HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Fallon East General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (PLPA-2021-00009)STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Page 1 of 6
Agenda Item 6.1
DATE:February 15, 2022
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:Fallon East General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (PLPA-2021-00009)Prepared by:Amy Million,Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will consider approval of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for approximately 73 acres east of Fallon Road on the GH PacVest and Alameda properties. The amendment would change the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office. Additionally, the City Council will consider an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Conduct a public hearing, deliberate and adopt the Resolution Approving an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for 72.1 Acres of the GH PacVest Property and the 1.25-Acre Alameda Property.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:None.
DESCRIPTION:Background: The City Council identified in their Two-Year Strategic Plan the objectives of looking to establish an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road, and working with area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Boulevard extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, and supporting infrastructure. The properties east of Fallon Road are situated along the designated right-of-way
186
Page 2 of 6
for the future Dublin Boulevard extension. The GH PacVest property (approximately 190 acres) is bound by Fallon Road to the west, I-580 to the south, and Croak Road to the south and east. The Alameda property (1.25 acres) is located north of the I-580 off ramp bound by Fallon Road to the west, and Croak Road to the north and east. See Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Location Map and Property Ownership
On September 15, 2020, the City Council received an initial report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework. The City Council was supportive of the Staff recommendation to create a hybrid land use designation to provide flexibility desired by the existing landowners while supporting the City’s goal of these properties developing with economic and job-rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and Incubators.On October 20, 2020, the City Council received a second report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework that provided the initial framework for the creation of an Economic Development Zone (EDZ). On March 16, 2021, the City Council received a third report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework and initiated a General Plan Amendment Study for the proposed amendment.On April 20, 2021, the City Council’s Economic Development Committee (EDC) received a presentation on the proposed EDZ incentives package, and supported it as presented. On May 18, 2021, the City Council established the Fallon East Economic Development Zone to encourage private investment in the targeted industry sectors as prioritized by the City Council. Establishment of the economic development zone included a description of the properties within the zone, and an Incentives Package to assist with the attraction of job-rich and/or high-wage
187
Page 3 of 6
businesses within the targeted industries.Over the past year, the City has been holding discussions with the larger landowners of these properties to better understand their vision for developing their properties. These meetings also included discussions on proposed land use changes, creation of the economic development zoneand the Dublin Boulevard extension project. Proposed AmendmentThe proposed project is a City-led General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office on 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property (APN: 985-0027-002-00) and on the 1.25-acre Alameda property (APN: 985-0027-003-00). The project also includes amending the land use designation for these properties in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). Figure 2 shows the existing Land Use Map and Figure 3 shows the proposed Land Use Map. Figure 2. Existing Land Use Map
188
Page 4 of 6
Figure 3. Proposed Land Use Map
The proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation will retain all the land uses currently allowed under the General Commercial designation and create additional flexibility allowed by the Campus Office designation. This hybrid land use designation allows for a wide variety of minimum-impact, light industrial uses as well as commercial uses which are compatible with the overall character and economic health of the area.The project area is located within the Fallon Gateway area of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. In response to City Council’s input at their March 16, 2021 meeting on the vision for sustainable development of this area in conjunction with the future economic development zone, the amendment also includes the following additional language encouraging sustainable development for the Fallon Gateway area: The commercial and industrial land east of Fallon Road and south of the AirportProtectionAreaservesastheentrytoDublinfromtheeastandisenvisionedforsustainabledevelopmentthatprovidesemploymentopportunitiesandconnects thosejobstotheregionalandlocalpublictransportationsystem.Developments are required toincorporatethefollowingsustainabilitypractices:
Build off the City’s Complete Streets Policy and incorporate complete streetsconceptswithintheprivatedevelopment’s circulation system to ensure strongbicycle,pedestrian,and transit connections within and between the privatedevelopmentsandconnectionstotheCity’s streets and existing and future transithubs.
189
Page 5 of 6
Strong bicycle and pedestrian connections per the vision and goals of the City’sBicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Electric vehicle charging stations within each development.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce the demand ofsingle occupancy vehicles, such as transit subsidy programs, shuttles,showers/lockers, bike share programs, parking, mobility and micromobility hubs.
Buildings and related private infrastructure to help with electric gridmanagement, by incorporating load shifting technologies, solar panels, batterystorage and micro-grids.
Reduce consumption of materials through reuse or recycling of all municipal solidwaste materials back into nature or the marketplace in a manner that protectshuman health and the environment toward zero-waste goals.
Incorporate smart cities technology infrastructure, and fiber-opticcommunications infrastructure.
Street infrastructure for private drive aisles and streets and public streetscertified as Greenroads.org Gold level or greater, ASCE Envision Rating of Gold orgreater or similar equivalent.
Design and construct buildings that meet the requirements to achieve LEED Goldstatus or above.The City Council Resolution approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 1. Planned Development ZoningThe existing zoning for the GH PacVest portion of the project area is Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05, which is the Stage 1 Development Plan for Fallon Village. The existing zoning for the Alameda property is Planned Development Ordinance No. 11-94, adopted with the annexation of 1,538 acres west of Fallon Village as part of the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planned Development zoning for these properties designated them as General Commercial which is consistent with the existing General Commercial and proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designations and, therefore, no amendment to the Planned Development zoning districts is required at this time. However, all future development would need, at minimum, a Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan. It is anticipated that future development on these parcels will include an amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning to broaden the allowable uses to incorporate all new land uses allowed under the General Commercial/ Campus Office land use designation.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. Prior CEQA analysis for the Fallon East project area includes: 1) the East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR
190
Page 6 of 6
(2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs.” Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines and using the City’s Initial Study Checklist, the City assessed whether any further environmental review is required for the proposed project and determined an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs is the appropriate CEQA review. The Addendum is included as Attachment 2. Staff recommends that the City Council to approve the Addendum to the EDSP EIRs before approval of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:Strategy 5: Large Land Tract Development and Open Space.Objective A: Look to Establish an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road.Objective B: Work with the area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Blvd. extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, as well as supporting infrastructure.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:On December 14, 2021, the Planning Commission considered the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Three representatives of the property owner, GH PacVest, spoke during the public hearing and requested that action on the proposed amendment be postponed to incorporate land use changes they would like to pursue for a future developmenton their property and for the City to prepare further CEQA analysis to support those changes. After discussing the property owners request, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend postponement to the City Council (Attachment 3). In their deliberations, the Planning Commission said they did not see any draw back in postponing action and also commented that they liked the economic development zone and vision for the area east of Fallon Road and thought the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment was a move in the right direction.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. Additionally, the City Council agenda was posted, and all Fallon East property owners were notified of this meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:1) Resolution Approving an Addendum to the East Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for 72.1 Acres of the GH PacVest Property and the 1.25-Acre Alameda Property2) Exhibit A to the Resolution – CEQA Addendum 3) Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-12 without Exhibit A
191
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 1 of 9
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN AND
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR
72.1 ACRES OF THE GH PACVEST PROPERTY AND THE 1.25-ACRE ALAMEDA
PROPERTY APN: 985-0027-002-00 AND 985-0027-003-00
(PLPA-2021-00009)
WHEREAS,the City Council identified in their Two-Year Strategic Plan the objectives of
establishing an economic development zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development
east of Fallon Road, and working with area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin
Boulevard extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, as well
as supporting infrastructure; and
WHEREAS,on September 15, 2020, the City Council received an initial report on the Fallon
East Property Planning and Development Framework supporting the City Council’s Two-Year
Strategic Plan objectives. The City Council was supportive of the Staff recommendation to create
a hybrid land use designation to provide flexibility desired by the existing landowners while also
supporting the City’s goal of these properties developing with economic and job-rich uses such as
Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics,
Technology Startups, and Incubators; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2021, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan
Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation from General Commercial to
General Commercial/Campus Office for 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property and the 1.25-acre
Alameda property (“the Project”); and
WHEREAS,the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, prior CEQA analysis for the Project area includes: 1) the East Dublin General
Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and
Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005).
Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs;”
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Addendum for
the Project (the “Addendum”) shown as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of the Project, and concludes that the Project would not result in
any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts
identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and
192
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 2 of 9
WHEREAS, consistent with Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City
obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage
Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on
the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation
within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required; and
WHEREAS,following a public hearing on December 14, 2021, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 21-12, recommending that the City Council postpone taking action on the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest
property and the 1.25-acre Alameda property, which Resolution is incorporated herein by
reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the
EDSP EIRs referenced above, before taking action on the Project, and the Planning Commission
did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove as
set forth before taking any action; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated February 15, 2022, and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, on February
15, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum and all above-referenced reports,
recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, as set forth below, are in the public interest, will promote general
health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan as amended will remain internally consistent.
The proposed Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies of the General Plan
in each of the elements and will support additional employment opportunities through commercial
and light industrial developments. The General Plan Amendment noted below will ensure that the
implementation of the proposed Project is in compliance with the General Plan and that each
element within the General Plan is internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the General Plan:
Figure 1-1 (Dublin General Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to change the General Commercial
land use designation to General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation as follows: NOTE: No
changes are proposed to the Airport Protection Area or the Airport Safety Zone 6 overlay boundaries. The
overlays have been removed from this image for clarity.
193
Reso.No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 3 of 9
Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be amended to read
as follows:
Table 2.2. LAND USEDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
CLASSIFICATION ACRES INTENSITY UNITS1 FACTOR YIELD1
RESIDENTIAL Acres DwellingUnits/Acre Dwelling Units Persons/ Dwelling Unit Population
High Density 56.14 25 .1+1,409+2 .7 3,804+
Medium-High
Density 137.81 14 .1-25 .0 1943-3,445 2 .7 5,246-9,302
Medium-High Density and Retail Office
0 14 .1-25 .0 0 2 .7 0
Medium-Density 405.4 6 .1-14 .0 2,473-,5,676 2 .7 6,667-15,325
Single Family 725 0 .9-6 .0 652-4,350 2 .7 1,7,60-11,745
Estate Residential 30 .5 0 .01-0 .8 0-24 2 .7 0-65
Rural Residential/ Agriculture 329.8 0 .01 3 2 .7 9
TOTAL:1,684.65 6,415-14,757+17,321-39,845+
COMMERCIAL Acres Floor AreaRatio(Gross)Square Feet(millions)Square Feet/ Employee Jobs
General Commercial 225.75 .20-.60 1.9-5.9 510 3,856-11,569
General Commercial/ Campus Office
168.57 .20-.80 1.46-5.87 385 3,814-15,258
Mixed Use 6.7 .30-1 .00 ..9-.29 490 178-596
Mixed Use 2/ Campus Office 22 .9 .45 max .45 260 1,731
Neighborhood
Commercial
0.4 .25-.60 .004-.01 490 9-21
Campus Office 195 .58 .25-.80 2 .13-6 .82 260 8,192-26,214
Industrial Park 56 .4 .35 max .86 590 1,458
194
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 4 of 9
Industrial Park/ Campus Office 0 .25-.35 0 425 0
Campus Office 137.58 .25-.80 1.50-4.79 260 5,763-18,440
Medical Campus 42.88 .25-.80 .46-4.49 260 1,796-5,747
Medical Campus / Commercial 15.85 .25-.80 .17-.41 510 338-812
TOTAL:872.61 9.83-29.89 27,135-81,846
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC/OPEN SPACE
Acres Floor AreaRatio(Gross)Square Feet(millions)Square Feet/ Employee Jobs
Public/Semi-Public 98.96 .50 max 2 .15 590 3,653
Semi-Public 2.09 .50 max .045 590 77
Acres Number
Parks/Public
Recreation
204-.9
Regional Parks 1 .2 1
Open Space 699 .56
Schools Acres Floor AreaRatio(Gross)Square Feet(millions)Square Feet/ Employee Jobs
Elementary School 38 .50 max 1 .06 590 1,797
Middle School 27 .8 .50 max .61 590 1,034
High School 23.46 .50 max .51 590 866
TOTAL:1,095.97 5.38 7,427
Acres Dwelling Units Population Square Feet(millions)Jobs
GRAND TOTAL:3,653.23 6,415-14,757+17,321-39,845+15.21-35.27 51,883-129,118
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
Section 2.3 Ownership Patterns shall be amended to update the land ownership of Chen to GH PacVest
as follows:
2.3 OWNERSHIP PATTERNS
Ownership patterns in the planning area as shown in Figure 2.4. There are 49 recorded parcels
in the planning area which are owned by 33 different landowners. Since 1993, approval of
subsequent amendments, such as the addition of the Dublin Transit Center and portions of Fallon
Village, as well as the subdivision of land has increased the number of parcels and landowners.
Landowners' names and size of holdings are listed in Figure 2.4. Ownership holdings range in
size from 0.4 acres to 1,251 acres. The acreage of two small properties, the EBJ Properties (1.1
acres) and Pleasanton Ranch Investment parcels (0.4 acres), was included on maps and in tables
with the GH PacVest property prior to 2005. Figure 2.4 illustrates only the original parcels prior to
their being subdivided.
