HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Att 6 Exh A with attch "C"-Responses CiEy of Dubiin
Jordan Ranch/Dublin Ranch Subarea 3/Wallis Ranch Project
Response Eo Environx�nental Camrnents
Introdu�tion
The City of Dublin issued a Mitig�ted Negative Declaration for this project on
August 7, 2015 to ensure California Environmental Quality Act compliance. The
proposed pro}ect includes requested approval of amendments to the General
Plan and Eastern Dubli�l Specific Plan and other associated land use approvals
that would result in changes to portioris of the development program for the
Jordan Ranch property, DuUlin Ranch Subarea 3 property and the Wallis Ranch
properfy. These changes include:
Jordc�n R�r7iclz: Redesignating a port�on of an existing "Park/Public
Recreation" Iand use designation on the south side of Central Parkway at
Sunset View Drive to a "Public J Seini-Public (school)" designation for
futzzre use as a school; changing an existing "Mixed Use" land use
designation on the northeast corner of Fallon Road and Ce�ltr�al Parkwav
to "Medium Density Residential." J
Sr.cbnrea 3: Redesignafing 10.4 acres of the site from "Rural
Residential/Agricultural" to"Park/Public Recrea�ian."
Wi���is Rcclzclz: Redesigna�ing a 1.9 grass acre site in the soutlz por�ion of
tl�is property from "Semi-Public" to a "Park/Public Recreation" Iand tise
designakiozl.
The tI-iree Subareas are aIl located in the Easfenl Dublin Specific Plan area, as
follows.
Jordni� Rni2cJt: East of FaIlon Road, north azzcl south of Central Parkway.
Sacbarect 3: Sout�1 of CentraI Parkway, norEh of Dublin Boulevard.
Wallis Raazch: West of Tassajara Road, south of City limit lule and east of
Camp Parks RFTA.
The City of Dublin circulated an Inifiial Shxdy a�1d Negative Declaration on
August 7, 2015 for a 30-day public review period that ended on Septezx�ber 8,
2015.
Exhibit C
Changes and Modifications to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
The following changes are made by reference into the Initial Study
docuznent dated August 2015.
1) Page 11, Table 1 is updafied to reflect 20121and use approvals for the
Jordan Ranch, z�ot an approval in 2014. The updated Table is shotvn as
Aftachment 2.
2) Page 51 item a, the size of the proposed combination Elementary and
Middle school is corrected to accommodate 950 students.
3) Page 99: The text of fhe Initial Sfudy is corrected as follows:
"Existing �vith Project conditions were evaluated using the same
methods described in Chapter 1 of the traffic analysis (see
Attachinent 1). The analysis results are presented in Table 8 of the
full traffic re�orf, based on the traffic valumes and Iane
configurations. Table S alsa includes the operations results for the
Existing without Project conditions for comparison purposes. "
4) Page 103, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 "a" is eliminated based on more
rec�nt traffic analysis. This mitigation rneasure would have required an
extension of a southbound left-turn pocket on Fallon Road at Central
Parkway with a length of approximately 200 feet. The City's consulting
traffic engineer has determined this improvement is no Ionger required.
5) Attachment 1 is hereby incorporated by reference into the Irutial Study.
Attachment 1 documents that subsequent land use applications, as noted
in the Attachment, for portions of the Jordan Ranch site are consist�nt
with the requested General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment
Comrnents Received
The following comznent Ietters were received by the City.
Commenter Date
Federal A encies
none
SEate A encies
1.1 Office of Plannin and Research 9 8/15
1.2 California Depar�nent of 9/3/15
Trans ortation (Caltrans)
Local A encies
2.I Dublin Unified Sc ooI District 9 8 15
2
2.2 Alameda County Transporfation 9/8 15
Commission
2.3 DLtblin Unified School District* 9/14/15
2.4 Alameda County Transporfat�on 9 14/15
Commissian*
Interested Persons/�rQanizations
3.I Am Lee 9/3/15
3.2 Am Lee (Petition) 9/9/15
3.3 Elizabeth & Tin1 Sar eanf 9 3/15
3.4 Am Lee" 9/10/15
�` Note: Although these comments ti�ere received by the City aft�r he close
of the comment period, the City has chosen to provide responses.
Copies of these letters follo��v and responses are found following t�1e
cominent ietters. Each letter is aruzotated with individual connments and
each numbered comment has responses follo�ving the Ietters. Page
numbers of comment letters are not provided.
3
se.�oi tif O��EUF PGGy�y�ye
�.;�:`:::'....,, ,� ��s�
�: � STATE OF CALTFORNIA Y * �,
.. .
`�,.J. ': ° GOVERNOR'S OFFIC�of PIzANNING AND R�SEARCH m �
•S QFCAlLfO •
�""""�1� STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT �'JF "'�'
L'I�MiTDID G.BROVIN.l R. KaN ALex
Gov�taaon Dttt�CrOx
September 4,30t�
.�,�... .�. :_ � �
Michael Pato Letter 1.1 . �
City ofDublu� ��P Q� 2�1�
100 Civic Plaza
r�uh�s�,,cA��,s6s ���;..l� ��:�P�:�i��l���
Subject: I:astern Dubliii Properties Gen.Plai�&Specific Plan Amendment
SCH�: 201505201 U
Dear Michael Porto:
The State Cleariughouse submitted the above nanied Mitigated r'egative Dec3aration to selected state
agencies for review. On ttie enclosed Dociunent Details Report please note that tbe Cleari�igf�ouse lias
listed tl�e state agef�cics that reviewed your document. Tl�e review period closed on September 3,2015,
and the comments from il�e responding agency(ies)is(are)enctosed. If this comment packaae is not i�3
order,piease notify the 5tate Clcarin;house immediately. Please refer to the project's te��-digit State
Clearingliouse number in future correspondence so that we�nay respond promptly.
Please�}ote that Section 2]l04(c)of the California Pub(ic Resources Code staces tl�at:
"A responsible or other public agency shail only maEce siibstantive comcnents regardina those
activities involved in�project wliich are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be ca�Tied out or approved by the agency. Those comnients shall be supported by
specific documentation."
'['hese cvmments are forwarded for use tt�preparing yo«r final environ�nental document. Should yo�i need
more i�tforination or clarificacion of t1�e enclosed cominents,we recommend that you contact the
cammenting agency directly.
Tliis letteE•acknowledges tliai yoii have co�nplied wieh the State Clearinghouse re�ie���reqitiren�ei�ts for
draft enviro3�mental docume�its,pursuant to tl�e California�nvirontt�ental Quality Act. Please contact tlie
State Clearinghouse 1t(916)4�5-OG13 ifyou l�ave any c�uestions regarding the eoviroumenta!revietv
process.
Sincei•ely �J
/ /$'^' ,i/�,:,s;%f".v
` /l 1f�y �/ �
/ /Jf
� ! F
�%
Scnit Morgan
llirector,State Clearingl�ouse
Enclosures
ee: Resources A�ency
140010th Street P.O.Box 3044 Sacramento,California 95812•3044
(916)445-0623 FAX(916)323-3U18 �vww.opr.ca.gov
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data 8ase
SCH# 2015082090
Project 7'itle Eastern Dub[in Properties Gen.Pian&Specific Pfan Amendment
Lead Agency Dublin, City of
Type MND tviiiigated Negative Deciaration
Description Consideration of a Genera!Plan Amendment,an amendmenf to the Easiem Dublin Specific Pfan,
Planned deveiopment rezoning and Stage 1 Pianned Developmeni amendments for pertions of tne
Jordan Ranch{re-designating an existing Communiiy Park site to a joint SchooUParlc site ar�d
changing an exisfing Mixed Use land use lo Medium Densily Residential); Subarea 3(re-designating
10.75 acres from Rural Residential/Agricultural to Park/Public Recreafion);and ihe Wallis Ranch
(re-designating a 1.9 acre site in lhe south portion of ihe property from Semi-Pubiic io Park land)
properties in the Eastern Dublin Pianning area.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Michael Porto
Agency City of Dublin
Phone 925 833 6610 Fax
email
Address 100 Civic Piaza
City Dublin Sfate CA Zip 94568
Project Location
County Aiameda
C1ty Dublin
Region
Lat/Long
Cross Streets East o(Parks RFTA&VJest of l'assajara R.;Fallon Rd at Ceniral Parkway
Parcel No. various
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways I-580
Airnorts Livermore Municipal
Railways No
iNaterways Tassajara Creek
Schools Quarry Lane Private 5chool
Land Use The three Subareas comprising the project site are vacant and planned and zoned tor residential,
pubiiclsemi-public and open space.
Projectlssues AesthaticNisual;Agricufturai Land;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Nistoric;Siological Resources;
Drainage/Absorptioa;Fiood Plain/Flooding;Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic,f�iinerals;
Noise;PopulationMous�ng Balance;Public Services;Recreatian/Parks; Schools/U��iversities;Sewer
Capacity; Soii Erasion/CompactionlGrading;Solid Waste;Toxic/Hazardous;Traffic/Circulation;
Vegefation;Water Quafity;Water Suppiy;Wetland/Riparian;Wildlife;Growth lnducing; Landuse;
Curnulafive Effects
Reviewing Resources Agency; 6epartment of Fish and Wildlife,Region 3;Department of Parks and Recreaiio�i;
Agencies Deparfinent of Water r�esources;Ofiice of Emergency Services,California;Cat?rans,Division of
Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol;CaHrans, District 4;Air Resources 8oard;Regicnal Waier
Quality ConUol Boara,Regian 2; Departmer�t of Toxic Substances Control;Native American Heritaye
Commission
Date Recerved 08/65/2015 Sfart of Review 08l05l2015 End of Reviev� 09/03/2095
Note: Slanks in daia fiefds resuif from insufficient intormation provided by lead agency.
Sep 03 2015 3: c4�M HP LASERJET FRx p. i
Sy�TP OF cnitFaR.V1n-.r�q,1gJA�4'Lk'ta'rEaHSangxAT10N hG51v('Y ED;�f11�D Q BROVJN Jr_rzevm�r
DEPARTMENT��TRANSPORTA.T14h ;;n�, ��.
DISTR7CT 4
P.O.BOX 23b66 ,�
OAKLAAID,CA 94b23-066U ���
PHONE (]]0)Z86-5523 � SerloN.r D�ougnt
FR.X (5I0)286-5 559 Flelp sovr svAlerl
zrr �1 i
viww.dot.ce.gav Letter 1.2
September 3, 2015
���£������ ALa 580gF�116,7
�E�, � � ��i� scx�2olsos?aio
Mr.Michael Porto
�lanning Division STATE'CLERR(NG Fi0U5E
City ofDublin
10o Civic Plaza
Dublin,CA 94568
Lrastern Dublin I'roperties Generat Plun�Specific Plun Amendment—Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Dear Mr. Porto;
Thank you for including the Califomia Department of Tzansportation(Ceiltrans}in the
�nvironsnental review process for the project referenced above.Our cotnments se�k to promote
the State's smart mobility goals that suppart a vibrant economy and build active communitics
cather than sprawl.We have reviawed the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)and have
the follo«ing comments to offer,
Prafeci Understandirrg
The proposed projecr will consider a General Plan amendment, an Eastern Dublin Specific Plan • 1.2.1
amandmant,Plazuied Deve]oPnnent rezoning, and S�age 1 Ptanned DeveIopment agzeements for
portions of the lordan Raneh, Subarea 3, and Wallis Ranch propertios within the Eastern bublin
Plaruiing area,T}ae pxoposed re-zoning will facilitate development of a cotnbination elementary
an�middle school and replace a mixed�use Iand designation to medium-deasity residential
within the Jordan IZanch property area.The project will also ehange existing laczd use
designa�ions within portions of the St�bsreo 3 and Wal�is Rar►ch properties ta better
uceommodate ParkJPublie Recreation�uses.Interstate 580 grovides direct regional access from.
rnmps at Tassajara Road and Fa]Ion Road, which are Ioceted south of the pzoject site.
