HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Kent Property General Plan Amendment and Rezoning (PLPA-2019-00002)STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Page 1 of 7
Agenda Item 6.1
DATE:February 16, 2021
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:Kent Property General Plan Amendment and Rezoning (PLPA-2019-00002)
Prepared by: Robert Smith, Associate Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of a 1.5-acre property
located at 6207 Sierra Court known as the Kent property. The proposal includes an amendment to
the General Plan land use designation of the property from Business Park/Industrial to
Retail/Office and Automotive and an associated Rezone from M-1 (Light Industrial) to C-2
(General Commercial). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City
prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Open the Public Hearing and: 1) Adopt the Resolution Adopting the Initial Study/Negative
Declaration and Amending the General Plan Land Use Designation at 6207 Sierra Court from
Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive; and 2) Waive Reading and INTRODUCE
the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map for Property Located at 6207 Sierra Court from M-1 to
C-2.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with the proposed project except the cost of staff and
consultant time to process this application.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
The 1.5-acre Kent property is located at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Sierra Court
as shown in Figure 1 and is currently developed with an existing 16,117-square-foot one-story
building with an existing commercial use. The property is currently designated Business
Park/Industrial in the City’s General Plan and is within the M-1 zoning district as shown in Figures
2 and 3 below.
126
Page 2 of 7
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Existing General Plan Land Use
127
Page 3 of 7
Figure 3. Existing Zoning Map
The property is generally surrounded by light industrial uses to the north, public/semi-public uses
to the south (Dublin Civic Center and Dublin Sports Ground), and retail/office/automotive uses to
the east and west, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Adjacent Uses
Existing Use Land Use Designations
North Charmet Tile (flooring store) McGoldrick Milling
Company, Inc. (building materials supplier)
Business Park/Industrial
South Dublin Sports Grounds, Dublin Civic Center Parks/Public Recreation
and Public/Semi-Public
East Dublin City Center Shopping Center (Sahara Market,
Sahara Kabob Grill, Funks Autoworks, Russian School
of Mathematics, and Harvey’s Cleaners)
Retail/Office and
Automotive
West NAPA Auto Parts California Custom Carpets, Inc. Retail/Office
On February 15, 2019, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving the initiation of a General
Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation of the approximately 1.5-
acre site from Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive to allow for commercial
uses similar to the neighboring properties to the east and west along Dublin Boulevard. The
property owner originally requested the initiation of this amendment to provide greater flexibility
in re-tenanting the then-vacant building. The property owner subsequently signed a lease.
However, the City continued to process the application as an economic development tool to
provide flexibility for future use of the building.
128
Page 4 of 7
Proposal
The following are the proposed project approvals as set out in the City Council Resolution and
Ordinance (Attachments 1 and 2):
•General Plan Amendment from Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive;
and
•Rezone from Light Industrial (M-1) to General Commercial (C-2).
As described above, the project site is already developed and no new improvements are currently
proposed.
Analysis
The current General Plan land use designation of Business Park/Industrial allows for non-retail
businesses (e.g., research, limited manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative
offices) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate nuisances due to emissions, noise or open
uses. The proposed General Plan land use designation of Retail/Office and Automotive allows
general commercial, retail and service uses, and typically includes shopping centers, stores,
restaurants, business and professional offices, motels, service stations, and the sale of auto parts,
as well as automobile/vehicle sales and service, auto body shops, and similar auto-focused uses.
The current M-1 zoning is compatible with the current General Plan land use and allows light
industrial uses in proximity to major transportation corridors. Use types permitted in the M-1
zoning district include ambulance service, laboratory, office, parking lot/garage, light industrial,
printing and publishing, research and development, trucking terminal, warehousing and
distribution, and similar, related uses as well as accessory restaurant and retail uses. The
proposed C-2 zoning district is compatible with the proposed General Plan land use and would
allow commercial uses along major transportation corridors and intersections. Examples of
permitted uses include banks and financial institutions, building material sales, car
wash/detailing, copying and blueprinting, drive-in/drive-through business, health
services/clinics, hotel/motel, hospital/medical center, personal services, plant nursery, repair
shop, retail, shopping center, and similar related uses.
The proposed General Plan Land Use Map and proposed Zoning Map are shown in Figures 4 and 5
below.
129
Page 5 of 7
Figure 4. Proposed General Plan Land Use
Figure 5. Proposed Zoning Map
PD Reso. 35-85
130
Page 6 of 7
The proposed amendment to the General Plan land use designation and Rezone would be
compatible with existing commercial development and the neighborhood character of the area.
Additionally, the existing building design is not well suited for many of today’s light industrial
users with large store front and customer parking facing Dublin Boulevard. Both the design of the
building and its location have drawn interest predominantly from commercial users. The
proposed change in land use and zoning would respond to the market and the existing building
and better facilitate use of the existing site.
The project site is currently occupied by an existing commercial business, which modified its
commercial operation in order to comply with the currently M-1 zoning and offers only a limited
showroom. Amending the General Plan and Zoning Map would provide added flexibility to this
business and future businesses to offer a robust retail component to their operation. With
implementation of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone, the property would be allowed
expanded land uses and an opportunity to provide complementary commercial activity consistent
with its location along Dublin Boulevard.
Consistency with General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance
The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan in that it recognizes that there
will be a natural evolution of land uses and land use changes over time. The proposed General Plan
Amendment would be consistent with nearby commercial land uses and would create continuity
of uses with surrounding properties along Dublin Boulevard. The project site is not located within
a specific plan. In addition, the proposed Rezone would be consistent with the intent of the C-2
zoning district, which provides for the continued use, expansion, and new development of general
commercial use types along major transportation corridors and intersections, such as Dublin
Boulevard.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA Guidelines and
City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents be prepared. The City’s
environmental consultant, LSA, prepared an Initial Study in accordance with CEQA requirements.
Based on the Initial Study (IS), the City determined that the proposed project would not have a
significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration (ND) was prepared. The IS/ND
is attached as Exhibit A to Attachment 1 (Attachment 3) of this Staff Report.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider this project at their regular meeting
on January 26, 2021. No members of the public addressed the Commission on this item. On a 4-1
vote, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 21-01, recommending that the City Council
adopt the proposed project and related Initial Study/Negative Declaration. The Planning
Commission Resolution recommending approval of the project is included in Attachment 4.
131
Page 7 of 7
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
In accordance with State law, a public notice was published in the East Bay Times and posted at
City Hall. The public notice was provided to all persons who have expressed an interest in being
notified of meetings. The Staff Report for this public hearing was also made available on the City’s
website.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Adopting the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and Amending the General Plan
Land Use Designation at 6207 Sierra Court
2) Exhibit A to the Resolution - Initial Study, Negative Declaration
3) Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map for Property Located at 6207 Sierra Court
4) Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-01
132
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. xx-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 6207 SIERRA COURT
FROM BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL TO RETAIL/OFFICE AND AUTOMOTIVE
(APN 941-0205-013-04)
PLPA-2019-00002
WHEREAS,the 1.5-acre Project site is located at 6207 Sierra Court at the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and Sierra Court (APNs 941-0205-013-04); and
WHEREAS, the existing General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Business
Park/Industrial and the City proposes to amend the General Plan land use designation to
Retail/Office and Automotive; and
WHEREAS, the Project also includes a companion Rezoning of the Project site from M-1
(Light Industrial) to C-2 (General Commercial); and
WHEREAS,the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed project, which found
that there was no substantial evidence that the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning would
have a significant adverse effect on the environment and, therefore, pursuant to the requirements
of CEQA, the City prepared a Negative Declaration (ND), dated January 2021, which reflects the
City’s independent judgment and analysis; and
WHEREAS, the IS/ND was circulated for 20 days for public comment from January 6, 2021
to January 26, 2021; and
WHEREAS, no comments were received on the IS/ND; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing on January 26, 2021, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 21-01, recommending adoption of the IS/ND, and approval of the General
Plan Amendment and Rezoning, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and
available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated February 16, 2021, and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
and associated environmental review, for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, consistent with Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code and
Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resource Code, the City obtained a contact list of local Native
American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the
133
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 2 of 3
contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan Amendment
and IS/ND. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the statutory consultation
periods and no further action is required; and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing
on the Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, at which time all interested
parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration, attached as Exhibit A, based on the following findings:
1. The City Council considered the IS/ND and public comments prior to taking action on
the project.
2. The City Council finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, including the IS/ND
and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed
Project will have a significant impact on the environment.
3. The IS/ND reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis as to the potential
environmental effects of the proposed General Plan Amendment.
4. The IS/ND has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the Dublin CEQA
Guidelines and Procedures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan
Amendment, as set forth below, is in the public interest, will promote general health, safety and
welfare, and that the General Plan as amended will remain internally consistent. The proposed
Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies of the General Plan in each of the
elements and will allow for Retail/Office and Automotive uses.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendment to the General Plan:
Figure 1-1 (Dublin General Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to change the land use designation
for the Project site to Retail/Office and Automotive as shown below:
134
Attachment 1
Reso.No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 3 of 3
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of February 2021 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
3668427.1
Retail/Office and
Automotive
135
January 2021
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
KENT PROPERTY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
6207 SIERRA COURT, DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Attachment 2
136
This page intentionally left blank
137
January 2021
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
KENT PROPERTY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
6207 SIERRA COURT, DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Robert Smith, Associate Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Prepared by:
LSA
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, California 94801
510.236.6810
LSA Project No. DUB1601.01
City Application No. PLPA‐2019‐00002
138
This page intentionally left blank
139
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i
FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ iii
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................... 1‐1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................ 2‐1
2.1 Determination ................................................................................................................... 2‐1
3.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................. 3‐1
3.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 3‐3
3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 3‐6
3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 3‐13
3.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 3‐17
3.6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 3‐19
3.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 3‐22
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 3‐27
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 3‐31
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 3‐35
3.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 3‐39
3.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 3‐42
3.13 Noise................................................................................................................................ 3‐43
3.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 3‐46
3.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................. 3‐48
3.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 3‐50
3.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 3‐51
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 3‐54
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 3‐56
3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 3‐58
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................ 3‐60
4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 4‐1
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 5‐1
140
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) ii
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location ................................................................................................................. 1‐2
Figure 2: Aerial View of the Project Site and Surrounding Uses ......................................................... 1‐3
Figure 3: General Plan Land Use Designations ................................................................................... 1‐4
TABLES
Table A: Development Regulations ..................................................................................................... 1‐6
Table B: Adjacent Land Uses ............................................................................................................... 1‐7
Table C: Potential Change in Trip Generation ................................................................................... 3‐52
141
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACDEH Alameda County Department of Environmental Health
ACFD Alameda County Fire Department
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan
CalFire California Department of Fire and Forestry Protection
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
C‐2 General Commercial
CAP 2030 City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond
CBC California Building Code
CDMG California Department of Mines and Geology
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 Methane
City City of Dublin
Clean Air Plan Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017 Clean Air Plan
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2 equivalents
142
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) iv
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
dB decibel
dBA A‐weighted (sound level) decibels
DMC Dublin Municipal Code
ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System
EFZs Earthquake Fault Zones
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GHG Greenhouse gas
GPA General Plan Amendment
GWP Global Warming Potential
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
I‐680 Interstate 680
I‐580 Interstate 580
IS/ND Initial Study/ Negative Declaration
LID Low Impact Development
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
M‐1 Light Industrial
MMI Modified Mercalli Index
MRP San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Regional Permit
N2O Nitrous oxide
NAHC California Native American Heritage Commission
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
143
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) v
NOx Nitrogen oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
OPR Office of Planning and Research
Pb lead
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
POTWs publicly owned treatment works
PPV peak particle velocity
ROG Reactive organic gases
SCP Stormwater Control Plan
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SLIC spills, leaks, investigations, and cleanups
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SRA State responsibility area
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TACs toxic air contaminants
TCE trichloroethylene
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VMT vehicle miles traveled
Water Board San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
144
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) vi
This page intentionally left blank
145
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 1‐1
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title:
Kent Property General Plan Amendment and Rezoning (City Application No. PLPA‐2019‐00002)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Robert Smith, Associate Planner
(925) 833‐6610
Robert.Smith@dublin.ca.gov
4. Project Location:
The project site is located at 6207 Sierra Court at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and
Sierra Court in Dublin, Alameda County, California (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 941‐0205‐
13‐4). Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstates 580 (I‐580) and 680 (I‐680),
which are located approximately 0.5‐mile south and west of the project site, respectively. Local
access to the project site is provided by Sierra Court. Figure 1, on Page 1‐2, depicts the regional
and local context of the project site. Figure 2, on Page 1‐3, is an aerial view of the project site
and its vicinity.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
6. Existing General Plan Designation:
Business Park/Industrial
7. Existing Zoning:
M‐1 (Light Industrial)
8. Description of Project:
Existing Use. The project site consists of an approximately 1.5‐acre (66,122‐square‐foot)
property located at 6207 Sierra Court in the City of Dublin. The site is currently developed with
an existing 16,117‐square‐foot one‐story building that includes an existing commercial use. The
site is currently designated Business Park/Industrial in the City’s General Plan and is within the
M‐1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. The existing General Plan land use designations for the
project site and surrounding properties are shown on Figure 3, on Page 1‐4.
