The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.1 Promenade Appeal Attch 8-15ISl q 3k�' circulation and gathering from the Neighborhood Square with Main Street through a plaza opening between the commercial buildings. The prominent paseo also continues east of Main Street to provide a link to the medium high density two neighborhood. Dimensions The minimum dimension of pedestrian paseos between buildings shall be 12' wide, including the main paseo connecting the Village Center to the Neighborhood Square. Within parking lots, pedestrian paseos shall be a minimum of 6' wide. Landscape Treatment Where the pedestrian paseo interfaces with the buildings, large pots with colorful trees, shrubs, groundcover, or annuals may be placed for visual interest. Pottery shall be placed so that it does not impede the pedestrian path of travel. In parking lots, trees will be located within a planter in a linear fashion with a low growing groundcover understory. Paving Materials Where the pedestrian paseo interfaces with the buildings, the paving pattern established for the Village Center will continue through to the parking lots. The sidewalk of the pedestrian paseo that extends through the parking lot is at grade to minimize the need for curb ramps. Amenities The prominent paseo from the Neighborhood Square passes through the commercial buildings with an enlarged courtyard area with a fountain, public art, or other element as the focal point. In addition to seat walls and where space and path of travel permits, benches will be placed along the pedestrian paseo. Parking Lots Parking lots will consist of perpendicular parking bays visually broken into smaller areas within the larger mass of parking between landscaped medians and islands. As a transition to the parking lot, a minimum 5' of enhanced paving and/or landscape shall be provided at the backside of all buildings. II! 22 Community Landscape Design Guidelines ATTACHMENT 8 i-!�d q30. Conceptual Parking Lot with Pedestrian Paseo Landscape Treatment Parking lots will have a generous number of deciduous canopy trees spaced triangularly with one set of trees in the median and another in intermediate planter islands placed at the end of and among the parking bays. There should be a minimum of 5' planting areas between the parking lot and adjacent street right -of -way or the multi -use trails along Village Center parcels. A minimum of 3' shall be used for a low profile peripheral raised screen of hedges and/or mounding with colorful groundcover and trees to minimize views of parked cars from adjacent streets and residential uses. Transformers and other utility structures shall be located either in buildings, within or adjacent to the parking lot, where feasible, or behind buildings. The preferred option would be to locate transformers within self - contained utility rooms, within a building, or at the periphery of parking lots adjacent to multi -use trail corridors. A second option would be to locate them within landscape islands within parking lots. They shall be screened with plantings and/or structures such as walls, fences, and trellis' that will architecturally blend with adjacent architectural styles of the Village Center buildings. IV-23 Community Landscape Design Guidelines 1-53 -r� 0� ,3 ,;� RESOLUTION NO. 09 -34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE PROMENADE (PARCEL 3 of TRACT 7148) WITHIN AREA G OF DUBLIN RANCH PA 08 -006 WHEREAS, a request has been made by James Tong and Mei Fong Tong ( "Applicant') to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Dublin for the property known as the Village Center or The Promenade, a 23.46 -acre area encompassed by Parcel 3 of Tract 7148; and WHEREAS, the project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, Development Agreements are required as an implementing measure of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance 06 -00 which included Planned Development zoning and a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Plan for Area G of Dublin Ranch (PA 98 -069) which zoned the project site as PD Village Center district (Neighborhood Commercial), and PD Public /Semi - Public; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the development of Area G was adopted by the City Council by Resolution No. 34 -00 on February 15, 2000 (SCH # 99112041) (2000 MND "). The 2000 MND related to the program EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan certified by Resolution 51- 93, and Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994, (hereafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" ) (SCH #91- 103064). The 2000 MND and Eastern Dublin EIR are available for review in the City Planning Department and are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a Development Agreement in conjunction with its proposal to develop an 82,864 sq. ft. commercial center consisting of a C1ubSport fitness center, a Mercantile Building containing retail and office uses and a three story, four level parking garage on a 3.72 acre parcel on the 23 acre Promenade property. The related applications include Site Development Review for the principal proposed buildings and related improvements; a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor fitness center and for minor modifications to the existing PD zoning to reallocate density within the 23 acre site; a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to divide the 23 acre property into 4 parcels, Parcel 4 of which is the 3.72 acres proposed for development. The above activities and applications are collectively referred to as the "Project; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the Project required additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated July 14, 2009 ( "Addendum ") describing the modifications and development and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND and no further environmental review is required. The Addendum and related Initial Study are available for review in the City Planning Department and are incorporated herein by reference; and ATTACHMENT 9 Ise 130- WHEREAS, on July 14, 2009, the Planning Commission approved PA 08 -006 by Resolution 09 -29 for Phase I of The Promenade, which includes a Site Development Review ( "SDR ") and Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP ") for a private fitness /recreation center and minor amendment to the Stage 2 Development Plan to allow a maximum of 82,864 square feet of commercial space on Parcel 4 (of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 9717), a site of approximately 3.72 acres, with a maximum of 230,000 square feet over all of the 23.46 -acre Promenade area. The Planning Commission also approved and adopted the Addendum. The approval of the SDR, CUP and Addendum was appealed to the City Council on July 24, 2009. The appeal results in the prior approvals no longer being in effect until the City Council acts on the appeal. The appeal is currently pending; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Statement of Overriding Considerations by Resolution 09 -28 with regard to the proposed Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the text of the Draft Development Agreement is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A to the proposed Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, proper notice of the public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council make the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Development Agreement: 1. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in that: a) the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation for the subject site is Neighborhood Commercial and that the Applicant's project is consistent with that designation; b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies in relation to provision of infrastructure and public services of the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan; and c) the Agreement sets forth the rules the Applicant and City will be governed by during the development process which is required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Mitigation Monitoring Program of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 2. The proposed 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 including Planned Development zoning, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Conditional Use Permit (collectively, "Project Approvals "). Section 5 of the Development Agreement states that the right to develop and permitted uses under the Agreement are those set forth in the Project Approvals. Page 2 of 3 /ss� 3 id 3. The proposed Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice in that the Applicant's project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan, and Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, as proposed. 4. The proposed Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare in that the development will proceed in accordance with the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Project Approvals, Development Agreement, and any Conditions of Approval for the Project. 5. The proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values in that the development will be consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Project Approvals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and James Tong and Mei Fong Tong for the project (PA 08 -006). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of August of 2009. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager G :1PAM20081PA 08 -006 Club Sport PromenadelDevelopment AgreementlPCMtg 8- 11- 091Cremin DraftPCDAResolution.DOC Page 3 of 3 is6� 30, RESOLUTION NO. 00-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE MASTER VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR DUBLIN RANCH AREAS E, F, G AND H (Tract No. 7148) PA 99 -044 WHEREAS, Martin Inderbitzen, on behalf of Jennifer Lin, has requested approval of a Master Vesting Tentative Map (Exhibit A) to divide a 323.6 + acre parcel into 10 parcels as followings: Parcel One: 162.4+ acres, Parcel Two: 9.0+ acres, Parcel Three: 25.4+ acres, Parcel Four: 11.6+ acres, Parcel Five: 8.7+ acres, Parcel six: 10.2+ acres, Parcel Seven: 4.8+ acres, Parcel Eight: .02+ acres, Parcel Nine 66.4+ acres, Parcel Ten: 25.1+ acres. Parcel Ten would contain future right -of -way dedications for Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway and portions of streets A, B, C, D and E; and WHEREAS, a complete application for a Master Vesting Tentative Map is available and on file in the Department of Community Development; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan which was certified by the City Council by Resolution No. 51 -93, and the Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994 (the "EIR "), and further finds that the proposed project is consistent with the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, individual Initial Studies have been prepared for each of the three Dublin Ranch Areas (Area F — SCH No. 99112040, Area G — SCH No. 99112041 and Area H — SCH No. 99112042) to evaluate site specific impacts of the project (to a greater level of detail than in the Program EIR) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15168. Based on the three Initial Studies, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Program has been prepared for each area with the finding that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures previously adopted for the Program EIR and with site specific Mitigation Measures contained in the Initial Studies, as further clarified by the Response to Comments, the potential site specific impacts of the projects would be reduced to a level of insignificance. The Program EIR and Initial Studies adequately describe the impacts of the project, and there have been no substantial changes or new information that would be outside the scope of the Program EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on February 22, 2000; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Master Vesting Tentative Map, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Master Vesting Tentative Map: The Master Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances, with respect to creating interim and permanent lots for future development through subsequent tentative maps. The Master Tentative Map is conditioned to require subsequent tentative maps as necessary to comply with the applicable subdivision regulations and the PD Ordinance. g: \99- 044 \pereso2 Attachment 10 I37,f �3 is TENTATIVE MAP NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON WHEN REQ MATRIX RESPONSES AGENCY Prior to: INDEX TO OR CONDITIONS SOURCE (FOR APPLICANT GENERAL CONDITIONS L PA 99 -044, Dublin Ranch Phase Areas E, F, G and H PL, Approval of N/A Master Vesting Tentative Map Tract 7148 is approved to PW Any Plan subdivide 323.6 + acres into 10 parcels as followings: Parcel One: 162.4+ acres, Parcel Two: 9.0+ acres, Parcel Three: 25.4+ acres, Parcel Four: 11.6+ acres, Parcel Five: 8.7+ acres, Parcel six: 10.2+ acres, Parcel Seven: 4.8± acres, Parcel Eight: .02+ acres, Parcel Nine: 66.4+ acres, Parcel Ten: 25.1+ acres. Parcel Ten would contain future right -of -way dedications for Dublin Boulevard, Central Parkway and portions of streets A, B, C, D and E. The Final Master Map shall substantially comply with Exhibit A, the Master Vesting Tentative Map prepared by MacKay & Somps Engineers, dated Revised February, 2000 and received by the Department of Community Development on February 9, 2000, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein. 2. The Master Vesting Tentative Map shall expire at the PW, On -going Standard/ standard time of two and one half (2 1/2) years or as set PL Municipal forth in the Dublin Municipal Code and in the regulations Code of Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act 3. All project construction shall conform to all building B Through Standard codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building Completion permit. 4. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable PL Approval of Standard action programs and mitigation measures of the Eastern Improvement Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and Plans through companion Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), completion Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declarations prepared for Areas F, G and H that have not been made specific Conditions of Approval of this or previous projects, thereby superceding the pertinent Mitigation Measures referenced in those documents. The City shall determine which of the requirements from these prior approvals are applied at this stage of approval, and which are applicable upon approval of subsequent individual tentative subdivision maps. 5. Applicant/Developer shall not be able to develop any of PW, PL Prior to Standard/ PW the parcels created by this map until applicant/developer Issuance of has entered into a Development Agreement with the City Building as required by Section 7 of the Master Development Permits Agreement between the City and the Lin Family for the Dublin Ranch Project. Such "Specific Plan Development Agreement" will address such issues as required by Chapter 11 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The term "develop" shall mean recordation of a final subdivision Cis o� 3,a. NO. CONDITION TEXT RESPON WHEN REQ MATRIX RESPONSES AGENCY Prior to: INDEX TO OR CONDITIONS SOURCE (FOR APPLICANT map further subdividing the parcels created by this master map, a final parcel map for commercial or office use, a final map for medium, medium -high or high density residential uses or issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review or buil in er'm . 6. Applicant/Developer shall enter into an Improvement PW Approval of Standard/ Agreement with the City for all subdivision Improvement PW improvements. Complete improvement plans, Plans specifications, and calculations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works /City Engineer and other affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements prior to execution of the Improvement Agreement. Improvement plans shall show the existing on -site and off -site subdivision improvements and proposed improvements along the adjacent public streets and property that relate to the proposed improvements. A portion of the improvement required by the development both on and off -site may be financed and constructed with an Assessment District. The extent of Assessment District improvements are subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 7. Approval of Master Vesting Tentative Map 7148 is PW Issuance of Standard/ conditioned upon the requirement that development be Building State Law consistent with the approved Stage 1 & 2 Planned Permit within Development (PD) Development Plan for Area G and the each specific approved Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) project area Development Plans for Areas F and H (requires Stage 2 prior to development approval), and General Provisions, Standards, and Conditions. Subsequent Tentative Subdivision Maps creating individual residential or commercial lots may be required prior to any development occurring. Tentative Subdivision Maps creating individual lots must be consistent with the approved PD, and final detailed layout and design of individual residential lots, drive aisles, and streets must be approved by the Alameda County Fire Dept. and Director of Public Works through review of subsequent subdivision maps creating individual residential lots. 8. Except where specified otherwise, references in these PW, PL Prior to Standard conditions to Final Map are meant to refer to the approval approval of and/or recording of a Final Map for this Master Vesting Final Map for Tentative Map for Lots 2, 4, 5 and 6, and the Final Map this Master for subsequent Tentative Map(s) creating individual lots Vesting for all other parcels created by this Master Vesting Tentative Map Tentative Map. At the time of recordation of the Final Master Map, any question regarding the relevance of the conditions contained herein, or in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, or EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program or COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT I CITY OF DUBLIN E. Design and locate outdoor lighting around buildings, in parking lots, and along streets that minimize the effects of glare on adjacent properties, particularly in residential areas. Downward lighting designed to minimize effect on adjacent uses and reduce night sky lighting 10.7.3.5 Parking and Circulation A. Provide convenient but not visually dominating parking that incorporates extensive landscaping to provide shade, promote wayfinding, visually soften views from the street and surrounding properties, and reduce the heat island effect (generally characterized with large expanses of paved and under - landscaped surfaces). B. Buffer and screen large expanses of parking areas from the street, where practical. C. Encourage the use of integrated circulation and parking facilities that are shared among surrounding properties. September 16, 2008 Appropriate parking lot design with extensive landscaping Page 101 Attachment 11 Ibo 11431a 0 COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT I CITY OF DUBLIN D. Provide attractive and convenient bicycle parking (reference: Bikeways Master Plan). 10.7.3.6 Villages Villages are unique areas in Dublin that have distinct identities, include a mix of land uses, encourage pedestrian activity and can serve as major transit hubs. Figure 10 -5 identifies the locations of each Village. L -- ,City Limits Sphere of influence (includes City limits) \ 1. j� to�nty Dublin Village Historic Area C4�tp d�o9" i t m4l s 1 Downtown Dublin �..�' , p�n -.' i q `� ,r -1 go Camp Parks Exchange Areas �} ♦ � 4 W Transit Center `. c\ 1`3 74t I c Dublin Ranch Town Center ti! y i it tt a • e 1 ifs Fallon Village Center i U380 1 Seo 7 BART Corrldor Figure 10 -5 Villages The following policies apply to Villages. A. Encourage compact development that integrates a variety of housing types and densities, commercial and industrial uses, community facilities, civic, and educational uses with an emphasis on pedestrian - friendly design. Easily accessible village node Page 102 September 16, 2008 COMMUNITY DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT I CITY OF DUBLIN B. Design Village locations to be compatible with the local environment including surrounding land uses and topography. Village designs should respect constraints, and environmental considerations. such as roadways, C. Provide a mixture of housing types, densities, and affordability in Villages that support a range of age and income groups. D. Construct easily accessible activity nodes (commercial areas, community facilities, gathering areas, and public /private facilities). E. Incorporate trails, pedestrian pathways, and street linkages to better unify the parts and elements of each Village. F. Design streets and pedestrian pathways that are linked to transportation routes including buses and regional transit services. G. Design Villages with strong edges to define their boundaries, such as major streets, signage, architecture, or landscaping. H. Encourage Village size and development that promotes pedestrian mobility, permits a sufficient mixture of residential and public /private uses, and convenient commercial areas. �. Foster a specific identity for each Village by applying special signage, unique design elements, public spaces, etc. %up,C—ncarive urban character of a village September 16, 2008 Page 103 w hPA w Initial Study Project: The Promenade City File No. PA 08 -006 Lead Agency: City of Dublin A -p a PA #: Q -flo July 2009 �., Resolution Mo.: Resolution Date: �rc DU13UN PLANNIN ATTACHMENT 12 16-�J,3 Q- RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2000 DUBLIN RANCH AREA G MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROMENADE PROJECT AND ADOPTING A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PA 08 -006 WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to develop an 82,864 sq. ft. commercial center consisting of a C1ubSport fitness center, a Mercantile Building containing retail and office uses and a three story, four level parking garage on a 3.72 acre parcel on the 23 acre Promenade property. The related applications include Site Development Review for the principal proposed buildings and related improvements; a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor fitness center and for minor modifications to the existing PD zoning to reallocate density within the 23 acre site; a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to divide the 23 acre property into 4 parcels, Parcel 4 of which is the 3.72 acres proposed for development; and a Development Agreement. The above activities and applications are collectively referred to as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the Promenade site is located between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway along either side of Grafton Street; the Club Sport/Mercantile Building portion of the Project is located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street; and WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51 -93 ( "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR ", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "2000 MND ") for reconfigured land uses to relocate and develop a Village Center in the Dublin Ranch Area G portion of Eastern Dublin (Resolution No. 34 -00 incorporated herein by reference). The City Council approved related General and Specific Plan amendments for Area G on March 7, 2000 (Resolution No. 35 -00 incorporated herein by reference), and adopted PD- Planned Development zoning and related Development Plans on March 21, 2000 (Ordinance No. 6 -00, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the adopted PD zoning provides for a Village Center on the 23 acre Promenade property with a range of neighborhood commercial uses permitted and with a cap of 230,000 sq. ft. of density, allocated among 6 development sites. The Project proposes to modify the PD zoning to reallocate the approved density among the development sites, to subdivide the site and to develop one of the sites; and Pagel of 3 3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met. 2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project. 3. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Promenade Project. 4. The Planning Commission has considered the information in the Addendum, related Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 N ND and adopted the Addendum prior to approving the land use applications for the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Wehrenberg, Brown, King, Swalwell NOES: ABSENT: Schaub ABSTAIN: Planning Commiisioe-Cbmx- -•-- -- A E Plannmg a ager 1260531 G:IPA #120081PA 08 -006 Club Sport PromenadeIPCMtg 7- 14- 09lresoadoptingcegaaddendumandsocforpromenade .DOC 3 of 3 166 � FtEC�I�/�r JUL 0 S 2004 DUBLIN PLANNIN(7 CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE PROMENADE PROJECT PA 08 -006 July 14, 2009 On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51 -93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ( "Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53 -93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects have been proposed, relying to various degrees on the certified EIR. A subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH # 99112041) was prepared for an 87 -acre portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area, known as Dublin Ranch Area G. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted on February 15, 2000 by City Council Resolution No. 34- 00. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the Project, as described below. Project Description and Prior Approvals In 1998, an application was filed with the City to approve an amendment to the Dublin General Plan (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (SPA) and a Stage 1 & 2 Planned Development rezoning for Dublin Ranch Area G within Eastern Dublin. The applications, approved in 2000, reoriented land uses and the local circulation system from an east -west direction to a north -south Neighborhood Commercial orientation along Grafton Street. The GPA and SPA was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 34-00, on February 15, 2000. The Planned Development rezoning with related a Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan was approved by City Council Ordinance No. 06 -00. The current application includes a request for a Site Development Review (SDR) permit on a 3.72 -acre portion of a larger 23 site known as the Promenade. The SDR permit would approve the architectural design, landscaping, signs and related development details for a commercial development that encompasses a Club Sport fitness center within a two -story 47,669 square foot building, a two -story Mercantile office and retail building with 35,195 square feet and a four -level parking garage. The proposed Project also includes consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the Club Sport indoor fitness center as an indoor /outdoor recreation use and to allow a minor revision of the Planned Development rezoning to provide for a reallocation of development intensity among the 23 -acre Promenade Village Commercial ATTACHMENT 7 I67mf3� Abe 7 sites, so long as the existing maximum development intensity is not exceeded. A vesting tentative parcel map is included within the application to create 4 parcels of land from the 23- acre Promenade site that includes the 3.72 -acre development site. A Development Agreement is also proposed pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requirement. Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations Eastern Dublin EIR. The Project is within the Eastern Dublin planning area, which was the subject of the Eastern Dublin EIR, certified in 1993. The EIR analyzed the potential effects of future urban development planned for a then - largely undeveloped area east of the then- existing city of Dublin. Numerous environmental impacts were identified and numerous mitigations adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. All previously adopted mitigation measures for development of Eastern Dublin that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply to the currently proposed Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR is incorporated herein by reference. 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. In 1998, the property owner requested modifications to the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for Area G of the Dublin Ranch property. In response to the applicant and consistent with the City's practice for projects in Eastern Dublin, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the requests would require additional environmental review beyond that set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study disclosed that many of the anticipated impacts of the general and specific plan amendments were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was predictable given the comprehensive planning for the Eastern Dublin development area and the Eastern Dublin EIR's analysis of buildout under the Dublin General Plan and East Dublin Specific Plan land use designations and policies. Similarly, the long -term 20 -30 year focus of the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR analyses assumed implementation and related development pursuant to the General and Specific Plans. The Initial Study concluded that the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed General and Specific Plan Amendments; it also identified the potential for some new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Based on the findings of the initial study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the City. The City Council adopted the 2000 MND, through Resolution No. 3400 as well as a related Mitigation Monitoring Program. The 2000 MND is y incorporated herein by reference. Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this Project. Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the Project, which proposed a minor amendment to the approved Planned Development density standard and provides design and development details for a commercial center with a fitness center, a retail and office building and a parking garage on a portion of the Promenade site. elm Page 2 16S �31a The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated July 14, 2009, incorporated herein by reference, to assess whether any further environmental review is required for this Project Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR, or Negative Declaration is required for the Planned Development zoning modification or the refined development details. No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis: a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, or the 2000 MND. The Project proposes a commercial complex comprised of a fitness center, a building that would contain office, retail and food service use and a multi- story parking garage. Such uses are consistent with the overall types of land uses and densities allowed in the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Planned Development zoning. No changes or modifications have been requested or are required to the Dublin General Plan or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to accommodate proposed uses and activities. The minor modification to the Planned Development standards allows the maximum development density for the 23 -acre Village Commercial to be reallocated between the development sites, but does not increase the overall amount of allowed development or change the range of land uses previously approved. This would not be a substantial change, as documented in the initial study, Similarly, the subdivision of the 23- acre site into smaller parcels was previously anticipated and the Development Agreement is required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; neither is a substantial change. b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. This is documented in the Initial Study prepared for this Project dated July 14, 2009. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them? There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect. The applicant's plans for The Promenade Project would be consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, other mitigation measures previously adopted, as well as the 2000 MND. The project includes proposed development that implements the General Plan, the Specific Plan and zoning previously approved for this site. M Page 3 16013ia d) If no subsequent EIR -level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and previous MND. Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on an Initial Study dated July 14, 2009. The Addendum and Initial Study review the proposed development activities as discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the proposed Site Development Review (SDR), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), vesting tentative parcel map and development agreement do not require a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration under Guidelines Section 15162. The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR, previous Negative Declarations and this Addendum/Initial Study adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. As provided in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a decision on this project. The referenced resolutions, ordinance, the Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 MND are all incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA during normal business hours. 1W Page 4 0oaf 31� �1 Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................ ..............................2 Prior Environmental Impact Reports ........................................ ..............................2 Applicant/ Contact Person ......................................................... ..............................5 ProjectDescription ..................................................................... ..............................5 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................... .............................17 Determination............................................................................ .............................17 Earlier Analysis/ Incorporation By Reference ......................... .............................19 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................... .............................20 Discussionof Checklist ........................................................... ............................... 30 1. Aesthetics ........................................................................ .............................30 2. Agricultural Resources ................................................ ............................... 37 3. Air Quality ...................................................................... .............................37 4. Biological Resources ...................................................... .............................45 5. Cultural Resources ......................................................... .............................48 6. Geology and Soils .......................................................... .............................49 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................. .............................53 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................... .............................54 9. Land Use and Planning ............................................... ............................... 58 10. Mineral Resources ........................................................ .............................59 11. Noise ............................................................................. .............................60 12. Population and Housing ........................................... ............................... 64 13. Public Services .............................................................. .............................66 14. Recreation ................................................................... ............................... 68 15. Transportation/ Traffic ................................................ .............................69 16. Utilities and Service Systems ...................................... .............................72 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................... .............................79 InitialStudy Preparers ............................................................ ............................... 81 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ................................ ............................... 81 References.................................................................................. .............................81 Appendices................................................................................ .............................83 INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Promenade Project City of Dublin Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ", Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines, (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, §§ 15000 - 15387). This Initial Study assesses proposed Site Development Review (SDR), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) and Development Agreement applications for development of a fitness center, mercantile building and parking garage on the Promenade property. The proposed development and the related applications are further described below in the Project Description and are collectively referred to herein as the 'Project." Prior Approvals and Environmental Review The Project site has been the subject of several prior planning approvals and related environmental reviews. It is located in the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area, more specifically within Area G of Dublin Ranch. Previous City land use approvals regarding the Project site include: 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. In 1993, the City Council approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (EDGPA) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) project. The approved project was a modified version of the original EDGPA for the largely vacant 6,920 -acre Eastern Dublin planning area. The original EDGPA proposed to change commercial land use designations on County property in the southwest portion of the GPA area and agriculture/ open space designations elsewhere in the planning area to a range of urban uses. At the same time, a new EDSP addressed 3,328 acres within the larger 6,920 -acre EDGPA. The EDSP supplements the EDGPA with more detailed land use designations, policies, programs and regulations. The original EDGPA land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area with a mixed -use urban community. At buildout, the EDGPA planning area was projected to provide 17,970 new residences on 4,993 acres, including 2,672 acres designated for Rural Residential use with a 100 -acre minimum parcel size. Approximately 10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287 acres, 571 acres of designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned. Buildout was expected to occur over a 20-30 year period from the start of construction. City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 I Id 131a The EDSP encompassed 3,328 acres in the western portion of the EDGPA planning area. Seventy percent of the EDGPA residential development and 94% of the new commercial space was planned for the Specific Plan area. The land use plan called for compact villages with residential and neighborhood serving uses. Employment - generating commercial uses are generally provided along arterials with transit access. The City approved a modified project that reduced the GPA area by 2,744 acres, provided for buildout of the Specific Plan area and buildout of the EDGPA area only within the Dublin Sphere of Influence. The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report to analyze the environmental impacts of potential future development in Eastern Dublin. A Program Environmental Impact Report was certified through Resolution No. 51 -93 by the City of Dublin in 1993 (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064); referred to as the "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." That EIR evaluated the following impacts: Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. As part of the City's approval of the Eastern Dublin project through Resolution No. 53 -93, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), consumption of non - renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and alteration of visual character. Many mitigation measures were adopted and continue to apply to development throughout Eastern Dublin, as applicable. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. Annexation and prezoning. The Project site and surrounding properties in Dublin Ranch were annexed to the City of Dublin on September 28, 1995. The annexation and reorganization encompassed 1,538 acres of land, approximately 1,111 of which was located in Dublin Ranch. The annexation areas were prezoned to the PD, Planned Development zoning district with uses based on the general plan and specific plan land use designations. 2000 Area G approval. In 1998, applications for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, and a PD rezoning with related Development Plans were filed for Areas F, G and H, a 304 -acre portion of Dublin Ranch. The General Plan and Specific Plan had designated these areas for a wide range of uses, with Areas F and G providing a "town center" along an east -west "transit spine" and higher density residential uses nearby. The applications proposed to reconfigure land uses within the areas so as to move the town center south to create a Village Center in Area G, move higher density housing from Area F to Area G and replace the relocated uses in Area F with medium density housing. The applications also proposed to reorient the "village" City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 1-13 �21c)- main street from east -west to north - south, connecting Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. The proposed revisions placed all of the approximately 23 acre Village Center retail and office area in a Neighborhood Commercial designation within Area G; this 23 -acre Village Center area comprises the Promenade site. As approved, the maximum Village Center commercial development was set at 230,000 sq.ft. across 6 development sites, a substantial reduction from the 426,888 sq.ft. of Village Center commercial approved under the EDSP and assumed in the EDEIR. The remainder of the approximately 86.9 acre Area G site was proposed for the relocated medium high and high density residential uses, a neighborhood park and other community uses. Included in the Specific Plan amendment was a revised Town Center Concept Plan showing conceptual future development of the Village Center (Figure 7.1.1A). In addition to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use reconfigurations, the applications included PD rezonings with related Stage 1 Development Plans, except for Area G, which contained a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan with more detailed development plans and standards. The Area F, G and H GPA and SPA were adopted by City Council Resolution No. 35 -00 on March 7, 2000; the PD rezoning and related Development Plans were approved through Ordinance 6-00 on March 21, 2000. In connection with the proposed reconfigurations and the additional detail provided through the PD rezoning applications, the City prepared and circulated an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") to examine the potential for site - specific impacts beyond those previously identified in the EDEIR (SCH # 99112041.) The MND was approved by the Dublin City Council (Resolution No. 34 -00, dated February 15, 2000) for a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and a Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development rezoning for Planning Area G, within which this Project is located. The MND analyzed all of the environmental topics recommended in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Based on site - specific analysis, additional mitigation measures related to light and glare, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and traffic and circulation, were adopted by the City. These additional mitigation measures, as well as applicable mitigation measures from the EDEIR, continue to apply to future development on the current Project site. The currently proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land uses and policies, and is consistent with and implements the PD zoning and development plan approved in 2000. The Project includes no amendments to the General Plan or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Project does include a minor modification to reallocate the approved Planned Development density for the 23 -acre Village Commercial area, but does not change permitted land uses or increase the amount of development allowed in this portion of Eastern Dublin. This Initial Study addresses the requested development for the Promenade Project as described more fully below. This Initial Study further examines whether additional environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163. The resolutions, ordinances and prior EIR and MND referenced above are incorporated by reference, and are all available for review by the public during normal business hours at City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 17Lf 1 30 the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, 94568. Applicant /Contact Person Land Plan Associates Attn: Dave Chadbourne 450 Main Street, Suite 205 Pleasanton CA 94522 Phone: (925) 846 0084 Project Description The overall Promenade site includes approximately 23 acres of land comprising the Village Center, with development proposed for an approximately 3.8 -acre (net) portion of the site located in Eastern Dublin, California. Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of Dublin in relation to the Bay area. Exhibit 2 shows the Project site location in relation to the City of Dublin. The development site is bounded on the north by Finnan Way, on the west by Grafton Street, on the south by Dublin Boulevard and on the east by a high - density residential complex, the Terraces. Dublin Boulevard, which forms the southern boundary of the site, intersects with Tassajara Road to the west. In turn, Tassajara Road is linked to Interstate 580 via an existing interchange thus providing regional connections. Exhibit 3 shows the site in context with other surrounding streets and other features. The Project site is vacant and contains no buildings, although it has been recently used for short -term storage of construction trailers. Surrounding land uses include high density residential uses to the east (The Terraces complex), vacant to the south (on which the Grafton Plaza Project has been proposed and is being reviewed by the City), vacant land to the west, and a combination of vacant land and a high density housing complex to the north. Site topography for the site is generally flat with a gentle (15' or less) cross slope from north to the south. Project Characteristics The proposed Project includes consideration of a Site Development Review (SDR) approval, a conditional use permit, a vesting tentative parcel map and a development agreement to allow construction of The Promenade commercial project. These are described more fully below. The proposed Project would permit the development of the 82,864 square foot Promenade Project on the site as described further below. The proposed development would include three separate buildings: City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 )7s13/a The Club Sport building would be located on the southern frontage of the site and would include 47,669 square feet of floor space with two stories. Uses within the building would include but would not be limited to a weight training room, aerobics room, a spa, administrative offices and a cafe and outdoor eating area. An outdoor pool and deck area would also be constructed. Indoor recreational facilities are a conditionally permitted use in the Area G PD zoning, so the applicant has submitted a related CUP application. The proposed building also requires Site Development Review. • A Mercantile Building would be built to the north of the Club Sport facility, fronting to the west, on Grafton Street. This building would include 35,195 square feet of floor area in a two- story. Uses within this building would include a mix of retail, office and a restaurant. Retail, office and restaurant uses are permitted uses in the Area G PD zoning, subject to Site Development Review. A three- story, four -level parking garage would be constructed in the northeast corner of the site that would accommodate 428 vehicles, including a mix of standard -sized stalls, compact and handicap- accessible parking stalls, and including parking on the top deck. Fifty -eight open surface stalls would be provided, along with 16 on- street spaces along Finnian Way and Grafton Street, for a total of 502 spaces for the development. The proposed garage building requires Site Development Review. Details of the proposed Project are described below. Site Development Review. Site Development Review is required for all principal structures in the PD- Planned Development zoning district. The Site Development Review (SDR) portion of the Project implements the adopted PD zoning for the development site and includes information regarding overall Project design, architecture, landscaping, signs and related development details. The Club Sport and Mercantile buildings would be oriented adjacent to abutting streets (Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street) to create a village center urban appearance. The parking structure would be located behind and to the east of the Mercantile Building. Exhibit 4 shows the proposed site development plan. Architectural designs. The Club Sport building would have two stories with a maximum height of 41 feet to the main rooftop. The design of the building would be contemporary California architecture with use of a stone wainscot, stone bands at the cornices as well as stone accents. The roof design would be flat with projections over adjacent sidewalks. Ground floor windows would be highlighted by awnings over the sidewalk. Wall surfaces would be smooth stucco. The Club Sport building would be designed around a central courtyard that would contain a swimming pool, outdoor deck and an outside eating area. City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 17� of 3l� The Mercantile Building, that could contain a mix of retail, restaurant and office space, would be located just north of Club Sport. Retail and restaurant uses would be on the ground floor with office space above. This building would have a height of 47 ft. 8 inches and would have a traditional urban architectural design that would be consistent with the design of the adjacent Club Sport building. The parking garage would include four levels of parking, which includes parking on the top deck, so it would actually consist of three stories with a height of 48 feet at the highest point, which is the top of the elevator towers. The design of the parking garage would also reflect a traditional urban design. Each of the floors would have openings to the outside along the north, south and west walls for ventilation. Architectural detailing would include trellises on upper floors and stone band detailing. The eastern edge of the parking garage would be located approximately 66 feet from the eastern property line and approximately 74 feet from the nearest residential units in The Terraces. Landscaping. Exhibit 5 shows the preliminary landscape plan for the site. Plantings are proposed to include street trees along Dublin Boulevard, Grafton Street and Finnan Way that would include a mix of crape myrtle, London plane, flowering pear and scarlet oak trees. Other streetscape elements would include a mix of pavers and shrubs. Street furniture in the form of benches, bicycle racks, drinking fountains and decorative water fountains would also be provided. Two major landscape features would include an east -west landscaped pathway - between the two main buildings as required by the Area G Development Plan. This area would include pedestrian plazas and would be anchored by a large decorative water fountain. This path would provide primary pedestrian access between the two buildings and the parking area to the rear of the buildings. A second feature would include a north -south pedestrian and bicycle pathway/ trail along the eastern edge of the site that would link Dublin Boulevard and Finnan Way. The pathway would be accented with a continuous row of crape myrtle trees. This portion of the trail links all of Dublin Ranch north of the development site (e.g., Sorrento, Phase 1 and Area A) to the Promenade and to Grafton Station south of the development site. Site access. Vehicular access to the site would be provided by driveways on Dublin Boulevard and Finnan Way, both located near the eastern property line of the site. Parking. A total of 486 on -site parking spaces would be provided within the parking garage and on an adjacent surface parking lot. There would also be 16 street parking spaces available on adjacent public streets. Utility services. Dublin San Ramon Services District ( DSRSD) would extend domestic and recycled water to the site as well as wastewater treatment and disposal services in accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan. City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 The Project Developer would be required to install local water lines as well as paying fees to DSRSD to assist in funding upgraded water facilities in this portion of Eastern Dublin, consistent with applicable Facility Master Plans. Wastewater service would require the Project developer to install local underground sewer lines to transport wastewater to DSRSD's regional treatment plant. Sewer lines would be gravity flow. When available, recycled water may be provided to the Project site for use in irrigation of common open space areas and other areas. This could reduce the need for potable water for the proposed Project. Storm drainage facilities would consist of constructing on -site drainage inlets and underground drainage pipes to transport storm water runoff off of the site and into regional drainage facilities south of the site. Water quality protection. The proposed Project will be subject to Best Management Practices, such as such as sweeping of the parking area, to ensure water quality standards are met, as enforced by the City of Dublin. On- or off -site stormwater treatment for the Project may be required prior to release of drainage flows. Project grading. The Promenade development site has been rough graded. Additional trenching, grading and excavation would be required to accommodate the proposed uses on the 3.72 -acre ClubSport and Mercantile building site. No additional grading on other proposed parcels of land on the other three proposed Promenade parcels. Public art. The proposed Project would include on -site public art required by the Dublin Municipal Code. The approximate location of public art would either be on the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street along Grafton Street in front of the Mercantile building. Phasing. Development of a commercial center on the 3.72 -acre site is shown as Parcel 4 on the proposed Vesting Tentative Map. No development is proposed on Parcels 1 -3 of the overall Promenade site at this time. Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) has been requested pursuant . to Chapter 8.32.080 of. the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to the to modify the existing Stage. 2 Development Plan to change the allowable development square footage on Village Commercial Parcel 6 (VC -6) to 83,000, provided the maximum allowable development square footage for the entire Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. The applicant has filed a request to subdivide the approximately 23 acre Village Center portion of Area G into four smaller parcels of land. This is identified as Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 9717 and is shown on Exhibit 6. The vesting tentative parcel map proposal includes property generally located north of Dublin Boulevard and south of Central Parkway along both sides of Grafton Street. City of Dublin Page 8 Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Parcel 4 of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is the ClubSport /Mercantile Building development site. This is the only proposed parcel for which development is anticipated. No development is proposed on Promenade Parcels 1 through 3 as shown on Vesting Tentative Map 9717. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Area G PD zoning. As noted in the 2000 MND, among the applications in 2000 was a Vesting Master Tentative Map to establish smaller parcels in Area G for sale to future builders, consistent with the related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans (MND Responses to Comments, p. 2). At that time, it was anticipated that future subdivision maps would also be requested "to create individual building sites for residential and non - residential construction." The proposed vesting tentative parcel map is such a future subdivision map. If approved, the applicant would need to prepare a Parcel Map for recordation with the County Recorder. Development Agreement. A Development Agreement is proposed to be executed between the City of Dublin and the applicant, pursuant to Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requirements. City of Dublin Page 9 Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 San Francisco Pacific Ocean 0 " 10 Miles Exhibit 1- Regional Location The Promenade - Parcel 4 SDR/CUP Initial Study City of Dublin June 2009 I I I (Igt MAOKAi& N I Rmm Dom R"aw �� (8-b Q-f, 3 b2 Exhibit 2 - City Context The Promenade - Parcel 4 SDRICUP Initial Study City of Dublin June 2009 NORTH NTS ■AOKAT& M RAM ROWM A drop lay q" 3/--�- Exhibit 3 - Site Context The Promenade SDRICUP Initial Study City of Dublin June 2009 NORTH KS �AIKAYB� � •. {1 let t� E 1 FI fl al tl II a I I I I , I N qU� � U �S ddb Z a LL z F r31� rj F t a t t F t t 3 a i f a t t t t t 9 u S E 1 1 t t t 3 1 1 t t t t f t E c t t r, E E 9 t 4 t i @ 3 t 1 f t t t 6 � f �1 E 9 k 3 k 1 t k 9 Y F r s I P t i t t r 5 Exhibit 4 - Site Development Plan The Promenade - Parcel 4 SDR/CUP Initial Study City of Dublin June 2009 NOgTM Is O" UM Mi FAUN a O, a. Exhibit 5 - Preliminary Landscape Flan The Promenade - Parcel 4 SDR/CUP Initial Study City of Dublin Dublin June 2009 ► CI n "� . N 0RCTH TS I MACKV & SMPS a e x t LL G R A F T O N S T R E E T Exhibit 5 - Preliminary Landscape Flan The Promenade - Parcel 4 SDR/CUP Initial Study City of Dublin Dublin June 2009 ► CI n "� . N 0RCTH TS I MACKV & SMPS RM / I I 1 I / / / _ II I 9.61 ,u, l 1 1 R )SSE ri'S' sor p/l�ll I l l l �,� rs•�1'/ r A . DUB�N el J I , ESMr �I IT f^ITTr� 1 Exhibit 6 - Tentative Parcel Map The Promenade - Parcel 4 SDRICUP Initial Study N O R T H NTS City of Duhlin June 2009 IMOMY $ SOMPS E M CA NAW�EAS Ip25) 22u fl&S bM 1. Project description The applicant requests approval of Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Map applications that would allow construction of a multi-story 82,864 square foot commercial center containing a fitness center (Club Sport), an office and retail commercial building and a three- story, four -level parking garage. A four - parcel subdivision map on 23 acres of land would create individual parcels in the Village Center, including a parcel for the proposed development. A Development Agreement is also proposed. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 3. Contact person: Michael A. Porto, Dublin Community Development Department (925) 833 6610 4. Project location: 5. Project contact person 6. Existing General Plan/ Specific Plan Land Use Designation 7. Existing/Proposed Zoning North of Dublin Boulevard, east of Grafton Street David Chadbourne Land Plan Associates NC- Neighborhood Commercial PD- Village Center 8. Other public agency necessary and /or desired approvals: City of Dublin Initial Study/The Promenade Project PA 08 -006 • Grading Plans, Improvement Plans, and Building Permits (City of Dublin) • Sewer and water connections (DSRSD) • Encroachment permits (City of Dublin) • Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board) • Finding of Consistency with Alameda Co. Airport Land Use Plan (Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission) Page 16 July 2009 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below may be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Aes etics - Agricultural - Air Quality Resources - Biological - Cultural Resources - Geology Soils Resources - Hazards and - Hydrology Water - Land Use Hazardous Quality Planning Materials - Mineral Resources - Noise - Population Housing - Public Services - Recreation - Transportation Circulation - Utilities Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR and MND pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR and MND, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project. An Addendum to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Area G will be prepared. I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the %-.ny U1 vuQnn Page 17 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 1g7 � 3�a mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the Project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. _ I find that although the proposed Project may have a potentially significant effect, or a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. A focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature: Printed Name: J evih/ uity or uuoun Initial Study/The Promenade Project PA 08 -006 Date: 711(0 I For: x - L Page 18 July 2009 XVII. Earlier Analyses and Incorporation By Reference a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following environmental documents have been used in the preparation of the Initial Study. All are available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours. Each of the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. • Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, May, 1993, (SCH #91103064) • Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Area G, November 1999 (SCH# 99112041). City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 2, 3, 5) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 2, 3,5) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 2, 3, 5) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 5) 2. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 1, 2, 3) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1, 2, 3) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 1,2, 3) 3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2, 3) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2, 3) City of Dublin Initial Study/The Promenade Project PA 08 -006 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X i i i X X X X X Page 20 July 2009 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2,3) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 2,3) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 5) 4. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ?(Source: 2, 3,7) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2, 3,7) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: Source: 2, 3, 7) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 3,7) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3) City of Dublin Initial Study/The Promenade Project PA 08 -006 110 �31� Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 21 July 2009 f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 2, 3) 5. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2, 3) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2, 3) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2, 3) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (2, 3) 6. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2, 3,7) iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 2, 3, 7) iv) Landslides? (Source 2, 3, 5) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 2, 3) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 2, 3, 7) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2, 7) City of Dublin Initial Study/The Promenade Project PA 08 -006 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 22 July 2009 .1.4 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or Option wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 2, 3) 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source: 3, 7) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 3,7) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 3, 7) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 3, 7) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2, 3, 5) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2, 3,7) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2,7) City of Dublin Initial Study/The Promenade Project PA 08 -006 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 23 July 2009 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 2,3) S. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 3) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (2, 3, 5) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Source: 2, 3, 5) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Source: 2, 3, 7) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 2, 3, 7) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2, 3, 7) g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 2, 3,7) City of Dublin Initial Study/The Promenade Project PA 08 -006 193 � 3ia Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 24 July 2009 h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2, 3,7) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (7) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 2, 5) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 2,5) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1, 2, 5) 10. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 2,3) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local General Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1, 2, 3) 11. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (2,4) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2,4) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (2.4) City of Dublin Initial Study/The Promenade Project PA 08 -006 i�' N a�31o2 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X Page 25 July 2009 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (4) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (2,4) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2,4) 12. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2,5) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (5) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 6,75) 13. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2, 3, 6) Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities Solid Waste City of Dublin Initial Study/The Promenade Project PA 08 -006 its � 3�a Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 26 July 2009 V- 14. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2,7) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of w;y recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2,7) 15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (Source 2, 3) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (2, 3) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (2,3) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (2, 3) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (5) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (7) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting Option transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Source: 1) City of Dublin Initial Study/The Promenade Project PA 08 -006 196 �(3►�- Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X Page 27 July 2009 sm 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2, 3, 6) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2, 3, 6) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2, 3, 6) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (2, 3, 6) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (Source: 6) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 7) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 2) 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? City of Dublin Initial Study/The Promenade Project PA 08 -006 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X Page 28 July 2009 M] b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Eastern General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan 2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan EIR 3. 2000 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Project- specific Acoustic Report (2009) 5. Site Visit 6. Discussion with service provider 7. Other Source City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Studyffhe Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics iq9�3,a Environmental Setting The Project is set in a portion of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted in 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the effects of urbanizing vacant lands and identified significant and unavoidable impacts 3.8/B and 3.8/F regarding alteration of the area's rural, open space character. Visual and aesthetic impacts on a site - specific were further discussed in the MND for Area G. The Project site is vacant and is generally flat but is characterized by slight south - sloping topography of 17o or less. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the Eastern Dublin area was (at the time of the EIR preparation) visually dominated by expanses of grasslands and rolling hills. Generally, at the time the EDSP was adopted, the southerly portion of the EDSP area that contains the Project site was flat, open and covered with grasslands and agricultural field crops. In the northerly portions, steeper foothills framed canyons settled with farms and ranchettes. In 1993, the EDGPA /EDSP planning area was undeveloped at urban levels and conveyed a distinct rural atmosphere characteristic of the inland coastal valleys of Northern California. Currently, the southerly and central portions of the EDSP are primarily developed. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the EDGPA /EDSP, urban development has proceeded in the Eastern Dublin in accordance with these land use regulatory documents. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains photographs of visual conditions of the Eastern Dublin planning area as of 1993. No trees, major rock outcroppings or other natural features exist on the site, since it was recently filled. Nearby scenic highways include the I -580 freeway approximately one - quarter mile to the south and Tassajara Road, approximately one - quarter mile to the west. Surrounding properties to the northeast and east consist of urban uses, which are medium -high and high- density residential complexes. Property to the south includes both developed (Grafton Station) and vacant properties, although mixed -use project is proposed (Grafton Plaza) south of The Promenade site. There are no public parks on the site. As an undeveloped area, no light sources exist on the Project site, although streetlights have been installed on portions of Dublin Boulevard south of the site. City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Regulatory framework. Protection of visual resources in the Eastern Dublin area is provided by the following: Dublin General Plan. Applicable policies to protect visual resources adopted as part of the Dublin General Plan are as follows. Land Use Element (Eastern Extended Planning Area) Policy 2.1.4. C. 2. Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands. Land Use and Circulation Element. Policy 5.6 A. Incorporate County - designated scenic routes ..., in the General Plan as adopted City- designated scenic routes and work to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers. Land Use and Circulation Element. Policy 5.6 B. Exercise design review of all projects visible from a designated scenic route. Alameda County Scenic Route Element. In May, 1966, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors adopted a Scenic Route Element of the County General Plan. The Element identifies I -580 as a scenic route within Alameda County. The Scenic Route Element has been incorporated by reference into the City of Dublin General Plan. The Element identifies scenic rights -of -way, scenic corridors and areas extending beyond scenic corridors as being major elements in the Scenic Route Element. Scenic rights -of -way include paved roadways and adjacent lands required for roadway protection, storm drain facilities, public utilities, pedestrian travel and roadside plantings. Rights -of -way may also include roadside rest areas, bicycle paths and hiking trails. The Element contains the following principles that apply to scenic route rights -of -way. • Design scenic routes to minimize grading in rights -of -way; • Design scenic routes for leisurely rather than high speed travel; • Enhance scenic route rights -of -way through outstanding design of highway structures; • Landscape rights -of -way of existing and proposed routes; and • Utilize scenic route identification signs. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Section 6.3.4 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains the following goals, policies and action programs regarding visual resources. Visual Resource Goal: To establish a visually distinctive community which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors. Policy 6 -28: Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other visual resources, such as creeks and major stands of vegetation. City of Dublin Page 31 Initial StudyfThe Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Policy 6 -30: Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of the backdrop ridge (identified in Figure 6.3 as "visually sensitive ridgelands -no development ") are generally maintained when viewed from scenic corridors. Policy 6 -31: High quality design and visual character will be required for all development visible from designated scenic corridors. Action Program 6Q: The City should officially adopt Tassajara Road, I -580 and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors, adopt a set of scenic corridor policies and establish review procedures and standards for projects within the scenic corridor viewshed. Action Program 6R: The City should require projects with potential impacts on scenic corridors to submit detailed visual analysis with development project applications. Applicant will be required to submit graphic simulations and /or sections drawn from affected travel corridor through the parcel in question, representing typical views of the parcel from these scenic corridor. The graphic depiction of the location and massing of the structure and associated landscaping can then be used to adjust the project design to minimize the visual impact. Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin adopted scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. The purpose of this document is to implement EDSP visual protection polices as related to individual development projects. This document contains the following overall implementing policies for Eastern Dublin scenic corridors. 1. Maintain a sense of place for Eastern Dublin with relation to natural landforms and topography. 2. Allow the traveler along a Scenic Corridor to experience the varied features of the landscape. 3. Assure that development along the Scenic Corridors is well planned and sensitively sited to respect natural topography. 4. Achieve high quality design and visual character for all development visible from designated Scenic Corridors, generally within 700 feet of a Scenic Corridor. 5. Assure that landscaping adjacent to the Scenic Corridor harmonizes with the scenic environment. Previous CEQA documents. Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 • Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract development (IM 3.8/A) to a less - than - significant level. This mitigation requires future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserve the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors. Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/B) but not to a less - than - significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B remained significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 reduced the impact of obscuring distinctive natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/C) to a less - than - significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of policies to preserve the natural open beauty of the hills, creeks and major stands of vegetation. Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0 -4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of hillsides (IM 3.8/1)) to a less - than - significant level. These mitigation measures require implementation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading, use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction, using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes. Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0 -5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of ridges (IM 3.8/E) to a less - than - significant level. These mitigation measures limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north and east but allow development on foreground hills. The measures also limit development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would extend above a ridge top. • Impacts to changes in the visual character of valley flatlands, Impact 3.8/F, was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact that could not be reduced to a level of less - than - significant • Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0 reduced impacts to the visual character of watercourses to less than significant through careful siting of development and restoration of stream corridors disturbed by development. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7.1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/I) to a less - than - significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds. City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 6?a3 o t • Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.0 and 8.1 reduced impacts on scenic routes from urban development to less than significant (IM 3.8/J). These measures provide for designation of I -580, Tassajara and Fallon Roads as scenic corridors and for submittal of visual analyses for project with potential impacts on scenic corridors. 2000 MND. Mitigation Measure 1 addressed site specific light and glare impacts for development of Area G and requires pole- mounted street lights be equipped with cut- off lenses and oriented downward to minimize spill over of light and glare. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would result in construction of multiple buildings, landscaping and other associated improvements on the site, which is currently vacant. The Project site lies outside of the 700 -foot area north of the I- 580 freeway and near Tassajara Road that are regulated by the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document. The height of proposed structures within The Promenade is well below the 70' maximum height standard established in the Area G PD zoning for the Village Center. The proposed buildings are of a similar height as The Terraces and other nearby high- density residential complexes so as not to significantly block distant views of Visually Significant Ridgelands north and northeast of the EDSP planning area. Overall, there would be no new or more significant impacts with regard to scenic vistas than analyzed in previous CEQA documents prepared on this site. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic highway? LS. The proposed Project would convert the site from a vacant condition to an urbanized area. This impact was addressed as Impacts 3.8/B and 3.8/F of the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that, even with adherence to Mitigation Measure MM 3.8/2.0, which requires the land use plan for the Eastern Dublin area emphasize retention of the natural features of the planning area, this impact remained significant and unavoidable. The Project site is not located adjacent to scenic corridors, which include the I -580 Freeway and Tassajara Road. Thus, there would be no new or more significant impacts with regard to scenic resources than analyzed in previous CEQA documents prepared on this site. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? LS. The Project site is currently vacant. No visual features exist on the site that would include hills, creeks, significant stands of trees or vegetation, or major rock formations. The type, design and character of proposed buildings for the site are consistent with the design standards and guidelines in the PD zoning for the site and are City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 aoy � 31a. generally consistent with existing development projects found in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. However, a high- density housing complex (The Terraces) has been constructed east of the Project site and the proximity of the proposed four level parking garage within The Promenade Project could cast shade and shadows on portions of The Terraces. To analyze this potential impact, a shade and shadow analysis has been prepared by the Dahlin Group architects. This study is incorporated by reference into this initial study and is included as Appendix 1. The study q4 includes Exhibits M1.0 through D3.2. These are described as follows: Exhibits M1.0 through M2.2 show existing and anticipated shadows during an average day on March 21 and September 21 at noon and 3 pm. These exhibits show that no shadows would be cast from the Project site and onto adjacent properties. • Exhibits M3.0 though M3.2 show existing and proposed shadow patterns as they would appear at 6 pm on the days of March 21 and September 21. Exhibit M3.2 shows that in the late afternoon (6 pm), the lower and middle of the western elevation of The Terraces would be in shadows cast by buildings within The Promenade. Upper floors and the roof of The Terraces would be free of any shadows from the proposed Project. • Exhibits J1.0 through J3.2 depict existing and proposed shadows that would occur on the longest day of each year, June 21 at noon, 3pm and 6pm. As shown by these exhibits, no shadows would be cast from the Project site to any adjacent site under any time of day. • Exhibits D1.0 through D 3.1 show existing and proposed shadows on December 21, the shortest day of the year, at noon, 3 pm and 6pm. Exhibit D.2 shows that small portion of the lower floor of the northwest corner of The Terraces would be covered by a shadow from the parking garage on The Promenade project. Exhibit D3.2 shows that most of the lower floor of The Terraces and a portion of the second floor would be covered by a shadow cast by proposed Promenade buildings at 4 pm. The roof of the Terraces would not be covered by any shade or shadow from The Promenade. To assess the potential impacts of shade and shadows from the Project site, the City of Dublin uses the following criteria to determine if a significant impact would occur: Im a) If a project would now or in the future cast shadows on solar collectors in conflict with the California Public Resources Code Sections 25980 -86; V7 City of Dublin Initial Study/The Promenade Project r PA 08 -006 M Page 35 July 2009 b) If a project would cast shade or shadows that would substantially impair the use of a public or quasi - public park, lawn, playground or similar open space area; c) If a project would cast a shadow on a historic resource, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), such that it would substantially diminish or impair its eligibility for listing in the National register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources or in any local register of historic resources as defined by the Public Resource Code. As depicted in Exhibits M1.0 through D3.2, shade or shadows cast by the proposed Promenade Project would not extend on any roof area of The Terraces complex that would block existing or future solar collectors and would not cast shadows on any open space areas of The Terraces. Since Terraces is a newly constructed residential complex, it is not considered a historic resource as defined by section "c," above. Therefore, even though portions of the western elevation of the Terraces would be subject to shade and shadow during certain portions of the year and times of day, this impact would be a less-than- significant impact as defined by the City of Dublin. Overall, the proposed Project would contribute to the overall alteration of the rural/ open space and visual character of Eastern Dublin (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.8/13) and alteration of the visual character of flatlands (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.8/F). Both of these impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. d) Create light or glare? LS. Site specific light and glare impacts and mitigations were identified in the 2000 MND. As then, the Project site currently contains no light sources and construction of the proposed Project would add additional light sources in the form of parking lot lights, building lights, walkway lights and similar sources of lighting. Mitigation Measure 1 from the MND requires that street and other exterior lighting be controlled. A related condition included as part of the SDR approval requires that all exterior lights be equipped with cut -off lenses and directed downward to avoid spill over of light off of the Project site. In addition, the parking garage has been designed with a screening trellis along its easterly edge to interrupt light escaping the light standards on the top deck of the parking structure. Also, the light standards on the top deck are of a height so that they do not extend above the trellis along easterly edge of the structure. There are no openings to the lower three floors of the parking structure along the easterly edge (except the ground floor to allow cars to enter and exit) to further reduce the ability of light to escape from the covered floors of the parking structure. The project design plus the exterior light control condition implement the previously adopted mitigation measure and ensure that spillover of light and glare will be at a less - than - significant level. City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 AW PA 08 -006 r' There will be no new or more significant impacts with regard to light and glare than analyzed in previous CEQA documents prepared on this site. 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting Figure 3.1 -B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the Project Site as "lands of locally important farmlands." Impact 3.1 / F found that the cumulative loss of agricultural lands was a significant and unavoidable impact of urban development in the Eastern Dublin planning area. Impact 3.1 / C found the discontinuance of agricultural operations to be less - than - significant. The Project site is currently vacant and is not used for agricultural production. Existing zoning is PD- Planned Development. No Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements have been recorded on the Project Site based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Figure 3.1 -C.) No additional impacts or mitigation measures regarding agricultural resources were identified in the 2000 MND. .w. Project Impacts a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non - agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to a non- agricultural use? NI. Conversion of the site to urban uses was planned in the Eastern Dublin GPA and SP, and analyzed in the EDEIR and 2000 MND.. The Project site is vacant but is not used for agricultural production, although it was farmed in the past. The site is surrounded on two sides -- northeast and east - -with intensive urban development. The property south of the site is planned for a mixed -use or office complex (Grafton Plaza). Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed Project would result in no new or more significant impacts than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? NI. The proposed Project is presently zoned PD- Planned Development for an urban Village Center and would not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning and would not conflict with a Williamson Act Agreement, since none exist on the property. Therefore, no impacts would result with regard to these topics. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting Air pollution climatology. The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to miry or uuaun Page 37 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. The Project is within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. u Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. The terrain of the Livermore - Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pollution potential of the sub - regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared a to the greater Bay Area. The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 907o of the time in both morning and afternoon. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), air pollution potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in frequent surface -based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and agricultural burning can become concentrated. _Ambient air quality standards Criteria Pollutants. Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Table 3 identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects and major sources. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 4. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health- related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.5). Suspended particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust. "Inhalable" PM consists of particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and is defined as "suspended particulate matter" or PMIo. Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). PM2.5, by definition, is included in PMIo• Ambient air duality. The state and federal ambient air quality standards cover a wide variety of pollutants. Only a few of these pollutants are problems in the Bay Area either due to the strength of the emission or the climate of the region. The BAAQMD maintains a network of monitoring Sites in the Bay Area. The closest to the Project site is in Livermore. Table 5 summarizes violations of air quality standards at this monitoring Site for the period 2005 -2007. Table 5 shows that the federal ambient air quality standards for ozone is not met in the Livermore Valley, and state standards for ozone and PMIo are exceeded. Attainment status and regional air quality plans. The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "non- attainment areas." Because of the differences between the national and state standards, the designation of non - attainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area as a non - attainment area for the federal 8 -hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was designated as unclassifiable /attainment for the federal PMIo and PM2.5 standards. Under the California Clean Air Act Alameda County is a non - attainment area for ozone and particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.5). The county is either attainment or unclassified for other pollutants. Air districts periodically prepare and update plans to achieve the goal of healthy air. Typically, a plan will analyze emissions inventories (estimates of current and future emissions from industry, motor vehicles, and other sources) and combine that information with air monitoring data (used to assess progress in improving air quality) and computer modeling simulations to test future strategies to reduce emissions in order to achieve air quality standards. Air quality plans usually include measures to reduce air pollutant emissions from industrial facilities, commercial processes, motor vehicles, and other sources. Bay Area plans are prepared with the cooperation of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Ozone Attainment Demonstrations are prepared for the national ozone standard and Clean Air Plans are prepared for the California ozone standard. Uiry or uunnn Initial Studyrrhe Promenade Project PA 08 -006 Page 39 July 2009 Table 3. Major Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources Ozone A highly reactive photochemical Eye Irritation The major sources Pollutant created by the action of sunshine on Respiratory function ozone precursors are ozone precursors (primarily reactive hydrocarbons impairment. combustion sources such as factories and and oxides of nitrogen. Often automobiles, and called photochemical smog. evaporation of solvents and fuels. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas that is highly toxic. It Impairment of oxygen transport in the Automobile exhaust, combustion of fuels, is formed by the incomplete bloodstream. combustion of wood combustion of fuels. Aggravation of in woodstoves and cardiovascular disease. fireplaces. Fatigue, headache, confusion, dizziness. Can be fatal in the case of very high concentrations. Reddish -brown gas that discolors the air, formed during combustion. Increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory Automobile and diesel truck exhaust, disease. industrial processes, fossil - fueled power PDioxide plants. Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas Aggravation of chronic Diesel vehicle with a pungent, irritating odor. obstruction lung exhaust, oil - disease. powered power !Increased risk of acute plants, industrial and chronic respiratory processes. disease. Particulate Solid and liquid particles of dust, Aggravation of chronic Combustion, Matter soot, aerosols and other matter disease and heart /lung automobiles, field which are small enough to remain disease symptoms. burning, factories suspended in the air for a long and unpaved roads. period of time. Also a result of photochemical processes. Cn�irne• n.. r... LJ D.. 11__a: wily or uuonn Initial Study/The Promenade Project PA 08 -006 t Page 40 July 2009 Table 4. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Federal State Time Primary Standard Standard Ozone 1 -Hour -- 0.09 PPM 8 -Hour 0.075 PPM 0.07 PPM Carbon Monoxide 8 -Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM 1 -Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM 0.03 PPM 1 -Hour -- 0.18 PPM Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM -- 24 -Hour 0.14 PPM 0.04 PPM 1 -Hour -- 0.25 PPM PM10 Annual Average -- 20 Pg /ms 24 -Hour 150 Ng /m3 50 /m3 PM2.5 Annual 15 Ng /m3 12 fag /m3 24 -Hour 35 Ng /ms -- Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 fag /m3 -- 30 Day Average -- 1.5 p /m, Sulfates 24 Hour 25 Pg /m3 -- Hydrogen Sulfide 1 -Hour 0.03 PPM -- Vinyl Chloride 24 -Hour 0.01 PPM -- Piny _ n-4- g /m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (04/01/08) httg://www.arb.ca.eov/research/aacis/aacis2.odf City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 ail � 3i� Table 5. Air Quality Data Summary for Livermore, 2005 -2007 Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard In: 2005 2006 2007 Ozone State 1 -Hour 6 13 2 Ozone State 8 -Hour 7 15 3 Ozone Federal 8-Hour 1 5 1 PMI0 Federal 24-Hour 0 0 0 PM10 State 24 -Hour 0 3 2 PM2.5 Federal 24 -Hour 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide State/Federal 8 -Hour 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1 -Hour 0 0 0 Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2008. (http: / /www.arb.ca.gov. /adam /cgi- bin /adamtop /d2wstart) Sensitive receptors. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptors are residences located in the Terraces development east of the Project site. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. There is no current statute, regulation, or case law which requires the analysis of greenhouse gasses and climate change under CEQA. The topic of the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR has been certified and the MND adopted, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this. proposed Project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent. EIRs (see discussion under Section XVII, Earlier Analysis). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Se., 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified or the MND adopted. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to the 2000 MND. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 d. Id I --�_ reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyzes of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993, and adoption of the Area G MND in 2000. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on this issue is required. under CEQA. Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed both construction and operational impacts and contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: Mitigation Measures 3.11 /2.0 -4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11 /B) but not to a less - than- significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on -site equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even with adherence to these mitigations, this impact remained significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emissions from ROG and NOx (IM 3.11 / C) but not to a less - than- significant level. Mitigation measures require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures, many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to adopted mitigations, IM 3.11 / C remained significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11 / E) but not to a less -than- significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures, stationary source emissions remained significant and unavoidable. 2000 MND. No new air quality impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the site - specific 2000 MND document. Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.11 / E regarding increased stationary source air emissions from future development of Eastern Dublin that would remain significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 and 13.0. The Eastern Dublin EIR also assumed increased development in other areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, and related commutes to the Bay Area, and identified cumulative mobile source impact IM 3.11 / C as significant and unavoidable, even after mitigation. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these two impacts. city of uublfn Page 43 Initial Studylrhe Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 cm a13 0� 3ia �t The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan is predicated on population projections for local agencies within the District based on ABAG's Projections '07, which, in turn is based on a compilation of local agency general plan documents. Development allowed under the proposed Project would be consistent with the type and amount of development allowed under the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, so there would be no new or more severe impact with respect to conflicts with the regional air quality plan than has been previously analyzed. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS. Project and cumulative air emission impacts. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR identified emission of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) from vehicles as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact IM 3.11 / C). Although the EIR identified several possible measures to mitigate this impact, s including but not limited to implementation of a transportation demand program, encouragement of mixed -use developments and similar), any reduction of mobile source emissions could not be reduced to less - than - significant levels. Project and cumulative air emission impacts. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR identified emission of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) from vehicles as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact IM 3.11 / C). Although the EIR identified several possible measures to mitigate this impact, including but not limited to implementation of a transportation demand program, encouragement of mixed -use developments and similar measures, any reduction of mobile source emissions could not be reduced to less - than - significant levels. The 23 acre Village Center area zoning allows a maximum of 230,000 sq.ft. of future development, well below the maximum 427,888 sq.ft. approved in the original EDSP and analyzed in the EDEIR. In addition, the Project is an infill site intended to place complementary neighborhood commercial uses in proximity to higher density residential development. The Project design provides many pedestrian and bicycle connections on and offsite to neighboring uses. In these ways, the Project implements EDEIR mitigations to reduce vehicle trips and related emissions and congestion. As such, the Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than previously identified. As noted in the EDEIR, however, the Project reductions would reduce but not avoid the identified significant unavoidable impact. Construction air impacts. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust - controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less -than- significant. Mitigation Measure MM 3.11/1.0 in the East Dublin EIR identifies the construction controls that provide reduction of air emissions during construction phases of development projects and the Project applicant will be required to adhere to these requirements. Since the BAAQMD has adopted additional and City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 more stringent dust control measures since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, a condition of Project approval will require that Project construction activities comply with the most recent construction air quality reduction strategies adopted by the BAAQMD. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? See item "b." d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? NI. The proposed Project would include a commercial development that would not include manufacturing or similar land uses, so no significant pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors would be created and no impact would result. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The 2000 MND contained an extensive project- specific analysis of biological resources on the site prepared by H.T. Harvey Associates. This report is included by reference into this Initial Study and copies of this report are available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department. A recent letter has been submitted to the City from H.T. Harvey Associates dated June 5, 2009, indicating that no new special - status plant or wildlife species or wetlands are present on the 3.72 -acre portion of the Project site where the Promenade Project has been proposed. This letter is attached to this Initial Study as Appendix 2 and is incorporated by reference within this document. The Biological Resources section of the 2000 MND identified the presence of two special - status plant species and special- status wildlife species on the site. The presence of Congdon s tarplant was identified on the site and it was believed that San Joaquin spearscale could also exist, although none were observed by qualified biologists. Special- status wildlife species observed or believed to be on the site included California tiger salamander, California red - legged frog, burrowing owl and American badger. Mitigation Measure 2 contained in the MND required pre - construction surveys for San Joaquin spearscale and Condgon's tarplant on the site as well as burrowing owl and American badger. Methods to safely remove and relocate those species, if found, were included in the mitigation measure. Required preconstruction surveys were carried out pursuant to the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 MND prior to Site grading that was referenced earlier. These included pre - construction surveys for burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox and American badger and none of these species were found on the Site. Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin tarplant seeds were also transplanted as required by the mitigation measure. City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 1.0 -4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss (IM 3.7/A) to a less - than - significant level. These mitigations require minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing management plan by the City of Dublin. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/5.0 and 3.11 / 1.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less - than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Mitiation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 requires measures to control dust deposition during construction activities. Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0 -17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) to a less - than - significant level. These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0 -19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less - than - significant level. These measures require consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit fox on project sites and preparation of and adherence to a kit fox protection plan. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less - than - significant level. This measure requires - completion of special surveys for individual species prior to site disturbance. The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red - legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black - shouldered kite, sharp- shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short -eared owl and California horned lizard. The proposed Project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. 2000 MND. The 2000 MND included a number of additional measures to mitigate biological resources to a level of less - than - significant. These include: City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 �I C • Mitigation Measure 2 reduced impacts related to San Joaquin spearscale and Congdon's tarplant to a less - than - significant level by requiring transplantation of seeds of each of these species to a suitable alternative location. Burrowing owl and American badger impacts would be reduced by preconstruction surveys and transplantation of owls and badgers to an alternative site, with issuance of proper permits by the California Department of Fish and Game. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species? NI. The 3.72 -acre portion of the overall Project site has been graded as part of an overall grading plan for this portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area. Therefore the site has been disturbed and no special - status plant or wildlife species now occur on the Site, based on the June 5, 2009 H. T. Harvey letter; all site clearing on the 3.72 -acre Promenade site was done in full compliance with mitigation measures from the EDEIR and 2000 MND. No new or more severe significant impacts to special- status plant or wildlife species than previously identified would therefore occur should the Project be approved and constructed and no further analysis is required. The proposed Project would contribute to overall loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.7/ C. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City of Dublin when approving the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This will need to be re- stated should the City approve The Promenade Project. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? NI. As indicated in the 2000 MND, no wetlands or other waters of the US have been identified on the site by a qualified biologist. No impacts would therefore result. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NI. The close proximity of urban development to the east and northeast and Dublin Boulevard to the south precludes movement of wildlife on the site. The lack of creeks, streams or wetlands also precludes movement of fish species as well. No new or more severe impacts are anticipated than previously analyzed would occur. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. No trees exist on the Project site that would be affected by construction and implementation of the proposed Project. The Project site is not located in a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation area. No new or more severe impacts than previously analyzed would therefore result. City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR contains a comprehensive listing of historic, archeological, Native American and other cultural resources in the overall Eastern Dublin area. Chapter 3.9 of the EIR, Cultural Resources, does not identify the presence of identified archeological or prehistoric resources on the Project site. The site is vacant and does not contain any structures, so that no above ground historic resources are present on the Site. The entire site has been disturbed as a result of previous grading activities. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. The mitigation measures applicable to this Project are: Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts that could be caused as a result of disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources (Impact 3.9/A). These measures require approval of a program for testing for presence or absence of midden deposits and, if significant deposits are found, recordation of such resources on State survey forms, and retention of a qualified archeologist to develop a protection plan for such resources in accordance with CEQA. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 -6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or Ns destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9 B) to a less -than- significant level by requiring that construction activity cease if historical or prehistoric remains are discovered. 2000 MND. The 2000 MND analyzed the potential for site - specific cultural resources impacts in Area G. No new or additional resources were identified, however an additional impact and mitigation measure were identified for unknown resources that could be discovered during construction activities. Mitigation Measure 3 reduced impacts to archeological and prehistoric resources to a less - than - significant level by requiring preparation of a contingency plan in the event potentially significant cultural resources are discovered. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The Project Site is vacant and contains no structures of any kind, so there would no impacts related to planned development with regard to historic resources on the Site. No such historic resources are identified in Section 3.9, Cultural Resources, of the Eastern Dublin EIR and none were identified in the 2000 MND. City of Dublin Page 48 Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources or human remains? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and /or paleontological resources on development sites. Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 for Impact 3.9 / A(page 3.9 -6 — 3.9 -7) require subsurface testing for archeological resources if such are found during site disturbance; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (then Appendix K). Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, also were adopted to address Eastern Dublin IM 3.9/B, the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre - historic resources. These measures require cessation of construction activities until uncovered cultural resources can be assessed by a qualified archeologist and a remediation plan approved by the City of Dublin consistent with CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure 3 contained in the 2000 MND also requires preparation of a contingency plan to be implemented during Site construction in the event a cultural resource is uncovered. No new or more significant impacts with regard to archeological or paleontological impacts beyond those previously analyzed are therefore anticipated should the Project be approved. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? NI. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre - historic human resources could be uncovered on the Project site during grading and construction activities. At the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the potential for impacts on unknown and unsurveyed human remains was not a separate CEQA checklist item, as in current Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Former Appendix K, Archeological Impacts, specifically addressed human remains, which provisions now have been incorporated into CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and apply to the Project pursuant to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0. Mitigation Measure 3 contained in the 2000 MND reflects this change to the CEQA Guidelines and was adopted to mitigate potential impacts to human remains that could be disturbed during Project construction. No new or more significant impacts beyond those previously identified are anticipated with regard to disturbance of human remains with adherence to these Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures, as well as Mitigation Measure 3 contained in the 2000 MND and no new mitigation measures are required. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting Soils, geologic and seismic conditions were analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the Eastern Dublin EIR and reviewed in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 2000 MND was based on a document entitled " Geotechnical Report, Dublin Ranch, Pao -Yeh Lin Property, Tassajara Road, Dublin California" prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 - PA 08 -006 Consultants in August 1999. This document is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The 2000 review specific to Area G determined that soils, geologic and seismic conditions did not present any new potentially significant impacts when compared with the Eastern Dublin EIR and no new mitigation measures were included in the 2000 document. Applicable geological and soils mitigation measures contained in the 1993 EIR continued to apply to the current Project. The Site is relatively flat with a gentle slope (1% or less) cross slope from north to south. Based on the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND, no Earthquake Safety Zones have been identified on the Site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated geology and soils impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. The mitigation measures applicable to this Project are: • Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 partially reduced the impact of the effects of primary ground shaking (Impact 3.6/B) by requiring conformity with seismic safety requirements of applicable building codes. Even with adherence to this mitigation, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 -7.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects of seismic ground shaking to a less - than - significant level (Impact 3.6/Q. These measures require placement of structures set back from unstable land forms, stabilization of unsuitable land forms, use of engineered retention structures and installation of suitable subdrains and appropriate design of fill material, and preparation of design level geotechnical studies. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/11.0-13.0 reduced impacts related to shallow groundwater to a less - than - significant level (Impacts 3.6/F and G). These measures require submittal of detailed geotechnical investigations to investigate possible risks of groundwater conditions to proposed improvements, control of high groundwater through installation of subdrains and removal of stock ponds then in the Eastern Dublin area. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to shrink -swell soil hazards to a less - than - significant level (Impact 3.6/H). These measures require controlling moisture in the soil surrounding individual development projects and with appropriately designed foundations. City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 • Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 reduced impacts related to erosion and sedimentation to a less - than - significant level (Impacts 3.6 / K and Q. These measures require general limitations on grading to avoid the rainy season of each year and require installation of erosion control improvements. The proposed Project is required to adhere to the above mitigation measures. 2000 MND. No additional site - specific geology or soils impacts or mitigation measures were identified in this document. Project Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? NI. Although the Project is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist - Priolo Zone), the Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts. However, with implementation of Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 and adherence to the California Building Code, there would be no impacts related to primary effects of ground shaking beyond those analyzed in previous environmental documents. Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of seismic ground shaking on proposed Project improvements. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0 through 3.6 / 26.0 by the Project developer will ensure that no additional soil stability impacts would result based on the previously certified Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND. No new or more severe significant seismic effects are anticipated beyond those previously identified. The Dublin City Council included Impact 3.6/B from the Eastern Dublin EIR in the Statement of Overriding Considerations when approving the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This impact found that primary effects of earthquake ground shaking within the Eastern Dublin area as a significant impact even after mitigation. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and /or the loss of topsoil? LS. Construction of the proposed improvements on the Project Site would modify the existing ground surface to allow for the proposed development Project and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short -term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. Impacts 3.6/K and L addressed construction and long -term erosion and sedimentation impacts. Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 will reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level. The developer of this Project will also be required to comply with provisions of the Alameda County Clean Water Program to reduce short -term and long -term operational runoff from the Project site. These provisions require approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to commencement of site grading and adherence City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 to Best Management Practices during the operational phase of the Project. Consistency with these erosion control requirements will be made conditions of Project approval by the Dublin Public Works Department as is normally and customarily done during the development review process. With adherence to the above mitigation measures and requirements, no new or more severe erosion impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? NI. Portions of the Project site are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell potential, which have the potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/H). With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, there would be no significant shrink-swell impacts beyond those previously identified. These measures require project developers to use appropriately designed building foundations and to use other construction techniques to reduce shrink- swell, such as moisture conditioning prior to construction and installation of appropriate surface and subsurface drainage. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0, the Project applicant submitted site - specific soils and geotechnical report for the 3.72 -acre Promenade Project. The report is entitled " Geotechnical Investigation for the Promenade, Parcel 5, Grafton Street and Dublin Boulevard, Dublin California" prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, dated December 5, 2008. This report identifies local soil conditions and potential hazards and contains specific techniques to reduce identified hazards to an acceptable level of risk. The report concludes that "from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, the proposed project can generally be constructed as planned, provided the recommendations and conclusions contained in the report are followed" (page 3). This Berlogar soils report is hereby incorporated by reference into this document and the document is available for review at the Dublin Public Works Department during normal business hours. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to soil hazards than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated and no additional analysis is needed. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on -site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. Proposed development on the Project site would be connected to sanitary sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems. miry OT uumn Page 52 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 2 r� 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The issues of hazards and hazardous materials was not addressed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. However, this topic was addressed in the 2000 MND and was found to be less - than- significant based on a site - specific Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Berlogar Associates dated September 25, 1997 for the Dublin Ranch portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area. This report is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community +� Development Department during normal business hours. The Berlogar report concluded that no obvious potentially hazardous materials were observed based on soil sampling. Similarly, no detectable levels of pesticide or herbicide contamination was �. encountered. The Project site was not listed in environmental data bases as a hazardous site, a hazardous materials generator, hazardous materials transporter or a site containing underground storage tanks. The Project site is located within both the General Referral Area and the Height Referral Area of Livermore Municipal Airport. a. Previous CEQA document The 2000 MND referenced Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment documents completed in 1997 that found no significant amounts of hazardous materials on Planning Area G. Project Impacts a -c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental release of hazardous materials or emit or handle hazardous materials, substances or wastes within a quarter mile radius of a school? NI. The 2000 MND found that the potential to • create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials was less - than - significant since - proposed land uses on the Site would include minor and less - than - significant quantities of potentially hazardous materials would be used and stored on the site. These would typically include landscape maintenance products, paints, solvents building repair products and similar normal and customary materials. The construction of a commercial development on the site would not change the use or storage of these materials. No changes to conditions on the site have occurred since 2000 with regard to hazardous materials. No schools exist within a one - quarter mile radius of the site. Therefore, no new impacts related to hazardous materials .. than analyzed in the 2000 MND are anticipated and no additional analysis is required with regard to this topic. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. No properties comprising the Project site are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 '"' PA 08 -006 rn an identified hazardous site as of May 6, 2009. There is therefore no impact with regard to this topic and no additional analysis is needed. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? LS. The 2000 MND noted that the Project site is located northwest of Livermore Municipal Airport. The Eastern Dublin EIR also notes that the site is within the u "• Airport Referral Area for Livermore Airport. Proposed building heights within the proposed Project would not exceed typical heights of surrounding buildings constructed in this area of the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. As required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan, development plans for this site will be referred to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Policy Plan. No new or more significant impacts with regard to airport safety beyond those analyzed in previous CEQA documents are anticipated. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. The proposed Project would include the construction of a Neighborhood Commercial development on private land. The City's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, which provides for emergency evacuation procedures, would not be affected since no roadways that could be used for emergency evacuation would be blocked or otherwise impeded. The Project would also provide access to emergency vehicles as well as pedestrian and vehicle exits from the site for emergency egress. No impact would therefore " result. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified mitigation measures for impacts to fire services generally as well as in high fire hazard open space areas (Impacts 3.4/C and E). With adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no new impacts related to wildland fire would result. Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0 require measures such as requiring project developers to assist in funding new fire stations, requiring use of non - combustible roof materials, maintaining water fire flow and pressure, establishing low -fuel buffers between structures and wildland areas and installing fire sprinklers in buildings. These requirements will be made conditions of approval for the proposed Project, as appropriate. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated that were not analyzed in earlier CEQA documents and no additional analysis is needed S. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water The Project site is located within the Arroyo Las Positas watershed, a sub -basin of the Alameda Creek watershed. This watershed drains westerly into and through the city of Dublin Page 54 Initial Studylfhe Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Arroyo Mocho to the Arroyo de la Laguna, which discharges into Alameda Creek near Sunol and ultimately into San Francisco Bay near Union City. The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. Surface water quality Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non -point sources. In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non -point source pollutant control requirements for site planning, construction and post - construction activities, and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities. Watershed protection goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged into receiving waters. The California Stormwater Quality Task Force has published a series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes. Surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from existing structures, parking areas and open space uses on the project area, including but not limited to petrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers), and similar sources. Flooding The site lies outside of a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) This is based on a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on May 3, 2007, Case No. 07- 09- 0840A. This letter is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Public Works Department during normal business hours. The LOMR states that the Project has been filled with earth material and is no longer within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA. City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated hydrology and water quality impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. The mitigation measures applicable to this Project are: • Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 -48.0 reduced the potentially significant impact of flooding from increased runoff (Impact 3.5 / Y). These measures require storm drainage master planning (MM 3.5 / 46.0), natural channel improvements wherever possible (MM 3.5/45.0) and that drainage facilities minimize any increased potential for erosion or flooding (MM 3.5/44.0), and provision of facilities to control downstream flooding (MM 3.5/47.0). The EIR found that with the implementation of these mitigation measures potential flooding impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance. • Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 50.0 reduced the impact of reduced groundwater recharge areas to an insignificant level (Impact 3.5/ Z). The two mitigation measures require that facilities be planned and management practices selected that protect and enhance water quality and that Zone 7 programs for groundwater recharge be supported. Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 -55.OA reduced the impact of non -point source pollution into local waterways, including urban runoff, non - stormwater discharges, subsurface drainages and construction runoff (Impact 3.5 /AA). With the implementation of mitigation measures requiring each development to prepare project- specific water quality investigations addressing this issue, the development of a community -based non - point- source control education program and other requirements, this potential impact and potential cumulative impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. 2000 MND. The 2000 MND identified two additional impacts and mitigation measures related to Hydrology and Water Quality that would be applicable to The Promenade Project. w Mitigation Measure 4 requires developers within Area G to prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) to reduce construction and post - construction water quality impacts to a less - than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 5 requires project developers within Area G to prepare and submit drainage and hydrology studies to the Dublin Public Works Department that summarizes historic drainage flows from the site, estimated increases in the amount of stormwater as a result of project development and the ability of downstream facilities to accommodate increased drainage flows. Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. The issue of water quality standards was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was Impact 3.5 /AA, non -point sources of water pollution. Water quality was also addressed in the 2000 MND. Project implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 through City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 C� CID (I 55.0 and MND Mitigation Measure 5 ensure that the Project development and improvements will reflect the most current water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. No new or more severe water quality impacts beyond those previously identified will result from the Project. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The Project Site has been slated for future urban uses since adoption of the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the Site rezoning in 2000. Impact 3.5 / Z contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the Eastern Dublin area already has minimal recharge capabilities and that approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan could reduce the amount of undeveloped land in the region used for groundwater recharge. Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 50.0 require local water supply agencies to plan facilities and undertake management to protect and enhance water quality and to support Zone 7's on -going water recharge efforts. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed development of the Project site and the related loss of potential recharge area, so the Project would result in no new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. No streams exist on or adjacent to the Project site that would be impacted by the proposed Project. Although new impervious surfaces would be added to the site to accommodate new urban uses plazas, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces, Eastern Dublin Mitigation EIR Measure 3.5/46.0 requires preparation of a storm drain master plan for each development proposal to control runoff. Each storm drain master plan must contain a number of items, including but not limited to hydrologic studies, documenting of existing conditions, design -level analysis of effects on existing creeks and watersheds and recommended features to minimize runoff within existing creeks and channels. The storm drain master plan will be prepared to City of Dublin and Zone 7 standards and will be reviewed and approved by both agencies. The Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan has been updated to include proposed development of the entire 23 -acre site. The proposed Project must also comply with C.3 hydromodification standards as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to minimize peak stormwater flows from development sites. With adherence to Eastern Dublin mitigation measures and more recent water quality standards, the Project would result in no new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? LS. The Project site was designated for urban development in the prior EIR and MND. As discussed in subsections "b" and "c" the proposed Project is required to comply with Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND mitigation measures identified above that will reduce impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns and runoff to a less -than- significant level. No new impacts beyond those identified in earlier CEQA documents would be created. City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. The Project developer is required by Eastern Dublin Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 and 2000 MND Mitigation Measure 5 to prepare a storm drain master plan and other studies to ensure that adequate on- site and downstream drainage facilities can or will be provided to accommodate any post - construction increases in storm drainage from the site. The Dublin Ranch Storm Drain Master Plan has been updated as required by prior adopted mitigation measures. There would therefore not be a substantial increase in the quantity of stormwater runoff that could not be safely accommodated in drainage facilities. Regarding the potential of the proposed Project to substantially increase polluted runoff on or off the site, refer to subsection "a, above. With adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR and MND mitigation measures, the Project would result in no new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed with respect to stormwater runoff increases or increases in polluted runoff from the site. f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS. Refer to item "a," above. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? NI. The Project site lies outside of a 100 -year flood hazard zone as identified in the Environmental Setting section of this Initial Study and no impact would result with regard to this topic and no additional analysis is required. h, i) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? NI. Refer to item "g," above. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The Project site is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water that could be impacted by a tsunami. Therefore, this no impact would result regarding this impact. 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting Existing land uses The Project site is currently vacant and contains no habitable structures. Regulatory setting Land use on the Project site is regulated by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) which presently designate the Project Site as Neighborhood Commercial, as part of the Dublin Ranch Village Center. The site is zoned PD- Planned Glty of Dublin Page 58 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Development with a Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan. providing for a commercial retail and office Village Center with nearby higher density residential development. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The Project site is located adjacent to a high density residential complex (The Terraces; a.high- density residential project to the east, vacant land to o the south, although a development project (Grafton Plaza) has been proposed on property to the south. Based on existing and planned land uses in the Project vicinity, no established communities would be disrupted by approval and implementation of the proposed Project, since this type and intensity of land use has been envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and existing Planned Development zoning. No new or more severe impacts would result that have not been identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. No additional analysis is required regarding this topic. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. No changes to the General Plan or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations have been requested as part of the Project. The applicant will be required to comply with all land use policies and regulations as a condition of Project approval. Minor modifications to the approved Planned Development zoning have been proposed, but such modifications, if approved, would not change the types of land uses proposed or the amount of development intensity allowed for The Promenade area, The impact of loss of open space and agricultural lands was found to be significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.1 / F) and this impact was included in the statement of overriding considerations. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. The Project Site is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. There are no impacts with regard to this Project and no additional analysis is required. 10. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting Neither the General Plan, the EDSP, the Eastern Dublin EIR. nor the 2000. MND identify the presence of significant mineral resources on the Site. Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. None of the City of Dublin land use regulatory documents or applicable environmental reviews indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the Project Site, so no impacts would occur and no additional analysis is required. city of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 11. Noise Environmental Setting This section of the Initial Study is based on a site - specific acoustic study of the proposed Project prepared by the consulting form of Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz. This report is included as Appendix 3 of the Initial Study and is hereby incorporated by reference into the Initial Study. Environmental Noise Fundamentals. Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is commonly measured with an instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter "captures" sound with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels (dB). To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A- weighting filter is used. A- weighting de- emphasizes low - frequency and very high- frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A- weighting is required by most local agencies as well as other federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is often used when the A- weighted sound level is reported. Because of the time- varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. There are four descriptors that are commonly used in environmental studies; the Lmax, Leq, L90 and DNL (or CNEL). The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of a single event such as a car pass -by or airplane flyover. To express the average noise level, the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the L,, which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time. To quantify the noise level over a 24 -hour period, the Day /Night Average Sound Level (Ld„ /DNL) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dBA penalty for noises that occur during nighttime hours (and a 5 dBA penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours In environmental noise, a change in the noise level of 3 dBA is considered a just noticeable difference. A 5 dBA change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dBA change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness. For the purposes of this analysis, a change in the ambient noise level of 3 dBA or more is considered significant. City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 ot3os� 31a Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures related to noise. The impacts potentially applicable to this Project include: IM 3.10/E (Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise) would be a potentially significant impact related to noise associated with construction of the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan improvements, including but not limited to buildings, roads, and utilities. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce construction noise impacts to a level of insignificance through preparation and submittal of Construction Noise Management Plans and compliance with local noise standards. IM 3.10/F (Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting Mixed -Use Development) would result from close proximity of different land use types that may result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.10/6.0 requires the preparation of noise management plans for all mixed -use developments within the Eastern Dublin area. This measure would reduce noise generated by mixed -use development to a level of insignificance. 2000 MND. The 2000 MND analyzed potential noise impacts and included no noise mitigation measures were included in the 2000 MND. Project Impacts a,c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard and result in substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? LS. The proposed Project includes land use types and densities consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Impacts related to generation of noise levels in excess of City standards was addressed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. This EIR found potentially significant impacts related to exposure of proposed and existing residences to future roadway noise (Impacts IM 3.1/A and B). Mitigation Measure 3.10/2.0 requires development projects to provide for noise barriers or berms to protect outdoor use area for existing residential complexes. The project- specific acoustic report identified the following issues related to noise with the proposed Project. Relationship to traffic noise. The existing CNEL at the site and the nearby residential development (The Terraces) range from 64 to 66 dBA, with the major noise generator being vehicles traveling on I -580 to the south. Existing traffic volumes on Dublin Boulevard are relatively low compared to the anticipated buildout of the Eastern Dublin area. According to recent traffic projections for this portion of Eastern Dublin, the future peak hour traffic volume is anticipated to be approximately 4,200 vehicles on Dublin Boulevard (Grafton Plaza traffic report, City of Dublin Page 61 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 May 2009, TJKM Associates). Based on the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model, the future CNEL would be 72 dBA at the south fagade of the Club Sport building. The proposed Mercantile building would be further removed from Dublin Boulevard and would be exposed to a CNEL of 67 dBA from traffic noise. According to the City's General Plan, a CNEL of 72 dBA is considered conditionally acceptable for commercial uses and noise insulation will be required. Conventional construction methods, including closed windows and fresh air ventilation systems will normally suffice. The CNEL at the Project site will be normally acceptable. The primary outdoor use area for the ClubSport building would be a swimming pool and patio area. These areas would be located within a courtyard that is acoustically shielded from surrounding roads by the building along three sides and a 12 -foot tall barrier along Dublin Boulevard, The site design would reduce outdoor noise levels by approximately 10 dBA to less than a CNEL of 70 dBA, which is considered normally acceptable. The ClubSport facility would include air conditioning and a ventilation system to allow the windows to be closed and the traffic noise in the pool area will be acceptable. Increased traffic noise from the Project. The proposed Project would add an estimated 295 peak hour trips to the roadway network (see Table 6 in the Transportation section of this Initial Study). Along Dublin Boulevard, traffic noise levels would increase by less than 1 dBA due to Project traffic. If all of the Project traffic would use Finnan Way to access the site, the traffic noise level is calculated to be up to a CNEL of 57 dBA at the existing Terraces complex near the northeast corner of this site. Since these residences are already exposed to a CNEL of 64 dBA from freeway noise, the combined noise level would be 65 dBA, which is a 1 dBA increase and would not be significant. Noise from on -site activities. On -site noise sources associated with the Project would include vehicle noise (vehicle use), the use of the outdoor pool area and mechanical ventilation equipment. The parking garage would be an estimated 75 feet from the nearest residential building to the east in the Terraces complex. The garage entrance would be along the east side of the Project site and vehicles would enter and exit the garage via driveways connecting to Dublin Boulevard or Finnian Way. The eastern fagade of the garage would be of solid construction (no openings) on the second and third levels. There would also be a driveway and one row of surface parking between the garage and the Terraces. Assuming all vehicles use the parking garage (as opposed to a mix of surface and garage parking), the CNEL is calculated to be 59 dBA at the nearest residences to the east. This estimate includes factors for both partial shielding of parking garage noise provided by the garage wall and roof parapet to the east, as well as potential acoustic reflections of the noise from cars that that would be traveling between the parking garage and the adjacent residences. The parking noise would combine City of Dublin Page 62 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 -- PA 08 -006 with the existing traffic noise CNEL of 64 dBA and result in a CNEL of 65 dBA, a 1 dBA increase, which would be less than significant. The ClubSport building would include an outdoor pool, a Jacuzzi and eating area, The pool would be for adult lap swimming and the surrounding deck would be used to create a relaxing and re- energizing experience. There is a possibility for use of the pool area by children. Noise from the pool area would be attenuated by the actual ClubSport building, which would act as a noise barrier. Maximum instantaneous noise levels at the adjacent residential use would be approximately 54 dBA from the noisiest activity, which would include children yelling. Since this is less than the existing ambient background noise level (L9(, of 55 to 57 dBA), the sound would be barely audible at adjacent residences. Overall, noise from pool activities would not contribute to the average noise levels at the adjacent residential locations and no new or more severe impact would result from this source. Mechanical noise levels. The heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems would include outdoor equipment to be located on the roofs of the ClubSport and Mercantile buildings. Some of this equipment would be located at the ground level in the alley between the Mercantile building and the parking garage, The Mercantile Building would also have a rooftop m ClubSport building and there could be ventilation openings in the fagade facing existing residences. This equipment has the potential to be audible at the residences and a condition of Project approval will require a detailed design -level acoustical analysis of the proposed HVAC system that demonstrated noise levels at the existing residences meets the noise limits of the State of California Model Noise Ordinance, which are 60 dBA during the daytime and 55 dBA at night. If the HVAC noise contains a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech or hum, noise levels shall be reduced by 5 dBA. No new or more severe impacts related to noise impacts than were previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and MND are anticipated with approval and construction of the Promenade Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR found exposure of existing residents to future roadway noise (Impact 3.10/B) to be a significant and unavoidable impact and was included in the statement of overriding considerations. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS. The topic of significant groundborne vibration was not addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The 2000 MND found no anticipated impacts since no sources of vibration such as heavy industrial facilities or railroads exist in the area. Ground vibration was addressed in the site - specific acoustic analysis for this Project (see Appendix 3). The greatest potential for vibration would be during the excavation and foundation construction activities. Since pile driving would not be necessary, the use of vibratory rollers would be expected to generate the highest vibration levels. The nearest vibration sensitive land uses are The Terraces which are City of Dublin Page 63 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 approximately 75 feet from the parking structure building and 95 feet from the C1ubSport building. At these distances, ground vibration from a vibratory roller would be 76 to 80 VdB at the nearest residential buildings. Though these levels could be noticeable to residences, they would not exceed acceptability criteria for annoyance, which is based on a criterion of 80 Vdb (vibration velocity expressed in decibels in one micro -inch per inch), as adopted by the Federal Transit Administration. No new significant impact would therefore occur with regard to this topic. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? LS. The Project is required to adhere to construction noise mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize impacts of construction noise (IM 3.10/E). These are Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0, which require all project developers to prepare and adhere to Construction Noise Management Programs, which require limiting grading and other noise generating activities to the shortest period of time as possible, minimizing truck access through residential areas and limiting the hours and days of construction activities. With adherence to these measures, no new or more severe significant impacts would result from construction and no additional mitigation measures are required. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? LS. The Project site is located within the Livermore Municipal Airport Influence Area (AIA) . The City of Dublin staff is required to refer this Project to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission to ensure consistency with the Alameda County Airport Land Use Plan. A condition of Project approval will require that that building interior spaces shall comply with City and state noise level requirements. 12. Population and Housing Environmental Setting Section 3.2 of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR addressed Population, Housing and Employment. The EIR included a general description of expected Bay Area and Tri- Valley population growth, but noted that "[this] section does not analyze these projections in terms of potential environmental impacts because the physical environmental effects associated with population, employment and housing are addressed in the appropriate environmental analysis ..of the this EIR." This section of the Initial Study updates Section 3.2 of the Eastern Dublin EIR that discussed the demographic, employment and housing context of the Eastern Dublin project. It contains an updated general description of expected Bay Area growth as well as more detailed population and housing development projections for the Tri- Valley subregion and for the City of Dublin. Population and housing projections for the Project are described. The physical environmental (secondary) effects associated with City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 S4. 31� population, employment and housing are addressed as applicable in Sections 3.3 through 3.12 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, as updated by this Initial Study. Regional Overview. The Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) Projections 2007 provides current population, household, income and employment forecasts for the nine- county San Francisco Bay Area Region. In order to place the proposed Project in its overall regional context, several findings of ABAG's projections are summarized in this section. Population. ABAG expects the nine- county San Francisco Bay Region to add nearly 1.3 million new residents by the between 2000 and 2020, reaching a total estimated population of 8,069,700. This represents an increase of over 18 percent over the 20 -year forecast period from 2000 to 2020. The ratio of population to household growth has differed significantly in the region over the past several decades. Between 1960 and 1970 household growth in the Bay Area was approximately one -third of population growth: i.e., an additional household was added for every three new residents. In the 1970s, the number of new residents added was only slightly higher than the number of new households. In the 1980s, the pattern of the 1960s was reestablished -- one new household was formed per every three new residents. Reduced housing affordability affects household size by reducing the household formation rate. Housing. ABAG estimates that the increase of 475,740 new households expected in the region by 2020 will create a demand for at least 23,000 new dwellings each year. Employment. ABAG predicts that job growth in the Bay Area will be in a broad variety of sectors located throughout the Bay Area. The region is expected to add approximately 527,240 jobs by year 2020, an increase of over 26,000 new jobs annually. Most of this growth is projected to occur in services (business and professional, health and recreation, social and personal), manufacturing, and retail trade, with more than 50 percent of new jobs in the services sector. Previous CEOA documents The Eastern Dublin EIR discusses population, regional housing needs, and jobs /housing balance. The 2000 MND addressed the reconfiguration of land uses, including the Village Center. Growth inducement was identified as a less than significant impact and displacement was identified as no impact since Area G was vacant. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. The Project site has been planned for urban uses since adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the growth inducing impact (Impact 3.5/T) related to providing water service to the Eastern Dublin area. The configuration of uses on the Project site and City of Dublin Page 65 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 a3s1 3 is surrounding areas was slightly modified in 2000. Proposed land uses that would accommodate the Project, are envisioned in the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan, as amended in 2000. The proposed Project would slightly reallocate density of land uses in The Promenade portion of Eastern Dublin but would not exceed the maximum amount of development allowed by the existing Planned Development zoning. Therefore, no new or more significant impacts are therefore anticipated than analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. The Project site currently contains no dwelling units and no impact would result with regard to displacement of dwellings or population on the site. No additional analysis is needed regarding this topic. 13. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the Project Site: • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 17, located northwest of the Project site at 6200 Madigan. • Police Protection. Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin Police Services Department. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K -12 educational services for properties in the Eastern Dublin area. • Library Services. Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin. • Solid Waste and Recycling: Residential and commercial solid waste pick up and recycling is provided by Amador Valley Industries. Previous CEQA documents Impacts and mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and police protection include: • Impacts 3.4/A and B identified a potentially significant impact with police services demand and accessibility to the Eastern Dublin area. This impact was reduced to a less - than- significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 1.0 that provides additional personnel and facilities and revision to police City of Dublin Page 66 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 a3� � 31a beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in Eastern Dublin. • Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0 -5.0 also reduces impacts to the Police Department by requiring incorporation of safety requirements into the requirements of future development projects, appropriate budgeting of police services by the City and police review of individual development projects in the Eastern Dublin area. • Impacts 3.4/ C identified a potentially significant impact with regard to increased demand for fire services in Eastern Dublin. This impact was reduced to a less - than - significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.4 /6.O'through 11.0. These measures require the timing of facilities to coincide with new serve demand from development, establishment of appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up -front costs of capital fire improvements, acquisition of future fire stations in Eastern Dublin, and incorporation of Fire Department safety recommendations into the design of all future individual development projects in Eastern Dublin. 2000 MND. The 2000 MND addressed the potential for development on Area G and related increases in services demand. No new or more severe significant impacts or supplemental mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 CEQA document for police, fire or other services since the Area G project largely reconfigured rather than expanded applicable land uses. The proposed Project will be required to comply with the above mitigation measures, Project Impacts a) Fire protection? LS. Approval and construction of the proposed Project could result in an increase in the number of calls for service for fire, rescue and emergency rescue services since there would be an increase in the number of employees and visitors to the site. These impacts were analyzed and mitigated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no further Area G - specific impacts were identified in the 2000 MND. The Project applicant will be required to meet existing Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures 3.4/6.0 through 3.4/11.0 relating to fire service. The requirement of each measure is summarized above. With adherence to the above mitigation measures, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to fire services than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. b) Police protection? LS. Similar to fire protection, there would be an increase in police calls for service should the proposed Project be approved and constructed. This impact was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as Impact 3.4/A and B and no further Area G - specific impacts were identified in the 2000 MND. With adherence to Eastern Dublin police protection mitigation measures, summarized above, no new or more severe significant impacts to police services are anticipated than have been previously analyzed. City of Dublin Page 67 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 C)� 1 'T a o' - c) Schools? NI. No impacts would result to school service should the proposed Project be approved since the Project does not include a residential component that would generate school -aged children. No additional analysis is needed regarding this topic. d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? NI. The 2000 MND identified maintenance of public facilities as a less than significant impact for future development of Area G. Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin. New public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards, so that long -term maintenance is not anticipated to result in any new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in previous environmental documents. The Project developer will be required to pay Public Facilities Fees to the City of Dublin to assist in constructing new and upgraded public infrastructure to support the proposed Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.4/0 (demand for utility extensions) and 3.4/S (consumption of non - renewable natural resources) as significant and unavoidable impacts when approving the Eastern Dublin project. e) Solid waste generation? NI. See item 16 below. 14. Recreation Environmental Setting No neighborhood or community parks and /or recreation services or facilities are located on the Project Site or designated on the Site in the Eastern Dublin area in the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan or the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The City of Dublin offers a range of park, recreation and cultural services. The nearest City of Dublin community park to the Project Site is Emerald Glen Park, located on the southwest corner of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, west of the Project area. Emerald Glen Park is 48.2 acres with 42 acres of developed park consisting of the following amenities: children's play areas; baseball, soccer and cricket fields; basketball, tennis and Bocce courts; skate park; group picnic area; and large grassy open space areas. Fallon Sports Park, a 60 -acre community sports park, is located east of the Project area. Construction of Phase 1 (27 acres) will begin in winter 2009 and be complete in summer 2010. This facility is planned to include ball fields, several child play areas, picnic facilities, basketball, volleyball and tennis courts, a BMX track and bocce ball courts. Local park facilities near the Project Site include Devany Square, a 1.9 -acre neighborhood square bordered by Finnian Way, Chancery Lane and Parnell Way and City of Dublin Page 68 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Bray Commons, a 4.8 -acre neighborhood park located on Keegan Street between Finnan Way and McGuire Way. Bray Commons includes children's play areas, picnic areas, basketball and volleyball courts, dog park for small dogs and large grassy open space area. The City of Dublin also maintains a large number of other park and recreational facilities within the community and offers an extensive recreation program to residents. Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would not increase the use of nearby City and regional recreational facilities, since it does not include a residential component that would generate the need for neighborhood and regional parks. No impacts are anticipated. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? NI. The proposed Project includes a Club Sport fitness center that would offer a range of private recreational facilities to the community as well as an extension of a pedestrian and bicycle path along the eastern edge of the site. No impacts would therefore occur with respect to this topic. 