M�ttgatlon Responslbtltry
As the lead agency,the City of Dublin(Ciry} i's responsible for all project rnitigation,inc}uding � 2 2
any needed improvements to State highways. The project's fair share contribution,financing,
scheduling,implementatian responsibilities and lead agency�onitoring shouid be fulty
discussed for a?1 proposed mitigation measures.
"/'�m�rd;a sqf,.rus�alna6b,in�egrared cnd n�t�enr lra»siwrluNon
ryrtem 10 uil�or�ce Ca!(lor»fa's econonsy anC UvabRlry"
Sep 03 �015 3: 24PM NP LASERJET FRX p, 2
Mr.Mic}�el Porto, City of Dublin
September 3, 2015
Page�
Ttan,sportatlar� Operattorrs
Given the praject's location u�thin d�e Eesiern Dublin Planning area,please provide the 1.2.3
intersection and queue analysis at Interstate 5$0lFa11on Roari tvestbound on-and of�-ramps under
2025 az�d 2040 Conditions for furf.her review oft�e project's impact to State facilities.
Please clarify the project's trip generation estima#es for the combination elernentary arrd rniddle 1.2.4
school,The trip generation estimales for the middle scf�ool proj�ct component was"based on
data collected in?`'ovember 2012 at Sione Valiey Elementary School as par[of an evaluation for
the TRAFFIX school.bus program(NIIVD, Attachment 1, Supplemental Memorand�,pg, 2},"
Text�vithin the Supplemental Merno also siates that trip generation surc�eys�ve�perfarmed at
various elementary and middle schools in the Tri-Vafley greas.The Table 1 middle school trip
�ener�tion companent and.its foatnote should make the conflicting sources of data collection
clear.
. Tra�rsp�rttatr`atr fnrpacl Fees
Please.identify the�'ransportation Impact Fees associated�vitl�this proposed project. We betieve 1.2.5
this project shouFd corre9pond with the midgetion measuns included in the Eastem Dublin
�nvizonmenta.l Irnpa�t Report and Supplemental CEQA Documents(1ti�+'D pgs. 95-97)_ We are
aware of the Eastern D�blin Traffic Impact Fee Program ancl enconrage a sufficient allocation of
fair share contributions toward multi-modal improvements and regional transpo�ta�iorz projects in
order to betier rnitia�te snd plan for the imgaat of futu.ra ausnulati��e �rowth on the regional
rranbportation system, Wc au�,ptirt prajocts ai�d mcasurts ta rcducc vehicic miles travcled (VM�)
and to increase�ustainable mode shares,
Vel1icle Trip,Rer�eectian �
The Metropolitan Tra��sportation Commiasio�(MTC)'s Regional Transportation
Plan/Susrninable Community Stratsgy identifies iransportation s3�stem perfannance tergets Z'2•6
includin�khe izicrease of zson�auto mode share b� 10 percentage points and a decreasa 4f VM`�'
per capita by 10 percent. Caltrnns'main concem is tbe reduction of VMT fram cars and light
dut}�tr�k trips on th� 9tate Highiva}'S}�stcm and miniznizing gro�vth per capita_
Considcr Trenspor[ation Demar�d Management(TDM)poIicie9 ta encourage usage of nearby
publie trttnsit tines and reduce veFiicle trips on fhe State Highway System.These policies could
include 1o�ver parking ratios, dedicated earpool or car•shsring parking, bieyele parkin;, and
providing transit passes fa residents,�mong others.tiVe encourage partic�pating in the S I l.org
5choolPool RideMatch service to pxornote wslking,biking and ce�pooling to schooI.For
irsfo►mation ahout parking ratios, see tho Caltrans fvnded MTC report,Rejorntin�Pr�rkt'ng
Pollcies ro,Supporr Smart Grotivth,or visit the MTC parking webpage ai the following�vebsites_
htt�:lhan�wmtc.c�,q�v/plaru�,},��/s�ftri erowtltl� r t ��'ne,/parkin� seminar/Toolbox-Handbook.pdf
htt�:/lvvww.mtc,ca.�o>>/t�lannin�/smart Rro�vthJparkinR
"Providr a.�qfa,atrs�elnablt,fr,lzgraizd nnd{�j4cG���r mmsportatton�
s}•sre��c lo e�Jxu�.:v C�J�omia:c aconomy tmd J15'nb!!!ty"
aep u� cui� d;��rn Kr LhbtKJtl rHx p. a
Mr.l�iichael Porto,City ofDublin
September 3,2015
Page 3
Should you�a�ve any questaons xegarding this Ietter or seek additional informatiQn;please contact
Sherie Geosge at(510)2B6-5535 or sherie.QeorQenaldot.ca.�av.
Sincerely,
���
' PATRICIA 3v1AURICE
District Branch Chief
Lo�al Devel�pment-Intergovet7unental Review
"P�ov1Ja a su�e,.rusminoble,Intagrolad ande(/fcrant lrm�soar4�non
syrlom!o e�ihnnce CaJYornta;r ecaimiry exd lt�nblJfry"
J��F�E9 scy�`
� � �:��
�o �y
Ce��r'��i��
��� _ � DUB �1IV U� IFIED SCHC)OL DISTR[CT
A!!Dubtrn Studenis lNil( Stephen 1�anke,Ed.D., Superintendenf•7471 Larkdale Ave., Dublin, CA 94568• 925-825-2551+
Become Lifelong Cearners w�y•dubfinusd.org
''-,-�: �: �Jr.�,
Y4, �.L, LJ!-.
September 8, 2015
. . ., t-', 1� , i ) F��,r..
Michael Porto �����T �.� ,
City of Dubfin-Cammunity Deveiopment Department
100 Civic P(aza
Dublin, California 94568
RE: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a General Pian Amer�dment, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendrnen#and other actions for various properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning
Area
Dear Mr Porto:
Thank you for giving the Dublin Unified School District the opportunity to comment on the above
referenced action.
7he District made an aftempt to understand and to respond fhe nine plus sources used to study ths
proposed action. The large number of references and the twenty plus years over which this area has
been studied maice the review by agencies like ours wiih limited technicai understanding and background
difficult. !t would be very helpful if the action in each of these studies could be summarized as it related
to the current action. It does appear that the impacf af schoois was part of environmental assessments
at every step of the process, confirmation is requested.
Below are the District's comments/questions.
� Page 5, Paragraph 3. The June 2012 Addendum references a 500 student school. The planned 2.1.1
elementary capacity appears to reference original Eastem Dublin Specific Plan capacifies?
Beginning in 2007 elementary capaci#ies Mave been significantiy larger. It is unciear in this
paragraph if the alterna#e use of residential housing for the planned elementary site was studied.
Please clarify,
� Page 7, Applicant Information. Conditions and mitigations are required later in the document on 2.1.2
the District. Does clarifiying fanguage neeci to be included to impose these conditions on an non-
appiicant?
e Page 8, a). Is the acreage lis#ed gross or net acreage? 2.1.3
• Page 8 a}and b). The impaci studied appears fo be firom allowed housing units io proposed 2.1.4
housing units. Please clarify the impact related to converting from the planned school use to
housing?
• f'age 12, Water Quality Pro#ection. Please clarify specific requiremenfs under this section. Is fhe 2.1.5
Dislrict as an independent District and State Agency falf under City of Qublin jurisdiction?
• Exhibit 3. Subject areas are identified on this exhibit, should the original school site in Jordon 2•1•6
Ranch be shown?
e Page 35, 16.d. 5ubsequent rrtitigation appears to be tied #o this item having Less Than 2.1.7
Significant Impact with Mitigafion. Piease cfarify which hazards were identified due to design
features? Please identify"Source 6".
• Page 40, Bullef 6. The District would like to request a copy of the EDSP map of viewsheds. 2•1.$
• Page 41, a), second paragraph. Please clarify/define a �ublic gathering place. 2.1.9
• Page 50, B�Ilet 2. Supplemental Impact SM-AQ-9 indicated more stringent measures be 2,1.10
undertaken, please define/clarify.
• Page 51, a}second paragraph. The paragraph discusses the impact of a 900 student campus 2,1,11
but should discuss the change from 500 students to 950. A 500 student school was previously
sfudied.
• Page 53, d,e). The paragraph appears to study air pollutants related to school construction on 2,1,12
sensitive receptors. A more detailed construction schedule shoufd be reviewed as most of the
project may be constructed before students wilf be present.
� Page 55, Bullet 3. Please clarify preparation of individuaf wetland delineations. Does this 2.1.13
rnitigatior+ apply to the District?
@ Page 76, first paragraph. lndividual developers are required to pay regional cirainage fees. As 2.1.14
the District is not a developer does this mean the fees have been or will be paid by the
develaper?
• Page 98, frfth paragraph. The tra�c analysis is cornplex with limited expertise. Please con�rm 2.1.15
that 225 studenfs of 950 total equated to 911 a.m. peak frips?
o Page 99, third paragraph. The term "Error!" appears throughout this secti�n. Please clarify if the 2.1.16
missing referenced doeumenf is necessary to review fhe section?
• Page 102— 106. The mi#igation measures discussed appear to be based on the traffiic study 2 I 1�
analysis of 950 sfudents or an en#irely new campus, The study should be based on the change
from 500 to 950 students as the impact afi a 500 sfudent campus was previously studied and
mitigated.
• Page 103-106. MitEga#ion measures addressed by the developer should be included in the fina! 2,1,1g
design requiremenfs for the developer.
• Page 108, c). Planhing area drainage facilities appear to have been previously constructed by 2,7,19
the devaloper. Please confirm.
� Eastern Dubfirt Specific Plan Amendment Transportation Assessment. The document appears to 2.1.20
be based on the study of a new 950 student campus. The impacts of a 550 student campus were
studied under the previous Jordan Ranch environmental review. Should the basis of the
Assessment be on the deita between the originaf Jordon Ranch Project and the proposed one?
Even based on the higher level of studied impact the Assessment appears to conclude no new
impact, perhaps fess in some cases has been identified, please confirm.
• i'hroughout the documenf the ariginal school capacity and the currently planned capacity
numbers are inconsistent. Should consis#ent capacity numbers be used throughout the 2•7•21
document?
Thank you for the opporturtity to comment. Please c�ntacf ine if we can provide any additiona(
information or clarify any questions.
Sincerely,
�f�
' .�� , ' ,�,�� -��..,� �
/ ..�E�,"".' �S y G �,,.��
!_,•-"
Kim McNeely �
Directar of Facifities
Cc: Stephen Ffanke, Ed.D., Superintendent
Letter 2.2 ;
From: Daniel Wu [mailto:d�vuCa�alamedactc.ora]
Sent: Tuesday,September 08, 2015 3:18 PM
To: Luke Sims
Cc: Tess Lengyel
Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for East Dublin Specifc Pfan Amendment-Alameda C7C Comments
Hi Luke,
We received your notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for East Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment_ Que to vacafion scheduling, we have not been abie to prepare our comments to the Mitigafed
fVegative Declarafion by today. Could we pfease ask far an extension for our comment by the end of this week
{9/11}?
Thank you,
U�niel Wu,Assisionf T�qnspo�laiion P!a»nei
AlQmedo Counfy Trar��spoii�iioii Comn�ission
1 i I 1 l3ioadway.Suiic:800, O�k(and, CA 94G07
510.�0�.7453 fDi:eci)
��4 F��-�.0��
!z ;y�f._ � � LIN � HOaI� S
�m ��.
,�� � .��
� � � ti� DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHO�L DISTRICT
���_" � T471 Larkdale Avenue, Dublin, CA 94568-1599•925-828-2551•FAX 925-829-f532
� _. �.
All Dubtin Students�J!