Figure 2.4 Ownership Patterns shall be amended to update the land ownership of 21 and 22 from Chen
195
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 5 of 9
and Anderson, respectively, to GH PacVest
Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be amended to read as follows with no
modifications to the footnotes:
TABLE 4.1
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY
(Amendment Reso# 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 101-
15, 165-15, 151-16, xx-22)
Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
General Commercial 283.45 acres .25-.35 FAR 3.087 MSF
General Commercial/Campus
Office
160.37 acres .28 FAR 1.956 MSF
Industrial Park*61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF
Neighborhood Commercial 36.76 acres .30-.35 FAR .516 MSF
Mixed Use 0 acres .30-1.0 FAR .005 MSF
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office****25.33 acres .45 FAR .497 MSF
Campus Office 94.28 acres .35-.75 FAR 1.840 MSF
Medical Campus 42.88 acres .25-.80 FAR .950 MSF
Medical Campus/Commercial 15.85 acres .25-.60 FAR .250 MSF
Subtotal 720.22 acres 9.848 MSF
RESIDENTIAL
High Density 58.74 acres 35 du/ac 2,056 du
Medium High Density 156.61 acres 20 du/ac 3,132 du
Medium Density**492.71 acres (1)10 du/ac 4,744 du
Single Family***947.25 acres 4 du/ac 3,789 du (3)
Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du
Rural Residential/Agric.539.55 acres .01 du/ac 5 du
Mixed Use 0 acres 15 du/ac 115 du
Subtotal 2,225.26 acres 13,950 du
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public 98.96 acres .24 FAR .99 MSF
Semi-Public 2.09 acres .25 FAR .03 MSF
Subtotal 101.05 acres 1.02 MSF
SCHOOLS
Elementary School 55.8 acres (2)5 schools
Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school
High School 23.46 acres 1 school
Subtotal 100.56 acres
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
City Park 56.3 acres 1 park
Community Park 93.3 acres 3 parks
Neighborhood Park 50.9 acres 7 parks
Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 parks
Natural Community Park 10.4 acres 1 park
Subtotal 227.6 acres 18 parks
Open Space 684.06 acres
TOTAL LAND AREA 4,058.75 acres
Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) shall be amended to read
as follows with no modifications to the footnotes:
196
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 6 of 9
Section 4.9.4 Fallon Gateway shall be amended to update the land use concept for the area east of
Fallon Road as follows:
4.9.4 FALLON GATEWAY
LOCATION
This subarea is located at the Fallon Road interchange with I-580 and occupies the areas east
and west of Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and the freeway, and extending north to the
Airport Protection Area boundary. The subarea also extends north to include the northeast and
northwest quadrants of the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard (see Figure 4.2). In
2006, the Fallon Village amendment expanded the Fallon Gateway Subarea to the west and
north to encompass the entire GH PacVest property (as the Dublin Boulevard alignment had
shifted north) except for the areas designated as Community Park and Medium High Density
Residential. Also, the EBJ Partners, Pleasanton Ranch Investments parcels and the areas of
the GH PacVest, Righetti and Branaugh properties within the Livermore Airport Protection Area
(formerly the Industrial subarea) were added to the Fallon Gateway Subarea.
LAND USE CONCEPT
TABLE 4.2
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 165-15, 151-
16, xx-22)
Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/Employees Persons/du Population
Commercial
Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266
General
Commercial/Campus
Office*
1.956 MSF 385 5,081
General Commercial 3.087 MSF 510 6,053
Neighborhood Commercial .516 MSF 490 1,053
Mixed Use**0 MSF 490 0
Mixed Use 2/Campus
Office****
.497 MSF 260 1,910
Campus Office 1.840 MSF 260 7,077
Medical Campus .950 260 3,654
Medical Campus/
Commercial
.250 510 490
Public/Semi Public .99 MSF 590 1,678
Semi-Public 0.03 MSF 590 51
TOTAL:10.863 MSF 28,313
Residential
High Density 2,056 2.0 4,112
Medium High Density 3,132 2.0 6,264
Medium Density 4,749 2.0 9,498
Single Family***(1)3,789 3.2 12,125
Estate Residential 4 3.2 13
Mixed Use**0 2.0 0
Rural Residential/Agric.5 3.2 16
TOTAL:13,735 32,028
197
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 7 of 9
The land use concept for the Fallon Gateway encourages the development of General
Commercial and Campus Office uses that will benefit from the visibility and easy access
provided by their location near I-580, Dublin Boulevard, and Fallon Road. The focus for this area
is to develop with economic and job-rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing,
Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and Incubators.
Given the subarea’s eastern location away from Downtown Dublin and the Town Center in
eastern Dublin, it is anticipated that the commercial development will accommodate retail uses
that are less suited for the commercial core areas either because they require larger land areas,
better freeway access, and/or different development standards. Uses in this category include
that segment of the retail market that typically deals with high sales volumes and/or bulky or big-
ticket items; has relatively low-overhead; draws from a regional market area; and is highly auto-
oriented. Examples of such uses include large-scale retail, commercial recreation and
entertainment facilities, home improvement centers, nurseries, and similar uses. The subarea
should not include uses that would directly compete with and/or decrease the vitality of the
commercial areas in the Town Center or Downtown Dublin.
The commercial and industrial land east of Fallon Road and extending north to the Airport
Protection Area boundary serves as the entry to Dublin from the east and is envisioned for
sustainable development that provides employment opportunities and connects those jobs to
the regional and local public transportation system. Developments are required to incorporate
the following sustainability practices:
Build off the City’s Complete Streets Policy and incorporate complete streets concepts
within the private development’s circulation system to ensure strong bicycle, pedestrian
and transit connections within and between the private developments and connections to
the City’s streets and existing and future transit hubs.
Strong bicycle and pedestrian connections per the vision and goals of the City’s Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Electric vehicle charging stations within each development.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce the demand of single
occupancy vehicles, such as transit subsidy programs, shuttles, showers/lockers, bike
share programs, parking, mobility and micromobility hubs.
Buildings and related private infrastructure to help with electric grid management, by
incorporating load shifting technologies, solar panels, battery storage and micro-grids.
Reduce consumption of materials through reuse or recycling of all municipal solid waste
materials back into nature or the marketplace in a manner that protects human health
and the environment toward zero-waste goals.
Incorporate smart cities technology infrastructure, and fiber-optic communications
infrastructure.
Street infrastructure for private drive aisles and streets and public streets certified as
Greenroads.org Gold level or greater, ASCE Envision Rating of Gold or greater or similar
equivalent.
Design and construct buildings that meet the requirements to achieve LEED Gold status
or above.
198
Reso.No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 8 of 9
Table 4.7 (Fallon Gateway Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows:
1In 2006, the Fallon Village amendment expanded the Fallon Gateway Subarea to the west and north to
encompass the entire GH PacVest property (as the Dublin Blvd. alignment had shifted north) except for the areas
designated as Community Park and Medium High Density Residential. Additionally, the EBJ Partners and
Pleasanton Ranch Investments parcels and the areas of the GH PacVest, Righetti and Branaugh properties
within the Livermore Airport Protection Area (formerly the Industrial subarea) were added to the Fallon Gateway
Subarea. See Figure 4.2.Medical Campus 42.88 .51 FAR .950 msf
Figure 4-1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to change the General
Commercial land use designation to General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation for the
Project site as follows:
Appendix 3 Land Use Summary by Planning Areas section “Fallon Gateway” shall be amended as
follows:
APPENDIX 3
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY PLANNING SUBAREAS
Planning Subareas
Land Use Category Area Density Square Feet Units
Fallon Gateway
General Commercial 47.85 .25 521,087
TABLE 4.7
FALLON GATEWAY
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL1
Designation Acres Density Development Potential
General Commercial 47.85 .25 FAR 521,087
General Commercial/Campus
Office
146.05 .28 FAR 1,781,343
Medical Campus 42.88 .51 FAR 950,000
Industrial Park 61.3 .28 FAR 747,664
TOTAL 298.08 ---4,000,094
199
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 9 of 9
General Commercial/ Campus
Office
146.05 .28 1,781,343
Medical Campus 42.88 .51 950,000
Industrial Park 61.3 .28 747,664
Total 298.08 ---4,000,094
Appendix 4 Land Use Summary by Land Owner “#21 GH PacVest” shall be amended to read as follows:
APPENDIX 4
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY LAND OWNERS
Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units
#21 GH PACVEST (FORMERLY
CHEN)
Medium High Density
Residential 4.0 20 130
General Commercial /
Campus Office 90.6 .28 1,105,030
Semi-Public*0
Public / Semi-Public*2.5
Community Park 7.2
Open Space 35.8 -
Total 140.1 1,105,030 130
Appendix 4 Land Use Summary by Land Owners “#22 Anderson” shall be amended update the land
ownership of Anderson to “#22 GH PacVest (Formerly Anderson)”.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15
th day of February 2022, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
200
Fallon East
General Plan Amendment/
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
CEQA Addendum
August 25, 2021
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2021-00009
201
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Addendum | Page 1
8/27/21
Fallon East General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment
CEQA Addendum
August 25, 2021
Project Overview
The project, or proposed project, is a General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office on 72.1 acres of
the GH PacVest property (APN: 985-0027-002-00) and on the 1.25-acre Alameda property (APN:
985-0027-003-00). The proposed project would also include amending the land use designation
in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The existing Planned Development zoning for these
properties is generally consistent with the proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land
use designation and, therefore, no amendment to the Planned Development zoning is required
at this time.
The City Council’s Two-Year Strategic Plan includes an objective to look at establishing an
Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon
Road. This action would further that strategic priority.
The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area, and the Fallon
Village project area.
Prior CEQA Analysis
Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
EIR (1993), 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation
Supplemental EIR (2002), and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these
three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs” or “previous CEQA
findings,” and are described below.
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993)
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and an addendum (1993 GPA/SP EIR) were certified by the City Council on August 22,
1994. This EIR analyzed General Plan Amendments affecting a 6,920-acre area and the adoption
of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), which encompassed a 3,328 -acre area and provides a
comprehensive planning framework for future development in Eastern Dublin. The area
considered in this EIR included the project site within the General Plan Amendment area.
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts: cumulative
loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of natural gas, electric,
and telephone service community facilities, consumption of non-renewable natural resources,
202
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Addendum | Page 2
8/27/21
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/degradation of botanically
sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise, and aesthetics.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 53-93, the City adopted a Mitigation Measures and Monitoring
Program, which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to
development in Eastern Dublin. The Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations in connection with their certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002)
In 2002, the City of Dublin approved an annexation, pre-zoning, and related PD-Planned
Development District Stage I Development Plan for the East Dublin Properties area (same area
later named “Fallon Village”). The East Dublin Properties project site consists of 1,132 acres
within the EDSP area, and includes in its entirety the 165 -acre East Ranch project site.
An Initial Study (IS) was prepared to determine if the East Dublin Properties project required
additional environmental review beyond that analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. The IS found
that many of the anticipated impacts of the East Dublin Properties project were adequately
addressed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR given: 1) the comprehensive planning for the development
area; 2) the 1993 GPA/SP EIR‘s analysis of buildout under the EDSP land use designations and
policies; 3) the long term 20-30 year focus of the EDSP and the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; 4) the fact
that the East Dublin Properties project was specifically contemplated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR;
and 5) the fact that the East Dublin Properties project consisted of the same land uses analyzed
in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Although the IS concluded that the 1993 GPA/SP EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential
environmental impacts of the East Dublin Properties project, it also identified the potential for
some new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those previously
analyzed. As a result, the 1993 GPA/SP EIR was updated and supplemented by the
Programmatic East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental
EIR (2002 Supplemental EIR) which updated the analyses of agricultural resources, biology, air
quality, noise, traffic and circulation, schools, and utilities.
In certifying the 2002 Supplemental EIR, the City adopted a Mitigation Measures and
Monitoring Program and a Statement of Considerations for cumulative air quality and traffic
impacts that continues to apply to development in Eastern Dublin, including the project site.
Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005)
In 2005, the City of Dublin considered additional approvals for the 1,132-acre Fallon Village
area. These requested approvals had three components:
203
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Addendum | Page 3
8/27/21
1. Amendments to the General Plan and EDSP to include the entire 1,132-acre Fallon
Village area into the EDSP and to reflect changes to the land use designations on the
site;
2. Revisions to the 2002 approval of the Stage I Planned Development Planned Zoning
and Stage I Development Plan to increase the number of dwellings units by 582 to a
total of 3,108 units and increase non-residential uses from 1,081,725 square feet to
2,503,175 square feet of commercial and office uses; and
3. A Stage II Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and
Lot Line Adjustment for the development of the northernly 488 acres of the Fallon
Village area to allow 1,078 dwelling units, a school, parks and associated use.
The City approved all three components of the Fallon Village project request.
On December 6, 2005, the City certified the Final Supplemental Fallon Village Project
Environmental Impact Report (2005 Supplemental EIR) that analyzed the new uses and
revisions to the previous approvals for the Fallon Village project.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and related
mitigation measures. The City adopted a Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program for this
approval that continues to apply to development in the Fallon Village area, including the project
site. In addition, as part of Resolution No. 222-05, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the following significant and unavoidable impacts: traffic impact to
Dublin/Dougherty intersection, cumulative impacts to local roadways, consistent with the
Alameda County Congestion Management Plan, demolition of the Fallon Ranch House and an
increase in regional emissions beyond Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
thresholds.