15. Transportation /Traffic Environmental Setting Local roadways serving the Project site include Dublin Boulevard, which forms the southern boundary of the site, Grafton Street, the westerly boundary of the site and Finnan Way, the northern boundary of the site. Regional roadway access is provided by Tassajara Road, located to the west of the site, and the I -580 freeway, to the south. Public transit service to Dublin and surrounding Tri- Valley cities is provided by WHEELS bus service, operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA). The Dublin Pleasanton BART station is located west of the Project site. The West Dublin BART station is under construction west of the I -680 freeway. Pedestrian access in the Project area is provided by sidewalks located within public or private rights -of -way of nearby streets. Previous EIRs Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR including the following impacts and mitigation measures related to transportation and circulation. City of Dublin Page 69 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 a�9 e� 3►a • Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0 were adopted which reduced impacts on I -580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I -680 north of I -580 to a level of insignificance (Impact 3.3/A and D). • Mitigation Measures 3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on the remaining I -580 freeway segments and the I- 580/680 interchange (Impacts 3.3/13, C and E). Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on I -580 freeway segments between I -680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build -out scenario of 2010, on other segments of I -580 (Impact 3.3/B and E). • Mitigation Measures 3.3/6.0, 8.0, 10.0 and 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts to the Dougherty Road /Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive /I -580 Eastbound Freeway Ramps, Tassajara Road I -580 Westbound Freeway Ramps, Airway Boulevard/ Dublin Boulevard intersections and along El Charro Road to a level of insignificance. These mitigations include construction of additional lanes at intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to restripe, widen or modify on -ramps and off -ramps and interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area are also required to contribute a proportionate share to the multi- jurisdictional improvements through the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program and the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee program (Impacts 3.6/F, H, J and Q. • Mitigation Measures 3.3/13.0 and 14.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M and N). The identified improvements reduced Tassajara Road impacts to less than significant but Dublin Boulevard impacts remained significant and unavoidable due to road widening limitations. • Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0,15.3 and 16.0 and 16.1 generally require coordination with transit providers to extend transit services and coincide pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings (Impact 33/ O and P). 2000 MND. The 2000 MND site - specific analysis identified additional transportation improvements to reduce additional transportation impacts. Mitigation Measure 7 included a number of roadway improvements to accommodate additional trips from traffic generated by future development in Areas F, G and H. Mitigation Measure 8 required widening of a portion of Tassajara Road. Project Impacts a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? LS. The proposed Project would add additional traffic to local and regional roads and streets. Based on the following trip generation table (Table 6), the proposed Project would add a total of 3,096 daily trips, with 186 trips occurring in the am peak and 295 trips occurring in the pm peak periods at project buildout. City of Dublin Page 70 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Table 6. Project Trip Generation Land Use (ITE Code) Size Rate (trips per ksO Trips AM Peak Trips PM Peak Trips Health Club (492) 47,700 32.9 1,570 66 168 Retail (820) 10,900 42.9 470 11 41 Restaurant (932) 7,200 127.2 914 83 80 Pass -by reductions 5% -46 0 20 Restaurant subtotal 868 83 60 Office 17,100 11.0 188 26 25 Total 3,096 186 295 Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants 2009 The proposed Project would add additional traffic to local and regional roads and streets; however the type and amount of development proposed in The Promenade Project is the same as assumed in the 2000 MND document and approved in the PD zoning. Traffic and circulation impacts of constructing the Project site was analyzed in both the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 MND. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR determined that Impact 3.3/B (I -580 Freeway, I- 680 - Hacienda) and Impact 3.3 C (I- 580 Freeway, Tassajara- Fallon - Airway) could not be mitigated to an insignificant level and would remain significant and unavoidable. Similarly, Impacts 3.3/E, (cumulative freeway impacts) and 3.3 / I (Santa Rita Road / I -580 Freeway eastbound ramps) and Impact 3.3 / M (cumulative impacts on Dublin Boulevard) were found to be significant and unavoidable. These significant and unavoidable impacts would also result with implementation of The Promenade Project. The Project developer will be required to pay Eastern Dublin Transportation Improvement Fees to pay the development's fair share of constructing local and regional transportation improvements. No new or more severe impacts with respect to increases in local or regional traffic are anticipated with this Project that have not been previously analyzed. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? LS. See discussion for item "a." c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves a proposed commercial development. City of Dublin Page 71 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 air► � 3►� d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. The proposed Project has been reviewed by the City of Dublin Public Works Department and Alameda County Fire Department and found to be consistent with City standards for on -site circulation and access, including turning radii, sight lines, roadway grades and similar topics. No hazards with respect to design features or on -site uses would be created. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. Approval and construction of the proposed Promenade Project would not include any barriers or impedances to local or city -wide emergency evacuation routes as required by the City of Dublin Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan so no impact would result regarding this topic. f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. The amount of parking proposed on the Project site would comply with the City of Dublin on -site parking requirement; therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to this topic. g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Project would include construction of sidewalks on adjacent street frontages to facilitate pedestrian access as well as construction of a multi-use trail on the eastern side of the site. Bicyclists could also use adjacent roads as well to access Tassajara Road and other roads. The Project would create no hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists and instead is intended to provide for and facilitate such uses as alternatives to vehicular travel. No impacts to this topic would result. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting Sewer service. The Eastern Dublin EIR examined wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal issues for the Project area. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) was identified as the future provider of collection and treatment services for the Project area with disposal provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), a joint powers authority composed of Livermore, Pleasanton and DSRSD. LAVWMA operates a pipeline that carries treated wastewater over the Dublin grade and into East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) facilities for eventual discharge into San Francisco Bay. Wastewater collection system. DSRSD owns and maintains a system of underground sewer mains throughout its service area, including Dublin. A 30 -inch diameter sewer line currently exists within Dublin Boulevard just south of the Project site. Wastewater treatment. Wastewater is collected as described above and conveyed to the District's Wastewater Treatment Plan (WWTP) located south of Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton. The WWTP also treats wastewater from the City of Pleasanton. City of Dublin Page 72 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 a�a 1 31-2 DSRSD recently completed the first stage of its planned expansion to serve additional growth in its service area. This expansion added 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity to the treatment plant for a total of 17.0 mgd ADWF. Recent flows into the WWTP as of June, 2008, was approximately 10.7 mgd (Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 7/08). Wastewater disposal. of treated wastewater generated by the proposed Project. LAVWMA, the joint powers agency, was created in 1974 by the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, and the DSRSD. Effluent from the wastewater treatment plants operated by the City of Livermore and DSRSD is conveyed to LAVWMA regulating reservoirs in Pleasanton and then via a 16 -mile export pipeline to the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) pipeline in San Leandro. The EBDA pipeline conveys the effluent for ultimate discharge to San Francisco Bay. Water service. Water supply and distribution impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.5, Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage, of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement analyzes the Project's impacts when evaluated against new information concerning water supply subsequent to the earlier analyses. including the 2000 MND. Water demand and supply. The City of Dublin is supplied by water provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), headquartered in Dublin. DSRSD owns and operates a water distribution system, including transmission lines, pump stations and water turnouts. DSRSD obtains water from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which is discussed below. DSRSD was formed in 1953, formerly known as the Valley Community Services District. Treated water is supplied to DSRSD by Zone 7 from various turnouts in the Dublin area. Water received from the turnouts is distributed throughout Dublin via a grid of underground water transmission lines, delivering water to residences, businesses and other customers within the District's service area. DSRSD maintains potable water distribution mains within Dublin Boulevard, south of the Project site that provides potable water to The Terraces complex just east of the Project site. The District also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non- potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 280 requires recycled water use for approved customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi- family residential and institutional irrigation uses within the DSRSD potable water service area. New development within the Eastern Dublin area has been required to install dual water systems and a recycled water distribution system has been installed within the major streets, including Dublin Boulevard. A Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Ord. No. 980) has also been adopted by DSRSD to minimize use of irrigation water. City of Dublin Page 73 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 aLO 1 3 is DSRSD and Zone 7 are responsible for planning to supply sufficient water to meet the anticipated growth in demand. DSRSD plans to use a combination of potable and recycled water supplies as well as conservation of water resources. The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is Zone 7. Zone 7 relies on a combination of supplies to meet retail water needs. Existing water sources include: State Water Project Su212lies: In a typical year, Zone 7 gets approximately 70 to 80 percent of its water supply from water conveyed through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by the State Water Project. Zone 7 has a 75 -year contract with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to receive water from the State Water Project (SWP). The entitlement under this contract is 46,000 acre fee annually. SWP water is delivered to Zone 7 from the Feather River Watershed via the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. This water is then transported to Zone 7 through the California Aqueduct to the South Bay Aqueduct and Lake Del Valle. Water enters the Zone 7 system from the South Bay Aqueduct and from Lake Del Valle at two Zone 7 treatment plants: the Patterson Pass Treatment Plant and the Del Valle Water Treatment Plant. Zone 7 reached its full entitlement of 46,000 acre feet per year in 1997. To meet anticipated demand, Zone 7 has acquired additional entitlements from other water agencies equal to 34,619 acre feet annually. With regard to all of these SWP entitlements, actual water deliveries vary, depending on hydrologic conditions, requests by other contractors, delivery capacity and environmental /regulatory requirements. Historically, for planning purposes Zone 7 anticipated a long -term annual average delivery of 75.6% of its entitlement. Recently, however, SWP water deliveries have been restricted by a short -term federal court order restricting Delta pumping, which is designed to protect the Delta Smelt, an endangered species, and additional species - related restrictions on the State Water Project's ability to deliver water from the Delta are possible. Zone 7 now anticipates a long -term annual average delivery to be approximately 66% of its entitlements. Byron - Bethany Irrigation District: Since 1994, Zone 7 has been receiving water via a short -term water transfer from the Byron - Bethany Irrigation District. Zone 7 has made arrangements with this District to make this a long -term (15) year arrangement. The agreement calls for delivery of 2,000 acre- feet per year. As this water supply is delivered through the South Bay Aqueduct via the Delta, it could potentially be impacted by court and regulatory restrictions on Delta pumping. Local Surface Water: Lake Del Valle is a local storage reservoir operated as part of the SWP. However, Zone 7 has rights to 9,300 acre -feet of water per year from the lake's watershed. City of Dublin Page 74 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 auq�3ia Local Groundwater: Zone 7 and DSRSD use the local underground aquifer basin as a storage facility for imported water. The aquifer is also naturally recharged by rainwater falling in the watershed area. It is estimated that a safe yield of 13,400 acre -feet of water per year can be withdrawn from the basin. DSRSD operates pumping facilities near the intersection of Stoneridge Drive and Johnson Drive in Pleasanton, although the yield from these pumps is low. Although the restrictions on State Water Project deliveries from the Delta have created significant uncertainties about future water supplies, DSRSD and Zone 7 indicate that Zone 7 has sufficient supplies to serve projected demand through 2015. In the meantime, as a substantial portion of the State's water supplies are derived from the Delta, various state and federal efforts are underway to ensure that water deliveries from the Delta are maintained while at the same time protecting species that rely on the Delta. These efforts include near -term (or interim) projects, such as the Franks Tract Project, which would install a physical barrier in the Delta that would serve to reduce the impact of pumping on Delta Smelt, and long -term projects, such as the construction of dual- or isolated - conveyance system. Such a dual- or isolated- conveyance system would involve the construction of a canal between an intake at the Sacramento River upstream of the Delta and the SWP pumps at the southern end of the Delta, which would allow SWP water to be conveyed separately from the Delta. Ultimately, if future water supplies prove insufficient to meet demand, Zone 7 and DSRSD are exploring a number of alternatives to either reduce demand or increase supply sufficiently to meet projected demand through buildout of their constituent agencies' general plans. These alternatives include: Zone 7 acquiring additional SWP entitlements from other water agencies. Zone 7 altering its 100% Reliability Policy, which requires Zone 7 to have adequate supplies available to meet 100% of customer demand at all times. Altering this policy would free up existing water supplies that are presently set aside to meet the policy. Permanent conservation, such as replacing existing potable -water landscape irrigation systems with recycled water systems and retrofitting existing structures with water conserving fixtures. Offsetting existing demand would free up water supplies for future demand. Both DSRSD and Zone 7 have adopted contingency plans for water cutbacks in the event of a drought. Zone 7 and DSRSD currently charge - connection and other fees on new development within the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of planned water system capital improvements including storage, pumping, transmission and on- going system water maintenance and improvements. City of Dublin Page 75 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 a-� I 31a Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area connect to the DSRSD water system. Impact 3.5 / Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development projects and construction of new system -wide water improvements which are funded by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0 -33.0, which requires improvement to the Zone 7 water system. Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0 -38.0. These mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population in the project area through provision of a water distribution system. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact. Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD to prepare an area -wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on -site wastewater treatment, requires a "will- serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 / C noted an impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate sewer demand from the Specific Plan project only. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of wastewater disposal capacity was a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility is presently being constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency to provide adequate disposal capacity. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of future wastewater treatment plant capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5/8.0, which requires that wastewater treatment and disposal be made available to meet anticipated development in Eastern Dublin. City of Dublin Page 76 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 RM 2000 MND. The 2000 MND addressed water and wastewater issues, and solid waste disposal for Area G. No additional impacts or mitigation measures with respect to these topics or utilities or service systems were included in the 2000 MND. All mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to the proposed Project. Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. The Project site is located within the service area of DSRSD and the Project applicants would request wastewater service from the District in order to serve the proposed Project. Applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to this Project to ensure that adequate funding is supplied to DSRSD so that wastewater facilities are consistent with wastewater discharge requirements mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. These Mitigation Measures include 3.5 / 7.0, 7.1, 8.0 and 9.0. Since the Project would not increase the amount of development intensity on the site greater than currently designated in the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, no new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated with regard to exceedances of Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated beyond those analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? LS. In terms of wastewater facilities, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts 3.5/A, B, C, D, E and G associated with the planned development of the largely undeveloped Eastern Dublin area and wastewater systems. Impact 3.5/A cited indirect impacts resulting from lack of a wastewater service provider to the Eastern Dublin area. Impact 3.5/B noted lack of a wastewater collection system in the Eastern Dublin area, Impact 3.5/C found an impact with extension of a sewer trunk with capacity to serve future developments in Eastern Dublin. Impacts 3.5/1) and E noted lack of wastewater treatment capacity to serve proposed development in Eastern Dublin. Impact G identified a lack of current wastewater disposal capacity. Mitigation Measures 3.5/ 1.0 through 9.0 and 10.0 through 14.0 were included to reduce wastewater treatment impacts to an insignificant level by requiring extension of a public water system to the Eastern Dublin area, requiring wastewater collection master plans for new development projects, requiring new development projects to be connected to a public sewer system and promoting use of recycled water for irrigation. As noted in the Environmental Setting section, the Project site and the remainder of Eastern Dublin has been annexed to DSRSD, so a public wastewater system is available in the area. For The Promenade Project, the developer would construct local sewer laterals and related facilities to DSRSD specifications in order to connect to the regional DSRSD City of Dublin Page 77 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 sewer system. This is identified in the Project Description section of this Initial Study. With respect to wastewater treatment, Eastern Dublin EIR noted Impacts 3.5/G and I regarding lack of wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. Eastern Dublin Mitigation Measures 3.5/11.0 through 14.0 and 3.5/17.0 to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. These measures require expansion of the treated wastewater export pipeline from Eastern Dublin, promote reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation, require development projects to receive a will -serve letter from DSRSD, and require engineering redundancy to minimize the risk of pump station failure. These measures have been implemented and a larger export pipeline was completed in 2005 under the auspices of the Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater Treatment Authority (LAVWTA). DSRSD has commenced construction of a recycled water system in the Eastern Dublin area. The proposed Project will be required to connect to this system when a recycled pipeline is constructed near the Project site. Based on Project compliance with the above Eastern Dublin mitigation measures, the Project developer will be required to prepare and implement a wastewater master plan, pay necessary fees and construct local, Project-specific wastewater facilities to DSRSD standards and specifications. In terms of a water facilities, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/R that cited a need for additional water treatment plant capacity and Impact S, lack of a water distribution system. Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0 and 33.0 reduced this impact to a level of insignificance by requiring construction of new water treatment facilities to serve planned development in the Eastern Dublin area, including upgrades to the Del Valle Water Treatment Plan, installation of ozone facilities, installation of a water clarifier at the Patterson Pass water treatment plans by Zone 7 and construction of new water chlorination and fluoridation stations at Zone 7 water turnouts. Distribution mitigation measures require water system planning, system improvements designed and built to DSRSD standards and for development to obtain will -serve letters from DSRSD. The Project developer will be required to pay water fees to DSRSD to assist in funding these and other water facility upgrades. With adherence to these measures, no new or more severe impacts with respect to wastewater or water facilities not previously analyzed are anticipated. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. See item 8 "e" in the Hydrology and Water Quality section. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impacts 3.5/Q and T with respect to water supply. Impact Q cited an increase in water demand based on buildout of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Impact T noted inducement of substantial growth and population concentration in Eastern Dublin with development of a water distribution system. The Eastern Dublin EIR included City of Dublin Page 78 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 EM d'os r. Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 31.0 to assist in reducing the water demand impact to a level of insignificance. These measures require water conservation and recycling conditions on development and improvements to the Zone 7 system. However, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified that Impact IM 3.5/T, inducement of substantial population growth in Eastern Dublin as a result of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, was a significant and unavoidable impact and could not be fully mitigated. This impact was included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations The proposed Promenade Project will be required to meet all water system mitigation measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce water supply impacts to an insignificant level; however, the inducement a substantial population increase based on an increase in the regional water supply will remain significant and unavoidable. No new or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified will result from the Project. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. Refer to items "a" and "b," above. e, f) Solid waste disposal? NI. The Project area is within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries, a company that provides residential and commercial solid waste pick -up and recycling services. Impacts related to solid waste disposal were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Impacts 3.4/0 and P regarding increased waste production and increased demand for waste disposal facilities.) Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0 -40.0 call for solid waste planning and diversion. No new or more severe significant impacts would result with regard to this topic that have not been previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. No additional analysis is required. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations should the proposed Project be approved. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. Potential impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species or their respective habitats, to reduction of the range or number of endangered plant or animal species or the elimination of examples of major period of California history or prehistory in the Eastern Dublin area have been analyzed and mitigated in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 MND. The proposed Project would cause no City of Dublin Page 79 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 new or substantially more severe significant impacts on biological or cultural resources beyond those identified in previous environmental reviews. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? No. ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No. Significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR with regard to cumulative air quality, transportation and other issues for the overall Eastern Dublin project, of which the Promenade Project is a component. The proposed Promenade Project would not result in additional or more severe cumulative impacts than have been previously analyzed by the City. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been identified in this Initial Study. City of Dublin Page 80 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, Project Manager Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director _w Michael Porto, Planning Consultant Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director Jamie Bourgeois, Senior Transportation Engineer Val Guzman, Police Services Department Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Kathleen "Kit" Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission Cindy Horvath Applicant Representatives Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates Connie Goldade, MacKay & Somps Lisa Vilhauer. MacKay & Somps References City of Dublin Comprehensive Management Plan undated Dublin General Plan City of Dublin, Updated through September 14, 2006 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. David Gates & Associates, 1996 Geotechnical Investigation for the Promenade Parcel 5 Grafton Street and Dublin Boulevard, Dublin California, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, December 5, 2008 City of Dublin Page 81 Initial StudylThe Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Initial Study /Miti gated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Are SPA 980069), Jerry Haag Urban Planner, November 1999 Parks and Recreation Master Plan City of Dublin, 2004 update Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update DSRSD MWH Engineers, June 2005 Urban Water Master Plan Update DSRSD West Yost Associates, May 2005 Gity of Dublin Page 82 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 Appendix 1 Shade & Shadow Study City of Dublin Page 83 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 DAHL(N GROUP,I J r� s J J 4 " ii � " m i/ 0 m m r = m m � ii t 1 m i m f m m r m m r m m m m r m m m r m" a" tit i1 3 C THE PROMENADE DUBLIN, CA &-A i MAY 20, 2009 642.001 PROPOSED SHADOWS - MAR. 21 & SEPT. 21, 6:00 P.M. AVERAGE DAY 5865 Owens 0-6 Plaosaata+, G 94588 925.751.7100 975 757 7707 v-� M3.2 THE PROMENADE PROPOSED SHADOWS - JUNE 21.12 NOON ANGLE 1�-, MAY 20, 2004 442.001 DUBLIN CA LONGEST DAY � ��940 i A7.251 Y G9�f99 �� .� 97152%1."ns 97S 7S1 T7R! i a i f i I i t! 11 1 1 [ABA irl mm m m mm r m M�m mm M�� m W! m r I d I i t i 11 r I r I i I f l f I ! i 3 z z z T V SUN ANGLE THE PROMENADE DUBLIN, CA G 0 office (Z STDRIEls) GRAFT ©N STRMET inimi, GLUE (PMRIES) PROPOSED SHADOWS - JUNE 21, 6 :00 P.M. LONGEST DAY N h MAY 20, 2809 642.001 v" Emmmum llp 5669 O.ma D..w n.o...ryn. a 0150 J 3.0 ++35.ri 7xc v71 ?fl T. RI THE PROMENADE EXISTING SHADOWS - JUNE 21, 6:00 P.M. MAY 20, 2009 642.001 V" DUBLIN, CA LONGEST DAY °x,9;588 925.251.7200 J3.1 975 751 77(11 = t r at ® m L GRAFTON STRWT 5UN ANGLE 0 THE PROMENADE _ ff WI I I �I IJllll III + _ Q - a _ ,+ I + II L4, 1� I I+ I� jli EXISTING SHADOWS - DECEMBER 21.12 NOON MAY 20, 2009 642.001 DUBLIN, CA SHORTEST DAY , -5 d,. P—o A914 5+o�.Cwws0 P 1 .1 107% M ."M •TS 7S1 T7Al J] r m i m m= r m m= r w� r r r r r rr r r r r rr r Mau am 12 r = r r rr rr rr rr rr r� r rr r rt- � rr rr rr rr .. a� � 3►�- Appendix 2 Biological Resource Letter City of Dublin Page 84 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 r H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS 5 June 2009 James Tong Charter Properties 4690 Chabot Drive Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Subject: Biological Resources Update for the Promenade at Dublin Ranch Dear Mr. Tong: H. T. Harvey & Associates was asked to provide an update of the existing biological conditions on the Promenade at Dublin Ranch site. The purpose of this update and summary is to assist you with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) update for the parcel in light of a specific development proposal. We have worked on the Dublin Ranch site for over 20 years, and prepared a series of environmental reports that included this parcel. We revisited the parcel after your request, and in our opinion there are no new or remaining biological issues that would require further CEQA analysis for the Promenade at Dublin Ranch site. We understand the Promenade site has been in use for construction staging and stockpiling for over 5 years, and that drainage infrastructure has also been constructed. The current disturbed state of the site reflects this as it is almost vacant (aside from a small area of material storage), graded, and mowed. The northern half of the site is mowed ruderal/ non - native grassland with the more ruderal areas dominated by bristly ox- tongue (Picris echioides). The southwestern quarter is more ruderal with little non - native grass and well distributed bristly ox- tongue with large areas that are partially covered with gravel remnants of staging or stockpiling activities. The southeastern quarter is bare ground that has been recently graded and there is a concrete path along the eastern border. No rare or native plants were observed and no sensitive habitats are present. There is little wildlife value in this habitat and only suburban adapted bird species and very few individuals were observed. Two non - native European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) and a single individual each of the native American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans). Two black - tailed hares (Lepus californicus), typically found in non - native grassland habitats, were also observed on the site. There were no California ground squirrels (Spermopholis bechyeei) or any of their burrows observed. The lack of burrows means that there is no habitat for burrowing owls to nest and no prey or denning opportunities for San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica) or American badgers (Taxidea taxus). The sparse or absent vegetation provides no cover for nesting birds. There is also little, if any, potential for wildlife other than birds to access the site. During the original CEQA assessment, the Promenade site itself did not have sensitive habitats or habitats particularly suited to protected species. However, at that time the surrounding lands had seasonal wetlands, streams and ponds and the California red - legged frog (Rana draytonii; listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act [ESA]) and California tiger salamander 983 University Avenue, Building D - Los Gatos, CA 95032 - Ph: 408.458.3200 - F: 408.458.3210 co aaa11� 3>� el-If J. Tong Promenade at Dublin Ranch 5 June 2009 Page 2 of 2 (Ambystoma californiense; listed as threatened under both the state and federal ESAs) were potentially found in these habitats and in burrows provided by California ground squirrels. Since that time, and with all appropriate approvals and permits, the surrounding habitats have changed significantly. To the east and west, the sites are completely developed with high density residences. To the north and south about half the length of the site boundary abuts residential or commercial development. There are remaining undeveloped open space areas to the north and south of the parcel. Most of these areas have already been filled or graded, and have little habitat remaining for special- status species. In compliance with federal law and will all appropriate approvals, all California red - legged frogs were removed prior to construction disturbance, and surveys of all burrows on the site removed the few California tiger salamanders present. Surveys and squirrel control has minimized or eliminated the potential for burrowing owls and badgers, and, if ever present, San Joaquin kit fox to use the sites. Therefore, no protected species or sensitive habitats that could attract protected species are to be found in areas surrounding the Promenade site. These facts and observations form the basis for our opinion that there are no new or remaining biological issues that would require further CEQA analysis for the Promenade at Dublin Ranch site. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 458 -3201 or rduke @harveyecology.com, or Julie Klingmann of my staff at (408) 458 -3225 or jklingmann @harveyecology.com, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ron Duke cc: Jerry Haag, Dave Chadbourne, Land Plan Associates JLK/SCR, H. T. Harvey & Associates File 4 3065 -01 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Appendix 3 Acoustic Report City of Dublin Page 85 Initial Study/The Promenade Project July 2009 PA 08 -006 tie( l r� ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. Acoustical and Audiovisual Consultants Environmental Noise Analysis for The Promenade at Dublin Ranch Dublin, CA RGDL project # 09 -043 SUBMITTED TO: Jerry Haag Urban Planner 2029 University Ave. Berkeley, CA 94704 PREPARED BY: Harold S. Goldberg, P.E. Principal DATE: 29 June 2009 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 # Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 ♦ RGDLacoustics.com ass� %, 3� Promenade, Dublin, CA Page 1 Environmental Noise Analysis 30 June 2009 A. Introduction The Promenade at Dublin Ranch Project includes one parking structure and two commercial buildings. One of the commercial buildings will house a Club Sport athletic club and the other will contain office and retail uses. The project site is along the north side of Dublin Boulevard, west of a recently constructed multi - family residential development project called The Terraces. To the north and west are undeveloped parcels designated for "village commercial' uses. To the south is the site of the proposed Grafton Plaza mixed use development. There are existing multi- family residences on Finnian Way near the northeast corner of the project site. This noise analysis identifies the compatibility of the project with the ambient noise environment and assesses the potential effects of noise generated by the project on the nearby existing noise sensitive uses. The level of analysis provided in this report is consistent with that appropriate to address the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since the project and its surroundings are part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), the findings of this noise analysis are compared with the findings of the EDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified in 1993. B. Existinq Settinq 1. Environmental Noise Fundamentals Noise can be defined as unwanted sound and is commonly measured with an instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter "captures" sound with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels are expressed in units of decibels (dB). To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A- weighting filter is used. A- weighting de- emphasizes low- frequency and very high- frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A- weighting is required by most local agencies as well as other federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation CIBA is often used when the A- weighted sound level is reported. Because of the time - varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. There are four descriptors that are commonly used in environmental studies; the Lmax, Leq, L90 and DNL (or CNEL). ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & I_EWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle 5375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com Promenade, Dublin, CA Environmental Noise Analysis Page 2 30 June 2009 _. The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of a single event such as a car pass -by or airplane flyover. To express the average noise level, the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the L90 which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time. To quantify the noise level over a 24 -hour period, the Day /Night Average Sound Level (Ld„ /DNL) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dBA penalty for noises that occur during nighttime hours (and a 5 dBA penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours. In environmental noise, a change in the noise level of 3 dBA is considered a just noticeable difference. A 5 dBA change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dBA change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness. 2. Regulatory Setting a. City of Dublin i. Noise Element The Dublin Noise Element is found in Chapter 9 of the City's General Plan. It contains a guiding policy to mitigate traffic noise levels to the levels shown in Table 1.1 The Noise Element has policies to help achieve the goal of mitigating traffic noise impacts. The following policies apply to this project: Guiding Policy A. Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by Table 9.1 [Table 1 in this report]: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Implementing Policy F. Noise impacts related to all new development shall be analyzed by a certified acoustic consultant. ' City of Dublin General Plan, Noise Element, Table 9.1 ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.corn Promenade, Dublin, CA Environmental Noise Analysis Page 3 30 June 2009 Table 1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ii. Municipal Code The City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.28 declares that it is unlawful for any person to cause any noise which annoys or disturbs any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. However this chapter does not have quantitative noise standards that can be applied to this project for the purposes of this noise impact study. b. State and County Airport Noise Policies The current Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan (which includes Livermore Airport) was adopted by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on July 16, 1986. The noise and land use compatibility guidelines specified by the ALUC Plan are generally consistent with the City's (Table 1). In 2004, The California Legislature adopted AB 2776. AB 2776 requires disclosure of all existing and proposed airports within two statute miles of a residential subdivision. Since the project does not include residential uses, this requirement does not apply. c. Increase in Traffic Noise The EDSP EIR considers an increase in traffic noise of 3 dBA or less to be less than significant. An increase of 4 to 5 dBA is potentially significant, and an increase of 6 dBA or more is considered significant. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & I-EWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 ♦ Tel 415 464 0150 ♦ Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (dB) Land Use Cateaory Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable (Noise Insulation) Features Required Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 Over 75 Motels, hotels 60 or less 60-70 70-80 Over 80 Schools, churches, nursing 60 or less 60.70 70-80 Over 80 homes Neighborhood parks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 Over 70 Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 70-75 75-80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 70-75 Over 75 Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. ii. Municipal Code The City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.28 declares that it is unlawful for any person to cause any noise which annoys or disturbs any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. However this chapter does not have quantitative noise standards that can be applied to this project for the purposes of this noise impact study. b. State and County Airport Noise Policies The current Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan (which includes Livermore Airport) was adopted by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on July 16, 1986. The noise and land use compatibility guidelines specified by the ALUC Plan are generally consistent with the City's (Table 1). In 2004, The California Legislature adopted AB 2776. AB 2776 requires disclosure of all existing and proposed airports within two statute miles of a residential subdivision. Since the project does not include residential uses, this requirement does not apply. c. Increase in Traffic Noise The EDSP EIR considers an increase in traffic noise of 3 dBA or less to be less than significant. An increase of 4 to 5 dBA is potentially significant, and an increase of 6 dBA or more is considered significant. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & I-EWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 ♦ Tel 415 464 0150 ♦ Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com 1- 00 HE � Promenade, Dublin, CA Page 4 Environmental Noise Analysis 30 June 2009 3. Existing Noise Environment The major noise source that affects the project site is vehicular traffic on Interstate 580 (1 -580) and Dublin Boulevard. The project site is approximately 1400 feet north of the centerline of 1 -580. Livermore Municipal Airport is to the southeast and some flights from the airport pass over or near the site. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) is located about 7,000 feet to the northwest of the project site. The County Jail is about 6,000 feet northwest of the project site. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. Noise measurements were made to quantify the existing noise environment on the project site and at existing noise sensitive land uses that could be affected by project generated noise. These measurements included two continuous long -term noise measurement and three short-term noise measurements. The noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 2. Table 2 shows the results of the short-term measurements. Figure 3 shows the hourly plot of the measured noise levels at long -term measurement Location A. Measurement Location A represents the existing multi - family development to the northeast of the project site. Locations 1 through 3 represent the existing multi - family development to the east, The Terraces. Location B quantifies the 24 -hour distribution of noise at a location that includes a noise contribution from traffic on Dublin Boulevard. During the short-term attended measurements, the dominant noise source was traffic on 1 -580 and Dublin Boulevard. No noise from aircraft activity was observed during the noise measurement site visits. There was construction activity occurring at The Terraces development, however, the activities were primarily indoors and the noise measurements were coordinated and analyzed to minimize the influence of construction related noise sources. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 + RGDLacoustics.com Promenade, Dublin, CA r Environmental Noise Analysis Figure 2: Noise Measurement Locations 0112)1;)- Page 5 30 June 2009 Existing Multi- Family Future Village Commercial Residential I F-1 I ----------- - - - -A- FINNIAN WAY l .- - -- Y z " RETAIL 'L Future AND Village OFFICE PARKING GARAGE Commercial �m m O Z LfzD I II r v I -ON. 2. r- M r. _- Existing �Multi- Pamily Re�tdential - CLUBSPORT Outdoor Pool/patio. - �uaLIN EIOULEYABQ— - e - -- - - -- North Proposed Grafton Plaza Mixed Use ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle 11375 ♦ Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 . RGDLacoustics.com Promenade, Dublin, CA Environmental Noise Analysis ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. Table 2: Noise Measurement Results 1 Q - -3IJ Page 6 30 June 2009 *See Environmental Noise Fundamentals for definitions of noise descriptors ** Estimated based on comparison with long -term noise measurement data. 1100 Larkspur landing Circle #375 # Larkspur CA 94939 # Tel 415 464 0150 # Fax 415 464 0155 # RGDLacoustics.com A -wei hted Sound Level, dBA Location Time Leq' Leo Lso Lso CNEL Finnian Way A On light pole in front of 15 June 2009 — existing multifamily 17 June 2009 - -- - -- __ 64 residences Dublin Boulevard 15 June 2009 — B on light pole on 17 June 2009 ___ ___ ___ — _ 71 roadway median At east property line adjacent to The 1 Terraces multifamily 15 June 2009 57 59 57 55 64 ** residences, 170 feet 4:35 - 4:45 P.M. from curb of Finnian Way At east property line adjacent to The 2 Terraces multifamily 15 June 2009 60 62 59 57 66 ** residences, 150 feet 4:50 — 5:00 P.M. from curb of Dublin Boulevard. At east property line adjacent to The 3 Terraces multifamily 15 June 2009 67 66 60 57 66 ** residences, 60 feet 5:05 — 5:10 P.M. from curb of Dublin Boulevard. *See Environmental Noise Fundamentals for definitions of noise descriptors ** Estimated based on comparison with long -term noise measurement data. 1100 Larkspur landing Circle #375 # Larkspur CA 94939 # Tel 415 464 0150 # Fax 415 464 0155 # RGDLacoustics.com Promenade, Dublin, CA Environmental Noise Analysis 6ZqJ � 30, Page 7 30 June 2009 Figure 3: Long -Term Noise Measurement Results at Locations A and B 90 Location A Q 80 Location B Cr Location B Z > 70 -/ O Z aM 60 ca m Q Location A � L 50 c x 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 (P 0 N M O r- N M "I' U') W � CO O) O N M 4 Lo CD � co �- N N N N r r r r e- 15 June 2009 Time 16 June 2009 C. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 1. Compatibility of Proiect with Existinq and Future Noise Environment a. Traffic Noise The existing CNEL at the site and nearby residential development from traffic ranged from 64 to 66 dBA. This noise level is dominated by traffic on 1 -580. The existing traffic volumes and noise levels along Dublin Boulevard are relatively low compared to those that would occur after the buildout of the area. According to the latest traffic data for the area (Grafton Plaza Traffic Study, May 2009) the future peak hour volume on Dublin Boulevard south of the project site will be 4,200 vehicles per hour. Based on calculations using the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5) the future CNEL will be 72 dBA at the south facade of the proposed ClubSport Building. The proposed retail /office building would be farther from Dublin Boulevard, and exposed to a CNEL of 67 dBA from traffic noise. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com Promenade, Dublin, CA Environmental Noise Analysis Page 8 30 June 2009 According to the City's General Plan, a CNEL of 72 dBA is considered conditionally acceptable for commercial development and noise insulation features are required. Conventional construction but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air - conditioning will normally suffice. The CNEL at the retail /office building would be normally acceptable. The primary outdoor use area for the ClubSport building is the pool and surrounding patio areas. These areas are located within a courtyard that is acoustically shielded from surrounding roadways by the building along three sides, and by a 12 foot barrier along Dublin Blvd. This site design will reduce outdoor noise levels in the pool area by approximately 10 dBA to less than a - CNEL of 70 dBA which is considered normally acceptable. Since ClubSport includes an air - conditioning and ventilation system to allow the windows to be closed and the traffic noise in the pool area will be acceptable, this is a less than significant impact. b. Livermore Municipal Airport The Livermore Municipal Airport is southeast of the site. The project site is well outside the CNEL 60 dBA noise contour. As a result, aircraft noise is well below the "normally acceptable" level of CNEL of 60 dBA at the site. Therefore, the project is considered compatible with airport noise. 2. Increased Traffic Noise From the Project The project would add about 295 peak hour vehicle trips to the roadway network (Trip Generation, TJKM, 2009). For the purposes of this assessment, all traffic was assumed to either travel on Dublin Boulevard or Finnian Way to provide a conservative analysis. Along Dublin Boulevard, traffic noise levels would increase by less than 1 dBA due to project traffic. If all of the project trips use Finnian Way to access the site, the traffic noise level is calculated to be up to CNEL of 57 dBA at the existing multifamily residences near the north east corner of the project site. Since these residences are already exposed to a CNEL of 64 dBA from freeway noise, the combined noise level will be 65 dBA which is a 1 dBA increase. These traffic noise increases are less than the 3 dBA threshold and would not be significant. 3. Noise from On -site Activities On -site noise sources associated with the project include on -site vehicles (parking garage and surface parking) the use of the outdoor pool area and mechanical ventilation equipment. The on -site noise sources are discussed below. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com Promenade, Dublin, CA Page 9 Environmental Noise Analysis 30 June 2009 Parking Garage: The parking garage would be 75 feet from the nearest residential building to the east, The Terraces. The garage entrance is along the east side and vehicles would access the garage via Dublin Boulevard or Finnian Way. The eastern facade of the parking garage is solid (no openings) on the second and third floors. There would also be a driveway and one row of surface parking between the garage and The Terraces. The project is anticipated to generate a total of 295 vehicle trips during the peak hour. Calculations of vehicle noise were performed using the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5). Assuming all of the cars accessing the site use the parking garage, the CNEL is calculated to be 59 dBA at the nearest residences to the east, The Terraces. This estimate includes factors for both the partial shielding of parking garage noise provided by the garage wall and roof parapet to the east as well as potential acoustical reflections of the noise from cars that are travelling between the parking garage and the residences. The parking noise would combine with the existing traffic noise CNEL of 64 dBA, and result in a CNEL of 65 dBA, a 1 dBA increase. This is a less than significant impact. Outdoor Pool Area: The ClubSport building includes an outdoor pool, Jacuzzi and eating area. The pool will be used for adult lap swimming. According to the ClubSport developerz, the pool deck is being designed to create a relaxing and re- energizing experience. This is different than what one would find at a more family and children oriented facility such as the ClubSport in Pleasanton, California. Nevertheless, there is the potential for children to use the pool. Noise from pool activities would be attenuated by the ClubSport building which would act as a noise barrier. Maximum instantaneous noise levels at the adjacent residential uses would be approximately 54 dBA from the noisiest activity which would be children yelling. Since this is less than existing ambient background noise level (1-90 of 55 to 57 dBA), the sound would be barely audible at adjacent residences. Overall, noise from pool activities would not contribute to the average noise levels at the adjacent residential locations and therefore is considered to be a less than significant impact. Mechanical Ventilation Equipment. The heating, ventilation and air - conditioning (HVAC) system will include outdoor equipment to be located on the roofs of the ClubSport building and the mercantile (retail /office) building. Some HVAC equipment will also be located at the ground level in the alley between the mercantile building and the parking garage. Additionally, the mercantile buildings will have a rooftop kitchen exhaust fan. There will be some equipment indoors at the Club building and there could be ventilation openings in the facade that faces the residences. This equipment has the potential to be audible at the residences 2 Email from David Grove, Director of Development, Leisure Sports, Inc., 17 June 2009. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle 5375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com Promenade, Dublin, CA Environmental Noise Analysis Page 10 30 June 2009 and cause annoyance. Therefore, the following recommendation is provided to implement EDSP EIR mitigation measure (MM 3.10/6.0) since the project places commercial uses abutting residential uses. The noise level limit specified in the recommendation is referenced in the EDSP EIR (IM 3.10/17 page 3.10 -5). The City of Dublin's Municipal Code does not have quantitative noise standards for regulating HVAC equipment noise. Recommendation — Mechanical Ventilation Equipment Require as a condition of approval a noise analysis of the HVAC system that demonstrates that noise levels at the adjacent residential property lines will meet the noise limits of the State of California's Model Noise Ordinance which are 60 dBA during the daytime and 55 dBA at night. If the HVAC noise contains a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech, or hum the noise limits shall be reduced by 5 dBA. 4. Construction Noise and Vibration at Adiacent Land Uses Construction noise varies depending on the types of equipment being used during a particular construction phase. In general, the noisiest construction activities are the grading and foundation work. Since the site is relatively level, the grading work will be limited. The interior work such as finishes and the tenant improvement work is generally quiet because the building shell reduces the noise transfer. Table 3 shows the anticipated construction schedule. Table 3: Anticipated Construction Schedule Construction Phase Duration Sitework 2 months Foundation & Slab on Grade 2 months Structural Steel 2 months Slab on Deck 1 month Framing 3 months Wall Finishes 4 months Tenant Improvement Work 7 months Close out & commissioning 2 months Noise levels from construction activities are estimated from published data for various types of equipment. Table 4 shows typical noise levels at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Construction noise levels will decrease at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the source and receiver. Since this distance between The Terraces and the nearest proposed buildings are about 75 to 90 feet, the noise levels at the residences would be about 4 dBA less than those in Table 4 when the equipment is at the east side of the ClubSport and Parking Garage buildings. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com Promenade, Dublin, CA Environmental Noise Analysis Table 4: Construction Noise Levels Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft from Source Air Compressor 81 Backhoe 80 Compactor 82 Concrete Mixer 85 Concrete Pump 82 Concrete Vibrator 76 Crane, Derrick 88 Crane, Mobile 83 Dozer 85 Generator 81 Grader 85 Impact Wrench 85 Jack Hammer 88 Loader 85 Paver 89 Pneumatic Tool 85 Pump 76 Roller 74 Saw 76 Scraper 89 Truck 88 � a4 3) C;), Page 11 30 June 2009 Source: I ransit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA- VA -90- 1003 -06, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006 Construction noise was analyzed in the EDSP EIR. The project is required to adhere to construction noise mitigation measures included in the EIR to minimize impacts of construction noise. These are Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0, which require all project developers in the EDSP area to prepare and adhere to Construction Noise Management Programs, which require limiting grading and other noise generating activities to the shortest period of time as possible, minimizing truck access through residential areas and limiting the hours and days of construction activities. These mitigation measures will be reflected in the project's conditions of approval. With adherence to these measures, no new noise impacts would result from construction activities. ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 . RGDLacoustics.com C29c 0� 3►a Promenade, Dublin, CA Page 12 Environmental Noise Analysis 30 June 2009 The greatest potential for ground vibration would be during the excavation and foundation construction activities. Since pile driving would not be necessary, the use of vibratory rollers would be expected to generate the highest vibration levels. The nearest vibration sensitive land uses are The Terraces approximately which are 75 feet from the parking structure building and 95 feet from the ClubSport building. At these distances, ground vibration from a vibratory roller would be 76 to 80 VCIB at the nearest residential buildings. Though these levels could be noticeable to residences, they would not exceed acceptability criteria for annoyance.3 Therefore, construction vibration is considered to be a less than significant impact. 09-043—Promenade noise study_30jun09.doc 3 Based on criterion of 80 VdB (vibration velocity level expressed in decibels re one micro -inch per second) for residences exposed to infrequent transit train passbys, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, 2006 ROSEN GOLDBERG DER & LEWITZ, INC. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle 11375 • Larkspur CA 94939 • Tel 415 464 0150 • Fax 415 464 0155 • RGDLacoustics.com C0 9��31a BUILDING TYPES Mixed -use buildings and complexes are strongly encouraged in the Town Center. The mixture of office and residential uses with retail contributes to a downtown that is active not only on weekdays, but during evenings and weekends as well. • Encourage upper -story office space above retail in the Community Commercial area. Encourage upper -story residential units and office space above retail ground floors in the Neighborhood Commercial area, Incorporate balconies and upper story windows that open on buildings that front on "Main Street." BUILDING ENTRIES Building entries should be located to encourage pedestrian activity on the major shopping streets. Locate major building entries in the Community Commercial area so they front on Tassajara Road. Provide additional pedestrian entries facing the adjacent residential area, aligned with the ends of local east -west side streets. Pedestrians should not be forced to cut through parking lots to reach shops and offices (see Figure 7.7). Locate shop, office and upper -floor residential entries in the Neighborhood Commercial area so they front on Main Street. Entries should be spaced at intervals of no more than 50 feet (see Figure 7.8). Permit larger retail stores (greater than 30,000 s.f.) to have their primary entrance from an off - street parking lot. However, at least one entry must be provided from the main pedestrian street (i.e., "Main Street." See Figure 7.9). PARKING Parking areas should not disrupt the continuity of storefronts or discourage pedestrian access. • Reduce off - street parking requirements for commercial uses within 1/4 mile of Main Street by up to 15 percent. • Provide on- street parking on all primary streets in the Town Center (see Figure 7.10). • Locate public parking lots behind commercial buildings, away from the main, pedestrian- oriented street in the Neighborhood Commercial area. (see Figure 7.10). 120 Attachment 13 G 3 /a COMMUMTY DESIGN • Provide pedestrian passageways ( "paseos ") between commercial buildings from parking areas to the street. Paseos should have natural light and display windows and /or store entries along their length (see Figure 7.10). • Divide large parking lots into several smaller parts through siting of internal circulation corridors, landscaped medians, and buildings (see Figure 7.11). • Plant parking lots with shade trees in a pattern and number that can be reasonably expected to shade 50 percent of the lot surface ten years after planting and 75 percent at maturity (see Figure 7.12). • Use low hedges, shrub masses, walls and landscaped berms to screen parking lots from street views, as well as to give a defined edge to the lot. • Do not allow off -street parking lots to take up more than one -half of the street frontage along arterial streets and parkways, or one -third of the frontage along "Main Street." Avoid domination of the Tassajara Road frontage by parking. Encourage larger projects to incorporate structured parking. Central Parkway is to be designed to favor transit movement and convenience for transit users. • Provide bus stops with signs (maps, schedules, etc.), shelters, and other amenities (waste receptacles, telephones, bicycle storage, etc.) at two -block intervals along Central Parkway. • Provide distinctively designed transit shelters to contribute to the image and identify of the community, as well as the comfort of the transit user. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION Major commercial streets such as Tassajara Road and Central Parkway should have a lively, attractive and stimulating pedestrian environment. • Develop wide sidewalks along Main Street to accommodate pedestrian circulation, window shopping, outdoor merchandising and cafes. These pedestrian- oriented sidewalks should wrap around corners of north -south streets intersecting the Main Street for a distance of one block (see Figure 7.13). • Encourage development of sidewalk cafes and indoor /outdoor restaurants with retractable storefronts along Main Street (see Figure 7.13). • Design ground floor building facades fronting on Main Street to be at least 60% transparent window surface (see Figure 7.14). • Encourage use of colorful awnings and pedestrian -level store signage along facades (see Figure 7.14). 