8ecome Lifelong Leamers
September 14, 2015 r�
SUPERlNTENDENT Letter Z.J
Stephen Nanke,Ed.o. Mr. Chris Foss
�s25�sze-z55y Dublin City Manager
100 Civic Plaza
BOARD pF 7RUSTEES Dubiin, CA�456"0
AmyMiller Sent via email to: chris.foss@dublin.ca.qov
Presidenf
(925}577-5866
Dear Chris,
Dan Cunnrngham
Vice President
(925J b40-8330 The purpose ofi this letter is to clarify a question that was raised in DUSD's
Megan Rouse September 8, 2015 comment letter in response to the City's mitigated negative
�szsy�s�-�asz declaration. The letter asked whether clarifiying language needs to be included
Greg Tomlinson +n order for the City ta impose th� mitigation measur�s for the joint use school
(925)36�-5055 site on a non-app[icant. We understand that the MND may identify mitigation
measures to be performed by someone other than the appEicant, but that it
does not tfiereby comn�it that party to perform those mi#igation measures.
That said, as you knaw, the Districf has been in discussions with the applicant
and the City for many months concerning the impact of the relocation of the
school site on the District's ability to house students and concerning
appropriate mitigation measures. The District has been working with the City
and applicant, and is aware of the traffic impacts and proposed traffic mitigation
measures. The District has been working with the developer on an allocation
of those mitigation measures and has entered into an MOU with the developer
tha# addresses them.
1f you have questions or need further clarification please don't hesitate to
contact me at 828.2551 ext, 8002.
Sincerely,
� I
/
Stepl�en Hanke, Ed.D.
Superintendent
SHlsf
cc: Kim McNeely, Sr. Director of Facilities
Marilyn Cleveland, Dannis Woliver Kelley .
4�F p�ir//%
� ,
= �LAMED�
� Counly Trnns�orioticn
�;���c Ccrnmiss,on �a�} groadway,Suite 800.Oal;land,CA 94607 • 510.208J400 • www.Alarc�edaCTC.orfl
�m�
����'�+�\\\\
September i4, 2oi�
Letter 2.4
Micl�ael Porto
Project Planner
Coniniunity Developznent Department
Cily of Dublin
ioo Civic Piaza
DubIin,CA 94568
SUBJECT: Response to the City of Dublin's Initial Study/Mitigated I�egative Declaration for Jordan
Ranch/Subarea 3/Wallis Ranch Geiieral Plan Amendmeilt and Specific Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Parto,
Thai�lc}�ou foz•the opportunity to camment on the Initial Study and I1�Iitigated Negative Declaration for
Jordan Ranch/Subarea 3/Wallis Ranch GeneraI Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Arnendment. The
project includes proposed land use a�nendinents of three subareas:
� Jordan Ranch subarea—Two sites:
O 11.I acre site on the south side of Central ParkM�ay a# Sunset View Drive currently
designated as a community parl:. This project proposes a pariz/school designation tllat
would alIow developinent of a combination elementary and midc�le school for 95�
students. Assuming this project is approved, the existing eastern portion of Jordan
Ranch designated for a future school would be developed consistent with its underlying
General Plan land use of niedium density reside3itial(up to ii2 dwelling ui�its).
0 4.6 acre site located on the iiortheast corner of Cent��al Pai•lc�vay and Fallon Road
current]y designated as mi�:ed-use for up to z�5 i•esidential units and vp l0 5,00o square
feet of retail. Tliis ps•oject proposes a"medium densit��" residezitial laz�d use c�esignation
of up to q.5 d��ellin�s.
• Subarea 3; located south af Central Parkrvay, tivest of Fallon Rnad, and noi•th of Dublin
Boulevard. This project proposes clianging land use desigiiation fro�17 rural
residential/agriculture to parl;s/public recreation for io.�5 ac�•es in this subarea.
• tiNallis Ranch: located in nort��ern portion of Dnblin generally boundcd by Alarneda/Contra
Costa County liiie to the north, Parlts Reseive Forces Tc�aining Area to the r��est,Tassajara Road
to the east, and Tassajara Creek to the South. Tliis project proposes changing a r.g acre site in
Wallis Ranch from "Semi Public"to parI:s/public recreatian.
We l�ave reviewed ttie praject and determined tilat it is exempt from revie�hT ui�der the Congestion
�'Ianabement Program I.and Use Analysis Program as it ���li n�t generate ioo p.in. pealc l�our trips in
excess of t�•ip generation expected from the existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use
desig�iations.
Michael Poito
SeptemUer i4,2oi5
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Please contact ine at (�io) 208-�q28 or
Daniel Wu of my staff at(510) 20&74�3 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
°�7� -
Tess Lengyel
Deputy Director of Planning and Policy
cc: Daniel Wu,Assistant Transportation Planner
file: CMP/Environinental Revierv Opinions/2oi�
. R°: Updated envirorunent iza�pact report Page 1 of 4
From: Amy Lee<amylivesyoga@gmail.com> Lefter 3.1
To: Michael Porto<odhill@aol.c�m>
Subject: Re: Updated environment impacf report
Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 4:40 pm
Hi Michael,
Thanks for such a quick reply.
In page 93 , it mentioned about Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation Measures....lmplementation of aIi af the
mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIF2 would result in a ratio of 6.7 acres of parkland per
1000 �opulation in Eastern Dublin.
Truth is that stage 1 Jordan Ranch community now has around 300 households( suppose there are 4 person
per household on average) , yet we now don't have a neighborhood park. (yes, fhe park was ptanned and we
were tofd that fhe construction would start this May, yet fhe reply we got from the ciry community and park dept.
is that no specific date of park construction can be expected. I don't want to bother you here with detaiis, but
truth is that we now over 1000 residents don't even have a neighborhood park to use. Think those moved here
since 2012.)
My doubt is about the recreation part of'discussion of checklist'. It said that the pro}ect would not increase fhe
use of existing neighborhood or regional parks. I wonder which neighborhood park fhe future residents can
use ,since there is NO exis#ing neighborhood park here.
To me, it does not make sense that you put on more buildings but cannot provide 3•�-1
basic public facilities for future residents. You might argue that there will be a plan
for it. But we need to see this pian can be implemented. Think about current JR
residents, we were told about the plan for our park here when we bought our
homes here but we don't have one so far, thus we miss ou� valuable
opportunities to know each other ,as we lack gathering place to meet neighbors
and kids have no nearby park to play. We current residents are already suffering
and this is meaningless to build more homes without providing people with
recreational areas.
In sum, f don`t think it is not acceptable to build more homes here and please do
consider our currenf situation: we paid high premium for #he view of apen space
and were told there would be a neighborhood park, but now we had no news of
the park but only informed that more homes wauld be here.
So, for us ,keeping this land as a sustainable open space ar public recreation
area is the right thing to do. You have done marvelous job in helping Dublin
become a green city and please continue with your efforts!
Thanks again far what you have done for Dublin residents.
Regards
Amy
l�ttps://mail.aol.con�lwebmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 9/10/201�
Re: Updated environment impact report Page 2 of 4
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Michaef Porto <odhill(c�aol.com>wrote:
The 1993 EI� is not on the web site. We have it on disk. We could burn a d'tsk
and leave it at the front counter for you to pick up. Pfease coordinate this with
Debra LeC(air at 925-833-6610.
If you look deeper into the document you wilf see that two Supplementa! EfR's
were done January 2002 and August 2005. In addition #o that, two subsequent
Addendums were also done as recent as 2012. There has been a considerabie
amount of more current follow up environmental work done regarding �he
Jordan Ranch.
Mike Porto
---Original Message-----
From: Amy Lee<amylivesvoqa(c�gmail.com>
To: Michael Porto <odhill{�aal.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: Updated environment impact report
Thanks Michael!
The (ink you shared is of great help and now we have more details about what
our surroundings had gone through and what will possibfy happen here.
Yet we still have doubts on certain explanations about environmental factors
you offered.
We noticed that Most of the environmental impact has been assessed based on 3.1.2
the previous studies that were done many years ago. The earliest one was in
1993 and th� mosf recent addendum EIR was done in 2Q10 (see Page
37}.Twenty years ago, there weren't this many homes in this area. Now the
amount of open space has been considerably reduced which surfy have caused
further habitat foss.
•Page 55 - Under Biological Resources, you have listed a number of mitigation 3•Z.3
measures to reduce the impact to direct habitat loss to less than significant
level. It seerms that these mitigation measures are listed in the 1993 report (now
https://maiI.aol.com/webmai!-stdlen-us/PrintMessage 9/10/2015
Re: Updated environment impact report Yage 3 of 4
22 years old}. We couldn't access these docurnents to see what these mitigation
measures were. We tried searching for them on the City of Dublin website but
couldn't find it. Would you mind sharing these documents containing mitigation
measures?
Also in Page55, you mentioned some mitigation me�sures related to San 3.z.4
Joaquin kit fox. This specie is listed as Endangered by U.S Fish & Wildlife
{please see the link http://ecos.fws.c�ov/tess public/reports/species--by-current-
ranqe-county?fips=06001 }. Again, we don't know about what exactly these
mitigation measures were. Actually, some of my neighbors in our recent street
meeting mentioned that they saw fox here.
The last paragraph on Page 55, says the eastern Dublin EIR has addressed 3.1.5
potentiai impacts regarding bald eagle and many other species. we have not
-- , seen any of these species in this area now. It could be a�tributed to the housing
development in this area including ours.
The fact is that Just this week alone, we have seen many White-tailed Kites 3.1.6
hunt in this area as weil as frequently rest on the tree that is adjacent to the
mixed use area.With new development so c#ose, no doubt there will be severe
disturbance to these birds.
M��r q uestion is that since i� appears that the EIR are not from recent studies, we 3•1-•�
need to know whether #he mitigated measures mentioned in earlier studies hold
true today and whether there are any other newer species in this area that could
be impacted.
I am sorry that we cannot provide comments timely since this study contains so
much information for us to digest and . yet I think there will be more comments
before 9/8.
Regards
Amy
.
.
https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 9/10/2015
Re: Updated enviranment impact report Page 4 of 4
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Michaef Porto <odhill(c�aol.com> wrote:
Good Morning:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The closing
date for comments is Tuesday, September 8, 2015. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared by the City. The Planning Commission will review
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and make a recommendation ta the City
Councii. The City Council will act on the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
The following is the link to that document.
Initial Study/Mitiqated Neqative Declaration — Jordan Ranch, Subarea 3 &
Wallis Ranch
Mike Porto
-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Lee <am�livesyoqa(a�qmail.com>
To: Michael Porto <odhili�aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 12:31 am
Subject: Updated environment impact report
Hi Michael„
I learned that t he project is currently undergoing an updated ElR wifh a
"negative declaration" of significant impacts. Could you please share us
whether we can have comments on EIR to city of Dublin( any comment period
for EER)?
We also like to know who provide/prepare the E1R and who will approve this
EIR?
Thanks for sharing and being always open-minded.
Regards
Amy
https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 9/10/2015
Petition•Ciry of Dublin,California.City Council Members of pubfin.Cit...H...:Stop buildings on open space in Jordan Ranch Slow...•Change.org 9(4(15 8:35 AM
-�,».-..._,.,,..
r r
� y �"
� �
> i ��,�
F i �
�
°- " ��.' s,8 s.a '�-�'� '���"�,-�'.:. sf� 5�..,.s-�a�..- ;��� h �, � � �� .