The City intended this 2005 Supplemental EIR to be used by state or regional agencies in their
review of permits required for development in the Fallon Village area (e.g., California
Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreements, California Endangered
Species Act permits, Water Quality Certification or waiver by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board under the Clean Water Act) (see, Draft 2005 Supplemental EIR, p. 27).
Proposed CEQA Analysis in this Document
The City prepared a CEQA analysis using the City’s Initial Study Checklist, dated August 25, 2021,
incorporated herein by reference, to assess whether any further environmental review is
required for the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City
determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for the project and an
Addendum to the EDSP EIRs is the appropriate CEQA review per the following:
204
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Addendum | Page 4
8/27/21
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEOA Guidelines Section 15162
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental
review. After a review of these conditions, the City 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 as analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The
proposed project would create additional flexibility allowed by the proposed General
Commercial/Campus Office land use designation. This hybrid General
Commercial/Campus Office land use designation allows for a wide variety of minimum-
impact, light industrial uses as well as commercial uses which are compatible with the
overall character and economic health of the surrounding industrial area. As
demonstrated in the Initial Study, the project does not constitute a substantial change to
the EDSP EIRs analysis, will not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional
or different mitigation measures are required.
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 EDSP EIRs. The
proposed project would create additional flexibility allowed by the proposed General
Commercial/Campus Office land use designation which are compatible with the overall
character and economic health of the surrounding industrial area. This is documented in
the attached Initial Study.
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?
As documented in the attached Initial Study, there is no new information showing a new
or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs. Similarly, the
Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation measures are required for the
project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the project. The EDSP EIRs
adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed
development on portions of the EDSP area.
205
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Addendum | Page 5
8/27/21
d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be
prepared?
No subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required because there are no significant
impacts of the project beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other standards
for supplemental review under CEQA are met, as documented in the attached Initial
Study.
Conclusion
This Addendum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached
Initial Study. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City
determines that the proposed project does not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR or
Negative Declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 .
The City further determines that the EDSP EIRs adequately address the potential environmental
impacts of the Fallon East General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment.
As provided in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this 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 Initial Study and EDSP EIRs are incorporated herein by reference and are available for
public review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall,
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA.
206
Fallon East
General Plan Amendment/
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Environmental Checklist/Initial Study
August 25, 2021
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2021-00009
207
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study| Page i
Table of Contents
Project Background 1
Project Purpose 2
Project Description 3
CEQA Analysis 9
Determination 10
Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 11
Agricultural and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................... 13
Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 15
Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 18
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 22
Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 26
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 29
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 30
Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 32
Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................... 36
Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................... 37
Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Population and Housing ............................................................................................................. 40
Public Services ............................................................................................................................ 41
Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 44
Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 46
Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 53
Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................... 54
Wildfires ..................................................................................................................................... 58
208
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study| Page ii
Appendices
A Traffic Generation Evaluation Memorandum
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location and Property Ownership
Figure 2: Existing General Plan Land Use Map
Figure 3: Proposed General Plan Land Use Map
List of Tables
Table 1: General Plan Comparison of Semi-Public and Public/Semi-Public Uses
Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR
Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR
Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison
209
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 1
Fallon East
General Plan Amendment/
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
CEQA Initial Study
Project Background
Project Title
Fallon East General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
PLPA-2021-00009
Lead Agency
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact
Amy Million
Principal Planner
Phone: 925-833-6610
amy.million@dublin.ca.gov
Project Location & Setting
The project site is located east of Fallon Road and north of I -580. As shown in Figure 1: Project
Location and Property Ownership, the project site is located in Eastern Dublin along the
designated right-of-way for the future Dublin Boulevard extension. The project site consists of
72.1 acres on the GH PacVest property (APN: 985-0027-002-00) and is bound by Fallon Road to
the west, I-580 to the south, and Croak Road to the south and east. The 1.25-acres Alameda
property (APN: 985-0027-003-00) is located north of the I-580 off ramp and is bound by Fallon
Road to the west, and Croak Road to the north and east. Combined, the two propertie s total
73.35 acres.
Both properties are currently undeveloped, consisting of open grassland. Surrounding land uses
consists of open grassland to the north, east and south, and commercial development west of
Fallon Road.
The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area, and the Fallon
Village project area.
210
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 2
Figure 1: Project Location and Property Ownership
Project Applicant
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Designation
General Commercial
Zoning
PD Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05 and Ordinance No. 11-94
Project Background and Purpose
The City Council identified in their Two-Year Strategic Plan the objectives of looking to establish
an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of
Fallon Road, and working with area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Boulevard
extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, and supporting
infrastructure.
On September 15, 2020, the City Council received an initial report on the Fallon East Property
Planning and Development Framework. The City Council was supportive of the Staff
211
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 3
recommendation to utilize the hybrid General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation
to provide flexibility desired by the existing landowners while supporting the City’s goal of these
properties developing with economic and job -rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced
Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and
Incubators.
On October 20, 2020, the City Council received a second report on the Fallon East Property
Planning and Development Framework that provided the initial framework for the creation of
an Economic Development Zone. On May 18, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 50-
21 approving the establishment of the Fallon East Economic Development Zone Map and
Incentives Package.
Over the past year, the City has been holding discussions with some of the larger landowners of
these properties to better understand their vision for developing their properties. In January
and February 2021, Staff met with the Fallon East property owners to discuss the City Council’s
discussions to date including the preliminary land use changes, creation of the Economic
Development Zone, and the Dublin Boulevard extension project.
Project Description
The project, or proposed project, is a General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office on 72.1 acres of
the GH PacVest property (APN: 985-0027-002-00) and on the 1.25-acre Alameda property (APN:
985-0027-003-00). The existing and proposed General Plan land use changes are shown in
Figures 2: Existing General Plan Land Use Map and Figure3: Proposed General Plan Land Use
Map, respectively.
212
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 4
Figure 2: Existing General Plan Land Use Map
Figure 3: Proposed General Plan Land Use Map
213
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 5
The proposed project would also include amending the land use designations in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The existing zoning for the GH PacVest portion of the project area is
Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05, which is the Stage 1 Development Plan for Fallon
Village. The existing zoning for the Alameda property is Planned Development Ordinance No.
11-94, adopted with the annexation of 1,538 acres west of Fallon Village as part of the General
Plan Amendment and EDSP. The Planned Development zoning designations for these properties
is generally consistent with the existing General Commercial and proposed General
Commercial/Campus Office land use designations and, therefore, no amendments to the
Planned Development zoning districts are required at this time. It is anticipated that future
development on these parcels will include an amendment to the existing Planned Development
zoning to broaden the allowable uses to incorporate all the new land uses allowed under the
General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation.
The proposed project does not propose any specific development project. Any such
development would occur subsequently as part of a Stage 2 Development Plan application. As
such, the analysis in this Initial Study is considered programmatic as it relates to a change in
land use designation as a matter of policy and regulation.
The proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation will retain all the land
uses currently allowed under the General Commercial designation and create additional
flexibility allowed by the Campus Office designation. This hybrid General Commercial/Campus
Office land use designation allows for a wide variety of minimum-impact, job-rich and high-
wage businesses, which are compatible with the overall character and economic health of an
industrial area, and are consistent with the City Council’s strategic objectives. The target
industry sectors prioritized by the City Council include:
J Life Sciences 1
J Advanced Manufacturing
J Clean/Green Technology
J Automation and Robotics
J Technology
J Startups and Incubators
The proposed project also includes additional policy language encouraging sustainable
development for the Fallon Gateway area as provided in the EDSP. The commercial and
industrial land east of Fallon Road and south of the Airport Protection Area serves as the entry
to Dublin from the east and is envisioned for sustainable development that provides
employment opportunities and connects those jobs to the regional and local public
transportation system. Developments would be required to incorporate sustainability practices
1 The life sciences sector includes but is not limited to companies operating in the fields of biotechnology (including
genetics), pharmaceutical, medical device and diagnostics, food science/food processing, a nd other efforts
towards the discovery, development and delivery of products to improve the lives of organisms.
214
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 6
related to transportation to reduce the demand on single occupancy vehicles, energy efficiency,
and waste reduction.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
None.
215
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 7
For reference, the Dublin General Plan defines the relevant land use designations as follows:
General Commercial (FAR: .20 to .60; Employee Density: 510 square feet per employee)
This designation accommodates a range of regional- and community-serving retail, service,
and office uses. Uses allowed in this designation include, but are not limited to: retail uses,
including major community-serving uses (e.g., supermarkets, drug stores, hardware stores,
apparel stores, etc.) and regionally-oriented retail uses (e.g., high-volume retail uses such as
discount centers, promotional centers, home improvement centers, furnitu re outlets, and
auto malls); all office uses; hotels; banks; service uses; and restaurants and other eating and
drinking establishments. Mixed use projects incorporating retail, service, and/or office uses
are encouraged, with residential uses also allowed as part of the mix when location and
design ensure compatibility.
Campus Office (FAR: .25 to .80; Employee Density: 260 square feet per employee)
This designation is intended to provide an attractive, campus-like setting for office and
other non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions,
noise, odors, or glare. Allowed uses include, but are not limited to, the following:
professional and administrative offices; administrative headquarters; research and
development; business and commercial services; and, limited light manufacturing, assembly
and distribution activities. Ancillary uses which provide services to businesses and
employees in the Campus Office area are permitted. These uses include restaurants, gas
stations, convenience shopping, copying services, branch banks, and other such services.
Under special circumstances (e.g., where a mixed-use development would decrease
potential peak-hour traffic generation, meet a specific housing need, encourage pedestrian
access to employment and shopping, or create an attractive, socially-interactive
neighborhood environment), residential uses may be permitted as part of a master planned
mixed use development. In such developments, the residential component would not be
permitted to occupy more than 50% of the developed area.
General Commercial/Campus Office (FAR: .20 to .80; Employee Density: 385 square feet
per employee)
Combined land use district. See designations under Eastern Extended Planning Area for
General Commercial and Campus Office. Example: Lowe’s and Fallon Village.
For reference, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan defines the relevant land use designations as
follows:
General Commercial (.20 to .60 Floor Area Ratio)
Accommodates a range of regional and community-serving retail, service, and office uses.
Mixed use projects incorporating retail, service, and/or office uses are encouraged, with
216
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 8
residential uses also allowed as part of the mix when location and design ensure
compatibility.
Note: There is one area indicated on the amended land use map, located on the southwest
quadrant of Area H of Dublin Ranch that could develop as either general commercial or
campus office uses. This flexibility has been provided in this area to respond to changing
market conditions that may occur in the future. The shift from general commercial (the
underlying land use designation) to campus office would be permitted if the established
traffic levels of service are not exceeded. Appropriate traffic studies may need to be
conducted in order for the City to make the proper determination regarding traffic levels of
service. The development of either general commercial or campus office uses will be
established at the Stage 2 Planned Development application process.
Campus Office (.25 to .80 Floor Area Ratio)
Provides an attractive, campus-like setting or office and other non-retail commercial uses
that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or outdoor storage and
operations. Ancillary uses which provide support services to businesses and employees are
permitted. Under special circumstances (e.g., where a mixed-use development would
decrease potential traffic generation and/or contribute to greater social interaction and
more vital live/work environment), residential uses may be permitted as part of a master
planned mixed use development. In such developments, the residential component would
not be permitted to occupy more than 50% of the developed area. A floor area ratio of up
to 1.2 may be granted at the discretion of the City Council for the 37-acre parcel adjacent to
the eastern Dublin BART station in the southwest quadrant of Hacienda Drive and Dublin
Boulevard. A 5-acre hotel site is anticipated within this 37-acre parcel. The precise location
of the hotel site will be established through the planned development application process.
Note: There are several areas indicated on the land use map that could develop as either
general commercial or campus office uses. This flexibility has been provided in these key
areas to respond to changing market conditions that may occur in the future. The shift from
campus office (the underlying land use designation) to general commercial would only be
permitted if the established traffic levels of service are not exceeded. Appropriate traffic
studies may need to be conducted in order for the City to make the proper determination
regarding traffic levels of service.
General Commercial/Campus Office (.20 to .80 Floor Area Ratio)
Provides flexibility in permitting a range of regional and community-serving retail and office
uses. Mixed use projects incorporating retail, service and office uses are encouraged.
217
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 9
CEQA Analysis
The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project per
the criteria as described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15162. For convenience, this analysis uses Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a framework.
Different from the standard CEQA checklist included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guid elines are
the impact options included in this analysis.
Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation
Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these
three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs” or “previous CEQA
findings.”
The impact check-boxes indicate that the project would not result in a new impact, a
substantial increase in the severity of an impact, or an equal to or less severe impact, than
those identified in previous CEQA findings.
As such, no new environmental review is required because none of the standards under Public
Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met which would trigger
the need for additional CEQA documentation. There are no significant project changes, new
information, or change in circumstances that result in a new or substantial increase in severity
of a significant impact from those identified in the EDSP EIRs. Therefore, no standards for
requiring supplemental environmental review or documentation under CEQA are met and none
are required for the project.
218
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 10
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless
mitigated impact 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 attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.