146
SOURCE: ESRI World Street Map (03/20).
I:\DUB1601\GIS\Maps\Figure 1_Regional Location.mxd (9/4/2020)
FIGURE 1
Kent Property General Plan AmendmentDublin, Alameda County, CaliforniaRegional Location
Project Site
Project Location
0 500 1000
FEET
147
Civic Plaza Adarre LLn Tralee Village DrTralee Village DrBantr
e
e Bay St
B an tree B ay StHouston PlHouston PlYork DrPenn DrMaple D r Alamoo CCaannal TrailDougherty RdDougherty Rd
Sierra CourtSierra CourtTrinity CourtTrinity CourtDublin BlvdDublin BlvdDublin BlvdSierra LaneDublin BlvdDublin Blvd Centennial TrailVilla
ge
Pk
wy
V illa g e P kw yEbensburg LnEbensburg LnCedar LnCedar LnSpruce LnSpruce Ln Amador Valley BlvdClark AveClark Ave Civic Plaza Adare Ln Tralee Village DrBantr
e
e Bay StHouston PlYork DrPenn DrMaple D r Alamo Canal TrailDougherty Rd
Sierra CourtTrinity CourtDublin BlvdDublin BlvdSierra LaneDublin Blvd Centennial TrailVilla
ge
Pk
wyEbensburg LnCedar LnSpruce Ln Amador Valley BlvdClark AveDougherty RdDougherty R dDougherty Rd
680580DUBLIN SPORTS GROUNDSDUBLINLIBRARYDUBLINCIVICCENTERVALLEY HIGH SCHOOLRETAILCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALSINGLE-FAMILYRESIDENTIALMEDIUM-HIGHDENSITY RESIDENTIALBUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIALBUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIALRETAILBUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL/STORAGEFEETProject Site6000 300SOURCES: Google Earth, 6/20/19; LSA, 2020P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\Graphics\Figure 2.ai (9/1/2020)FIGURE 2Kent Property General Plan AmendmentAerial View of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses148
2,4601,23002,460FeetThis map is based on City of Dublin GIS InformaƟon and reflects the most current informaƟon at the Ɵme of this prinƟng. The map is intended for reference purposes only and the City and its staff is not responsible for errors.FEETProject Site2,4600 1,230LegendGeneral Plan Land UseParks/ Public RecreationOpen SpaceStream CorridorPublic LandsPublic / Semi-PublicSemi-PublicDowntown Dublin - Village Parkway DistrictDowntown Dublin - Transit-Oriented DistrictDowntown Dublin - Retail DistrictDublin CrossingGeneral CommercialRetail/OfficeRetail/Office and AutomotiveNeighborhood CommercialGeneral Commercial/Campus OfficeCampus OfficeIndustrial ParkBusiness Park/IndustrialBusiness Park/Industrial and Outdoor StorageMixed UseMixed Use 2/Campus OfficeMedical CampusMedical Campus / CommercialRural Residential/Agriculture (1 Unit per 100 Gross Residential Acres)Medium/High-Density Residential and Retail OfficeEstate Residential (0.01 - 0.8 du/ac)Low-Density Single Family (0.5 - 3.8 du/ac)Single Family Residential (0.9 - 6.0 du/ac)Medium-Density Residential (6.1 - 14.0 du/ac)Medium/High-Density Residential (14.1 - 25.0 du/ac)High-Density Residential (25.1+ du/ac)SOURCE: City of Dublin, 2020P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\Graphics\Figure 3.ai (9/2/2020)FIGURE 3Kent Property General Plan AmendmentGeneral Plan Land Use DesignaƟons149
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 1‐5
According to the City’s General Plan, the Business Park/Industrial land use designation allows for
non‐retail businesses (e.g., research, limited manufacturing and distribution activities, and
administrative offices) that do not involve heavy trucking, or generate nuisances due to
emissions, noise or open uses. Permitted floor area ratio (FAR) ranges from 0.30 to 0.40 and the
allowable employee density is 360 to 490 square feet per employee.
The M‐1 zoning district is intended to provide for the continued use, expansion and new
development of light industrial use types in proximity to major transportation corridors and to
ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses. Permitted uses in the M‐1
zoning district include ambulance service, laboratory, office, parking lot/garage, light industrial,
printing and publishing, research and development, trucking terminal, warehousing and
distribution, and similar related uses.
Proposed Land Use. The City is initiating a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land
use designation for the site from Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive
representing a natural evolution of land uses and land use changes over time, creating
continuity along Dublin Boulevard between the project site, and neighboring properties to the
east. The site would also be rezoned from M‐1 (Light Industrial) to C‐2 (General Commercial)
consistent with the amended General Plan land use designation. As described above, the project
site is already developed and no new development (i.e., demolition, construction, or change in
site access) is currently proposed.
The Retail/Office and Automotive designation allows general commercial, retail and service
uses and typically includes shopping centers, stores, restaurants, business and professional
offices, motels, service stations, and the sale of auto parts, as well as, automobile/vehicle
sales and service, auto body shops, and similar auto‐focused uses. Permitted FAR ranges from
0.25 to 0.50 and the allowable employee density is 220 to 490 square feet per employee.
The C‐2 zoning district is intended to provide for the continued use, expansion, and new
development of general commercial use types along major transportation corridors and
intersections, and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and commercial uses.
With implementation of the GPA and Rezoning, permitted uses for the project site that are not
currently allowed under the existing zoning, would include: adult business establishment (with
Conditional Use Permit [CUP]), banks and financial institutions, building material sales, car
wash/detailing (with CUP), copying and blueprinting, health services/clinics, hotel/motel (with
CUP), hospital/medical center (with CUP), massage establishment, personal services, plant
nursery (with CUP), repair shop, retail‐ general, retail – neighborhood, retail – outdoor storage
(with CUP), retail ‐ service, shopping center, tobacco retailer (with Zoning Clearance) and similar
related uses.
Maximum Development. Table A shows the development regulations that apply to the existing
(M‐1) and proposed (C‐2) zoning districts, as defined in Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Chapter
8.36.030 Commercial and Industrial Development Regulations.
150
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 1‐6
Under the current General Plan and Zoning regulations, the maximum development footprint on
the site could include a 26,448‐square foot, one‐story building, which would generate a
maximum of 73 employees at the maximum employment density (approximately 10,000 square
feet greater than the current use of the site). 1 A taller building would have a smaller
development footprint in accordance with FAR requirements; however, the number of
employees would be the same. Consistent with existing employee density requirements, the
existing building supports approximately 44 employees.2
Table A: Development Regulations
Standard Existing Zoning District
(M‐1)
Proposed Zoning District
(C‐2)
Lot Area
Interior Lot 20,000 square feet 6,000 square feet
Corner Lot 20,000 square feet 7,000 square feet
Lot Width and Frontage
Interior Lot 100 feet 50 feet
Corner Lot 100 feet 60 feet
Lot Depth 100 feet 100 feet
Setbacks
Front 10 feet 0 feet
Side 10 feet 0 feet
Street Side 20 feet 0 feet
Rear 20 feet 0 feet
Height Limits 45 feet 45 feet
Source: City of Dublin Municipal Code (2020).
With implementation of the GPA and Rezoning, the maximum allowable development on the
site could include a 33,061‐square foot, one‐story building, which would generate approxim‐
ately 150 employees at the maximum employment density (approximately 16,944 square feet
greater than what currently exists and 6,613 square feet greater than what is currently allowed
on the site).3 A taller building would have a smaller development footprint in accordance with
FAR requirements; however, the number of employees would be the same. Based on the types
of allowable uses under the proposed land use designation, the most intensive uses of the site
may include a shopping center or restaurant. At the maximum employee density, the proposed
project could increase employment at the site by approximately 106 employees.
The analysis in Section 3.0, Environmental Checklist of this Initial Study considers the maximum
development potential that would be allowed under the proposed GPA and rezoning, compared
to existing conditions.
1 66,122 square feet x 0.4 = 26,448 square feet; 26,448/360 = 73 employees
2 16,117/360 = 44 employees
3 66,122 square feet x 0.5 = 33,061 square feet; 33,061/220 = 150 employees
151
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 1‐7
Discretionary Approvals. As described above, the City has initiated a GPA to change the land use
designation for the site from Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive, and a
Rezoning of the site from an M‐1 to C‐2 zoning district.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
As described above, the project site is currently developed with an existing 16,117‐square‐foot
building that includes an existing commercial use. The remainder of the site consists of paved
parking. Landscaping, including shrubs, turf, and several mature trees, are located along Sierra
Court.