, ��y�.^' .� . ,y : � *Fw�'A�-��.�'Fif d�'���� � +"u�,.��°'7���1'����'� �
� s ,� �� � �r� ����s�'�.P-x�,?�- ,�'s �,�*,�,"��.�F`"�'�1�
� � ""�"�� .-�-�,�xs���.< e x: -�<"-'��v,�.� 'E" "��� �'"� x`�w��.. - .k.r ��'"-� ,�"',�`'k-,f� � �
€E��..�''^.,,.�� �i�� �;�M1�".'��` �' - '�.r ... . .:: � ;��"� �.�
�� y'��2:x�G � - �-,�,s� �a� ..�� � t ^,�' �� �� ~ S ��
��~ F�s�.i'�-�`-`'`' .s� �-- �.� ..��� ;���� - �, _s-���
. � �� -�� � � �y:�
� - � � � � . .� �� .. . . .
r �ws��� � `� � Na�r°'t�� � .r ����r� � '��`�`�' .� �' f �����
�� t` ,� 2,',-ar+.0-�' ;,.�����'�''-� ��-.����"-.,����4 r� 3:': .��.�,;.'�` �� � . . � �.�
�.r,�`x���-r-�,� ��,����:�;�.- ,r �+," �...s�,..%r�f '3� -�" .�,A ,°=;°"� ��,» .�c��.-� ������ ys-�*r.�"�>r '� � ,r.��,�.,�.�r�.!v'z.,z-� •
� �A �,�.��i�� a .,•�- �, r� ,��t�"'� � �%�, `�"a' � ���,,-��'�,���__^� ��/=��� �tikr' �,�� �2��� �,-��, �
tr
I y 1��� .a�c� �3.� `�� '` '� '�.� �' �- ��` � �r� "�'�'+�`�'��� r,n -.,t3?�` '�.��>-�„"�' ...� �
,z�, . �,.�,.z "� _ � ,� ✓ �" y ..�.y^ :a. �' �.�..��^-, �`� .n^ �,a .. �> ,y��,� 2_
�.,�a'�.,z.1s ��--h'�_..,��e,x4"'w-�%^.�...�...=:-�'�'�� ;� ¢-' `�-.� �3 4�..� s �.y ' �.�.- '" _"`, �zr'_ � :� 'x- �
a"a:=, „_...�s......- ��_ ,�-�-,�r'I.� Y..�."�-�:��e=,..:`"a:..
�r-
t �,rc�� � -
.e` �� .rl
�` r :
r � " �
�- 4 Letter 3.2
��. ,� �
; � -
�- �
�.�����a
�__.� ��
Ai1�ti> Lce
I�ublin. CA
95
Supporte►s
Request City of Dublin City Council, City of Dublin Planning Commission and City of Dublin Community
Deve]opment to keep the vacant la►id in .lordan RancI� as a sustainable ope�l space or public recreation area
for current residen[s.
We, Jordan Ranch residents,are tivritin� to you because ti��e z•eceived the notice froni City of Dublin tllat a
portion of the open space in front of Jordan Ranch Dr. is planned far residential use.The reasons all our
nei�hbors are strongly against tf�is plan are as folIo���s:
1.Tiiere is a [ot of wildlife in tfus open space and patting buildings on this vacant land ���iIl definitely 3.2.1
distucl� them. As nearby residents,�ve frequently sce various kinds of birds, rabbits, �vild goats and fox in
this land. Obviously, this open space is a wonderful habitat for these wifdlife.
T13e Easteri2 Dubl'rn EIR and later addendnin/ s�pplement have addressed potentia! impacts
regarding bald eagIe and ma��y otiier species. But as nearby residents, we have not seen any of these 3.2.2
species in tliis are� no�v,it could be attributed to the l�ousiaag developmeiit in tliis area ii3cluding ours.
https:/Jv✓ww.change.org/p/city-of-dublin-califomia-city-council-me...58cc5f&utm_source=target&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=one_l�undred Page 2 of 4
Petition-City of Dublin,California.City Council Members oP Dublin.Cit...H...:Stop buildings an open space in Jordan Ranch Slow...•Change.org 9/9(25 8:35 AM
With so many ne4v homes constructed in East Dublin,the amount of open space has been considerably
�-educed,and we do not want to be guilty for causing further habitat toss and have nothing to explain when
our kids ask why they cannot see wildlife hei•e.
2.This open space is flie onIy green area that we liave in front of us. Although right now we can only 3.2.3
see brown grass, but there is hope green will corr►e in winter. We'd like to fight for this open space because
this is the only green area�ve can expect.
Ti�e Initial Study/Mitigateci negative Declaration mentioned about Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation 3.2.4
Measures.._.Implementation of all of the mitigation zneasures identi�ed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
�vould result in a ratio of 6.7 acres of parlcland per 1000 population in Eastern Dnblin.{P93 )
Truth is that stage 1 Jordan Ranclt co►nmaYiity no��v has around 300 honseholds( 1000 residents in
total, svppose there are 4 person per household on average), yet we now don't have a neighborhood
park.
3.It does not make sense to continue building new l�onnes if yoa don't have pubtic facilities for fhem. 3.2,5
Think about current 1R i•esidents, we�vere told about the plan for our park here when we bought our homes
here but �ve don't have one so far. Thus��e miss ovt valuaUle opportunities to kno�v each other,as we
lac[c gati�ering place to meet neeghbors and kids have no nearby park to play. We current residents
are already suffering as�d tl�is is meauingIess to build inore t2omes �i�ithout being able to provide
people with recreational areas.
As vice mayo�•Abe Gupta said in Save Dublin Open space (Doolan Canyon) Campaign last year' We're
al�vays expanding and eapanding. But tliere is litera[[y almost no open s�ace left," t�e said.��We
tl�ought, let's pause. We're in a dF•ought, we have transportation issues, we have a lot of young
fami[ies witIi [cids.Tliey need some breathiiag room,not just a few token parks."
Di�blin voters take ur•ba�l s��ra4v1 and open space seriously and a c•equest for revie�ving the curr•ent EIR is
made by all of us.
Letter to
City of Duhliii;C�lifo�•nia.City Council Members of Dublin. City P�an�3ing Commission Board Members.
City of Dublin, California and Mission Valley Propec•ty
City Council Member 1nd Mayor : David HaubeE•t
and 7 athers
City Cotincil Member and Vice Mayor:Abe Gupta
CiEy Council Membei- Doi�een Wehrenberg
City CounciE Member pon BiddIe
City Council Member Kevin Hart
City pla�zning e�mmission Chairman City Planning Commission Baard Member
City Community Development Department Director Luke Sims
City Community Development Department Pi•oject Planner Michael Porto
Stop buildir�gs on open space in Jordan Ranch
Siow uncontrolled urban spra4vl in East Dublin
https://www,change.org/p(city-of-dublin-california-city-council-me...58ec5f&utm_source=target&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=one_hundred Page 3 of 4
Letter 3.3
-----Original Message-----
From: Efizabeth St.John <eliz.stjohn@icloud.cam>
To: odhill <odhill@aol.com>
Cc: timmy sargeant <t.d.sargeant@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 821 am
Subject: Re: Jordan Ranch Dr. Development
Dear Mr. Michael Porto,
I am writing to let you know that my husband and I 3.3.1
are opposed to any development to be placed on the Fallon/Jordan Ranch 4 acre
piece. I understand that there is currently a request to devetop a 45 unit
housing development to be placed on that tand.
We are strongly opposed to
any further development on this land period. We have seen several foxes, deer, 3.3.2
birds and hares and we, also believe that we have seen whife taited kites in the
area (which I believe are an endangered species). This new development will run
right up along side of a pond and trees that are heavily used and populated that
are currently on the preserve. I am very concerned about their welt being as
there are very few ponds and water preserves in this area,
I would like to
suggest that there be a new environmental assessment of this area. The 3.3.3
assessment done in Z�12 was done prior to all of the additional environmental
pressures that have been apptied since with all of the new devetopments, pushing
ali of the wildlife into these already very small remaining open areas.
we
think that this land would be best maintained as a part of the preserve, left 3.3.4
untouched. Of course there are many other reasons to maintain its current status
including, additional pressure on water, schools, and increased traffic. . . all
of which are also environmental concerns. Our community is also concerned about
our housing values being depressed due to the presence of this higher density
housing.
I hope that our concerns and those that have been sent by our
neighbors warrant further investigation into the proper use and designation of
this tand.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Etizabeth and Tim
Sargeant
Letter 3.4
-----Original Message-----
From:Amy Lee <amylivesyoga@gmail.com>
70; Michael Porto <odhi[l@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 3:22 pm
Subjecf:Why Parcel H is the part o#the whole deal made between DUSDICITY and developer
Hi Michae(,
Hope this letter finds you well. f didn't get your reply since my last email. So I
wonder I can make an appointment with you to discuss more details about the
Initiaf Study you shared earlier.
Basically fihis paragraph perplexed me:
i�ac�� 5. A seco�d ��d�i��ui� �r�i�s ����roved ��y tf�� Ci��� oi D�a�lirz ;n Jur�e 2012
;ar c����in por-�ia�s �r �he Jordan �ro��ei��y...Fin�ll�� , pr�vio��s �.� �cr-� oper
�p�ce I���d usc� clESic�n�fiion �.la� ►���(acc-d vJi't� � �.�li;��d-Jse c�zsic��z��io�� �h�t
�.nd�cul� h�v� coniaine� up �0 S,OOC� squa�e feef o� rei�il �nd ....
1 suppose there must be a negofiiation between City and the developer and a
contE-act or something like must fiollow that negotiation during that time. Should
this negotiation and contract details be disclosed to public? Where can l find
the record?
1 (earned that you've been in Dubiin since 1990s , so 1 think you are the right
person who knew the whole deal very well and hope you are ready to share.
Thanks for always being open-minded and look forward to your early reply.
Regards
Amy
Responses to Comments
The following are responses to each of t�le coznment letters.
1.1) State of California Office of Pianning and Research, State
Clearinghouse
Comment : The Lead Agency has complied with State Clearinghouse public
review requirements.
Res�onse: This comment is �cknotivlec�ged and no additionai response is
required.
1.2) State of Californza Departmenf of Transportation
Comment 7..2.1: The comrzienfer notes that the project inciudes a General Plan
Amendment, an amendment to t�1e Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a rezoning
for portion of the Jord�ul R1nch, jNallis Ranch and Subarea 3.
Res�oi�se: Tlus coinment is accurate and no furtller response is needed.
Comment 1.2.2 : The City of Dublin, as Lead Agency, is responsible£or aI1 project
mitigatzon including aizy needed impraveznents on State highways. The project's
fair share con�riUution, financing, scheduling and implementation should b�
fully discussed for all mitiga�ion measures.
Re�oi�se: As the Lead Agency, the City af Dublin identified appropriate
project mitigation measures in the MND and will adopt a Mifigation
Monitoring �nd ReportizZg Program v�rith any project approval in order to
enst�re implement�tion of the measures. Pages 95 through 97 of tl�e Initial
Study outline the wide range of tr�ffic and iransportztion z�litigat�on
ineasures previausly irrtposed on the affected properties and other properties
in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. AIl previously adopted tr�ffic (and
o�1er) mitigation measures contirnte to apply to the currenf project, as
ap�ropriate. Therefore, the City of Dublin 11as fulfilled iks CEQA obligation to
rec�uire traffic and transportation mitigation nleasures to alI inc�ividuai
projects as requested by the commenter.
Comment 1.2.3 : The coznme�lter requests an intersecdon and queuing analysis at
the on- and off-raznps of the I-580/Falloil Road intersection under 2Q25 �uzd 2040
conditions aild further review of the project irr�pacts to State facilities.
Res�onse: The commenter is directed fio page 4 of the Initial Study. Page 4
inciudes a suinmary of�11e 2005 Fallon Village Supplementai EIR (SEIR}
prepared in 2Q05 and certified by the Dublin City Council in 20�5. The 2005
SEIR analyzed developmezzt of approximately 1132 acres af Iand in the
Eastern Dtiblin Plaruung Area that izlcluded the Jordan Ranch proje�t. This
5
SEIR has been incorporated by reference into the current IS/MND. The 20Q5
SEIR includes an extensive anaiysis of transportation innpacts on local,
regional and state highways, including the I-584/Fallon Road on-and off-
r.am�s.
Table 42.7 contained in the SEIR demonstrates khat fuhzre building out of the
Fallon Village praperties, including the Jordan Ranch, would not result in a
significant impact at the I-580/Fallan Road westbound ramps. In addition,
the 2005 SEIR analyzed developzxient of up to 1,064 dwellings on the Jordan
Ranch site whereas the current proposed project would result in development
of up to 899 dwellings—a significant decrease in the aznount of development
and also peak hour trips. Therefore, the analysis requested hy the applicant
h�s already been coznplefed and the project would not have a significant
impact on the I-580/Fallon Road westbound on- and off-ramps.