X
CITY OF DUBLIN
_____________________ _____________________________
Amy Million, Principal Planner Date
219
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 11
Aesthetics
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The previous EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigations for visual resources:
▪ Impact 3.8/A: Standardized "Tract" Development within the project area which did not
respond to natural site conditions could cause a significant impact. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0, which requires consistency with EDSP Goal 6.3.4 , reduces
this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.8/B: Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character was identified as a
significant and unavoidable impact even with adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 2,
which would implement the EDSP plan with retention of predominant natural features
and encourages a sense of place in Eastern Dublin.
▪ Impact 3.8/C: Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features identifies the potential of EDSP
buildings and related improvements to obscure or alter existing features and re duce the
visual uniqueness of the Eastern Dublin area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
3.8/3.0, which would implement EDSP Policy 6-28, reduces this impact to an
insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.8/D: Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides notes that grading and excavation
of building sites in hillside areas would compromise the visual quality of the EDSP area.
Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0 through 3.8/4.5 are included in the EDSP EIR to reduce
Impact 3.8/D to an insignificant level. These mitigation measures require
implementation of EDSP Policies 6-32 through 6-38.
▪ Impact 3.8/E: Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges states that structures built in
proximity to ridges may obscure or fragment the profile of visually sensitive ridgelines.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0 through 3.8/5.2 would reduce this
220
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 12
impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require the implementation of
EDSP Policies 6-29 and 5-30 and General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy E.
▪ Impact 3.8/F: Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands is identified as a significant and
unavoidable impact. No mitigation measure has been identified which can either fully or
partially reduce this impact.
▪ Impact 3.8/G: Alteration of the Visual Character of Watercourses which involves the
potential for elimination of the visibility and function of watercourses would be
mitigated to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 6.0, which
required future development to implement EDSP Policy 6-39.
▪ Impact 3.8/H: Alteration of Dublin's Visual Identity as a Freestanding City is mitigated to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the EDSP land use plan (Mitigation
Measure 3.8/5.0).
▪ Impact 3.8/I: Scenic Vistas includes the alteration of the character of existing scenic
vistas and important sightlines. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0
and 3.8/7.1 this impact would be reduced to an insignificant level. Mitigation Measure
3.8/7.0 requires adherence to EDSP Policy 6-5 and Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.1 requires
the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP site and to identify and map viewsheds of
scenic vistas.
▪ Impact 3.8/J: Scenic Routes identifies that the urban development of the EDSP will
significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in Eastern Dublin.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8 / 8.8 and 8.1 will reduce this impact to an
insignificant level. These two measures require implementation of EDSP Action
Programs 6Q and 6R.
The EDSP EIRs found significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts (Impact 3.8/B and Impact
3.8/F) associated with the alteration of the visual character of rural/open space and flatlands.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts, which includes
the project.
No additional impacts or mitigation were identified in either the 2002 or 2005 Supplemental
EIRs.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Scenic vistas, views
The project site is vacant and classified by the EDSP EIR as “dry-farming rotational cropland.”
The EDSP does identify certain ridgelands and ridgelines as visually sensitive and the City
pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 6-5 and Action Program 6Q adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic
Corridor, Policies and Standards as means to preserve scenic vistas.
221
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 13
Previous CEQA findings found potentially significant impacts to scenic vistas and views. Th e
impacts were addressed with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5,
3.8/5.0-5.2, 3.8/6.0, 3.8/7.0 and 3.8/7.1. EDSP Policies 6-29 through 6-38, which provide
guidelines for grading and building design as a means to preserve scenic vistas and view
corridors, apply to the project and EDSP area.
(b) Scenic resources
The EDSP EIRs found potentially significant impacts to scenic resources. The impacts were
addressed with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8 and EDSP Poli cies 6-
30 through 6-31. These mitigation measures are implemented at a project level as means to
preserve scenic vistas and view corridors.
No scenic resources exist on the project site, including but not limited to significant stands of
trees, rock outcroppings, or bodies of water, so there would be no impact from future
development as a result of this land use change.
(c) Substantially degrade the visual character of the site or surrounding area
The EDSP EIRs found that development within the EDSP area wo uld alter the existing visual
character of rural/open space and flatlands. No mitigation measure could be identified to fully
or partially reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The City adopted a Statement
of Overriding Consideration for these impacts; thus, no additional analysis was found necessary.
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
Previous CEQA findings found less than significant impacts at both the program and
development level. Future development associated with the project would not increase the
amount of light and glare that was not previously anticipated in the EDSP and would be
required to comply with adopted City regulations for lighting.
Conclusion
The project does not propose changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that
would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this
environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the
previously identified aesthetic/visual impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to aesthetic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and
no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
222
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 14
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The previous EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigations for agricultural
resources:
▪ Impact 3.1/C Discontinuation of Agricultural Uses states that agricultural uses within the
area would be decreased as a result of the implementation of the EDSP. However, since
most land owners at the time the ESDP EIR was written had filed non -renewal notices
for their Williamson Act contracts it was assumed that agricultural uses would decline
independent of the implementation of the EDSP so the impact was insignificant and no
mitigation was required.
▪ Impact 3.1/D Loss of Farmland of Local Importance states that agricultural lands of local
importance would be lost as a result of the EDSP. Since these agricultural lands of local
223
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 15
importance were not classified as prime farmland, however, the impact was insignificant
and no mitigation was required.
The previous EDSP EIRs evaluated if the soils were considered as “prime agricultural soils”
through the adopted criteria established by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56064, referred to as Assembly Bill 2838). It was
determined that no additional prime or agricultural lands beyond those identified in previous
EIRs were found.
No additional impacts or mitigation were identified in either the 2002 or 2005 Supplemental
EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-e) Convert farmland or conflict with zoning
Previous CEQA findings found there were no significant impacts with respect to agricultural
resources. No new conditions have been identified for the project with respect to conversion of
prime farmland to a non-agricultural use. No new or more severe significant impacts would
result from the project than were previously analyzed.
No agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the project site nor are
any agricultural operations on-going. There is no forest land within the project site.
Conclusion
The project does not propose changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that
would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this
environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the
previously identified agricultural impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or subst antially
more severe significant impacts to agricultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the
previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore,
no further environmental review is required.
Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
X
224
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 16
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for air quality:
▪ Impact 3.11/A: Dust Deposition from Construction Activity states that project
construction will generate respirable particulate matter that could potentially impact
nearby areas significantly. Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 mitigates this impact to an
insignificant level but dust emissions remain a potentially significant cumulative impact.
▪ Impact 3.11/B: Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions acknowledges that operating
construction equipment will generate exhaust pollutants. Since the build out of the
EDSP is long-term the impact of these emissions is potentially significant. Mitigation
Measures 3.11/2.0 through 3.11/4.0 do not sufficiently reduce the anticipated ozone
precursor emission to within Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
standards so air quality impacts remain potentially significant and contribute to a
potentially significant cumulative impact.
▪ Impact 3.11/C: Mobile Source Emissions ROG or NOx states that as a result of vehicle
trips generated by the full build out of the EDSP ROG and NOx emissions will exceed the
BAAQMD threshold causing a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0 through
3.11/11.0 reduce this impact but not sufficiently to reduce it to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.11/D: Mobile Source Emissions CO2 notes that the EDSP will not cause any new
CO2 emission standard violations and, therefore, has an insignificant impact.
▪ Impact 3.11/E: Stationary Source Emissions notes that project related NO x emissions
from fuel consumption for energy demand exceeds BAAQMD’s significance threshold
causing a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 and 3.11/13.0 reduce this
impact but not sufficiently to reduce it an insignificant level. This impact also contributes
to a potentially significant cumulative impact for the area.
The 1993 GP/SPA EIR determined that future project development will have a potentially
significant cumulative impact on air quality as a result of dust deposition, construction
equipment emissions, mobile source emissions of ROG and NOx, and stationary source
emissions. While some measures have been adopted to partially mitigate these impacts, the
impacts remain potentially significant, particularly given the region's existing non-compliance
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
e) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
225
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 17
with air quality standards. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these
four impacts, which includes the project.
In addition to Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 of the 1993 GP/SPA EIR, the 2005 Supplemental EIR
included Supplemental Mitigation SM-AQ-1 which requires compliance with BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines for construction contractors including: to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil,
and sand; sweep daily impervious surfaces and staging areas; and installing erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff.
Future development projects resulting from the proposed land use change would be required
to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consistent with air quality plans
The project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan adopted by BAAQMD since the project
site has been included in Dublin's planned growth as previously analyzed and is consistent with
the City’s General Plan, which is the basis of the Clean Air Plan.
(b) Violate air quality standards or cause cumulatively considerable air pollutants
The project is located in the Livermore-Amador Valley where, per BAAQMD, air pollution is
high. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone and there is a transport of pollutants
that occurs between Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. Since certification
of the EDSP EIRs, the thresholds with respect to air quality have been revised. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the national eight-hour standard for ozone
from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm in 2015. The California Air Resources Board also lowered the
state’s one-hour standard for nitrogen dioxide to 0.18 ppm and retained the national average
standard of 0.030 ppm. The new thresholds do not represent “new information” as specifically
defined under CEQA as the information used to develop these new thresholds was known, or
could have been known, when the EDSP EIRs were prepared.
The previous CEQA findings found that proposed development would result in a significant and
unavoidable emission of air pollutants exceeding the applicable BAAQMD standards. Mitigation
Measures 3.11/2.0 through 3.11/4.0, 3.11/5.0 through 3.11/11.0, 3.11/12.0, and 3.11/13.0
were recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant level but were insufficient to
reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these significant and
unavoidable impacts that applies to the project.
(c-d) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors
The health risk of diesel exhaust from roadway traffic was previously analyzed. The 1999
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1999 Guidelines) identified diesel engine particulate matter as a
toxic air contaminant based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) findings. There were
several studies published prior to 2002 that demonstrated potential health impacts to
226
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 18
residences living close to freeways. (See studies cited in CARB's 2005 “Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook".) The 1999 Guidelines encourage lead agencies to address impacts to sensitive
receptors (such as residences, schools and churches) to exposure of high levels of diesel
exhaust from sources such as a high-volume freeway (1999 BAAQMD CBQA Guidelines, p. 47).
The project site is adjacent to I-580 and future development would not include land uses that
are considered sensitive receptors.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified air quality impacts, nor result in
new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to air quality resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and
no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
Biological Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
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?
X
227
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 19
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for biological
resources:
▪ Impact 3.7/A: Direct Habitat Loss found that the implementation of the EDSP would
result in substantial reduction of habitat and range, a potentially significant impact .
Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0 through 3.7/4.0 reduce this impact to an insignificant level
though the project does still contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact
and does result in a significant irreversible change.
▪ Impact 3.7/B: Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal recognizes that dust generation
from construction, increased erosion, sedimentation, and potential for slope failure, and
alteration of drainage patterns could cause a potentially significant impact . Mitigation
Measures 3.7/5.0, 3.6/ 18.0, 3.6/22.0, 3.6/23.0, and 3.11/8 reduce this impact to an
insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.7/C: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat recognizes that
habitat could be lost directly or indirectly as a result of the implementation of the EDSP
resulting in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0 through
3.7/17.0 reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
▪ Impacts 3.7/D and 3.7/E pertain to threatened and endangered species. Mitigation
Measures 3.7/18.0 and 3.7/19.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level.
▪ Impacts 3.7/F through 3.7/I pertain to species who are federal candidates for listing as
endangered or threatened. Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 through 3.7/22.0 reduce these
impacts to an insignificant level.
▪ Impacts 3.7/J through 3.7/R pertain to California species of special concern. Mitig ation
Measures 3.7/23.0 through 3.7/28.0, 3.4/42.0, 3.7/6.0 through 3.7/17, and 3.7/21.0
228
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 20
reduce all impacts to less than significant.
The EDSP EIRs found a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact (Impact 3.7/A) associated
with direct habitat loss. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this
impact, which includes the project.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR and the 2005 SEIR discussed potential impacts to special-status
plants and included mitigation to address these impacts. See, e.g., 2002 Mitigation Measure
SM-BIO-2; 2005 Mitigation Measure SSM-BIO-1 (revising 2002 SM-BIO-4). The previously
adopted mitigation would be applied to the current project.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR and the 2005 SEIR discussed potential impacts to C alifornia Red-
legged frog (CRLF) and California Tiger Salamander (CTS) and included mitigation. See, e.g.,
2005 Supplemental Mitigation Measure SSM-BIO-2 (revising 2002 SM-BIO-14) for CLRF. See,
e.g., 2005 Supplemental Mitigation Measures SSM-BIO-3 & SSM-BIO-4 (revising 2002 SM-BIO-
19) for CTS. The previously adopted mitigation would be applied to the current project.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR also included mitigation for impacts to aquatic features. See, e.g.,
2002 Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 and SM-BIO-6.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species
No changes have occurred to the project site since certification of the EDSP EIRs.