The site is generally surrounded by industrial uses to the north, public/semi‐public uses to the
south, and retail, office, automotive uses to the east and west. Surrounding land uses are shown
in Table B below.
Table B: Adjacent Land Uses
Existing Use Land Use Designation
North Charmet Tile (flooring store
McGoldrick Milling Company Inc. (building materials supplier)
Business Park/Industrial
South Dublin Sports Grounds, Dublin Civic Center Parks/Public Recreation
East Dublin City Shopping Center (Sahara Market, Sahara Kabob Grill, Funks
Autoworks, Russian School of Mathematics, and Harvey’s Cleaners)
Retail/Office and Automotive
West NAPA Auto Parts (auto parts store)
California Custom Carpets, Inc. (carpet store)
Retail/Office
Source: City of Dublin (2020).
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or
participation agreements):
N/A
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project
area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is
there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of
impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
On April 20, 2020, the City provided formal notification to those California Native American
tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area within which the
proposed project is located pursuant to the consultation requirements of SB 18 and AB 52. To
date, no tribes have requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1.
152
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 1‐8
This page intentionally left blank.
153
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 2‐1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist in Section 3.0.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
2.1 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
12/29/2020
Signature Date
154
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 2‐2
This page intentionally left blank
155
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐1
3.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3.1 AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099,
would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway
c. In non‐urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in
an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a. Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? (No Impact)
Scenic vistas in Dublin consist of the ridgelines located in the open space area in the Western
Extended Planning Area of the City. This area is generally accessed by Interstate 580 (I‐580) and
Interstate 680 (I‐680), which are designated Alameda County scenic routes. In addition, San Ramon
Road, Dougherty Road, and Tassajara Road are designated scenic routes. Per the City of Dublin
General Plan policies, design review would be required for all project visible from a designated
scenic route in order to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers.
The project site is located in a generally level area, approximately two miles east of the open space
areas/ridgelines associated with the Western Extended Planning Area. The project site is not visible
from any of these County‐ or City‐designated scenic routes. The site is not located in an area
considered to be within a scenic vista. The project site is currently developed with a single‐story
16,117‐square‐foot building, associated surface parking lot, and landscaped areas. The proposed
GPA and Rezoning would allow general commercial, retail and service uses, as well as auto‐focused
uses in an already developed area and would not result in any physical changes to the project site.
Although potential future development on the project site may be visible from scenic viewpoints,
applicable height restrictions would apply, and new construction would be governed by existing
regulations that apply to development within this area. The proposed GPA and Rezoning would not
result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and no impact would occur.
156
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐2
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact)
The closest officially designated State scenic highways to the project area and project site are I‐680
and I‐580, which are located approximately 0.4 mile west and 0.2 mile south of the project site,
respectively. Due to intervening development, the project area and project site are not visible from
these scenic roadways.
As described above, San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road, and Tassajara Road are designated scenic
routes. The project site is not located along any of these County‐ or City‐designated scenic routes. As
discussed above in Section 3.1.a, the proposed project would not result in any physical improve‐
ments to the site and future development projects on the project site would be governed by City
regulations for the amended land use designation and zoning district. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in substantial changes to scenic resources within view of a State scenic
highway or scenic corridor and no impact would occur.
c. In non‐urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
(No Impact)
Implementation of the proposed project would allow general commercial, retail, and service uses, as
well as auto‐focused uses in an already developed area and no physical improvements to the project
site would occur. Any potential future development project proposed at the project site would be
reviewed based on, among other things, the effect on the visual character of the site and surroun‐
dings as a part of the City’s permit process. New structures would be evaluated for compliance with
the City’s Zoning Ordinance, including height and setback requirements and other design controls.
Compliance with the City’s applicable regulations would ensure that any future development of the
project site would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the visual character or quality of the
project site and no impact would occur.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area? (No Impact)
The proposed project is located in an industrial area with existing lighting consisting of security and
streetlights. The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow general commercial, retail and service
uses, as well as auto‐focused uses in an already developed area and no physical site improvements
to the project site would occur. Potential future development of the project site would be reviewed
based on, among other things, exterior lighting that could affect surrounding views, as part of the
City’s permit process. Any lighting associated with potential future development at the project site
would be consistent with City standard lighting requirements in the project area and no impact
would occur.
157
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐3
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and
the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California
Air Resources Board.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐
agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non‐forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non‐forest use?
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use? (No Impact)
The project site is not used for agricultural production and is not designated Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. 4 The surrounding
area is characterized by industrial, public/semi‐public, retail, office, and automotive uses.
Furthermore, the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program categorizes the project site as Urban
and Built‐Up Land by, which is defined as land that is occupied by structures with a building density
of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10‐acre parcel. Examples of
4 California Department of Conservation (DOC). California Farmland Conservancy. California Important
Farmland Finder. Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed August 27, 2020).
158
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐4
Urban and Built‐Up Land include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities,
cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control
structures.5 Therefore, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance, or any other type of farmland to non‐agricultural uses. No
impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would occur.
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
(No Impact)
The project site is currently classified as M‐1 on the City’s Zoning Map. With implementation of the
proposed project, the site zoning would change to C‐2. Neither of these zoning districts allow for
agricultural uses. The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes, not zoned for
agricultural uses, and is not protected by, or eligible for, a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or Williamson Act contracts. No impacts
would occur.
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))? (No Impact)
As described above, the project site is zoned M‐1 and would be Rezoned to C‐2 with implementation
of the proposed project. The project site is currently developed with an existing 16,117‐square‐foot
building that includes an existing commercial use. Neither the project site nor the surrounding area
is zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland production. No impacts would occur.
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland to non‐forest use?
(No Impact)
The project site is located in an area of the City that is characterized by an urban setting. No forest
or timberland exists on the project site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project
would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. No
impacts would occur.
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non‐forest use? (No Impact)
The project site is currently developed with an existing 16,117‐square‐foot building that includes an
existing commercial use. The proposed project would result in a change to the General Plan land use
designation and zoning classification of the site, to allow for uses such as retail, office and
automotive, similar to the neighboring properties to the east. The proposed project would not result
in the conversion of farmland on or off the project site to non‐agricultural uses because there are no
agricultural uses on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Likewise, the proposed project
5 Ibid.
159
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐5
would not result in impacts related to changes in the existing environment that could result in the
conversion of agricultural land to non‐agricultural uses. No impacts would occur.
160
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐6
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
(Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
The project site is located in the City of Dublin, which is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin, a large shallow air basin ringed by hills that taper into a number of sheltered valleys around
the perimeter. The City of Dublin is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD), which regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality conditions
in the San Francisco Bay Area have improved significantly since the BAAQMD was created in 1955.
Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days during which the region exceeds
air quality standards have fallen substantially. In Dublin, and the rest of the air basin, exceedances of
air quality standards occur primarily during meteorological conditions conducive to high pollution
levels, such as cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons.
Within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and
lead (Pb) have been set by both the State of California and the federal government. The State has
also set standards for sulfate and visibility. The Air Basin is under State non‐attainment status for
ozone and particulate matter standards. The Air Basin is classified as non‐attainment for the federal
ozone 8‐hour standard and non‐attainment for the federal PM2.5 24‐hour standard.
The applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan),6 which was
adopted on April 19, 2017. The Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air
quality and protect public health. The Clean Air Plan defines control strategies to reduce emissions
and ambient concentrations of air pollutants; safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air
pollutants that pose the greatest heath risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Clean Air Plan. April 19.
161
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐7
heavily affected by air pollution; and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to protect the climate.
Consistency with the Clean Air Plan can be determined if the project: 1) supports the goals of the
Clean Air Plan; 2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan; and 3) would not
disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan.
Clean Air Plan Goals. The primary goals of the Clean Air Plan are to attain air quality standards; reduce
population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and reduce GHG emissions and protect
climate.
BAAQMD has established significance thresholds for project construction and operational impacts at
a level at which the cumulative impact of exceeding these thresholds would have an adverse impact
on the region’s attainment of air quality standards. The health and hazards thresholds were
established to help protect public health. As discussed below the proposed project would result in
less than significant construction‐ and operation‐period emissions. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with the Clean Air Plan goals.
Clean Air Plan Control Measures. The control strategies of the Clean Air Plan include measures in
the following categories: Stationary Source Measures, Transportation Measures, Energy Measures,
Building Measures, Agriculture Measures, Natural and Working Lands Measures, Waste
Management Measures, Water Measures, and Super‐GHG Pollutants Measures. The following
sections describe the Clean Air Plan control strategy measures:
Stationary Source Control Measures. The stationary source measures, which are designed to
reduce emissions from stationary sources such as metal melting facilities, cement kilns,
refineries, and glass furnaces, are incorporated into rules adopted by the BAAQMD and then
enforced by the BAAQMD’s Permit and Inspection programs. Since the project would not
include any stationary sources, the Stationary Source Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are
not applicable to the project.
Transportation Control Measures. BAAQMD identifies transportation measures as part of the
Clean Air Plan to decrease emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and
GHGs by reducing demand for motor vehicle travel, promoting efficient vehicles and transit
service, decarbonizing transportation fuels, and electrifying motor vehicles and equipment. The
proposed project includes a GPA to change the land use designation for the site from Business
Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive and Rezoning from M‐1 to C‐2 to be consistent
with the land use designation. No new development is proposed at this time. As discussed in
Section 3.17, Transportation, any future proposals to redevelop the site would require
discretionary review by the City and the land use proposed at that time would be subject to
review. If a specific proposed land use is found to have the potential to affect vehicle level of
service or vehicle miles traveled, project features such as travel demand management measures
could be implemented to preserve vehicle level of service. In addition, retail/commercial or
restaurant uses that would be allowed with the proposed GPA and Rezoning may attract many
of their trips from traffic already on the adjacent roadway. As such, the proposed project would
not hinder BAAQMD’s initiatives to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled.
162
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐8
Energy Control Measures. The Clean Air Plan also includes Energy Control Measures, which are
designed to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by decreasing the
amount of electricity consumed in the Bay Area, as well as decreasing the carbon intensity of
the electricity used by switching to less GHG‐intensive fuel sources for electricity generation.
Since these measures apply to electrical utility providers and local government agencies (and
not individual projects), the energy control measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to
the project.
Building Control Measures. BAAQMD has authority to regulate emissions from certain sources
in buildings such as boilers and water heaters but has limited authority to regulate buildings
themselves. Therefore, the strategies in the control measures for this sector focus on working
with local governments that do have authority over local building codes, to facilitate adoption of
best GHG control practices and policies. The proposed project would not include construction of
any new buildings. Therefore, the Building Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not
applicable to the project.
Agriculture Control Measures. The agriculture measures are designed primarily to reduce
emissions of methane. Since the project does not include any agricultural activities, the
Agriculture Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.
Natural and Working Lands Control Measures. The natural and working lands measures focus
on increasing carbon sequestration on rangelands and wetlands, as well as encouraging local
governments to enact ordinances that promote urban‐tree plantings. Since the project does not
include the disturbance of any rangelands or wetlands, the Natural and Working Lands Control
Measures of the Clean Air Plan are not applicable to the project.