Comment 1.2.4 : Please clarify the project trip generation for the combination
eleznentary and middle school. The IS states that trip generation for the rruddle
school was blsed on data collected at the Stone Valley Eleznentary School in
November 2012 as part of an evaluation for TRAF�IX.The IS text also states thaf
trip generation surveys were preformed at various elementary and middle
schools in the Tri-Valley area. This potential discrepancy should be made clear.
Res�onse: As noted by the commenter and as documented in the
Supplernental Traffic memoranduzn, the transportation consultant did
review tri� generation from comparable elementary ��d middle schools in
the Tri-Valley area. However,based on analysis of the collected data, the
consultant and City chose trip rates included as �art of the school bus
program to be used as the most accurate representation of elementary and
middle school trip rates. The text and foohlote in the Supplemental
Memorandum were intended ko describe the various sources from which
data was collected for consideration by the City amd consultant. Therefore,
any incoi�sistency in the information was resolved t�lrot2gh the City and
consultant review.
Coinmei�t 1.2.5 : The commenter requests transportation impact fees associated
with the proposed project be identified. The commenter believes tllat the project
should comply with the mitigation measures included in fhe Easfern Dublin
Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental CEQA documents. Tl�e
comrnenter encourages a fair-share contribution fioward multi-modal
investrnents and regional transporfation projects to mitigate for cuzztulative
growth on the regional transportation system.
Res�onse: The commenter is directed to pages 95 thraugh 97 of the
Initial Study. These pages sumrnarize the wide range of traffic and
trans�ortation mitigation requirements to assist in improving the Iocal
and regional transpartation network. Ian sum, the project applicanfis far
this proposed project will be required to pay both Eastern Dublin
Transportation Impact Fees as well as Tri-Valley Transportation
Development improvement fees. In addition, the 2005 SEIR identified a
6
nt�mber of specific transportation system improvements to the regionai
trazlsportation system that the proposed project will assist in funding.
Therefore, the commenter's request has been fLrlfilled.
Comment 1.2.6 : The cominenter requests that t�ze City consider Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) policies to encourage public transit and rec�uce
vehicle trips on the State High��vay system.
Res�onse: The Cit�� of Dublin has historically and is currently
undertaking several measures to assist in z-educing vel�icle trips on
local and State road�va��s.
Eastern Dublin EIR Mitiga�ion Measures 3.3/15-15.3 and 16.0 and 16.1.
required coordinafzon with local transit prc�viders to extend transit
services into the Easteri�Dublin area and construct pedestrian and
bicycie facilities.
Supplemental Mifigation Measure SM-AD-1 contained in the 2005
SEIR rec�uires a number of ineasures ta reduce future vehicle krips,
including but not Iimited to coordinating Zvit�1 LAVTA for extension of
transit service into the Fallan Village area, providing bicycle lanes a�1d
patiZS connected to a cammunity wide trail systein and providing
sidewalks to transit stops, Iocal land uses and a community ti�ide
walking system.
Fizzally, t11e City of Dublin just developed and approved a
compreliensive update to the City-wide pedesfrian and bicycle Master
Pl�n that includ�s specific measures to design and implement specific
improvements to promote non-auto modes of travel in tl�e commuiuty.
Therefore, the commenter's request that TDM prograin elements be
addressed has been fulfilled.
2.1) Dublin Unified School District
Commenf 2.1.7: The commenter notes that previous 2012 Addendum prepared
for par�ions of the Jordan Ranch induded a 500-student elementary school.
Begi�uung in 2007, the District notes that schools were planned for larger
capacifiies. It is also unclear if the alternative use of the existing Elemezltary
School site for resideniial use v��as studied in the previous CEQA document.
Res�onse: This 2012 T��itial Study did analyze a maximum 500-student
Elemei�.tary Schoal on the eastern portion of the Jordan Randz, now known as
Neighborhood 7. It is not clear how the prior 500-student enroll�nent figure
ti�as derived. The City notes that the 950-student enrollment figure for the
�roposed com�ination Elementary and Middle School analyzed in the current
IS/MND was developed in cooperation with the District..
7
'The City did analyze dze potential deveIopment of up to I00 dwellings on the
present Elementary School site on the east Jordan Ranch as part of the 2010
Initial Study/Addendum and this approval is reflected on the current City of
Dublin Land Use Diagram.
Cornment 2,1.2: Conditions and mi�igation measures are required in this
document that may apply to the District. Does clarifying language need to be
included to impose these conditions and mitigations on a non-appiicant?
lZes,�onse: The District worked with the Applicant for many months on the
#.raffic mi�iga�ions related to the school, which improvements fihe Applicant
commitfed to install. In fact, the District and Applicant farmalized their
discussions when the District Baard adopted the project site plan on August
�5, 2015 and �dapted a relzted Memorandum of Undersfianding on
Se�tember 8, 2015.
Comment 2.1.3: The commenter asks if the acreages noted on Page 8 of the IS are
gross or net acres.
IZes�onse: The City confirms that acreages cited on Page 8 of the IS are gross
acres.
Comment 2.1.4: The commezlt is somewhat unclear, but appears to be asking
about the impact of converting the existing Elementary School site to residen�ial
dwellings in Neighborhood 7.
Response: The current Initial Study analyzed the project described on Pages 7
through 13 of the IS document.The IS did not re-analyze conversion of the
e�xisting Elemenfary SchooI site on the eastern portion of the site to future
residences since this action was previously studied in the 2012 IS/Addendum
and is reflected in the City's General Plan (see Resolution 92-7.2).
Comment 2.1.5: PIease clarify specific requiremenfs in the Water Quality sec�ion
of the IS. Does the Dublin Unified School District as an inde�endent District faIl
under the City of Dublin jurisdiction?
Res�onse: As a separate and independent gov�rnmental body, the
District is likely not under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin except
Eor non-educational improvements. However, the Disfrict is Iikely
bound by state and federal water quality and clean water
requiremezlts. This is an opinion only and should be confirmed by
District staff.
Camment 2.1.6: The coznmenter asks if the original school site should be shown
on Exhibit 3 0�the Initial Study.
8
Response: Exhibit 3 shows�11e location of the proposed land use
changes. The original school site is not proposed for a GPA or SPA
land use change and dzus is not shown on Exhibit 3 .
Comment 2.1.7: On page 35, the commenter believes that subsequent mi�igation
for item 16 "d" of the checklist appears to be tied to having a Less-than-
Sigiuficant impact with nlitigation. Also, please clarify which hazards were
identified due to design, and please iden�ify "Source 6".
Response: The coznmenter is directed to page 103 of the Initial Study,
Transportation and Traffic, which discusses Item 16"cl" of the
environmental checklist. The discussion identifies a potentially
sig�uficant impact related to congestion af the school site primary
intersection accesses around bell �iine. Mitigation measures are
identified to reduce the iden�ified impact to less than sigruficant.
Source 6 is identified on Page 37 of the Initial Study as t11e traffic report
prepared for the project by Fehr & Peers Associates.
Commei�t 2.1.8: The commenter requests a copy of the ED5P map of viewsheds.
Res�onse: This inap is available at the City of Dublin Cornmunity
Developrne�lt Departrnent ciuring normal b�isiness hours.
Comment 2.1.9: The commenter requests clarification as to t�1e term "public
gathering place."
Respons�: The City of Dublin considers a public gathering place to be a
site o�Nazed by a public entity that can be used for visitations by
inembers of the public. This is typically a park, playground,
clesignateci scenic outlook or vista. In this instazZCe the proposed
combination Elementary School, Middle School and park is considered
a public gathering place.
Comment 2.1.10: P�ige 50, wllich summ�rized previous Mitigation Measure SM-
AQ-1 notes that more stringent air quality improvement measures be
undertaken. Please clarify and define what these are.
Respozise: Suppiemental Air Quaiity Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 is
contained in the certified 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental EIR that
included the Jordan Ranch property ainong others. The current Initial
Study summarized t�1is m�asure in d�e interest of space. The additioi�al
specific measures included in this supplemental mitigation measure
are as follo�vs, from�age 239 of the 2005 Draft SETR:
a) Require construction cantractors to water or cover stocicpiles of
debris, soil, sand or other materials �liat can be blo�vn by the
�tiTind.
9
b) Require construction contractors to sweep daily {preferably
with water sweepers} a11 paved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas at construction sites.
c) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other
erosion control measures to prevent silt runaff to public
roadways.
Cornment 2.1.11: Page 51, item "a" discusses the impact of a 900-student campus
but should discuss the change from 500 students to a 950-student campus.
Res�onse: The comment is noted. The reference to enrollment is a
description of the current assumptions for the proposed school site.
Please see the Corrections and Modi;Eications section of this document
to carrect the 900 figl.tre to 950.
Comment 2.1.12: Page 53, ifems "d" ancl "e" cliscusses the patential of air
poliutanfs related to schooi construction. A more detailed school construction
schedule should be reviewed as fhe project inay be constr-ucted before students
are present.
�Zes��nse: A school project construction schedule was not available to
i_he City prior to completion of the Initial Shzdy. Adherence to
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 during construcfion
would ensure tlus impact would be less-than-significant.
Comnnezlt 2.1.13: On Page 55, bullet 3 of the T�utial Study, please clarify t�ze need
to prepare a wetland delineation on individual properties. Wauld this
requirement apply to the Districf?
Res�onse: This requirement would lpply to the Distr�ict if wetlands
�vere identified on properfies owned and developed by the District.
Comment 2.T.14: �n Page 76, the commenter notes that the Initial Study
ic�entifies that individual developers will be required to pay regional drainage
fees. Does this also izlclude the District.
Res�ollse: Based on a recent investigation by the Dublin Public Works
Departmei�t, it appears t11af property owners have already paid City
local drainage fees for the Jordan Ranch, including the proposed
school site. Tn terms of regianal drainage fees, the District should
cozlsult with Zone 7 to determine if these fees are to be�aid to Zone 7.
Coznment 2.1.15: The commenter asks to clarify that 225 students equate to 911
AM peak hour tri�s from the proposed Elementary and Middle Schaol.
Res�onse: Please see Table 1 contained in the Attachmenfi to the project
traffic impact analysis. Tlus table is based on observed trips from
several similar sized schools. The table shows that a 400-student
elernentary school and 550-shtdent middle school would be expected
zo
to generate 911 AM peak ho�.ir trips. The 225 students referenced in
the comment appears to be the walk percenfiage assumed for the
analysis.
Comment 2.1.16: The note "error" appears on Page 99 of the Inifiial Study.
P�esponse: This is a typograpllical error in the Initial Study. This is
corrected in the Changes and Madification secf�on of �his document.
Comment 2.1.17: Mitigation Measures contained on Pages 103 fhrough 106 of the
Initial Study seem to be based on an analysis of a 950-student school on an
entirely new carnpus. The analysis should be based on the change from 500 to
950 students that�vas previously studied.
Res�onse: The City disagrees v�rith tlus statement. The development of
a 500-stzzdent school was previously analyzed on another portion of
the Jordan Rancl� site, which is no�n� proposed for residen�ial
development. The curr�nk traffic analysis correctly assumes thlt a nei�v
and larger school facility�vauld be constructed at a different location
in the Jordan Ranch. Unique impacts of school constr�rction on nearby
streets and roads were assessed and appropriate mitigation measures
to reduce �11ese iinpacts to a less-than-significai�t level identified.
Coininent 2.1.18: Mitigation measures addressed by the developer should be
inclt�ded in the final design requirements for the developer.
Response: This opiriion by the commenter is noted.
Coanment 2.1.19: P1zsuling area drainage facilifies appear to have been
canstructed by tlle developer. Please confirm this.
Res�onse: A1t11augh not a comment on the environmental 1s�ects of
tlus project, representatives of the City have confirme�i that various
drainage facili�ies have been constructed in accordance s-vith prior
project approvals for the Jordan Ranch.
