Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 Dublin Crossing Amend GP 19� 82 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL File #420-30 O`�LIFOU�� DATE: June 2, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager J SUBJECT: Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council has initiated a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment study with the intent of making changes to the approved Dublin Crossing project in order to facilitate the acquisition of a 12-acre school site that can be used by both the City and the School District. In order to effectuate these changes, the City Council will consider amendments to the General Plan and Dublin Crossing Specific Plan to: 1) Incorporate the 1.5 acre Chabot Creek into the Community Park and increase the acreage devoted to Medium Density Residential by 1.5 acres; 2) Re-designate the 13 acre "Mixed Use" site to "General Commercial/DC High Density Residential"; and 3) Allow use of the site designated "School" for both school and park purposes. The project will also involve modifications to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement, a minor technical amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan boundary to be consistent with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan boundary, and consideration of a CEQA Addendum. FINANCIAL IMPACT: All costs associated with preparing the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study are borne by the Project Developer. If the Development Agreement Amendments are approved, the City will forego $1.2 million in Community Benefit Payments and $2.1 million in park construction funding. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, adopt the Resolution Adopting a CEQA Addendum for Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Development Agreement related to the Dublin Crossing Project; adopt the Resolution Amending the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project; and waive the first reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Approving Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Dublin Crossing Venture LLC related to the Dublin Crossing Project. Page 1 of 6 ITEM NO. 6.3 Submitted By "Reviewed By Community Development Director Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION: Background The Dublin Crossing project site includes approximately 189 acres of land that is divided between the following property owners- 139 acres owned by the United States Army, 8.7 acres owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, and approximately 41 .9 acres owned by Dublin Crossing Venture LLC. The project area is shown below. Figure 1 - Vicinity Map �I I❑ ` _, � "� - a (emu ,, F After several years of planning, analysis, and negotiations, on November 5, 2013, the City Council approved the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP) and associated implementation actions. The Specific Plan outlined the future development of the project area, which includes demolition of the existing buildings and other improvements on the site and construction of a residential mixed-use project with up to 1,995 single- and multi-family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office and/or commercial uses; a 30 acre Community Park; a 5 acre Neighborhood Park, and a 12-acre school site to serve approximately 900 students. The Land Plan approved with the Specific Plan is included as Attachment 1 . Page 2 of 6 In addition to the DCSP, amendments were approved to the General Plan, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map to implement the Specific Plan. The project approvals also included the certification of the Dublin Crossing Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The approval actions by the City Council were formalized in Resolutions 186-13 (EIR certification) and 187-13 (Specific Plan approval and General Plan amendments) as well as Ordinances 07- 13 (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map changes) and 08-13 (Development Agreement approval). The Dublin Crossing project includes a 12-acre school site that the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) intends to use for a future school that can accommodate up to 900 students. However, funding for new school construction is extremely limited. Despite the best efforts of our State legislative representative last year, a state ballot measure for school construction was not placed on the November 2014 ballot, and no solutions have been proposed by Governor Brown to bridge the construction funding gap that exists between the resources local districts have to build new facilities and the actual costs to build new schools. The lack of funding support from the State means that local school districts, like DUSD, need to find alternative solutions to the now-broken State model that has funded school construction over the years. Realizing the predicament faced by DUSD, City Staff has been working closely with the Superintendent's office on potential options and ways for the City to assist in bridging the gap between land acquisition costs, the current development impact fee structure set by the State, and the need to provide adequate facilities for existing students and to accommodate future student populations. Due to the nature of the land exchange agreement between the developer, Dublin Crossing Venture LLC (SunCal), and the Department of the Army, it is anticipated that the multi-phased Dublin Crossing project will take 8-12 years to construct. According to the project Phasing Plan and as identified by SunCal, the 12-acre school site is in Phase 3 of the project and should become available in 2017. Unfortunately, based on the Governor's stated position that school construction bond funding will not be authorized by the State, it is unlikely that DUSD will have the ability to acquire the Dublin Crossing school site in the timeframe to meet the needs of the District, especially given a current land value of approximately $36 million. In 2014, City Staff approached SunCal to discuss options for the City to obtain the 12-acre school site in an effort to assist DUSD. After much discussion and negotiation, SunCal and City Staff reached agreement on tentative deal terms that would allow the transfer of the future school site to the City at no cost in exchange for modifications to the entitlements for the Dublin Crossing project. To this end, a City-sponsored request to initiate a General Plan and Dublin Crossing Specific Plan amendment to affect the land use changes described below was unanimously supported by the City Council on March 17, 2015. City Council Resolution 36-15 is included as Attachment 2 to this Staff Report. Page 3 of 6 ANALYSIS The proposed changes to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and Development Agreement will result in the delivery of the 12-acre school site to the City without increasing the current maximum number of housing units (up to 1 ,995) allowed in the project or the maximum amount of commercial square footage allowed to be built (up to 200,000 square feet). Additionally, the same amount of parkland will be provided, although the Neighborhood Park will now be a facility that is jointly used by both the community and the School District while the Community Park remains at 30 acres. The following is a description of the land use changes and modifications to the project: General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments Under the proposal agreed to by City Staff and SunCal, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would be amended to include several land use changes that will financially benefit the Developer and allow them to transfer the school site to the City at no cost, including: • Modifying the designation of the 12-acre School site to allow both school and park uses. This will allow the playground(s), recreational field(s), and other amenities to be used by both the school community as well as the residential neighborhood. • Incorporating the 1 .5 acre Chabot Creek into the Community Park and increase the acreage devoted to Medium Density Residential by 1 .5 acres. Although this will allow the Developer more flexibility in where the residential development takes place, the Specific Plan limit of 1 ,995 residential units will not be exceeded; and • Re-designating the 13-acre "Mixed Use" site on the corner of Arnold and Dublin Boulevard to "General Commercial/DC High Density Residential", thereby removing the requirement for both the 5 acre Neighborhood Park site and a minimum of 75,000 square feet of commercial development on this parcel within the site. Attachment 1 illustrates the revised Conceptual Land Use Plan Minor amendments to the General Plan, as outlined in Attachment 3, are also needed to ensure consistency with the amended Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments A cleanup item to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan figures is included, which will ensure that there is consistency on all figures in all documents between the boundaries of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The figures being modified are Figure 4.1 (Land Use Plan), Figure 4.2 (Planning Subareas), and Figure 5-3b (Circulation System) A Resolution amending the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Dublin Crossing Specific Plan is included as Attachment 3 to this Staff Report. Amendment No. 1 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Under the proposal agreed to by City Staff and SunCal, the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement would be amended to: • Remove the requirement to provide construction funding for a 5 acre Neighborhood Park ($2.143 million); • Remove requirement for the final Community Benefit Payment ($1 .2 million); and Page 4 of 6 • Include language related to the no-cost transfer of the school site from the Developer to the City. An Ordinance approving the amendments to the Development Agreement is included as Attachment 4 to this Staff Report, with Amendment No. 1 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement included as Exhibit A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City prepared an Initial Study, dated April 21 , 2015, to determine whether the standards for subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA are met, including whether there could be significant environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project that are new or substantially more severe than those already addressed in the Dublin Crossing Environmental Impact Report, which was certified by the City Council on November 5, 2013 (via Resolution 186-13). The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would not have a new or substantially more severe significant effect on the environment than addressed in the certified Dublin Crossing EIR, no significant information has arisen since the certification of the EIR, and no other standards under CEQA that would require further environmental review have been met. A Resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum for the Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Development Agreement Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project is included as Attachment 5, with the Addendum included as Exhibit A. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning Commission considered the proposed modifications on May 12, 2015. The meeting minutes are included as Attachment 6 to this Staff Report. After discussion and deliberation, the Planning Commission voted 3-1-1 (with one no vote and one abstention) in favor of recommending the project to the City Council via Planning Commission Resolution 15- 01 (Recommending adoption of the CEQA Addendum), 15-02 (Recommending amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plans), and 15-03 (Recommending approval of the Development Agreement Amendment). NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH A notice of this public hearing was published in the Valley Times, mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the Specific Plan project area boundaries, and all persons who have expressed an interest in being notified of actions related to this project were notified via email. One comment letter was received on the evening of the Planning Commission hearing after the conclusion of that meeting. It is included as Attachment 7 to this Staff Report. The Staff Report for this public hearing was also available on the City's website. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Dublin Crossing Conceptual Land Use Plan 2. City Council Resolution 36-15 3. Resolution Amending the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project Page 5 of 6 4. Ordinance approving Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Dublin Crossing Venture LLC related to the Dublin Crossing Project, with Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement included as Exhibit A 5. Resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum for Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Development Agreement related to the Dublin Crossing Project, with the Initial Study and Addendum included as Exhibit A, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations included as Exhibit B 6. Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2015 7. Comment letter from David Bewley dated May 12, 2015 Page 6 of 6 3niaa � N ` '" avoH alonlHV G.0 to 4) U. o (A 133HIS VN31" > C 3 � Y � 3 a ¢ ¢ 133H1S 30VOSVO a ¢ o I w N 1 ° J A"cl 133H18,NOIline 133HIS NOmne 38HOH NOW P a o 3 m Y ¢ Z 4J a z m; 7 J 3NVl OOVHOO 13 z W m Vw ° J CW r � 133HIS ONIlH31S OHVA3inos O } Sf1OHVW3O Q z0 Z z , I +{ O m H ¢ w m Q ° O w ° 1139dWVO W cc z J U Q w Q O O Y Z ) ` 133H1S sneiN oo x w W O U Q a a cn a O a J F 31VHO Z ¢ 1131tlVOS ¢� 40 - W Q F z 4i Z ° P� W O QJ ° Z W m W _ OQ z � m J 2 F pPv � z = Z � o J W Q 0 �_ o F N W U U Z W W W 2 N U U W y } w Q Q JQ. : 0 Q > co W � J z W O O U U J J ,Z z W W OVOH AlH3HJf10O / a W W ... Z Z U U W W ,r a O O W a RESOLUTION NO. 36 - 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND DUBLIN CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO: 1) INCORPORATE THE 1.5 ACRE CHABOT CREEK INTO THE COMMUNITY PARK AND INCREASE THE ACREAGE DEVOTED TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BY 1.5 ACRES; 2) RE-DESIGNATE THE 13 ACRE "MIXED USE" SITE TO "GENERAL COMMERCIAL/DC MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL"; 3) ALLOW USE OF THE SITE DESIGNATED "SCHOOL" FOR BOTH SCHOOL AND PARK PURPOSES. (APNS 986-0001-001-15 (PARTIAL), 986-0034-002-00, AND 986-0034-006-00.) WHEREAS, the City Council is considering initiating a General Plan and Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Amendment Study to: 1) Incorporate the 1.5 acre Chabot Creek into the Community Park and increase the acreage devoted to Medium Density Residential by 1.5 acres; 2) Re-designate the 13 acre "Mixed Use" site to "General Commercial/DC Medium- High Density Residential"; 3) Allow use of the site designated "School" for both school and park purposes; and WHEREAS, the General Plan and Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Amendment Study would also include amendments to the Dublin Crossing Project Development Agreement and minor amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ensure that there is consistency on all figures between the boundaries of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of General Plan and Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Amendment Study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan and Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Amendment Study to: 1) Incorporate the 1.5 acre Chabot Creek into the Community Park and increase the acreage devoted to Medium Density Residential by 1.5 acres; 2) Re- designate the 13 acre "Mixed Use" site to "General Commercial/DC Medium-High Density Residential"; 3) Allow use of the site designated "School" for both school and park purposes. Page 1 of 2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Gupta, Hart, Wehrenberg, and Mayor Haubert NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mayor ATTEST: �- P City Clerk Reso No. 36-15,Adopted 3-17-15, Item 8.1 Page 2 of 2 t RESOLUTION NO. xx-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN, DUBLIN CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN, AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN RELATED TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT PLPA-2015-00016 (APNS 986-0001-001-15 (PARTIAL), 986-0034-002-00, AND 986-0034-006-00) WHEREAS, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP) project area is approximately 189 acres in size and is generally bound by 5t" Street to the north, Scarlett Drive to the west, Dublin Boulevard to the south, and Arnold Road to the east; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2013, the City Council approved Resolutions 186-13 (EIR certification) and 187-13 (Specific Plan approval and General Plan amendments) as well as Ordinances 07-13 (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map changes) and 08-13 (Development Agreement approval) that approved the Dublin Crossing project, which included the demolition of the existing buildings and other improvements on the site and construction of a residential mixed-use project with up to 1,995 single- and multi-family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office and/or commercial uses; a 30 acre Community Park; a 5 acre Neighborhood Park, and a 12 acre school site to serve approximately 900 students; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, the City Council initiated a General Plan and Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Amendment Study to: 1) Incorporate the 1.5 acre Chabot Creek into the Community Park and increase the acreage devoted to Medium Density Residential by 1.5 acres; 2) Re-designate the 13 acre "Mixed Use" site to "General Commercial/DC High Density Residential"; 3) Allow use of the site designated "School" for both school and park purposes; and WHEREAS, the General Plan and Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Amendment Study also included amendments to the Dublin Crossing Project Development Agreement and minor amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ensure that there is consistency on all figures between the boundaries of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated April 21, 2015, incorporated herein by reference, was prepared, which describes the proposed amendments to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, General Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and its relation to the analysis in the Dublin Crossing EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on May 12, 2015, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and 1 WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 15-01 Recommending City Council adoption of a CEQA Addendum for Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 15-02 Recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing 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 June 2, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and CEQA Addendum related to the Dublin Crossing Project, for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, and CEQA Addendum on June 2, 2015, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-xx adopting a CEQA Addendum for Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the CEQA Addendum 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 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 development envisioned by the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, as amended, will continue to be consistent with the guiding and implementing policies of the General Plan in each of the Elements and will allow for development of mixed-use, commercial, residential, and public facility (parks, school) uses in a key infill development area that is within the service boundaries for utilities, the circulation network, and will provide new connections through the community in an area where they are currently limited. The development of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, as amended, will continue to aid in implementing the goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element, Housing Element, Public Lands and Utilities Element, Circulation and Scenic Highways Element, Community Design and Sustainability Element, and the Economic Development Element. The General Plan amendments noted below will ensure that the implementation of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, as amended, is in compliance with the General Plan and that each Element within the General Plan is internally consistent. 