Waste Management Control Measures. The waste management measures focus on reducing or
capturing methane emissions from landfills and composting facilities, diverting organic materials
away from landfills, and increasing waste diversion rates through efforts to reduce, reuse, and
recycle. The project would comply with local requirements for waste management (e.g.,
recycling and composting services). Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Waste
Management Control Measures of the Clean Air Plan.
Water Control Measures. The water measures focus on reducing emissions of criteria
pollutants, TACs, and GHGs by encouraging water conservation, limiting GHG emissions from
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and promoting the use of biogas recovery systems.
Since these measures apply to POTWs and local government agencies (and not individual
projects), the Water Control Measures are not applicable to the project.
Super GHG Control Measures. The Super‐GHG measures are designed to facilitate the adoption
of best GHG control practices and policies through BAAQMD and local government agencies.
Since these measures do not apply to individual projects, the Super‐GHG Control Measures are
not applicable to the project.
163
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐9
Clean Air Plan Implementation. As discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would
not conflict with any of the measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the project would not
disrupt or hinder implementation of a control measure from the Clean Air Plan.
In addition, as discussed below, implementation of the project would not result in the generation of
criteria air pollutants that would exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans. This impact would
be less than significant.
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
Both State and federal governments have established health‐based Ambient Air Quality Standards
for six criteria air pollutants: CO, ozone (O3), NO2, SO2, Pb, and suspended particulate matter (PM).
These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable
margin of safety. As identified above, the Air Basin is under State non‐attainment status for ozone,
PM10, and PM2.5 standards. The Air Basin is also classified as non‐attainment for both the federal
ozone 8‐hour standard and the federal PM2.5 24‐hour standard.
Air quality standards for the proposed project are regulated by the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, to meet air quality standards for
operational‐related criteria air pollutant and air precursor impacts, the project must not:
Contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards;
Generate average daily construction emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides
(NOx) or PM2.5 greater than 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82
pounds per day; or
Generate average operational emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 of greater than 10 tons per year
or 54 pounds per day or PM10 emissions greater than 15 tons per year or 82 pounds per day.
The following sections describe the proposed project’s construction‐ and operation‐related air
quality impacts and CO impacts.
Construction Emissions. The proposed project includes a GPA to change the land use designation for
the site from Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive and a Rezoning of the site
from M‐1 to C‐2. The project site is currently developed with a 16,117‐square‐foot building that
includes an existing commercial use. No new building is currently proposed to replace the existing
building.
Under current General Plan and Zoning regulations, the project site could be developed with a
maximum of a 26,448‐square‐foot building and up to 73 employees. The proposed GPA and
Rezoning would permit a maximum of 33,061 square feet of building area with up to 150
164
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐10
employees. This is an increase of approximately 6,600 square feet and 77 employees compared to
the maximum that is currently allowed on the site.
For regional shopping center and high turnover restaurant land uses (the most intensive use that
could be developed under the proposed GPA and Rezoning), BAAQMD’s screening size for
construction criteria pollutants is 277,000 square feet. Since the proposed project would allow for a
maximum of 33,061 square feet, based on BAAQMD’s screening criteria, the potential increase in
intensity of use on the site is not anticipated to exceed established thresholds. Therefore, any future
construction activities at the project site would not result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an
applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards (AAQS).
Operational Emissions. Long‐term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with mobile
sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas), and area sources (e.g.,
architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment) related to the proposed
project.
PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into
the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when
vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement, and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The
contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes.
Gasoline‐powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel‐
powered vehicles.
Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are
used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of electricity or
natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. Major sources of energy demand include
building mechanical systems, such as heating and air conditioning, lighting, and plug‐in electronics,
such as refrigerators or computers. Greater building or appliance efficiency reduces the amount of
energy for a given activity and thus lowers the resultant emissions. The emission factor is
determined by the fuel source, with cleaner energy sources, like renewable energy, producing fewer
emissions than conventional sources.
Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the project site,
including architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source
emissions associated with the project would include emissions from the use of landscaping
equipment and the use of consumer products.
As discussed above, the proposed project includes a GPA to change the land use designation for the
site from Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive and a Rezoning of the site from
M‐1 to C‐2. The project site is currently developed with a 16,117‐square‐foot building that includes
an existing commercial use. No new building is currently proposed to replace the existing building.
Although no development is proposed at this time, under the current General Plan and Zoning
regulations, the project site could be developed with a maximum 26,448‐square‐foot building and
up to 73 employees. The proposed GPA and Rezoning would permit a maximum of 33,061 square
feet with up to 150 employees. This is an increase of approximately 6,600 square feet and 77
165
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐11
employees compared to what is currently allowed on the site and approximately 16,900 square feet
greater than what currently exists on the site.
For regional shopping center land uses, BAAQMD’s screening size for operational criteria pollutants
is 99,000 square feet. Since the proposed project would allow for a maximum of 33,061 square feet,
based on BAAQMD’s screening criteria, the potential increase in intensity of use on the site is not
anticipated to exceed established thresholds. Furthermore, the proposed project would not result in
any physical changes to the existing site (e.g., demolition, construction, modification of site access).
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or
State AAQS.
Localized CO Impacts. Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in
the Bay Area with the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of the State or
federal CO standards have been recorded at Bay Area monitoring stations since 1991. A screening
level analysis using guidance from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines was performed to determine the
impacts of the project. The screening methodology provides a conservative indication of whether
the implementation of a proposed project would result in significant CO emissions. According to the
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project would result in a less‐than‐significant impact to
localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria were met:
The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the regional
transportation plan and local congestion management agency plans.
Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000
vehicles per hour.
The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel,
parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below‐grade roadway).
Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation
Commission requirement for designated roads or highways, a regional transportation plan, or other
agency plans. The project site is not located in an area where vertical or horizontal mixing of air is
substantially limited. As discussed further in Section 3.17, Transportation, changing the land use
designation for the project site could result in approximately 54 more trips during the PM peak
commute hour within the current building. The maximum development potential of the project site
would be increased by approximately 115 vehicle trips during the PM peak commute hour.
Therefore, the project would not increase traffic volumes at intersections to more than 44,000
vehicles per hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in localized CO concentrations
that exceed State or federal standards and this impact would be less than significant.
166
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐12
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less‐
Than‐Significant Impact)
Sensitive receptors are defined as individuals that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or
environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, day care centers, nursing
homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. The closest sensitive receptors include the multi‐
family residences located approximately 550 feet east of the project site.
The proposed project would not result in any physical changes to the existing site (e.g., demolition,
construction, modification of site access). Any future construction on the project site may expose
nearby sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction
equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel‐fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction
contractors would be required to implement BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
and any future project construction emissions are expected to be below BAAQMD’s significance
thresholds. In addition, based on the types of allowable uses under the proposed land use
designation, the proposed land use would not be a source of substantial emissions. Therefore,
sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, and
potential impacts would be considered less than significant.
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
The proposed project would not result in any physical changes to the existing site (e.g., demolition,
construction, modification of site access). However, future construction on the project site may
create localized odors associated with construction equipment in use on‐site. These odors would be
temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods beyond the project site. The
potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore considered less than significant. In addition, the
proposed land use would not be a source of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people, and potential impacts would be considered less than significant.
167
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐13
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact)
The project site is located in a built‐out urban area and does not contain habitat that would support
sensitive species; there are no known candidate, sensitive, or special‐status animal species on the
site. Additionally, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Threatened & Endangered
Species Active Critical Habitat Report (Environmental Conservation Online System [ECOS])7 does not
identify any locations of critical habitat within approximately two miles of the project site. The
closest known critical habitat (California red‐legged frog [Rana draytonii]) is located approximately
2.5 miles to the west of the project site.
7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System. Website:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical‐habitat.html (accessed August 27, 2020).
168
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐14
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses and this change in
the allowed uses within the project site would not result in adverse effects to special‐status wildlife
species. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive or special‐status species would result from project
implementation.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact)
The project site is currently developed and is located in an urban area. As noted in Response 3.4.a.,
the USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report (ECOS) does not identify
any locations of critical habitat within approximately two miles of the project site. The closest
known critical habitat is approximately 2.5 miles away to the west of the project site. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed GPA and Rezoning would not result in adverse effects on a riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact)
The project site is currently developed and is located in an urban area. Based on a review of site
photographs and current and historical aerial images, the site does not contain any natural
hydrologic features or State and/or federally protected wetlands. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed GPA and Rezoning would have no impact on wetlands.
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (No Impact)
The project site is located in an urban area and is currently developed with a 16,117‐square‐foot
building that includes an existing commercial use. No portion of the project site or immediately
surrounding areas contains an open body of water that serves as natural habitat in which fish could
exist. Alamo Creek runs in a north‐south direction just west of Dougherty Road, approximately 800
feet west of the project site. The portion of the creek in proximity to the project site has been
channelized, consisting of a concrete‐lined drainage.
Likewise, there is no established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor existing within or
adjacent to the project site. Species that are found on the site either fly onto the site or are able to
navigate through long stretches of urban development. Therefore, the project site does not contain
any native resident or migratory fish, wildlife species, or wildlife corridors.
Existing landscaping, including several mature trees, may provide suitable habitat for nesting birds
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses and this change in
the allowed uses within the project site would not interfere with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, including nesting birds and there would be no impact.
169
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐15
Future development that could occur, as a result of the change in General Plan land use designation
and zoning, would be subject to further environmental review and/or discretionary actions,
depending on the nature of the proposed project. Such projects would be subject to the City’s
standard conditions of approval for all development projects and could be subject to additional
conditions and/or mitigation measures (in the event that further environmental review is required).
Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and no impact would occur.
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact)
Heritage trees and approved street trees are protected under the Dublin Municipal Code,
specifically Sections 7.56, Street Trees, and 5.60, Heritage Trees.
As defined in the Dublin Municipal Code, approved street trees include:
1. Any tree planted within any street right‐of‐way or adjacent easement, which conforms to the
approved streetscape master plan;
2. Any existing tree within the right‐of‐way or adjacent easement, which conforms to the
established species and location in any given area, and which was planted as a required street
tree under the provisions of any improvement agreement, or as otherwise approved by the City;
or
3. Any tree of the approved species and in an acceptable location, which was or may be planted as
a replacement.
Heritage trees include any of the following:
1. Any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye and sycamore tree having a trunk or main stem
of twenty‐four (24) inches or more in diameter measured at four (4) feet six (6) inches above
natural grade.
2. A tree required to be preserved as part of an approved development plan, zoning permit, use
permit, site development review, or subdivision map;
3. A tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree.
A permit is required from the City for the removal of any heritage tree and the removal/pruning of
any approved street tree. In addition, for any property containing one or more heritage trees, a plan
to protect heritage trees must be prepared and submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a
demolition, grading, or building permit.