The EDSP EIRs included a comprehensive assessment of habitat and wildlife resources (i.e.,
riparian habitat, natural community, and wetlands). They identified potential impacts related to
the general effect of potential development in Eastern Dublin, including direct habitat loss,
indirect habitat loss due to vegetation removal for construction and development activities, and
loss or degradation of sensitive habitat (Impact 3.7 / A, B, and C). The EDSP EIRs also identified
potential impacts related to wildlife species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, CRLF, CTS, and
others (Impact 3.7 /D - S). Raptor electrocutions associated with proposed high-voltage power
lines were addressed in depth in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (Impact 3.7 /L), and
included a number of mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 3.7 / 26.0a-d). Mitigation
measures were adopted to, among other things, prepare resource management plans, avoid
development in sensitive areas, and revegetate disturbed areas (generally Mitigation Measures
3.7 / 1.0 - 28.0). All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin EIR
continue to apply to the proposed project.
Even with mitigation, the City concluded that the cumulative loss or degradation of botanically
sensitive habitat was significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.7 / A). The City adopted a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53 -93).
229
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 21
The 2002 SEIR determined that species and habitats not previously considered or analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR could occur in the project area. Furthermore, designation of
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog and changes in regulatory standards for this
and other species since the certification of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR were thought to
create new potentially significant impacts. To address these issues, the 2002 SEIR described a
number of impacts and mitigation measures to supplement those in the 1993 Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan EIR.
Mitigation Measure SM-B1O-1 in the 2002 SEIR required preparation of a Resource
Management Plan (RMP). The purpose of the RMP was to address biological resource impacts
of future development in a coordinated manner rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis as
development plans for individual parcels are prepared over time. The RMP was completed in
2004.
The mitigation measures established in the EDSP EIRs fulfill the City's obligations under CEQA
with respect to biological resources. However, the City recognizes that future development
activity within the project area may require one or more permits from a variety of state and
federal resources agencies. Development project proponents will be responsible for obtaining
all such necessary permits. Those permits may impose mitigation requirements which are
different from and/ or greater than the mitigation measures established in the EDSP EIRs.
(b, c) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat , natural community, or wetlands
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with the above referenced mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts would
be equal or less severe than those identified in the EDSP EIRs, and no further mitigation is
required.
(d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife
The existing vegetation within the project site consists of mostly grasses which are not native
habitat for migratory species. There are no creeks or streams on the project site that would
allow for migration of fish species. Therefore, impacts to migratory fish or wildlife would be
insignificant.
(e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation or any adopted habitat
conservation or natural community conservation plans.
The protection of heritage trees in the City of Dublin is covered by Chapter 5.6 Heritage Trees of
the Dublin Municipal Code. The proposed project does not modify these requirements and they
would continue to apply on future development of these parcels. As a result there would be no
impact.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
230
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 22
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified biological resources impacts, nor
result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to biological resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and
no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section
15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for cultural resources:
▪ Impact 3.9/A: Disruption or Destruction of Identified Prehistoric Resources recognized
impacts associated with the disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources
which would be reduced to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures
3.9/1.0-4.0, which require a program of mechanical or hand subsurface testing for
midden deposits, recordation of identified cultural resources on State of California site
survey forms, preparing a plan testing of each resource and, if required, having the City
retain the services of a qualified archeologist to develop a cultural resource protection
program.
▪ Impact 3.9/B: Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Pre-Historic Resources identified
an impact related to the disruption or destruction of unidentified pre-historic resources.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level
by requiring a halt to development activities that could impact unidentified cultural
resources and completion of follow-on site surveys within Eastern Dublin.
231
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 23
▪ Impact 3.9/C: Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources would be
mitigated to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0 through
3.9/12.0 that requires in-depth analysis of properties with cultural resources,
encouragement of adaptive reuse of historic structures to the extent feasible, review of
potential historic resources by an architectural historian and development of a
preservation program for historic sites and disruption or destruction of unidentified
historic resources.
▪ Impact 3.9/D: Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Historic Resources would b e
reduced to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9 / 5.0, 6.0, 7.0,
9.0, 10.0, and 12.0.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Historic resources
The project site is vacant and, therefore, there would be no impact to historic resources.
(b) Archaeological resources
Previous CEQA findings require adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0, which would
reduce this impact to an insignificant level by requiring a halt to future development activities
that could impact unidentified cultural resources and completion of follow -on site surveys.
(d) Human remains
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
subject to existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the previous EDSP EIRs as
well as state and local regulations regarding potential impacts to human remains.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified cultural resources impacts, nor
result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
232
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 24
Energy
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
6. Energy. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or
operation??
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts to energy as it was not a separate topic for
analysis when the EDSP EIRs were completed. Utilities and service systems impacts and
mitigation measures, some of which are related to the demand for energy of additional se rvice
systems, were identified and can be found in the utilities and service systems section of this
document. Additional impacts and mitigations for energy from the EDSP EIRs include:
▪ Impact 3.4/Q: Demand for Utilities Extensions notes that the build out of the GP/EDSP
will significantly increase demand for gas, electric and telephone services. To supply
adequate electrical service to the project, PG&E estimates that a new distribution
system will have to be constructed. Extension of utility lines are nece ssary if the
GP/EDSP is approved and built. There is no mitigation to this impact and it remained a
significant and unavoidable impact.
▪ Impact 3.4/S: Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources noted that the
provision of adequate natural gas and electrical service will require the consumption of
non-renewable natural resources. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/45.0 and 3.4/46.0 would reduce the impact to the extent
feasible.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable
impacts of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, which includes the project.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with the above referenced mitigation measures. The project would be
required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs.
233
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 25
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consumption of energy
The EDSP EIRs identified that development of the Eastern Dublin area would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact due to the consumption of non-renewable natural
resources, including energy consumption. Mitigation measures are identified in the EDSP EIRs
that would help mitigate this impact.
Furthermore, since preparation of the EDSP EIRs, the California Building Energy Efficiency
Standards contained in 24 Cal Code Regs pt. 6 have been revised and updated and include more
stringent requirements to prevent the unnecessary consumption of energy. Given the
programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to
comply with these standards. In addition, Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.94 (Green Building)
encourages sustainable construction practices in planning, design, energy and water efficiency
and conservation, material conservation, resource efficiency and environmental quality.
The proposed project also requires future development project s to incorporate sustainability
practices the related to transportation to reduce the demand on single occupancy vehicles,
energy efficiency, and waste reduction.
(b) State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
The project does not contain any features that would conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and is required to comply with state and local
energy regulations, as described above.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified energy impacts, nor result in new
significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measure s identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to energy beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other
CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review
is required.
234
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 26
Geology and Soils
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
7. 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:
X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
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 collapse?
X
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?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for geology and soils:
235
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 27
▪ Impact 3.6/A: Fault Ground Rupture was found to have insignificant impact since n o
known active or potentially active faults traverse the EDSP area and Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zones are not located within the EDSP area.
▪ Impact 3.6/B: Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects identified potentially
significant and unavoidable impacts from primary effects of seismic ground shaking that
were insufficiently mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0.
▪ Impacts 3.6/C through 3.6/L were identified as potentially significant but mitigatable by
Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 2.0 through 3.6/28.0 to a level of insignificance.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR Mitigation Measure SM-GEO-1 requires that prior to construction,
design level geotechnical report(s) and corrective grading plan(s) depicting the locations and
depths of landslide repairs, keyways, and subsurface drains be prepared and submitted to the
City for review.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable
impacts of the GP/EDSP, which includes the proposed project.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Seismic hazards
As described in the EDSP EIRs, the project site is located in the Coast Range geomorphic
province of California. The project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map. No faults and/or their traces have been mapped at the site. The EDSP EIRs used
applicable building code data which included Peak Ground Accelerations of 0.6g. The 2019
California Building Code (CBC) increased Peak Ground Acceleration, a seismic design parame ter
used in the previous CEQA analysis, to 0.77g.
The EDSP EIRs analyzed and found potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated
with primary effects of seismic ground shaking (Impact 3.6/B; MM 3.6/1.0); potentially
significant but mitigable secondary effects of seismic ground shaking including seismically
induced settlement, land sliding, and compaction (Impact 3.5/c; MM 3.6/2.0- 8.0), alterations
of site landforms (Impact 3.6/D; MM 3.6/9-10), groundwater (Impacts 3.6/F and 3.6/G; MM
3.6/11-13), expansive soils (Impact 3.6/H; MM 3.6/14-16), natural slope stability (Impact 3.6/I;
MM 3.6/17-19), cut-and-fill slope stability (Impact 3.6/J; MM 3.6/20-26), and erosion and
sedimentation (Impacts 3.6/K and L; MM 3.6/27-28).
The EDSP EIRs analyzed and found potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated
with primary effects of seismic ground shaking. The project would over excavate potentially
liquefiable soils and replace them with engineered fill.
236
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 28
USGS maps show areas of potential seismic induced landsliding and liquefaction within the
project area. Implementation of MM 3.6/2.0- 8.0 would reduce these impacts to less than
significant.(b) Erosion/topsoil loss
Construction of the project would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of
surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and
sedimentation caused by grading activities. The project would be required to implement
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) erosion control measures as enforced by the
City in addition to any mitigation measures included in the EDSP EIRs. The City's requirement to
implement site-specific erosion and other controls would reduce erosion impacts from the
project site. The project would also implement erosion control measures such as soil covering
vegetation and landscaping after completion of construction .
(c-d) Soil stability
Previous geotechnical investigations described in the EDSP EIRs did not identify any unstable
geologic or soil units or those that would be unstable after the project site is developed.
Previous geotechnical investigations did identify expansive soils within the project site. Per the
requirements in the EDSP EIRs, future development projects would require remedial grading,
including over-excavation, keyways, subdrains and engineering fill per geotechnical engineer
direction.
(e) Soil capability to support waste water disposal, including septic
Future development would not use a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal systems
and, therefore, there would be no impact.
(f) Unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
The EDSP EIRs analyzed and found that no potential of buried prehistoric sites with undisturbed
or partially disturbed sources cultural deposits are associated with the project site.
Conclusion
The project does not propose changes beyond what was previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs
that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this
environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the
previously identified geology and soil impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to geology and soil beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
237
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 29
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the issue of the contribution of greenhouse gases to climate
change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in
2006 and SB 32 in 2016.
Because the EDSP EIRs were previously certified, the determination of whether greenhouse
gases and climate change need to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on
supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines,
Sections 15162 and 15163). 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 EIRs were certified as
complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)).
Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the prior EIRs; however,
these impacts are not new information that was not known or could not have been known at
the time these previous EIRs were certified . The issue of climate change and greenhouse gases
was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas
emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout
the early 1990s. The studies and analyses 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 EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires
analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental
analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA .
238
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 30
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations
As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Conclusion
The impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification
of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a
supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplement al environmental analysis of the
project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
9. 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?
X
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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
239
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 31
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The 1993 GP/SPA EIR did not include an analysis of impacts to hazards and hazardous materials.
However, the 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potential hazard impacts. Supplemental
Mitigation Measure SM-HAZ-1 requires project developers to survey for asbestos and lead-
based paints (which do not apply as there are no structures on the project site). Supplemental
Mitigation Measure SM-HAZ-2 and -3 addresses procedures for the removal of
soil/groundwater contamination, if present.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials
No development project is proposed, only a change in allowable land uses with the intent of
broadening the types of allowed uses to accommodate business such as life sciences, advanced
manufacturing, technology, and startups and incubators. To the extent there are potentially
hazardous materials used in construction or during commercial operations, the impacts would
be less than significant due to compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements.
(b) Potential release of hazardous materials into the environment
The proposed change in land use would not create a significant hazard to the pubic or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment.
(c) Emit hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school
The proposed land use change would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within on-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school since the expansion of uses would not involve the handling of hazardous
materials.
(d) Listed as a hazardous materials site
The project site is vacant and has not been listed as a hazardous materials site in the EDSP EIRs
and, therefore, there is no impact.
240
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 32
(e) Proximity to a public or private airport
The project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working in the
project area. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the Livermore Airport and
within its Airport Safety Zone, Airport Protection Area, and Airport Influence Area. However,
the proposed expansion of uses are allowed per the Livermore Executive Airport, Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan (2012), and would not cause a significant safety hazard.
(f) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked or
otherwise altered.
(h) Expose people or structures to wildland fires
As further discussed in the Wildfire section below, the project would not expose people or
structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in this environmental analysis, the project would result in less than
significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the previous
EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no
further environmental review is required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin??
X
241
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 33
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
X
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site? X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite?
X
iii) 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?
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for hydrology and
water quality:
▪ Impact 3.5/P identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the Eastern
Dublin area. Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0-3.5/40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft
of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to
DSRSD, minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water
recycling and conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and
supplies, and to ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally
preventing development until such facilities are constructed b y developers.
▪ Impact 3.5/Q noted that the EDSP would increase demand to serve development at
build-out under the then-applicable General Plan and required an additional 25,000
acre-feet annually. Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 3.5/31.0 reduced the impact
to an insignificant level.
242
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 34
▪ Impact 3.5/V identified an impact due to flooding as a result of water storage reservoir
failure but would be mitigated to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measure 3.5/41.0.
▪ Impact 3.5/Y: Potential Flooding was found to be potentially significant but was reduced
to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through 3.5/48.0.