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the General Plan: Table 2.4 shall be amended to read. Table 2.4 Land Use Development Potential: Dublin Crossing Planning Area I mm 1l1 m m I�I II,"111 m I'll 111 1 II 111111a VIII VIIEli M"' 11 III IIIIII II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIVu°I°° IIIIIIII�IIIU®IUI iii �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 43.4 6.0-14.0 units/net acre fi ii°u rill I IIII Ilcl I ° °IIIII�IIIU®IUI IIIIIIIUI I n/a 46.5®l u o 46.5 14.1-25 units/net acre 111111 Illl l�ll IIIIII lllllli � I I luue puuuul Uulcfilil®ggillpuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuiuuuuuq!!pul pliii°I�uu�ollllllul apIIIUIIIU®IUI Up to 1,995 dwelling II® liiiuu�p Vuul�ilImu�Ul kul Ill°Iliiva 9 1 14.1-25 units/net acre units e 0.25 to 1.0 FAR ul iiiiii°uu 75,000 to 200,000 c' c® iiii IIIIIIIUII®I 20.1-60 units/net acre gross square feet ®III c°o liilll 23.1 0.25 to 1.0 FAR 111111 Illll�lllllllllllllli I � I I IIIIIIIIIIITII Iii 12 yuuqull II liuuq ulq 30 n/a n/a n/a e® e Iii 1.1 n/a n/a n/a �� IIIII Ill Ili l�ll�uluuiou uu!puuullul®iulll®IIIIIIIVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV n/a 1111111 I® ®I I I IIIIII I�I IIII I� l Y uuIIIllluilulliiiilVi�IlollililuVUll jlj �� U �..i. 23.8 n/a n/a lllulll,Ilu�uudIII I� 111111111111III 189 Notes: (1) Net acreage is defined as the gross acreage less backbone street,public street,and right-of-way area. (2) Can have commercial only, mixed-use,or residential-only uses. FAR applies only to commercial uses. (3) The school site may be developed at the Dublin Crossing Medium Density Residential (DC-MDR) use and density if the site is not utilized for school or park purposes and if the Specific Plan maximum of 1,995 residential units is not exceeded. (4) Park acreage is net usable acres measured from back of sidewalk and includes Chabot Creek. Implementing Policy B.1 of Section 2.7.7 Dublin Crossing Planning Area shall be amended to read as follows: Concentrate commercial uses near the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road. Implementing Policy B.4 of Section 3.2.3 Dublin Crossing Planning Area shall be amended to read as follows: The alignment of Chabot Creek shall be allowed within the boundaries of Central Park and shall be counted within the 30 net-acre calculation of usable park land in accordance with the Project Development Agreement. While it is within the park boundaries, Chabot Creek shall be owned and maintained by a separate entity that is acceptable to the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts amendments to Chapters the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan: Throughout the document references to the "Bikeways Master Plan"have been changed to "Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan." The second paragraph of Chapter 1, Introduction, shall be amended to read- 3 The Specific Plan address the development of the proposed Dublin Crossing Project (the Project) which is comprised of residential units, commercial uses, parks and open space, and a school. Specifically, the Project includes a maximum of up to 1,995 residential units, up to 200,000 square feet (sf.) of commercial uses, a 30 net-acre Community Park, Neighborhood Park land, and a school site. Chapter 2, Land Use and Development Standards, shall amended from the beginning of the Chapter through Section 2.6.4, Development Standards for General Commercial/DC High Density Residential (GC/DC HDR) Land Use District (inclusive), and is included as Exhibit A-1 to this Resolution. Section 2.7 of Chapter 2 shall be amended to read as follows: Permitted Uses Table 2-12: Permitted Uses identifies the statutory permitting/approval requirements for each land use in the Specific Plan area. Where a land use is not identified or this Specific Plan is otherwise silent, provisions identified in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and shall apply. Where there is uncertainty, the Community Development Director has the discretion to make a determination on the suitability of the proposed use. There are some use types (e.g. Daycare Centers, Community Facilities) that are permitted in all traditional residential and commercial zoning districts throughout the City. Although not specifically listed, these use types are also permitted through the same permit approval process in all residential and commercial land use districts in this Specific Plan. In addition, those uses that require a Minor Use Permit in traditional residential and commercial zoning districts throughout the City are also permitted through the same permit approval process in all residential and commercial land use districts in this Specific Plan. Narrative descriptions of the respective permitted use categories are described below. In the Park (P) land use district, allowed uses include those that are included in the Park Master Plan for the park site. In the School (S) land use district, allowed uses include those that are typically associated with a public school and public park, including classrooms, a multi-purpose room, administrative offices, and parking. Allowed uses also include multi-use sports field(s) and playground(s) that could be jointly used by the school and the City for Neighborhood Park purposes. Table 2.12 shall be amended to read as follows: Table 2-12: Permitted Uses lip IV m W m m W m :. m IIV W I �II�I VIII IIII III ICI III p IIV W IIV" 11�11 I IIII IIII IIV ' m III III IlYllll I����II IIV V IlV'W IIV V" Il�lilllillli' ® :1. Prohibited Prohibited Allowed Allowed o 111 111 9!!!!Ullllllllllp it �� Prohibited Prohibited Allowed Allowed IIII I u I I�I�I I�I�I ullul�uuVul� ul� u ® I o m ®®® uuu Prohibited Prohibited Allowed Allowed 1111111 I III II IIII uuu uiu I IVIII I�II�II III IVII a uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuul ullillili 111111I Prohibited ull ul Prohibited Prohibited Allowed Allowed 4 I lip Prohibited Prohibited Allowed Allowed Ilulleill'ullll�lluil''i'i'ii IIIIIIII�® OVIiu®iu ®' Prohibited Prohibited CUP/PC CUP/PC' uuIIIVI ilillllli�u�u Prohibited Allowed Allowed' Allowed' �lllll�uiiIIIIVllllllllllllllllllllllllll Prohibited Prohibited Allowed Allowed ulu rill IViilVllllVlV Ilililllullllulullu Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed pu pJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIrVluuullll IIIIIIIIJ�IIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIII Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited IllVleilll uliuliuuu luau Vuliuu uuuuu ulu 9111911111 II II 191 IIIIIII®�®I Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited uumu IIVuI iiiii a I�u uiiiiii ulumiiil a I�u uili uiiil iiiiiVluuli uiiil oVVV9lll CUP/PC' CUP/PC' CUP/PC' CUP/PC' uulu IiiiuuluVuuuuull it I�uuuulu l�ll�lli " uullulllll III 9111111""""""""I TUP 3 TUP 3 TUP 3 TUP 3 The first bullet under the "Convenience Stores"heading of Section 3.4.3, Special Uses and Conditions, of Chapter 3, Design Guidelines shall be amended to read as follows: Convenience Stores Shall be located along major streets for easy vehicular access and to minimize impacts to residential uses within the Specific Plan area. Section 3.8.2, School, of Chapter 3, Design Guidelines shall be amended to read as follows: School The school will serve as a landmark for the Specific Plan area and will express the overall importance of education and recreational spaces to the Dublin community. School designs are regulated by the State of California and Dublin Unified School District. Such requirements shall take precedent over the requirements of this Specific Plan and the design regulation and guidelines contained herein. However, it is encouraged that the school be designed in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding uses, access is provided from two public streets with careful consideration on circulation patterns for pick-up and drop-off, and opportunities for the City and School District to jointly design and utilize play/sports fields and playground areas are provided. The overall design of the school and associated facilities should be distinct and create a campus feel with similar architectural features, materials, and colors. The third paragraph of Section 4.4.2, East Gateway Plaza, of Chapter 4, Circulation and Streetscape Design, shall be amended to read as follows: If the property at the corner of Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard is developed with commercial uses, a second plaza should be incorporated between the retail buildings. This plaza could feature a smaller water element and tables with chairs with the possibly of outdoor eating areas for restaurants. Accent planting in pots and planters should be located throughout the plaza to provide color. The East Gateway Plaza will be constructed concurrent with the commercial development. The second paragraph of Section 5.6.3, Schools, of Chapter 5, Infrastructure and Public Services, shall be amended to read as follows- 5 This Specific Plan includes a school site. The proposed school site has been designed to include a residential overlay and would revert to the Dublin Crossing Medium Density Residential (DC-MDR) land use district should neither a school nor a park be constructed on the site. If this site is not developed with a school, the Specific Plan area is currently located within the service boundary of Frederiksen Elementary, Wells Middle, and Dublin High Schools. The second paragraph of Chapter 6, Public Realm, shall be amended to read as follows: Parks and open spaces are connected through networks of roads and multi-use (bicycle/pedestrian) pathways, providing a range of active and passive recreation opportunities at both community and neighborhood scales. The park and open space system meets the stated land use objectives of providing a 30 net-acre Community Park suitable for social, cultural and recreational events and a joint-use Neighborhood Park. The following policies in Chapter 6, Public Realm, shall be amended to read as follows. PR Policy 6.4 — Provide 30 net usable acres of Community Park land ("Central Park") and Neighborhood Park land in the Specific Plan area in addition to any open space needed for habitat, the realignment of the Iron Horse Regional Trail, or provided for private recreational amenities and facilities. PR Policy 6.8 — The drainage channel (now referred to as Chabot Creek) shall be allowed within Central Park and is included within the 30 net-acre calculation of usable park land. Chabot Creek shall not be a part of the public-owned park land, but shall be owned and maintained by a separate entity that is acceptable to the City. Section 6.4, Chabot Creek Habitat Corridor, of Chapter 6, Public Realm, shall be amended to read as follows: Chabot Creek is classified as a drainage channel and riparian habitat corridor, and is required by State and Federal regulatory permitting agencies to be preserved in its current location to provide wildlife habitat. Chabot Creek will be owned and maintained by a separate entity (likely a private association or other public agency such as Zone 7). The feature is physically and visually within Central Park, however the creek itself is not owned or maintained by the City. However, future trails and recreational amenities at the top of the creek bank (and outside any areas restricted for use by resource agencies) are within the public park boundary. Chabot Creek runs northeast to southwest through the park providing an excellent opportunity at the top of the creek bank for passive recreation and education including the potential for multi-use trails with staggered observation points integrated into a re-created natural riparian environment. Section 6.4.1, Chabot Creek Habitat Corridor. Central Park Section, of Chapter 6, Public Realm, shall be amended to read as follows: This section of Chabot Creek runs through Central Park, where the habitat corridor provides a passive-nature Chemed and educational amenity within the envelope of Central Park. The corridor preserves an existing drainage channel and conveys stormwater flows through the 6 site. Native riparian planting on the banks could provide suitable habitat for birds, insects and small animals. A walking path with occasional overlooks and educational signage could create opportunities for bird watching and nature appreciation. Vehicular access is restricted to authorized vehicles only. Signage indicating this restriction will be posted fencing will be located as necessary to ensure pedestrian access only. The exhibit below illustrates the Chabot Creek (A), a pedestrian bridge (B), and riparian planting (C). Enhancements to Chabot Creek shall be completed by the Developer and shall not be a part of the City's construction of Central Park. Section 6.4.2, Chabot Creek Habitat Corridor. G Street Section, of Chapter 6, Public Realm, shall be amended to read as follows: This section of Chabot Creek north of"G" Street and extending to the north edge of the project site will be designed as a passive open space with the creek corridor. This segment has a more shallow profile and will also feature native riparian and other ecologically suitable planting that will attract nesting birds, insects and other small wildlife. This section will not be within Central Park and will be owned and maintained by separate entity (likely a private association or other public agency such as Zone 7). The development of this habitat corridor and open space area is the responsibility of the Developer. Section 6.5, Neighborhood Park, of Chapter 6, Public Realm, shall be amended to read as follows: A Neighborhood Park will be located within the Specific Plan area, which will be designed in concert with the surrounding development. The actual park design process will be closely coordinated with the Dublin Unified School District as they move forward with planning the design of the school site. The playground(s), recreational field(s), and other amenities are intended to be jointly-used by both the school community and the surrounding neighborhood. Section 7.3.7, School Site Acquisition, of Chapter 7, Administration, Implementation, and Financing, shall be amended to read as follows: The Dublin Crossing Development Agreement between the City and the Developer stipulates the conditions of acquiring the school site. As a condition of approval of the Large Lot Tentative Map, the developer shall be responsible for dedicating right-of-way and constructing all needed utility and road infrastructure to serve the school site prior to the completion of the school construction or as determined by the City. Financing The acquisition costs of the school site are as stipulated in the Project Development Agreement and the construction costs of the school facilities shall be the responsibility of DUSD. Development of the Project shall be subject to the applicable school mitigation fees imposed under state law. The first sub-sections in Section 7.3.8, Parks, of Chapter 7, Administration, Implementation, and Financing, shall be amended to read as follows- 7 Responsibility The land for 30 net-acres of Community Park land shall be offered to the City for dedication in accordance with the Project Development Agreement. Once this offer is accepted, maintenance of the parks will be the responsibility of the City. Park Improvements and Dedication The City shall construct 30 net-acres of public park facilities in accordance with the Project Development Agreement. With respect to the other open space, landscape, and similar facilities described in the Specific Plan (e.g., landscaped areas, private recreational amenities, in-tract pedestrian and bikeway systems, in-tract landscaping, detention basins), these facilities shall be constructed by the Developer. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: The following figures shall be amended so they no longer include two parcels that have been included in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (APNs 986-0034-002-00, and 986-0034-006-00). Figure 4.1, Land Use Map Figure 4.2, Planning Subareas Figure 5-3b, Circulation System PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPk20151PLPA-2015-00016 Dublin Crossing GPA-SPk5.12.15 PC MtglAtt 2-Exhibit A-CC Reso SP and GPA.docx 8 LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This chapter explains the conceptual land use plan for the Specific Plan area; identifies land use policies, and defines the land use designations unique to the Specific Plan. Development standards for each land use designation are also described. 2.1. Land Use Concept The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan creates land use designations that F will implement the Specific Plan guiding principles and objectives - outlined in Chapter 1: Introduction. The land uses, intensities, sizes and locations are Crossing designed to focus the vision of Dublin g g as tom. a vibrant neighborhood where people can work, live, and play. n,,�` � ` �► DUBLIN CITY OF Furthermore, the land uses are designed to support the Specific Plan land use concept and will act as the regulatory"zoning districts"for {,�� each use. As shown in Figure 2-1: Conceptual Land Use Plan, Dublin Crossing is envisioned as an infill, mixed-use development located in the center of Dublin. It will include a 30 acre Community Park, up to 1,995 residential units, up to 200,000 sf. of commercial space, a neighborhood park, and a school site. A summary of the land use by type is shown in Table 2-1: Land Use Summary. See Table 2-12: Permitted Uses for more detail on the permitted uses in each land use district. The community will be connected by a hierarchy of streets, trails, parks, and interconnected neighborhoods. Land uses are also visually and physically connected to other uses by safe circulation infrastructure, continuity of streetscapes, complementary design features, and by the nature of their compatibility. Land uses in the Specific Plan area reflect a mixture that aims to achieve the vision of a livable urban village. Each of the land uses and the circulation network are described further in this section. Figure 2-2: Illustrative Site Plan illustrates how development within Dublin Crossing may occur. Figure 2-1: Conceptual Land Use Plan LEGEND DC-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL u DC-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL a PARK GENERAL COMMERCIAL/DC-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE GENERAL COMMERCIAL/DC-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY I r 4 HORIZON PARKWAY _ v A Y ...r 30, HORIZON• f � w PARKWAY m �� F CENTRAL PARKWAY CENTRAL PARKWAY a - -- �`.,•' IT IT a r ;r" - NUGGET WAY 3 w Q ¢¢O z HOU,gTON•PLACE, r"`T V J A9y EL DORADO LANE EL DORADO LANE S/0 J, 1N VP ~ w - DUIXIIL4 ELVP w `gam OR: N❑ NO WO� Table 2-1: Land Use Summary Medium Specific Plan Total Total Residential Total Commercial Land Use District Net Acreage Permitted Density Development Potential Development Potential Dublin Crossing Density Residential D 43.4 6.0-14.0 units/net acre D• n/a Dublin • • Medium- High Density - •- • 46.5 14.1-25 units/net acre D• Up to 1,995 dwelling units s General • - • Medium-High Density 14.1-25 units/net acre Residential 9.1 0.25 to 1.0 FAR 75,000 to 200,000 D' gross square feet General • - • Density 23.1 0.25 to 1.0 FAR 20.1-60 units/net acre • • • , •• 12 n/a n/a '• 30 n/a n/a n/a Open S•• - • 1.1 n/a n/a n/a Roadways, • • 23.8 n/a n/a n/a other Infrastructure 189 Notes: (1) Net acreage is defined as the gross acreage less backbone street,public street,and right-of-way area. (2) Can have commercial only, mixed-use,or residential-only uses. FAR applies only to commercial uses. (3) The school site may be developed at the Dublin Crossing Medium Density Residential (DC-MDR) use and density if the site is not utilized for school or park purposes and if the Specific Plan maximum of 1,995 residential units is not exceeded. (4) Park acreage is net usable acres measured from back of sidewalk and includes Chabot Creek. N � �- r ♦y �iw >'fr��+ � ��+� JL ■M �� S JI' iii � 1 JL r r •;� � �', _ � ••� �a w JLyL J r j v �l,MM w� :.�•.11�1 'm. w r' J,�L fJ • » �� 1' .wiw i R _ 11 M Il .. I ik� •6 A Pedrsonan-Pa-Ay C.