170
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐16
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses and this change in
the allowed uses within the project site would not conflict with any policies to protect biological
resources. Therefore, impacts to approved street trees or heritage trees would not occur.
Future development that could occur as a result of the change in land use designation and zoning
would be required to comply with the Dublin Municipal Code, which requires that a tree permit be
obtained, and tree replacement be implemented, consistent with the City’s standard conditions of
approval.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? (No Impact)
The project area is not subject to any adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
State habitat conservation plan and no impact would occur.
171
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐17
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? (No Impact)
For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (i.e., eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources), it generally must be 50 years or older. Under CEQA, historical
resources can include precontact (i.e., Native American) archaeological deposits, historic‐period
archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and historic districts. CEQA requires agencies considering
projects that are subject to discretionary action to consider the potential impacts on cultural
resources that may occur from project implementation (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5).
The project site is currently developed with an existing 16,117‐square‐foot building that includes an
existing commercial use. The building is not listed on the Tri‐Valley Directory of Historical Resources
and Places of Interest8, or in the City’s General Plan, nor is it considered a historical resource as
defined by Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The proposed project, which would allow retail, office, and automotive uses on the project site,
would not include any new construction, earthmoving, or changes to the exterior of the building or
site. As described above the existing building on the site is not considered a historical resource as
defined by §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.9 Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a
substantial change in the significance of a historic resource and no impact would occur.
The project site has been previously disturbed and significantly altered as a result of past
construction activities. Although no archaeological deposits that qualify as historical resources are
known to occur on the project site, the potential for such resources cannot be discounted. Future
development projects that would result in ground disturbance such as grading and excavation,
which could unearth archaeological resources, would be evaluated on an individual basis as part of
the City’s permit process. Projects determined to potentially affect archaeologically sensitive areas
8 Tri‐Valley History Council. 2011. Tri‐Valley Directory of Historical Resources and Places of Interest.
Available online at: www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/6884 (accessed September 1,
2020).
9 Ibid.
172
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐18
may either be denied or subject to further environmental review and evaluation, including
mitigation.
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5? (No Impact)
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1), “When a project will impact an archaeological
site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource.” Those
archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if they
qualify as “unique archaeological resources” pursuant to California Public Resource Code Section
21083.2.
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses on the project site
and would not include any earthmoving activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in adverse changes to the significance of archaeological resources at the project site and no impact
would occur.
As described in Response 3.5.a., future development projects at the site would be evaluated on an
individual basis as part of the City’s permit process. Such projects would be subject to the City’s
standard conditions of approval for all development projects and could be subject to additional
conditions and/or mitigation measures (in the event that further environmental review is required)
to ensure that no impacts to archaeological resources would result from construction or operation
of the proposed use.
c. Would the project disturb any humans remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? (No Impact)
There are no known human remains at the project site. The proposed GPA and Rezoning would
allow retail, office, and automotive uses on the project site. This change in land use and zoning
would not result in the disturbance of human remains that may be interred outside of a formal
cemetery and no impact would occur.
Future development projects that would result in ground disturbance such as grading, and
excavation would be evaluated on an individual basis as part of the City’s permit process and would
be required to comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98 regarding the treatment of human remains.
173
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐19
3.6 ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources during project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or
operation? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
Operation of future land uses on the site could result in a long‐term energy demand associated with
the lighting and space heating/cooling, and vehicle travel. Typical construction activities also require
the use of energy (e.g., electricity and fuel) for various purposes such as the operation of
construction equipment and tools, as well as excavation, grading, demolition, and construction
vehicle travel.
Construction. The proposed project would not result in any physical changes to the existing site
(e.g., demolition, construction, modification of site access); therefore, no construction‐period
energy impacts would occur. Any future construction projects on the site would be reviewed on an
individual basis as part of the City’s permit process and would be subject to the City’s standard
conditions of approval and existing government regulations, including BAAQMD’s Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures, to reduce air emissions and improve energy efficiency.
Operation. Energy use is typically associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel
used for vehicle trips.
The proposed project includes a GPA to change the land use designation for the site from Business
Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive and a Rezoning of the site from M‐1 to C‐2. The
project site is currently developed with a 16,117‐square‐foot building that includes an existing
commercial use. No new development is currently proposed to replace the existing building. Under
current General Plan and Zoning regulations, the project site could be developed with a maximum of
a 26,448‐square‐foot building and up to 73 employees. The proposed General Plan and Zoning
regulations would permit a maximum of 33,061 square feet with up to 150 employees. This is an
increase of approximately 6,600 square feet and approximately 77 employees compared to what is
currently allowed on the site and approximately 16,900 square feet greater than what currently
exists on the site.
The proposed project would not result in any physical changes to the existing site (e.g., demolition,
construction, modification of site access). In addition, any future development would be constructed
using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, in accordance with
174
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐20
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC)
Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, and City standards. New buildings also would use new
modern appliances and equipment. Under these requirements, future development would use
environmentally sustainable building materials, building designs that reduce the amount of energy
used in building heating and cooling systems as compared to conventionally built structures, and
landscaping that incorporates water efficient irrigation systems, all of which would conserve energy.
As such, the potential increase in intensity of use on the site compared to existing conditions is not
expected to substantially increase long‐term operational energy usage at the project site compared
to existing conditions.
Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a long‐term substantial demand for
electricity, natural gas, or gasoline nor would the project require new service connections or
construction of new off‐site service lines or substations to serve the project. The nature of the
proposed project would not require substantial amounts of energy for amended uses and new
physical development would be assessed based upon the merits of that project. Furthermore, the
proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of fuel or
energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency measures into building
operation, equipment use, and transportation. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Less‐
Than‐Significant Impact)
In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389, which required the California Energy Commission
(CEC) to develop an integrated energy plan every two years for electricity, natural gas, and
transportation fuels, for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in
the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and
increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further
this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and
fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero emission vehicles and their
infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
The most recently CEC adopted energy report is the 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report.10 The
2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of
energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its
climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and
controlling costs. The 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report covers a broad range of topics, including
implementation of Senate Bill 350, integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources,
transportation electrification, solutions to increase resiliency in the electricity sector, energy
efficiency, transportation electrification, barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, demand
response, transmission and landscape‐scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary
Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas (in response to
10 California Energy Commission. 2019. 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission.
Docket # 19‐IEPR‐01.
175
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐21
Senate Bill 1383), updates on California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate
adaptation and resiliency.
As indicated above, the project site is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed. In
addition, the proposed project would not result in any physical changes to the existing site (e.g.,
demolition, construction, modification of site access). As such, the proposed project is not expected
to substantially increase construction‐period or operational energy usage at the project site
compared to existing conditions. Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with
California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s 2019 Integrated Energy Policy
Report. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency and this impact would be less than significant.
176
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐22
3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42. (No Impact)
Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement during an
earthquake. The location of surface rupture generally can be assumed to be along an active or
potentially active major fault trace.
The State of California enacted the Alquist‐Priolo Fault Zoning Act in 1972, requiring the State
Geologist to delineate Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZs) along known active faults that have high
potential for fault rupture. The project site is not located within a designated EFZ and the proposed
177
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐23
project does not include any physical changes to the project site.11 Therefore, the proposed project
would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? (No Impact)
The project site and the entire San Francisco Bay Area is in a seismically active region subject to
strong seismic ground shaking. Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of
the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake and is normally the major cause of damage in
seismic events. The extent of ground‐shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the
earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions. The magnitude of a seismic
event is a measure of the energy released by an earthquake; it is assessed by seismographs that
measure the amplitude of seismic waves. The intensity of an earthquake is a subjective measure of
the perceptible effects of a seismic event at a given point. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI)
scale is the most commonly used scale to measure the subjective effects of earthquake intensity. It
uses values ranging from I to XII.12 The closest faults to the project site are the Calaveras Fault,
located approximately one mile to the west, and the Pleasanton Fault, located approximately 0.8
mile to the east.
Mapping has been performed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the likely
shaking intensities in the Bay Area that would have a 10 percent chance of occurring in any 50‐year
period. A large earthquake (magnitude 6.7 or greater) on one of the major active faults in the region
would generate violent (MMI 9) ground shaking at the project site.13
Title 7 of the Dublin Municipal Code includes the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), Part 2, Title 24
of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined
in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901, and the International Building Code.
Chapter 7.28, Building Regulation Administration, authorizes the Building Official to administer
those codes. Chapter 7.32 mandates the requirements for building safety and reducing earthquake‐
related hazards by requiring a geotechnical report for all new buildings or additions, unless waived
by the Building Official. Chapter 7.16, Grading Regulations, states the requirements for managing
erosion, grading, and excavation. Per the Dublin Municipal Code, a geotechnical investigation must
be prepared and submitted when the proposed grading exceeds five feet in depth, when highly
expansive soils are present, in areas of known or suspected geological hazards (e.g., landslide,
ground failure), and when the Director of Public Works deems that a soil or geotechnical
investigation is necessary.
11 California Department of Conservation. 2018. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Website:
maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed September 1, 2020).
12 United States Geological Survey. 2018. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Website:
www.usgs.gov/natural‐hazards/earthquake‐hazards/science/modified‐mercalli‐intensity‐scale?qt‐
science_center_objects=0#qt‐science_center_objects (accessed September 1, 2020).
13 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2020a. Shaking Scenarios Map. Available online at:
mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8 (accessed
September 1, 2020).
178
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐24
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses and this change in
the allowed uses within the project site would not result in the exposure of people or new
structures to the adverse effects associated with ground shaking; therefore, no impact would occur.
Construction projects that would result in the development of new structures on the project site
would be evaluated on an individual basis as part of the City’s permit process and would be required
to comply with the recommendations of the soil or geotechnical investigation, the most current
CBC, and the City of Dublin Building Code, which stipulates appropriate seismic design provisions
that shall be implemented with project design and construction.
iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? (No Impact)
Liquefaction is the transformation of saturated, loose, fine‐grained sediment to a fluid‐like state
because of earthquake shaking or other rapid loading. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are
loose to medium dense, saturated sands, silty sands, sandy silts, non‐plastic silts and gravels with
poor drainage, or those capped by or containing seams of impermeable sediment.
The California Geological Survey (CGS) has mapped Seismic Hazard Zones that delineate areas
susceptible to liquefaction and/or landslides that require proposed new developments in these
areas to conduct additional investigation to determine the extent and magnitude of potential
ground failure. According to mapping by CGS,14 the project site is located within a Seismic Hazard
Zone for liquefaction. Mapping performed by ABAG indicates that the project site is in an area of
moderate liquefaction susceptibility.15
As described in Response 3.7.a.ii, the proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and
automotive uses and this change in the allowed uses within the project site would not result in the
exposure of people or new structures to the adverse effects associated with liquefaction; therefore,
no impact would occur.