Comment 2.1.20: The commenter notes that the traffic analysis contained in the
Iititial Shtdy appears to be Uased on a 950-shxdent campus. The im�acts of a 550-
student campus were previously studied under a previous Jordan Ranch
envirazZZnental review. The basis of the current analysis should tl�erefore be t�1e
change between the original project and the proposed project. Even under the
higher Ievel of studied impact the Assessment seems to conclude no new impact,
perhaps even less, please canfirm this.
Res�ozzse: The comnlenter is incorrect regarding the previous 2Q12
Jordan Ranch C�QA document. The 20�2 CEQA Addendum analyzed
a 500-student school caznpus—not 550 as noted by the commenter. In
response to the portion of the comment that the a�zaIysis should have
11
6een Iimited to the change between the 50Q-student schoal and the 95Q-
shrdent school,��ease refer to the response to Comment 2.1.17, above.
The City is unclear as to the comment that"the higher level of shzdied
impact the Assessment appears to conclude no new impact, perhaps
less in some instances." The Initial Study did find that many of the
potential impacts of developing the Jordan Ranch had been adequately
analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 EDPO SEIR, the 2005
Fallon Village SEIR and the 2010 and 2012 addenda for fihe Jordan
Ranch property. However, as nated in the Initial Study, new
potentially significant impacts were identified in the current Initiai
�hidy related to traffic safety and ap�ropriate mitigation measures
xdentified.
Cornment 2.1.21: The commenter notes that the origiilal school capacity and
proposed capacity are inconsistent.
Res�onse: T11e Initial Study �onsistently refers to the originally
assumed school capacity as 500 students. The currently planned
school capacity is 950, as noted in the trlffic and other analyses. The
page 51 reference to 900 students is corrected in the Correchons and
Modifications section of this Ini�ial Study.
2.2) Alameda County Transportation Commission
Comment 2.2.1: The commenter documents fhat the D.
Res�onse: In a subsequent phone c111 with City of Dublin staff, this
request has been withdrawn{L.Sims, 9/10/15). No additional
response is required.
2.3] Dublin Unified School District
Corrtment: The commenter documents that the District has been iiz discussio�Zs
with the project deveioper and the City concerning the relocation o€the
pro�osed school on the jorc�an Ranch property. The District confirms an
awareness of prtiposed iraffic mifigation rzteasures and has been working with
the developer on an allocation oE mitigatian measures. The District and project
developer has entered into a Memorandum of Uilderstanding to address
imp�ement�tion of mitigation measures.
Res�onse: This camment is noted and no further response is needed.
2.4) Alameda County Transportation Commission
Commenfi: The commenter notes that the proposed project is exempt from
furtller review by fille Alameda County Transportation Commission since it
would be expected to generate 140 PM peak hour firips or fewer.
12
Res�onse: This comment is noted and no furtl�er response is needed.
3.1.) Amy Lee (9/3/15)
Comment 3.1.1: The commenter states thaf it does not make sezZSe to put more
buildings but cannot provide basic facilities for future residents. The commenter
believes thaf residents of the Jordan Ranch were fold about a plan for a park
when they purchased homes,but no park has been constructed. Residents
therefore miss a�z opportunity to know neighbors, Iack a gathering place to meet
neighbors and kids have no place to play. In sum, the owners have paid a
premium for views of open space and a fufure neighborhood park,but are now
izlfornled that homes would be built. The comme�zfer urges that the site should
be kept as sustain�ble open space or public recreation area.
Res�onse: The commenter's concerns are noted. It is unclear�n�hich portion of
the Jordan Ranch the commenter is concerned about, however, as no
residences are proposed on designated park or open space sites. The current
proposal for t11e Jordan Rai-�ch includes Medium Density residences on Parcel
H, a 4.b acre site that is currently designated and approved for Mixed Use
wifh up to 115 units and cornmercial uses, and on Neighborhood 7 v��hich
already carries a General Plan Llnderlay designation for such development.
T'l�is underlay Iand use designatio�l has been approved by the City since 2012
and has never been deszgz��ted as a park.
A second portion of the�roject wo��ld repl�ce 3.7 acres of a designated
Community Parlc ozZ the soutll side of Central Parlcway with a 950-student
combination Element�ry and Middle School. The majority of the site would
remlin as a City park. Additionally, acreage on an adjacezit pro�erty�vould
be combined with tlus project to create a larger City park.
The Iiutial Study did not identify any sigilificant impacts with Iack of�ublic
facilities with the project.
Comn�ent 3.1.2 The commenter notes that most of the environmental iinpact has
been assessed basec� on previous studies done many years ago, including one
dazze in 1993 and tlle most recent in 2010. T�venty years ago there weren't many
homes in the area now the amount of open space has been considerably reduced
which has caused furtlzer habitat Ioss.
Res�onse: The commenter is correct that some of the environmental analysis
was done in 1993 to assess the impacts of approving and developing Eastern
Dublin; hov�Tever, the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan were
approved to plan for future developinenf over a 20-30 year period, with
development assumed across most of the planning area. Sii�ce T993,
developmezlt has proceeded to fill u1 the plazuling area, as an�icipated in �11e
1993 planning approvals. Changes in the 1993 plai�u-iing has occurred within
tlle origizzally assuined planning boundaries and has been analyzed in many
13
supplemental enviroz�nental reviews, in accordance with CEQA. Major
updated analysis of a portion af the Eastern Dublin planzZing area was
completed in 2002 (EDPO SETR), 2005 (Fallon Village Supplemental EIR) and
again in 201Q, 2012 and 2015 for the Jordan Ranch property. Each succeeding
CEQA docc.iment has been prepared to determine if any new or more severe
sigiuficant impact has occurred with respect to any environmental resource
beyond those icientified in the priar documents. If found, new mitigations are
adopted to ensure such impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.
With respect to loss of open space, a signifi�ant portion of the Eastern Dublin
Planrting area was undeveloped open space in 1993 �vhen the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan was adopted. The Specific Plan envisions that much of the then-
open space v�=as to be converted to urban uses as the Specific Plan was built
out over 20-30 years. A number of community and neighborhood parks are
included in the SpeciFic Plan to provide open space. Much of the hillside
properky at lugher elevations on the periphery of fihe Planning Area have
been reserved for open spaces.
Comment 3.1.3: The commenter notes that [the IS] lists a�ZUmber of mitigafion
measures to reduce impacts to direct habitat loss to a less-fihan-significant level.
Many of these measures are Iisted in the 1993 EIR. The commenter could not
access these documents and request a copy.
{�es�onse: Copies of a11 previous EIRs for tI-�e Eastern Dublin area and related
�riateriai are available for review afi the City of Dublin Community
Development Department during normal business hours.
Cominent 3.1.4: The coinmenter identifies that the San Joaquin Kit Fox is
meritioned in existing znitigation measures. This species is identified as
endangered by the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service. It is unclear what these
mitigations migllf be. Neighbors of the commenter report seeing faxes on their
stre�t.
Res�onse: The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR did include potential impacts to Kit
Fox as a potentially sig�uficant impacf. To ensur�im�acts to this endangered
sp�cies is reduced to a Iess-than-sigiuficant level, the Eastern Dublin EIR
included an extensive protection program for the Kit Fox. No acfual San
Joac�tun Kit Pox has ever been reported sighted in the Eastern Dublin area by
professional biologists doing fieldwork in this area.
The commezlt about fox sightings is noted. As noted above, no sightings of
the endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox have been reported in the Eastern Dublzn
I'laruling area by pro€essional biologisfs.
Comment 3.1.5: Tl1e commenter states that bald eagles may be presei�t within the
Eastern Dublin plaiu�ing area. The commenter has not seen these in the area,
which could be attributed to housing development
14
Res�onse: The Eastern Dublin EIR did identify potential impacts to bald
eagles from planned development in Eastern Dublin, along���ith appropriate
mi�igafion. One bald eagle has been spotted in East�rn Dublin and the
mitigation measure implemented to protect this eagle and associated nest.
Commenf 3.1.6:Many ivhite-tailed kites have been spotted in Eastern Dublin.
With ne�v development so close, there is no doubt that there will be severe
disturbance to these birds.
Res�onse: Impacts to white-tailed kite �vas identified as an impact in
the 2005 Fallozi Village Supplemental EIR. Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0
through 3.7/17.0 tNas adopted to reduce this impact to a less-than-
sigzzificant level.
Comment 3.1.7: The commenter asks if the EIR is not fram recent studies, are
mitig�tion measures mentioned in earIier studies s�ill valid and if there are ai7y
newer species in the area that would be impacted.
Rest�onse: All Mifigation Measures set forth in previous CEQA
documents remain valid and apply to the current project, as noted
many times in t11e Ixutial Study document. Through the supplemental
revie�v process provided in CEQA secfion 2116b, prior EIRs analyzing
develo�rnent on Jordan Ranch have been updated as development
changes have b�en proposed since �Ize I993 Eastern Dublin EIR. Far
many of the more recent CEQA documents affecting the Jordan Ranch
project, additional biological studies 11ave been completed to ensure
fhat impacts to any newly Iisted biologicai species are identified and
appropriate ixlitigation measures adopted. Significant new biological
surveys �vere completed on the Jordan Ranch in 2005 and 2010 for
protectec� and endangered species. In addi�ion, numerous plant and
�vildlife pr�co�zsf�-uction stu-veys have been coin�leted for the Jorcian
Ranch, �s reqiiired by these mitigation meastrres, prior to issuance of
gr�ding perinits.
3.2) Amy Lee & Others (petition)
Comment 3.2.1: The coinznenters state that fihere is a lot of�vildiife in tlus o�ei�
space area azld putting buildings on vacant Iand�vill defizutely disturb them.
This includes various kinds of birds, rabbits, foxes and wild goats. The open
s�ace is a wonderful haUitat for these species of�vildlife.
Res�onse: The comznenters' opinions oz� clisfurbance to wildlife on
current open space Iand is noted. It is unclear as to which open space
area is being cited by the commenters. Much of the jordan Ranch has
been gradEd under permits granted by the City to accoxnmodate
existing and future development azZd no Ionger provides suitable
wildlife habitat. The Eastern Dublin EIR, the 20Q2 EDPO SEIR, tl�e 2005
Fallon Village Suppleinental EIR and other CEQA documents have
15
evaluated potential development impacts to the Jorcian Ranch as
wildlife habitat and mifigation measures included to reduce any
impacts fio a less-than-significant level. As noted earlier, development
occunring on Jordan Ranch and in Eastern Dubli.n generally was
planned for implementa�ion over a 20-30 year period when the 1993
General Plan Amendment and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan was
approved.
Cornment 3.2.2: The cozxkmenters note that the Eastern Dublin EIR and other
CEQA documents addressed impacts to bald eagles and many ather species, yet
these species have not been seen by the commenters. This could be attributed to
hou.sing development, including houses of the commenters. The amount of open
spa�e has been consicierably reduced and they do not want fo feel guilty for
further habitat loss.
Res�oizse: The commezlters' opznions on loss of wiidlife habitat is
noted. Loss of habitat over the Eastern Dublin Plaruzing Area was
+�onsidered�vhen adopting the Eastern Dublin General Plan
.Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in 1993.
In terms of bald eagle, a Golden eagle and associated nest were
i.dentified in Eastern Dublin approxixnately tezZ years aga. Mitigation
Measures contained in the Eastenl Dublin EIR were applied to protect
ihe eagle and �agle nest.
Cominent 3.2.3: The open space is �11e only green area they have in front of us.
They hope the brown vegetafion will hzrn green during winter rains
Response: This comment is noted and will be considered by the
I?lanning Commission and City Council durzng their deliberations on
the project.
Cor�lrnent 32.4: The coznmenters note that dze Eastern Dublin EIR idenhfied a
provision af 6.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The Jordan ranch project
currently has approxim�tely 300 homes and an estimated 1,040 resicients, yet
there is now no neighborhood park.
Res�onse: The commenter is directed to Table 1 contaizled in the Iiutial
Study. The table shows that, at buildout, the jordan Ranch would
contain a 5.8-acre Neighborhoad Park and a 2.7-acre Neighborhood
Square. In addition, a 6.4-acre portion of the 10.1-acre School site on
the south side of Central Parkway would be devoted to a park.
