment compliance for the
remaining areas of PA-2 and PA-3 and all of
PA-1 and PA-4.
Provide electric vehicle charging stations that
are accessible for trucks.
Consistent. Commercial tenants have the
option to incorporate electric vehicle
charging stations in the truck dock areas
based on their projected demand and user.
Provide electrical hookups at the onsite
loading docks and at the truck stops for
truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary
equipment.
Consistent. Commercial tenants have the
option to incorporate electric vehicle
charging stations in the truck dock areas
based on their projected demand and user.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-19
Final EIR
10/23/18
Provide minimum buffer zone of 300 meters
(approximately 1,000 feet) between truck
traffic and sensitive receptors and prevent
trucks from entering residential site.
Consistent. Truck docks are located on the
south side of Dublin, adjacent to existing like
commercial uses.
Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at
the facility.
Not Feasible/Not Applicable. The project
does not include warehouses or distribution
facilities that would require a significant
amount of truck trips. Limited truck trips
would be required for commercial uses and
would be controlled by end user.
On-site equipment should be alternative
fueled.
Consistent. Commercial tenants have the
option to incorporate on-site equipment
fueled by alternative fuel source. The
proposed commercial and residential uses
would have minimal on-site equipment.
Improve traffic flow by signal
synchronization.
Consistent. The City implements signal
synchronization.
Limit Parking Supply using various strategies,
including reduction of spaces, shared parking
and unbundled parking.
Consistent. Parking supply is provided per
city’s code, which makes provisions for
shared parking and unbundled parking.
Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit
Program to incentivize the use of public
transport. Transit passes can be partially or
wholly subsidized by the employer, school, or
development.
Consistent. The project would incorporate
this as an option for employers as part of the
TDM program for commercial uses.
Provide "end-of-trip" facilities for bicycle
riders including showers, secure bicycle
lockers, and changing spaces.
Consistent. Designated bicycle parking for
both short term and long-term bicycle use.
Implement Commute Trip Reduction
Marketing, including New employee
orientation of trip reduction and alternative
mode options, event promotions and
publications.
Consistent. The project would incorporate
this within the TDM program for commercial
uses.
Provide preferential parking in convenient
locations for commuters who carpool,
Consistent. The commercial uses provide
preferential parking for EV vehicles, bicycles
and motorcycles. The project has
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-20 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
vanpool, ride-share or use alternatively
fueled vehicles.
incorporated convenient areas for ride-share
pick-up and drop-off.
Implement Bike-Sharing Program Consistent. The project would incorporate
this within the TDM program for commercial
tenants.
Price Workplace Parking. This may include:
explicitly charging for parking for its
employees, implementing above market rate
pricing, validating parking only for invited
guests, not providing employee parking and
transportation allowances, and educating
employees about available alternatives.
Consistent. The project would incorporate
this as an option within TDM program for
commercial tenants to educate employees
about alternative transportation options and
potentially parking charges.
Provide Employer-Sponsored Shuttle. The
project could implement an employer-
sponsored shuttle to and from the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station located 1.5
miles from the project site. A shuttle will
typically service nearby transit stations and
surrounding commercial centers. Scheduling
is within the employer's purview, and rider
charges are normally set on the basis of
vehicle and operating cost.
Consistent. The project could incorporate an
employer-sponsored shuttle and/or subsidy
for transit access to the Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station as an option within a required
TDM program, to be approved by the City of
Dublin. See MM TR-2.2: Implementation of
a Travel Demand Management Program in
Chapter 3: Changes to the Draft EIR.
It should also be noted that the project is
providing bus turn outs (for both eastbound
and westbound) on Dublin Boulevard that
will provide direct service to BART.
Use of zero-VOC emissions paint Consistent. This is required per Mitigation
Measure MM AQ-2.3 and CALGreen
requirement.
Using materials that do not require painting. Consistent. Finishes in general are “painted”
or finished to some degree either with paint
or protective coatings.
Use spray equipment with greater transfer
efficiencies.
Consistent. The project would use high
volume low pressure paint sprayers to
maximize transfer efficiencies.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-21
Final EIR
10/23/18
As indicated in the table above, the suggested operational mitigation measures are project
design features, required by code or mitigation measures, obsolete, or not applicable. For
example, as described in Draft EIR Section 18 (Energy Conservation), the project would install
LED streetlights where streetlights needed. The project also would include energy-efficient
outdoor lighting for community and publicly accessible outdoor spaces. Photovoltaic systems
would be installed on the rooftops of commercial buildings. Photovoltaic solar systems and on-
demand water heating systems would be included an option for home buyers. The project
would also incorporate electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for the commercial areas and the
apartments.
Response to Comment 7-8: Air Quality – Health Risk Impacts
As described in Response to Comment 7-5, the project’s construction emissions are not
underestimated. Additionally, the comment misinterprets the health risk calculations in the
appendix. The calculations do not use the incorrect daily breathing rates. Breathing rates were
weighted for each age group. For example, the analysis used 3 months at 361
liters/kilogram/day (95th percentile for 3rd trimester), 24 months at 1,090 liters/kilogram/day
(95th percentile for 0 to 2 years), and 33 months at 861 liters/kilogram/day (95th percentile for 2
to 9 years). It should be noted that these are conservative breathing rates that account for the
youngest, most sensitive populations. The construction health risk was calculated for the entire
five-year construction activity duration anticipated for the project. Furthermore, the comment
incorrectly states that an operational health risk assessment was not prepared for the project.
Operational health risks are discussed on pages 6-36 through 6-40 of the Draft EIR. Operational
health risks were calculated on 70-year lifetime basis, 30-year, and 9-year exposure scenarios
and thresholds were not exceed for any of these exposure durations.
Response to Comment 7-9: Air Quality – Construction and Operational Health Risk
Refer to Response to Comment 7-8, above. As noted above, construction and operational
health risks were quantified and analyzed in the Draft EIR. The commenter’s model runs
provided by a hired consultant do not accurately represent the project and are based on
inflated assumptions. For example, the modeling conducted by the commenter incorrectly
includes 387.5 acres of grading when grading for project would only occur on 76 acres.
Additionally, the commenter overestimates the construction equipment by a factor of more
than five, as their modeling includes 781 pieces of off-road diesel equipment, when the project
would require 144 pieces of off-road diesel equipment. Additionally, the wrong number of
daily vehicle trips were modeled (the commenter modeled 22,262 daily vehicle trips as opposed
to the proposed 19,327 assumed in the project Traffic Study) and did not incorporate vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) reductions associated with the project’s land use design features (e.g.,
increased density, mix of uses, proximity to transit, etc.). These changes do not accurately
represent the project and have a drastic influence on the emissions outputs. However, the
commenter’s overstated emissions would have a nominal effect on the risk levels and impacts
would remain less than significant.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-22 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
Response to Comment 7-10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – General
This comment makes general statements and mischaracterizes the Draft EIR GHG analysis. This
comment does not identify a specific concern with the adequacy of the Draft EIR or note a
specific issue or comment related to the Draft EIR’s environmental analysis. Therefore, no
further response is necessary. Refer to Responses to Comments 7-11 through 7-18 for
responses to specific comments.
Response to Comment 7-11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Impacts
The analysis in the Draft EIR is focused on compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy
consistent with the BAAQMD’s thresholds for 2020 emissions and consistency with the 2017
Scoping Plan standards for 2030 emissions. Both of these methodologies comply with CEQA.
BAAQMD specifically states that the GHG thresholds are “Compliance with Qualified GHG
Reduction Strategy OR 1,100 MT of CO2e/yr. or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr. (residents + employees)”.
As described in the Draft EIR, the City of Dublin adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update in
July 2013, which contains a GHG reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020. The
CAP constitutes a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and has been utilized in this analysis for
determining the level of significance of the project’s GHG emissions for 2020. Impact GHG-1
provides a quantitative analysis of the thresholds provided in the CAP, and a consistency
analysis of the project with the measures in the CAP is provided in Impact GHG-2. The Draft EIR
relies on the analysis of the project’s consistency with the CAP for the significance
determination for the project. Under CEQA, compliance with CAP measures is used to
determine whether project impacts are significant (see Impact GHG-2). Under CEQA, numerical
calculations of project emissions to determine compliance with the CAP is not required but is
provided in the EIR for informational purposes (See Impact GHG-1).
Since the CAP was adopted prior to AB 197 and SB 32 being codified into law in September
2016, the CAP currently does not contain adequate reduction measures to reduce California’s
GHG emissions to the AB 197 and SB 32 targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
To provide a conservative analysis, the proposed project’s GHG emissions have been calculated
for the year 2030 conditions and compared to the year 2000 levels, which is the nearest year to
1990 available in CalEEMod, to determine if the project would meet the AB 197 and SB 32
reduction of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
The 2017 CARB Scoping Plan reduction measures involve increasing renewable energy use,
imposing tighter limits on the carbon content of gasoline and diesel fuel, putting more electric
cars on the road, improving energy efficiency, and curbing emissions from key industries. The
2017 CARB Scoping Plan recommends that local governments evaluate and adopt locally-
appropriate goals that align with State wide reduction targets and statewide development
objectives.
As noted above, the Draft EIR bases the significance finding for 2020 on compliance with the
City’s CAP measures and reduction targets which were developed to align the City with the
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-23
Final EIR
10/23/18
State’s reduction targets and development objectives. The City’s CAP Update (2013)
established a reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020. Although the CAP does
not identify a post-2020 reduction target, the 2020 CAP reduction target can be extrapolated to
2030 based on the trajectory of the City’s current reduction target and the State’s established
post-2020 reduction goals. Extrapolation/interpolation of interim reduction targets is
commonly accepted methodology and recommended by the Association of Environmental
Professionals (Climate Change White Paper, 2016). Additionally, the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan
also recommends developing post-2020 reduction targets that apply the percent reductions
necessary to reach 2030 and 2050 climate goals to the community-wide GHG emissions target.
The GHG emissions trajectory should show a downward trend consistent with the statewide
objectives.
The GHG reduction target for 2030 could be established in two ways, either (1) the 40 percent
reduction target from 1990 under SB 32 and AB 197 or (2) extrapolating the City’s 2020 target
under the CAP to 2030. Extrapolating the City’s 2020 GHG reduction target of 15 percent below
2010 levels results in a reduction target of approximately 30 percent below 2010 levels by 2030
(a reduction rate of approximate 1.50 percent per year). Draft EIR Table 10-5 assessed that the
project would result in a 47 percent reduction in GHG emissions over 2000 levels (a reduction
rate of approximate 1.57 percent per year). Therefore, the project GHG emissions reductions
identified in the Draft EIR meet the GHG reduction targets for 2030 calculated based on both
the SB32 target or the extrapolation of the City’s 2020 CAP target to 2030.
Additionally, it should be noted that the reduction identified in the Draft EIR and discussed
above do not include other reduction measures that would reduce GHG emissions from the
project. Therefore, the project GHG emissions are likely overestimated. The additional
reduction measures not included in the Draft EIR emissions modeling include reduced energy
emissions related to the East Bay Clean Energy (EBCE) community choice aggregation joint
powers authority that would serve the project, the use of solar power/photovoltaics on
portions of the project site, electric vehicle charging stations, and the shared parking for the
apartments, commercial uses, and hospitality uses. Additional reductions would occur from
implementation of the latest State building code, the CARB Advanced Clean Cars Program,
compliance with the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy. In addition, the EBCE and PG&E
are required to procure a minimum of 33 percent of its energy portfolio from renewable
sources by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030 and would continue to implement programs consistent
with the requirements of SB 350.
The project is an infill mixed-use development within an Association of Bay Area Governments
Priority Development Area (PDA) under Plan Bay Area. PDAs are places identified by Bay Area
communities as areas for investment, new homes, and job growth. PDAs are the foundation for
sustainable regional growth, including reduction of GHG emissions from development. Project
design features, such as infill/mixed-use development, proximity to transit, and high-density
housing inherently result in lower GHG emissions. Additionally, refer to various other GHG
reduction design features identified in the table in Response to Comment 7-7 that the project
would incorporate.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-24 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
As shown in Appendix B of the Draft EIR, the project results in a VMT reduction of
approximately 51 percent as compared to the project without implementation of VMT reducing
measures. As estimated by CalEEMod and as shown in Appendix B, the project results in a 44
percent reduction in GHG emissions from mobile sources as compared to the project without
implementation of VMT reducing measures. This would exceed the reduction in transportation
emission required by CARB for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)/
Association of Bay Area Governments.
The project is also within one mile of a Transit Priority Area in Plan Bay Area which will reduce
GHG emissions from vehicle use. The project is located approximately 1.5 miles from the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, adjacent to I-580, other major arterials, and bicycle lanes. In
addition, the project site is currently served by several transit routes operated by Tri-Valley
Wheels including Route 2, Route 30R, Route 501, Route 502, and Route 504. The project would
provide residents, employees, and guests with convenient access to public transit and
opportunities for walking and biking, which would facilitate a reduction in VMT and related
vehicular GHG emissions. These and other measures would further promote a reduction in
VMT and subsequent reduction in GHG emissions, which would be consistent with the goals of
the City’s CAP, MTC’s Plan Bay Area and SB 32.
The project is the type of land use development that is encouraged by the Plan Bay Area
RTP/SCS to reduce VMT and expand multi-modal transportation options in order for the region
to achieve the GHG reductions from the land use and transportation sectors required by SB
375, which advances the State’s long-term climate policies.1 By furthering implementation of
SB 375, the project supports regional land use and transportation GHG reductions consistent
with State regulatory requirements.
Furthermore, Appendix B (Local Action) of the 2017 Scoping Plan identifies measures from the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) as the basis for the local/project-
level GHG reduction measures. It should be noted that the CAPCOA reduction measure are
incorporated into the CalEEMod emissions modeling that was conducted for the project. As
described above, these measures include increased density, mix of uses, proximity to transit
(1.5 miles to the BART station), among others. Appendix B of the 2017 Scoping Plan focuses on
transportation and land use measures, energy efficiency, and water efficiency measures at the
project level. Consistency with the Sustainability Communities Strategy and a reducing VMT is a
primary focus of the 2017 Scoping Plan local actions. As discussed in the Draft EIR and above,
the project would reduce VMT through mixed use and infill design features, high residential
density, and proximity to transit, TDM measures, all of which are included in Appendix B of the
2017 Scoping Plan. Additionally, consistent with the Scoping Plan local actions, the project
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-25
Final EIR
10/23/18
includes shared parking, electric vehicle charging stations, and water efficient landscaping
features.
Response to Comment 7-12: Greenhouse Gas – Plan Consistency
Refer to Response to Comment 7-11 regarding the applicability of plans to the project.
This comment provides general introductory statements related to subsequent comments.
Refer to Response to Comment 7-13 through Response to Comment 7-18.
Response to Comment 7-13: Greenhouse Gas – Climate Action Plan Consistency
Refer to Response to Comment 7-11, above. Impact Draft EIR GHG-1 provides a quantitative
analysis of the thresholds provided in the CAP, and a consistency analysis of the project with
the measures in the CAP is provided in Impact GHG-2. The Draft EIR relies on the analysis of the
project’s consistency with the CAP for the significance determination for the project for 2020.
The CAP is not relied on for analysis of post-2020 project emissions. Also, refer to response to
Comment 7-11 regarding project GHG emissions reductions and post-2020 emissions.
Response to Comment 7-14: Air Quality – Consistency with Regional Plans
The purpose of the CARB Scoping Plan consistency discussion is to demonstrate that the project
would not conflict with any of the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions. As stated above,
the analysis under Impact GHG-2 is a consistency with plans analysis. It is not the analysis of
whether the project’s greenhouse gas emissions would have a significant effect on the
environment which is performed under Impact GHG-1. Table 10-8 properly determines the
project’s consistency with applicable Scoping Plan measures. The analysis concludes that the
project is consistent with applicable measures and, therefore, the impact is less than significant.
Similarly, with regard to Plan Bay Area 2040, the analysis under Impact GHG-2 determined the
project’s mix of residential and commercial uses and types of uses are consistent with the GHG
reduction planning and housing goals of Plan Bay Area. The project also would not conflict with
the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area. Therefore, the impact due to plan consistency is
less than significant. See also Response to Comment 7-11.
Response to Comment 7-15: Air Quality – Climate Action Plan Measures
Refer to Response to Comment 7-11 regarding the applicability of the City’s CAP to the
proposed project.
A review of Draft EIR Table 10-7 indicates that the applicable CAP measures are incorporated as
project design features, required by City policy, or would be required as conditions of approval.
Therefore, mitigation measures are not required. For example, the project proposes high
density, mixed-use development. These key features of the project design are inherently
consistent with CAP Measures A.1.2 and A.1.3. A mitigation measure requiring high density,
and/or a mix of uses is not necessary or required by CEQA as these are already proposed by the
project. Additionally, several of the CAP measures are City policies that the project would be
required to implement (e.g., the City Design Strategy, Green Building Ordinance, LED streetlight
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-26 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
specifications, Construction Demolition Debris Ordinance, Citywide Solid Waste Diversion
Goals, recycling programs, etc.). City policies are already established requirements and are not
required as mitigation. Compliance with City policies would be required and enforced as part of
the approval process for various project plans.
Response to Comment 7-16: Air Quality – Climate Action Plan Measure Consistency
The CAP TOD measure specifically applies to the land uses near the Eastern Dublin Transit
Center located near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. These areas include the TOD district
of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. The CAP’s TOD measure takes credit for the planned
TOD developments within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin Transit
Center.
Dublin’s planned TOD developments, in conjunction with the City’s policies that promote high-
density development and mixed-use development, are estimated to result in GHG emissions
reductions by the CAP. The CAP’s TOD measure does not require projects outside of these
transit districts to be TODs to be consistent. The proposed project is not within these transit
areas, but does include high density, mixed-use, infill development that would utilize the
nearby BART station. The proposed project would not conflict with the City’s CAP policies.
Additionally, as noted in Draft EIR Table 10-7, the project is within 1.5 miles of the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The project incorporates TOD features and has access to
Dublin Boulevard buses and access to the BART station by bus and bike/pedestrian routes.
Response to Comment 7-17: GHG Emissions - Significance
Refer to Response to Comment 7-11. For 2020, the analysis in the Draft EIR is focused on the
project’s compliance with the City CAP which is a qualified GHG reduction strategy adopted
consistent with CEQA standards. As indicated in Response to Comment 7-11, the numerical
threshold is just one option identified by BAAQMD for assessing the significance of GHG
emissions. Compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy is also an option allowed under
CEQA and recommended by the BAAQMD to assess project GHG impacts.
Impact Draft EIR GHG-1 provides a quantitative analysis of the thresholds provided in the CAP,
and a consistency analysis of the project with the measures in the CAP is provided in Impact
GHG-2. The Draft EIR relies on the analysis of the project’s consistency with the CAP for the
significance determination for the project for 2020 project emissions.
In Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (Newhall Ranch, 2015),
the Court ruled that use of percent below Business As Usual (BAU) is a valid significance
threshold under CEQA. However, the Court determined that the Newhall EIR lacked substantial
evidence that the project’s BAU reductions were consistent with the State’s reduction target.
The Court stated that the Newhall EIR’s deficiency was that it did not account for any changes
or adjustments at the local or project level. As demonstrated in the Draft EIR and noted in
Response to Comment 7-11, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP (a qualified
GHG emissions reduction plan), which is a method for determining significance of GHG
emissions recommended by the Court. The City’s CAP establishes reduction targets based on
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-27
Final EIR
10/23/18
City specific municipal and community emissions inventories and City-specific reduction
strategies. Although the CAP 2020 reduction target does not address post-2020 GHG
reductions, extrapolating the target in the future and demonstrating substantial progress
toward post-2020 reduction goals is a commonly accepted methodology. The project’s GHG
emissions reductions and substantial progress toward the post-2020 (2030) reduction goals
were demonstrated in the Draft EIR Tables 10-4 through 10-6 and further clarified in Response
to Comment 7-11.
It should also be noted that the GHG emissions shown in Tables 10-4 through 10-6 are
conservative and do not incorporate all of the State’s measures that would be implemented
during the Scoping Plan’s time frame. For example, the emissions do not incorporate
reductions from the Pavley II Advanced Clean Cars Program, implementation of the latest State
building code, future implementation of the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) (EBCE and
PG&E are required to procure a minimum of 33 percent of its energy portfolio from renewable
sources by 2020, and would continue to implement programs consistent with the requirements
of SB 350), Green Building Code Standards (indoor water use), or the California Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Outdoor Water). Project energy emissions would be further
reduced as the EBCE community choice aggregation joint powers authority would serve the
project. The use of solar power/ photovoltaics on portions of the project site, electric vehicle
charging stations, and the shared parking for the apartments, commercial uses, and hospitality
uses represent additional GHG emissions reductions conservatively not accounted for in the
emissions modeling. The analysis demonstrates that the project would not conflict with the
Scoping Plan measures and project emissions would be further reduced with implementation of
State measures. This reduction would be significant as the majority of the project emissions are
from mobile sources and energy consumption, both of which are regulated on the state level.
Response to Comment 7-18: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Mitigation
As described in Response to Comment 7-11 and 7-17, and in the Draft EIR, for 2020 project
emissions, the impacts are less than significant because the project is consistent with the Goals
and Measures of the City’s CAP. Since the impact is less than significant, no mitigation is
required. For 2030 project emissions, the impacts are less than significant because the project
emissions are 40% below 1990 levels consistent with the State GHG reduction target. Since the
impacts for 2030 are less than significant, no mitigation is required. Mitigation measures are
not required for effects which are not found to be significant and there must be an essential
nexus between the mitigation measure and an impact per CEQA Section 15126.4.
Nevertheless, several of the suggested mitigation measures are already currently project design
features, required by code, obsolete, or not applicable. For example, as described in Draft EIR
Section 18 (Energy Conservation), the project would install LED streetlights where streetlights
needed. The project also would include energy-efficient outdoor lighting for community and
publicly accessible outdoor spaces. Photovoltaic systems would be installed on the rooftops of
commercial buildings. Photovoltaic solar systems and on-demand water heating systems would
be included an option for home buyers. The project would also incorporate electric vehicle (EV)
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-28 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
charging stations for the commercial areas and the apartments. As noted above, mitigation
measures for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions are not required.
As described in Response to Comment 7-11 and 7-17, the reduction identified in the Draft EIR
conservatively do not account for other reduction features that would benefit the project.