Any future development of the project site would be required to comply with the recommendations
of the soil or geotechnical investigation, the most current CBC, and the City of Dublin Building Code,
which stipulates appropriate seismic design provisions that shall be implemented with project
design and construction.
iv. Landslides? (No Impact)
According to CGS,16 the project site is not located within a Seismic Hazard Zone for landslide. The
project site and surrounding vicinity is generally level. The project site is located within a developed
14 California Department of Conservation. 2018, op. cit.
15 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2020b. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Available online at:
mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8 (accessed
September 1, 2020).
16 California Department of Conservation. 2018, op. cit.
179
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐25
urban area and is not located within a rainfall‐induced landslide zone, according to ABAG.17
Therefore, future development that would be permitted under the proposed project is not likely to
adversely impact persons or structures due to landslides and no impact would occur.
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ( No Impact)
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses within the project
site. The majority of the project site is covered by existing structures and surface pavements. Due to
the absence of topsoil onsite, there would not be substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil as a result
of future development of the project site and no impact would occur.
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (No Impact)
As discussed in Section 3.7.a, site soils would not be subject to lateral spreading or landslide but
could be subject to liquefaction. Compliance with the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical investigation and requirements of the CBC and City of Dublin Building Code would
ensure that potential risks to people and structures as a result of liquefaction would be reduced to a
less‐than‐significant level with implementation of future development projects. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in impacts associated with unstable geologic conditions.
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (No Impact)
Expansion and contraction of volume can occur when expansive soils undergo alternating cycles of
wetting (swelling) and drying (shrinking). During these cycles, the volume of the soil changes
markedly. Changes in soil volume could result in significant expansion pressure on any structures
proposed as part of future development of the project site. Expansive soils are common throughout
California and can cause damage to foundations and slabs unless properly treated during
construction.
Soil types found on the project site include Sunnyvale clay loam over clay, according to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service web soil survey.18 The shrink‐swell potential for this type of clay soil
is high. As described in Response 3.7.a.ii, no physical improvements to the site would occur with
implementation of the proposed project; therefore, no impact would occur.
Any future development of the project site would be required to comply with the recommendations
of a soil or geotechnical investigation, the most current CBC, and the City of Dublin Building Code.
Adherence to these requirements would ensure that geotechnical design of any future development
17 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2020c. Interactive Landslide Hazards Map. Available online
at: mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8
(accessed September 1, 2020).
18 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 2019. Web Soil Survey. Available
online at: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (accessed September 1, 2020).
180
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐26
project at the site would reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils to a less‐than‐
significant level.
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water? (No Impact)
The project site is located in an urban area served by wastewater collection infrastructure.
Implementation of the proposed GPA and Rezoning and future development of the project site
would not result in the need for new septic systems within areas known to have unstable soils and
no impact would occur.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? (No Impact)
The majority of the project site is paved and disturbed land that is not known to contain
paleontological resources. The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and
automotive uses within the project site and would not include any ground disturbance; therefore,
no impact would occur.
Future development projects that could result in ground disturbance such as grading and excavation
within paleontologically sensitive areas would be evaluated on an individual basis as part of the
City’s permit process. Projects determined to potentially affect paleontologically sensitive areas may
either be denied or subject to the further environmental review and evaluation, including mitigation
and/or implementation of the City’s standard conditions of approval to reduce environmental
impacts.
181
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐27
3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or
are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen
as the principal contributors to human‐induced global climate change are:
Carbon dioxide (CO2);
Methane (CH4);
Nitrous oxide (N2O);
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6).
Over the last 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the
atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and
enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, believed to be causing global warming. While manmade
GHGs include naturally occurring GHGs such as CO2, methane, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs,
and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere.
Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short‐lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmos‐
phere for significant periods, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is
excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short‐lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric
concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.
These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a concept developed to
compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP is
based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation
and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of
182
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐28
each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG. The definition of GWP for a particular
GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one‐unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one
unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of
pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).
This section describes the proposed project’s construction‐ and operational‐related GHG emissions
and contribution to global climate change.
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed project would not result in any physical
changes to the existing site (e.g., demolition, construction, modification of site access); therefore, no
impact would occur.
Any future construction projects on the site would be reviewed on an individual basis as part of the
City’s permit process and would be subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval and existing
government regulations, including BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.
Implementation of these measures would reduce GHG emissions by reducing the amount of
construction vehicle idling and by requiring the use of properly maintained equipment.
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Long‐term GHG emissions are typically generated from
mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks and buses), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and
landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources
(land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and
distribution). Mobile‐source GHG emissions would include project‐generated vehicle trips to and
from the project site. Area‐source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping
and maintenance on the project site. Energy source emissions would be generated at off‐site utility
providers as a result of increased electricity demand generated by the project. Waste source
emissions generated by the proposed project include energy generated by land filling and other
methods of disposal related to transporting and managing project generated waste. In addition,
water source emissions associated with the proposed project are generated by water supply and
conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment.
The proposed project includes a GPA to change the land use designation for the site from Business
Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive and a Rezoning of the site from M‐1 to C‐2. The
project site is currently developed with a 16,117‐square‐foot building that includes an existing
commercial use. No new construction is proposed to replace the existing building. Under current
General Plan and Zoning regulations, the project site could be developed with a maximum of a
26,448‐square‐foot building and up to 73 employees. The proposed General Plan and Zoning
regulations would permit a maximum of 33,061 square feet with up to 150 employees. This is an
increase of approximately 6,600 square feet and approximately 77 employees compared to what is
currently allowed on the site and approximately 16,900 square feet greater than what currently
exists on the site.
183
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐29
As discussed above, BAAQMD has developed screening criteria to provide lead agencies with a
conservative indication of whether the proposed project would result in potentially significant air
quality impacts. If all of the screening criteria were met by a proposed project, then the lead agency
would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of the proposed project’s emissions.
These screening levels are generally representative of new development without any form of
mitigation measures taken into consideration. In addition, the screening criteria do not account for
project design features, attributes, or local development requirements that could also result in
lower emissions.
For regional shopping center land uses, BAAQMD’s screening size for GHG emissions is 19,000
square feet and for high turnover restaurant land uses (the most intensive use that could be
developed under the proposed GPA and Rezoning), BAAQMD’s screening size is 7,000 square feet.
Since the proposed project would allow for a maximum of 33,061 square feet, based on BAAQMD’s
screening criteria, the potential increase in intensity of use on the site could exceed the screening
criteria. Future projects that would be above this threshold would be evaluated on an individual
basis as part of the permit process for new construction and may require subsequent analysis to
ensure compliance with regulatory requirements intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (CAP 2030) establishes a vision
for the City to reach carbon neutrality by 2045 and includes quantified actions the City will take to
reduce GHG emissions by 65,090 metric tons CO2e by 2030. The CAP 2030 identifies additional
actions that will need to be implemented to reach carbon neutrality. Dublin adopted its first Climate
Action Plan (CAP 2020) in 2010 and is on track to meet the 2020 GHG emissions target. The purpose
of the CAP 2030 is to meet the State’s 2030 GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030. The CAP 2030 identifies GHG reduction strategies and measures that
relate to renewable and carbon‐free energy, building efficiency and electrification, sustainable
mobility and land use, materials and waste management, and municipal leadership.
Future development would be required to show consistency with the City’s CAP and would be
constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, in
accordance with CALGreen, California Public Utility Commission Long Term Energy Efficiency
Strategic Plan, and City standards. New buildings also would use new modern appliances and
equipment. Under these requirements, future development would use environmentally sustainable
building materials, building designs that reduce the amount of energy used in building heating and
cooling systems as compared to conventionally built structures, and landscaping that incorporates
water efficient irrigation systems, all of which would conserve energy. The project would be subject
to all applicable permit and planning requirements in place or adopted by the City of Dublin.
Therefore, the proposed project would not be a significant source of operational GHG emissions.
Operation of the proposed project would not generate significant GHG emissions that would have a
significant effect on the environment and impacts would be less than significant.
184
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐30
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in any physical changes to the existing
site (e.g., demolition, construction, modification of site access). In addition, future development
would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices,
in accordance with CALGreen, CPUC Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, and City standards.
New buildings also would use new modern appliances and equipment. Under these requirements,
future development would use environmentally sustainable building materials, building designs that
reduce the amount of energy used in building heating and cooling systems as compared to
conventionally built structures, and landscaping that incorporates water efficient irrigation systems,
all of which would conserve energy. The project would be subject to all applicable permit and
planning requirements in place or adopted by the City of Dublin. Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs. This impact would be less than significant.
185
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐31
3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires?
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses within the project
site. These types of land uses would not involve transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities
of hazardous materials. Small quantities of hazardous materials, such as paints, oil, and cleaning
chemicals, may be used. Any future owner/operator of such facilities at the project site would be
required to comply with existing government regulations in the use and disposal of any hazardous
materials. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Construction activities associated with potential future development of the project site could include
removal of the existing building and pavements, and construction of a new building(s). During
construction, hazardous materials such as vehicle fuels and lubricants and building materials such as
asphalt, paints, and adhesives would be used. While these are commonly used materials, if handled
improperly, they could endanger workers or the public. Locally, the use, storage, and management of
hazardous materials are regulated by the Hazardous Materials Division, which is part of the Alameda
186
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐32
County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH). ACDEH is the Certified Unified Program
Agency (CUPA) for all areas of Alameda County. The Hazardous Materials Division provides
comprehensive environmental regulatory compliance inspection services to protect human health
and the environment. Additionally, program personnel perform plan reviews and inspections
associated with the construction, upgrading, and closure of hazardous materials storage facilities and
equipment. Compliance with federal, State, and Alameda County hazardous materials laws and
regulations would minimize any potential risks to the public from construction‐related hazardous
materials.
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
There are two main ways that the public and/or the environment could be affected by the release of
hazardous materials from the project site, including: (1) exposing workers and/or the public to
potentially contaminated soil and groundwater during construction and/or operation of the project;
or (2) exposing workers and/or the public to hazardous building materials (e.g., lead paint, asbestos)
during demolition of existing structures. However, implementation of the project would not result
demolition activities or any other physical improvements to the project site.
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow for the potential future development of the project
site with general commercial, retail, and service uses, as well as automobile/vehicle sales and
service, automobile/vehicle repairs and service, eating and drinking establishments, shopping
centers, professional/administrative offices, hotels and motels, and services stations. As described
above, small quantities of common hazardous materials would be used at the project site during
construction and operation of potential future uses at the project site. Improper use, storage, or
handling could result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment, which could pose a
risk to construction workers and the public. However, any future project applicant would be
required to comply with existing government regulations in its use and disposal of these materials,
and such materials would not be used in sufficient strength or quantity to create a substantial risk to
human or environmental health. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant
impact related to the release of hazardous materials into the environmental during both the
construction and operational periods.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less‐
Than‐Significant Impact)
No public schools are located within 0.25 mile of the project site. The nearest schools to the project
site are Valley High School, located approximately 0.4‐mile northwest, and Wells Middle School,
located approximately 0.5‐mile north of the project site. As noted in Section 3.9.a, development of
the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. As noted in Section 3.9.b,
construction activities would not create a hazard to the public and environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions, and this impact would be less than significant.