Residents of Jordan Ranch can also use the facilities of the Fallon
Sports Park, which has been developed on the west side of Fallon Road
across from Jordan Ranch. The General Plan establishes a�arks ratio of
5 acres parks�er 1000 population (General Plan Open Space Element,
Tmplementing Policy 2.4.2 B.l).The redesignations proposed for Wallis
Ranch and Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 wili assist in maintaining fhat
standard.
1b
Comment 3.2.5: The commenters stafe fhat it doesi�'t make sense to con�irnie
building homes if there aren't public facilities for them. The commenters �vere
promised a park�vhen they purchased homes, but there is not one so far. They
are missing out on kno�Ning their neighbors, a place to meet and a place for kids
to play
Res�onse: The commenters' opznions on Iack of park land is noted and
will be considered by fhe decision makers �vhen revietnTing this project.
The Iiutiai Study prepared far this project ciid not identify any
sigiuficant impacts with respect to lack of public facilities, includirtg
water, waste��ater, schools anci parks.
3.3) Elizabeth & Tim Sargeant
Comment 3.3.1: The commenters are opposed to azzy development being�laced
on dze 4-acre portion of the Jordan Rand�.
Respanse: The commenters' opinion is noted. The 4.6-acre site is Parcel
H, which has been previously a�proved for a mixed-use development
that could contain u� fo Z15 dwellings and up to 5,000 square feet of
non-residential development.
Commenf 3.3.2: The commenters state fihey have observed foxes, deer, birds,
hares and possibly �vhite-tailed kites. Kites are an endaYZgered sp�cies.
Res�onse: The commenters' opinion is noted. The 4.6-acre site, as well
as the remainder of the Jordan Ranch, have been surveyed for the
potential oE biologicai resources many times since 1993. Irnpacts to
s�ecial-stahts plalzt and wildlife species have b�en documented and
mitigation measures adopted to reduce any significant im�acts to a
less-than-significant Ievel. Mitigation Measures for whitetail kite are
included in tlZe Eastern Dublin fiIR to initig�fe impacts to this species
and other birds to a less-than-significant level. See the Response to
Comment 3.1.6.
CEQA and CEQA Guideli�les do not require an analysis of wildlife
species that are not Iisted as protected, endang�red or listed as special-
st�fus species. Tlus includes deer, hares and birds (except for�rotected
bird species).
Commenf 3.3.3: The commezlters request�IZat a new environmental assessmeiif
be performed tor this site. Th� 2012 assessn�ent was done prior to additional
developn�ent that has pushed tivildlife into these sm�ll remairung open space
areas.
Res�anse: The commenters' opiivan is noted. The jordan Ranch site
has been the subject to biological analyses in 1993, 20Q2, 2005 and 2010.
17
In addition, fhe 4.6-acre has been graded pursuant to previous land
use approvals granted by the City and no Ionger provides suitable
]habitat for wilcilife. The City does not believe that an additianal
�iological analysis at this time would result in any different findings
�han have been previously reported. No adciitional biological analysis
i.s therefore recommended.
Corrinnent 3.3.4: The commenters ask fhat the 4-acre site be included in an open
spar_e preserve and Ieft untouched. This could reduce the need for additional
services and facilities, such as water, schools and increased firaffic. There is also a
concern about the addition of more high-denszfy housing on local housing
values.
1Zes�onse: The commenters' opinion is noted. As identified above, the
4.6-acre site is already designated far future mixed-use development.
The request to iz�clude this 4.6-acre site info an open space preserve
wi11 be considered by the decision makers in their review of the
proj ecf.
3.4} Amy Lee (9/10/15)
Comment 3.4.1: The commenter requests a copy of any previous negotia�ion
befween the City and the Jordan Ranch developer.
Res�onse: This comment is acknowledged. Since this corrunent is not
r•ellted to the environmental aspects o#the proposed project, a separate
z•esponse to this inquiry wili be provided by City of Dublin sfiaff.
18
Attachment 1
CEQA Anal.ysis of Subsequent Land
Use Applications
19
Attachment 1
City of Dublin
Appendix to Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Jordan Ranch/Wallis Ranch/Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 ProJect
CEQA Analysis of Jordan Ranch
Subsequent Land Use Applications
Introduction
The Tnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed the impacts of a
General Plan Amendment (GPA), an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan (SPA�, a Planned Development rezoiung with a Stage 1 Development Plan
(1'D rezoning) and potential changes to an existing Development Agreement for
the three Subareas identified in the Iiutial Shidy;one of the Subareas is khe
Jordan Ranch.
Following the circulation of the Ini�ial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
{IS/MND, or MND) in early August 2015, fh�applicant for the Jordan Ranch,
Mission Valley Properties, filed a number of subsequent Iand use applications
�vith the City to allaiv future development on Parcel H and Neighborhood 7 of
the Jorcian Ranch. The applications for Parcel H are consistent with the proposed
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and PD rezoning amendments
addressed in the MND. The applicaiions for Neighborhood 7 are consistent wit�1
exzsting M�ciium Density Residential land use designations and PD zoiung for
the site.
The subsequ�nt ap�Iica�ions include:
• A Planned Development Rezoning with a Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Pian for aIl three portions of t�ie J'ordan Ranch subarea, as
identified in the MND. A Plannec�Development Rezoning with a Stage 1
and Sfiage 2 Development Plan have also been requested for the Subare�3
and Wallis Ranch Subareas;
• A Site Development Review (SDR} application and a Vesting Tentafive
Subdivision Map for Parcel H and Neighborhood 7;
• Oa1 Parcel H (Iocated on the northeast corner of Fallon Road and Central
Parkway), the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning would remove the potential for
deveiopment of up to 115 dwellings and up to 5,000 sc�uare feet of non-
residential use and replace this with up to 45 Medium Density Residential
d�vellings as shown on the related PD rezoning Stage 1 Development Plan
site plan. The subsequent applica�ions far Parcel H would do the same,
and provide design details of the proposed dwellings and landscaping, as
well as development standards generally consistent with other existing
and approved medium density residential development in Jordan Ranch.
The site plan is �11e same as the site plan for the PD rezoning Stage 1
Development Plan (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8267) and
• On Neighborhood 7 (Iocated on the eastern side of the Jordan Ranch
property), previously a�proved for 100 Medium Density d�vellings is no�v
proposed to accommodate up to 105 detached three-story townhouse
dweilings (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8269). PD zoning and a
related Stage 1 Develapment Plan was adopted in 2012 along with the
Medium Dez�sity Residential Iand use desigzza�ions. Tl-iis potential
development was reviewed in a 2012 CEQA addendum to the prior EIRs
that included Jordan Ranch (Resolution 91-12). The 5 addi�ional uruts
proposed in the subsequent applications are also residential and generally
ivithin the same development area as the 2012 project. As further
discussed below, the increase fi-om 1Q0 tuzits to 105 units on the
I��eighborhood 7 sifie is not considered a substantial expansion or increase
in the use. Similar to Parcel H, the subseq�.ient applicatiozzs for
Neighbarhood 7 provide design details of the proposed dwelli�zgs and
Iandscapil-�g, as �vell as developinent standards generally consistenf�cn�ith
other existing and approved medium density residential development in
Jardan Ranch.
The purpose of this Appendix is to document that these subsequenC applications
for Parcel H propose development of the same use, density, development area
and location as propased in the GPA/SPA and Planned Developznent Stage 1
Development Plan addressed in the MND, and the subsequent applications for
Neighborhood 7 propose development substantially the same as analyzed in �11e
2012 addei�dum. The discussions below review each of fhe MND resourc�
to�ics and conclude that the subsec�uent applica�iozZS for Parcel H and
NeighUorhood 7 would not result in any new or more severe signific�nf
envirorunental impacts than identified in the August 2015 Ini�ial
Stuc�y/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or the 2012
Addendu�n. As sucll, the subsequent applicafions do not constitute s�.tbstantial
revisions to the MND and do not require recirculafioz� of the MND Luider
stand�rds set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 .
CEQA Anaiysis of Subsequent Land Use Applicatzons
Pollowing is a summary of any new or znore severe significant�lzat could occur
�vith the a�proval of the subsec�uent land use applications iden�ified above.
Aesthe�ics: The type, location and amount of development�roposed iii the
subsequent land use applications (45 ci�vellings on Parcel H and 105 dwellings in
N�ighborhood 7} is consistent with the znaximu�n number of dzvellings shown in
the Project Descriptian on Page 8 of the Ini�ial Shtdy. The type, Ioca�ion and
density af development would be the same betv��een that described in the MND
for Parcel H and the 2012 Addendum for Neighbarl�ood 7 and the subsequent
applications for those sites. The appearance of proposed dwellii�g u�lits iz1 fierms
of desigi� a��d architecture, use of materials, exterior colors, landscape design,
fences and any signs as reviewed through Site Development Review ensure that
fhe appearance are generally consistent with existing develo�nlent on the Jordan
Ranch and other nearby neighborhoods. The design details of the propQSed
A-2
dwellings would not result in any physical aesthetic impacts beyond the
discussion in the IS/MND for Parcel H or the 2012 Addendum for
Neighborhood 7.
No significant iinpacts fo aesthetic topics were found in the 2015 IS/MND
document with respect to the approval of the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning or in
the 2012 Addendum.
There woLYld be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to
aesthetics than was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND or 2012 Addendum;the
subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require
recirculation of fhe MND. Mitigation measures relating to aesthetics set forth in
previous F;astern Dublin CEQA documents will continue to apply to projects
included in the Subsequent applicafiions.
Agriculhtre & Forestrv Resources: The same area of Iand on fhe jordan Ranch
waLtld be disturbed under the proposed subsequent land use applications as
described and analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and the 2012 Addendum No ne�v
impacts to this topic was identified in the Initial Study.
There would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to
agriculture and forestry resources than analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND for Parcel
H or in �11c 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7. Thus, the subsequent
applications are not a subsfiantial revisio�l fihat would require recirculation of the
MND . Agricultural impact mitigation measures contained in previous Easterzl
Dubliil CEQA documents will apply to the projects covered in the subsequent
a�plicatiorts.
Air uali : The subsequent Iand use applicatio�ls contain the same number of
d���ellings �and type of development as was analyzed 'zn the 2015 IS/MND for
Parcel H. No ne�v air quality impacts were identified in t�ze 2015 Tiutial Study
widz respect to the GPA and SPA and PD rezoning. The 105 townhome units is
not a subsfiantiai change from the 100 units assumed in the 20T2 Addencium as
they woulci not substantially increase trip generation. Therefore, no new ar more
severe sigiuficant impacts would result from the approval of the subsequent land
us� applications, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that
would require recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures pertaining to air
quality coi-�tained in previous CEQA documents wzll apply to the subsequent
Iand use applications
Bioioa�,ical Resources: No significant impacts were identified in the 2Q15 IS/MND
or 2012 Addei�dum with respect to biological resources. The subsec�uezlf land use
applicakions include the same Iocation and residential type of�.tses, and would
disturb approximately the same amount of ground surface as tvas analyzed in
fhe IS/MND and 2Q12 Addendum. Therefore, there would be no new or more
severe significant impacts with respect to biological resources tktan was analyzed
in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent a�plications
are not a substantial revision that would require recirculatiozl of the MND.
A-3
BiologicaI r�source mitigation zn�asures contained in previous Eastern Dublin
CEQA documents cantinue to apply to those projects induded in the subseq�.ient
land use applications.
Cultural Resources: The sazne amount of ground disturbance would occur under
the subseqL�ent Iand use applicafions as was analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and
2012 Addendum. No significant cultural resource impacts�vere identified in the
either do�ument. Therefore, there wauld be no new or more severe significant
impacts with respect to cultural resources t11an�vas addressed in the 2015
IS/MND and 2012 Addendurn. As such, the subsequent applications are not a
substantial revision that would rec�uire recirculation of the MND .