Additional reduction features not included in the Draft EIR emissions modeling include reduced
energy emissions related to the EBCE community choice aggregation joint powers authority
that would serve the project, the use of solar power/photovoltaics on portions of the project
site, electric vehicle charging stations, and the shared parking for the apartments, commercial
uses, and hospitality uses. Additional reductions would occur from implementation of the
latest State building code, the CARB Advanced Clean Cars Program, compliance with the Short-
Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy. In addition, the EBCE and PG&E are required to procure a
minimum of 33 percent of its energy portfolio from renewable sources by 2020 and 50 percent
by 2030 and would continue to implement programs consistent with the requirements of SB
350.
The table in Response to Comment 7-7 also identifies numerous other GHG reduction measures
that would be implemented by the project. As analyzed in the Draft EIR, the project is also
consistent with the Community-Wide measures in the City’s CAP and include high-density
development, mixed use development, bicycle parking, street trees, internal and external
pedestrian connectivity, proximity to transit, green building, LED streetlights, solid waste and
recycling measures, among others. The emissions identified in the Draft EIR are conservative
and likely overstated as the majority of these reductions are not included in the project
emissions modeling.
Response to Comment 7-19: Biological Resources – General
The commenter provides general introductory remarks and summary of specific comments to
follow. No response is necessary. Refer to Responses to Comments 7-20 through 7-35 for
responses to specific comments.
Response to Comment 7-20: Biological Resources – Existing Setting
Existing biological conditions for the project site are based on three surveys that were
conducted in December 2017, February 2018, and March 2018. The results of these surveys are
documented in Appendix C. This included two floristic-in-nature, protocol-level rare plant
surveys on December 7, 2017 and March 19, 2018. Prior to the most recent field survey efforts,
WRA reviewed the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) lists to determine
which species have been documented in the vicinity of the project area. Based on the site
visits, a review of CNDDB occurrence records, and a comparison of species habitat
requirements with project area conditions, it was determined that one rare plant species
(Congdon’s tarplant) was present and two other rare plants have potential to occur within the
project site (San Joaquin spearscale and saline clover).
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-29
Final EIR
10/23/18
These surveys were conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating
Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009).
Consistent with the above described surveys, these guidelines require rare plant surveys to be
conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and
identifiable. Furthermore, the field surveys were scheduled to coincide with known blooming
periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the
plant species of concern.
Local and regional results and supporting documentation are provided in the context of habitat
types and quality. Professional biological opinions are stated regarding the potential for plant
and animal species to occur. The Draft EIR identified the potential presence of burrowing owl
and other nesting birds (e.g. white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike). Specifically, the Rare
Plant Survey (Appendix C-2) makes no claim that San Joaquin spearscale or saline clover are
absent from the site, but rather the Draft EIR requires pre-construction surveys to assess
presence and avoid potential impacts. The CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation provides guidelines and recommendations for burrowing owl survey protocols and
mitigations, including buffer size. Detection surveys are not required to assess habitat and
potential for burrowing owl.
Consistent with agency protocols, mitigation measures Mitigation Measure BIO -1.1, Mitigation
Measure BIO-1.2 and Mitigation Measure BIO-1.3 require pre-construction surveys for special
status plans, Burrowing Owl, and nesting birds, respectively, prior to any ground disturbance
and requires specific mitigation if the species are present.
Response to Comment 7-21: Biological Resources –Core, Critical, and Unique Populations
Core, critical, and unique populations may have potential to occur on the project site, but the
presence of such populations were not observed during three surveys of the project site in
December 2017, February 2018 and March 2018. While pre-construction surveys for special-
status species are required under mitigation measures, this does not diminish the sufficiency of
the review and analysis performed to establish existing conditions and the potential for special
status species to occur on the site in the EIR. The pre-construction surveys are required to
establish the conditions at the time of project commencement to guide the implementation of
the required mitigation measures. Responses to comments on potential impacts on individually
named species are included in Response to Comments 7-22 through 7-24.
Additionally, there is no core, critical, or unique populations of Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin
spearscale, saline clover, western burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and white-tailed kite on
the project site. Approximately 371 Congdon’s tarplant individuals were identified on the
project site and the population size does not constitute a core population because there are a
number records of this species in the surrounding five-mile vicinity, including larger occupied
areas. Further, the project site does not constitute a critical or unique population because it is
not a range expansion or a unique habitat type for the species.
See also Response to Comment 7-20.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-30 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
Response to Comment 7-22: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl Existing Conditions
Per the 2018 Biological Resources Assessment (see Draft EIR Appendix C1), a survey was
conducted in December 2017 and although no burrowing owls were observed, the site was
determined to have suitable habitat because grassland vegetation at the site was found to be of
suitable height and potential nest sites from ground squirrel burrows were observed.
Documentation, including photographs, were submitted to the City in August 2018, as part of
comments on the Draft EIR, confirming the presence of burrowing owls on the site.
As described in Response to Comment 7-20, detection surveys are not required to assess
habitat and potential for Burrowing owl. The December 2017 survey was conducted under the
habitat assessment guidelines described in Appendix C, Habitat Assessment and Reporting
Details of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which provides guidelines
and recommendations for burrowing owl survey protocols and mitigations, including buffer
size. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2 requires pre-construction surveys for the Burrowing Owl prior
to any ground disturbance, and the implementation of mitigation for any impacted owls, all in
accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
Response to Comment 7-23: Biological Resources – Vernal Pool Branchiopods
Vernal pool branchiopods are known to exist in the Livermore Altamont Hill area in Alameda
County. Based on field observations and site characteristics, there is no substantial evidence
that the project site contains vernal pools or that the seasonal wetlands that are present are
inundated for a duration sufficient to support these species. The seasonal wetlands identified
at the project site are considered to be highly altered and regularly disturbed, including
seasonal discing. Because of the regular disturbance, the seasonal wetlands on site drain
quickly and do not support a hydroperiod sufficient to support vernal pool branchiopods,
including vernal pool fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, or California linderiella. The site does
not contain hardpan soils which hold water in the wetlands for the six weeks necessary for
these species to complete their life cycle. The wetland features identified in the Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination Report (W01, W02) are small, shallow depressions that were likely
formed because of previous site disturbance. Although these two wetlands are not subject to
the routine disturbance the other features are, these two features are too shallow to support a
hydroperiod long enough to support vernal pool branchiopods.
A biological constraints site visit was conducted in December 2017 and did not identify any
special status invertebrates (e.g. distinctive vernal pool plant species) within the wetlands. In
February and March 2018, a wetland delineation was conducted, and the wetland features
were determined to be seasonal wetlands, not vernal pools, and did not host any special-status
invertebrates.
Because the project area does not contain the clear depressions in sandstone outcrops that
typically support longhorn fairy shrimp within this portion of its range, it is not likely that this
species could occur on the project site. The closest population of longhorn fairy shrimp is
recorded over five miles from the project Area. The closest occurrence of vernal pool fairy
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-31
Final EIR
10/23/18
shrimp is over six miles away. Like longhorn fairy shrimp, these branchiopods require
inundation long enough to support their life cycle.
California linderiella is known to occur in a wide variety of vernal pools habitats, though they
are typically limited to deeper pools (Platenkamp 1998). These organisms require a minimum
of 31 days (43 average) of inundation to reproduce (Helm 1998). The seasonal wetland
features described within the project area do not retain water long enough to support habitat
for this species.
Response to Comment 7-24: Biological Resources – California Linderiella
See Response to Comment 7-23.
Response to Comment 7-25: Biological Resources – Impact Analysis
The commenter provides general introductory remarks and summary of specific comments to
follow. No response is necessary. Refer to Responses to Comments 7-26 through 7-30 for
responses to specific comments.
Response to Comment 7-26: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl Mitigation
See Response to Comment 7-22 regarding existing conditions assessment for Burrowing owl.
The Draft EIR includes an extensive mitigation measure to protect Burrowing owls, should they
be found on the project site prior to construction. Specifically, MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl
Avoidance and Exclusion Measures, states that the project applicant shall comply with the
following requirements to reduce potential impacts to Burrowing owl to less than significant:
“Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a
qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the Western burrowing
owl on the project site.
The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing
activities and the second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The
surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the
measures, set forth in MM BIO 1.2 shall be followed.”
Exclusion would result in a significant impact under the GDFW guidelines. Therefore, if
avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible during the nesting season, prior to
the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, will be required to prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as
indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be
carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report.
Because MM BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures identifies specific
protocols to protect Burrowing owls, either through avoidance and or relocation, impacts
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-32 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
would be less than significant, and the required mitigation would reduce the project’s
contribution to any significant cumulative impacts to less than cumulatively considerable.
Furthermore, If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible and project
activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing
owl habitat, the project applicant will be required to consult with the CDFW and develop a
detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of
burrows, and burrowing owl at a ratio approved by CDFW.
Response to Comment 7-27: Biological Resources – Loggerhead Shrike and White-tailed Kite
An analysis of both the Loggerhead shrike and White-tailed kite are described in Section 7.3.4
Special-Status Species, of the Draft EIR.
As noted, no occurrence of Loggerhead shrike was observed during the December 2017 site
visit. Loggerhead shrike may incidentally forage in the project area but are not likely to
frequent or inhabit the project site. Additionally, the project site is surrounded by
development, making it less likely to be foraging and nesting habitat.
White-tailed kite was observed foraging during the site visit. However, foraging habitat for
either species is not specifically protected by law, and the development of the site will not
constitute a substantial adverse effect on the species locally or as a whole.
The EIR includes mitigation measures to address any impacts on these species. As stated in
MM BIO-1.3, a nesting bird survey will be conducted, and an appropriate buffer will be
constructed around all active nests found prior to grading.
See also Response to Comment 7-20.
Response to Comment 7-28: Biological Resources – Cumulative Impacts
The Draft EIR analyzed cumulative impacts for the City of Dublin and surrounding areas based
on a General Plan buildout assumption and associated with projected growth within eastern
Alameda County, including the East Dublin Specific Plan (1994, updated 2016) and the City of
Dublin General Plan (2008), which designates areas for development within the Dublin Planning
Area Boundaries. Much of the project site is within the designated General Commercial area
with additional areas a mixture of residential and neighborhood commercial, or public/semi-
public. The site and is surrounded by development on all sides.
Generally, wildlife inhabiting the project site are relatively common, urban-adapted species,
currently doing so in spite of the development that surrounds the project site. As discussed in
the Draft EIR and the Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix C-1), the project site is
surrounded by existing development and does not connect larger habitat blocks, does not
constitute a movement corridor for any species, and would not substantially interfere with
movement of wildlife in the vicinity.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-33
Final EIR
10/23/18
Implementation of MM BIO 1.1 through 1.3 will provide mitigation for potential impacts to
special-status species, including pre-construction surveys, establishment of the appropriate
buffers for nest avoidance, and mitigation when impacts to special-status species cannot be
avoided. Further, future projects under the consideration by the City of Dublin, would require
mitigation for potential impacts to special-status species, which would reduce the effects of
cumulative impacts. As described in Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of
these mitigation measures supports the conclusion that the project would not have a significant
effect on biological resources and therefore the contribution will be less than cumulatively
considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Response to Comment 7-29: Biological Resources: Cumulative Impacts on Special-status
Species
See Response to Comments 7-19, 7-22, 7-27 and 7-28.
The DEIR has been corrected Section 7.5.4, to note that the project area does not contain any
core, critical habitat, or unique populations.
The commenter states that the DEIR fails to provide an analysis of the amount of habitat that
existed prior to anthropogenic disturbance on the project site. Under CEQA guidelines (§
15125), baseline for a project is generally considered existing conditions. The DEIR analyzes the
current conditions of the project area, including potential as habitat for special-status species.
As described in Response to Comments 7-28, the DEIR analyzed cumulative impacts associated
with projected growth within eastern Alameda County, including the East Dublin Specific Plan
(1994, updated 2016) and the City of Dublin General Plan (2008), which designates areas for
development within the Dublin Planning Area Boundaries.
Mitigation measures adequately mitigate for potential impacts to species and habitats through
creation or preservation of habitat in amounts equal to those that may be impacted by the
proposed project. These mitigation measures are consistent with regulatory guidelines and
standard professional practices, as fully described in the Draft EIR MM BIO-1.1 through 1.3.
These mitigation measures will ensure that the project would not have a significant effect on
biological resources and therefore the contribution will be less than cumulatively considerable.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with
mitigation.
Response to Comment 7-30: Biological Resources – Wetlands
See Response to Comment 2-1.
As shown in Chapter 3: Changes to the Draft EIR, below, Mitigation Measure BIO-3.1: Wetland
Mitigation Plan has been revised to provide further clarity regarding preparation of a wetland
mitigation plan. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than
significant and no further mitigation is required.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-34 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
Regarding the claims that the mitigation measure is deferred because it does not include a
compensatory mitigation ratio, acceptable mitigation location and mechanism, site protection
mechanisms, financial assurances, or monitoring requirements; all of these items (to the extent
that they are applicable) are required by the mitigation measure and also would be part of the
consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency.
Response to Comment 7-31: Biological Resources – Mitigation of Impacts
This is a general opening statement that is addressed in more detail in the following paragraphs
of their letter.
CEQA requires an analysis of environmental impacts of a project at the earliest meaningful
stage of the project and its review. Even though details regarding the effects of project
implementation may not be available at that time, CEQA allows for future studies and
compliance with agency requirements to validate the findings made in the initial assessment.
Numerous published CEQA cases have allowed for mitigation measures to be deferred over
time provided that:
Significant impact determinations and formulation of mitigation measures occurs before
project approval.
Where the agency has evaluated significant impacts, and identified measures that will
mitigate them, the agency is not required to commit to any particular identified
mitigation measure as long as it commits to mitigate the impacts in accordance with
certain standards.
Identified mitigation measures can rely on regulatory agency approval.
In certain circumstances, the agency can permissibly articulate specific performance
criteria and commit to ultimately devising mitigation measures that will satisfy those
performance criteria.
Response to Comment 7-32: Biological Resources – Mitigation of Special-status Plants
See Response to Comments 7-21, 7-28, 7-30, and 7-31.
As identified in the Biological Resources Assessment prepared by WRA (2018), San Joaquin
spearscale and saline clover have moderate potential to occur in the project site, and site
surveys conducted in December, February and March were not intended to constitute protocol-
level surveys. Furthermore, as described in MM BIO-1.1: Special-Status Plants Avoidance and
Mitigation, prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey
shall be conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant or other special-status
species with potential to occur within the project area. These surveys shall be conducted in
accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native
Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009) and will be scheduled to coincide with
the known blooming periods of species of concern.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-35
Final EIR
10/23/18
If any of the species are found on-site and cannot be avoided, construction activity exclusion
zones will be created. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant or
other special-status species within the project area are not feasible, then the loss of individuals
or occupied habitat of special-status plants shall be compensated for through the acquisition,
protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the
implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed
information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the
preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible
parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the
compensation.
A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 shall be
developed in consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the
commencement of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant or other species with
potential to occur within the project area.
MM BIO-1.1, as described in the DEIR, does include requirements for location, condition, and
long-term management and protection of the mitigation areas. This measure also requires
approval of the proposed mitigation by both CDFW and the City. The City’s mechanism for
enforcement of this mitigation measure is through withholding the grading and/or building
permit until the applicant has demonstrated successful compliance with this mitigation
measure.
Regarding comments concerned with identification of a specific mitigation location, the City is
required under the CEQA Guidelines to impose mitigation for impacts to sensitive resources but
is not required to identify the exact location of the mitigation, per California Native Plant
Society v. City of Rancho Cordova, No. 057018, 09 C.D.O.S. 3669 (2009).
Moreover, MM BIO-1.1 requires the applicant to mitigate to a minimum 1:1 ratio, which
effectively ensures a no net loss standard to offset project impacts to special-status plants. This
means that potential impacts will be fully offset so that potential impacts are mitigated to a
less-than-significant level.
Regarding the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS), this applies only to public
projects, not private projects in the City of Dublin. Thus, City of Dublin has the discretion to
apply different mitigation ratios on a project-by-project basis.
Response to Comment 7-33: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl Mitigation
See Response to Comments 7-22, 7-26, 7-30, and 7-32.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 sets forth considerations for mitigation measures. The
section states that mitigation measures “may specify performance standards,” “must be fully
enforceable,” and “must be ‘roughly proportional’ to the impacts of the project.” Mitigation
measures BIO-1.1 through 1.3 adequately mitigate for potential impacts to species and habitats
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-36 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
through creation or preservation of habitat in amounts equal to those that may be impacted by
the proposed project.
In this case, Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Exclusion Measures,
requires the applicant to retain a qualified biologist to conduct a burrowing owl survey and
impact assessment. There are clear and unequivocal performance standards within this
mitigation measure that are fully enforceable and roughly proportional to project impacts; for
example:
“Prior to the first ground disturbing activities…”
“The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Wildlife
(CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation”
“… the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures…”
“The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW
2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation Appendix A and the Plan shall be reviewed and
accepted by CDFW…”
The CDFW Staff Report provides guidelines and recommendations for burrowing owl survey
protocols and mitigations, including buffer size. The two pre-construction surveys and other
avoidance measures detailed in MM BIO-1.2 are sufficient to detect owls prior to construction
and avoid take of owls if found on the site in accordance with the CDFW Staff Report.
Additionally, if avoidance of occupied burrows and known burrow habitat is not possible, MM
BIO-1.2 states that a specified mitigation plan is required and will be reviewed by CDFW prior to
implementation. The CDFW Staff Report details guidelines for breeding season and non-
breeding season surveys (Appendix D).
Because the site is known to be actively occupied by burrowing owls (see Response to
Comment Letters 8-12), MM BIO-1.2 would require the applicant to mitigate for occupied
habitat pursuant to the guidelines listed in the CDFW Staff Report. This would require the
applicant to mitigate at a location that is comparable to or better than the project site, and the
CDFW Staff Report lists other requirements for suitable habitat including presence of fossorial
mammals. Further, the mitigation land will be protected by a conservation easement for
preservation of the mitigation habitat and provide long-term funding. All of these guidelines
will be detailed in a monitoring plan and approved by both the City and CDFW prior to issuance
of any grading or building permits.
Regarding the claims that the mitigation measure is deferred because it does not include a
compensatory mitigation ratio, acceptable mitigation location and mechanism, site protection
mechanisms, financial assurances, or monitoring requirements, all of these items (to the extent
that they are applicable) would be determined as part of the consultation with CDFW required
by the MM BIO-1.2. The performance standards are contained in CDFW 2012 Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Because of the uncertainty associated with the outcome of the
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-37
Final EIR
10/23/18
burrowing owl survey, it would be premature to make any commitments regarding these items.
Requiring focused or pre-construction surveys prior to release of the Draft SEIR is contrary to
sound biological practice, as the purpose of these surveys is to identify impacted individuals
immediately prior to development and ensure that impacts are avoided, relocated, or
otherwise mitigated. Conducting these surveys months or years before development activities
would occur would not serve any meaningful purpose, particularly since these species have
already been determined to have the potential to occur on the project site. Thus, identifying
focused or pre-construction surveys as mitigation measures is consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.4. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2 appropriately cites the CDFW Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation as the basis for any mitigation that may be necessary.
Additionally, page 9 the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation sets forth buffer
setback distances based on the time of year and level of disturbance of the project site.
Because the exact timing of ground disturbance is not known, referencing the CDFW Staff
Report is sufficient and affords the qualified biologist discretion in determining the appropriate
distance.
As for the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS), this applies only to public
projects, not private projects in the City of Dublin. Thus, City of Dublin has the discretion to
apply different mitigation ratios, but at a minimum 1:1 ratio, on a project-by-project basis.
Response to Comment 7-34: Biological Resources – Nesting birds
Pre-construction surveys required under MM BIO-1.3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures will
detect the number and location of birds nesting on the site and avoid those nests for the
duration of nesting to ensure nesting activity of these individuals will not be impacted. These
surveys will be focused in areas of disturbance activities and an appropriate buffer distance
around these areas to ensure no indirect effects to nests that may be in the vicinity of the
project activities. Survey effort is related to the area of disturbance and will be determined by
the qualified biologist at the time of the surveys. Information from all surveys, including
duration, location and results will be reported to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.
As stated by Mr. Casen, “appropriate buffer size is dependent on several situational and
species-specific factors.” Buffer distance will vary by species and will be appropriate to avoid
impacts to nesting birds. The listed buffer distances of 50-250 feet are professionally-based
standard-practice distances and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in the field and
reported to the City in the survey results reports.
Response to Comment 7-35. Biological Resources – Wetland Mitigation Plan
See Response to Comment 2-1 and 7-30.
The wetland mitigation plan required under MM BIO-3.1 will be approved by the respective
regulatory agencies, as necessary, pursuant to the Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne, prior to
implementation of the project.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-38 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
Regarding the statement that numerous studies have demonstrated that many compensatory
mitigation projects permitted under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act are not
achieving the goal of “no overall net loss” of wetland acres and functions, the results of the
Ambrose and Lee (20042) study are based on a review of projects that were completed within
the Los Angeles region and were permitted by the LARWQCB.
Further, the projects included in this review were implemented from 1991 to 2002. The 2008
Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule 3 established regulations
regarding performance standards and criteria for permittee-responsible compensatory
mitigation for projects permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These standards were
not in place for all projects permitted prior to this ruling. This rule applied equivalent standards
to permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation by “emphasizing a watershed approach in
selecting compensatory mitigation project locations, requiring measurable, enforceable
ecological performance standards and regular monitoring for all types of compensation and
specifying the components of a complete compensatory mitigation plan, including assurances
of long-term protection of compensation sites, financial assurances, and identification of the
parties responsible for specific project tasks.”
Response to Comment 7-36: Biological Resources – Conclusion
The commenter summarizes their CEQA concerns that were discussed above. No response is
necessary.
Response to Comment 7-37: Air Quality – General
See Response to Comment 7-4.
Response to Comment 7-38: Air Quality – Project Emissions
See Response to Comment 7-5.
Response to Comment 7-39: Air Quality – Mitigation Measures for Construction Emissions
See Response to Comment 7-5.
Response to Comment 7-40: Air Quality – Grading Material
See Response to Comment 7-9.
2 Ambrose, RF, SF Lee. 2004. Guidance Document for Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under the
Clean Water Act Section 401 by the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board.
3 Department of Army, U.S. Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332; U.S. EPA 40 CFR Part 230.
Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources. 73 Fed. Reg. §19594 (2008).
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-39
Final EIR
10/23/18
Response to Comment 7-41: Air Quality – Project Emissions
See Response to Comments 7-5 and 7-9.
Response to Comment 7-42: Air Quality – Mitigation to Reduce Emission
See Response to Comments 7-5 and 7-7.
Response to Comment 7-43: Air Quality – Health Risk Emissions
See Response to Comments 7-8 and 7-9.