121 a9y� 3ia RESOLUTION NO. XX - 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ADOPTION OF A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2000 DUBLIN RANCH AREA G MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROMENADE PROJECT AND ADOPTION OF A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PA 08 -006 WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to develop an 82,864 sq. ft. commercial center consisting of a Club Sport fitness center, a Mercantile Building containing retail and office uses and a three story, four level parking garage on a 3.72 acre parcel on the 23 acre Promenade property. The related applications include Site Development Review for the principal proposed buildings and related improvements; a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor fitness center and for minor modifications to the existing PD zoning to reallocate density within the 23 acre site; a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to divide the 23 acre property into 4 parcels, Parcel 4 of which is the 3.72 acres proposed for development; and a Development Agreement. The above activities and applications are collectively referred to as the "Project "; and WHEREAS, the Promenade site is located between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway along either side of Grafton Street; the Club Sport/Mercantile Building portion of the Project is located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Grafton Street; and WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51 -93 ( "Eastern Dublin EIR ", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "2000 MND ") for reconfigured land uses to relocate and develop a Village Center in the Dublin Ranch Area G portion of Eastern Dublin (Resolution No. 34 -00 incorporated herein by reference). The City Council approved related General and Specific Plan amendments for Area G on March 7, 2000 (Resolution No. 35 -00 incorporated herein by reference), and adopted PD- Planned Development zoning and related Development Plans on March 21, 2000 (Ordinance No. 6 -00, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the adopted PD zoning provides for a Village Center on the 23 acre Promenade property with a range of neighborhood commercial uses permitted and with a cap of 230,000 sq. ft. of density, allocated among 6 development sites. The Project proposes to modify the PD zoning to reallocate the approved density among the development sites (within the existing cap of 230,000 square feet), to subdivide the site and to develop one of the sites; and Attachment 14 3��,t pia WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed modifications and development was required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated July 14, 2009 describing the modifications and development and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND. The Addendum and related Initial Study are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, a Planning Commission staff report, dated July 14, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, analyzed the Project and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Proj ect; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on July 14, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND before taking action on the Project. The Planning Commission further used their independent judgment and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking action; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09 -28, adopting a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted Resolution No. 09 -29 approving a conditional use permit and site development review for the Project. Resolution No. 09 -28 is incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2009, Toll Brothers filed an appeal ( "Appeal ") of the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 09 -28 adopting the Addendum and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Resolution No. 09 -29 approving a conditional use permit and site development review for the Project; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing on the Appeal was scheduled before the City Council on September 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, a City Council Agenda Statement, dated September 1, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, analyzed and responded to the Appeal issues. The Agenda Statement and record as a whole set forth the basis for rejecting each issue raised in the Appeal. In the Agenda Statement, staff recommended that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission actions under Resolutions No. 09 -28 and 09 -29 and deny the Appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on September 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum as well as the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND before taking action on the Project. The City Council further used their independent judgment and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking action. 2 of 3 3 °1131z 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 (1) the City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, affirming the Planning Commission's decision adopting the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project under Resolution No. 09 -28. The findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations under Resolution No. 09 -28 also are hereby adopted and are incorporated herein by reference; and (2) the City Council hereby denies the Appeal of the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 09 -28. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of September 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 1285750 G: IPA #120081PA 08 -006 Club Sport PromenadelToll AppeallCC CEQA Appeal Resolution 9.1.09.DOC 3 of 3 2CL--� �r 3)a FINDINGS OF FACT Affirming the Planning Commission's adoption of a CEQA Addendum To The Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report And 2000 Dublin Ranch Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Promenade Project and adoption of a Statement Of Overriding Considerations for the Project under Resolution No. 09 -28 (PA 08 -006). Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.136, the City Council makes the following Findings of Fact to support its motion to affirm the Planning Commission's adoption of a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and 2000 Dublin Ranch Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Promenade Project and adoption of a Statement Of Overriding Considerations for the Project under Resolution No. 09 -28, and deny the appeal filed on July 24, 2009 by Toll Brothers (Appeal). These Findings of Fact are based on the Agenda Statement for the September 1, 2009 City Council Meeting related to the Appeal, together with all attachments to such Agenda Statement; all documentary evidence submitted to the City Council at the September 1, 2009 public hearing; all comments, statements and testimony heard by the City Council at the September 1, 2009 public hearing; the Initial Study for the Project dated July 2009 (Initial Study); the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report; the 2000 Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration; all documentary evidence submitted to the Planning Commission at the July 14, 2009 public hearing, including Agenda Statement and attachments thereto; all comments, statements and testimony heard by the Planning Commission at the July 14, 2009 public hearing; the minutes of the July 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting; all information in the project file maintained at the City; the Dublin General Plan; the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and the Dublin Municipal Code (together, the "Record "). Through these findings, the City Council sets forth its reasons for affirming the Planning Commission action and verifies that the Appeal has been processed in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 8.136, Appeals, of the zoning ordinance. The City Council makes the following findings to affirm the Planning Commission's approval of the Addendum and Initial Study and determines that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed Project. The City Council also affirms the adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project. These findings are based on information contained in the Addendum, Initial Study, the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 MND, the Response to the Grounds for Appeal of the CEQA Addendum in the September 1, 2009 City Council Agenda Report, and all other information contained in the Record. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire Record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the Addendum, Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, 2000 MND, the Response to the Grounds for Appeal of the CEQA Addendum in the September 1, 2009 City Council Agenda Report and elsewhere in the Record. Other facts and information in the Record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference. The applicant proposes to develop an 82,864 sq. ft. commercial center consisting of a Club Sport fitness center, a Mercantile Building containing retail and office uses and a three story, four level parking garage on a 3.72 acre parcel on the 23 acre Promenade property. The related applications include Site Development Review for the principal proposed buildings and related improvements; a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor fitness center and for minor modifications to the existing PD zoning to reallocate density within the 23 acre site; a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to divide the 23 acre property into 4 parcels, Parcel 4 of which is the 3.72 acres proposed for development; and a Development Agreement. The above activities and applications are collectively referred to as the "Project ". 3n3�,3ia The Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51 -93 ( "Eastern Dublin EIR ", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigation measures, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference). On February 15, 2000, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "2000 MND ") for reconfigured land uses to relocate and develop a Village Center in the Dublin Ranch Area G portion of Eastern Dublin (Resolution No. 34 -00 incorporated herein by reference). The City Council approved related General and Specific Plan amendments for Area G on March 7, 2000 (Resolution No. 35 -00 incorporated herein by reference), and adopted PD- Planned Development zoning and related Development Plans on March 21, 2000 (Ordinance No. 6 -00, incorporated herein by reference). The City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed modifications and development was required pursuant to Public Resources Code 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated July 14, 2009 describing the modifications and development and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND. The Addendum and related Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council has considered the Initial Study, Addendum, the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2000 MND, the Response to the Grounds for Appeal of the CEQA Addendum in the September 1, 2009 City Council Agenda Report, and all other information in the Record relating to the environmental impacts of the Project before taking action on the Appeal. The City Council used their independent judgment and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking action. There is no substantial evidence in the Record that the standards requiring further environmental review under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 are met and, therefore, no further environmental review is required. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines section 15164, as supplemented by the Response to the Grounds for Appeal of the CEQA Addendum in the September 1, 2009 City Council Agenda Report, to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project. None of the issues raised in the Appeal provide a basis to require further environmental review under CEQA for the reasons set forth in the Response to the Grounds for Appeal of the CEQA Addendum in the September 1, 2009 City Council Agenda Report, these finding of fact, and elsewhere in the Record. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previously approved Eastern Dublin and Area G projects that will require major revisions to the EIR or MND due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for the Eastern Dublin and Area G projects which were previously addressed in the EIR and 2 of 3 MND. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior EIR and MND. All previously adopted mitigation measures will apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. There are no new significant impacts of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND. There is no substantial evidence in the Record showing new information of substantial importance or substantial changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other standards in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. 1283439_2 G :IPA #120081PA 08 -006 Club Sport PromenadelToll AppeabFindings of Fact-CEQAA ddendum(Promenade). DOC 3 of 3 ,3 1-f 3►a RESOLUTION NO. XX - 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR AN INDOOR RECREATION FACILITY AND FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 8.32.080 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON VILLAGE CENTER PARCEL 6 TO 82,864 SQ. FT. AND THE FLOOR AREA RATIO TO.51 PROVIDED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE 23 ACRE VILLAGE CENTER AREA/PROMENADE PROPERTY DOES NOT EXCEED 230,000 SQUARE FEET, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CLUB SPORT FITNESS CENTER WITH ASSOCIATED SPA AND CAFE, A TWO -STORY RETAIL /OFFICE BUILDING, A FOUR -LEVEL PARKING GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED SITE AMENITIES ON A 3.72 -ACRE SITE WITHIN AREA G OF DUBLIN RANCH PA 08 -006 WHEREAS, the Applicant, James Tong and Mel Fong Tong, has requested approval of Site Development Review to develop Parcel 4 of proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 9717, a 3.72 -acre site within an area known as The Promenade, with three structures, as follows: a) C1ubSport - a two -story fitness center and day spa with cafe of approximately 47,669 square feet; b) Mercantile Building - a two -story commercial building of approximately 35,195 square feet proposed for restaurant (7,190 square feet), retail, and office uses; and c) a four -level parking structure of 428 spaces; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the requested uses are subject to approval by Conditional Use Permit(s) for the following: a) an indoor recreational /fitness facility, and b) a Development Plan Amendment to change the allowable square footage on Site VC6 to approximately 83,000 square feet and the density to .51 as long as the overall square footage on the 23 acre Promenade Site does not exceed 230,000 square; and WHEREAS, the project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, a complete application was submitted and is available and on file in the Department of Community Development; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted project plans and exterior elevations dated received on July 7, 2009, for Site Development Review and the requested Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06 -00 approving PA 98- 069 for Area G of Dublin Ranch which established Planned Development (PD) zoning and a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the project site as PD Village Center/Neighborhood Commercial; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on said applications on July 14, 2009, for this project; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and Attachment 15 306 Zia WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission approve a Site Development Review and the requested Conditional Use Permit(s) subject to specified findings and conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND before taking action on the Project. The Planning Commission further used their independent judgment and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking action; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09 -28, adopting a CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09 -29 approving a conditional use permit and site development review for the Project; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2009, Toll Brothers filed an appeal ( "Appeal ") of the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 09 -28 adopting the Addendum and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Resolution No. 09 -29 approving a conditional use permit and site development review for the Project; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing on the Appeal was scheduled before the City Council on September 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, a City Council Agenda Statement, dated September 1, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference, analyzed and responded to the Appeal issues. The Agenda Statement sets forth the basis for rejecting each ground for Appeal. In the Agenda Statement, staff recommended that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission decisions under Resolutions No. 09 -28 and 09 -29 and deny the Appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on September 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum as well as the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND before taking action on the Appeal. The City Council further used their independent judgment and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking action. 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 (1) the City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, affirming the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an indoor recreation facility and for a minor amendment of the approved PD Development Plan in accordance with Chapter 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to change the allowable square footage on Village Center Parcel 6 to 82,864 sq. ft. and the FAR to .51 provided the maximum allowable square footage for the 23 acre Village Center area/Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet, subject to the adoption of the conditions of approval set forth in Resolution No. 09 -29. The findings and conditions of approval under Resolution No. 09 -29 also are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference; E �7 r� 3w (2) the City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, affirming the Planning Commission's approval of Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a Club Sport fitness center with associated spa and caf6, a two -story retail /office building, a four -level parking garage and associated site amenities on a 3.72 -acre site within Area G of Dublin Ranch (PA 08 -006), subject to the adoption of the conditions of approval set forth in Resolution No. 09 -29. The findings and conditions of approval under Resolution No. 09 -29 also are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference; and (3) the City Council hereby denies the Appeal of the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution 09 -29 approving the conditional use permit and site development review for the Project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1St day of September 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 1285784_1 G: IPA #120081PA 08 -006 Club Sport PromenadelToll AppeaACC CUP SDR Appeal Resolution 9.1.09.DOC 3 01 % 3);�, FINDINGS OF FACT Affirming the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an indoor recreation facility and for a minor amendment of the approved PD Development Plan in accordance with Chapter 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to change the allowable square footage on Village Center Parcel 6 to 82,864 sq. ft. and the FAR to .51 provided the maximum allowable square footage for the 23 acre Village Center area /Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet, and Site Development Review (SDR) for the establishment of a Club Sport fitness center with associated spa and cafe, a two -story retail/office building, a four -level parking garage and associated site amenities on a 3.72 -acre site within Area G of Dublin Ranch under Resolution No. 09 -29 (PA 08 -006). Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.136, the City Council makes the following Findings of Fact to support its motion to affirm the Planning Commission's decision under Resolution No. 09 -29 to approve a conditional use permit and site development review for the Project, and denying the appeal filed on July 24, 2009 by Toll Brothers (Appeal). These Findings of Fact are based on the Agenda Statement for the September 1, 2009 City Council Meeting related to the July 24, 2009 appeal, together with all attachments to such Agenda Statement; all documentary evidence submitted to the City Council at the September 1, 2009 public hearing; all comments, statements and testimony heard by the City Council at the September 1, 2009 public hearing; the Initial Study for the Project dated the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impacts Report; the 2000 Area G Mitigated Negative Declaration; all documentary evidence submitted to the Planning Commission at the July 14, 2009 public hearing, including Agenda Statement and attachments thereto; all comments, statements and testimony heard by the Planning Commission at the July 14, 2009 public hearing; the minutes of the July 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting; all information in the project file maintained at the City; the Dublin General Plan; the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; and, the Dublin Municipal Code (together, the "Record "). Through these findings, the City Council sets forth its reasons for affirming the Planning Commission action and verifies that the Appeal has been processed in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 8.136, Appeals, of the zoning ordinance. These findings are a summary of the factual basis to support each finding. All facts and evidence in the Record to support the findings are incorporated herein by reference. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Conditional Use Permit findings for an indoor recreation facility and for a minor amendment of the approved PD Development Plan in accordance with Chapter 8.32.080 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance to change the allowable square footage on Village Center Parcel 6 to 82,864 sq. ft. and the FAR to .51 provided the maximum allowable square footage for the 23 acre Village Center area/Promenade property does not exceed 230,000 square feet are as follows: A. The proposed use and related structures under the CUP are compatible with other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because: they contribute toward Page 1 of 5 creating a local main street area for the nearby residential uses developed within Dublin Ranch and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and consistent with the Village Center concept established in the PD zoning. The development includes high quality architecture, provides continuity with new and nearby commercial projects, and provides general quality of services and diversity of uses for the nearby residential development. Service facilities are adequate to serve the uses allowed. The PD Development Plan Amendment does not change the overall density of uses allowed within Area G. It only reallocates density among Parcels comprising Area G. There are adequate existing or planned roadways to service the project site. All streets and traffic improvements adjacent to the site will be completed as part of the overall project. B. The fitness /recreation facility and PD Development Plan Amendment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because: 1) the proposed development and requested conditional use generally conform to the Village Center standards established for Area G of Dublin Ranch.; 2) conditions of approval and mitigation measures are imposed on the project to reduce any significant impacts on persons residing or working in the area; 3) the project promotes public health, safety and welfare because it provides development of a viable Village Center project that serves the needs of adjacent residents and the surrounding area.; and 4) the project does not include any types of uses that would adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in vicinity. C. The fitness /recreation facility and PD Development Plan Amendment will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1) the project includes Village Center uses which are consistent with the zoning for the site and will serve surrounding residential development consistent with City planning approvals under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; 2) it will enhance the balance of jobs and housing, as well as reduce or even eliminate vehicle trips and traffic congestion due to the close proximity of residential units; and 3) the design and improvement of the development are complementary to existing and planned surrounding development and will contribute towards an attractive, integrated Village Center. D. There are adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare because: 1) the project circulation plan provides adequate provisions for public access to and from the site for cars, pedestrians and bicycles; 2) sufficient parking is provided to meet code requirements for the uses; 3) DSRSD will provide water and sanitation services to the project and has adequate capacity to provide those services; and 4) there are available public utilities to serve the site, including utility lines in adjacent Dublin Boulevard. E. The project site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of the use and related structures being proposed because: 1) the project site has been rough graded and is generally flat with a slight slope (1% average); and 2) the project site can accommodate the proposed project's proposed density and intensity in compliance with the development and design standards under the PD zoning. Page 2 of 5 tit F. The proposed fitness /recreation facility and PD Development Plan Amendment will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance standards established for the zoning district in which it is located because: 1) the project is consistent with the intent of the Village Center zoning district to create a pedestrian - oriented service, retail, commercial and entertainment center to serve the needs of surrounding residential neighborhoods and the wider community base. It provides a combination or retail, office and fitness uses in a pedestrian- oriented design with access from adjacent residences; 2) the fitness /recreation center is a conditionally permitted use under the PD zoning and the findings for approval of the conditional use can be made; 3) the project complies with the development and performance standards of the PD zoning, including setbacks, lot lines, yards, lot coverage, height, and lot width, frontage and depth; 4) the amendment to the PD Development Plan to reallocate the overall allowable 230,000 square feet in the Village Center area to increase the square footage allowed on Parcel 6 is a minor amendment consistent with the intent of the PD zoning because the overall density permitted under the zoning for the Village Center is capped at 230,000 square feet under the amendment. The increased density on Parcel 6 allows a type of development consistent with the intent of the Village Center zoning district. G. The proposed fitness /recreation facility and PD Development Plan Amendment is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans because: The retail, office, and fitness /recreation center uses are consistent with Neighborhood Commercial land use designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan since they are general commercial uses. All uses are permitted under the PD zoning which is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. The project consistent with the Village Center development contemplated under the Specific Plan to serve the adjacent area and community. 2. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The Site Development Review findings for the establishment of a Club Sport fitness center with associated spa and cafe, a two -story retail /office building, a four -level parking garage and associated site amenities on a 3.72 -acre site within Area G of Dublin Ranch (PA 08 -006) are as follows: A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104, with the General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1) the retail, office, and fitness /recreation center uses are consistent with Neighborhood Commercial land use designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan since they are general commercial uses. All uses are permitted under the PD zoning which is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan; 2) the project will create commercial opportunities for the residents, enhance the balance of jobs and housing, as well as reduce or even eliminate vehicle trips and traffic congestion due to the close proximity of residential units to the commercial uses; 3) buildings are fronting to Grafton Street; 4) parking is oriented toward the rear of the site; 5) all development standards under zoning have been Page 3 of 5 311 complied with; and 6) the architectural character is consistent with the Design Guidelines. B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: 1) the uses are permitted or conditionally permitted under the zoning; 2) the project, as proposed and conditioned, complies with all development standards under the PD Development Plan and zoning; 3) the buildings do not exceed the maximum permitted height; 4) the landscaping meets the landscaping required under the Code; 5) the parking spaces provided meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 8.76 Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations; 6) the project relates appropriately to adjacent commercial and residential uses; and 7) the project is an appropriate use and design that takes advantage of an infill site with good roadway access and no physical constraints. C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties and the lot in which the project is proposed because: 1) it contributes toward creating a local main street area for the nearby residential uses developed within Dublin Ranch and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and consistent with the Village Center concept established in the PD zoning; 2) the development will include quality architecture, provide continuity with new and nearby commercial projects, and provide general quality of services and diversity of uses for the nearby residential development; 3) the lot does not present any constraints for the proposed development. It has been rough- graded and is generally flat; and 4) the development is compatible with adjacent commercial and residential uses. D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the project site has been rough graded and is generally flat with a slight slope (1% average); and 2) the project site can accommodate the proposed project's proposed density and intensity in compliance with the development and design standards under the PD zoning. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: The site is rough graded, relatively flat, has no significant topographic features, and is not subject to physical or topographic constraints. Therefore, the development will have no impacts to existing slopes and topographic features. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other development in the vicinity because: The architectural design of the buildings and site outlay as shown in the project plans comply with the Design Guidelines. Architectural features, including high quality sustainable materials, complementary architectural features for buildings on the site, complementary building materials and colors, screening and buffering for adjacent uses, specified lighting requirements, and similar elements, have been incorporated into the project, and as conditions of approval, in order to insure Page 4 of 5 compatibility of this development with the development's design concept or theme and the character of adjacent buildings within and adjacent to the Village Center of Area G. G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because: As shown in the project landscape plans, landscape materials and features have been included throughout the site to provide a visually appealing setting for the pedestrian - oriented development. Landscaping has also been used to buffer adjacent uses and screen features from adjacent development. H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure proper circulation for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles because: Access to the project development site would be taken from driveways off of Dublin Boulevard on the south and Finnian Way on the north which lead into the surface parking lot that runs the full length of the easterly boundary of the project site. Access to the parking structure is from the surface parking lot. A systemwide multi -use trail also runs along the easterly boundary of the project site connecting Dublin Boulevard with the multi -use trail at Finnian Way along the northerly boundary. A pedestrian paseo traverses the site separating the ClubSport building from the Mercantile Building and connects Grafton Street to the north/south multi -use trail in conformance with the Stage 2 Development Plan. All streets and traffic improvement adjacent to the site will be completed as part of the overall project. 3. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW None of the issues raised in the Appeal provide a basis to require denial of the conditional use permit or site development review for the reasons set forth in the Response to the Grounds for Appeal of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review in the September 1, 2009 City Council Agenda Report, the above findings, and elsewhere in the Record. The Responses to the Appeal are incorporated herein by reference. 1282447_2 G: IPA #120081PA 08 -006 Club Sport Promenade I Toll AppeallFlNAL appeal findings offact- CUPandSDR(Promenade).DOC Page 5 of 5