▪ Impact 3.5/Z: Reduced Groundwater Recharge was a potentially significant impact but
Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.5/AA: Non-Point Sources of Pollution was found to be a potentially significant
impact but was reduced to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 and
3.5/52.0.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potential impacts related to “cumulative stormwater
generation/capacity of local channels” and “changes in non-point source water quality
regulations.” Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-SD-1 and SM-SD-2 were adopted to
reduce these potential supplemental impacts to less than significant. SM -SD-1 required water
quality and hydrologic design recommendations requiring implementation of bio-
retention/filtration facilities with all subsequent individual development projects in the Fallon
Village project area. SM-SD-2 required future individual development projects within the
project area to comply with the storm water quality and hydromodification management
provisions of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program as administered by the City of
Dublin.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements
Any future development project will be required to be designed to treat all of its storm water
runoff for water quality and hydromodification management to meet curre nt Municipal
Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit,
Provision C.3 requirements as prescribed in the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit issued by the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. As a result, the project would meet
the current RWQCB C.3 requirements, which are more stringent than those considered in the
EDSP EIRs.
(b) Substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supplies
Future water sources would rely on surface water supplies from the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD) and not local groundwater supplies. The project is required to support Zone 7’s
groundwater recharge program to only pump groundwater it artificially recharges using its
imported surface water or locally-stored runoff from Arroyo del Valley. Compliance with this
would maintain groundwater at a no net loss for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin . As a
result, the project would not result in a net increase in groundwater extraction from Livermore
Valley Groundwater Basin.
243
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 35
(c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns
Future development would not significantly change drainage patterns and proposed storm
drain facilities would be required per City and State regulations to be adequately sized for
project runoff. The project would incorporate and comply with the drainage system master
planned improvements as they were designed and approved in the Dublin Ranch Drainage
Master Plan with appropriate sizing and construction of downstream facilities such as the G3
Culvert Regional Conveyance facility constructed with the Dublin Ranch project, extended by
the Fallon Village project. Future development would also be required to pay fees to the Dublin
Ranch East Side Storm Drain Benefit District for construct ion of the downstream regional
facilities. Per SM-SD-2, future development would also pay required Zone 7 Special Drainage
fees (SDA-7-1) for regional storm drain facilities.
(g) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
The project site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche . The risk
of potential mudflow is considered low since no historic landslides or mudflows have been
identified on the project site. There would be no impact with implementation of the project.
(h) Conflict with water quality control or groundwater management plan
Future development would be required to incorporate and comply with the drainage system
master planned improvements as they were designed and approved in the Dublin Ranch
Drainage Master Plan.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified hydrology and water quality
impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to hydrology and water quality beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP
EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
244
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 36
Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impact for land use and planning:
▪ Impact 3.1/A found that there were significant and unavoidable impacts from the EDSP
as a result of the loss of agricultural and open space lands. No mitigation measures were
identified for those impacts.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable
impact, which includes the project.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Physically divide an established community
The proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation will expand the types of
office and light industrial uses already allowed in the area. Allowed future uses would be
compatible with the existing land uses and would not divide an established community.
(b) Conflict with general plan
The project site is located in the EDSP project boundary and would be consistent with
environmental goals and policies contained in the City’s General Plan. The proposed project
includes amendments to the EDSP and the General Plan to ensure consistency between the two
documents.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
245
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 37
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified land use and planning impacts,
nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts to land use and planning beyond what has been
analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are
met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
12. 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 t he
residents of the state?
X
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?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not include an analysis of impacts to mineral resources.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource
The City does not have any mineral extraction areas so there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to mineral resources.
Conclusion
Because the City does not have any mineral extraction areas, there would be no impact, and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
246
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 38
Noise
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for noise:
▪ Impact 3.10/A: Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise identified
future vehicular traffic associated with development proposed in Eastern Dublin as
potentially significant to future residents. This impact would be mitigated to an
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 that requires
acoustic studies for all future residential development in the Eastern Dublin area.
▪ Impact 3.10/B: Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise would be a
potentially significant impact to existing residents in the Eastern Dublin area as
development occurs in accord with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan. This impact would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.10/2.0, which requires future development projects to provide noise protection to
existing residential uses in Eastern Dublin; however, noise impacts to existing residents
along Fallon Road would remain significant and unavoidable.
▪ Impact 3.10/ C: Exposure of Existing and Proposed Development to Airport Noise was
considered an insignificance impact and no mitigation was required.
▪ Impact 3.10/D: Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future
Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) and the County
Jail identified potentially significant noise for future residents within 6 ,000 feet of Parks
RFTA. This impact would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0
that requires acoustic studies for development near Parks RFTA and the County Jail;
247
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 39
however, reduction of noise from Parks RFTA may not be feasible, so this impact would
be significant and unavoidable.
▪ Impact 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 EDSP, including but not limited to buildings, roads, and utilities . Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0 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.
▪ Impact 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
Measure 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.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable
impacts described above, which includes the project.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR identified potential noise impacts associated with commercial land
uses. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires a noise insulation plan for
commercial and industrial uses. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2 restricts heavy
truck traffic to designated arterial roadways and truck routes.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potential noise impacts associated with aircraft flyovers
and roadway noise. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires written notification
to occupants of residential dwellings of the potential for aircraft overflights within the Fallon
Village project area. Supplemental Mitigation M easures SM-NOISE -2 through -4 address
measures associated with reducing roadway noise that may affect sensitive noise receptors
such as residential, schools, and parks.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Exposure to or generate noise exceeding standards
The EDSP EIRs identified the sources of major noise affecting the EDSP area to be vehicular
traffic stemming from Interstate 580, aircraft flyovers from the Livermore Municipal Airport,
Parks RFTA, and County Jail. The short-term noise measurement results noted that other than
site grading associated with the construction of the development the roadway noise and
aircraft flyovers would dominate any noise levels generated by the project.
248
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 40
(b) Exposure to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise
The EDSP EIRs identified a potentially significant impact for future roadway noise as well as
construction noise as a result of the build out of the EDSP, which includes the project site.
Implementation of mitigation measures within the EDSP EIRs reduces this impact to an
insignificant level.
(c) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport
The project would not result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people working in the
project area. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the Livermore Airport and
is located within its Airport Safety Zone, Airport Protection Area, and Airport Influence Area.
However, the proposed expansion of uses are allowed per the Livermore Executive Airport,
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012). Furthermore, the type of (light) aircraft and
frequency of noise would not result in excessive noise level impacts to commercial uses,
particularly those that are industrial in nature, nor be different from that previously analyzed.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified noise impacts, nor result in new
significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to noise beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA
standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is
required.
Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
249
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 41
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not identify any significant impacts or mitigation measures for population
and housing.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Population growth
Future development would not induce substantial additional population growth in the Eastern
Dublin area since development on the project site has long been envisioned in the Dublin
General Plan and EDSP. Furthermore, no residential development is allowed on the project site
because it is located within the Livermore Airport – Airport Protection Area.
(b) Housing and resident displacement
Since the project site is vacant, no housing units or people would be displaced as a result of the
project.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified population and housing impacts,
nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts to population and housing beyond what has been
analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are
met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significa nt environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
250
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 42
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for public services:
▪ Impacts 3.4/A and 3.4/B are related to the provision of police services. One notes that
there would be a demand for increased police services with implementation of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the other identifies an
impact related to the hilly topography of the Eastern Dublin area that could present
accessibility and crime-prevention issues. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/1.0
through 3.4/ 5.0 would reduce impacts to the Dublin Police Department to an
insignificant level.
▪ Impacts 3.4/C through 3.4/E are related to the provision of fire services. The build out of
the GP/EDSP would increase the demand for fire services and the outlying areas of the
GP/EDSP were beyond the fire response area at the time resulting in extended fire
response times. The build out of the GP/EDSP would also result in the settlement of
population and construction of new communities in proximity to high fire hazard open
space areas. This would pose an increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if
open space areas are not maintained for fire safety. Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0
through 3.4/13.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level.
▪ Impacts 3.4/F through 3.4/J are related to schools. The buildout of the GP/EDSP will
increase the demand for new classroom space and school facilities in proportion to the
number of residential units constructed, far exceeding the current available capacity of
either school district at the time. Overcrowding at existing schools could occur if
insufficient new classroom space is provided. Development of Eastern Dublin under
existing jurisdictional boundaries would result in the area's being served by two
different school districts. The division of the project site by two different school districts
would adversely affect financing of schools in eastern Dublin and complicate provision
of education to planning area students. The cost of providing new school facilities
proposed in the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan could adversely impact local
school districts by creating an unwieldy financial burden unless some form of financing
is identified. Mitigation Measures 3.4/13.0 through 3.4/19.0 reduce these impacts to an
insignificant level.
▪ Impacts 3.4/K through 3.4/N are related to parks and public facilities. Without the
addition of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new park and recreation
251
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 43
facilities resulting from buildout of the GP/EDSP would create potentially significant
impacts. Acquisition and improvement of new park and recreation facilities may place a
financial strain on existing City revenue sources causing a potentially significant impact.
Development of residential and commercial areas in eastern Dublin without adequate
provision of trail easements may thwart efforts to develop a regional trail system . Urban
development along project stream corridors and ridgelines would adversely impact
outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents and obstruct the
formation of an interconnected open space system. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0
through 3.4/36.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR covered the proposed detachment of the Fallon Village project area
from the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District and annexation into the City of Dublin.
This reorganization was approved by Alameda County Local Formation Agency in 2002.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR analyzed the adequacy of park acreage within the Fallon Village
project area and found it to be consistent with the number, size and locations of parks within
the program level Stage 1 PD and with the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Fire
Future development would increase demand for fire and emergency services by increasing the
amount of daytime population (i.e., employees) on the project site. Features would be
incorporated into the project as part of existing City ordinances and development requirements
which assist in reducing impacts. These features include installation of on-site fire protection
measures such as fire sprinklers and installation of new fire hydrants that meet the minimum
fire flow requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
As part of the City’s Development Fee Program, future development would be required to pay
an impact fee for fire facilities to serve new development in the City. This impact fee relates to
funding new fire facilities in Eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for
fire suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards.
(b) Police
Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be expected associated with a
future development project. This increase in calls for service would be off-set through
adherence to City of Dublin safety requirements from Dublin Police Services.
(c) Schools
The project area is within in the boundary of the Airport Protection Area for the Livermore
Municipal Airport, where residential is not an allowed use; therefore, there would be no
252
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 44
impacts. In addition, no new impacts to school service are anticipated since payment of
mandated statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits would provide
mitigation of educational impacts of the project pursuant to State law.
(d, e) Parks and other public facilities
Future development would be required to comply with all prior mitigation measures and, if
applicable, would pay the required Park Fee as part of the Public Facility fees.
Construction associated with future development would incrementally increase the long-term
maintenance demand for roads and other public facilities. However, such additional
maintenance demands would be off-set by additional City fees and property tax revenues
accruing to the City and, therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified public services impacts, nor result
in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to public services beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
253
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 45
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for recreation:
▪ Impact 3.4/K indicated that increased demand for parks as a result of buildout of the
GP/EDSP would represent a significant impact on the ability of the City to provide park
service for future residents. It would also be a potentially significant cumulative impact
for the community due to lack of sufficient city-wide park facilities that would not meet
a standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 population. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0-
28 were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.4/L identified a park facility fiscal impact on the City of Dublin. The fiscal strain
of providing new park facilities would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation
Measures 3.4/ 29.0-31.0 would require that each new development in Eastern Dublin
provide a fair share of parks and open space facilities. Development of a parks
implementation plan was also called for. Finally, adoption of a park in-lieu fee program
was required. These mitigation measures reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impacts 3.4/ M and N dealt with the regional trail system and open space connections.
Development of residential and commercial areas in Eastern Dublin was anticipated to
have a potentially significant impact to the construction of a regional trail system .
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 32.0 would require the establishment of a trail
system with connections to planned regional and sub -regional trails, which would
reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.4/N notes that urban development along stream corridors and ridgelines
would adversely impact outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents
and potentially obstruct the formation of an interconnected open space system.
Mitigation Measures 3.4 / 33.0-36.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP
EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration or require new
recreation facilities
The City’s park and recreational facilities are composed of neighborhood facilities, community
facilities, community parks and community center. The EDSP identified a total of 17 parks on
219 acres which is consistent with the City of Dublin 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
ratio of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Sufficient park land has been constructed and
it being planned, and future development associated with the proposed project is limited to
commercial uses. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood
and/or regional parks such that a substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated; nor would it require the construction/expansion of a recreational facility
elsewhere which would have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
254
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 46
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified recreation impacts, nor result in
new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to recreation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other
CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review
is required.
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for transportation and
traffic:
▪ Impacts 3.3/A through 3.3/E identified significant, significant cumulative, and significant
and unavoidable adverse impacts related to daily traffic volumes on I-580 for Year 2010
with and without build-out of the GP/EDSP and under a Year 2010 cumulative build-out
scenario. Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 through 3.3/5.0 reduced these impacts but not
sufficiently to avoid significant cumulative impacts.