Response to Comment 7-44: Air Quality: Mitigation Measures for Construction Emissions
See Response to Comment 7-5 and 7-7.
Response to Comment 7-45: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Impacts
See Response to Comment 7-11 and 7-17.
Response to Comment 7-46: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Climate Action Plan Consistency
See Response to Comment 7-13.
Response to Comment 7-47: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Impacts
See Response to Comment 7-11.
Response to Comment 7-48: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Mitigation
See Response to Comment 7-18.
Response to Comment 7-49: Biological Resources – Existing Conditions
Comments made are a summary of information found in Chapter 7: Biological Resources, and
no response is necessary.
Response to Comment 7-50: Biological Resources – Protocol Surveys
See Response to Comments 7-20 through 7-22.
Response to Comment 7-51: Biological Resources – Vernal Pool Branchiopods
See Response to Comment 7-23.
Response to Comment 7-52: Biological Resources – California Linderiella
See Response to Comment 7-23.
Response to Comment 7-53: Biological Resources – Species-Specific Surveys
See Response to Comments 7-20 through 7-23.
Response to Comment 7-54: Biological Resources – Core, Critical, and Unique Populations
See Response to Comment 7-21.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 2-40 | Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
10/23/18
Response to Comment 7-55: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owls
See Response to Comments 7-22 and 7-26.
Response to Comment 7-56: Biological Resources – Loggerhead Shrike and White-tailed Kite
See Response to Comment 7-27.
Response to Comment 7-57: Biological Resources – Cumulative Impacts
See Response to Comment 7-28.
Response to Comment 7-58: Biological Resources – Wetlands
See Response to Comment 2-1.
Response to Comment 7-59: Biological Resources – Mitigation of Special-status Plans
See Response to Comments 7-21, 7-28, and 7-31.
Response to Comment 7-60: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owls
See Response to Comments 7-22 and 7-26.
Response to Comment 7-61: Biological Resources – Nesting Bird
See Response to Comment 7-34.
Response to Comment 7-62: Biological Resources – Wetland Mitigation Plan
See Response to Comment 2-1.
Response to Comment Letter #8: Christina Wu
Response to Comment 8-1: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl
The City recognizes the fact that the commenter identified and photographed Burrowing Owls
on the site. As discussed in Response to Comment 7-22, while no Burrowing Owls were
identified on site as part of a survey that was conducted in December 2017, the Draft EIR
recognized the fact that the project site was determined to have suitable habitat because of
grassland vegetation and nest sites from ground squirrel burrows were observed.
As described in Response to Comment 7-26, the Draft EIR includes an extensive mitigation
measure to protect Burrowing Owls, should they be found on the project site prior to
construction.
Response to Comment Letter #9: Shannon Wing
Response to Comment 9-1: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl
See Response to Comment 8-1.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Response to Comments on the Draft EIR | Page 2-41
Final EIR
10/23/18
Response to Comment Letter #10: Akira and Shannon Wing
Response to Comment 10-1: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl
See Response to Comment 8-1.
Response to Comment Letter #11: Estela Victoria
Response to Comment 11-1: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl
See Response to Comment 8-1. This mitigation will assure no loss of Burrowing Owls.
Response to Comment Letter #12: Patricia Burroughs
Response to Comment 12-1: Biological Resources – Burrowing Owl
See Response to Comment 8-1.
Response to Comment Letter #13: City of Livermore
Response to Comment 13-1: Compatibility with the Valley Link Extension Project
Adjacent to the project site, the planned Valley Link extension is preliminarily shown within the
Caltrans right-of-way of Interstate 580. As shown, the proposed project would not conflict with
future improvements as currently envisioned for the Valley Link extension. However, the City
of Dublin will continue to monitor plans for the planned Valley Link extension and work with
the project applicant to accommodate adequate right-of-way if necessary.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin EIR
Mitigation Changes to the Draft EIR | Page 3-1
Final EIR
10/23/18
3 Changes to the Draft EIR
Changes to the Draft EIR are shown on the following pages in the order that they appear in the
EIR. New text is shown in underline, and removed text is shown in strikethrough. These text
changes do not constitute substantial new information and do not result in significant new
impacts or the increase in severity of impacts already disclosed.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-4 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Air Quality. The project would cause construction impacts associated with the release of
nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite
implementation of MM AQ-2.2, construction-related NOx emissions would remain
significant and unavoidable. The project would also cause operational impacts
associated with the release of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx that would exceed
BAAQMD significance thresholds. Despite implementation of MM AQ-2.4, operational
emissions from ROG and NOx would remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts
would occur through cumulative conditions.
Near-Term + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would increase the critical delay
movement by more than six (6) seconds to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard (#14). This intersection would also experience an increase in queuing due to
the project of more than 25 feet during the weekday AM and PM peak periods and the
weekend peak period. This intersection was determined to be over capacity with no
feasible mitigation available. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and
unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of Santa Rita Road / Las Positas
Boulevard (Int #18). The project adds 278 trips in the PM peak hour to an already
deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-5.1 would improve the operations to an
acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton, the
City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the mitigation and therefore it
remains significant and unavoidable.
In addition, there is a LOS impact at the intersection of El Charro Road / Stoneridge
Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Int #29). The project adds 70 trips in the PM peak hour
to an already deficient intersection. Mitigation Measure TR-2.1 would improve the
operations to an acceptable LOS, however since this intersection is located in the City of
LivermorePleasanton, the City of Dublin cannot guarantee the implementation of the
mitigation and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative + Project Traffic Conditions. The project would contribute new trips to
facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels; namely, Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard (#14), Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (#18), El Charro Road / Jack
London Boulevard (#29), Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (#35). All feasible
mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts to levels better than without
project conditions; except for the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
(#14). No feasible mitigation is available for this intersection, similar to the Near-term +
Project conditions. In addition, Intersections #18 and #29 are located outside of the City
of Dublin, and therefore the implementation of the mitigations cannot be guaranteed.
Arterials. The project would contribute new trips to the already congested study
roadway segments along Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard. These arterials are
already over capacity in the future conditions and operate at LOS F based on average
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-11
Draft EIR 10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
substantially disturb sensitive
receptors (Class II).
Impact N-3: Result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels (Class II).
Less than significant
with Mitigation
MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
Impact N-4: Result in a substantial
temporary increase in ambient noise
levels (Class II).
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
Impact N-6: Contribute to
cumulatively considerable impacts on
noise (Class II).
Less than significant
with Mitigation
MM N-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction
MM N-3.1: Noise Attenuation
Population & Housing
No significant impacts identified.
Public Services, Utilities & Service Systems
No significant impacts identified.
Transportation & Circulation
Impact TR-1: Create a potentially
dangerous new intersection (Class II).
Less than significant
with mitigation
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at
study intersections in the Existing +
Project condition that exceed
established LOS standards (Class II).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-3: Cause intersection
queues to operate below acceptable
levels under Existing + Project
conditions (Class II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements
to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project
Driveway
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway
Segment Improvements
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-12 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
segments and ramps in the Existing +
Project condition that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I).
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at
study intersections in the Near-Term +
Project condition that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I and
II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las
Positas Boulevard
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-6: Cause intersection
queues to operate below acceptable
levels under Near-Term + Project
conditions (Class I and II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street
MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project
Improvements to Tassajara Road / The Shops/
Project Driveway
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project
Driveway
Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the Near-Term
+ Project conditions that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I
Impact).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp
Metering Improvements MM TR-4.1: Existing
+ Project Freeway Segment Improvements
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Executive Summary | Page 1-13
Draft EIR 10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at
study intersections in the Cumulative
+ Project conditions that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I and
II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin
Boulevard
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin
Boulevard
MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Fallon Road / Dublin
Boulevard
MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan
Street
MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart
Street
MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las
Positas Boulevard
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Impact TR-9: Cause intersection
queues to operate below acceptable
levels under Cumulative + Project
conditions (Class I and II).
Less than significant
with mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton
Street
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project
Driveway
MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 1-14 | Executive Summary
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact Impact Significance Mitigation
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project
Improvements to Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project
Improvements to Brannigan Street / Dublin
Boulevard
Impact TR-10: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the
Cumulative + Project condition that
exceed established LOS standards
(Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway
Segment Improvements
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp
Metering Improvements
Impact TR-11: Conflict with applicable
congestion management program for
designated roads, highway, or
freeways (Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway
Segment Improvements
Impact TR-12: Conflict with adopted
policies, plans or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such
facilities (Class III).
Less than significant None required
Impact TR-13: Increase travel speeds
along roadways that exceed
established LOS standards (Class II ).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement
Design Features for the New Project
Intersection on Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
Energy Conservation
Impact ER-1: Encourage activities that
result in the use of large amounts of
fuel or energy, or use these resources
in a wasteful manner (Class III)
Less than Significant None required
1.9.1 Cumulative Impacts
Under the CEQA Guidelines, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a
result of the combination of the project evaluated in the environmental impact report (“EIR”)
together with other projects causing related impacts.” (14 Cal Code Regs §15130(a)(1)). This
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Air Quality | Page 6-33
Draft EIR 10/23/18
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding
or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
MM AQ-2.2 Off-Road Diesel-Powered Construction Equipment
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to
the City of Dublin that demonstrate that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 Final
off-road emissions standards.
MM AQ-2.3 Architectural Coating
The applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior architectural coating
(paint and primer) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 20 grams
per liter or less while exterior architectural coating must be less than 100 grams per liter.
Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the project, which
shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-7-20 | Biological Resources
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Mitigation for Impact BIO-3
MM BIO-3.1 Wetland Mitigation Plan
Prior to obtaining the first site grading, building or other permit for development activities
involving ground disturbance, the project applicant shall prepare the documentation acceptable
to the Community Development Department that demonstrates compliance with the following:
The project applicant shall the acquire the appropriate applicable permit(s) (e.g. Section 404,
Section 401, Porter-Cologne) from the respective regulating agency(s) (i.e. USACE and/or
RWQCB). A If necessary, aA wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish
suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values
or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies.
This may include the 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. The
wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the applicable regulatory agency
(USACE and/or RWQCB) and the City.
The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization and
compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the
designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided or project design measures.
Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/or creation of wetlands or other
waters. The final mitigation ratio (the amount of wetlands and other water created or
preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource
agency(s) and result in no net loss of wetland habitat value or acreages. The wetland mitigation
plan shall include the following:
1. Description of wetland types and their expected functions and values;
2. Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation
wetlands over a period of time to be determined by the resource agencies;
3. Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created
or preserved;
4. An implementation schedule showing the construction or preservation of mitigation
areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and
5. A description of legal protection of the preserved wetlands (such as dedication of fee
title, conservation easement and/or an endowment held by an approved conservation
organization, government agency or mitigation bank).
Impact BIO-4: Have a substantial adverse effect on wildlife movement. (Class III).
The project site is surrounded on four sides by roadways which create an anthropogenic barrier
to dispersal around the project site and precludes the primary function of a habitat corridor, to
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Biological Resources | Page 7-21
Draft EIR 10/23/18
link two separated but occupied habitats. Therefore, given that the project site is bounded by
urban development, the project site does not function as a wildlife corridor connecting two or
more areas of occupied habitat, and impacts would be less than significant.
Impact BIO-5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances (Class III).
Heritage Tree Ordinance
The project site does not contain any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye or sycamore
trees that are 24 inches in diameter as measured 4.5 feet above natural grade. Therefore, the
project would not be subject to the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance and no significant impacts
would occur.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
The project site is in Conservation Zone 3 (CZ-3) of the EACCS. The EACCS is a guidance
document that is used by the City for public projects, but compliance is not mandated for
private development as it is not an adopted or approved plan that requires a consistency
determination under CEQA. Therefore, no conflicts would occur and impacts would be less
than significant.
7.5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The geographic extent for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to biological resources
includes the City of Dublin, which contains suitable and occupied habitat of Congdon’s tarplant,
San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, Western Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-
tailed kite. This area may alsoHowever, based on professional judgement and field surveys, the
project site does not support core, critical, or unique populations essential to recovery and
long-term survival of these species.
Impact BIO-6: Contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources (Class
II).
As stated above, the project would not result in a net loss of riparian habitat and would not
result in a loss of any heritage trees.
The project would affect 0.66 acres of seasonal wetlands, which would considerably contribute
to the significant cumulative biological impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably
future projects. Implementation of MM BIO-3.1 would reduce the project’s contribution to
less-than-cumulatively considerable.
The project’s impacts to Congdon’s tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Saline clover, Western
Burrowing Owl, Loggerhead shrike, and White-tailed kite would be reduced through adherence
to MM BIO-1.1. MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3. Although past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects may result in impacts to special-status plants and special-status
wildlife, such impacts would be site-specific and could be mitigated through adherence to
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-7
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Study Intersections
1. Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr [DUB] 22. Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. [DUB]
2. Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy [DUB] 23. Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. [DUB]
3. Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. [DUB] 24. Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. [DUB]
4. Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps [CAL] 25. Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. [DUB]
5. Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps [CAL] 26. Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. [DUB]
6. Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. [PLS] 27. Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps [CAL]
7. Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. [DUB] 28. Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps [CAL]
8. Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. [DUB] 29. El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd.
[PLSLIV]
9. Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct [DUB] 30. Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. [DUB]
10. Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. [DUB] 31. Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. [DUB]
11. Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. [DUB] 32. Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. [DUB]
12. Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy [DUB] 33. Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. [DUB]
13. Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd* [DUB] 34. Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. [DUB]
14. Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd* [DUB] 35. Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd.* [DUB]
15. Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way [DUB] 36. Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. [DUB]
16. Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps [CAL] 37. Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. [DUB]
17. Tassajara Rd. /Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps –
Pimlico Dr. [CAL] 38. Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. [DUB]
18. Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. [PLS] 39. Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. [DUB]
19. Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. [DUB] 40. Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. [DUB]
20. Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way [DUB] 41. Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. [DUB]
21. Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. [DUB]
* Includes both weekday and weekend intersection analysis.
[DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation, [LIV] – City of Livermore
Study Freeway Segments
a. I-580 from Dougherty Rd to Hacienda Dr. [CAL] c. I-580 from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road [CAL]
b. I-580 from Hacienda Dr. to Tassajara Rd [CAL] d. I-580 from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard [CAL]
[CAL] – California Department of Transportation
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-20 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #26)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
El Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29)
o Operates at LOS F during the AM Peak
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street (Intersection #39)
o Operates at LOS E during the PM Peak
Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street (Intersection #40)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
The following gateway intersections operate at LOS E or worse, but are acceptable based on the
City of Pleasanton LOS standards for gateway intersections:
Hacienda Drive / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #5)
o Operates at LOS E during AM Peak
o Operates at LOS E during PM Peak
Hacienda Drive / Owens Drive (Intersection #6)
o Operates at LOS F during PM Peak
Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road / WB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #16)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #17)
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
Fallon Road/El Charro Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #28)
o Operates at LOS E during the AM Peak
o Operates at LOS F during the PM Peak
As shown in Table 17-5: Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS
without project – Saturday, all study intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Cumulative
conditions during the Saturday peak hours.
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14)
o Operates at LOS F during the Saturday Peak
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-24 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
17 Tassajara Rd./Santa Rita Rd./ I-
580 EB Ramps – Pimlico Dr. Signal CAL/PLS N/A 42.5 D 42.8 D 45.4 D 67.1 E 52.4 D 117.4 F
18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 30.9 C 32.8 C 40.9 D 69.6 E 137.0 F 207.2 F
19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 36.3 D 14.0 B 37.9 D 14.0 B 42.9 D 14.3 B
20
Brannigan St / Aviano Way
(Future Project Dwy. #2) SSSC DUB D
2.9 A 3.3 A 3.1 A 3.2 A 3.2 A 2.3 A
Worst Approach 13.5 B 9.3 A 14.0 B 9.4 A 13.8 B 10.0 B
21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 24.6 C 16.2 B 25.4 C 18.2 B 24.2 C 19.0 B
22 Finnian Way / Brannigan St.
(Future Project Dwy. #3) AWSC DUB D 7.9 A 8.1 A 8.0 A 8.2 A 8.0 A 8.8 A
23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 15.5 B 18.2 B 17.2 B 27.4 C 148.1 F 365.7 F
24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 15.9 B 10.7 B 7.4 A 11.3 B 20.0 C 128.7 F
25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 33.1 C 15.0 B 35.5 D 14.4 B 72.2 E 18.9 B
26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 13.5 B 14.8 B 19.8 B 21.0 C 42.0 D 100.6 F
27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 8.8 A 11.0 B 15.8 B 37.9 D 26.7 C 31.4 C
28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.9 A 8.7 A 12.7 B 12.6 B 76.1 E 102.0 F
29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. /
Jack London Blvd. Signal PLSLIV D 44.0 D 58.2 E 52.3 D 89.7 F 132.2 F 262.1 F
30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project
31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-25
Draft EIR 10/23/18
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project
33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project
34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project
35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project
36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project
37 Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project
38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project
39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 11.1 B 9.2 A 17.9 B 33.4 D 22.7 C 57.7 E
40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 10.6 B 9.1 A 17.5 B 25.0 C 26.2 C 155.4 F
41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 21.7 C 22.4 C 16.8 B 21.5 C 25.1 C 21.5 C
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC), or does not exist (DNE).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown with bold text.
8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page 17-26 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 5: Existing, Near-Term, and Cumulative Transportation Delay & LOS without Project – Saturday
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Existing Near-Term (Year 2025) Cumulative (Year 2040)
Saturday Peak Hour
Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
13 Tassajara Rd / The Shops
(Future Project Dwy. #1) Signal DUB D 18.6 B 20.3 C 13.7 B
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 39.3 D 72.4 F 106.4 F
35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist without the Project
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC), or does not exist (DNE).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown with bold text.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-43
Draft EIR 10/23/18
City of Livermore
As stated in the City of Livermore General Plan, intersections in Livermore shall not exceed mid-
level LOS D (average control delay of 45 seconds or less for a signalized intersection), with the
exception of gateway intersections. The following would be considered a LOS impact:
If the project were to worsen the LOS from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS
E or LOS F, this would be considered a significant impact.
For a signalized intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F without the
project, and the project were to add any peak hour trips, this would be considered a
significant impact.
Mitigations for these significant impacts would be required to improve the intersection to at or
better than without project conditions.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
Impacts to intersections on Routes of Regional Significance as defined by the TVTC would be
considered significant if:
A signalized intersection is projected to operate within delay ranges associated with
less-than-capacity conditions for motor vehicles (i.e., LOS E or better with an average
control delay of equal to or less than 80 seconds per vehicle) without the project and
the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at [LOS] F;
At a study signalized intersection where the motor vehicle level of service is LOS F prior
to the addition of project traffic, the project would cause (a) the overall volume-to-
capacity (“V/C”) ratio to increase 0.03 or more or (b) the critical movement V/C ratio to
increase 0.05 or more.
Intersections in downtown areas and/or specifically exempted by local jurisdictions are exempt
from this TVTC standard.
Although the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance,
September 2017, specifies the use of the 2010 HCM method for evaluating intersection
operations, the City of Dublin has not yet adopted use of the 2010 HCM method. Therefore, for
the purposes of this assessment, the 2000 HCM method is used to assess impacts under the
TVTC criteria. The 2000 HCM method tends to produce more conservative results for motor
vehicle operations and use of the 2000 HCM method would capture potential impacts under
the TVTC criteria.
Alameda County Transportation Commission
The Alameda CTC does not have adopted thresholds of significance for Congestion
Management Plan (CMP) land use analysis purposes. Past analyses within the City of Dublin
have used the following criteria to assess roadway segment impacts:
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-48 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Project Trip Assignment Turning Movement Volumes, Figure 17-12b: Near-Term Project Trip
Assignment Turning Movement Volumes, and Figure 17-12c: Cumulative Project Trip
Assignment Turning Movement Volumes.
Project trips added to Existing, Near-Term and Cumulative volumes are shown in Figure 17-13:
Existing + Project Turning Movement Volumes, Figure 17-14: Near-Term + Project Turning
Movement Volumes and Figure 17-15: Cumulative + Project Turning Movement Volumes,
respectively.
17.5.5 Proposed Project Driveways and Intersections
As shown in Figure 17-11: Project Site Plan, the project is proposing 12 project driveways
and/or intersections:
• Intersection #13 – Tassajara Road / The Shops / Project Driveway #1
• Intersection #20 – Brannigan Street / Aviano Way / Project Driveway #2
• Intersection #22 – Brannigan Street / Finnian Way / Project Driveway #3
• Intersection #30 – Tassajara Road (north of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #4
• Intersection #31 – Tassajara Road (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #5
• Intersection #32 – Gleason Drive / Project Driveway #6
• Intersection #33 – Central Parkway (east of Tassajara Rd) / Project Driveway #7
• Intersection #34 – Central Parkway (west of Brannigan St) / Project Driveway #8
• Intersection #35 – Dublin Boulevard / Project Driveway #9
• Intersection #36 – Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #10
• Intersection #37 – Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #11
• Intersection #38 – Brannigan Street (south of Dublin Blvd) / Project Driveway #12
Vehicle Queuing
A queuing analysis was completed for the outbound approach for each project driveway to
determine the number of lanes needed and the necessary lane length. Table 17-13: Project
Driveway Lane Lengths Summary summarizes the lanes needed and the lengths.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-50 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
currently no left turn movement exist thus limiting direct connection from Tassajara Road
southbound to I-580.
This new traffic signal would provide pedestrians and bicyclists a controlled pathway across
Dublin Boulevard. Without this traffic signal, pedestrians would need to cross Dublin Boulevard
at the intersection of Tassajara Road or Brannigan Street. There are no final design plans for
the proposed intersection. Therefore, the intersection design should follow the City of Dublin’s
Pedestrian and Bicycle Design Guidelines to promote a safe design for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Pedestrian features should include crosswalks on the north, south, and eastall legs of
the intersection. The west leg may not include a crosswalk because it is anticipated that the
northbound left turn and eastbound right turn vehicular movements will be heavily used and
therefore would potentially conflict with pedestrians on the west leg of the intersection.
Pedestrian countdown signals should be installed for each pedestrian movement across the
intersection. Since the distance across Dublin Boulevard is long, a mid-block median refuge
should be installedBicycle features shouldmay include colorized pavement for the bicycle lane
on the eastbound approach to emphasize the bicycle right-of-way as there are expected to be a
high volume of eastbound right turning vehicles crossing the bicycle lane to enter the project
site south of Dublin Boulevard.
The existing distance between these two signalized intersections is approximately 1,000 feet
centerline to centerline. The proposed traffic signal would bisect this roadway segment along
Dublin Boulevard into approximately 550 feet and 450 feet for the segment to the west of the
signal and for the segment to the east of the signal, respectively.