187
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐33
d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
Government Code Section 65962.5 states that the California Department of Toxic Substances shall
compile and maintain annually a list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action as part
of the Health and Safety Code. This list is commonly referred to as the Cortese List. The project site
is not located on the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Leaking Underground Tank Cleanup
Site (LUST) or any other Cleanup Program Sites (formerly known as spills, leaks, investigations, and
cleanups or SLIC). These two components comprise the State Cortese List of known hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
According to the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Geotracker website,19 two
State‐listed hazardous materials clean‐up sites are located within 1,000 feet of the project site. One
site, the City of Dublin Civic Center, located south of the project site at 100 Civic Plaza, is listed as a
LUST site. This site is designated “closed.” A closed site indicates that regulatory requirements for
response actions, such as site assessment and remediation, have either been completed or were not
necessary and, therefore, potential migration of residual contaminants in groundwater beneath the
project corridor (if any) does not likely pose a risk to human health and the environment.
One other site, the former Chevron Records Facility, is located northwest of the project site at 6400
Sierra Court. This site is listed as “Open – Remediation as of 12/05/14” due to the presence of
trichloroethylene (TCE). However, due to the direction of groundwater flow (northwest) away from
the project site,20 potential migration of residual contaminants in groundwater beneath the project
site would not likely pose a risk to human health and the environment. Therefore, no significant
hazard to the public or environment would be associated with this listed site, and this impact would
be less than significant.
e. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact)
The project site is located approximately five miles west of the Livermore Municipal Airport. The
project area is not located within the Airport Safety Zones or Airport Influence Area of the Livermore
Municipal Airport.21 The proposed GPA and Rezoning would not result in new construction within
the vicinity of an airport. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for
19 State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. Geotracker Website Application. Available online at:
geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=6207+Sierra+Court%2C+Dublin%2C+C
A (accessed September 1, 2020).
20 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC. 2013. Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan, 6400 Sierra
Court, Dublin, California. July 1. Available online at:
documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/8705445766/SL0600196603.PDF
(accessed September 1, 2020).
21 Alameda County Community Development Agency. 2012. Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. August. Available online at:
www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/airportlandplans.htm (accessed September 1, 2020).
188
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐34
people residing or working in the area, or for people assembling at the project site due to the
proximity of an airport. No impact would occur.
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
The Tri‐Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan22 was developed in compliance with State requirements
and also meets the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the
City’s local hazard mitigation plan. The Tri‐Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provides a uniform
hazard mitigation strategy for the Tri‐Valley area, addressing a range of hazards including, but not
limited to, earthquakes, floods and wildland fire. The City of Dublin also has an adopted
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to assess hazards
and mitigate risks prior to a disaster event.
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses within the project
site. Because the proposed project would not alter or block adjacent roadways, implementation of
the proposed project would not be expected to impair the function of nearby emergency evacuation
routes. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on
implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
The project site is located within a developed urban area and according to the California
Department of Fire and Forestry Protection (CalFire), the project site is not located in a Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone.23 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures
to a significant loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and this impact would be less than
significant.
22 TetraTech. 2018. Tri‐Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. September. Available online at:
dublin.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20467/2018‐09‐04_HMP‐Volume‐1‐_Tri‐Valley_FINAL (accessed
September 1, 2020).
23 CalFire. 2008. Alameda County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Available online at:
osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6638/fhszl_map1.pdf (accessed September 1, 2020).
189
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐35
3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site;
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or
offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses within the project
site. No physical improvements to the project site would result with implementation of the
proposed project; therefore, impacts related to water quality standards, waste discharge
requirements, and surface water quality would not occur.
Future construction projects that would result in the development of new structures or alteration of
existing drainage conditions would be evaluated on an individual basis as part of the City’s permit
process and would be required to comply with the most current regulatory requirements, as
described further below.
The State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards regulate
water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. In the Bay Area,
including the project site, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water
Board) is responsible for implementation the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan
establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies within the region.
190
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐36
Runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Program (established through the federal Clean Water Act). The NPDES program objective is to
control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface water bodies. Compliance with NPDES permits is
mandated by State and federal statutes and regulations. Locally, the NPDES Program is administered
by the Water Board. According to the water quality control plans of the Water Board, any
construction activities, including grading, that would result in the disturbance of one acre or more
would require compliance with the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activity (Construction General Permit). The project site is
approximately 1.5 acres and, as such, any future development project at the site would be required
to comply with the Construction General Permit.
Physical improvements to the project site would be subject to the Water Board’s Municipal Regional
Permit (MRP), implemented in November 2015 by Order R2‐2015‐0049. Provision C.3 of the MRP
requires new development and development projects that would replace more than 10,000 square
feet of existing impervious surfaces24 to include post‐construction stormwater control in project
designs. In addition, projects that disturb more than one acre of land may also be subject to the
hydromodification25 management requirements of the MRP. Under the C.3 requirements, the
preparation and submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) would be required for the project site.
The purpose of an SCP is to detail the design elements and implementation measures necessary to
meet the post‐construction stormwater control requirements of the MRP. In particular, SCPs must
include Low Impact Development (LID) design measures, which reduce water quality impacts by
preserving and recreating natural landscape features, minimizing imperviousness, and using
stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste product. Proposed projects would also be required to
prepare a Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan to ensure that stormwater control
measures are inspected, maintained, and funded for the life of the project.
Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that potential construction‐ and
operation‐period impacts to water quality associated with any future development project at the
site would be less than significant.
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin? (No Impact)
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses within the project
site. This change in the allowed uses at the project site would not result in the depletion of
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The majority of the project site
consists of impervious surfaces comprised of an existing building and a surface parking lot. Any
24 Under Provision C.3 of the MRP, gas station, restaurant, automotive facilities, or parking lots that create
or replace 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces must implement post‐construction stormwater
controls.
25 Hydromodification is defined as the modification of a stream’s hydrograph, caused in general by increases
in flows and durations that result when land is developed (e.g., made more impervious). The effects of
hydromodification include, but are not limited to, increased bed and bank erosion, loss of habitat,
increased sediment transport and deposition, and increased flooding.
191
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐37
future development at the project site would likely not have the potential to interfere with
groundwater recharge, as minimal pervious surfaces currently exist at the site. Future construction
projects that would result in the development of new structures or potentially interfere with
groundwater recharge would be evaluated on an individual basis as part of the City’s permit process
and would be required to comply with the most current regulatory requirements. Furthermore, the
project site is located in an urban area where the majority of stormwater runoff drains to storm
drainpipes rather than infiltrating into the groundwater aquifer. Consequently, the project site is not
located in an area that substantially contributes to the recharge of the underlying groundwater
aquifer. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge and
potential impacts related to the depletion of groundwater supplies would not occur.
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site;
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on‐ or off‐site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact)
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses within the project
site. This change in the allowed uses at the project site would not alter the course of a stream or
river. The project site is located in a developed area and implementation of the proposed project
would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site, result in on‐ or off‐site flooding, or redirect or impede
floods flows and no impact would occur.
Future construction projects that would result in the development of new structures or alteration of
existing drainage conditions would be evaluated on an individual basis as part of the City’s permit
process and would be required to comply with the most current regulatory requirements.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation? (No Impact)
The project site is not located within a 100‐year flood hazard zone as mapped by FEMA and is not
located within a mapped dam failure inundation area.26 There are no levees protecting the site from
flooding and as a result, no risk of failure. The project site and surrounding areas are generally level
and would not be subject to mudflows.
26 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center (map). Website:
msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=6207%20Sierra%20Court%2C%20Dublin%2C%20CA%20#sear
chresultsanchor (accessed September 10, 2020).
192
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐38
The project site is not located within a mapped tsunami area27 and no seismically induced seiche
waves have been documented in the San Francisco Bay throughout history.28 Therefore, no impact
would occur.
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan? (No Impact)
As discussed above, the proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses
within the project site. This change in land uses would not conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Construction and
operation of any future development project at the site would be subject to State and regional
requirements related to stormwater runoff. Required compliance with State and local regulations
regarding stormwater during construction and operation would ensure that the proposed project
would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan. As a result, no impact would occur.
27 California, State of. 2019. California Official Tsunami Inundation Maps. Website:
www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps (accessed September 10, 2020).
28 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2013. Plan Bay Area.
July 18.
193
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐39
3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict
with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical
feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a
local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a
community and an outlying area. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an
existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such
construction may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.
The project site consists of an existing building within a developed area surrounded by industrial and
commercial uses. The proposed project would result in a change in the permitted uses allowed at
the site, including retail, office, and automotive uses and the potential development of the project
site, which could include automobile/vehicle sales and service, automobile/vehicle repairs and
service, as well as eating and drinking establishments, shopping centers, professional/administrative
offices, hotels and motels, and services stations. The proposed project would not result in the
construction of any new infrastructure that would divide an established community and would not
remove any means of access. The proposed project would not result in a physical division of an
established community or adversely affect the continuity of land uses in the vicinity and no impact
would occur.
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
It should be noted that according to CEQA, policy conflicts do not, in and of themselves, constitute a
significant environmental impact. Policy conflicts are considered to be environmental impacts only
when they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or
mitigating environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed
in this Initial Study under specific topical sections (e.g., cultural resources, hazardous materials,
noise, etc.). The proposed project would not result in any direct physical changes and impacts would
be less than significant.
The project site is currently designated as Business Park/Industrial on the City’s General Plan Land
Use Map and is within the M‐1 zoning district on the City’s Zoning Map. The project proposes to re‐
designate and rezone the project site to Retail/Office and Automotive and C‐2, respectively.
194
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐40
General Plan. As described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the project site is designated
Business Park/Industrial in the City’s General Plan. According to the City’s General Plan, the Business
Park/Industrial designation allows for non‐retail businesses (e.g., research, limited manufacturing
and distribution activities, and administrative offices) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate
nuisances due to emissions, noise or open uses. Permitted FAR29 ranges from 0.30 to 0.40 and the
allowable employee density is 360 to 490 square feet per employee.
The proposed project would allow re‐designation of the project site to Retail/Office and
Automotive, which supports general commercial, retail and service uses, as well as
automobile/vehicle sales and service, and similar auto focused uses. Uses also include eating and
drinking establishments, shopping centers, business and professional offices, hotels and motels, and
services stations. The Retail/Office and Automotive designation permits development at intensities
of up to 0.5 FAR and employee density up to 220 to 490 square feet per employee.
As outlined in the project description, implementation of the proposed project would amend the
City’s General Plan and the General Plan Map to reflect the change in land use changes over time in
the vicinity of the project site and create consistency between the project site and neighboring
properties to the east.