255
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 47
▪ Impacts 3.3/F through 3.3/N identified impacts to levels of service and PM peak hour
traffic volumes at 18 intersections and at I-580 ramps. Mitigation Measures 3.3/6.0
through 3.3/8.0 and 3.3/10.0 through 3.3/14.0 were adopted to reduce these impacts.
Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M and 3.3/N were unable to be reduced to an insignificant level.
▪ Impacts 3.3/O and 3.3/P identified significant impacts related to transit service
extensions and the provision of safe street crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.
Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0-15.3 and 3.3/16.0-16.1 were adopted which reduced
these impacts to a level of insignificance.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the remaining significant and
unavoidable cumulative impacts of Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E, 3.3/I, 3.3/M and 3.3/N, which apply to
the project.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR identified a number of additional transportation impacts related to
the project area. Supplemental mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant
include:
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-1 requires future project developers to
contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the I-580 eastbound off-ramp approach
at Hacienda Drive to add a third eastbound left turn lane.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-2 requires future project developers to
contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the northbound Hacienda Drive
overcrossing from three lanes to four lanes including three through lanes and one
auxiliary lane that leads exclusively to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp. The
westbound loop on-ramp shall be modified as necessary to meet Caltrans' standards
and design criteria. Project developers also shall contribute to widening the westbound
off ramp approach to add a third westbound left-tum lane.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-3 requires future project developers to
contribute a pro-rata share to construction which converts the eastbound Santa Rita off-
ramp through lane to a shared left tum/through lane. Project developers also shall
contribute to a traffic signal upgrade which includes a westbound right -turn overlap
from Pimlico Drive.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-4 requires that future project developers
to install a traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard/Street D intersection at the time
development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-5 requires that future project developers
to install a traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road intersection at the time
development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-6 requires that future project developers
to contribute a pro-rata share to configure the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to
include one left-tum lane, three through lanes and two right tum lanes.
256
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 48
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-7 requires future project developers to
construct an additional through lane on northbound Fallon Road (for a total of four
through lanes), construct an additional left-tum lane on westbound Dublin Boulevard
(for a total of three left-tum lanes) and construct an additional through lane on
southbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes). In addition, the City will
monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis, as described
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-8 requires future project developers to
pay studies to assess the feasibility of locating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersection farther north to allow for a signalized Project intersection between the I -
580 westbound ramps/Fallon Road intersection and the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersection (the "auxiliary intersection").
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-9 requires future project developers to be
responsible for widening Fallon Road between 1-580 and Dublin Road to its ultimate
eight lanes and shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard
and Central Parkway to its ultimate six lane width
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-10 requires future project developers to
be responsible for widening Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road
from two lanes to four lanes.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified a number of additional transportation impacts related to
the project area. Supplemental mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant
include:
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-1 requires future project developers to make
a project contribution to Dublin/Dougherty intersection.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-2 requires future project developers to
contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the northbound Hacienda Drive
overcrossing from 3 lanes to 4 lanes including three through lanes and one auxiliary lane
that leads exclusively to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-3 requires future project developers to
contribute a pro-rata share to construction which converts the eastbound Santa Rita off-
ramp through lane to a shared left tum/through lane.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-4 requires future project developers to
install a traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard/Street D intersection at the time
development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-5 requires future project developers to
install a traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road intersection at the time
development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection.
257
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 49
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-6 requires future project developers to
contribute a pro-rata share to configure the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to
include 1 left-tum lane, three through lanes and two right tum lanes.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-7 requires future project developers to
construct an additional through lane on northbound Fallon Road (for a total of four
through lanes), construct an additional left-tum lane on westbound Dublin Boulevard
(for a total of three left-tum lanes) and construct an additional through lane on
southbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes).
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-8 requires future project developers to pay
studies to assess the feasibility of locating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersection farther north to allow for a signalized Project intersection between the I -
580 westbound ramps/Fallon Road intersection and the Fallon Road /Dublin Boulevard
intersection (the "auxiliary intersection").
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-9 requires future project developers to
responsible for widening Fallon Road between 1-580 and Dublin Road to its ultimate
eight lanes and shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard
and Central Parkway to its ultimate six lane width.
▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-10 requires future project developers to
responsible for widening Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from
two lanes to four lanes.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP
EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Conflict with applicable transportation circulations plans/standards
As described in Appendix A: Traffic Generation Evaluation Memorandum (Kimley-Horn, June 22,
2021), a trip generation evaluation was prepared to determine if the change in land uses would
potentially result in a transportation impact. Vehicle trips generated under the General
Commercial land uses were compared to the uses allowed under the hybrid General
Commercial/Campus Office land use designation.
According to the City’s General Plan, the General Commercial land use designation allows
commercial land uses at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.20 to 0.60, compared to 0.20 to
0.80 for General Commercia/Campus Office. For the purposes of this evaluation, it was
assumed that the development for the General Commercial/Campus Office land use
designation would be constructed at a density of 0.28 FAR, and the General Commercial land
use designation would be constructed at a density of 0.25 FAR.
Consistent with the City’s strategy to broaden the types of allowed uses to accommodate
business such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology, and startups and
258
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 50
incubators, a General Light Industrial land use category was selected from trip generation rates
published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th
Edition (2017). This was compared to the General Office Building and Shopping Center land use
categories, both of which are currently allowed per the City’s General Plan General Commercial
land use designation. Due to the lower trip rate for the new allowed uses, any combination of
the new allowed uses and previously allowed uses is expected to generate fewer peak hour
trips than the previously allowed uses.
Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR
The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for each allowed land use for
General Commercial at a 0.25 FAR is shown in Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General
Commercial at 0.25 FAR.
Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR
ITE
Land
Use
Code Land Use Size Units
Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
710 General Office Building 798.78 KSF 7,782 927 797 130 919 147 772
820 Shopping Center 798.78 KSF 30,156 751 466 285 3,043 1,461 1,582
The highest trip number is shown in bold and shaded.
As shown in Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR, the higher
of the two uses for each period would result in 30,156 daily trips, 927 AM peak hour trips, and
3,043 PM peak hour trips.
Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR
The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for the likely mix of land uses for
General Commercial/Campus Office at a 0.28 FAR is shown in Table 3: Estimated Trip
Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR. This assumes 50 percent of the
building area would be general light industrial, 25 percent would be general office building, and
25 percent would be shopping center.
Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR
ITE Land
Use Code Land Use Size Units
Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
110 General Light Industrial 447.32 KSF 2,220 313 275 38 282 37 245
710 General Office Building 223.66 KSF 2,180 259 223 36 257 41 216
820 Shopping Center 223.66 KSF 8,444 210 130 80 852 409 443
Total 12,844 782 628 154 1,391 487 904
259
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 51
As shown in Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28
FAR, likely mix of uses would generate 12,844 daily trips, 782 AM peak hour trips, and 1,391 PM
peak hour trips.
Trip Generation Comparison
The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation was compared between the higher
trips for the potential uses for General Commercial at a 0.25 FAR versus the likely mix of uses
for the General Commercial/Campus Office at a 0.28 FAR. This comparison is shown in Table 4:
Estimated Trip Generation Comparison.
Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison
Scenario
Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
General Commercial 30,156 927 3,043 797 285 1,461 1,582
General Commercial/Campus Office 12,844 782 1,391 628 154 487 904
Difference -17,312 -145 -1,652 -169 -131 -974 -678
As shown in Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison, the new General
Commercial/Campus Office use would not exceed the existing General Commercial use for the
daily, AM peak hour, or PM peak hour trips and, therefore, the proposed General Plan
amendment would not result in any significant transportation impacts and no further
environmental review is required. However, it should be noted that future proposed
development may need further traffic analysis to determine that there will be no new
significant transportation impacts due to the change in traffic levels since the certification of
the previous EDSP EIRs.
(b) Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the issue of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has become a
more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of SB 743 in 2013. Previously, CEQA
analysis was conducted using a level of service (LOS) measurement that evaluated traffic delay.
As specified under SB 743, and implemented under Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA
Guidelines (effective December 28, 2018), VMT is the required metric to be used for identifying
CEQA impacts and mitigation. In December 2018, OPR published a Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts, including guidance for VMT analysis. The Office of
Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines and lead agencies were given until
July 1, 2020, to implement the updated guidelines for VMT analysis.
Because EDSP EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether VMT needs to be
analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public
Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). VMT is not
required to be analyzed under those standards unless it co nstitutes "new information of
substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the
previous EIRs were certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)).
260
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 52
VMT impacts were not analyzed in the prior EIRs; however, these impacts are not new
information that was not known or could not have been known at the time these previous EIRs
were certified. The issue of VMT as a metric for analyzing traffic was widely known prior to the
certification of these EIRs.
Therefore, the impact of VMT was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs.
Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or
Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's im pacts on this
issue is required under CEQA.
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
Future development of the project site would add sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian
travel ways where none currently exist and would be required to comply with current City
engineering design standards and other safety standards to ensure that no safety hazards
would be created or exacerbated.
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access
Future development of the project site would be required to go through Stage 2 Planned
Development application, which would ensure that all roadways would be designed consistent
with City roadway design standards.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified transportation impacts, nor result
in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to transportation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
261
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 53
Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts to tribal cultural resources as it was not a
separate topic for analysis when the EIRs were completed. Cultural resource impacts and
mitigation measures, some of which could pertain to tribal resources, were identified and can
be found in the Cultural Resources section of this document.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources
The project site is vacant and, therefore, there would be no impact to historic resources.
(b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1
The project is subject to existing cultural resource mitigation measures, as described above in
Cultural Resources section. In addition, per Senate Bill 18 the City of Dublin sent letters to eight
California Native American Tribes regarding the proposed project. No requests for consultation
were received.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
262
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 54
on this environmental analysis, the project would not result in new significant impacts to tribal
cultural resources.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond what has been
analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are
met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) 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 projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards,
or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for utilities and service
systems:
▪ Impact 3.5/B identified the lack of a collection system as a significant impact. Mitigation
Measures 3.5/1.0-3.5/5.0, generally preventing development until such facilities are
263
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 55
constructed by developers, were adopted to mitigate this impact to an insignificant
level.
▪ Impact 3.5/C noted potential growth-inducing impacts of pipeline construction. These
impacts were mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.5/6.0, preventing the construction of
facilities greater than those required for the GPA/EDSP, to an insignificant level.
▪ Impacts 3.5/D, 3.5/E and 3.5/G identified current and future inadequate treatment plant
capacity in DSRSD's treatment plan and inadequate disposal capacity as significant
impacts. All were mitigated to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.0
through 3.5/9.0 and 3.5/11.0 through 3.5/14.
▪ Impacts 3.5/F and 3.5/H relate to the increased energy usage as a result of Impacts
3.5/D, E, and G. Both were mitigated by Mitigation Measures 3.5/10.0, 3.5/15.0 and
3.5/16.0 but remained significant and unavoidable impacts.
▪ Impact 3.5/I noted that a failure of the export disposal system could have a potentially
significant impact but Mitigation Measure 3.5/17.0 reduce this impact to an insignificant
level.
▪ Impact 3.5/L noted that the proposed recycled water system must be constructed and
operated properly in order to prevent any potential contamination of or cross -
connection with potable water supply systems. Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0 reduced
this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.5/P identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the Eastern
Dublin area. Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0-3.5/40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft
of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to
DSRSD, minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water
recycling and conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and
supplies, and to ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally
preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers.
▪ Impact 3.5/Q noted that buildout of the GP/EDSP will increase water demand.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 3.5/31.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant
level.
▪ Impact 3.5/R noted that there would be a significant impact since t he increase in water
demands through development of the GP/EDSP will require an expansion of existing
water treatment facilities in order to deliver safe and potable water . Mitigation
Measures 3.5/32.0 and 33.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.5/S noted that at the time there was no water service in the area, with the
exception of a Zone 7 water supply connection to Alameda County for the old Santa Rita
Jail. With the development of the GP/EDSP, a water distribution system and storage
system would be required. If a water distribution system was not constructed, this
would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0 through 3.5/38.0 reduced
this impact to an insignificant level.
▪ Impact 3.5/U accounted for the increased energy requirement as a result of increased
water demands requiring a water distribution system. Mitigation Measure 3.5/40.0
264
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 56
mitigated this impact but was insufficient to reduce the impact to a less than potentially
significant level.
▪ Impact 3.5/Z: Reduced Groundwater Recharge was a potentially significant impact but
Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR analyzed supplemental impacts of wastewater collection and
disposal capacity as changed conditions since the 2002 Supplemental EIR. There were found to
be no supplemental impacts to wastewater collection based on the latest 2005 Wastewater
Collection System Master Plan Update by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) using
the latest sewer generation rates and long-term wastewater planning. Wastewater disposal
capacity was found to be adequate based on completion of a 2005 Livermore -Amador Valley
Water Management Agency export pipeline expansion project and no supplemental impacts
were found with regard to wastewater disposal.
The City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for Impacts 3.3/F and H,
which includes the project.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, c) Wastewater treatment requirements and facilities
DSRSD is the water and sewer provider for the project site . DSRSD has master planned the
wastewater collection system, treatment capacity and disposal capacity in accordance with the
General Plan and EDSP demand levels as documented in the latest 2017 Wastewate r Collection
System and Treatment Facilities Master Plans.