These short distances are not typical for the installation of traffic signals. The City of Dublin
General Plan roadway standards state that intersections with median openings shall be spaced
no closer than 750 feet. In special circumstances, such as “T” intersections, intersection spacing
less than 750 feet may be allowed with the approval of the Public Works Director/City Engineer.
Typically, traffic signals are at least 1,000 feet apart to minimize traffic spill over to adjacent
signals, limit frequent stops, optimize progression of signals, and reduce the occurrences of
vehicles queued and blocking intersections. The spacing of the signals also play an important
role in safety considerations for access to adjacent land uses.
It should be noted that the two traffic signals on Dublin Boulevard, west of Tassajara Road, are
spaced less than 1,000 feet apart but the land uses accessing these intersections are
significantly different than the project in location, access, and intensity. The intersections of
Dublin Boulevard and John Monego Court (Intersection #9), Dublin Boulevard and Glynnis Rose
Drive (Intersection #10), and Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Intersection #14) are spaced
660 feet apart and 730 feet apart, respectively. With these shorter distances between the
traffic signals, there are instances in which the eastbound queues on Dublin Boulevard
propagate back from Tassajara Road, and into the Glynnis Rose Drive intersection in the PM
peak hour indicating an existing concern about short spaced intersections.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-52 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Modifying the ingress/egress circulation on Brannigan Street and/or Tassajara Road,
and/or
Other means as deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director.
At any such time after full build-out and occupancy of the project, the applicant may submit
additional traffic analysis to the City, that would be independently verified, demonstrating that
the time periods may be adjusted or that the prohibited turning movements are no longer
required, such that impacts are maintained at a less than significant level, as deemed
acceptable by the Public Works Director.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would thereby reduce impacts to less than
significant (Class II).
17.5.6 Existing + Project Impact Analysis
Impact TR-2: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Existing + Project condition that
exceed established LOS standards (Class I).
Weekday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-14: Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Existing + Project conditions
during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersections
under each jurisdiction:
City of LivermorePleasanton
The project would add trips to the following intersection that is already operating at an
unacceptable LOS:
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) (Class II)
o The project adds 69 trips to the intersection in the AM peak hour and causes the
intersection to continue to operate at LOS E.
MM TR-2.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However,
since the mitigation is located in the City of Livermore Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot
guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure, the impacts remains significant and
unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-16: Mitigated Existing +
Project Transportation Delay & LOS.
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-53
Draft EIR 10/23/18
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Pleasanton impact criteria, but not
the TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this
impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack
London Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Livermore Pleasanton to pay
the project’s proportionate fair share (2 percent) for improvements to the intersection of El
Charro Road / Jack London Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal
timing splits by adjusting the maximum green time for each movement to better match the
vehicle demand for that particular movement. The primary change would be to increase the
split for the eastbound left turn movement due to the high eastbound left turn traffic volumes.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Livermore Pleasanton impact criteria,
but not the TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria,
this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall submit a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program to the City of Dublin for review and approval. The
project applicant shall be responsible for fully funding and implementing the TDM program.
The TDM program shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant/ engineer in
coordination with the project applicant and City staff. The TDM program may include but not
be limited to the following measures:
Implement a subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or
subsidized rate to all employees.
Provide a shuttle service between the project site and the East Dublin/Pleasanton
BART station.
Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent, per Section 132(F) of
federal tax code, where an employer can offer its employees a monthly subsidy for
public transit.
Join City Car Share or similar program as a "Biz Prime" member and pay for
membership of a minimum of 5% employees.
Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20% of car spaces, or a number approved by the
City.
Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-54 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Partner with local businesses (e.g. Kaiser Medical Center) in the formation of a
Transportation Management Association (TMA)
Facilitate employer-sponsored carpooling and ride-matching programs.
Provide preferential carpool parking.
Implement a guaranteed ride home program.
Provide an on-site car share program.
Encourage employee flexible work scheduling practices to avoid peak-hour travel
(flex time, staggered shifts, compressed work schedules, etc.).
Co-sponsor a transportation fair once a year with At Dublin businesses. Invite
Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute alternative service providers to
attend and distribute commute alternative information. Provide refreshments to
participants.
Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees regarding
511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program, Wheels/LAVTA, shuttles to
regional transit, City CarShare program, and other relevant alternative
transportation options.
Distribute information quarterly regarding transportation alternatives by email to all
employees.
Provide a kiosk(s) with brochures, and similar items that provide information about
the TDM program. Create a website with similar information.
Appoint a Commute Coordinator to facilitate information dissemination.
The project applicant shall be required to submit a yearly report on/or before September 30
detailing the current status of the TDM measures, summarizing the program’s effectiveness,
identifying any changes to the TDM measures that occurred in the previous year, and
identifying additional steps to be taken, if necessary, to reduce traffic impacts. Additional
details regarding TDM monitoring shall be developed as part of the development of the TDM
program.
Saturday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-15: Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Existing + Project condition
during the Saturday peak hours.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-56 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Existing Existing + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 36.3 D 14.0 B 40.5 D 36.7 D
20 Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way SSSC DUB D 2.9 A 3.3 A 4.3 A 4.5 A
Worst Approach 13.5 B 9.3 A 17.9 C 12.4 B
21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 24.6 C 16.2 B 28.4 C 18.0 B
22 Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. AWSC DUB D 7.9 A 8.1 A 8.2 A 9.3 A
23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 15.5 B 18.2 B 16.5 B 16.7 B
24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 15.9 B 10.7 B 6.9 A 10.4 B
25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 33.1 C 15.0 B 33.1 C 15.0 B
26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 13.5 B 14.8 B 13.9 B 15.4 B
27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 8.8 A 11.0 B 8.8 A 11.3 B
28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 7.9 A 8.7 A 7.9 A 8.9 A
29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London
Blvd. Signal PLSLIV D 44.0 D 58.2 E 44.1 D 59.0
69 trips E
30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.1 A
Worst Approach 8.6 A 9.1 A
31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.3 A
Worst Approach 11.0 B 17.3 C
32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.1 A
Worst Approach 10.3 B 9.0 A
33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A
Worst Approach 9.2 A 0.0 A
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-57
Draft EIR 10/23/18
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Existing Existing + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.8 A 0.4 A
Worst Approach 11.9 B 11.3 B
35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 13.5 B 30.2 C
36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.6 A 1.0 A
Worst Approach 9.2 A 10.2 B
37
Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St.
SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist
0.1 A 0.4 A
Worst Approach 9.1 A 9.9 A
38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.7 A 1.3 A
Worst Approach 9.1 A 9.7 A
39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 11.1 B 9.2 A 11.1 B 9.4 A
40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 10.6 B 9.1 A 10.6 B 9.0 A
41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 21.7 C 22.4 C 21.8 C 22.5 C
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue.
8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan.
9. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City
of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-58 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 15: Existing and Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue.
8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
# Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold
Existing Existing + Project
Saturday Peak Hour
Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 18.6 B 21.3 C
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 39.3 D 44.0 D
35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 40.6 D
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-59
Draft EIR 10/23/18
Table 17- 16: Mitigated Existing + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Existing + Project Mitigated Existing + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London
Blvd. Signal PLSLIV D 59.0 E 43.5 D
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-62 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
pocket. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the westbound left turn lane by 55
feet in the AM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.2 would reduce the westbound left turn queue by 37 feet to 253
feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of
250 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby
reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (7 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the
westbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact
Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the eastbound left turn lane by 49
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.3 would reduce the eastbound left turn queue by 37 feet to 278
feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the without project queue of 266 feet.
The queue is reduced to be within one vehicle length of the without project queue and thereby
reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (15 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the
eastbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact
Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps (Intersection #17) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the southbound left turn lane by 25
feet in the PM peak hour.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-63
Draft EIR 10/23/18
Implementation of MM TR-3.4 would extend the southbound left turn pocket by 25 feet from
405 feet to 430 feet. The increase in the turn pocket storage of 25 feet would mitigate the
project’s increase in the queue by 25 feet. However, since the intersection is located in the City
of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation
measure, the impacts remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (16 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Santa
Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps. The improvements shall consist of extending the southbound left
turn pocket by 25 feet from 405 feet to 430 feet. There is an existing raised median that can be
modified to lengthen the turn pocket.
Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project Driveway (Intersection #13) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 63
feet in the SAT peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.5 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by 24 feet to 207
feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of
205 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby
reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / The Shops / Project
Driveway
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the entirety (100
percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard. The
improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn movement.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay for the entirety of the mitigation costs.
Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle densities along study freeway segments and ramps in the Existing
+ Project condition that exceed established LOS standards. (Class I)
As shown in Table 17-18: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Analysis, all freeway segments
operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hour under the Existing + Project
condition. However, as mentioned previously, each freeway is actually over capacity and
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-64 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
should be operating at LOS F because the volumes for the westbound direction in the AM peak
hour and the volumes for the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour are constrained by
downstream bottlenecks. Therefore, the volumes used in the freeway analysis do not reflect
the true volume demand and result in a better than reported LOS.
Table 17- 18: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Analysis
#
Study Segment
(I-580) Dir Lanes
Existing + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Vol (vph)
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Vol (vph)
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
a Dougherty Road to
Hacienda Drive
WB 5 9,081 35.7 E 7,762 28.3 D
EB 7 8,213 20.7 C 7,841 19.8 C
b Hacienda Drive to
Tassajara Road
WB 5 9,427 38.1 E 6,715 23.8 C
EB 5 6,679 23.7 C 7,506 27.1 D
c Tassajara Road to
Fallon Road
WB 5 8,609 32.7 D 6,533 23.1 C
EB 5 5,647 19.9 C 7,283 26.1 D
d Fallon Road to
Airway Boulevard
WB 5 8,469 31.9 D 6,532 23.1 C
EB 5 5,712 20.2 C 7,622 27.6 D
Notes:
1. Segments operating at unacceptable levels of service based on established targets by Caltrans are shown in bold and impacts are shaded
light blue.
2. Analysis performed using HCS 2010 software.
3. For freeway segments where an auxiliary lane is > 2,500 feet in length, weaving does not apply; therefore, the auxiliary lane is considered to
be a basic freeway lane for the purposes of this analysis.
4. Express lanes not included in this analysis.
Implementation of MM TR-4.1 would require the applicant to pay their proportional share to
fund regional roadway improvements. This Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fund is
calculated from the average peak hour vehicle trips. Additional information on the program
can be found on the TVTC website. These improvements may include the second phase of I-
680/I-580 interchange improvements, widening of State Route 84 through Pigeon Pass, and
other planned roadway system modifications that would relieve freeway congestion in the
study area. The I-680/I-580 interchange project should help to alleviate congestion on
westbound I-580 as vehicles going from westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 have only one
lane through the connector loop at the interchange and this creates a queue on I-580 since the
throughput of the loop ramp less than the demand, particularly due to the slow speeds by
trucks using the loop ramp. The State Route 84 widening project from Pigeon Pass to I-680
should help to provide additional capacity on State Route 84 and divert more traffic from I-580
between I-680 and State Route 84. However, as the construction timing of these
improvements is unknown as full funding has not been identified, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable (Class I).
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-65
Draft EIR 10/23/18
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
(TVTC) to pay all applicable regional transportation impact fees related to freeway
improvements.
I-580 Freeway Ramps
Table 17-19: Existing + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis shows the volume, density, and level of
service for each freeway ramp with the project trips added. Based on this analysis, the LOS at
each freeway ramp would remain at an acceptable level resulting in no impact.
Table 17- 19: Existing + Project Freeway Ramp Analysis
Interchange
(I-580) Dir Ramp
Existing + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/mi/ln)
Δ
Density LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln)
Δ
Density LOS
Hacienda Drive
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 27.4 0.3 C 24.2 0.4 C
Loop On-ramp 22.0 0.0 C 20.9 12.0 C
Off-ramp 29.7 0.3 D 21.1 0.3 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 19.6 0.3 B 24.0 0.7 C
Loop On-ramp 18.7 0.1 B 20.4 9.7 C
Off-ramp 17.1 0.2 C 15.9 0.5 C
Tassajara Road
WB
Diagonal On-ramp 32.0 0.6 D 20.3 9.9 C
Loop On-ramp 21.0 12.0 C 17.5 0.0 B
Off-ramp 26.6 0.1 C 20.0 0.2 C
EB
Diagonal On-ramp 17.7 0.1 B 21.2 0.2 C
Loop On-ramp 20.6 0.3 C 28.0 0.5 C
Off-ramp 23.7 0.6 C 23.5 0.9 C
Fallon Road WB
Diagonal On-ramp 28.7 0.2 D 22.5 0.2 C
Loop On-ramp 30.3 0.1 D 24.6 0.3 C
Off-ramp 25.6 0.1 C 19.5 0.3 B
Diagonal On-ramp 21.1 7.6 C 27.0 0.0 C
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-67
Draft EIR 10/23/18
On-ramp Peak
Hour
Storage
Length (ft)
SOV
Metering
Rate (vph)
Existing Existing + Project
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
SOV Volume
(vph)
Max Queue
(ft)
EB I-580 Hacienda Drive
Loop On-ramp PM 490 300 309 225 309 225
WB I-580 Tassajara
Road Diagonal On-ramp AM 1,080 480 636 > 1,100 678 > 1,100
EB I-580 Santa Rita
Road Loop On-ramp PM 830 450 368 0 403 0
WB I-580 Fallon Road
Diagonal On-ramp AM 685 300 255 0 256 0
EB I-580 El Charro Road
Loop On-ramp PM 925 240 273 825 284 1,100
Notes:
1. SOV = Single-occupancy vehicles; Ramp meter analysis was performed for SOV lanes only. HOV lanes were assumed to operate with a 900
vph metering rate and therefore would not have any queues extend onto the arterial.
2. SOV volumes were calculated based on HOV to SOV ratios from PeMS on-ramp volumes.
3. Ramps with vehicle queues exceeding the on-ramp storage and extending onto the adjacent arterial are shown with bold text.
For the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak hour, the project increases the
SOV volume to 284 vehicles. This volume exceeds the ramp metering rate of 240 vph and
therefore the vehicle queues extend onto the arterial (total queue length is 1,100 feet and
exceeds the 925-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be
increased to 300 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to
this on-ramp. Implementation of MM TR-4.2 would reduce the queues to less than significant,
however, because this is a Caltrans facility and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee
implementation of this mitigation the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of
Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at
the WB I-580 Tassajara Road diagonal on-ramp in the AM peak period. Increasing the ramp
metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Tassajara Road. In addition, the project
applicant shall pay for the City of Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to
review the ramp metering rates at the EB I-580 El Charro Road loop on-ramp in the PM peak
period. Increasing the ramp metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on El Charro Road.
However, since the City of Dublin does not have control over ramp metering rates at this
location, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-68 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
17.5.7 Near-Term + Project Impact Analysis
Impact TR-5: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Near-Term + Project condition
that exceed established LOS standards.
Weekday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-21: Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Near-Term + Project condition
during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following intersections
under each jurisdiction:
City of Dublin
The project would increase the critical movement’s average delay by six (6) or more seconds in
the PM peak hour, further degrading the following already deficient LOS E intersection:
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.0 to 1.4 (a 0.4 increase)
during the PM peak hour and causes the intersection to continue to operate at
an unacceptable LOS F.
This intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the Near-Term without Project
and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle capacity. The intersection already
includes triple left turns in the westbound and northbound direction, which are the critical
turning movements. Furthermore, it is not feasible to extend the signal timing cycle length,
since it is at 200 seconds in the Near-Term (2025) conditions, and consequently, it is not
possible to further coordinate signal timing with adjacent traffic signals.
Given these conditions, project impacts to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard under the Near-Term + Project condition would remain significant and unavoidable
(Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is also considered significant and
unavoidable (Class I).
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-69
Draft EIR 10/23/18
City of Pleasanton
The project would add 10 or more trips, degrading the intersection from an acceptable LOS D to
an unacceptable LOS E or F or the project and further degrading the following already deficient
LOS E or F intersection.:
Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Intersection #18) (Class II)
o The project adds 278 trips to the intersection in the PM peak hour and causes
the intersection to continue to operate at an LOS E.
MM TR-5.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However,
since the intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot
guarantee implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable
(Class I). Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project
Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday.
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard.
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita
Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of
the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to 115
seconds.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Pleasanton impact criteria, but not
the TVTC criteria since LOS E is considered acceptable. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this
impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
City of Livermore
The project would add trips to the following intersection that is already operating at an
unacceptable LOS:
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) (Class II)
o The project adds 70 trips to the intersection in the PM peak hour and causes the
intersection to continue to operate at an LOS F.
Implementation of MM TR-2.1 would reduce impacts. However, since the intersection is
located in the City of PleasantonLivermore and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-70 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project
Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Livermore Pleasanton impact criteria,
but not the TVTC criteria since the project does not increase the intersection v/c by 0.03 or the
critical v/c by 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-
significant (Class III).
Saturday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-23: Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Near-Term + Project conditions
during the Saturday peak hours with the exception of the following intersections under each
jurisdiction:
City of Dublin
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class III)
o The intersection operates at LOS F with and without the project, but the v/c does
not increase be 0.03 or more and the critical v/c does not increase by 0.05 or
more during the Saturday peak hour.
It should be noted that this is also not an impact under TVTC criteria because although the
intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS F, the Project does not increase the v/c by 0.03 or
more and does not increase the critical v/c by 0.05 or more. Therefore, under TVTC criteria,
this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
Implementation of the project would cause the following new intersection to operate at an
unacceptable LOS:
Project Driveway / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #35) (Class II)
o The project proposes a new intersection for the project driveway on Dublin
Boulevard that will operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the Near-term +
Project Saturday peak hour.
MM TR-1.1 would improve operations to an acceptable LOS C in the Saturday peak hour and
thereby reduce impacts to less-than-significant (Class II). Mitigation analysis results are shown
in Table 17-24: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Saturday.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-72 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Near-Term Near-Term + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 40.9 D 69.6 E 44.5 D 76.3
278 trips E
19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 37.9 D 14.0 B 41.6 D 33.7 C
20
Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way
SSSC DUB D
3.1 A 3.2 A 4.6 A 4.7 A
Worst Approach 14.0 B 9.4 A 18.8 C 12.5 B
21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 25.4 C 18.2 B 29.6 C 19.1 B
22 Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan St. AWSC DUB D 8.0 A 8.2 A 8.4 A 9.4 A
23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 17.2 B 27.4 C 12.6 B 22.3 C
24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 7.4 A 11.3 B 5.0 A 11.4 B
25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 35.5 D 14.4 B 35.5 D 14.5 B
26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 19.8 B 21.0 C 20.1 C 22.4 C
27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 15.8 B 37.9 D 16.4 B 42.8 D
28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 12.7 B 12.6 B 13.1 B 13.5 B
29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London
Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 52.3 D 89.7 F 52.9 D 92.5
70 trips F
30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A
Worst Approach 8.7 A 9.3 A
31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.3 A
Worst Approach 13.3 B 22.6 C
32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.1 A
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-73
Draft EIR 10/23/18
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Near-Term Near-Term + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Worst Approach 12.0 B 9.7 A
33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A
Worst Approach 9.5 A 0.0 A
34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.8 A 0.4 A
Worst Approach 12.1 B 11.4 B
35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 25.6 C 26.4 C
36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.6 A 1.0 A
Worst Approach 9.3 A 10.5 B
37
Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St.
SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist
0.1 A 0.3 A
Worst Approach 9.2 A 10.1 B
38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.6 A 1.2 A
Worst Approach 9.1 A 9.9 A
39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 17.9 B 33.4 D 18.4 B 34.1 C
40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 17.5 B 25.0 C 17.5 B 26.3 C
41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 16.8 B 21.5 C 16.9 B 21.5 C
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue.
8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-74 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
9. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City
of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
Table 17- 22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Near-Term + Project Mitigated Near-Term + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 97.4 F 88.3 F
18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 76.3 E 54.2 D
29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London
Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 92.5 F 69.5 E
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-75
Draft EIR 10/23/18
Table 17- 23: Near-Term and Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue.
8. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City
of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
# Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold
Near-Term Near-Term + Project
Saturday Peak Hour
Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 20.3 C 29.5 C
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 130.6
1.18 F 119.4
1.12 F
35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 59.2 E
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-76 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Table 17- 22: Mitigated Near-Term + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
# Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold
Near-Term + Project Mitigated Near-Term +
Project
Saturday Peak Hour
Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 119.4 F 119.4 F
35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 59.2 E 30.7 C
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-79
Draft EIR 10/23/18
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-6.1: Near-term + Project Improvements to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (15%) of improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road / Dublin
Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the cycle length in the AM peak hour to
be 155 seconds and adjusting the green time for the northbound left turn movement in the PM
Peak hour. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the
project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street (Intersection #23) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the eastbound left turn lane by 180
feet in the PM peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-6.2 reduce the eastbound left turn queue by 37 feet to 290 feet,
which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket storage length of 275
feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage and thereby reducing
impacts to less than significant (Class II).
MM TR-6.2: Near-term + Project Improvements to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (6 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Dublin Boulevard /
Brannigan Street. The improvements shall consist of adjusting the green time for the
eastbound left turn movement. Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact
Fee Program, the project applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement
costs.
Dublin Boulevard / The Shops (Intersection #13) (Class II)
o The project increases the queue length for the northbound left turn lane by 111
feet in the SAT peak hour.
Implementation of MM TR-3.5 and MM TR-6.3 would reduce the northbound left turn queue by
98 feet to 220 feet, which is less than one vehicle length longer than the existing turn pocket
storage length of 205 feet. The queue is reduced to be contained within the available storage
and thereby reducing impacts to less than significant (Class II).
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-84 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
exceeds the 925-foot storage). To reduce the vehicle queues, the metering rate could be
increased to 300 vph, however, this may result in increased congestion on EB I-580 adjacent to
this on-ramp.
Implementation of MM TR-4.2 would apply to this impact. In addition, MM TR-7.1 would
improve the impact. However, since the intersection is a Caltrans facility, the City of Dublin
cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and
unavoidable (Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-7.1: Near-term + Project Ramp Metering Improvements
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay for the City of
Dublin to work with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to review the ramp metering rates at
the EB I-580 Hacienda Drive loop on-ramp in the PM peak period. Increasing the ramp
metering rate would reduce the vehicle queues on Hacienda Drive.
17.5.8 Cumulative + Project Impact Analysis
Impact TR-8: Increase travel delays at study intersections in the Cumulative + Project conditions
that exceed established LOS standards.