—ty 2.1.1. Parks, Open Space, and Public Facilities location within the City. The gateway plaza should include significant landscaping, seating, street furniture, and other element(s). The Specific Plan area contains land designed for public use which includes parks/open space, a school site, and public roadways. The Iron Horse Regional Trail will be reconfigured with the new project frontage and Scarlett Drive extension/widening, and a Central Park and Iron Horse Regional Trail Realignment secondary trail pathway could be integrated along the southwestern Located at the crossroads of Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive and edge of the Central Park. the Iron Horse Regional Trail is the proposed 30 net usable acre Dublin Crossing Central Park (Central Park). The Central Park is School envisioned as an innovative and uniquely designed community The Specific Plan provides an opportunity for the Dublin Unified gathering place for the residents of Dublin Crossing and the broader School District (DUSD)to establish a public school on the site which community of Dublin. is designated as School (S) on Figure 2-1: Conceptual Land Use Plan. This school site will be designed to accommodate The Central Park will provide high-quality recreational amenities for approximately 900 children and could include classrooms, a multi- both passive and active recreation and civic events (e.g., festivals, purpose room, administrative offices, parking, and multi-use sports farmer's market, art shows, etc.). Amenities could include an field(s) and playground(s) that will be jointly used by the school and amphitheater, organized and informal sports fields, sport courts, the City for Neighborhood Park purposes. In the event a school restrooms, walking paths, parking, a community garden, does not develop on the site, the parcel may be used entirely for demonstration vineyards, play areas, picnic grounds, a carousel, a park purposes. rose garden, and possibly a building pad for a children's museum (to be built by others). An existing drainage channel extends north to south along the eastern side of the proposed land area for Central Park. This channel provides regional drainage from Camp Parks (to the north) and eventually flows under 1-580 and into the Chabot Canal. This channel will be relocated and grade-contoured as a natural riparian corridor. The new channel will be located near the eastern border of the Central Park, but the channel acreage is not included in the 30 net-acre park calculations. The Dublin Boulevard frontage of Central Park will create an opportunity for a strong visual civic statement at a key central 2.1.2. Residential Neighborhoods 2.1.3. Commercial and Mixed Use The proposed project will contain residential neighborhoods that will General Commercial/Dublin Crossing Medium-High Density accommodate up to a Specific Plan total of 1,995 residential units Residential (GC/DC M-HDR) with densities ranging from 6 to 60 dwelling units per net acre. There To provide flexibility to accommodate future market conditions and are two land use districts that accommodate exclusively residential City housing needs, a combination land use district is proposed for development: areas along Arnold Road. • Dublin Crossing Medium Density Residential (DC MDR) has General Commercial/Dublin Crossing Medium-High Density a density of 6 to 14 units per net acre; and Residential (GC/DC M-HDR) is proposed for property on the • Dublin Crossing Medium-High Density Residential (DC M- periphery of the project area along Arnold Road, as shown in Figure HDR) has a density of 14.1 to 25 units per net acre. 2-1: Conceptual Land Use Plan. Uses allowed in this district are There will be a variety of housing types throughout the project area commercial, mixed use, and residential. The GC/DC M-HDR land including single-family detached, single-family attached and multi- use district can contain commercial uses, up to a Specific Plan area family units which will be located in order to provide a logical total of 200,000 square feet. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR)of transition from the existing high density residential development commercial uses in the district is 1.0 and the maximum density for adjacent to the BART station and from the existing Medium-Density residential development in the land use district is 25 units/net acre. Residential neighborhood across Scarlett Drive FAR applies only to commercial uses and is calculated using only Residential density ranges within each residential neighborhood are that portion of the property that is devoted to commercial use. For a allowed to provide flexibility of subdivision design and to adapt to vertical mixed-use project, the FAR is calculated using that portion of changing future housing market conditions. the property that is devoted to vertical mixed use. General Commercial/Dublin Crossing High Density Residential (GC/DC HDR) To provide flexibility to accommodate future market conditions and City housing needs, a combination land use district is proposed for areas along Dublin Boulevard to Arnold Road. General Commercial/Dublin Crossing High Density Residential (GC/DC HDR) is proposed for property on the periphery of the project area along Dublin Boulevard, as shown in Figure 2-1: Conceptual Land Use Plan. Uses allowed in this district are commercial, mixed use (commercial and residential combined in some way), and residential. In combination with the GC/DC M-HDR land use district, the GC/DC HDR land use district can contain commercial uses up to a Specific Plan area total of 200,000 square 2.1.4. Roadway Network feet. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of commercial uses in the As public spaces, streets will have significant importance within district is 1.0 and the maximum density for residential development in Dublin Crossing. They will facilitate access to the residential, the land use district is 20.1 to 60 units/net acre. commercial, mixed use, and public uses within the community. This FAR applies only to commercial uses and is calculated using only Specific Plan includes a thoughtfully designed streetscape that is that portion of the property that is devoted to commercial use. For a conducive to facilitating multiple modes of travel in an inviting, safe, vertical mixed-use project, the FAR is calculated using that portion of aesthetically-pleasing circulation network. the property that is devoted to vertical mixed use. A grid pattern of different street types, each with a defined character In terms of site design in the GC/DC HDR district, a gateway plaza and function, will serve the transportation needs of the project. The shall be located at the northwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and internal "backbone" street system is designed to establish Arnold Road to create a public focal point along Dublin Boulevard connections to the existing exterior roadway network as well as and to anchor this corner of the Dublin Crossing project area. This internally between residential neighborhoods, parks, open spaces, a gateway plaza will provide a welcoming entry feature to the district. school site, and business/commercial areas. With sidewalks on nearly all streets, and bikeways on many, the streets will become the framework for the pedestrian and bicycle network as they connect to uses both internally and beyond Dublin Crossing. Internal roadway classifications include Residential, Class I, and Class II Collector Streets, Residential Streets, and Private Streets. Chapter 4: Circulation and Streetscape Design provides greater detail on the roadway network. Residential, Class I, and Class II Collector Streets Collector Streets will serve as the primary conduits for interior neighborhood vehicular, bicycles, and pedestrian traffic and to provide access to and from neighborhood residential streets and perimeter streets outside of the Specific Plan area. These streets are not intended to support regional traffic, but they may provide direct access to schools and parks. Collector Streets include B Street, Central Parkway, and G Street. Residential Streets Residential Streets will provide direct multi-modal access to neighborhoods by residents and visitors while discouraging through traffic and high speeds. Residential Streets are intended to provide low-speed access between and within neighborhoods, promoting a multi-modal network with an emphasis on comfort, safety, and amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists. Private Streets Private Streets will be privately owned and maintained streets that provide access within common interest subdivisions and commercial and mixed-use developments. Private Streets will be designed for a low volume of traffic with limited vehicular access. Private Streets will be narrower than public Residential Streets and may or may not include sidewalks, on-street parking, or other street features but will not include gates that restrict access. 2.2. Planning Areas Figure 2-3: Planning Areas organizes the project site into distinct Planning Areas for purposes of the overall site development and for identifying smaller parcels within the project area. The Planning Areas do not correlate to project phasing or the order of future development. Figure 2-3: Planning Areas LEGEND DC-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL F—] DC-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARK F - GENERAL COMMERCIAL/DC-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE GENERAL COMMERCIAL/DC PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L--J PLANNING AREA NUMBER 11 12 s` g ok R r I If I-,. 1 f f',�t','' T HORIZON PARKWAY 1 2 w •� 1� F 14 <` 13 -,f r '= ao 1`/` '� -._._._N9.3j7_qN PARKWAY CENTRAL PARKWAY CENTRAL PARKWAY :_, � w O / ¢ 0 ❑ _i NUGGET WAY ? C 9 15 z _-- F ❑ w w w ¢ z o 7 ❑ 17 HOUSTON PLACE Grp m ❑ 3 1 ❑ GrGpF o EL DORADO LANE EL DORADO LANE F w j UB LM"'40 j a D o DUBLIN BLVp • w ¢w w a?.,. Ss2 w0 ¢Y Tr ❑m _ . __ Table 2-2: Planning Area Development Summary 2.3. Phasing Plan Approximate Planning Development of the Specific Plan area includes 5 (five)development Area Project Phase Net Area(Acres) Land Use District phases, with anticipated build-out occurring over a period of 5 16.64 DC M-HDR (14.1-25 u/a) approximately 10 years in response to market demands, the 4/5 17.67 DC MDR (6-14 u/a) acquisition of the property from the U.S. Army, and according to an 2/3/4 30 P-os orderly extension of roadways, infrastructure, public services, and - 1 A 3.72 DC M-HDR (14.1-25 u/a) utilities. Over the course of the five phases, park sites, private recreational facilities, the school site, and other amenities will be 1 A/2 8.49 DC MDR (6-14 u/a) provided commensurate with the residential and commercial 1 B/2 6.10 DC MDR (6-14 u/a) development pursuant to terms in the Project Development 1 A/ 1 B 5.33 DC M-HDR (14.1-25 u/a) Agreement. Figure 2-4: Conceptual Phasing Plan and Table 2-3: 1 A 6.13 GC/DC HDR Phasing Plan identify proposed development phasing within the Specific Plan area. 1 B 3.10 DC M-HDR (14.1-25 u/a) 2/3 1 1.00 DC MDR (6-14 u/a) Project phasing is described in greater detail in Section 7.3 of the 2/3 14.42 DC M-HDR (14.1-25 u/a) Specific Plan. ® 4 2.03 GC/DC M-HDR ® 3/4 6.18 GC/DC M-HDR 3 12.00 S Table 2-3: Phasing Plan ® Estimated Amount of 3 3.15 DC M-HDR (14.1-25 u/a) Estimated Number of Commercial Square 2/3 3.77 GC/DC HDR Residential Units Footage 2/3 13.00 GC/DC HDR 33 460 - Roadway,- © 54 650 75,000 other Remainder n/a 48 316 50,000 Infrastructur 26 156 75,000 189 © 28 413 - • 189 Up to 1,995 (max.) Up to 200,000 (max.) acres Figure 2-4: Conceptual Phasing Plan LEGEND PHASING BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATE) SCHOOL DC—MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARK DC—MEDIUM—HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE * qi GENERAL COMMERCIAL/DC—MEDIUM—HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL r_ _I PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY 0 GENERAL COMMERCIAL/DC—HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL k 17 17 ' _ i, I'i I_ � '.,1' �11 Ir' ail Jrr• -.��. �� y. � a :r f FT P . A HORIZON PARKWAY 1 , r CENTRAL PARKWAY - .CENTRAL PARKWAY - �R NUGGET WAY - S 0 0 O ¢ YY / F U thi.3 r W N W m U a L 1LL y SC N I R 3 'I O . � <..�.,a..roan.....•..:..me fi�a. 'Did 0 P EL DORADO LANE EL DORADO LANE a � s - - tE 1-. r LU Policy 2.7— Each development phase shown in Figure 2-3 shall 2.4. Land Use Policies include all infrastructure, services, facilities and amenities, both The following land use policies shall apply to all development within public and private, needed to serve the uses and structures within the project area unless otherwise noted in this Specific Plan. Special that phase, which shall be completed in accordance with the implementation measures are described in Chapter 7: provisions in this Specific Plan and Development Agreement. Administration, Implementation and Financing. Development of each phase shall result in a project that could "stand alone" both functionally and aesthetically if future phases were not LU Policy 2.1 —Concentrate commercial uses near the intersection constructed. of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road. LU Policy 2.8— Development of Phase 2 shall include the provision LU Policy 2.2— Locate higher density residential uses along Dublin of a 10 foot, landscaped connection outside of the street right-of-way Boulevard and within one-half mile walking or biking distance to line along the east side of D Street North to connect the residential transit facilities. neighborhood of Phase 1 and Phase 2 with comfortable, multi-modal connections between the two. LU Policy 2.3— Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities to meet the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and to promote alternatives to automobile use and reduce parking demand. Pedestrian 2.5. Infrastructure and Services sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and multi-use trails shall safely connect Figure 2-1: Conceptual Land Use Plan provides for a variety of land residential, commercial, and recreational uses to each other and to uses within the Specific Plan area. Each of these land uses will be transit facilities. served by existing and future utility infrastructure planned for future LU Policy 2.4— Develop a comprehensive Park Master Plan for the development in and around the Specific Plan area. Project development will require removal and relocation of existing, and Community Park (Central Park) and apedestrian/bicycle trail construction of new, public utilities within the Specific Plan area. network that is consistent with the City of Dublin Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 5: Infrastructure and Public Services provides detail on and Parks and Recreation Master Plan. infrastructure and public services improvements that will be LU Policy 2.5— Locate the Central Park near the intersection of developed in the Specific Plan area. Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive and the Iron Horse Regional Trail to provide physical and visual access to the Dublin Community and to enable a strong connection between the parks in the Specific Plan area and the Iron Horse Regional Trail. LU Policy 2.6—Promote development of a wide variety of housing types and housing alternatives for Dublin residents. 7.6. Development Standards The purpose of this section is to provide land use development standards that apply throughout the Specific Plan area. These include standards regarding permitted uses, building height limits, parking requirements, and setbacks. These development standards should be used in conjunction with Chapter 3: Design Guidelines, which describe and illustrate building designs, concepts, and features that will ensure the high-quality development that is envisioned for the Specific Plan area. Development standards apply for each of the respective land use designations described below. These are: • Dublin Crossing Medium Density Residential (DC MDR) • Dublin Crossing Medium-High Density Residential (DC M- HDR) • General Commercial/Dublin Crossing Medium-High Density Residential (GC/DC M-HDR) • General Commercial/Dublin Crossing High Density Residential (GC/DC HDR) Additionally, development standards are provided for specific residential product types. For any residential development, the development standards of both the land use district and the particular product type shall apply. 2.6.1 . Development Standards for DC Medium height is measured from adjacent finished grade in Density Residential (DC MDR) land use district accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. The DC Medium Density Residential (DC MDR) land use district Due to sensitivities over potential visual intrusion into a particular building on the military base, there shall be no allows a mix of residential lot configurations from conventional windows on north-facing elevations that are higher than 25 single-family small-lots including "two-pack" or"zipper" lots, to feet from adjacent grade within the Visual Intrusion Buffer attached multi-family lots at a density of 6-14 units per net acre. area as identified on Figure 1-4: Existing Constraints,. Residential product types may include a variety of attached and Usable Outdoor Space (Common and Private)for attached housing units of any type shall be a minimum of 15% of detached housing types, including: the net site area. • Single-Family Conventional Home (Detached) Parking shall be provided in accordance with the Zoning • Alley Loaded Home (Detached) Ordinance based on residential use type. • Duet Home (Attached) • Rowhouse (Attached) • Green Court Home (Detached) • Motorcourt Home (Detached or Attached) • Townhome (Attached) In addition to the development standards noted here, refer also to Section 2.6.10: Residential Product Type Development Standards (all Land Use Districts)for product type development standards. Secondary dwelling units, accessory structures, and home occupations are permitted in the DC MDR land use district in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Development of residential units in this land use district shall be regulated by the development standards established for each product type noted and in accordance with these standards: . No building shall be taller than 40 feet, except for architectural projections such as chimneys. Building Development of residential units in this land use district shall be 2.6.2. Development Standards for DC Medium-High regulated by the development standards established for each Density Residential (DC M-HDR) Land Use District product type noted and in accordance with these standards: DC Medium-High Density Residential (DC M-HDR) allows for a mix of attached and detached single-family and multi-family housing lot ■ No building shall be taller than 45 feet, except for configurations at a density of 14.1 to 25 units/net acre. architectural projections such as chimneys. Building height is measured from adjacent finished grade in Residential product types may include a variety of attached and accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. detached housing types, including: . Due to sensitivities over potential visual intrusion into a particular building on the military base, there shall be no • Single-Family Conventional Home (Detached) windows on north-facing elevations that are higher than 25 feet from adjacent grade within the Visual Intrusion Buffer • Alley Loaded Home (Detached) area as identified on Figure 1-4: Existing Constraints. • Duet Home (Attached) . Usable Outdoor Space (Common and Private)for attached • Rowhouse (Attached) housing units of any type shall be a minimum of 15% of the net site area. • Green Court Home (Detached) . Parking shall be provided in accordance with the Zoning • Motorcourt Home (Detached or Attached) Ordinance based on residential use type. The process for • Townhome (Attached) considering exceptions to parking requirements is • Multi-Family (Attached) described in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.76. In addition to the development standards noted here, refer also to Section 2.6.10: Residential Product Type Development Standards (all Land Use Districts)for product type development standards. Medium-High Density Residential development provides a transition from the higher density apartments and condominiums along the project periphery to the DC Medium Density Residential land use district in the core of the Specific Plan area. Home occupations are permitted in the DC M-HDR land use district in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.64: Home Occupations Regulations. In addition to the development standards noted here, refer also to 2.6.3. Development Standards for General Section 2.6.10: Residential Product Type Development Standards Commercial/DC Medium-High Density Residential (GC/DC M-HDR) Land Use District (all Land Use Districts)for product type development standards. To provide flexibility to accommodate future market conditions and Home occupations are permitted in the GC/DC MDR land use district City housing needs, a combination land use district is proposed for in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.64: Home areas along Arnold Road. Uses allowed in this district are Occupations Regulations. residential, commercial, and mixed use (commercial and residential Development in this land use district shall be regulated by the combined in a single project). Mixed-use can take the form of development standards established for each residential product type vertical mixed-use, horizontal mixed-use, or a combination of both. noted (if residential uses are proposed) and in accordance with these Vertical mixed-use is characterized by residential uses over standards: commercial uses. Horizontal mixed-use is characterized by residential and commercial uses developed side by side, as either . No building shall be taller than 45 feet, except for attached or detached units, but the project is designed so that the architectural projections such as chimneys. Building residential and commercial uses are integrated and built height is measured from adjacent finished grade in simultaneously to function as a single project. accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. . Usable Outdoor Space (Common and Private)for attached In multi-story, mixed-use buildings, ground floor commercial uses housing units of any type shall be a minimum of 15% of should include uses that serve daily needs, such as retail and the net site area. grocery stores and eating and drinking establishments. All other . Parking shall be provided in accordance with the Zoning uses are permitted on all floors. Ordinance based on use type. The process for Residential product types may include a variety of attached and considering exceptions to parking requirements is described in Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.76. detached housing types, including: • Single-Family Conventional Home (Detached) • Alley Loaded Home (Detached) • Duet Home (Attached) • Rowhouse (Attached) • Green Court Home (Detached) • Motorcourt Home (Detached or Attached) • Townhome (Attached) • Multi-Family (Attached) In addition to the development standards noted here, refer also to 2.6.4. Development Standards for General Section 2.6.10: Residential Product Type Development Standards Commercial/DC High Density Residential (GC/DC HDR) Land Use District (all Land Use Districts)for product type development standards. To provide flexibility to accommodate future market conditions and Home occupations are permitted in the GC/DC HDR land use district City housing needs, a combination land use district is proposed for in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.64: Home areas along Dublin Boulevard, west to Arnold Road. Uses allowed in Occupations Regulations. this district are residential, commercial, and mixed use (commercial ■ No building shall be taller than 75 feet, except for and residential combined in a single project). Mixed-use can take architectural projections such as chimneys. Building the form of vertical mixed-use, horizontal mixed-use, or a height is measured from adjacent finished grade in combination of both. Vertical mixed-use is characterized by accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. residential uses over commercial uses. Horizontal mixed-use is . Usable Outdoor Space (Common and Private)for attached characterized by residential and commercial uses developed side by housing units of any type shall be a minimum of 15% of side, as either attached or detached units, but the project is designed the net site area. so that the residential and commercial uses are integrated and built ■ Parking: simultaneously to function as a single project. • For commercial uses, parking shall conform to the In multi-story, mixed-use buildings, ground floor commercial uses City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.76: Off- should include uses that serve daily needs, such as retail and Street Parking and Loading Regulations. grocery stores and eating and drinking establishments. All other E For residential development in this district, the uses are permitted on all floors. parking requirement is 1.5 spaces (covered or uncovered) per residential unit plus guest parking Residential product types may include a variety of attached and provided as an additional 15% of the number of detached housing types, including: required spaces. • The process for considering exceptions to parking • Alley Loaded Home (Detached) requirements is described in Zoning Ordinance • Duet Home (Attached) Chapter 8.76. • Rowhouse (Attached) • Green Court Home (Detached) • Motorcourt Home (Detached or Attached) • Townhome (Attached) • Multi-Family (Attached) ORDINANCE NO. xx-15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND DUBLIN CROSSING VENTURE LLC RELATED TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT PLPA-2015-00016 (APNS 986-0001-001-15 (PARTIAL), 986-0034-002-00, AND 986-0034-006-00) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. On November 5, 2013, the City Council approved Resolutions 186-13 (EIR certification) and 187-13 (Specific Plan approval and General Plan amendments) as well as Ordinances 07-13 (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map changes) and 08-13 (Development Agreement approval) that approved the Dublin Crossing project, which included the demolition of the existing buildings and other improvements on the site and construction of a residential mixed-use project with up to 1,995 single- and multi-family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office and/or commercial uses; a 30 acre Community Park; a 5 acre Neighborhood Park, and a 12 acre school site to serve approximately 900 students; and B. On March 17, 2015, the City Council directed Staff to prepare Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Dublin Crossing Venture LLC related to the Dublin Crossing Project that would accompany proposed amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and C. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated April 21, 20157 incorporated herein by reference, was prepared, which describes the proposed amendments to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, General Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Amendment No. 1 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement and its relation to the analysis in the Dublin Crossing EIR; and D. Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement will vest the Project Approvals. E. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement on May 12, 2015, for which public notice was given by law; and F. The Planning Commission made its recommendation to the City Council for approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement by Resolution. G. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on June 2, 2015 for which public notice was given as provided by law. H. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission, including the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all comments received in writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing. Section 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS Therefore, on the basis of: (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Dublin General Plan, as amended; (c) the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, as amended, (d) the CEQA Addendum for proposed Dublin Crossing Project Amendments; (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. Amendment No. 1 to 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 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, as amended, in that: (a) Amendment No. 1 to 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. Amendment No. 1 to 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement does not amend the uses or regulations in the applicable land use district. 3. Amendment No. 1 to 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 Resolution No. XX-XX, amending the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council on June 2, 2015. 4. Amendment No. 1 to 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, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, as amended, and future Project Approvals and any Conditions of Approval. 5. Amendment No. 1 to 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 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, as amended, and future Project Approvals. 6. Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement does not change the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The original Development Agreement continues to contain 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement (Exhibit A-1 to the Ordinance) and authorizes the City Manager to execute it. 2 Section 4. RECORDATION Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully executed by all parties, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 2nd day of June 2015 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF DUBLIN When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fee Waived per GC 27383 Space above this line for Recorder's use AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND DUBLIN CROSSING VENTURE LLC RELATING TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment") is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this — day of , 2015, by and between the City of Dublin, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City"), DUBLIN CROSSING VENTURE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (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 are from time-to-time individually referred to in this Amendment as a "Party" and are collectively referred to as "Parties". RECITALS 1. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Development Agreement Statutes") authorize the City to enter into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property. 2. Pursuant to that authority, City and Developer entered into that certain "Development Agreement Between the City of Dublin and Dublin Crossing Venture LLC," dated November 19, 2013 and recorded in the Official Records of Alameda County ("Official Records") on June 4, 2014 as document number 2014134795 (the "Agreement"). Amendments to the Agreement are permitted by the mutual consent of the Parties in accordance with Article 13.2 of the Agreement and by the Development Agreement Statutes. 3. The Developer's original entitlements (described as the "Existing Project Approvals" in the Agreement) allowed for the construction of up to 1,995 single- and multi-family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office, and/or commercial uses; a 30 acre Community Park; a 5-acre Neighborhood Park, and a 12 acre elementary school site. 4. The Dublin Unified School District has stated it is unlikely that it will have the ability to acquire the 12-acre elementary school site in the near term, given the current land value of approximately $36,000,000. 5. Developer and City reached a tentative agreement that would allow the transfer of the future school site to the City at no cost in exchange for modification to the entitlements for the Dublin Crossing Project. These modifications (which were processed in conjunction with this Amendment) required amendments to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and to the Dublin Crossing Project Development Agreement (the "Subsequent Project Approvals"), but did not increase the current maximum number of housing units allowed in the Project. Amendment No. 1 to Dublin/Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement for the Dublin Crossing Project 1 I 6. Parties now wish to amend the terms of the Agreement to reflect the changes to the entitlements, to remove the requirement to provide construction funding for a 5-acre Neighborhood Park (which Neighborhood Park the entitlements eliminate), to reduce the total Community Benefit Payment by $1,200,000, and to include language related to the no-cost transfer of the school site, among other complementary and/or conforming amendments. 7. On May 12, 2015 the Planning Commission held a public hearing with respect to this Amendment and the Project Approvals described below and adopted Resolution No. 15- recommending that the City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement. 8. On , 2015 the City Council held a public hearing with respect to the following approvals and approved the following: an amendment to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, (Resolution No. ) and the DA Amendment Approving Ordinance (defined below) (the "Project Approvals"). 9. City undertook, 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 Existing Project Approvals and determined those feasible mitigation measures which will eliminate, or reduce to an acceptable level, the adverse environmental impacts of the Existing Project Approvals. The environmental effects of the proposed development of the Property were analyzed by the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIR") certified by City on November 5, 2013. In conjunction therewith, City 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, 10. In conjunction with its review of the Subsequent Project Approvals, the City prepared an addendum to the FEIR that concluded that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. 11. On , 2015, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. approving this Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement ("DA Amendment Approving Ordinance"). The ordinance took effect on 2015 (the "Amendment Approval Date"). NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows: Amendment No. 1 to Dublin/Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement for the Dublin Crossing Project 2 AGREEMENT Section 1. The parties agree that the Project Approvals will be treated as Subsequent Project Approvals as that term is defined in the Agreement. Section 2. Section 6.1 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: "6.1 Development Agreement Fee, Due On a Per-Unit Basis at Final Map. Prior to the City's approval of each final map creating individual lots for residential units, Developer shall pay the City a development agreement fee (the "Development Agreement Fee") calculated as follows: the number of residential lots (or condominium parcels) that would be created by the final map multiplied by $22,941.96. For maps that create condominiums, the tentative and final map shall indicate the maximum number of units permitted by the final map, and the Development Agreement Fee paid shall be based on the maximum number of units permitted by the map. For maps creating fewer than 40 lots or condominium units, the Development Agreement Fee shall be based on 40 lots or condominium units. In the event that Developer seeks a site development review ("SDR") approval for residential units for which the per unit fee has not been paid (e.g. apartment projects), Developer shall pay the per-unit fee amount at the time of SDR approval. The per-unit fee amount ($22,941.96 per residential unit) shall not be adjusted for inflation. At such point as Developer has paid Development Agreement Fees or advances equal to $36,707,142 in the aggregate, Developer shall no longer be obligated to pay the Development Agreement Fee required by this subsection. As detailed in Exhibit E, the $22,941.96 per residential unit fee generates $36,707,142 at the point when 1,600 units are mapped in the Project. The Development Agreement Fee was determined based on six separate components described in this Agreement: (a) Park Construction, § 9.6; (b) Community Benefit, § 7; (c) Iron Horse Bridge Design, § 10.3.1; (d) Iron Horse Bridge Construction; § 10.3.2; (e) ACSPA Property Acquisition Contribution, § 9.8; and (f) Park Maintenance Endowment, § 9.7. The City is requiring the payment of the Development Agreement Fee as a condition to development of the Property. The Parties agree that the City shall be deemed for all purposes to be requiring the payment of the Development Agreement Fee as a condition to development of the Property and that the Development Agreement Fee should be considered a supplemental fee and, in all aspects of its application and implementation, should not be deemed a waiver or fee reduction of any kind. If at any point the City Council determines that at full buildout development on the Property will not or is unlikely to produce 1,600 units, the City may withhold further approvals, including final maps, until such time as Developer provides adequate assurances that the City will receive the entire $36,707,142 in Development Fee revenue." Amendment No. 1 to Dublin/Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement for the Dublin Crossing Project 3 Section 3. Section 7 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: 7. Community Benefit Payment. 7.1 Developer has agreed, as partial consideration for the City's entering into this agreement, to contribute to the City over the course of the Project the sum of $17,500,000 as a Community Benefit Payment, in accordance with the following schedule and requirements. 7.2 The Community Benefit Payment is a component of the Development Agreement Fee and will be paid as specified in section 6.1, except that, if the City has not received the following amount, exclusive of Development Agreement Fee component payments previously applied, by the applicable deadline below, Developer shall, on or before the applicable deadline, make an advance of Development Agreement Fees equal to the difference between the amount of Development Agreement Fees the City had previously received, exclusive of Development Agreement Fee component payments previously applied, and the amount set out below. Payment Amount Deadline First $10,000,000 24 months following the Project Approval Date Second $5,000,000 48 months following the Project Approval Date Third $2,500,000 At recordation of the last final map in Phase 4 of the Project (see Exhibit D) The "Project Approval Date" shall be the date upon which all appeal, legal challenge and rehearing periods relating to the Existing Project Approvals shall have expired without legal challenge, or, if any appeal, legal challenge or rehearing request is filed against the City challenging such Project Approvals, the date upon which all such challenges are finally dismissed and either (a) all of such Project Approvals remain effective or, (b) have been reaffirmed, if required by the resolution of the challenge(s). The Parties agree that any payment deadlines under this Section that occur during the pendency of any appeal, legal challenge or rehearing request filed against the City challenging any of the Subsequent Project Approvals shall be extended to a date 30 days following the finality of any such appeal, legal challenge, or rehearing request. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Developer shall not be required to make the foregoing payments if the City Council elects for any reason not to form Amendment No. 1 to Dublin/Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement for the Dublin Crossing Project 4 a CFD proposed by Developer that meets the requirements of Section 8. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, if any payment under this subsection is not received in full by the City by the deadline for such payment, the City may withhold further issuance of building permits and other approvals, including final maps, for the Project until such time as Developer has made the required payment." Section 5. Section 9.1 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: "9.1 Parkland Dedication. Except as specified in Section 9.8, the Project proposed by Developer includes the dedication of 30 net acres of community parkland. Developer shall dedicate the specified parkland with the first final map in the Project phase specified below, or earlier: Project Size of dedication Phase 1st Phase 2 10 net acres of community park land (includes 8.7 acres in exchange for ACSPA Property transfer by City under section 9.8.) 2nd Phase 3 10 net acres of community park land 3rd Phase 5 10 net acres of community park land Net acreage is measured at the property line of the park parcels dedicated by Developer and does not include land area currently owned by the City or land area within adjacent existing or future street right of ways. Other than the creek and the 50-foot buffer boundary from top of bank on either side of the creek, net acreage does not include land that is encumbered by use restrictions, unless the use restrictions are approved by the City. The City acknowledges that the portions of the 30 acres may be subjected to the following reasonable restrictions: active sports fields, certain species of plantings, and the use of motorized vehicles. If resource agencies require use restrictions that are not acceptable to the City in the area beyond the 50-foot buffer boundary from top of bank on either side of the creek, Developer shall identify additional acreage to meet the net 30 acre requirement. This obligation shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 2, and the City may withhold further building permits outside of Phase 1 until it is satisfied. The Parties agree that, in the event of substantial revisions to the geography of the Project phases (as determined by the City Manager), this Agreement shall be promptly amended to revise Exhibit D and to reflect the Amendment No. 1 to Dublin/Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement for the Dublin Crossing Project 5 impact the revised phases have on provisions of this Agreement that reference the Project phases, which include, but are not limited to, this Section 9.1 and Sections 9.6 and 9.8. The City Manager may approve insubstantial revisions to Exhibit D requested by Developer and if such revisions are so approved the revised Exhibit D shall automatically become annexed to this Agreement and shall replace the prior Exhibit D and the Parties shall be authorized to and shall replace the prior Exhibit D with the new Exhibit D in each copy of the Agreement." Section 6. Section 9.2 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: "9.2 Public Facilities Fee and Quimby Requirements For Land Dedications. In the aggregate, the dedications required by this Agreement, including the dedication of the school site pursuant to Section 12 on which the City intends to provide for a minimum of 5 acres of joint school/park use, and the Developer's contribution toward the City's purchase of the ACSPA Property pursuant to Section 9.8.3, satisfy the community park land component of the City's Public Facilities Fee and the parkland dedication requirements of Chapter 9.