The project area is included within the build out of the GP/EDSP and the proposed project does
not increase the demand for water and sewer; therefore, its demand has already been
accounted for. Connection fees are based on these master plans and also account for the
proposed level of development on the project site. Previous potential impacts due to growth
inducing system expansion no longer apply as the project is located within the DSRSD’s service
area and would not require expansion of the system. Therefore, no supplemental impacts have
been identified.
(b) Sufficient water supplies
DSRSD has master planned their water supply capacity, water distribution system, reservoirs
and pumping in the project area in accordance with the General Plan and EDSP demand levels
as documented in the current Urban Water Management Plan (2016). Connection fees are
based on these master plans and account for the proposed level of development on the project
site. Therefore, no supplemental impacts have been identified .
265
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 57
Per SB 221, future development projects would be required to obtain written verification from
DSRSD that sufficient water supply is available. This may include the use of recycled water as a
way of water conservation. Previous potential impacts due to growth inducing system
expansion no longer apply as the project site is located within DSRSD’s service area.
(d, e) Solid waste disposal and regulatory compliance
Approval of future development projects would incrementally increase the generation of solid
waste. Over the long term, the amount of solid waste reaching the landfill would decrease as a
result of statewide regulations mandating increased recycling and organics diversion. In
addition, future development projects would be required to comply with the Dublin Municipal
Code regarding solid waste which includes DMC Chapter 5.32 - Solid Waste Management; 7.30 -
Waste Management Plan; and Chapter 7.98 - Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards.
In addition, future development projects would be required to incorporate transportation
sustainability practices to reduce the demand on single occupancy vehicles, energy efficiency,
and waste reduction.
The EDSP EIRs found that there would be adequate capacity within the local landfill to
accommodate increases in the amount of solid waste.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified utilities and service system
impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified
in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts to utilities and service systems beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP
EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
266
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 58
Wildfires
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
20. Wildfires. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts of wildfires as it was not a separate topic for
analysis when the EDSP EIRs were completed. Public services impacts and mitigation measures,
some of which related to the provision of fire services pertain to wildfires, were identified and
are discussed in the Public Services section.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP
EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Impair emergency response plan
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development projects
would be required to comply with the City’s Wildfire Management Plan and Chapter 7.32 of the
Dublin Municipal Code to ensure that emergency access and response plans are not impaired .
Future development would also be required to comply with Site Development Review Permit
application requirements to ensure there is adequate fire protection and emergency response
access.
267
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 59
(b) Pollutants or uncontrolled spread
Future development would be required to comply with Site Development Review Permit
application requirements which would minimize the risk that any pollutant concentrations or
wildfire risk as a result of slope, prevailing winds, or other factors that exacerbate wildfire risks
could occur beyond what was analyzed in the EDSP EIRs.
(c) Infrastructure
Future development would be required to comply with Site Development Review Permit
application requirements which would ensure that all infrastructure is constructed according to
the latest City and State fire code requirements.
(d) Slope instability resulting in post-fire slope instability
As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section, the project includes an erosion
control plan that implements slope erosion control measures during and post-construction and
does not change historic drainage patterns outside of the project site. The project would not
result in changes to drainage or slopes beyond what was previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified wildfire impacts, nor result in
new significant impacts.
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts from wildfires beyond what has been analyzed in
the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
X
268
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 60
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
X
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
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 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 New Impact. As discussed and analyzed in this document, the proposed p roject would not
degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, for the reasons discussed in the Biological
Resources section, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not 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, or reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Further, for the reasons identified in
the Cultural Resources section, the project site does not contain any significant cultural
resources, and no impacts to such resources would occur. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previousl y
identified significant impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this
impact area.
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 futu re projects)?
No New Impact. The proposed project has the potential to result in incremental environmental
impacts that are part of a series of approvals that were anticipated under the EDSP EIRs. The
269
City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA
CEQA Initial Study | Page 61
EDSP EIRs considered the project’s cumulatively considerable impacts where effects had the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment as a result of build -out of the EEDSP.
Implementation of the proposed project, with mitigation, would not result in any new
cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative
impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No New Impact. The proposed project would not create adverse environmental effects that
would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The
proposed project would allow for a broader variety of land uses, including industrial uses such
as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology, and startups and incubators. None of
these uses or activities would result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly, as discussed throughout this document . Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously
identified significant impact as previously analyzed , and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this
impact area.
270
kimley-horn.com 824 Bay Avenue, Suite 10, Capitola, CA 95010 831 316 1430
MEMORANDUM
August 26, 2021
TO: Amy E. Million, Principal Planner, City of Dublin
Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation and Operations Manager, City of Dublin
FROM: Bill Wiseman and Ben Huie, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
RE: Trip Generation Evaluation for the Fallon-East GPA/SPA – CEQA Analysis
Kimley-Horn is preparing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for a City-
initiated General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
(SPA) for 72.1 acres on the GH PacVest property and 1.25 acres on the Alameda property in
eastern Dublin, CA. This study evaluates the potential transportation impacts associated
with changing the existing General Plan land use designation for the project sites from
General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office to create additional flexibility
allowed by the Campus Office designation. This hybrid land use designation allows for a
wide variety of minimum-impact, light industrial uses as well as commercial uses which are
compatible with the overall character and economic health of the industrial are a.
The purpose of this memorandum is to determine if the change in land use designation
would result in additional vehicles trips generated and, consequently, a potential
transportation impact.
Project Description
The proposed GPA and SPA would occur on 72.1 acres on the GH PacVest property and 1.25
acres on the Alameda property in Eastern Dublin, CA. Both sites are located within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area. Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin
General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development
Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR
(2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the
“EDSP EIRs”.
This project tiers off of these previous EDSP EIRs which, at that time, significant impacts
related to transportation were based on level of service (LOS) and not vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). Therefore, this transportation evaluation focuses on vehicle trips generated, and
not VMT.
271
Amy Million
City of Dublin
Page 2
According to the City’s General Plan, the General Commercial land use designation allows
commercial land uses at a maximum floor-area ratio (FAR) of 0.20 to 0.60. The General
Commercia/Campus Office land use designation allows commercial land uses at a maximum
floor-area ratio (FAR) of 0.20 to 0.80. Therefore, the only difference between the two land
use designations is the increase in the upper limit of FAR from 0.6 0 to 0.80. However, for
the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that the development for the General
Commercial/Campus Office land use designation would be constructed at a density of 0.28
FAR, and the General Commercial land use designation would be constructed at a density of
0.25 FAR.
Trip Generation Evaluation
To determine if the change in land uses would potentially result in a transportation impact,
the vehicle trips generated under the General Commercial land uses were compared to the
uses allowed under the General Commercial/Campus Office land use.
Consistent with the City’s strategy to broaden the types of allowed uses to accommodate
business such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology, and startups and
incubators, a General Light Industrial land use category was selected from trip generation
rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual,
10th Edition (2017). This was compared to the General Office Building and Shopping Center
land use categories, both of which are currently allowed in the City’s General Plan General
Commercial land use designation.
To estimate the land use sizes, it was assumed that the sum of the two parcels (i.e., 73.35
acres) would be developed at a density of 0.25 FAR, resulting in a building area of 798.78
thousand square feet (KSF) for General Commercial or at a density of 0.28 FAR, resulting in
a building area of 894.64 KSF for General Commercial/Campus Office.
Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR
The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for each allowed land use for
General Commercial at a 0.25 FAR is shown in Table 1: Estimated Trip Generation for
General Commercial at 0.25 FAR.
272
Amy Million
City of Dublin
Page 3
Table 1: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR
ITE
Land
Use
Code
Land Use Size Units Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
710 General Office
Building 798.78 KSF 7,782 927 797 130 919 147 772
820 Shopping Center 798.78 KSF 30,156 751 466 285 3,043 1,461 1,582
The highest trip number is shown in bold and shaded.
As shown in Table 1: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR, the
higher of the two uses for each period would result in 30,156 daily trips, 927 AM peak hour
trips, and 3,043 PM peak hour trips.
Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR
The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for the likely mix of land uses
for General Commercial/Campus Office at a 0.28 FAR is shown in Table 2: Estimated Trip
Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR. This assumes 50 percent of
the building area would be general light industrial, 25 percent would be general office
building, and 25 percent would be shopping center.
Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR
ITE Land
Use
Code
Land Use Size Units Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
110 General Light Industrial 447.32 KSF 2,220 313 275 38 282 37 245
710 General Office Building 223.66 KSF 2,180 259 223 36 257 41 216
820 Shopping Center 223.66 KSF 8,444 210 130 80 852 409 443
Total 12,844 782 628 154 1,391 487 904
As shown in Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at
0.28 FAR, likely mix of uses would generate 12,844 daily trips, 782 AM peak hour trips, and
1,391 PM peak hour trips.
Trip Generation Comparison
The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation was compared between the
higher trips for the potential uses for General Commercial at a 0.25 FAR versus the likely mix
of uses for the General Commercial/Campus Office at a 0.28 FAR. This comparison is shown
in Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison.
273
Amy Million
City of Dublin
Page 4
Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison
Scenario Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
General Commercial 30,156 927 3,043 797 285 1,461 1,582
General Commercial/Campus Office 12,844 782 1,391 628 154 487 904
Difference -
17,312
-145 -1,652
-
169 -131 -974 -678
As shown in Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison, the new General
Commercial/Campus Office use would not exceed the existing General Commercial use for
the daily, AM peak hour, or PM peak hour trips and, therefore, the proposed General Plan
amendment would not result in any significant transportation impacts.
Conclusion
The proposed GPA and SPA of parcels from General Commercial to General
Commercial/Campus Office would not result in any new or substantially more severe
significant impacts to transportation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP
EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
274
RESOLUTION NO. 21 – 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL POSTPONE TAKING ACTION ON THE
GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 72.1 ACRES
OF THE GH PACVEST PROPERTY AND THE 1.25-ACRE ALAMEDA PROPERTY; APN:
985-0027-002-00 AND 985-0027-003-00
(PLPA-2021-00009)
WHEREAS, the City Council identified in their Two-Year Strategic Plan the objectives of
establishing an economic development zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development
east of Fallon Road, and working with area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin
Boulevard extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, as well
as supporting infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2020, the City Council received an initial report on the Fallon
East Property Planning and Development Framework supporting the City Council’s Two-Year
Strategic Plan objectives. The City Council was supportive of the Staff recommendation to create
a hybrid land use designation to provide flexibility desired by the existing landowners while also
supporting the City’s goal of these properties developing with economic and job-rich uses such as
Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics,
Technology Startups, and Incubators; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2021, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan
Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation from General Commercial to
General Commercial/Campus Office for 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property and the 1.25-acre
Alameda property (“the Project”); and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, prior CEQA analysis for the Project area includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1
Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village
Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred
to as the “EDSP EIRs;” and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and 15162,
the City prepared an Addendum for the Project (the “Addendum”) shown as Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of the Project, and concludes that the Project would not result in
any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts
identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and
WHEREAS, consistent with Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City
Attachment 3
275
Page 2 of 2
obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage
Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on
the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation
within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted, and incorporated herein by reference, described
and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed
public hearing on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard;
and
WHEREAS, representatives of the property owner, GH PacVest, requested postponement
of the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to provide time to incorporate land use changes
necessary for a future development on their property and for the City to prepare further CEQA
analysis to support those changes; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum, the EDSP EIRs, all
above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project, and the
Planning Commission did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove as set forth before taking any action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the necessity of bringing forth the
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment at this time given GH PacVest’s testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council postpone approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus
Office for 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property and the 1.25-acre Alameda property to provide
time to incorporate land use changes necessary for a future development on their property and
for the City to prepare further CEQA analysis to support those changes.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of December 2021, by the following
vote:
AYES: Dawn Benson, Catheryn Grier, Janine Thalblum, Renata Tyler, Stephen Wright
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
276
Item 6.1Fallon EastGeneral Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan AmendmentCity CouncilFebruary 15, 2022277
Project Location278
Background•City Council’s Two-Year Strategic Plan –Establishing an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road•City Council Meetings on Sept 15 & Oct. 20•Economic and job-rich developments –Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, R&D, Technology Startups and Incubators279
Background Cont. •City Council March 16, 2021 GPA Initiation•City Council May 18, 2021 Fallon Road Economic Development Zone280
Existing v. Proposed Land Use EXISTINGPROPOSED281
Incorporating Sustainability1. Complete Streets + more2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections3. EV charging stations4. Transportation Demand Management measures5. Smart technology and electric infrastructure6. Reuse and recycling7. LEED (building) and Greenroads (streets)
282
Environmental Review•Prior CEQA Analysis– Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993)– East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002)– Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005)•Addendum– Equal or Less Severe Impacts
283
Planning Commission Review •December 14, 2021–Vote 5-0•Recommended postponement of GPA–Incorporate the request by GH PacVest284
Recommendation Conduct a public hearing, deliberate and take the following action:Adopt the ResolutionApproving an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Approving of a General Plan Amendment to Change the Land Use Designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office for Approximately 73 acres of the GH PacVest and Alameda Properties285