Weekday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-29: Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the “Cumulative + Project
Conditions” during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following
intersections under each jurisdiction:
City of Dublin
The project degrades the intersection from an acceptable to an unacceptable LOS per the
following; 1) increases the critical movement’s average delay by six (6) or more seconds of an
already deficient LOS E facility, or 2) increases the v/c ratio of an already deficient LOS F facility
by 0.03 for the overall intersection or 0.05 for the critical movement.
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #3) (Class II)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 2.17 to 2.44 (a 0.27
increase) during the PM peak hour.
MM TR-8.1 would improve the critical v/c movement from 2.44 to 1.95, less than the 2.17
critical v/c movement under without project conditions during the PM peak hour and therefore,
impacts would be less than significant (Class II). Although this intersection would continue to
operate at an unacceptable LOS F, the mitigation improves the intersection to better than
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-85
Draft EIR 10/23/18
without project conditions. Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated
Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday.
MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the project’s
proportionate fair share (10 percent) of improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive /
Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the signal timing splits.
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and also the
TVTC criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by
more than 0.05. Since MM TR-8.1 would improve the critical v/c movement to better than
without project conditions, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant
with mitigation (Class II).
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I)
o The project increases the critical movement delay from 145.5 to 191.9 seconds
(a 46.4-second increase) during the AM peak hour and causes the intersection to
continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F. In the PM peak hour, the project
increases the critical movement v/c from 1.32 to 1.61 (a 0.29 increase) and
causes the intersection to continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F.
As discussed previously, this intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the
Near-Term without Project and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle capacity
and the project’s impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis
results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS –
Weekday.
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is also considered significant and
unavoidable (Class I).
Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #23) (Class II)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.37 to 1.46 (a 0.09
increase) during the PM peak hour.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-88 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Because this improvement project is not in the Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project
applicant shall pay the proportionate fair share of the improvement costs.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Dublin impact criteria, and the TVTC
criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the critical v/c by more
than 0.05. Since MM TR-8.5 would improve the critical v/c to better than without project
conditions, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation
(Class II).
City of Pleasanton
The project degrades the intersection from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS E or F
or the project would add 10 or more trips, further degrading the already deficient LOS E or F
intersection.The project would add 10 or more trips, further degrading the already deficient
LOS E intersection:
Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard (Intersection #18) (Class I)
o The project adds 127 trips and 261 trips to the intersection in the AM and PM
peak hour, respectively, and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an
LOS F for both peak hours.
MM TR-8.6 would reduce the delay to less than the Cumulative condition. However, since the
intersection is located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee
implementation of the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I).
Mitigation analysis results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project
Transportation Delay & LOS - Weekday.
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of
Dublin with documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton to pay the
project’s proportionate fair share (8 percent) for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita
Road / Las Positas Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of optimizing the coordination of
the traffic signals along Santa Rita Road by increasing the cycle length from 105 seconds to 145
seconds.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Pleasanton impact criteria, and the
TVTC criteria since LOS F is considered unacceptable and the Project increases the v/c by more
than 0.03. Since MM TR-8.6 would improve the v/c to better than without project conditions,
under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation (Class II).
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-89
Draft EIR 10/23/18
City of Livermore
The project would add trips to the following intersection that is already operating at an
unacceptable LOS:
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London Boulevard (Intersection #29) (Class II)
o The project adds 45 trips and 99 trips to the intersection in the AM and PM peak
hour, respectively, and causes the intersection to continue to operate at an LOS
F for both peak hours.
Implementation of MM TR-2.1 would reduce impacts. However, since the intersection is
located in the City of Pleasanton and the City of Dublin cannot guarantee implementation of
the mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable (Class I). Mitigation analysis
results are shown in Table 17-30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS –
Weekday.
It should be noted that this is an impact under the City of Livermore Pleasanton impact criteria,
but not the TVTC criteria because although the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS F,
the v/c does not increase by 0.03 or more and the critical v/c does not increase be 0.05 or
more. Therefore, under TVTC criteria, this impact is considered less-than-significant (Class III).
Saturday Peak Hours
As shown in Table 17-31: Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday, all study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under the Cumulative + Project Conditions
during the Saturday peak hours with the exception of the following intersections under each
jurisdiction:
City of Dublin
The project increases the v/c ratio of an already deficient LOS F facility by 0.05 for the critical
movement.
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard (Intersection #14) (Class I)
o The project increases the critical movement v/c from 1.20 to 1.62 (a 0.42
increase) during the Saturday peak hour. The intersection continues to operate
at an LOS F with the project.
As discussed above, this intersection is projected to already be over capacity under the
Cumulative without Project and there are no feasible improvements to increase vehicle
capacity and the project’s impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).
However, to help reduce the severity of the impact, a transportation demand management
(TDM) program shall be developed as part of the project. The TDM program is set forth in
Mitigation Measure TR-2.2.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-91
Draft EIR 10/23/18
Table 17- 27: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Cumulative Cumulative + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
1 Gleason Dr. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 14.2 B 11.6 B 14.3 B 11.9 B
2 Hacienda Dr. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 20.0 C 22.3 C 21.8 C 23.0 C
3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 47.5 D 126.4
2.17 F 52.4 D 147.7
2.44 F
4 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 WB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 8.7 A 29.8 C 8.8 A 32.1 C
5 Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 76.9 E 78.8 E 76.8 E 86.8 F
6 Hacienda Dr. / Owens Dr. Signal PLS N/A 23.4 C 121.0 F 23.6 C 128.2 F
7 Dublin Blvd. / Hibernia Dr. Signal DUB D 16.3 B 24.5 C 16.7 B 26.8 C
8 Dublin Blvd. / Myrtle Dr. - Toyota Dr. Signal DUB D 11.4 B 19.6 B 12.1 B 21.0 C
9 Dublin Blvd. / John Monego Ct. Signal DUB D 10.9 B 6.9 A 11.5 B 7.9 A
10 Dublin Blvd. / Glynnis Rose Dr. Signal DUB D 17.7 B 23.9 C 18.3 B 29.7 C
11 Tassajara Rd. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 39.5 D 39.8 D 33.5 C 37.7 D
12 Tassajara Rd. / Central Pkwy Signal DUB D 31.9 C 23.9 C 23.7 C 23.9 C
13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 9.6 A 11.8 B 12.2 B 19.6 B
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd* Signal DUB D 146.9
145.5 F 259.2
1.32 F 88.8
191.9 F 183.6
1.61 F
15 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Corporate Way Signal DUB D 6.1 A 19.2 B 6.2 A 18.3 B
16 Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 44.8 D 113.9 F 55.8 E 145.3 F
17 Tassajara Rd. / Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB
Ramps – Pimlico Dr. Signal CAL/PLS N/AD 52.4 D 117.4 F 55.5 E 143.9 F
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-92 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Cumulative Cumulative + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 137.0 F 207.2 F 144.9
127 trips F 214.9
261 trips F
19 Brannigan St. / Gleason Dr. Signal DUB D 42.9 D 14.3 B 43.3 D 15.6 B
20
Project Dwy. #2 / Brannigan St / Aviano Way
SSSC DUB D
3.2 A 2.3 A 4.6 A 4.0 A
Worst Approach 13.8 B 10.0 B 18.1 C 13.6 B
21 Brannigan St. / Central Pkwy. Signal DUB D 24.2 C 19.0 B 27.8 C 23.3 C
22 Project Dwy. #3 – Finnian Way / Brannigan
St. AWSC DUB D 8.0 A 8.8 A 8.4 A 10.3 B
23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 148.1 F 365.7
1.37 F 16.8 B 104.9
1.46 F
24 Dublin Blvd. / Grafton St. Signal DUB D 20.0 C 128.7 F 21.7 C 60.1 E
25 Gleason Dr. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 72.2 E 18.9 B 72.3 E 19.0 B
26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 42.0 D 100.6
1.48 F 43.0 D 101.0
1.54 F
27 Fallon Rd. / I-580 WB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 26.7 C 31.4 C 28.2 C 34.3 C
28 Fallon Rd. / I-580 EB Ramps Signal CAL/PLS N/A 76.1 E 102.0 F 78.8 E 108.7 F
29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London
Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 132.2 F 262.1 F 135.2
45 trips F 264.0
99 trips F
30 Project Dwy. #4 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.1 A
Worst Approach 8.7 A 9.5 A
31 Project Dwy. #5 / Tassajara Rd. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.4 A
Worst Approach 15.1 C 30.9 D
32 Project Dwy. #6 / Gleason Dr. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.1 A 0.1 A
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-93
Draft EIR 10/23/18
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Cumulative Cumulative + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Worst Approach 13.2 B 10.5 B
33 Project Dwy. #7 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.0 A 0.0 A
Worst Approach 10.2 B 0.0 A
34 Project Dwy. #8 / Central Pkwy. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.7 A 0.3 A
Worst Approach 12.1 B 10.9 B
35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 9.5 A 46.8 D
36 Project Dwy. #10 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.4 A 1.4 A
Worst Approach 12.4 B 22.6 C
37
Project Dwy. #11 / Brannigan St.
SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist
0.0 A 0.1 A
Worst Approach 12.0 B 17.8 C
38 Project Dwy. #12 / Brannigan St. SSSC DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 0.2 A 0.7 A
Worst Approach 11.8 B 17.7 C
39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 22.7 C 57.7
161.1 E 23.0 C 61.4
170.2 E
40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 26.2 C 155.0
2.59 F 26.5 C 162.9
2.66 F
41 Fallon Rd. / Tassajara Rd. Signal DUB D 25.1 C 21.5 C 25.0 C 21.5 C
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue.
8. Gateway intersections do not have a LOS threshold, as denoted with “N/A”, per the City of Pleasanton General Plan.
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-94 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
9. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City
of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
Table 17- 30: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Weekday
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
# Intersection
Control
Type Agency
LOS
Threshold
Cumulative + Project Mitigated Cumulative + Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
Delay
(sec) LOS
3 Dublin Blvd. / Hacienda Dr. Signal DUB D 147.7 F 142.4 F
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 88.8 F 183.6 F 88.8 F 183.6 F
18 Santa Rita Rd. / Las Positas Blvd. Signal PLS D 144.9 F 214.9 F 119.1 F 170.3 F
23 Brannigan St. / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 104.9 F 47.8 D
26 Dublin Blvd. / Fallon Rd. Signal DUB D 101.0 F 80.2 F
29 El Charro Rd. / Stoneridge Dr. / Jack London Blvd. Signal LIVPLS D 135.2 F 264.0 F 80.8 F 141.6 F
39 Dublin Blvd. / Keegan St. Signal DUB D 61.4 E 57.2 E
40 Dublin Blvd. / Lockhart St. Signal DUB D 162.9 F 81.3 F
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-95
Draft EIR 10/23/18
Table 17- 31: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue.
8. Intersections with impacts that operate unacceptably in baseline conditions are followed by: project generated trips added to City of Pleasanton intersections, average delay for a critical movement at City
of Dublin intersections with LOS E, and critical v/c at City of Dublin intersections with LOS F.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
# Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold
Cumulative Cumulative + Project
Saturday Peak Hour
Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
13 Project Dwy. #1 – The Shops / Tassajara Rd Signal DUB D 13.7 B 24.6 C
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 223.4
1.20 F 156.1
1.62 F
35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. DNE DUB D Intersection Does Not Exist 78.6 E
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-97
Draft EIR 10/23/18
Table 17- 28: Mitigated Cumulative + Project Transportation Delay & LOS – Saturday
Notes:
1. [DUB] - City of Dublin, [PLS] - City of Pleasanton, [LIV] – City of Livermore, [CAL] – California Department of Transportation
2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound
3. Analysis performed using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies at all study intersection.
4. Each study intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, a side-street stop-controlled (SSSC), or an all-way stop-controlled (AWSC).
5. Delay refers to the average control delay for the entire intersection measured in seconds per vehicle. According to HCM methodology, overall LOS is not defined for side street stop controlled intersections,
instead the worst approach control delay is used in seconds.
6. If a specific movement has a delay less than the approach or intersection average, and the trips are increased for this movement, the overall intersection delay could decrease.
7. Intersections that are operating below acceptable levels are shown in BOLD and impacts are shaded light blue.
Source: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 2018
# Intersection Control Type Agency LOS Threshold
Cumulative + Project Mitigated Cumulative +
Project
Saturday Peak Hour
Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
14 Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd Signal DUB D 156.1 F 156.1 F
35 Project Dwy. #9 / Dublin Blvd. Signal DUB D 78.6 E 35.0 D
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-116 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
WB Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road (Existing + Project AM)
o LOS C to LOS E
WB Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Fallon Road (NT + Project PM)
o LOS D to LOS F
MM TR-1.1 would improve the average speed and LOS to an acceptable LOS D in the Existing +
Project weekday AM peak hour and thereby reduce impacts to less-than-significant (Class II).
However, MM TR-1.1 would not improve the average speed and LOS to an acceptable LOS D in
the Near-term + Project weekday PM peak hour. Therefore, the impact would remain
significant and unavoidable (Class I).
As an additional mitigation measure, a transportation demand management (TDM) program
shall be developed as part of the project. Implementation of a TDM program could reduce the
severity of the impact at this intersection. The TDM program is set forth in Mitigation Measure
TR-2.2.
17.5.12 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Table 17-38: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Transportation and Circulation,
summarizes the environmental impacts, significance determinations, and mitigation measures
for the project with regard to transportation and circulation.
Table 17- 34: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Transportation and Circulation
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact TR-1: Create a potentially
dangerous new intersection
(Class II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
Impact TR-2: Increase travel
delays at study intersections in
the Existing + Project condition
that exceed established LOS
standards (Class II).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London
Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-3: Cause intersection
queues to operate below
acceptable levels under Existing +
Project conditions (Class II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.3: Existing + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.4: Existing + Project Improvements to
Santa Rita Road / EB I-580 Ramps
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-117
Draft EIR 10/23/18
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-4: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the
Existing + Project condition that
exceed established LOS
standards (Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment
Improvements
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-5: Increase travel
delays at study intersections in
the Near-Term + Project
condition that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I
and II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-5.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements
to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London
Boulevard
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-6: Cause intersection
queues to operate below
acceptable levels under Near-
Term + Project conditions (Class I
and II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements
to Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street
MM TR-6.3: Near-term + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway
Impact TR-7: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the Near-
Term + Project conditions that
exceed established LOS
standards (Class I Impact).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project
Freeway Segment Improvements
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
At Dublin City of Dublin
Page-17-118 | Transportation & Circulation
Draft EIR
10/23/18
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
Impact TR-8: Increase travel
delays at study intersections in
the Cumulative + Project
conditions that exceed
established LOS standards (Class I
and II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-8.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-8.3: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Fallon Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-8.4: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Keegan Street
MM TR-8.5: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Lockhart Street
MM TR-8.6: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Santa Rita Road / Las Positas Boulevard
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
El Charro Road / Stoneridge Drive / Jack London
Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
Impact TR-9: Cause intersection
queues to operate below
acceptable levels under
Cumulative + Project conditions
(Class I and II).
Less than
significant with
mitigation /
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-9.1: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Grafton Street
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-3.1: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Central Parkway
MM TR-3.2: Existing + Project Improvements to
Hacienda Drive / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-3.5: Existing + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / The Shops/ Project Driveway MM
TR-6.1: Near-Term + Project Improvements to
Tassajara Road / Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-6.2: Near-Term + Project Improvements
to Dublin Boulevard / Brannigan Street
MM TR-8.2: Cumulative + Project Improvements
to Brannigan Street / Dublin Boulevard
Impact TR-10: Increase vehicle
densities along study freeway
segments and ramps in the
Cumulative + Project condition
that exceed established LOS
standards (Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment
Improvements
MM TR-4.2: Existing + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
City of Dublin At Dublin
Transportation & Circulation | Page 17-119
Draft EIR 10/23/18
Impact
Impact
Significance Mitigation
MM TR-7.1: Near-Term + Project Ramp Metering
Improvements
Impact TR-11: Conflict with
applicable congestion
management program for
designated roads, highway, or
freeways (Class I).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
MM TR-4.1: Existing + Project Freeway Segment
Improvements
Impact TR-12: Conflict with
adopted policies, plans or
programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of
such facilities (Class III).
Less than
significant
None required
Impact TR-13: Increase travel
speeds along roadways that
exceed established LOS
standards (Class II ).
Significant and
unavoidable
MM TR-1.1: Prohibited Turn Movement Design
Features for the New Project Intersection on
Dublin Boulevard
MM TR-2.2: Implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program
5.1.t
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: 20. Exhibit B to Attachment 18 - At Dublin Final EIR (At Dublin Public Hearing)
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
State of California
Natural Resources Agency
Department of Fish and Game
March 7, 20121
1 This document replaces the Department of Fish and Game 1995 Staff Report On Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE..........................................................................................................................1
DEPARTMENT ROLE AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................2
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CONSERVATION.....................................................................................................3
CONSERVATION GOALS FOR THE BURROWING OWL IN CALIFORNIA.........................................................4
ACTIVITIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO TAKE OR IMPACT BURROWING OWLS.............................................4
PROJECT IMPACT EVALUATIONS.......................................................................................................................5
MITIGATION METHODS.........................................................................................................................................8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................................................................................15
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................................15
Appendix A. Burrowing Owl Natural History and Threats...............................................................................20
Appendix B. Definitions.....................................................................................................................................24
Appendix C. Habitat Assessment and Reporting Details................................................................................26
Appendix D. Breeding and Non-breeding Season Survey
and Reports...................................................................................................................................28
Appendix E. Draft Example Components for Burrowing Owl
Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans ........................................................................................31
Appendix F. Mitigation Management Plan and Vegetation
Management Goals.......................................................................................................................33
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
1
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Maintaining California’s rich biological diversity is dependent on the conservation of species
and their habitats. The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) has
designated certain species as “species of special concern” when their population viability and
survival is adversely affected by risk factors such as precipitous declines or other vulnerability
factors (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Preliminary analyses of regional patterns for breeding
populations of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) have detected declines both locally in
their central and southern coastal breeding areas, and statewide where the species has
experienced modest breeding range retraction (Gervais et al. 2008). In California, threat
factors affecting burrowing owl populations include habitat loss, degradation and modification,
and eradication of ground squirrels resulting in a loss of suitable burrows required by
burrowing owls for nesting, protection from predators, and shelter (See Appendix A).
The Department recognized the need for a comprehensive conservation and mitigation
strategy for burrowing owls, and in 1995 directed staff to prepare a report describing
mitigation and survey recommendations. This report, “1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation,” (Staff Report) (CDFG 1995), contained Department-recommended burrowing owl
and burrow survey techniques and mitigation measures intended to offset the loss of habitat
and slow or reverse further decline of this species. Notwithstanding these measures, over
the past 15+ years, burrowing owls have continued to decline in portions of their range
(DeSante et al. 2007, Wilkerson and Siegel, 2010). The Department has determined that
reversing declining population and range trends for burrowing owls will require
implementation of more effective conservation actions, and evaluating the efficacy of the
Department’s existing recommended avoidance, minimization and mitigation approaches for
burrowing owls.
The Department has identified three main actions that together will facilitate a more viable,
coordinated, and concerted approach to conservation and mitigation for burrowing owls in
California. These include:
1. Incorporating burrowing owl comprehensive conservation strategies into landscape-based
planning efforts such as Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) and
multi-species Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) that specifically address burrowing
owls.
2. Developing and implementing a statewide conservation strategy (Burkett and
Johnson, 2007) and local or regional conservation strategies for burrowing owls, including
the development and implementation of a statewide burrowing owl survey and monitoring
plan.
3. Developing more rigorous burrowing owl survey methods, working to improve the
adequacy of impacts assessments; developing clear and effective avoidance and
minimization measures; and developing mitigation measures to ensure impacts to the
species are effectively addressed at the project, local, and/or regional level (the focus of
this document).
This Report sets forth the Department’s recommendations for implementing the third
approach identified above by revising the 1995 Staff Report, drawing from the most relevant
and current knowledge and expertise, and incorporating the best scientific information
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 2
available pertaining to the species. It is designed to provide a compilation of the best
available science for Department staff, biologists, planners, land managers, California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agencies, and the public to consider when assessing
impacts of projects or other activities on burrowing owls.
This revised Staff Report takes into account the California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s
Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (CBOC 1993, 1997) and supersedes the survey,
avoidance, minimization and mitigation recommendations in the 1995 Staff Report. Based on
experiences gained from implementing the 1995 Staff Report, the Department believes
revising that report is warranted. This document also includes general conservation goals
and principles for developing mitigation measures for burrowing owls.
DEPARTMENT ROLE AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES
The mission of the Department is to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife and plant
resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their
use and enjoyment by the public. The Department has jurisdiction over the conservation,
protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitats necessary to
maintain biologically sustainable populations of those species (Fish and Game Code (FGC)
§1802). The Department, as trustee agency pursuant to CEQA (See CEQA Guidelines,
§15386), has jurisdiction by law over natural resources, including fish and wildlife, affected by
a project, as that term is defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code. The
Department exercises this authority by reviewing and commenting on environmental
documents and making recommendations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential negative
impacts to those resources held in trust for the people of California.
Field surveys designed to detect the presence of a particular species, habitat element, or
natural community are one of the tools that can assist biologists in determining whether a
species or habitat may be significantly impacted by land use changes or disturbance. The
Department reviews field survey data as well as site-specific and regional information to
evaluate whether a project’s impacts may be significant. This document compiles the best
available science for conducting habitat assessments and surveys, and includes
considerations for developing measures to avoid impacts or mitigate unavoidable impacts.
CEQA
CEQA requires public agencies in California to analyze and disclose potential environmental
impacts associated with a project that the agency will carry out, fund, or approve. Any
potentially significant impact must be mitigated to the extent feasible. Project-specific CEQA
mitigation is important for burrowing owls because most populations exist on privately owned
parcels that, when proposed for development or other types of modification, may be subject
to the environmental review requirements of CEQA.
Take
Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by FGC section 86, and
prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Take is defined in FGC Section 86 as “hunt,
pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.”
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1071 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 3
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements various treaties and conventions between
the United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of migratory
birds, including the burrowing owl (50 C.F.R. § 10). The MBTA protects migratory bird nests
from possession, sale, purchase, barter, transport, import and export, and collection. The
other prohibitions of the MBTA - capture, pursue, hunt, and kill - are inapplicable to nests.
The regulatory definition of take, as defined in Title 50 C.F.R. part 10.12, means to pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect. Only the verb “collect” applies to nests. It is illegal to collect, possess, and
by any means transfer possession of any migratory bird nest. The MBTA prohibits the
destruction of a nest when it contains birds or eggs, and no possession shall occur during the
destruction (see Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum, April 15,
2003). Certain exceptions to this prohibition are included in 50 C.F.R. section 21. Pursuant
to Fish & Game Code section 3513, the Department enforces the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
consistent with rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions
of the Migratory Treaty Act.