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code for up to 1,995 residential units and for all of the commercial development proposed on the Specific Plan. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, development in the Project and on the Property shall be subject to all other components of the Public Facilities Fee. At the time of dedication on the final map, provided that Developer (a) enters into an improvement agreement in conjunction therewith and (b) provides evidence, acceptable to the City Engineer, demonstrating that the land to be conveyed (including any imported fill) meets California Department of Toxic Substances Control standards applicable to residential development or such lesser standard acceptable to the City, the City will promptly upon receipt of such evidence indicate in its records that Developer has made such a dedication, and those records will be used to determine whether the Developer has satisfied its obligations under the community park land component of the City's Public Facilities Fee and the parkland dedication requirements of Chapter 9.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code. The City's records of the dedications shall be expressed in acres of community and neighborhood parkland as follows: Dedication Neighborhood Park Community Park 1st 3 acres 7 acres 2nd 2.170 acres 5.063 acres 3rd 3 acres 7 acres When the previous dedications are used to satisfy the obligations as to individual maps and building permits, the unapplied dedications reflected in the City's records shall be reduced to reflect the equivalent in acreage of the fee Amendment No. I to Dublin/Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement for the Dublin Crossing Project 6 component for which previous dedications were used. If Developer does not have sufficient unapplied dedication acreage when it seeks approval for a particular map or building permit, it may, instead of paying the applicable fees in lieu of parkland dedication or the community park land component of the Public Facilities Fee, provide security acceptable to the City that secures payment of such fees. Upon its receipt of parkland dedications to satisfy the obligations so secured, the City will promptly reduce the security in an equivalent amount." Section 7. Section 9.3 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: "9.3 Stormwater Facilities. The City will allow underground stormwater detention facilities within the 30 acre net community park, not to exceed a footprint of 87,120 square feet, and in locations acceptable to the City. The underground stormwater facilities shall include a minimum cover acceptable to the City." Section 8. Section 9.5 is amended to read as follows: °9.5 City Obligation to Improve Parkland. City will complete each of the three park phases within 24 months of (a) the City accepting the applicable dedication pursuant to Section 9.4 and (b) Developer providing the required funds for the applicable park phase's construction pursuant to section 9.6. The 24-month period will not commence until the Parties have confirmed in writing that the criteria have been satisfied." Section 8. Section 9.6 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: "9.6 Project's Obligation to Fund Park Construction. The Project's contribution to fund park construction shall be $4,285,714 for each of the three community park phases which may reimbursed through the CFD. These contributions exceed the amounts otherwise required to be contributed by Developer under the Public Facilities Fee for park improvements and shall therefore be deemed to satisfy the Project's obligations to fund park improvements under the Public Facilities Fee. Upon request of Developer, the City shall apply previously collected Development Agreement Fees revenues, exclusive of Development Agreement Fee component payments previously applied, toward the required contribution. If such application of Development Agreement Fees is insufficient to satisfy the required contribution, Developer may advance the necessary funds under Subsection 6.3 in order to trigger the City's park improvement obligations under Section 9.5. In any event, Developer shall make the following contributions for each phase of the park, by requesting application of previously collected Development Agreement Fees toward the contribution, making a Development Agreement Fee advance, or both, no later Amendment No. 1 to Dublin/Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement for the Dublin Crossing Project 7 than: the first recorded subdivision map creating residential lots for a $100,000 contribution to be used for the preparation of a master plan for the community park; the first recorded subdivision map in Phase 2 for the first $4,285,714 contribution (less the $100,000 contribution previously for the master plan); the first recorded subdivision map in phase 3 for the second $4,285,714 contribution; and the first recorded subdivision map in phase 5 for the last $4,285,714 contribution. In addition, with the submission of the first subdivision map creating residential lots in Phase 1, the Developer shall prepare, at its own expense, a traffic circulation analysis to determine the appropriate location of the Community Park parking lot and driveway entrance(s) for review and approval by the City Engineer. The report shall evaluate the location of potential driveways on Scarlett Drive and how they would interact with the existing intersection at Houston Place as well as consider connectivity of the future parking lot(s) to both G Street and Scarlett Drive. The results of the analysis will be incorporated in the subsequent Project Approvals. The Developer shall not be required to make the contributions required by this paragraph to the extent that they are due after the contingent event described in Section 6.2 above occurs. If such contingent event does occur, and the contributions required by this paragraph cease, Developer shall, so as to avoid a significant impact pursuant to Impact 3.11-4 described in the FEIR, thereafter be required to pay the community park improvements component of Public Facilities Fee and the neighborhood park improvement component of the Public Facilities Fee as it applies in Eastern Dublin. The City shall use the contributions made pursuant to this Section only for the improvement of parks within the Specific Plan area. 9.6.1 Public Facilities Fee Payment Security. Developer's contributions as specified above shall be deemed to satisfy its obligation to contribute to Community and Neighborhood Park Improvements under the Public Facilities Fee Program. If, however, at the time Developer seeks to file a final map Developer has not made the required contributions in amounts sufficient to satisfy the final map's Park Construction obligation, Developer shall provide security acceptable to the City that ensures payment of the community park improvements component of Public Facilities Fee for the units and the neighborhood park improvement component of the Public Facilities Fee applicable in Eastern Dublin. For the purposes of this paragraph, Developer shall upon each $4,285,714 contribution be deemed to have satisfied its obligations for 665 residential units. The contributions may be used to reduce previously posted security under this paragraph and to avoid the requirement to post security under this paragraph." Section 9. Section 12 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: 12. School Site. Developer shall dedicate to the City the 12 net acre school site with the first final map in Project Phase 3. The 12 net acre school site Amendment No. 1 to Dublin/Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement for the Dublin Crossing Project 8 is designated Parcel 27 on Vesting Tentative Map 8150 and is bounded by D Street, G Street, F Street, and Central Parkway. The dedication will, upon satisfaction of the criteria in Section 9.2 for such treatment, be noted in the City's records as a dedication of 3 acres of parkland for the purposes of the Developer's satisfaction of its obligations under the community park land component of the City's Public Facilities Fee and the parkland dedication requirements of Chapter 9.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code. The City will accept the school site upon satisfaction of the requirements set forth in Section 9.4 for acceptance of parkland." Section 10. Exhibits D, E, and F to the Agreement are replaced in their entirety by revised Exhibits D, E, and F attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Section 11. Full Force and Effect. Except as specifically clarified, confirmed or modified herein, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms. Section 12. Defined Terms. Defined terms have the same meaning in this Amendment as in the Agreement unless otherwise specified. Section 13. Effective Date. This Amendment shall become effective upon the date the ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective (the "Effective Date"). Section 13. Recordation. City shall record a copy of this Amendment within ten (10) days following execution by all parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN DEVELOPER DUBLIN CROSSING VENTURE LLC, By: a Delaware limited liability company Chris Foss, City Manager Attest: By: Ak C a C Its: u V• Caroline Soto, City Clerk Amendment No. 1 to Dublin/Dublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement for the Dublin Crossing Project 9 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 :rc�,cr„crc:c„carcrrr„r:cc:c,.:roc,�.r„ccc�ec�c„cc,�cfcxrrr.�-,r„cac,�sc:crrc;rarrrx:c,�;oc rc:ccrf:cc;ccrccccvcr„carcrc�c,::crast.cr,� A notary public or other officer completing this cer7ificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document, State of California ) County of On �.f �b15- before me, ...__. (I� ate Here Insert ame and Title of the Offrcdr personally appeared ILI/ �WL Name(s) of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persor* whose named is/'fie subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ APO executed the same in his/X/Vir authorized capacity(,and that by his1*1_iv�ir signatures)on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the perso9w acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. ELIZABETH MENICUCCI WITNESS my hand and official seal. Commission ## 1968677 z :r•_�_-. Notar y P ublic z California / orange County n Signature My Comm. Expires Feb 4,21716 , Signature of No ary Public Place Notary Seal Above OPTIONAL Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑Partner — ❑ Limited ❑General ❑ Partner -- ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑Individual ❑Attorney in Fact ❑ Individual ❑Attorney in Fact Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator C:]Trustee C]Guardian or Conservator ❑Other: ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: 02014 National Notary Association • www.NationalNotary.org - 1-800-US NOTARY(1-800-876-6827) Item #5907 Approved as to form John Bakker, City Attorney 114.266 2419687.8 Amendment No. 1 to DublinlDublin Crossing Venture LLC Development Agreement for the Dublin Crossing Project 10 r T r"RE-3$ my u I w l a of�3 t r.r _ _ "'�+ - ' ✓lam 4 • d C] C] Ca C] O C) CO C) 6c} O �9 6F} 6 O .O O LO LO (= r- N 0 � 6 L Ls U 64 o o C3 � C 0 Ca C> Ca o W r- m� o° coo LLr C r N K} 64 U � � O M ti LO N C) O tfj t-- L6 f-� L 0) O � 64 (0 ti V) LB.. a L N 00 O r r N6/� 64 r69- 6F} hJ3 N E � dN' d O O O O W 0) r° C7 d C7 O 0 Q co fl- 00 LO VF- CD 00 LO t 0 ( N E� r- N N X E Q co r r 6ai- 59 {{} W CL 64 6F} 6R d > N � CO �-- CD O r Cl! N a) N E cc O U -0 _0 0 0 � � c ai E co Cl) o 0 W co co a V O a) 0 a) V (D m •� ca M C4 M E-- a) 1— O c C y a) a) U O c L U o Q ca 0 0 •� 0 CI) H U U �U � U Q 0 C) 't 7t O 7t O N O O O N O - - O - O It O O O I!t O OLr) O r- O O O Lr) N N O O O O O O p O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w 7t 7t O W � 00 O O O O O O O N O Lri O Q E!} (Fl lmq N CZ U � o •� �' °o o °o °o0 0 0 A Lr Lon °o °o o Loner N N Lr� eq 11C ON o U . 00 00 00 Lf) Ln N U 7� elf elf M e W � � a� O O It t O Lr) Lr) Lr) O n n Lr) 00 00 00 O O O IAI Q � b U � o Lr)x °o o o co y C r r-i r-i U o O GO,)= (0�1 !,4 a� CO 7E w O O O Ste" •+'"+ O A !,4 O O O U -� (� U � o0 0o ao ,� •� � eu eq DO � o o O 7t 7t 7t N N O U OU 00 N 00 00 N Lf) O DO I 7 e e O p 7t � 0.! c o N cn t t t y t� O 00 't 7t V O 00 N o0 7t U-) V' G1 C� y 4+ U � � r + w y o � W � U O 7t 7t O 7t O N It O N N 0 0 0 0 "+� � � � GO')= O U 0 0 0 O co o0 00 0 0 0 0 0 Ei Go,)= 7d c 4� O 7t 7 O 7t O N VD �" x" � N N 0 0 0 0 G1 - 00 -- DO Lr� � Lr) 7t N � U � W � O M N MM-I 7t Lr) y GJ 0o0 M N O 4. N 1-4 � U. x DO u U DO DO O N O O 00 C � M N V' Lr) M •J'" �0+. O O O O O O W N M Lr, RESOLUTION NO. xx-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, DUBLIN CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT PLPA-2015-00016 (APNS 986-0001-001-15 (PARTIAL), 986-0034-002-00, AND 986-0034-006-00) WHEREAS, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP) project area is approximately 189 acres in size and is generally bound by 5t" Street to the north, Scarlett Drive to the west, Dublin Boulevard to the south, and Arnold Road to the east; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2013, the City Council approved Resolutions 186-13 (EIR certification) and 187-13 (Specific Plan approval and General Plan amendments) as well as Ordinances 07-13 (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map changes) and 08-13 (Development Agreement approval) that approved the Dublin Crossing project, which included the demolition of the existing buildings and other improvements on the site and construction of a residential mixed-use project with up to 1,995 single- and multi-family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office and/or commercial uses; a 30 acre Community Park; a 5 acre Neighborhood Park, and a 12 acre school site to serve approximately 900 students; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, the City Council initiated a General Plan and Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Amendment Study to: 1) Incorporate the 1.5 acre Chabot Creek into the Community Park and increase the acreage devoted to Medium Density Residential by 1.5 acres; 2) Re-designate the 13 acre "Mixed Use" site to "General Commercial/DC High Density Residential"; 3) Allow use of the site designated "School" for both school and park purposes; and WHEREAS, the General Plan and Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Amendment Study also included amendments to the Dublin Crossing Project Development Agreement and minor amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ensure that there is consistency on all figures between the boundaries of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study which describes the proposed Amendments to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, General Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and its relation to the analysis in the Dublin Crossing EIR, dated April 21, 20157 incorporated herein by reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A-1, was prepared to determine if additional environmental review was required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the Dublin Crossing EIR (SCH 2012062009); and 1 WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project, as no substantial changes have been proposed to the project or the conditions under which the project will be carried out that require major revisions of the Dublin Crossing EIR. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial increases in the severity of previously identified impacts were discovered. The project remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures, as applicable; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated April 21, 2015, incorporated herein by reference and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A-1, was prepared, which describes the Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project and its relation to the analysis in the Dublin Crossing EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project and the CEQA Addendum, on May 12, 2015, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard and the Planning Commission subsequently adopted Resolution 15-01, recommending City Council adoption of a CEQA Addendum for Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated May 12, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the 2014 DDSP Amendment, including the associated General Plan Amendment and CEQA Addendum, for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project and the CEQA Addendum, on June 27 2015, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Dublin Crossing EIR and CEQA Addendum, all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and the California Court of Appeals decision Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4t" 987 125, approval of the Project must be supported by a new Statement of Overriding Considerations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum and Initial Study (Exhibit A-1) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A-2) prior to taking action on the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the CEQA Addendum, including the related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A-1, pursuant to CEQA 2 Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit A-2. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:IPk20151PLPA-2015-00016 Dublin Crossing GPA-SPk5.12.15 PC MtglAtt 4-CC Reso Addendum.docx 3 Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Development Agreement related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Addendum and Initial Study City of Dublin April 21,2015 ADDENDUM PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City Council has initiated a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment study with the intent of making changes to the approved Dublin Crossing project in order to facilitate the acquisition of a 12-acre school site that can be used by both the City and the School District. In order to effectuate these changes, land use amendments are proposed to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and modifications are proposed to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement. The details of these amendments are as follows: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would be amended to include several land use changes that will financially benefit the Developer and allow them to transfer the school site to the City at no cost, including: • Modifying the designation of the 12 acre School site to allow both school and park uses. This will allow the playground(s), recreational field(s), and other amenities to be used by both the school community as well as the residential neighborhood. • Incorporating the 1.5 acre Chabot Creek into the Community Park and increase the acreage devoted to Medium Density Residential by 1.5 acres. Although this will allow the Developer more flexibility in where the residential development takes place, the Specific Plan limit of 1,995 residential units will not be exceeded; and • Redesignating the 13 acre "Mixed Use" site on the corner of Arnold and Dublin Boulevard to "General Commercial/DC High Density Residential", thereby removing the requirement for both the 5 acre Neighborhood Park site and a minimum of 75,000 square feet of commercial development on this parcel within the site. Minor amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are also needed to ensure consistency with the amended Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. In addition to the land use changes proposed above, Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement between the City and Dublin Crossing Venture LLC related to the Dublin Crossing Project includes: • Removing the requirement to provide construction funding for a 5 acre Neighborhood Park ($2.143 million); • Removing the requirement for the final Community Benefit Payment($1.2 million); and • Including language related to the no-cost transfer of the school site from the Developer to the City. The proposed changes to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Development Agreement will result in the delivery of the 12 acre school site to the City without increasing the current maximum number of housing units (up to 1,995) allowed in the project or the maximum Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) amount of commercial square footage allowed to be built (up to 200,000 square feet). Additionally, the same amount of parkland will be provided, although the Neighborhood Park will now be a facility that is jointly used by both the community and the School District while the Community Park remains at 30 acres. PRIOR CEQA ANALYSIS: The City Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2012062009) for the Dublin Crossing Project on November 5, 2013 via City Council Resolution 186-13. The Final El analyzed the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, which was a plan for the orderly development of approximately 189 acres, including 8.7 acres owned by Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, an 8.9 acre parcel owned by NASA, and a 172-acre portion of the 2,485-acre Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks). The Specific Plan addressed the future development of the project area, which includes demolition of the existing buildings and other improvements on the site and construction of a residential mixed-use project with up to 1,995 single- and multi-family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office and/or commercial uses; a 3o acre Community Park; a 5 acre Neighborhood Park, and a 12 acre elementary school site to serve approximately goo students. CURRENT CEQA ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION THAT AN ADDENDUM IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROJECT: In order to determine if there were any significant environmental impacts that were present with the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Development Agreement and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project (2015)that were not already addressed (and mitigated if necessary) in the Dublin Crossing FEIR, an Initial Study was completed. The Initial Study, dated April 21, 2015 and incorporated herein by reference, determined that the potentially significant effects of the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project (2015) were adequately addressed in the Dublin Crossing FEIR, and that no substantial changes are proposed with the current Project or the conditions under which the Project will be undertaken that require revisions of the previous environmental documents. Based on the Initial Study, this Addendum has been prepared, which notes the difference in the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project (2015) and the previous project approvals,which CEQA impacts were addressed in the certified Dublin Crossing FEI R. The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Development Agreement and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project (2015) does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area, substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development, or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification, the circulation system remains the same, the number of allowable residential units has not increased, the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased, and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. NO SUBSEQUENT REVIEW IS REQUIRED PER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162: Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no subsequent environmental analysis shall be prepared for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Development Agreement, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project (2015), as no substantial changes have been proposed with the Project or the conditions under which the Project will be undertaken which require revisions to the previous environmental documents. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts has been discovered. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, with minor technical amendments and clarifications as outlined in this Addendum, the Dublin Crossing FEIR will continue to adequately address the significant environmental impacts of the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Development Agreement and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015). CONCLUSION: The City prepared an Initial Study in connection with the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Development Agreement and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project (2015). Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum to the Dublin Crossing FEIR. As provided in Section 15164, the Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the previous environmental documents before making a decision on the proposed project. The Initial Study is included below and the previous environmental documents are available for review in the Community Development Department at the City of Dublin, loo Civic Plaza, Dublin, California. Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. It assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below and whether those impacts are adequately addressed in prior environmental reviews for the site. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. i. Project Title: General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Dublin Community Development Department loo Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner Community Development Department (925) 833-6610 4. Project Location: Approximately 189 acres bound generally by 5t" Street to the north, Scarlett Drive to the west, Dublin Boulevard to the south, and Arnold Road to the east. APNs 986-0001-00l- 15 (partial), 986-0034-002-00, and 986-0034-006-00 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Dublin Community Development Department loo Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 6. General/Specific Plan Designation: Dublin Crossing Specific Plan 7. Zoning: Dublin Crossing Zoning District 8. Surrounding land uses and setting: LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North Ag Public Lands Camp Parks South PD High Density Residential and Campus Office Residential Apartments(Transit Center) East PD Campus Office Business Park PD and Medium-High Density Residential and Combination of uses including West Light Retail/Office, apartments,service commercial,and Industrial Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor retail uses Storage Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) 9. Other Public Agencies: None io Other public agencies who may rely on this CEQA document: Grading and Building permits (City of Dublin) Sewer and water connections (DS RSD) Encroachment permits(City of Dublin) Notice of Intent(State Water Resources Control Board) Project Description The Dublin Crossing project site includes approximately 189 acres of land that are divided between the following property owners: 139 acres owned by the United States Army, 8.7 acres owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, and approximately 41.9 acres owned by Dublin Crossing Venture LLC. The project area is shown below. Figure 1: Vicinity Map r r r r After several years of planning, analysis, and negotiations, on November 5, 2013, the City Council approved the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP) and associated implementation actions. The Specific Plan outlined the future development of the project area, which includes demolition of the existing buildings and other improvements on the site and construction of a residential mixed-use project with up to 1,995 single-and multi-family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office and/or commercial uses; a 3o acre Community Park; a 5 acre Neighborhood Park, and a 12 acre school site to serve approximately goo students. S Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) In addition to the DCSP, amendments were approved to the General Plan, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map to implement the Specific Plan. The project approvals also included the certification of the Dublin Crossing Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The approval actions by the City Council were formalized in Resolutions 186-13 (ElR certification)and 187-13 (Specific Plan approval and General Plan amendments) as well as Ordinances 07-13 (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map changes) and o8-13 (Development Agreement approval). The Dublin Crossing project includes a 12-acre school site that the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) intends to use for a future school that can accommodate up to goo students. However, funding for new school construction is extremely limited. Despite the best efforts of our State legislative representative last year, a state ballot measure for school construction was not placed on the November 2014 ballot, and no solutions have been proposed by Governor Brown to bridge the construction funding gap that exists between the resources local districts have to build new facilities and the actual costs to build new schools. The lack of funding support from the State means that local school districts, like DUSD, need to find alternative solutions to the now-broken State model that has funded school construction over the years. In 2014, City Staff approached SunCal to discuss options for the City to obtain the 12-acre school site in an effort to assist DUSD. After much discussion and negotiation, SunCal and City Staff reached agreement on tentative deal terms that would allow the transfer of the future school site to the City at no cost in exchange for modifications to the entitlements for the Dublin Crossing project. The proposed changes to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and Development Agreement will result in the delivery of the 12 acre school site to the City without increasing the current maximum number of housing units (up to 1,995) allowed in the project or the maximum amount of commercial square footage allowed to be built (up to 200,000 square feet). Additionally, the same amount of parkland will be provided, although the Neighborhood Park will now be a facility that is jointly used by both the community and the School District while the Community Park remains at 3o acres (Attachment 1). The following is a description of the land use changes and modifications to the Development Agreement: General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments Under the proposal agreed to by City Staff and SunCal, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would be amended to include several land use changes that will financially benefit the Developer and allow them to transfer the school site to the City at no cost, including: • Modifying the designation of the 12 acre School site to allow both school and park uses. This will allow the playground(s), recreational field(s), and other amenities to be used by both the school community as well as the residential neighborhood. • Incorporating the 1.5 acre Chabot Creek into the Community Park and increase the acreage devoted to Medium Density Residential by 1.5 acres. Although this will allow the Developer more flexibility in where the residential development takes place, the Specific Plan limit of 1,995 residential units will not be exceeded; and • Redesignating the 13 acre "Mixed Use" site on the corner of Arnold and Dublin Boulevard to "General Commercial/DC Medium-High Density Residential", thereby removing the requirement for both the 5 acre Neighborhood Park site and a minimum of 75,000 square feet of commercial development on this parcel within the site. Attachment 1 illustrates the revised Conceptual Land Use Plan C Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments A cleanup item to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan figures is included, which will ensure that there is consistency on all figures in all documents between the boundaries of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The figures being modified are Figure 4.1 (Land Use Plan), Figure 4.2(Planning Subareas), and Figure 5-3b (Circulation System) Amendment No. 1 to the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Under the proposal agreed to by City Staff and SunCal, the Development Agreement would be amended to: • Remove the requirement to provide construction funding for a 5 acre Neighborhood Park ($2.143 million); • Remove requirement for the final Community Benefit Payment($1.2 million); and • Include language related to the no-cost transfer of the school site from the Developer to the City. Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards& Hazardous Hydrology/Water Land Use / Planning Materials Quality Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Utilities/Service Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems Instructions I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question (see Attachment A: Source List). A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3, Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that any effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4, "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5, Earlier Analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program El R, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15o63(c)(3)(D). In this case,the checklist entry will be "No New Impact" and a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) a. Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. The conclusion of"No New Impact" in this Initial Study means that there are no new or substantially more severe significant environment impacts that those identified in the Dublin Crossing E R and no other standards for subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA are met. Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts �. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings X within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts on aesthetics/visual resources beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. z. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,including timberland,are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring X Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section X 4526)or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to X non-forest uses? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,which due X to Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts on agricultural or forestry resources beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or X projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air X quality standard(including releasing emissions,which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? Discussion The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts on air quality beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, X sensitive,or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish tt Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or X regional plans, policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) X through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or X other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts on biological resources beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section X 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5' c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside X of formal cemeteries? Discussion The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan t Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts on cultural resources beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? b) Strong seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X d) Landslides? X e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and X potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? g) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life X or property? h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. Discussion The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts on geology and soils beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or X indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the 15 Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse X gases? Discussion The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within%mile of an X existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(V.13) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a X safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working X in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands X are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are t . Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts intermixed with wildlands? Discussion The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. g. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level(for example,the production X rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a X stream or river,in a manner,which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of X surface runoff in a manner,which would result in flooding on- or off-site. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems X or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a loo-year flood-hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a loo-year flood-hazard area structures,which X would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of X the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? X t5 Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Discussion All future construction will need to comply with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as all City of Dublin stormwater treatment and water quality requirements. The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to hydrology and water quality beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. io. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal X program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or X Natural Community Conservation Plan? Discussion The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)are in conformance with the General Plan,as amended,and the City's other specific plans,as appropriate. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plan anywhere in the City of Dublin. The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to land use and planning beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. ». MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, X specific plan,or other land use plan? is Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Discussion There are no known mineral resources within the City of Dublin or designated in the General Plan or other land use plan, and therefore there would be no impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise X ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground X borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area X to excessive noise levels? Discussion The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to noise beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? t Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts Discussion The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to population and housing beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X Discussion New construction projects are required to comply with applicable building,safety,and fire codes,fund on-and off-site improvements,and contribute to the City's public facilities fees commensurate with the type,size and scope of the project. The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the amount of parkland provided with the project satisfies the requirements of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to public services beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion tS Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Impact I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Significant Mitigation Significant No New Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Issues Incorpor. Impact Impacts The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the amount of parkland provided with the project satisfies the requirements of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to recreation beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) 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 X travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by X the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in X substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(for example,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or X incompatible uses(for example,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,or programs supporting regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or X otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to public services beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. t Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities,the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or X expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Discussion New construction is required to contribute to the City's impact fees to fund public service infrastructure commensurate with the type,size,and scope of the new construction. The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any impacts related to utilities and service systems beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the X incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,the effects o Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Have environmental effects,which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Discussion The General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015)does not modify the maximum development potential within the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area,substantively modify any land use districts or designations in order to allow more development or a higher intensity of development,or introduce any new project attributes that were not present at the time the original project was analyzed and the Dublin Crossing FEIR certified. The change in location of the future neighborhood park is not a substantial modification,the amount of parkland provided with the project satisfies the requirements of the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan,the circulation system remains the same,the number of allowable residential units has not increased,the amount of allowable commercial square footage has not increased,and the number of students expected to be served by the school has not changed. Therefore,the project would not have any beyond those already analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR,and therefore no new impacts would result, no additional environmental degradation would take place, no new cumulatively considerable impacts would be caused,and no new environmental effects not already studied would be present. �� Initial Study/Addendum for the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to the Dublin Crossing Project(2015) Figure is Dublin Crossing Conceptual Land Use Plan LEGEND DC-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ® SCHOOL IM DC-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARK ME GENERAL COMMERCIAL/DC-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE �� � GENERAL COMMERCIAL/DC-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY /� VIII i I ullllllllllllll I(II I� V I uuuuuuui�� i ,r � Grp I IIII i m uuuui � PIYIII r �✓ � ��;.