Geologv & Soils: No sig�uficant geology or soils impacts�nrere identified in t�ze
IS/MND with respect to the requested GPA and SPA and PD rezoning, or in the
2012 Addendum . The requested subsequent Iand use applications would
incILtde �IZe same loca�ian, amount and type of development included in the
GPA/SPA and PD rezoiung for Parcel H and in the 2012 project on the
Neighbarhood 7 site. Therefore, no new or more severe significant im�acts wikh
respect to geoiogy and soils �vould occt�r with the subsequent Iand use
applicants than ivas anaiyzed in the IS/MND and the 2012 Addendum. As suc11,
the subsequent applicatlons are not a substantial revision that would require
recirculation of the MND. Mitigation measures contained in previous Easterzl
Dublin CEQA documents will apply to subsequent land use applicafiions.
Greenhouse Gas Emission: No additional analysis of greenhouse gas emissions
was required for the 2015 IS/MND ar the 2012 Addendum. �or the reasons set
fortll in the IS/MND, no additional GHG analysis of the subsequent ap�lications
is required and the subsequent applicat�ozzs are not a substantial revision that
would rec�uire recircula�ion of fhe MND.
H�zards ar�d Hazardous Materials: No impacts to hazards ar 1lazardous
materials were iden�ified in the 2015 IS/MND that analyzed the impacfs of
approving �Ze rec�uested GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H or in Ehe 2012
Adde�ldum for the Neighborhood 7 site. TIze proposed subsequenf land use
approvals would include �lze same Iand use type and density as was studied in
the MND and 2Q12 Addenduin. Therefore, there �vould be no new or more
severe significant impa�f�cvith respect to hazards and haz�rdous znaterials than
�vas analyzed ii1 the MND and 2012 Addendum. As such, the subsequent
ap�licaf�ons are not a substantial revision that��7ould require recirculation of the
MND.
Hvdrologv c� Water puality_: Hydrology and water quality issues were analyzed
n tlle 2Q15 IS/MND �zat examined izn�acts related to the approval of the
reqtlested GPA/SPA azZC� PD rezoning oi-�Parcel H and in the 2Q12 Addendum
for the Neighborhood 7 site .No impacts were ic�en�ified in either document.
Hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the subsequent land use
ap�Iications would be tlZe same as deternlined for the GPA/SPA and PD
rezoiung actions on Parcel H and in t11e 2012 Addendum for Neighborhood 7
since the same density, residential Iand uses, and area of dis�urbaYlce are
A-4
proposed:in the subsequent applications. Therefore no new or more severe
significan#�hydrology and water quality impacts would occur than were
previously addressed in the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum, and the
subsequer�t applica�ions are not a substanfial revision that rvould require
recirculati�n of the MND.
Hydrologv and water quality mitigation measures contained in previous Eastern
Dublin C�QA docuznents will confiinue to apply to subsequent Iand use
applications.
Land Use &Plaruu�: The subsequent land use applications contain fhe sarrie
type, loca�ion and density of land uses as included in the GPA/SPA and PD
rezoning that was analyzed in fihe 2015 IS/MND for Parcel H and as included in
the 2012 Addendum£or Neighborhood 7. Based on the s�ne land uses, there
would be no new or more severe significant 1a11d use and planning impacts than
analyzed i:n the 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum, and the subsequent
applications are not a substantial revision that would require recirculation of the
MND. Mitigation measures pertainz�lg to land use and planning contained in
previaus Eastern Dublin CEQA documents �cvill apply to subsec�uent Iand use
appiicafiions.
Mineral Rc�sources: No imp�tcts to inineral resources were idenfiified in the 2015
TS/MND ar the 2012 Addendum and none are anticipated with respect to the
subsec�uent land use applications.
Noise: No sigiuficant noise implcts were identified in the 2015 IS/MND that
studied the proposed GPA/SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H, or in the 2012
Addendurn for the Neighborhood 7 site. Since the subsequent land use
applicatiorts would be located in the same locatio�l as assLFined in the MND and
2012 Addendum and would have substantially the same dezZSity,no new or more
severe sigrtificant noise impacts are expected than studied in the 2015 IS/MND
and 2012 Addendum. The increase of S lots on I�Teighborhood 7 would not
suUstantiaily iz�crease potential traffic noise or potential construction noise. As
such, the subsequent appiicafions are not a substantial revision that wouId
require recirculation of the MND. All �revious noise mitigation measures
contained ii�previous Eastern Dublin CEQA documents would apply to the
strbsequent applications.
Po�ulation.and Housin�: There would be no new or more severe sigiuficant
impacts related to popu �1 tion azzd housing since the GPA/SPA and PD rezoi�ing
in t�1e MND for Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site
include thE same location, type of land use and density as the subsequent land
use applications.
Public Services: No significant publzc service impacts�nrere identified in the 2015
IS/MND t�iat analyzed a GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H or in the 2012
Addendurrt for the Neighborhood 7 site. Land uses would be subsfantially the
same in terms of type, amount and Iocation of development area, and density in
the s«bsequent land use ap�lications as are included in the MND for the
A-5
GPA/SPA and PD rezoning for Parcel H and in the 2012 Addendum for the
Neighborhood 7 site. No new or more severe significant impacts �n�ould therefore
occur in terins of public services with t�1e subsequent applicatians, and the
subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require
recirculation of the MND. Mifiigation measures contained in previous Eastern
Dublin CEQA docun�ents relating to public services continue to apply to
subsequent land use applications.
Recreatian: Since land use fypes and densities in the subsequent appiica�ions are
substanfially the same for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning project sfiudied in the
2015 IS/MND and in the 2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site, there
cnrould be no new �r more severe significant impacts with the approval and
construction of Iand uses incltrtded in the subsequent applicat�ons. The increase
of 5 u�lits in I�Teighborhood 7 is not a subsfiantial increase; also, the developer
�vould be required to pay Public FaciIities Impact fees for parks based on fhe
increased number of tuuts. Far the above reasons, the subsequent applications
are i�ot a s�.ibstantial revision that would require recirculation of the MND. All
Eastern DuUlizl znitigation measures contaii�ed in previous Eastern Dublin CEQA
documents relating to recrea�ion continue to apply to the subsequent
lpplications.
Transportatian & Circulation: Potentially significant impacts to this topic �vere
identified in the 2015 IS/MND. Hotvever, the IS/MND only found poten�i�Ily
significant impacts �vith respect to traffic s�fety «�ith the construction of the
�ro�osed Elementary and Middle Schools. No significant iinpacts were found
�vith respect to �he proposed park or resid�ntial developinent por�ions of the
project.
The nuYnber, Iocation and type of residences praposed in the subsequent Iand
use ap�Iications are substantially the same as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and
2012 Addenduin. Therefore, no new or more severe sigiuficant impacts are
antici�ated beyond t�iose analyzed in �11e 2015 IS/MND and 2012 Addendum.
As such, the subsequent applications are not a substantill revision f�zat would
require recirculation of the MND. AlI previous Eastern Dublin traffic and
trazzsportation mitigat�on measures cozzfinue to apply to residential development
included izi the subsequezzt applica�ions.
Utilikies &Service S, sty eins: The nu�nUer, type, Iocation of residences included in
the subsequent Iand use applica�ions are substazz�ially the same as analyzed in
the 2015 IS/M�TD for the GPA/SPA and PD rezoning on Parcel H and in t��e
2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site. Therefore no ne���or more severe
sigiuficant impacts with respect to utili�ies or services systezns are an�icipated
beyond that previously analyzed in �l�e 2015 IS/MND and 20I2 Addendum, and
the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would require
recirculation of the MND. Eastern Dublin utility and service system nlitiga�ion
ineasures contained in previous CEQA documents continue to apply to
dwellings proposed as part of the subsequent land use applications.
A-6
Summary
Based on the above analysis, approval of the subsequent applications for
development of residences on Parcel H and in Neighborhood 7 woulcl not rest�lt
i�t any new or more severe significant impa�ts than were studied in the 2015
MND and 2012 Addendum. This because the MND analyzed a GPA/5PA azZd
PD rezoning for Parcel H that assumed the same 45 medium density attached
and detached units as proposed in the subsequent applications. Similarly, the
2012 Addendum for the Neighborhood 7 site assumed substantially the same
residential development as in the subsequent applications. The increase from
100 to 105 uiuts is not a substantial increase with respect ta the resource topics.
Therefore, the subsequent applications are not a substantial revision that would
require rec�irculation of the MND under the standards of CEQA Guidelines
section 15C)73.5. -
A-7
Aftachment 2
Revised Initial Study Table 1
2Q
�
a� �
� � {
� � � t� m ,-+ � � ,--� tr+ ��
,,.,., cn °' � � N ' � ' ui c�i ' � � a �, T �
� k � � � r
c�n � � '_'; .c � �o
O '� o � �
O � o � n" �
� z � �
� � � p �i � ¢
rt bb °,�,^`,, o �' •�
O � � '= �r v�
N ;� � y C! m � i1] Q, � �'.°-'
� z � � N � N ' � � -30
v� � W b {
Q � � .m uVi
� c w
� � o
� � ro
c�l� � b � i
N
� � m � ,� tt;
u o � N L� t� � i ,-i � � ; oo rn 3 0 0
� � � � �t+ r-� � c-t � N � � � j m
�/ p � U -o
� O a � o
� ^ =� ro 'y
� � U
b
"� � � Cn t�f] "�"�� � � .�
� � � � �
�� `-� � 1� � (p i i i i t � � � 1 N
I � C?1 'z .� [��t m N i-�+ � Q•qQ i i i i � � � � -� �
O! ^✓ r � C
� � Q ti � � � � �
�
,� � � o
p Q � o �'
� � � � � �'
a �I � � t� o c*) � ,-+ � 00 L� �-, er � � �
"� Qr�h V � c'n c�-+ Vi � � Lt i CV � � 0�0 j � .�
� N L/ 'Q� Q � s--t � .o �
O O t .c ti
�' � a .E
0 _ .-� v� rn Oo m v;
'� C� t� � � -t_+ � - C
� a,^,� 'V-' .r.� w �i �a �
� �+ �" � p y C tr�
� � � "L� � N � N � ��"Q i i i i i i � � � y o
� � � •� � � �- p � 4 O� � •�
� � � � � V � ��
rn � c �;a � o°
.x � q :y Q h
W a � ro � a�ia a,
e-�t
�V] � M � '` $ � m ,C
� � p � l� N � � �--+ � � � L� '� m o -c �� y
,.� c� s.a � cV O� � o r-+ � N ai �c 4 � � o k
� y � � N � � �-+ � � N v � °o .c p � p m m
H O � Q C� � � ti `= ni� �
N o � c m y c
`° � _. o
� o o c y� i�
cn 7 � Qp -0 o aai `c N
O bA •-� m • fi.?c � �
� � �i "t"" cn � 00 O �+ v'ri a��i c`°i� v�'i� °� �
N y � � N N (��J � + O ��„�, ; i i i i i a�0 Nb N �C � � �
'�"+ r-`7 � O L� � ` 'S `�- .O �
� � � •� � p � R3 �m O C
A � .
h'�4 :f m N ,p � C j 1�
cII � -�,,. m U m �
� � � � y � 0
5
� � � ia�ac � o `
y � 5 �
r-t�n '� �'i bL1 �"' O O � j � � � b CC$
F.-! .t-' C� "� � � V Q� �b t�l vf (Q 41 � �.1�
� � :� Q � x � � '� � � � s ro � ; aa � � �
� a, � � � � r � � o o � � �n rn � � � �
a p ,� � ,-� � .�',� .0 a � � �, t� � o a .� � a v� ❑ a--
d � ,-. .� :., � 3 Cn
� ' '� ' "d '� � .h0,y, .bA � '� � ta 4 v 3 a�i^ b 0 �
�+ CJ RS O �� � � �:-
.-7 -N-� � N-� � Q -fv-� ,G tn U Z F. Z Cn CJ� O [� � � O � N � U �