Regional Conservation Plans
Regional multiple species conservation plans offer long-term assurances for conservation of
covered species at a landscape scale, in exchange for biologically appropriate levels of
incidental take and/or habitat loss as defined in the approved plan. California’s NCCP Act
(FGC §2800 et seq.) governs such plans at the state level, and was designed to conserve
species, natural communities, ecosystems, and ecological processes across a jurisdiction or
a collection of jurisdictions. Complementary federal HCPs are governed by the Endangered
Species Act (7 U.S.C. § 136, 16 U.S.C.§ 1531 et seq.) (ESA). Regional conservation plans
(and certain other landscape-level conservation and management plans), may provide
conservation for unlisted as well as listed species. Because the geographic scope of NCCPs
and HCPs may span many hundreds of thousands of acres, these planning tools have the
potential to play a significant role in conservation of burrowing owls, and grasslands and
other habitats.
Fish and Game Commission Policies
There are a number of Fish and Game Commission policies (see FGC §2008) that can be
applied to burrowing owl conservation. These include policies on: Raptors, Cooperation,
Endangered and Threatened Species, Land Use Planning, Management and Utilization of
Fish and Wildlife on Federal Lands, Management and Utilization of Fish and Wildlife on
Private Lands, and Research.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CONSERVATION
Unless otherwise provided in a statewide, local, or regional conservation strategy, surveying
and evaluating impacts to burrowing owls, as well as developing and implementing
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation and conservation measures incorporate the following
principles. These principles are a summary of Department staff expert opinion and were
used to guide the preparation of this document.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1072 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 4
1. Use the Precautionary Principle (Noss et al.1997), by which the alternative of increased
conservation is deliberately chosen in order to buffer against incomplete knowledge of
burrowing owl ecology and uncertainty about the consequences to burrowing owls of
potential impacts, including those that are cumulative.
2. Employ basic conservation biology tenets and population-level approaches when
determining what constitutes appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for
impacts. Include mitigation effectiveness monitoring and reporting, and use an adaptive
management loop to modify measures based on results.
3. Protect and conserve owls in wild, semi-natural, and agricultural habitats (conserve is
defined at FGC §1802).
4. Protect and conserve natural nest burrows (or burrow surrogates) previously used by
burrowing owls and sufficient foraging habitat and protect auxiliary “satellite” burrows that
contribute to burrowing owl survivorship and natural behavior of owls.
CONSERVATION GOALS FOR THE BURROWING OWL IN CALIFORNIA
It is Department staff expert opinion that the following goals guide and contribute to the short
and long-term conservation of burrowing owls in California:
1. Maintain size and distribution of extant burrowing owl populations (allowing for natural
population fluctuations).
2. Increase geographic distribution of burrowing owls into formerly occupied historical range
where burrowing owl habitat still exists, or where it can be created or enhanced, and
where the reason for its local disappearance is no longer of concern.
3. Increase size of existing populations where possible and appropriate (for example,
considering basic ecological principles such as carrying capacity, predator-prey
relationships, and inter-specific relationships with other species at risk).
4. Protect and restore self-sustaining ecosystems or natural communities which can support
burrowing owls at a landscape scale, and which will require minimal long-term
management.
5. Minimize or prevent unnatural causes of burrowing owl population declines (e.g., nest
burrow destruction, chemical control of rodent hosts and prey).
6. Augment/restore natural dynamics of burrowing owl populations including movement and
genetic exchange among populations, such that the species does not require future listing
and protection under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
7. Engage stakeholders, including ranchers; farmers; military; tribes; local, state, and federal
agencies; non-governmental organizations; and scientific research and education
communities involved in burrowing owl protection and habitat management.
ACTIVITIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO TAKE OR IMPACT BURROWING OWLS
The following activities are examples of activities that have the potential to take burrowing
owls, their nests or eggs, or destroy or degrade burrowing owl habitat: grading, disking,
cultivation, earthmoving, burrow blockage, heavy equipment compacting and crushing burrow
tunnels, levee maintenance, flooding, burning and mowing (if burrows are impacted), and
operating wind turbine collisions (collectively hereafter referred to as “projects” or “activities”
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1073 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 5
whether carried out pursuant to CEQA or not). In addition, the following activities may have
impacts to burrowing owl populations: eradication of host burrowers; changes in vegetation
management (i.e. grazing); use of pesticides and rodenticides; destruction, conversion or
degradation of nesting, foraging, over-wintering or other habitats; destruction of natural
burrows and burrow surrogates; and disturbance which may result in harassment of owls at
occupied burrows.
PROJECT IMPACT EVALUATIONS
The following three progressive steps are effective in evaluating whether projects will result in
impacts to burrowing owls. The information gained from these steps will inform any
subsequent avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. The steps for project impact
evaluations are: 1) habitat assessment, 2) surveys, and 3) impact assessment. Habitat
assessments are conducted to evaluate the likelihood that a site supports burrowing owl.
Burrowing owl surveys provide information needed to determine the potential effects of
proposed projects and activities on burrowing owls, and to avoid take in accordance with
FGC sections 86, 3503, and 3503.5. Impact assessments evaluate the extent to which
burrowing owls and their habitat may be impacted, directly or indirectly, on and within a
reasonable distance of a proposed CEQA project activity or non-CEQA project. These three
site evaluation steps are discussed in detail below.
Biologist Qualifications
The current scientific literature indicates that only individuals meeting the following minimum
qualifications should perform burrowing owl habitat assessments, surveys, and impact
assessments:
1. Familiarity with the species and its local ecology;
2. Experience conducting habitat assessments and non-breeding and breeding season
surveys, or experience with these surveys conducted under the direction of an
experienced surveyor;
3. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to burrowing owls,
scientific research, and conservation;
4. Experience with analyzing impacts of development on burrowing owls and their habitat.
Habitat Assessment Data Collection and Reporting
A habitat assessment is the first step in the evaluation process and will assist investigators in
determining whether or not occupancy surveys are needed. Refer to Appendix B for a
definition of burrowing owl habitat. Compile the detailed information described in Appendix C
when conducting project scoping, conducting a habitat assessment site visit and preparing a
habitat assessment report.
Surveys
Burrowing owl surveys are the second step of the evaluation process and the best available
scientific literature recommends that they be conducted whenever burrowing owl habitat or
sign (see Appendix B) is encountered on or adjacent to (within 150 meters) a project site
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 6
(Thomsen 1971, Martin 1973). Occupancy of burrowing owl habitat is confirmed at a site
when at least one burrowing owl, or its sign at or near a burrow entrance, is observed within
the last three years (Rich 1984). Burrowing owls are more detectable during the breeding
season with detection probabilities being highest during the nestling stage (Conway et al.
2008). In California, the burrowing owl breeding season extends from 1 February to 31
August (Haug et al. 1993, Thompsen 1971) with some variances by geographic location and
climatic conditions. Several researchers suggest three or more survey visits during daylight
hours (Haug and Diduik 1993, CBOC 1997, Conway and Simon 2003) and recommend each
visit occur at least three weeks apart during the peak of the breeding season, commonly
accepted in California as between 15 April and 15 July (CBOC 1997). Conway and Simon
(2003) and Conway et al. (2008) recommended conducting surveys during the day when
most burrowing owls in a local area are in the laying and incubation period (so as not to miss
early breeding attempts), during the nesting period, and in the late nestling period when most
owls are spending time above ground.
Non-breeding season (1 September to 31 January) surveys may provide information on
burrowing owl occupancy, but do not substitute for breeding season surveys because results
are typically inconclusive. Burrowing owls are more difficult to detect during the non-breeding
season and their seasonal residency status is difficult to ascertain. Burrowing owls detected
during non-breeding season surveys may be year-round residents, young from the previous
breeding season, pre-breeding territorial adults, winter residents, dispersing juveniles,
migrants, transients or new colonizers. In addition, the numbers of owls and their pattern of
distribution may differ during winter and breeding seasons. However, on rare occasions,
non-breeding season surveys may be warranted (i.e., if the site is believed to be a wintering
site only based on negative breeding season results). Refer to Appendix D for information on
breeding season and non-breeding season survey methodologies.
Survey Reports
Adequate information about burrowing owls present in and adjacent to an area that will be
disturbed by a project or activity will enable the Department, reviewing agencies and the
public to effectively assess potential impacts and will guide the development of avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures. The survey report includes but is not limited to a
description of the proposed project or proposed activity, including the proposed project start
and end dates, as well as a description of disturbances or other activities occurring on-site or
nearby. Refer to Appendix D for details included in a survey report.
Impact Assessment
The third step in the evaluation process is the impact assessment. When surveys confirm
occupied burrowing owl habitat in or adjoining the project area, there are a number of ways to
assess a project’s potential significant impacts to burrowing owls and their habitat.
Richardson and Miller (1997) recommended monitoring raptor behavior prior to developing
management recommendations and buffers to determine the extent to which individuals have
been sensitized to human disturbance. Monitoring results will also provide detail necessary
for developing site-specific measures. Postovit and Postovit (1987) recommended an
analytical approach to mitigation planning: define the problem (impact), set goals (to guide
mitigation development), evaluate and select mitigation methods, and monitor the results.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 7
Define the problem. The impact assessment evaluates all factors that could affect burrowing
owls. Postovit and Postovit (1987) recommend evaluating the following in assessing impacts
to raptors and planning mitigation: type and extent of disturbance, duration and timing of
disturbance, visibility of disturbance, sensitivity and ability to habituate, and influence of
environmental factors. They suggest identifying and addressing all potential direct and
indirect impacts to burrowing owls, regardless of whether or not the impacts will occur during
the breeding season. Several examples are given for each impact category below; however,
examples are not intended to be used exclusively.
Type and extent of the disturbance. The impact assessment describes the nature (source)
and extent (scale) of potential project impacts on occupied, satellite and unoccupied burrows
including acreage to be lost (temporary or permanent), fragmentation/edge being created,
increased distance to other nesting and foraging habitat, and habitat degradation. Discuss
any project activities that impact either breeding and/or non-breeding habitat which could
affect owl home range size and spatial configuration, negatively affect onsite and offsite
burrowing owl presence, increase energetic costs, lower reproductive success, increase
vulnerability to predation, and/or decrease the chance of procuring a mate.
Duration and timing of the impact. The impact assessment describes the amount of time the
burrowing owl habitat will be unavailable to burrowing owls (temporary or permanent) on the
site and the effect of that loss on essential behaviors or life history requirements of burrowing
owls, the overlap of project activities with breeding and/or non-breeding seasons (timing of
nesting and/or non-breeding activities may vary with latitude and climatic conditions, which
should be considered with the timeline of the project or activity), and any variance of the
project activities in intensity, scale and proximity relative to burrowing owl occurrences.
Visibility and sensitivity. Some individual burrowing owls or pairs are more sensitive than
others to specific stimuli and may habituate to ongoing visual or audible disturbance. Site-
specific monitoring may provide clues to the burrowing owl’s sensitivities. This type of
assessment addresses the sensitivity of burrowing owls within their nesting area to humans
on foot, and vehicular traffic. Other variables are whether the site is primarily in a rural
versus urban setting, and whether any prior disturbance (e.g., human development or
recreation) is known at the site.
Environmental factors. The impact assessment discusses any environmental factors that
could be influenced or changed by the proposed activities including nest site availability,
predators, prey availability, burrowing mammal presence and abundance, and threats from
other extrinsic factors such as human disturbance, urban interface, feral animals, invasive
species, disease or pesticides.
Significance of impacts. The impact assessment evaluates the potential loss of nesting
burrows, satellite burrows, foraging habitat, dispersal and migration habitat, wintering habitat,
and habitat linkages, including habitat supporting prey and host burrowers and other
essential habitat attributes. This assessment determines if impacts to the species will result
in significant impacts to the species locally, regionally and range-wide per CEQA Guidelines
§15382 and Appendix G. The significance of the impact to habitat depends on the extent of
habitat disturbed and length of time the habitat is unavailable (for example: minor – several
days, medium – several weeks to months, high - breeding season affecting juvenile survival,
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1076 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 8
or over winter affecting adult survival).
Cumulative effects. The cumulative effects assessment evaluates two consequences: 1) the
project’s proportional share of reasonably foreseeable impacts on burrowing owls and habitat
caused by the project or in combination with other projects and local influences having
impacts on burrowing owls and habitat, and 2) the effects on the regional owl population
resulting from the project’s impacts to burrowing owls and habitat.
Mitigation goals. Establishing goals will assist in planning mitigation and selecting measures
that function at a desired level. Goals also provide a standard by which to measure
mitigation success. Unless specifically provided for through other FGC Sections or through
specific regulations, take, possession or destruction of individual burrowing owls, their nests
and eggs is prohibited under FGC sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Therefore, a required
goal for all project activities is to avoid take of burrowing owls. Under CEQA, goals would
consist of measures that would avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to a less than significant
level. For individual projects, mitigation must be roughly proportional to the level of impacts,
including cumulative impacts, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines,
§§ 15126.4(a)(4)(B), 15064, 15065, and 16355). In order for mitigation measures to be
effective, they must be specific, enforceable, and feasible actions that will improve
environmental conditions. As set forth in more detail in Appendix A, the current scientific
literature supports the conclusion that mitigation for permanent habitat loss necessitates
replacement with an equivalent or greater habitat area for breeding, foraging, wintering,
dispersal, presence of burrows, burrow surrogates, presence of fossorial mammal dens, well
drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow.
MITIGATION METHODS
The current scientific literature indicates that any site-specific avoidance or mitigation
measures developed should incorporate the best practices presented below or other
practices confirmed by experts and the Department. The Department is available to assist in
the development of site-specific avoidance and mitigation measures.
Avoiding. A primary goal is to design and implement projects to seasonally and spatially
avoid negative impacts and disturbances that could result in take of burrowing owls, nests, or
eggs. Other avoidance measures may include but not be limited to:
Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from 1 February through
31 August.
Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or
non-migratory resident burrowing owls.
Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area
to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development.
Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s
recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection.
Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that farm equipment and other machinery
does not collapse burrows.
Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas
where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1077 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 9
owls, designated use areas).
Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of January and
February.
Take avoidance (pre-construction) surveys. Take avoidance surveys are intended to detect
the presence of burrowing owls on a project site at a fixed period in time and inform
necessary take avoidance actions. Take avoidance surveys may detect changes in owl
presence such as colonizing owls that have recently moved onto the site, migrating owls,
resident burrowing owls changing burrow use, or young of the year that are still present and
have not dispersed. Refer to Appendix D for take avoidance survey methodology.
Site surveillance. Burrowing owls may attempt to colonize or re-colonize an area that will be
impacted; thus, the current scientific literature indicates a need for ongoing surveillance at the
project site during project activities is recommended. The surveillance frequency/effort
should be sufficient to detect burrowing owls if they return. Subsequent to their new
occupancy or return to the site, take avoidance measures should assure with a high degree
of certainty that take of owls will not occur.
Minimizing. If burrowing owls and their habitat can be protected in place on or adjacent to a
project site, the use of buffer zones, visual screens or other measures while project activities
are occurring can minimize disturbance impacts. Conduct site-specific monitoring to inform
development of buffers (see Visibility and sensitivity above). The following general guidelines
for implementing buffers should be adjusted to address site-specific conditions using the
impact assessment approach described above. The CEQA lead agency and/or project
proponent is encouraged to consult with the Department and other burrowing owl experts for
assistance in developing site-specific buffer zones and visual screens.
Buffers. Holroyd et al. (2001) identified a need to standardize management and disturbance
mitigation guidelines. For instance, guidelines for mitigating impacts by petroleum industries
on burrowing owls and other prairie species (Scobie and Faminow, 2000) may be used as a
template for future mitigation guidelines (Holroyd et al. 2001). Scobie and Faminow (2000)
developed guidelines for activities around occupied burrowing owl nests recommending
buffers around low, medium, and high disturbance activities, respectively (see below).
Recommended restricted activity dates and setback distances by level of disturbance for
burrowing owls (Scobie and Faminow 2000).
Level of Disturbance Location Time of Year Low Med High
Nesting sites April 1-Aug 15 200 m* 500 m 500 m
Nesting sites Aug 16-Oct 15 200 m 200 m 500 m
Nesting sites Oct 16-Mar 31 50 m 100 m 500 m
* meters (m)
Based on existing vegetation, human development, and land uses in an area, resource
managers may decide to allow human development or resource extraction closer to these
area/sites than recommended above. However, if it is decided to allow activities closer than
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1078 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 10
the setback distances recommended, a broad-scale, long-term, scientifically-rigorous
monitoring program ensures that burrowing owls are not detrimentally affected by alternative
approaches.
Other minimization measures include eliminating actions that reduce burrowing owl forage
and burrowing surrogates (e.g. ground squirrel), or introduce/facilitate burrowing owl
predators. Actions that could influence these factors include reducing livestock grazing rates
and/or changing the timing or duration of grazing or vegetation management that could result
in less suitable habitat.
Burrow exclusion and closure. Burrow exclusion is a technique of installing one-way doors in
burrow openings during the non-breeding season to temporarily exclude burrowing owls, or
permanently exclude burrowing owls and close burrows after verifying burrows are empty by
site monitoring and scoping. Exclusion in and of itself is not a take avoidance, minimization
or mitigation method. Eviction of burrowing owls is a potentially significant impact under
CEQA.
The long-term demographic consequences of these techniques have not been thoroughly
evaluated, and the fate of evicted or excluded burrowing owls has not been systematically
studied. Because burrowing owls are dependent on burrows at all times of the year for
survival and/or reproduction, evicting them from nesting, roosting, and satellite burrows may
lead to indirect impacts or take. Temporary or permanent closure of burrows may result in
significant loss of burrows and habitat for reproduction and other life history requirements.
Depending on the proximity and availability of alternate habitat, loss of access to burrows will
likely result in varying levels of increased stress on burrowing owls and could depress
reproduction, increase predation, increase energetic costs, and introduce risks posed by
having to find and compete for available burrows. Therefore, exclusion and burrow closure
are not recommended where they can be avoided. The current scientific literature indicates
consideration of all possible avoidance and minimization measures before temporary or
permanent exclusion and closure of burrows is implemented, in order to avoid take.
The results of a study by Trulio (1995) in California showed that burrowing owls passively
displaced from their burrows were quickly attracted to adjacent artificial burrows at five of six
passive relocation sites. The successful sites were all within 75 meters (m) of the destroyed
burrow, a distance generally within a pair's territory. This researcher discouraged using
passive relocation to artificial burrows as a mitigation measure for lost burrows without
protection of adjacent foraging habitat. The study results indicated artificial burrows were
used by evicted burrowing owls when they were approximately 50-100 m from the natural
burrow (Thomsen 1971, Haug and Oliphant 1990). Locating artificial or natural burrows more
than 100 m from the eviction burrow may greatly reduce the chances that new burrows will be
used. Ideally, exclusion and burrow closure is employed only where there are adjacent
natural burrows and non-impacted, sufficient habitat for burrowing owls to occupy with
permanent protection mechanisms in place. Any new burrowing owl colonizing the project
site after the CEQA document has been adopted may constitute changed circumstances that
should be addressed in a re-circulated CEQA document.
The current scientific literature indicates that burrow exclusion should only be conducted by
qualified biologists (meeting the Biologist’s Qualifications above) during the non-breeding
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1079 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 11
season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty by site
surveillance and/or scoping. The literature also indicates that when temporary or permanent
burrow exclusion and/or burrow closure is implemented, burrowing owls should not be
excluded from burrows unless or until:
A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan (see Appendix E) is developed and approved by the
applicable local DFG office;
Permanent loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat is mitigated in accordance with the
Mitigating Impacts sections below. Temporary exclusion is mitigated in accordance with
the item #1 under Mitigating Impacts below.
Site monitoring is conducted prior to, during, and after exclusion of burrowing owls from
their burrows sufficient to ensure take is avoided. Conduct daily monitoring for one week
to confirm young of the year have fledged if the exclusion will occur immediately after the
end of the breeding season.
Excluded burrowing owls are documented using artificial or natural burrows on an
adjoining mitigation site (if able to confirm by band re-sight).
Translocation (Active relocation offsite >100 meters). At this time, there is little published
information regarding the efficacy of translocating burrowing owls, and additional research is
needed to determine subsequent survival and breeding success (Klute et al. 2003, Holroyd et
al. 2001). Study results for translocation in Florida implied that hatching success may be
decreased for populations of burrowing owls that undergo translocation (Nixon 2006). At this
time, the Department is unable to authorize the capture and relocation of burrowing owls
except within the context of scientific research (FGC §1002) or a NCCP conservation
strategy.
Mitigating impacts. Habitat loss and degradation from rapid urbanization of farmland in the
core areas of the Central and Imperial valleys is the greatest of many threats to burrowing
owls in California (Shuford and Gardali, 2008). At a minimum, if burrowing owls have been
documented to occupy burrows (see Definitions, Appendix B) at the project site in recent
years, the current scientific literature supports the conclusion that the site should be
considered occupied and mitigation should be required by the CEQA lead agency to address
project-specific significant and cumulative impacts. Other site-specific and regionally
significant and cumulative impacts may warrant mitigation. The current scientific literature
indicates the following to be best practices. If these best practices cannot be implemented,
the lead agency or lead investigator may consult with the Department to develop effective
mitigation alternatives. The Department is also available to assist in the identification of
suitable mitigation lands.
1. Where habitat will be temporarily disturbed, restore the disturbed area to pre-project
condition including decompacting soil and revegetating. Permanent habitat protection
may be warranted if there is the potential that the temporary impacts may render a
nesting site (nesting burrow and satellite burrows) unsustainable or unavailable
depending on the time frame, resulting in reduced survival or abandonment. For the
latter potential impact, see the permanent impact measures below.
2. Mitigate for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows and/or
burrowing owl habitat such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows and burrowing
owls impacted are replaced based on the information provided in Appendix A. Note: A
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1080 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 12
minimum habitat replacement recommendation is not provided here as it has been
shown to serve as a default, replacing any site-specific analysis and discounting the
wide variation in natal area, home range, foraging area, and other factors influencing
burrowing owls and burrowing owl population persistence in a particular area.
3. Mitigate for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows and burrowing
owl habitat with (a) permanent conservation of similar vegetation communities
(grassland, scrublands, desert, urban, and agriculture) to provide for burrowing owl
nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal (i.e., during breeding and non-breeding
seasons) comparable to or better than that of the impact area, and (b) sufficiently large
acreage, and presence of fossorial mammals. The mitigation lands may require habitat
enhancements including enhancement or expansion of burrows for breeding, shelter
and dispersal opportunity, and removal or control of population stressors. If the
mitigation lands are located adjacent to the impacted burrow site, ensure the nearest
neighbor artificial or natural burrow clusters are at least within 210 meters (Fisher et al.