� �. � ;,��f ij/��'',�jig// r/��i���� � ! � ,� � f / EXHIBIT A-2 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the 2013 Dublin Crossing Specific Plan project (Project) to the City of Dublin against the significant adverse impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that cannot be reduced to less than significant through feasible mitigations or alternatives. Pursuant to Section 15093, the City Council determined that the benefits of the Project outweighed the adverse impacts as part of its resolution certifying the EIR and adopting environmental findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations on November 5, 2013 (via Resolution 186-13). The City Council is now considering the environmental impacts of the project as revised by the amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Crossing Development Agreement and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in reaching its decision to approve the Revised Project. A CEQA Addendum, dated April 21, 2015 has been prepared that documents that there are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts resulting from the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Amendment (2015) — Revised Project— as compared to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Project (2013) — Original Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognized that implementation of the Revised Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified significant adverse impacts for the Project are not reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, social, land use and other considerations that support approval of the Revised Project. 2. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. The following significant unavoidable air quality and traffic impacts are associated with the Revised Project as identified in the EIR. Short-term Construction Air Quality — The proposed project would result in future short- term air quality impacts associated with construction activities, including grading, operation of equipment, and demolition of existing structures within the project area. The BAAQMD requires the construction mitigation measures to be implemented at all construction sites, regardless of size. However, as the proposed project would facilitate future development and generate construction emissions that could potentially exceed BAAQMD thresholds, a significant unavoidable impact would occur. (Impact 3.2-1.) Long-term Operational Air Quality— The total unmitigated operational emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM 10, and PM2.5. With application of the measures/design features regarding area and mobile source emissions within the Specific Plan, operational 1 emissions would still exceed the thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PM10. The proposed project could also result in exposure of sensitive land use in excess of applicable Toxic Air Contaminant standards, even with mitigation. Therefore, these would be considered significant and unavoidable impacts. (Impacts 3.2-3, 3.2-5.) Long-term Operational Impacts to Freeway Ramps — The proposed project would result in a significant impact to the following freeway ramps: Southbound Hacienda Drive to 1- 580 Eastbound On-ramp under project and cumulative conditions and Southbound Tassajara Road to 1-580 Westbound On-ramp under cumulative conditions. Mitigation measures 3.12-7 would require modification of the ramp metering rates so that more vehicles could access the freeway. However, the freeway ramps are operated by Caltrans, which sets metering rates based on overall operations in the freeway corridor. As the cities surrounding the 1-580 corridor continue to build out and additional parallel east/west connectors such as the Stoneridge Drive and Dublin Boulevard extensions are completed, it is likely that the ramp meter rates would change over time to accommodate the demand on both the freeway ramps and freeway segments. Because the future metering rates cannot be predicted with certainty, the project impacts to freeway ramps would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact. (Impact 3.12- 7.) 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Revised Project. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts against its benefits, and hereby determines that the unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Revised Project as further set forth below. Any one of these benefits is sufficient to justify approval of the Revised Project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the record as a whole. The Revised Project will facilitate development of an infill area, fully served by public utilities, and convenient to major arterials, services, BART and public transit. The Revised Project includes medium and medium-high density residential and commercial uses to make more efficient use of its infill location and proximity to transit facilities. The Revised Project will allow the City to assist the School District in acquiring a site for a school in the project area to serve the community. The Revised Project includes design standards for residential and commercial uses as well as streetscapes that will result in an attractive and vibrant community. The Revised Project emphasizes higher density, compact development patterns appropriate to its location near the BART station and the Iron Horse Trail where a diverse mix of uses would be readily accessible through alternative transport modes. It also emphasizes pedestrian level development where walking and bicycling would be safe, feasible alternatives to automobile trips within the Project area and to or from nearby neighborhoods, transit and commercial uses. Development standards and design guidelines provide measures for ensuring attractive, visually appealing development of private projects and public spaces. 2 The Revised Project includes a significant residential component that will assist the City in meeting its Housing Element RHNA goals. The potential housing will be at densities complementary to existing residential and non-residential uses in the area. The Project will also provide funding for future construction and maintenance of a 30-acre community park and 5-acre joint-use neighborhood park. This amount of parkland and funding exceeds what the Project would otherwise be required to provide. The Project provides an elementary school site. In addition, the developers will contribute $17.5 million to the City for use on municipal capital projects and other benefits as part of the Development Agreement relating to the Project. The Project includes the potential for up to 200,000 square feet of revenue producing commercial development that will create new jobs and sales and property taxes. The Project is also expected to have a fiscally beneficial impact on the City's financial and services resources, estimated by the City's financial consultant to be a net benefit of over $100,000 annually upon full build out. Future development of the site will provide construction employment and permanent employment opportunities for Dublin residents. The Project provides an effective means to implement the City's objectives for the area, as described in the Specific Plan and EIR. For all of the above reasons, the benefits of the Revised Project outweigh its significant unavoidable air quality and traffic impacts. 2438727.1 3 DRAFT DRAFT 4ggj l�r,'q Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 12, 2015 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 12, 2015, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Goel called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM Present: Chair Goel; Vice Chair Kohli; Commissioners Do, Bhuthimethee and Mittan; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director; Tim Cremin, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: None ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA— NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the February 10, 2015 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR.— NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS — 8.1 PLPA-2015-00016 - Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Dublin Crossing Development Agreement Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the lower limit of 75,000 sf of commercial is now eliminated with this land use change. Ms. Bascom answered yes; in theory the limit could be from zero up to 200,000 sf of commercial space. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the difference between the areas designated Park Land and Open Space. Ms. Bascom answered that Staff was looking for the maximum space in the community park; a minimum usable park acreage of 30 acres was one of the items that was negotiated with the developer from the beginning. She stated that the creek, which has use restrictions, would run through the park and could be considered an amenity, but Staff wanted to ensure that the envelope for the park was as large as possible. Therefore, the acreage that was solely devoted to the creek was subtracted and designated as Open Space. akgpdaaw`JOAleeliwaif air as g e DRAFT DRAFT Chair Goel asked if this would change the maintenance obligation for the City. Ms. Bascom answered no; the creek continues to be required to be owned by a separate agency. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that the Planning Commission met with the City Council recently and discussed how, with some development approvals, the Planning Commission should not consider the impacts to schools. She asked how the proposal for the school site came about and how the City became the Applicant. Ms. Bascom responded that the City is the Applicant because the changes to the land plan and proposed amendments to the DA were not initiated by the developer. Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, felt that Cm. Bhuthimethee was referring to the City Council workshop with the commissions. He stated that there was a discussion with the City Attorney regarding mitigation for school impacts. He stated that State law established provisions for appropriate mitigations for a school and that the City cannot require anything more although the developer could volunteer to do more. He stated that the City is not talking about mitigation but partnering with Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) to help facilitate the establishment of a school. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that it is good to work with the school, but was concerned about what it will mean for future agreements with other developments, if DUSD pressures the City to work out other development agreements. Mr. Baker stated that there is only one other future school and the City Council is working with the DUSD to acquire a school site at Jordan Ranch. He stated that the City has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DUSD and the City is currently processing General Plan and Specific Plan amendments that will create an alternative school site on the Jordan Ranch project site and will also be a joint use facility. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the school site is still scheduled to be developed in phase 3 and if DUSD is in agreement with that timing. She felt that the school may be needed sooner. Ms. Bascom answered yes; she stated that DUSD is aware and accepts the timing. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if it is typical that the City owns a school site and if the City will lease the land to the school. Ms. Bascom answered that the City will lease the land to the District and further stated that it is not typical for the City to own property on which a school exists; however, this is a very unique situation. She continued that the City is also giving up some items (some commercial land and a 5-acre neighborhood park site). The City will hold the controlling interest on the school site and will be entering into an MOU with DUSD that will specify lease terms and joint use stipulations. Mr. Baker agreed and felt that this is unusual for the City to do this for the DUSD, to facilitate the acquisition of up to $70 million in land for the benefit of the community. He stated that there are (kqpdaa'Aleelialif aka as g e I ,I DRAFT DRAFT take-aways from the project but gaining the school site for DUSD was the ultimate goal. He felt that this is an unprecedented deal that the City Council is granting. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked how the park will be developed if the amendment to the DA removes the requirement of$1.3 million for the park. Ms. Bascom stated that the park will be part of the development of the school site; the MOU between the City and DUSD will identify how the joint use park/school land will be developed. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if there is a General Plan Amendment involved, since the City is the Applicant on this item. Ms. Bascom answered yes; she explained that the amendments to the General Plan are outlined in the Resolution, and that the reason the General Plan needed to be amended is because the Land Use Table from the Specific Plan is in the General Plan. Cm. Kohli asked what the situation would be if a deal between DUSD and the City was unable to be finalized; could the land be sold back to the developer or will the City own the land. Ms. Bascom answered that it is a possibility that DUSD would not want the free land, but that would be unexpected. But, in that case the City would own the 12-acre site and could determine its use. Cm. Mittan asked if there was a schedule of values for each component that was included in the project. He asked how Staff reached the $70 million figure. Ms. Bascom answered that it was a "ball park" estimate that entitled residential land in Dublin as $3mil/acre and this is a 12-acre site; the $70 million also included the Jordan Ranch school site. Cm. Mittan stated that, if the land use change is not approved and an agreement cannot be reached, the school district would not have the funds to build the school. Ms. Bascom answered that this is a true statement based on input from DUSD. Cm. Mittan asked if the value of the homes in the area will be reduced if the school is not built. Ms. Bascom responded that she is not a market analyst and therefore could not answer his question. Cm. Mittan felt that there is incentive for the developer to have a school within the development. Ms. Bascom stated that the analysis did not go into that level of detail. Cm. Mittan felt that if the school is not developed until phase 3, there would be approximately 17100 homes built prior to the school being built. He was concerned about where those children would go to school. Mr. Baker responded that the boundaries of the existing schools would be adjusted to accommodate the new students. (kqj ka Aleelialif W as g e I 5 DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Mittan was concerned with the major intersections that the students would have to cross and no neighborhood schools within the development. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if it would be possible to develop the school within an earlier phase. Ms. Bascom stated that neither the developer nor the school district has indicated that developing the school in an earlier phase is a possibility. She mentioned that, from past discussions, the phasing for the school site was not an issue for the school district. Cm. Mittan asked if it was the City or the developer that negated the requirement for the commercial component. Ms. Bascom responded that it was a result of several conversations between Staff and the developer. She stated that the discussions were to determine what kind of changes to the land plan would create value for the developer that would allow them to forego payment on a 12-acre site. Chair Goel asked if Exhibit A-2 (Statement of Overriding Considerations) to Attachment 5 is part of the CEQA document amendment. Ms. Bascom answered yes; it is part of the CEQA Resolution that the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on. She added that the original adopted EIR included a Statement of Overriding Considerations and State law requires that whenever there is an addendum to that document or reuse of the document the Statement of Overriding Considerations needs to be re-adopted. She stated that there are no new impacts related to the proposed changes; these are the same impacts and overriding considerations that were adopted when the EIR was certified. Chair Goel asked to clarify that the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation for the amendment of the CEQA document and the Statement of Overriding Considerations is part of it and if there is anything that is inconsistent or the Planning Commission has issues with, now would be the time to identify those issues. Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney, asked Chair Goel if he was asking about inconsistency with the revision to the existing CEQA document. Chair Goel stated that he is asking, as the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council, if there are no changes to the document Exhibit A-2, and yet we are comfortable with it as part of the recommendation. Mr. Cremin stated that basically the Commission is relying on the same environmental document that has already been approved for the project. The addendum looks at the question, "does this revision to the project present any new or different environmental impacts." Staff did an analysis through the Initial Study and the answer is no; there are the same types of impacts that were analyzed when the EIR was certified. Regarding the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the significant and unavoidable impacts of the projects are the same, but what the new statement says for the revised project are the benefits of the revised project that override those environmental impacts that happen to be the same as the original. The Statement of Overriding Considerations mentions how the additional benefit of the school site and benefits of the project remains the same. The benefits were updated to address some of (kgjukaw`JOAleeliwaif air as g e 6 DRAFT DRAFT the benefits of the revisions. Therefore, if the Planning Commission has a recommendation regarding Exhibit A-2 to Attachment 5 they should make it as part of the recommendation. Chair Goel mentioned that on Exhibit A-2, Page 1 references "unavoidable adverse environmental effects,"and "specific economic social and land use and other considerations that support the approval of the revised project." He asked what the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are inside the project. Ms. Bascom answered that they are the same three that were identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and were identified in the original Dublin Crossing EIR. Chair Goel asked if the effects of the emissions exceeding the threshold causes no change to the air quality. Ms. Bascom responded yes and stated that Staff reviewed the project to see if there are any different environmental impacts as a result of the proposed land use changes that would be different from the originally approved project. She stated that there are no more residential units permitted; the circulation system will remain the same; there is no more commercial development permitted here than before; the school site was there before and remains a part of the project; and the park site was there before and remains a part of the project. She stated that from an environmental impact standpoint there is nothing that will result in impacts that were not already analyzed. Chair Goel added: except for the removal of the park site. Ms. Bascom responded that there is the removal of the requirement for the 5-acre neighborhood park on the corner but there will be joint-use park land on the school site. The project will take park land from one area and ensure that it is accommodated somewhere else in a joint-use capacity. Chair Goel asked for clarification that there will be no new impacts to traffic. Ms. Bascom stated that was correct. Chair Goel stated that there was mention that this project will help the City of Dublin achieve its RHNA goals. He stated that he saw a presentation recently that identified the City of Dublin achieving three times the RHNA goal requirement compared to any other city inside of Alameda County. Chair Goel stated that the project overall offsets the future construction and maintenance of some elements of the park. He mentioned that the Staff Report states that there is a $17.5 million community benefit payment to be used for municipal capital projects and other benefits as part of the Development Agreement. He asked if these funds will stay within development or can the City use the funds elsewhere in the City. Ms. Bascom answered that there is no pre-defined list and the DA does not specify that it be used in the Dublin Crossing project area. The payment is a Community Benefit to the City and it is at the City Council's discretion how and where to use the funds. Chair Goel asked if the funds would go to the Parks and Community Services Department. (kqj ka Aleelialif W as g e DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Bascom answered no; the funds will be put into the General Fund and will be used as directed by the City Council. Cm. Mittan was concerned about the security of the joint-use school/park site. Ms. Bascom responded that those details have not been worked out with DUSD. She stated that will be done as part of the joint planning of the site design and layout. It is likely that there will be some fencing between the school site and the joint use park. Chair Goel referred to Figure 2-1 illustrative site plan that may help guide the conversation. Ms. Bascom stated that Figure 2-1 is a picture of what the neighborhood development could look like, but the plan is conceptual only. The actual plans will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned that there are many examples of schools that are attached to a park and there are no fences around the playground so that when school is not in session the school playground can still be used with the park. Cm. Mittan felt that the park footprint has been reduced and asked if that impacted the EIR at all. Ms. Bascom responded no; the envelope of the park decreased and another parcel increased to allow more development area, but the overall development did not increase. Cm. Mittan felt that the building area of land has increased. Ms. Bascom answered yes; the acreage has increased, the park acreage has decreased by 1.5 acres within the envelope of the community park, and that parcel, which will be developed as Medium Density, has increased. She stated that because none of the neighborhoods have been laid out, we do not know the exact number, but just the range. She stated that there will be 1,600 units and could be up to 1,995 units. She felt that, as the various neighborhoods are planned, Staff will have a better sense of what the ultimate number will be. But it will still not be beyond 1,995 units. There were no impacts that were not already identified in the EIR. Cm. Mittan asked if the impact of having residential interfacing with the creek was previously addressed. Ms. Bascom answered that the residential and park interface was originally part of the project, and now the question is where it will be located. Cm. Mittan felt that the residential will be interfacing at a much closer proximity to the creek than it was previously. Ms. Bascom stated that the interface of residential to the creek will be reviewed through the detailed neighborhood Site Development Review which will come before the Planning Commission. Cm. Mittan asked if the interface impacted the EIR. 41tanning Commission Ahy 12, 2015 akgpdaaw`JOAleeliwaif air as g e DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Bascom answered no. Cm. Mittan stated that he is not an expert on EIRs but was surprised that the closeness of residential to the creek did not impact the EIR. Chair Goel felt that Cm. Mittan brought up some good points. He stated that at a recent City Council meeting there was a decision to reduce the medium density housing units to a lower range. He asked if that change will be reflected in this project. Ms. Bascom answered that this Specific Plan and Development Agreement was approved with the medium density parcels at 6.1-14du/ac. She stated where in the range each of the medium density parcels will fall is unknown at this time. She stated that the maximum number of units will not be exceeded. Mr. Baker stated that the City Council held a study session to review non-vested residential sites in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and this project is outside this area. He stated that their discussion was not restricted to medium density but they were reviewing all residentially designated parcels that are unvested but no final direction or decisions were made. He stated that Staff will return to the City Council with additional information. Chair Goel referred to the SB343 information and asked if Ms. Bascom would explain. Ms. Bascom answered that the SB343 is Exhibit F to the Development Agreement which was not available at the time the packet was delivered. Cm. Kohli asked if the creek will be under ownership of some other entity, not the City of Dublin. Ms. Bascom answered yes. Cm. Kohli asked Ms. Bascom to explain the difference between open space and park designation and if there will be negative impacts to the creek because of the new designation. Ms. Bascom responded that the difference of park vs open space designation is that open space is preserved as is, whereas the public park can be programmed for different public uses. She stated that the creek was going to run through the park whether it was designated open space or park land and it would be owned by a separate agency. She stated that by changing the land use designation all the City has done is give the developer the ability to count that open space acreage within the 30 acres of the community park. Cm. Kohli was concerned that there could be some kind of program that could endanger the creek because of the park land designation. He asked if the creek is protected by some environmental agency. Ms. Bascom answered yes; the creek has resource agency protection. Cm. Bhuthimethee mentioned that there were some plans being circulated for the park which shows the creek being integrated into the park. akgpdaaw`JOAleeliwaif air as g e 19 DRAFT DRAFT Ms. Bascom stated that there is a Dublin Crossing Community Park Task Force that has been working with landscape architects to develop some concepts. They have done community outreach, attended events talking to residents, they've developed three schematic plans; and all the plans address the creek in some way. She stated that one of the schematics makes the creek a focal point, but anything that is programmed to take place near the creek would be well within the resource agency permit. Chair Goel opened the public hearing and with no speakers, closed the public hearing. Cm. Do and Cm. Mittan had no questions. Cm. Bhuthimethee had no questions but commented that this is a creative solution to help the school district and commended Staff for working on the project. She also commended the developer for working with Staff to help the school district. Cm. Kohli stated that when the project came to the Planning Commission with 1,995 units he had an issue because of school over-crowding, etc. He was glad that there was a plan to have a school in the community and felt that was very important. He also commended the Staff for finding a way to make this work in an unprecedented way to ensure the land will be there for the school. He stated that, even though he feels this is a very creative approach, he would have preferred that the mixed use designation remain in the project. He felt the mixed use land could be reduced to some amount that would be acceptable to the developer. He was glad to see that the creek is protected and the 30 acre park land will remain along with park land with the school. He stated that he is in support of the project. Cm. Do stated that she supports the project and is glad that City Staff found a way to ensure that a school will be built. She felt that the school over-crowding problem is not just a DUSD problem, but a citywide problem. Cm. Mittan was highly concerned about the elimination of the requirement for the commercial. He felt that the City was crossing their fingers and hoping that something occurs that might never occur. He felt that residents are highly frustrated with the amount of high density homes being built and the over-crowding in the schools. He felt that having the school built in Phase 3, five years out, was a recipe for disaster and the residents would not be supportive. He agreed that it was a grand bargain for the school site but felt that there were benefits to the developer that were not monetized. He also felt that a deal could have been struck that would have included a requirement for commercial at Dublin Blvd and Arnold Road. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked for the land designation to the east of the project. Mr. Baker pointed out the area on the land use map which showed General Commercial and Campus/Office to the east of the Dublin Crossing project. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that it would have been nice to make a connection of commercial development across the street from the project. Cm. Mittan stated that he read through the package and was concerned that he did not see any comments regarding the proximity of the development to the prison and jail. (kqj ka Aleelialif W as g e I /0 DRAFT DRAFT Chair Goel agreed and stated that he is also concerned with the reduction in the commercial development. He was unsure as to why the commercial was reduced from 200,000 square feet to 75,000 square feet. He was also concerned that there is no commitment to build the school. Cm. Do asked if the school district did not want to build a school, could a private school be built on that land. Ms. Bascom responded that they would need to review how the school site is designated. Mr. Baker responded that the City Council would decide as the de-facto owner of the parcel. If they wanted to support a private school they would need to amend the General Plan and Specific Plan to accommodate it as necessary. Ms. Bascom stated that currently the land use is for a public school site but ultimately it would be up to the City Council. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the land use designation is for a public school, would a private school be considered commercial. Cm. Do asked if either a public or private school could be built on that site. Cm. Kohli asked if the site would have to be re-designated to commercial to build a private school. Ms. Bascom stated that the Specific Plan designation is for a public school. Therefore, if it was not a public school then the definition of a school would have to be amended or the land use designation changed. Cm. Kohli asked if, for some reason the school district does not want the free land and the City is the owner; could the City sell the land to another developer and could they build more homes; would the upper limit of 1,995 units still be the maximum number. Ms. Bascom answered that the maximum limit of 1,995 units for the entire area remains. Chair Goel stated that when the Planning Commission originally reviewed the project there was an exhibit that showed that there is the potential for 1,995 units, but the developer intended to deliver 1,880 units and asked if these changes would change their intent to build the entire 1,995 units. Ms. Bascom answered that anything that the developer indicated was what they saw as potentially the land use mix, the number of 1,995 units has always been the upper limit and the developer could build that today. She stated that in talking to developers, they were expecting to build somewhere between the 1,600 and 1,995 unit range. She stated that the developer is allowed to build up to 1,995 units. Chair Goel stated that providing the extra residential acreage provides the developer the footprint to build the maximum of 1,995 units. Ms. Bascom stated that the capacity was always there. akgpdaaw.`JOAleelaaaif 41 as g e . DRAFT DRAFT Cm. Mittan asked if the agreement with DUSD is reached, but after 10 years there is still no school built, does the City have any kind of leverage to cancel the agreement. Ms. Bascom responded that the language of the agreement has not been negotiated but felt that something like that could be included. She stated that there may have been some preliminary discussions but no agreement has been approved as of today. Cm. Kohli felt that the biggest risk is that there is no guarantee the school will be built and with a development of 1,995 units and no school, that will be a problem. Mr. Baker responded that Cm. Kohli's scenario exists today. He added that this deal helps to facilitate a school being built. He stated that DUSD fully intends to build a school within the project, but this makes it easier for the school district and is a step in the right direction of achieving the school. Cm. Kohli understood that there was never a guarantee that a school will be built. He felt that the City averted the risk with the negotiations. He also felt that the deal is not perfect but if the developer builds 1,995 housing units then the City should do whatever it needs to get the school built. He is also concerned with the lack of commercial but felt that if it is something that brings the City closer to getting the school built then he will support it. Cm. Bhuthimethee stated that, if for some reason the school is not built, the land belongs to the City and they can sell it at market rate. Chair Goel asked if the developer has been asked if they would agree to a minimum threshold of commercial. Mr. Baker stated that the City Manager, representing the City Council, has negotiated an agreement with the developer and this is the deal that has been struck. He stated that there will be no further discussions with the developer and both the City and the developer feel is the best deal for both parties. Chair Goel asked if the developer and the City Council truly do not want commercial in the project. Ms. Bascom answered that the land use changes continue to allow commercial. This change removes the minimum requirement for commercial; if the market for commercial is there then that will be a commercial development at this corner. Mr. Baker pointed out that commercial is more than a retail shopping center and there was never any guarantee that a shopping center would be built. Chair Goel stated that it could be office space as well. Mr. Baker mentioned Persimmon Place that is opening just to the east of Dublin Crossing that will have many establishments for residents that will be within easy walking or driving distance from this project. Cm. Mittan felt that the concern was the lack of Campus/Office or Commercial/Office and not retail. 41tanning Commission Ahy 12, 2015 akgpdaaw.`JOAleelaaaif W as g e 11 DRAFT DRAFT Mr. Baker stated that there is 2 million square feet of Campus/Office designated land across the street at the Dublin Transit Center. Chair Goel asked if the commercial was part of either Phase 1 or 2. Ms. Bascom felt the commercial portion of the project was included in Phase 2 and 3. Chair Goel asked if the developer has an idea of Phase 1 and Phase 2 and asked if they are indicating any commercial space built within those Phases. Ms. Bascom answered that she has not heard that to be the case and Staff has not seen any detailed plans. Cm. Mittan asked Ms. Bascom if she felt that it was highly important to the developer to delete the requirement for commercial. Ms. Bascom responded that she could not speak to the degree of importance to the developer. On a motion by Cm. Kohli and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-1-1, the Planning Commission adopted: Ayes: Do, Bhuthimethee, Kohli Noes: Mittan Abstain: Goel Chair Goel explained his reason for abstaining- 1) He does not see the commitment from DUSD to move forward; 2) He is not satisfied with the reduction in commercial space; 3) He felt that the deal, although it makes sense, has some elements that increase the potential for increasing the units to be developed, even though a number is allowable. He felt the original reasons to support the project was a reduction in the units. He felt that seeing that there is a potential for going to the higher limit and the commercial going away in the early phases was a concern but would rather have the ability for more office space and different types of uses; and 4) He felt that there was a benefit in seeing the financial leverage to see a school site come into play. Because he does not see that DUSD has the ability to obtain further funding to build the school and felt it was a high risk element to be negotiating for that cost. Mr. Cremin stated that, although Chair Goel explained the reason for his abstention, that was not technically required unless it was for a conflict or reason such as that. He stated that as far as further discussion on the item, it's at the discretion of the Chair, but the motion has been acted upon. RESOLUTION NO. 15-01 41tanning Commission Ahy 12, 2015 (kqj ka Aleelialif W as g e DRAFT DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, DUBLIN CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 15-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN, DUBLIN CROSSING SPECIFIC PLAN, AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN RELATED TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 15-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND DUBLIN CROSSING VENTURE LLC RELATED TO THE DUBLIN CROSSING PROJECT NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Mr. Baker reminded the Planning Commission that there will be a meeting on May 26, 2015. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 8:10:08 PM Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: (kqpdaa'Aleelialif air as g e I /,I DRAFT DRAFT Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director G:IMINUTESI20151PLANNING COMMISSION05.12.15 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx 41tanning Commission �A/hy 12, 2015 (kqjuka`Alleelillw air as g e I 15 pnmn' ���mk� To' I������bZ Cc: Kci.s.1U132uoo.m Subject: RE: Item o.z Amendment mGeneral Plan oumm Crossing Environmental impacts Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and the snstam oumm Specific Plan Planning Commission Meeting Date os'zz'zozs Date: Wednesday,May zs'zozsy:44:4zAM Attachments: dmo!22U1�uo Hi David, Thank you for your interest in the Planning Commission agenda item related to the Dublin Crossings project. The Planning Commission meeting was held on May 12 at7pm. Your email was sent after the meeting had already begun and was thus received after the meeting had concluded. So your email was not included in the Planning Commission record. However,this item is scheduled to go before the City Council for action on June 2 (Please We will include your email as an attachment to the City Council Staff Report. ]eff Jeff Baker Assistant Community Development Director �o,*, City ofDublin loo Civic Plaza I Dublin,cAg45O8 ��U8LIN (925)833-6610 (925) 833-6628 FAx � nv^mn Follow uson Twitter:@oub|inp0 � Mission Statement:The City nf Dublin promotes and supports o high quality nf life which ensures safe and �N N0Y secure environment that fosters new opportunities. ym, / From: David Bewley [maiKn:Uavid net Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 20157:05PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Item 8.1 Amendment toGeneral Plan Dublin Crossing Environmental impacts Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Planning Commission Meeting Date 05-12-2015 Dear Sirs, | will not be able to attend this meeting tonight in a timely manner. Please put in to the written comments . | would appreciate your attention and discussion regarding Item 8.1 (Public Hearing) for the regular meeting of the Dublin Planning Commission on May 12, 2015. | oppose adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A 2\ regarding Significant unavoidable adverse impacts environmental impacts and the rationales for adopting the following specific overriding considerations to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan asenumerated below: l. Long-Term Operational Air Quality 2. Long-term operational impacts to Freeway Ramps As you all understand that in addition to Air Quality issues, there are considerable existing traffic concerns as noted by the majority of the citizens of Dublin. This project will result in additional significant negative impacts and would it be best to re-evaluate the existing Environmental Impact Report regarding these specific impacts of Traffic and possibly air quality too, rather than to adopt overriding considerations without further review? Best Regards, David Bewley Resident of Dublin