2007).
4. Permanently protect mitigation land through a conservation easement deeded to a non-
profit conservation organization or public agency with a conservation mission, for the
purpose of conserving burrowing owl habitat and prohibiting activities incompatible with
burrowing owl use. If the project is located within the service area of a Department-
approved burrowing owl conservation bank, the project proponent may purchase
available burrowing owl conservation bank credits.
5. Develop and implement a mitigation land management plan to address long-term
ecological sustainability and maintenance of the site for burrowing owls (see
Management Plan and Artificial Burrow sections below, if applicable).
6. Fund the maintenance and management of mitigation land through the establishment of
a long-term funding mechanism such as an endowment.
7. Habitat should not be altered or destroyed, and burrowing owls should not be excluded
from burrows, until mitigation lands have been legally secured, are managed for the
benefit of burrowing owls according to Department-approved management, monitoring
and reporting plans, and the endowment or other long-term funding mechanism is in
place or security is provided until these measures are completed.
8. Mitigation lands should be on, adjacent or proximate to the impact site where possible
and where habitat is sufficient to support burrowing owls present.
9. Where there is insufficient habitat on, adjacent to, or near project sites where burrowing
owls will be excluded, acquire mitigation lands with burrowing owl habitat away from the
project site. The selection of mitigation lands should then focus on consolidating and
enlarging conservation areas located outside of urban and planned growth areas, within
foraging distance of other conserved lands. If mitigation lands are not available adjacent
to other conserved lands, increase the mitigation land acreage requirement to ensure a
selected site is of sufficient size. Offsite mitigation may not adequately offset the
biological and habitat values impacted on a one to one basis. Consult with the
Department when determining offsite mitigation acreages.
10. Evaluate and select suitable mitigation lands based on a comparison of the habitat
attributes of the impacted and conserved lands, including but not limited to: type and
structure of habitat being impacted or conserved; density of burrowing owls in impacted
and conserved habitat; and significance of impacted or conserved habitat to the species
range-wide. Mitigate for the highest quality burrowing owl habitat impacted first and
foremost when identifying mitigation lands, even if a mitigation site is located outside of
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1081 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 13
a lead agency’s jurisdictional boundary, particularly if the lead agency is a city or special
district.
11. Select mitigation lands taking into account the potential human and wildlife conflicts or
incompatibility, including but not limited to, human foot and vehicle traffic, and predation
by cats, loose dogs and urban-adapted wildlife, and incompatible species management
(i.e., snowy plover).
12. Where a burrowing owl population appears to be highly adapted to heavily altered
habitats such as golf courses, airports, athletic fields, and business complexes,
permanently protecting the land, augmenting the site with artificial burrows, and
enhancing and maintaining those areas may enhance sustainability of the burrowing owl
population onsite. Maintenance includes keeping lands grazed or mowed with weed-
eaters or push mowers, free from trees and shrubs, and preventing excessive human
and human-related disturbance (e.g., walking, jogging, off-road activity, dog-walking)
and loose and feral pets (chasing and, presumably, preying upon owls) that make the
environment uninhabitable for burrowing owls (Wesemann and Rowe 1985, Millsap and
Bear 2000, Lincer and Bloom 2007). Items 4, 5 and 6 also still apply to this mitigation
approach.
13. If there are no other feasible mitigation options available and a lead agency is willing to
establish and oversee a Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Conservation Fund that funds on
a competitive basis acquisition and permanent habitat conservation, the project
proponent may participate in the lead agency’s program.
Artificial burrows. Artificial burrows have been used to replace natural burrows either
temporarily or long-term and their long-term success is unclear. Artificial burrows may be an
effective addition to in-perpetuity habitat mitigation if they are augmenting natural burrows,
the burrows are regularly maintained (i.e., no less than annual, with biennial maintenance
recommended), and surrounding habitat patches are carefully maintained. There may be
some circumstances, for example at airports, where squirrels will not be allowed to persist
and create a dynamic burrow system, where artificial burrows may provide some support to
an owl population.
Many variables may contribute to the successful use of artificial burrows by burrowing owls,
including pre-existence of burrowing owls in the area, availability of food, predators,
surrounding vegetation and proximity, number of natural burrows in proximity, type of
materials used to build the burrow, size of the burrow and entrance, direction in which the
burrow entrance is facing, slope of the entrance, number of burrow entrances per burrow,
depth of the burrow, type and height of perches, and annual maintenance needs (Belthoff
and King 2002, Smith et al. 2005, Barclay et al. 2011). Refer to Barclay (2008) and (2011)
and to Johnson et al. 2010 (unpublished report) for guidance on installing artificial burrows
including recommendations for placement, installation and maintenance.
Any long-term reliance on artificial burrows as natural burrow replacements must include
semi-annual to annual cleaning and maintenance and/or replacement (Barclay et al. 2011,
Smith and Conway 2005, Alexander et al. 2005) as an ongoing management practice.
Alexander et al. (2005), in a study of the use of artificial burrows found that all of 20 artificial
burrows needed some annual cleaning and maintenance. Burrows were either excavated by
predators, blocked by soil or vegetation, or experienced substrate erosion forming a space
beneath the tubing that prevented nestlings from re-entering the burrow.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1082 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 14
Mitigation lands management plan. Develop a Mitigation Lands Management Plan for
projects that require off-site or on-site mitigation habitat protection to ensure compliance with
and effectiveness of identified management actions for the mitigation lands. A suggested
outline and related vegetation management goals and monitoring success criteria can be
found in Appendix E.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Verify the compliance with required mitigation measures, the accuracy of predictions, and
ensure the effectiveness of all mitigation measures for burrowing owls by conducting follow-
up monitoring, and implementing midcourse corrections, if necessary, to protect burrowing
owls. Refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and the CEQA Guidelines for additional
guidance on mitigation, monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is qualitatively different from
site surveillance; monitoring normally has a specific purpose and its outputs and outcomes
will usually allow a comparison with some baseline condition of the site before the mitigation
(including avoidance and minimization) was undertaken. Ideally, monitoring should be based
on the Before-After Control-Impact (BACI) principle (McDonald et al. 2000) that requires
knowledge of the pre-mitigation state to provide a reference point for the state and change in
state after the project and mitigation have been implemented.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1083 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Jack Barclay, Jeff Lincer, David Plumpton, Jeff Kidd, Carol Roberts and other
reviewers for their valuable comments on this report. We also want to acknowledge all the
hard work of the Department team, especially T. Bartlett, K. Riesz, S. Wilson, D. Gifford, D.
Mayer, J. Gan, L. Connolly, D. Mayer, A. Donlan, L. Bauer, L. Comrack, D. Lancaster, E.
Burkett, B. Johnson, D. Johnston, A. Gonzales, S. Morey and K. Hunting.
REFERENCES
Alexander, A. K., M. R. Sackschewsky, and C. A. Duberstein. 2005. Use of artificial burrows
by burrowing owls (athene cunicularia) at the HAMMER Facility on the U.S.
Department of Energy Hanford Site. Pacific Northwest National Lab-15414. U.S.
Department of Energy, DE-AC05-76RL01830, Richland, Washington, USA.
BIOS. California Department of Fish and Game. The Biogeographic Information Observation
System (http://bios.dfg.ca.gov/)
Barclay, J. H. 2008. A simple artificial burrow design for burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor
Research. 42: 53-57.
Barclay, J. H. 2012. Albion Environmental, Inc, personal communication.
Barclay, J. H., K. W. Hunting, J. L. Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts, editors. 2007.
Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003,
Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for
Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA.
Barclay, J. H., N. Korfanta, and M. Kauffman. 2011. Long-term population dynamics of a
managed burrowing owl colony. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 1295–1306.
Belthoff, J R., R. A. King. 2002. Nest-site characteristics of burrowing owls (athene
cunicularia) in the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, Idaho, and
applications to artificial burrow installation. Western North American Naturalist 62: 112-
119.
Botelho, E. S. 1996. Behavioral ecology and parental care of breeding western burrowing
owls (Speotyto cunicularia hupugaea) in southern New Mexico, USA. Dissertation,
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA.
Burkett, E. E., and B. S. Johnson. 2007. Development of a conservation strategy for
burrowing owls in California. Pages 165-168 in J. H. Barclay, K. W. Hunting, J. L.
Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts, editors. Proceedings of the California
Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003, Sacramento, California, USA. Bird
Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion
Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA.
CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1997. Burrowing owl survey protocol and
mitigation guidelines. Pages 171-177 in Lincer, J. L. and K. Steenhof (editors). 1997.
The burrowing owl, its biology and management. Raptor Research Report Number 9.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1995. Staff report on burrowing owl
mitigation. Unpublished report. Sacramento, California, USA.
CNDDB. California Department of Fish and Game. The California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/), Sacramento, California, USA.
Catlin, D. H. 2004. Factors affecting within-season and between-season breeding dispersal of
Burrowing Owls in California. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1084 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 16
Catlin, D. H., and D. K. Rosenberg. 2006. Nest destruction increases mortality and dispersal
of Burrowing Owls in the Imperial Valley, California. Southwest Naturalist 51: 406–409.
Catlin, D. H., D. K. Rosenberg, and K. L. Haley. 2005. The effects of nesting success and
mate fidelity on breeding dispersal in burrowing owls. Canadian Journal of Zoology
83:1574–1580.
Conway, C. J., and J. Simon. 2003. Comparison of detection probability associated with
burrowing owl survey methods. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 501-511.
Conway, C. J., V. Garcia, M. D., and K. Hughes. 2008. Factors affecting detection of
burrowing owl nests during standardized surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:
688-696.
Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto
cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73: 162–176.
Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, P. A. Rabie, and B.
R. Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: burrowing owl.
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. Northern Prairie
Wildlife Research Center Online.
<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/buow/buow.htm>.
DeSante, D. F., E. D Ruhlen, and R. Scalf. 2007. The distribution and relative abundance of
burrowing owls in California during 1991–1993: Evidence for a declining population
and thoughts on its conservation. Pages 1-41 in J. H. Barclay, K. W. Hunting, J. L.
Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts, editors. Proceedings of the California
Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003 Sacramento, California, USA. Bird
Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion
Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA.
Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savidge. 1998. Burrowing Owl conservation in the Great Plains.
Proceedings of the Second International Burrowing Owl Symposium, 29-30 September
1999, Ogden, Utah, USA.
Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savidge. 1999. Satellite burrow use by burrowing owl chicks and
its influence on nest fate. Pages 128-130 in P. D. Vickery and J. R. Herkert, editors.
Ecology and conservation of grassland birds of the western hemisphere. Studies in
Avian Biology 19.
Emlen, J. T. 1977. Estimating breeding season bird densities from transects counts. Auk 94:
455-468.
Fisher, J. B., L. A. Trulio, G. S. Biging, and D. Chromczack. 2007. An analysis of spatial
clustering and implications for wildlife management: a burrowing owl example.
Environmental Management 39: 403-11.
Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, and L. A. Comrack. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in
Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special
Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of
birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1.
Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish
and Game, Sacramento, California, USA.
Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, R. G. Anthony. 2003. Space use and pesticide exposure risk
of male burrowing owls in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management
67: 155-164.
Green, G.A.; Anthony, R.G. 1989. Nesting success and habitat relationships of burrowing
owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. The Condor 91: 347-354.
Haug, E. A. 1985. Observations on the breeding ecology of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1085 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 17
Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), in
A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural
Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union,
Washington, D.C., USA.
Haug, E. A., and L. W. Oliphant. 1990. Movements, activity patterns, and habitat use of
burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 27-35.
Holroyd, G. L., R. Rodriguez-Estrella, and S. R. Sheffield. 2001. Conservation of the
burrowing owl in western North America: issues, challenges, and recommendations.
Journal of Raptor Research 35: 399-407.
James, P. C., T. J. Ethier, and M. K. Toutloff. 1997. Parameters of a declining burrowing owl
population in Saskatchewan. Pages 34-37. in J. L. Lincer, and K. Steenhof, editors.
The burrowing owl, its biology and management: including the proceedings of the first
international symposium. 13-14 November 1992, Bellevue, WA, USA. Raptor
Research Report Number 9.
Johnson, D. H., D. C. Gillis, M. A. Gregg, J. L.Rebholz, J. L. Lincer, and J. R. Belthoff. 2010.
Users guide to installation of artificial burrows for burrowing owls. Unpublished report.
Tree Top Inc., Selah, Washington, USA.
Klute, D. S., A. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. Sheffield,
and T. S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the
western burrowing owl in the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington,
D.C, USA.
Koenig, W. D., D. D. Van Vuren, and P. N. Hooge. 1996. Detectability, philopatry, and the
distribution of dispersal distances in vertebrates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:
514–517.
LaFever, D. H., K. E. LaFever, D. H. Catlin, and D. K. Rosenberg. 2008. Diurnal time budget
of burrowing owls in a resident population during the non-breeding season.
Southwestern Naturalist 53: 29-33.
Lincer, J. L., and P. W. Bloom. 2007. The status of the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) in
San Diego County, CA. Pages 90-102 in Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl
Symposium, 11-12 November 2003, Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations
Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc.,
Point Reyes Station, CA.
Lutz, R. S. and D. L. Plumpton. 1999. Philopatry and nest site reuse by burrowing owls:
implications for management. Journal of Raptor Research 33: 149-153.
MacCracken, J. G., D. W. Uresk, and R. M. Hansen. 1985a. Vegetation and soils of
burrowing owl nest sites in Conata Basin, South Dakota. Condor 87: 152-154.
Manning, J. A., and R. S. A. Kaler. 2011. Effects of survey methods on burrowing owl
behaviors. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 525-30.
McDonald, T. L., W. P. Erickson, and L. L. McDonald. 2000. Analysis of count data from
before-after control-impact studies. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and
Environmental Statistics 5: 262-279.
Millsap, B. A., and C. Bear. 2000. Density and reproduction of burrowing owls along an urban
development gradient. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:33-41.
Nixon, P A. 2006. Effects of translocation on the Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia
floridana). Thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Noss, R. F., M. A. O’Connell, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. The science of conservation planning:
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1086 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 18
habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington
D.C., USA.
Postovit, H. R., and B. C. Postovit. 1987. Impacts and mitigation techniques. Pages 183-213
in Raptor management techniques manual scientific technical series number 10,
National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D. C., USA
Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California: An annotated list of
declining or vulnerable bird species. California Department of Fish and Game,
Nongame Wildlife. Investigations, Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report
78-1, Sacramento, California, USA.
Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring burrowing owl populations: implications of burrow re-use. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 12: 178-189.
Richardson, C. T. and C. K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from
human disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 634-38.
Ronan, N. A. 2002. Habitat selection, reproductive success, and site fidelity of burrowing owls
in a grassland ecosystem. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Rosenberg, D., 2009 Oregon State University, Corvallis, personal communication.
Rosenberg, D. K., J. A. Gervais, D. F. DeSante, and H. Ober. 2009. An updated adaptive
management plan for the burrowing owl population at NAS Lemoore. The Oregon
Wildlife Institute, Corvallis, OR and The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes
Station, CA. OWI Contribution No. 201 and IBP Contribution No. 375.
Rosenberg, D. K., J. A. Gervais, H. Ober, and D. F. DeSante. 1998. An adaptive
management plan for the burrowing owl population at Naval Air Station Lemoore,
California, USA. Publication 95, Institute for Bird Populations, P.O. Box 1346, Pt.
Reyes Station, CA 94956.
Rosenberg, D. K., and K. L. Haley. 2004. The ecology of burrowing owls in the
agroecosystem of the Imperial Valley, California. Studies in Avian Biology 27:120-135.
Rosenberg, D. K., L. A. Trulio, D. H. Catlin, D. Chromczack, J. A. Gervais, N. Ronan, and K.
A. Haley. 2007. The ecology of the burrowing owl in California, unpublished report to
Bureau of Land Management.
Rosier, J. R., N. A., Ronan, and D. K. Rosenberg. 2006. Post-breeding dispersal of burrowing
owls in an extensive California grassland. American Midland Naturalist 155: 162–167.
Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation,
Second edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA.
Scobie, D., and C. Faminow. 2000. Development of standardized guidelines for petroleum
industry activities that affect COSEWIC Prairie and Northern Region vertebrate
species at risk. Environment Canada, Prairie and Northern Region, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada.
Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: a
ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of
immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western
Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and
Game, Sacramento. Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, and L. Comrack. 2008.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia).
Smith, M. D., C. J. Conway, and L. A. Ellis. 2005. Burrowing owl nesting productivity: a
comparison between artificial and natural burrows on and off golf courses. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 33: 454-462.
Thelander, C. G., K. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at
the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, period of performance: March 1998–
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1087 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 19
December 2000. U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, Colorado, USA.
Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal Airport.
Condor 73: 177-192.
Thompson, C. D. 1984. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology in central Wyoming.
Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA.
Trulio, L. 1995. Passive relocation: A method to preserve burrowing owls on disturbed sites.
Journal of Field Ornithology 66: 99–106.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. U.S.
Department of Interior, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia,
USA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S.
Department of Interior, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia,
USA.
Wesemann, T. and M. Rowe. 1985. Factors influencing the distribution and abundance of
burrowing owls in Cape Coral, Florida. Pages 129-137 in L. W. Adams and D. L.
Leedy, editors. Integrating Man and Nature in the Metropolitan Environment.
Proceedings National Symposium. on Urban Wildlife, 4-7 November 1986, Chevy
Chase, Maryland, USA.
Wilkerson, R. L. and R. B. Siegel. 2010. Assessing changes in the distribution and
abundance of burrowing owls in California, 1993-2007. Bird Populations 10: 1-36.
Zarn, M. 1974. Burrowing owl. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Technical Note T-N-250, Denver, Colorado, USA.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1088 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 20
Appendix A. Burrowing Owl Natural History and Threats
Diet
Burrowing owl diet includes arthropods, small rodents, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and
carrion (Haug et al. 1993).
Breeding
In California, the breeding season for the burrowing owl typically occurs between 1 February
and 31 August although breeding in December has been documented (Thompson 1971,
Gervais et al. 2008); breeding behavior includes nest site selection by the male, pair
formation, copulation, egg laying, hatching, fledging, and post-fledging care of young by the
parents. The peak of the breeding season occurs between 15 April and 15 July and is the
period when most burrowing owls have active nests (eggs or young). The incubation period
lasts 29 days (Coulombe 1971) and young fledge after 44 days (Haug et al. 1993). Note that
the timing of nesting activities may vary with latitude and climatic conditions. Burrowing owls
may change burrows several times during the breeding season, starting when nestlings are
about three weeks old (Haug et al. 1993).
Dispersal
The following discussion is an excerpt from Gervais et al (2008):
“The burrowing owl is often considered a sedentary species (e.g., Thomsen 1971).
A large proportion of adults show strong fidelity to their nest site from year to year,
especially where resident, as in Florida (74% for females, 83% for males; Millsap
and Bear 1997). In California, nest-site fidelity rates were 32%–50% in a large
grassland and 57% in an agricultural environment (Ronan 2002, Catlin 2004, Catlin
et al. 2005). Differences in these rates among sites may reflect differences in nest
predation rates (Catlin 2004, Catlin et al. 2005). Despite the high nest fidelity
rates, dispersal distances may be considerable for both juveniles (natal dispersal)
and adults (postbreeding dispersal), but this also varied with location (Catlin 2004,
Rosier et al. 2006). Distances of 53 km to roughly 150 km have been observed in
California for adult and natal dispersal, respectively (D. K. Rosenberg and J. A.
Gervais, unpublished data), despite the difficulty in detecting movements beyond
the immediate study area (Koenig et al. 1996).”
Habitat
The burrowing owl is a small, long-legged, ground-dwelling bird species, well-adapted to
open, relatively flat expanses. In California, preferred habitat is generally typified by short,
sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gentle topography and well-drained soils (Haug et
al. 1993). Grassland, shrub steppe, and desert are naturally occurring habitat types used by
the species. In addition, burrowing owls may occur in some agricultural areas, ruderal grassy
fields, vacant lots and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable and there are useable
burrows and foraging habitat in proximity (Gervais et al 2008). Unique amongst North
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1089 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 21
American raptors, the burrowing owl requires underground burrows or other cavities for
nesting during the breeding season and for roosting and cover, year round. Burrows used by
the owls are usually dug by other species termed host burrowers. In California, California
ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and round-tailed ground squirrel (Citellus
tereticaudus) burrows are frequently used by burrowing owls but they may use dens or holes
dug by other fossorial species including badger (Taxidea taxus), coyote (Canis latrans), and
fox (e.g., San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica; Ronan 2002). In some instances, owls
have been known to excavate their own burrows (Thompson 1971, Barclay 2007). Natural
rock cavities, debris piles, culverts, and pipes also are used for nesting and roosting
(Rosenberg et al. 1998). Burrowing owls have been documented using artificial burrows for
nesting and cover (Smith and Belthoff, 2003).
Foraging habitat. Foraging habitat is essential to burrowing owls. The following discussion is
an excerpt from Gervais et al. (2008):
“Useful as a rough guide to evaluating project impacts and appropriate mitigation
for burrowing owls, adult male burrowing owls home ranges have been
documented (calculated by minimum convex polygon) to comprise anywhere from
280 acres in intensively irrigated agroecosystems in Imperial Valley (Rosenberg
and Haley 2004) to 450 acres in mixed agricultural lands at Lemoore Naval Air
Station, CA (Gervais et al. 2003), to 600 acres in pasture in Saskatchewan,
Canada (Haug and Oliphant 1990). But owl home ranges may be much larger,
perhaps by an order of magnitude, in non-irrigated grasslands such as at Carrizo
Plain, California (Gervais et al. 2008), based on telemetry studies and distribution
of nests. Foraging occurs primarily within 600 m of their nests (within
approximately 300 acres, based on a circle with a 600 m radius) during the
breeding season.”
Importance of burrows and adjacent habitat. Burrows and the associated surrounding habitat
are essential ecological requisites for burrowing owls throughout the year and especially
during the breeding season. During the non-breeding season, burrowing owls remain closely
associated with burrows, as they continue to use them as refuge from predators, shelter from
weather and roost sites. Resident populations will remain near the previous season’s nest
burrow at least some of the time (Coulombe 1971, Thomsen 1971, Botelho 1996, LaFever et
al. 2008).
In a study by Lutz and Plumpton (1999) adult males and females nested in formerly used
sites at similar rates (75% and 63%, respectively) (Lutz and Plumpton 1999). Burrow fidelity
has been reported in some areas; however, more frequently, burrowing owls reuse traditional
nesting areas without necessarily using the same burrow (Haug et al. 1993, Dechant et al.
1999). Burrow and nest sites are re-used at a higher rate if the burrowing owl has
reproduced successfully during the previous year (Haug et al. 1993) and if the number of
burrows isn’t limiting nesting opportunity.
Burrowing owls may use “satellite” or non-nesting burrows, moving young at 10-14 days,
presumably to reduce risk of predation (Desmond and Savidge 1998) and possibly to avoid
nest parasites (Dechant et al. 1999). Successful nests in Nebraska had more active satellite
burrows within 75 m of the nest burrow than unsuccessful nests (Desmond and Savidge
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1090 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 22
1999). Several studies have documented the number of satellite burrows used by young and
adult burrowing owls during the breeding season as between one and 11 burrows with an
average use of approximately five burrows (Thompsen 1984, Haug 1985, Haug and Oliphant
1990). Supporting the notion of selecting for nest sites near potential satellite burrows,
Ronan (2002) found burrowing owl families would move away from a nest site if their satellite
burrows were experimentally removed through blocking their entrance.
Habitat adjacent to burrows has been documented to be important to burrowing owls.
Gervais et al. (2003) found that home range sizes of male burrowing owls during the nesting
season were highly variable within but not between years. Their results also suggested that
owls concentrate foraging efforts within 600 meters of the nest burrow, as was observed in
Canada (Haug and Oliphant 1990) and southern California (Rosenberg and Haley 2004).
James et al. (1997), reported habitat modification factors causing local burrowing owl
declines included habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity.
In conclusion, the best available science indicates that essential habitat for the burrowing owl
in California must include suitable year-round habitat, primarily for breeding, foraging,
wintering and dispersal habitat consisting of short or sparse vegetation (at least at some time
of year), presence of burrows, burrow surrogates or presence of fossorial mammal dens,
well-drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow.
Threats to Burrowing Owls in California
Habitat loss. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are the greatest threats to
burrowing owls in California. According to DeSante et al. (2007), “the vast majority of
burrowing owls [now] occur in the wide, flat lowland valleys and basins of the Imperial Valley
and Great Central Valley [where] for the most part,...the highest rates of residential and
commercial development in California are occurring.” Habitat loss from the State’s long
history of urbanization in coastal counties has already resulted in either extirpation or drastic
reduction of burrowing owl populations there (Gervais et al. 2008). Further, loss of
agricultural and other open lands (such as grazed landscapes) also negatively affect owl
populations. Because of their need for open habitat with low vegetation, burrowing owls are
unlikely to persist in agricultural lands dominated by vineyards and orchards (Gervais et al.
2008).
Control of burrowing rodents. According to Klute et al. (2003), the elimination of burrowing
rodents through control programs is a primary factor in the recent and historical decline of
burrowing owl populations nationwide. In California, ground squirrel burrows are most often
used by burrowing owls for nesting and cover; thus, ground squirrel control programs may
affect owl numbers in local areas by eliminating a necessary resource.
Direct mortality. Burrowing owls suffer direct losses from a number of sources. Vehicle
collisions are a significant source of mortality especially in the urban interface and where owls
nest alongside roads (Haug et al. 1993, Gervais et al. 2008). Road and ditch maintenance,
modification of water conveyance structures (Imperial Valley) and discing to control weeds in
fallow fields may destroy burrows (Rosenberg and Haley 2004, Catlin and Rosenberg 2006)
which may trap or crush owls. Wind turbines at Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area are
known to cause direct burrowing owl mortality (Thelander et al. 2003). Exposure to
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1091 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 23
pesticides may pose a threat to the species but is poorly understood (Klute et al. 2003,
Gervais et al. 2008).
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1092 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 24
Appendix B. Definitions
Some key terms that appear in this document are defined below.
Adjacent habitat means burrowing owl habitat that abuts the area where habitat and
burrows will be impacted and rendered non-suitable for occupancy.
Breeding (nesting) season begins as early as 1 February and continues through 31 August
(Thomsen 1971, Zarn 1974). The timing of breeding activities may vary with latitude and
climatic conditions. The breeding season includes pairing, egg-laying and incubation, and
nestling and fledging stages.
Burrow exclusion is a technique of installing one-way doors in burrow openings during the
non-breeding season to temporarily exclude burrowing owls or permanently exclude
burrowing owls and excavate and close burrows after confirming burrows are empty.
Burrowing owl habitat generally includes, but is not limited to, short or sparse vegetation (at
least at some time of year), presence of burrows, burrow surrogates or presence of fossorial
mammal dens, well-drained soils, and abundant and available prey.
Burrow surrogates include culverts, piles of concrete rubble, piles of soil, burrows created
along soft banks of ditches and canals, pipes, and similar structures.
Civil twilight - Morning civil twilight begins when the geometric center of the sun is 6 degrees
below the horizon (civil dawn) and ends at sunrise. Evening civil twilight begins at sunset and
ends when the geometric center of the sun reaches 6 degrees below the horizon (civil dusk).
During this period there is enough light from the sun that artificial sources of light may not be
needed to carry on outdoor activities. This concept is sometimes enshrined in laws, for
example, when drivers of automobiles must turn on their headlights (called lighting-up time in
the UK); when pilots may exercise the rights to fly aircraft. Civil twilight can also be described
as the limit at which twilight illumination is sufficient, under clear weather conditions, for
terrestrial objects to be clearly distinguished; at the beginning of morning civil twilight, or end
of evening civil twilight, the horizon is clearly defined and the brightest stars are visible under
clear atmospheric conditions.
Conservation for burrowing owls may include but may not be limited to protecting remaining
breeding pairs or providing for population expansion, protecting and enhancing breeding and
essential habitat, and amending or augmenting land use plans to stabilize populations and
other specific actions to avoid the need to list the species pursuant to California or federal
Endangered Species Acts.
Contiguous means connected together so as to form an uninterrupted expanse in space.
Essential habitat includes nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal habitat.
Foraging habitat is habitat within the estimated home range of an occupied burrow, supports
suitable prey base, and allows for effective hunting.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1093 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 25
Host burrowers include ground squirrels, badgers, foxes, coyotes, gophers etc.
Locally significant species is a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is
rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or
is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines,
Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or occurring in
a unique habitat type.
Non-breeding season is the period of time when nesting activity is not occurring, generally
September 1 through January 31, but may vary with latitude and climatic conditions.
Occupied site or occupancy means a site that is assumed occupied if at least one
burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow within the last three years (Rich 1984).
Occupancy of suitable burrowing owl habitat may also be indicated by owl sign including its
molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a
burrow entrance or perch site.
Other impacting activities may include but may not be limited to agricultural practices,
vegetation management and fire control, pest management, conversion of habitat from
rangeland or natural lands to more intensive agricultural uses that could result in “take”.
These impacting activities may not meet the definition of a project under CEQA.
Passive relocation is a technique of installing one-way doors in burrow openings to
temporarily or permanently evict burrowing owls and prevent burrow re-occupation.
Peak of the breeding season is between 15 April and 15 July.
Sign includes its tracks, molted feathers, cast pellets (defined as 1-2” long brown to black
regurgitated pellets consisting of non-digestible portions of the owls’ diet, such as fur, bones,
claws, beetle elytra, or feathers), prey remains, egg shell fragments, owl white wash, nest
burrow decoration materials (e.g., paper, foil, plastic items, livestock or other animal manure,
etc.), possible owl perches, or other items.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1094 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 26
Appendix C. Habitat Assessment and Reporting Details
Habitat Assessment Data Collection and Reporting
Current scientific literature indicates that it would be most effective to gather the data in the
manner described below when conducting project scoping, conducting a habitat assessment
site visit and preparing a habitat assessment report:
1. Conduct at least one visit covering the entire potential project/activity area including areas
that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project. Survey adjoining areas within
150 m (Thomsen 1971, Martin 1973), or more where direct or indirect effects could
potentially extend offsite. If lawful access cannot be achieved to adjacent areas, surveys
can be performed with a spotting scope or other methods.
2. Prior to the site visit, compile relevant biological information for the site and surrounding
area to provide a local and regional context.
3. Check all available sources for burrowing owl occurrence information regionally prior to a
field inspection. The CNDDB and BIOS (see References cited) may be consulted for
known occurrences of burrowing owls. Other sources of information include, but are not
limited to, the Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium (Barclay et al.
2007), county bird atlas projects, Breeding Bird Survey records, eBIRD (http://ebird.org),
Gervais et al. (2008), local reports or experts, museum records, and other site-specific
relevant information.
4. Identify vegetation and habitat types potentially supporting burrowing owls in the project
area and vicinity.
5. Record and report on the following information:
a. A full description of the proposed project, including but not limited to, expected work
periods, daily work schedules, equipment used, activities performed (such as drilling,
construction, excavation, etc.) and whether the expected activities will vary in location
or intensity over the project’s timeline;
b. A regional setting map, showing the general project location relative to major roads
and other recognizable features;
c. A detailed map (preferably a USGS topo 7.5’ quad base map) of the site and proposed
project, including the footprint of proposed land and/or vegetation-altering activities,
base map source, identifying topography, landscape features, a north arrow, bar scale,
and legend;
d. A written description of the biological setting, including location (Section, Township,
Range, baseline and meridian), acreage, topography, soils, geographic and hydrologic
characteristics, land use and management history on and adjoining the site (i.e.,
whether it is urban, semi-urban or rural; whether there is any evidence of past or
current livestock grazing, mowing, disking, or other vegetation management activities);
e. An analysis of any relevant, historical information concerning burrowing owl use or
occupancy (breeding, foraging, over-wintering) on site or in the assessment area;
f. Vegetation type and structure (using Sawyer et al. 2009), vegetation height, habitat
types and features in the surrounding area plus a reasonably sized (as supported with
logical justification) assessment area; (Note: use caution in discounting habitat based
on grass height as it can be a temporary condition variable by season and conditions
(such as current grazing regime) or may be distributed as a mosaic).
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1095 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 27
g. The presence of burrowing owl individuals or pairs or sign (see Appendix B);
h. The presence of suitable burrows and/or burrow surrogates (>11 cm in diameter
(height and width) and >150 cm in depth) (Johnson et al. 2010), regardless of a lack of
any burrowing owl sign and/or burrow surrogates; and burrowing owls and/or their sign
that have recently or historically (within the last 3 years) been identified on or adjacent
to the site.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1096 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 28
Appendix D. Breeding and Non-breeding Season Surveys and
Reports
Current scientific literature indicates that it is most effective to conduct breeding and non-
breeding season surveys and report in the manner that follows:
Breeding Season Surveys
Number of visits and timing. Conduct 4 survey visits: 1) at least one site visit between 15
February and 15 April, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart,
between 15 April and 15 July, with at least one visit after 15 June. Note: many burrowing owl
migrants are still present in southwestern California during mid-March, therefore, exercise
caution in assuming breeding occupancy early in the breeding season.
Survey method. Rosenberg et al. (2007) confirmed walking line transects were most
effective in smaller habitat patches. Conduct surveys in all portions of the project site that
were identified in the Habitat Assessment and fit the description of habitat in Appendix A.
Conduct surveys by walking straight-line transects spaced 7 m to 20 m apart, adjusting for
vegetation height and density (Rosenberg et al. 2007). At the start of each transect and, at
least, every 100 m, scan the entire visible project area for burrowing owls using binoculars.
During walking surveys, record all potential burrows used by burrowing owls as determined
by the presence of one or more burrowing owls, pellets, prey remains, whitewash, or
decoration. Some burrowing owls may be detected by their calls, so observers should also
listen for burrowing owls while conducting the survey.
Care should be taken to minimize disturbance near occupied burrows during all seasons and
not to “flush” burrowing owls especially if predators are present to reduce any potential for
needless energy expenditure or burrowing owl mortality. Burrowing owls may flush if
approached by pedestrians within 50 m (Conway et al. 2003). If raptors or other predators
are present that may suppress burrowing owl activity, return at another time or later date for a
follow-up survey.
Check all burrowing owls detected for bands and/or color bands and report band
combinations to the Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL). Some site-specific variations to survey
methods discussed below may be developed in coordination with species experts and
Department staff.
Weather conditions. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect burrowing owls,
therefore, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is >20 km/hr, and there is precipitation
or dense fog. Surveys have greater detection probability if conducted when ambient
temperatures are >20º C, <12 km/hr winds, and cloud cover is <75% (Conway et al. 2008).
Time of day. Daily timing of surveys varies according to the literature, latitude, and survey
method. However, surveys between morning civil twilight and 10:00 AM and two hours
before sunset until evening civil twilight provide the highest detection probabilities (Barclay
pers. comm. 2012, Conway et al. 2008).
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1097 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 29
Alternate methods. If the project site is large enough to warrant an alternate method, consult
current literature for generally accepted survey methods and consult with the Department on
the proposed survey approach.
Additional breeding season site visits. Additional breeding season site visits may be
necessary, especially if non-breeding season exclusion methods are contemplated. Detailed
information, such as approximate home ranges of each individual or of family units, as well as
foraging areas as related to the proposed project, will be important to document for
evaluating impacts, planning avoidance measure implementation and for mitigation measure
performance monitoring.
Adverse conditions may prevent investigators from determining presence or occupancy.
Disease, predation, drought, high rainfall or site disturbance may preclude presence of
burrowing owls in any given year. Any such conditions should be identified and discussed in
the survey report. Visits to the site in more than one year may increase the likelihood of
detection. Also, visits to adjacent known occupied habitat may help determine appropriate
survey timing.
Given the high site fidelity shown by burrowing owls (see Appendix A, Importance of
burrows), conducting surveys over several years may be necessary when project activities
are ongoing, occur annually, or start and stop seasonally. (See Negative surveys).
Non-breeding Season Surveys
If conducting non-breeding season surveys, follow the methods described above for breeding
season surveys, but conduct at least four (4) visits, spread evenly, throughout the non-
breeding season. Burrowing owl experts and local Department staff are available to assist
with interpreting results.
Negative Surveys
Adverse conditions may prevent investigators from documenting presence or occupancy.
Disease, predation, drought, high rainfall or site disturbance may preclude presence of
burrowing owl in any given year. Discuss such conditions in the Survey Report. Visits to the
site in more than one year increase the likelihood of detection and failure to locate burrowing
owls during one field season does not constitute evidence that the site is no longer occupied,
particularly if adverse conditions influenced the survey results. Visits to other nearby known
occupied sites can affirm whether the survey timing is appropriate.
Take Avoidance Surveys
Field experience from 1995 to present supports the conclusion that it would be effective to
complete an initial take avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground
disturbance activities using the recommended methods described in the Detection Surveys
section above. Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures would be triggered
by positive owl presence on the site where project activities will occur. The development of
avoidance and minimization approaches would be informed by monitoring the burrowing
owls.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1098 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 30
Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between project
activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey
conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.
Survey Reports
Report on the survey methods used and results including the information described in the
Summary Report and include the reports within the CEQA documentation:
1. Date, start and end time of surveys including weather conditions (ambient temperature,
wind speed, percent cloud cover, precipitation and visibility);
2. Name(s) of surveyor(s) and qualifications;
3. A discussion of how the timing of the survey affected the comprehensiveness and
detection probability;
4. A description of survey methods used including transect spacing, point count dispersal
and duration, and any calls used;
5. A description and justification of the area surveyed relative to the project area;
6. A description that includes: number of owls or nesting pairs at each location (by nestlings,
juveniles, adults, and those of an unknown age), number of burrows being used by owls,
and burrowing owl sign at burrows. Include a description of individual markers, such as
bands (numbers and colors), transmitters, or unique natural identifying features. If any
owls are banded, request documentation from the BBL and bander to report on the details
regarding the known history of the banded burrowing owl(s) (age, sex, origins, whether it
was previously relocated) and provide with the report if available;
7. A description of the behavior of burrowing owls during the surveys, including feeding,
resting, courtship, alarm, territorial defense, and those indicative of parents or juveniles;
8. A list of possible burrowing owl predators present and documentation of any evidence of
predation of owls;
9. A detailed map (1:24,000 or closer to show details) showing locations of all burrowing
owls, potential burrows, occupied burrows, areas of concentrated burrows, and burrowing
owl sign. Locations documented by use of global positioning system (GPS) coordinates
must include the datum in which they were collected. The map should include a title,
north arrow, bar scale and legend;
10. Signed field forms, photos, etc., as appendices to the field survey report;
11. Recent color photographs of the proposed project or activity site; and
12. Original CNDDB Field Survey Forms should be sent directly to the Department’s CNDDB
office, and copies should be included in the environmental document as an appendix.
(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/bdb/html/cnddb.html ).
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1099 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 31
Appendix E. Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial
Burrow and Exclusion Plans
Whereas the Department does not recommend exclusion and burrow closure, current
scientific literature and experience from 1995 to present, indicate that the following example
components for burrowing owl artificial burrow and exclusion plans, combined with
consultation with the Department to further develop these plans, would be effective.
Artificial Burrow Location
If a burrow is confirmed occupied on-site, artificial burrow locations should be appropriately
located and their use should be documented taking into consideration:
1. A brief description of the project and project site pre-construction;
2. The mitigation measures that will be implemented;
3. Potential conflicting site uses or encumbrances;
4. A comparison of the occupied burrow site(s) and the artificial burrow site(s) (e.g.,
vegetation, habitat types, fossorial species use in the area, and other features);
5. Artificial burrow(s) proximity to the project activities, roads and drainages;
6. Artificial burrow(s) proximity to other burrows and entrance exposure;
7. Photographs of the site of the occupied burrow(s) and the artificial burrows;
8. Map of the project area that identifies the burrow(s) to be excluded as well as the
proposed sites for the artificial burrows;
9. A brief description of the artificial burrow design;
10. Description of the monitoring that will take place during and after project implementation
including information that will be provided in a monitoring report.
11. A description of the frequency and type of burrow maintenance.
Exclusion Plan
An Exclusion Plan addresses the following including but not limited to:
1. Confirm by site surveillance that the burrow(s) is empty of burrowing owls and other
species preceding burrow scoping;
2. Type of scope and appropriate timing of scoping to avoid impacts;
3. Occupancy factors to look for and what will guide determination of vacancy and
excavation timing (one-way doors should be left in place 48 hours to ensure burrowing
owls have left the burrow before excavation, visited twice daily and monitored for
evidence that owls are inside and can’t escape i.e., look for sign immediately inside the
door).
4. How the burrow(s) will be excavated. Excavation using hand tools with refilling to prevent
reoccupation is preferable whenever possible (may include using piping to stabilize the
burrow to prevent collapsing until the entire burrow has been excavated and it can be
determined that no owls reside inside the burrow);
5. Removal of other potential owl burrow surrogates or refugia on site;
6. Photographing the excavation and closure of the burrow to demonstrate success and
sufficiency;
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1100 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 32
7. Monitoring of the site to evaluate success and, if needed, to implement remedial
measures to prevent subsequent owl use to avoid take;
8. How the impacted site will continually be made inhospitable to burrowing owls and
fossorial mammals (e.g., by allowing vegetation to grow tall, heavy disking, or immediate
and continuous grading) until development is complete.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1101 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 33
Appendix F. Mitigation Management Plan and Vegetation
Management Goals
Mitigation Management Plan
A mitigation site management plan will help ensure the appropriate implementation and
maintenance for the mitigation site and persistence of the burrowing owls on the site. For an
example to review, refer to Rosenberg et al. (2009). The current scientific literature and field
experience from 1995 to present indicate that an effective management plan includes the
following:
1. Mitigation objectives;
2. Site selection factors (including a comparison of the attributes of the impacted and
conserved lands) and baseline assessment;
3. Enhancement of the conserved lands (enhancement of reproductive capacity,
enhancement of breeding areas and dispersal opportunities, and removal or control of
population stressors);
4. Site protection method and prohibited uses;
5. Site manager roles and responsibilities;
6. Habitat management goals and objectives:
a. Vegetation management goals,
i. Vegetation management tools:
1. Grazing
2. Mowing
3. Burning
4. Other
b. Management of ground squirrels and other fossorial mammals,
c. Semi-annual and annual artificial burrow cleaning and maintenance,
d. Non-natives control – weeds and wildlife,
e. Trash removal;
7. Financial assurances:
a. Property analysis record or other financial analysis to determine long-term
management funding,
b. Funding schedule;
8. Performance standards and success criteria;
9. Monitoring, surveys and adaptive management;
10. Maps;
11. Annual reports.
Vegetation Management Goals
Manage vegetation height and density (especially in immediate proximity to burrows).
Suitable vegetation structure varies across sites and vegetation types, but should
generally be at the average effective vegetation height of 4.7 cm (Green and Anthony
1989) and <13 cm average effective vegetation height (MacCracken et al. 1985a).
Employ experimental prescribed fires (controlled, at a small scale) to manage vegetation
structure;
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1102 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 34
Vegetation reduction or ground disturbance timing, extent, and configuration should avoid
take. While local ordinances may require fire prevention through vegetation management,
activities like disking, mowing, and grading during the breeding season can result in take
of burrowing owls and collapse of burrows, causing nest destruction. Consult the take
avoidance surveys section above for pre-management avoidance survey
recommendations;
Promote natural prey distribution and abundance, especially in proximity to occupied
burrows; and
Promote self-sustaining populations of host burrowers by limiting or prohibiting lethal
rodent control measures and by ensuring food availability for host burrowers through
vegetation management.
Refer to Rosenberg et al. (2009) for a good discussion of managing grasslands for burrowing
owls.
Mitigation Site Success Criteria
In order to evaluate the success of mitigation and management strategies for burrowing owls,
monitoring is required that is specific to the burrowing owl management plan. Given limited
resources, Barclay et al. (2011) suggests managers focus on accurately estimating annual
adult owl populations rather than devoting time to estimating reproduction, which shows high
annual variation and is difficult to accurately estimate. Therefore, the key objective will be to
determine accurately the number of adult burrowing owls and pairs, and if the numbers are
maintained. A frequency of 5-10 years for surveys to estimate population size may suffice if
there are no changes in the management of the nesting and foraging habitat of the owls.
Effective monitoring and evaluation of off-site and on-site mitigation management success for
burrowing owls includes (Barclay, pers. comm.):
Site tenacity;
Number of adult owls present and reproducing;
Colonization by burrowing owls from elsewhere (by band re-sight);
Evidence and causes of mortality;
Changes in distribution; and
Trends in stressors.
5.1.u
Packet Pg. 1103 Attachment: 21. Public Comment (At Dublin Public Hearing)