Zoning Ordinance. The project site is located within the M‐1 zoning district, which is intended to
provide for the continued use, expansion and new development of light industrial use types in
proximity to major transportation corridors and to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential
and commercial uses. Permitted uses in the M‐1 zoning district include ambulance service,
commercial kitchen, laboratory, light industrial, mini‐storage, office – contractor’s, office –
professional/administrative, outdoor seating, parking lot/garage, printing and publishing, recording
studio, research and development, storage of petroleum products for on‐site use, trucking terminal,
and warehousing and distribution. As part of the proposed project, the site would also be rezoned
from M‐1 to C‐2 consistent with the amended General Plan land use designation.
As outlined in the project description, the proposed Rezoning would reflect the change in land uses
over time in the vicinity of the project site and create consistency between the project site and
neighboring properties to the east. The proposed Rezoning would allow retail, office, and
automotive uses within the project site. Such uses would be harmonious and compatible with
existing and potential development in surrounding areas, which consist of industrial uses to the
north; public/semi‐public uses to the south, including the Dublin Civic Center and Dublin Sports
Ground; and retail, office, automotive uses to the east and west.
The project site is currently developed with an existing 16,117‐square‐foot one‐story building that
includes an existing commercial use. No new building is currently proposed to replace the existing
building. Under current General Plan and Zoning regulations, the project site could be developed
with a maximum of a 26,448‐square‐foot building and up to 73 employees. The proposed GPA and
29 The term floor area ratio refers to the gross floor area permitted on a site divided by the total net area of
the site. The gross floor area includes the total floor area of each floor and of all buildings on a site,
including internal circulation (halls, lobbies, stairways, elevator shafts, enclosed porches, and balconies,
etc.), storage and equipment space, as measured from the outside faces of the exterior walls.
195
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐41
Rezoning would permit a maximum of 33,061 square feet of building area with up to 150
employees. This is an increase of approximately 6,600 square feet and approximately 77 employees
compared to what is currently allowed on the site. The project site consists of an approximately 1.5‐
acre (66,122‐square‐foot) property, surrounding by similar urban development. The project site is
physically suitable for the increase in intensity associated with the change in zoning from M‐1 to C‐2.
As described throughout this Initial Study, proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow general
commercial, retail, and service uses, as well as auto‐focused uses in an already developed area. No
new construction is currently proposed at the project site. Future development at the project site
would be evaluated as part of the City’s review process and would be subject to further
environmental review and/or discretionary actions, depending on the nature of the proposed
project. Future projects would be subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval for all
development projects and could be subject to additional conditions and/or mitigation measures (in
the event that further environmental review is required) to ensure that any future development
would not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, proposed project would not cause a
significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This impact would be
less than significant.
196
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐42
3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact)
Neither the State Geologist nor the California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) have
classified any areas in the City as containing mineral deposits that are either of Statewide
significance or the significance of which requires further evaluation. 30 The project site has been
classified by the CDMG as being located in MRZ‐1, indicating that the project site is located in an
area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or
where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.31 In addition, the project site is not
designated or zoned for the extraction of mineral deposits. Therefore, the proposed project would
not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value of the region
and the residents of the state and no impact would occur.
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact)
As stated in Response 3.12.a., the project site is classified as MRZ‐1, indicating the site is located
where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is
judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. The project site is currently developed with an
existing 16,117‐square‐foot building that includes an existing commercial use. No mineral extraction
activities occur on the project site, and it is not located within an area known to contain locally
important mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of
availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan and no impact would occur.
30 State of California, Division of Mines and Geology. 1996. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of
the South San Francisco Bay Production Consumption Region. Open File Report 96‐03, Plate 1.
31 Ibid.
197
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐43
3.13 NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip
or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less‐Than‐
Significant Impact)
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce
physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation,
or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular
location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound.
Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10‐fold
increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense and 30 dB is 1,000 times more
intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness;
and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is
normally measured through the A‐weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the
frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A‐weighted sound level is the
basis for 24‐hour sound measurements that better represent human sensitivity to sound at night.
As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from
the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the
sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each
doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern.
A project would have a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the ambient noise
levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable
regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Dublin.
Short‐Term (Construction) Noise Impacts. Implementation of the proposed GPA and Rezoning
would not result in any physical changes to the existing site (e.g., demolition, construction,
modification of site access). Future projects that would result in the development of new structures
198
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐44
would be evaluated on an individual basis as part of the City’s development review process and
would be required to comply with the Dublin Municipal Code ordinances establishing permissible
hours of noise‐producing construction activity, which would ensure that short‐term construction
noise impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Noise Impacts. According to the City’s General Plan, traffic is the major source of noise
in Dublin. Much of the project site, along with the area adjacent to the project site, is exposed to
noise levels between 65 and 70 dB CNEL as shown in Figure 9‐1 of the City’s General Plan.
A characteristic of sound is that a doubling of a noise source is required in order to result in a
perceptible (3 dBA or greater) increase in the resulting noise level. The project site itself is located in
an urban area adjacent to roadways that are heavily traveled. Noise from the proposed project
would be similar to existing conditions and would generally include noise from vehicles, air
conditioner units, and other similar equipment. Due to its location at a heavily used arterial and its
existing noise contours, it is not expected that more intensive uses that could occupy the existing
building would result in a perceptible increase in noise to surrounding land uses. In addition, as
discussed above, the proposed project would not result in any physical changes to the existing site
(e.g., demolition, construction, modification of site access). Any future cconstruction of a new
building would require discretionary review by the City and the land use proposed at that time
would be subject to review. Therefore, the project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related
to generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost
exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Vibration
energy propagates from a source, through intervening soil and rock layers, to the foundations of
nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of
the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by the occupants as the motion of building
surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or as a low‐frequency rumbling noise. The
rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves.
Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by
10 dB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.
As the proposed project would not result in any physical changes to the existing site (e.g.,
demolition, construction, modification of site access), potential structural damage from heavy
construction activities would not occur.
The streets surrounding the project area are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant
groundborne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on‐
road vehicles make it unusual for on‐road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration
problems. Therefore, no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur and no vibration impact
analysis of on‐road vehicles is necessary. The potential change in use or increase in the intensity of
199
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐45
use at the project site, which could result from the proposed project, would not generate
groundborne vibration. This impact would be less than significant.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Less‐
Than‐Significant Impact)
The proposed project is not located within two miles of a private airstrip, public airport, or a public
use airport and is not within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport, Livermore Municipal
Airport, is located approximately five miles east of the project site. Although aircraft‐related noise is
occasionally audible at the project site, the site does not lie within the 55 dBA CNEL noise contours
of any public airports or private airfields. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public
airport. This impact would be less than significant.
200
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐46
3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
With implementation of the proposed GPA and Rezoning, the maximum allowable development on
the site could include a 33,061‐square foot, one‐story building, which would generate approximately
150 employees at the maximum employment density (approximately 16,944 square feet greater
than what currently exists and 6,613 square feet greater than what is currently allowed on the site).
At the maximum employee density, the proposed project could increase employment at the site by
approximately 104 employees over the existing condition and by approximately 77 employees
compared to what is currently allowed on the site under the existing zoning designation. The
proposed project does not include housing and the site is located in a developed urban area.
Although the proposed project could increase the intensity of use at the site and generate additional
employees, the number of additional employees would not be substantial. According to the City’s
General Plan, the Primary Planning Area, within which the project site is located, had an estimated
12,163 jobs in 2012. Based on the employee density regulations outlined in the City’s General Plan,
the City anticipated potential development of 2,735 to 4,972 jobs in areas designated as Business
Park/Industrial and 898 to 4,045 jobs designated as Retail/Office and Automotive, with total jobs
Citywide between 6,478 and 21,017. 32 The potential employment growth associated with future
development of the project site would be consistent with and within the scope of the planned
employment growth assumed in the City’s General Plan. Because it was anticipated that uses within
the Retail/Office and Automotive land use designation would provide employment, the proposed
project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, and this impact
would be less than significant.
32 Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan. November 21. Available online at:
www.dublin.ca.gov/171/General‐Plan#Chapter%201 (accessed December 16, 2020).
201
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐47
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)
As described above, the project site is currently developed with an existing 16,117‐square‐foot
building that includes various an existing commercial use No residential units currently exist at the
project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the displacement of people or
housing necessitating replacement housing elsewhere in the City, and no impact would occur.
202
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐48
3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
Fire suppression, emergency medical and rescue services, and other life safety services are provided
to the project area and site by the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD). There are three fire
stations in Dublin, with the closest to the project site being Fire Station No. 16 at 7494 Donohue
Drive, approximately one‐mile northwest.
The Alameda County Sherriff’s Office provides contracted police protection to the project area and
project site. The Dublin Police Services headquarters are located at 6361 Clark Avenue, southwest of
the project site.
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses and this change in
the allowed uses within the project site would not increase the demand for fire or police services.
Existing service providers would continue to serve the project site within the City with the existing
staffing and facilities. The proposed project would not increase the demand for fire or police
services, such that new or physically altered facilities would be required.
203
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐49
In addition, the proposed GPA and Rezoning would not induce population growth (see Section
3.14.a) and would not generate new students, park users, or users of other government facilities,
such as libraries, community centers or public health care facilities. The proposed project would
allow retail, office, and automotive uses at the project site. These uses would not individually
increase the demand for school, park, or other facilities such that new or physically altered facilities
would be required to serve the new demand and this impact would be less than significant.
204
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐50
3.16 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated? (No Impact)
As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, and Section 3.15, Public Services, the
proposed GPA and Rezoning would not induce population growth or otherwise increase the use of
existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related
to the use of the existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. No impact would
occur.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No
Impact)
The project does not include nor require the construction or expansion of new or existing public
recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result additional environmental
effects associated with recreation beyond those described in this document.
205
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐51
3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle
and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Less‐Than‐Significant
Impact)
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would change the land use designation of the project site from
Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive in the General Plan and from M‐1 to C‐2
zoning district. The project site is currently developed with a 16,117‐square‐foot building that
includes an existing commercial use. No new building is currently proposed to replace the existing
building. Under current General Plan and Zoning regulations, the project site could be developed
with a maximum of a 26,448‐square foot building and up to 73 employees. The proposed General
Plan and Zoning regulations would permit a maximum of 33,061 square feet with up to 150
employees. This is an increase of 6,613 square feet and 77 employees.
The City of Dublin General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Element establishes vehicle level of
service targets for intersections and roadway segments within the City. Vehicle level of service can
be affected by the vehicle trips generated by land developments. Because no building is currently
proposed to replace the existing building, no immediate change in the trip generation potential
would result from the proposed GPA and Rezoning. However, the future trip generation potential of
the project site could be affected. Table C calculates the potential effect on trip generation resulting
from the proposed GPA and Rezoning. Trip rates are based on the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Business Park category for the existing land use and the Shopping Center category
for future land uses that could be allowed within the existing building or with future redevelopment
of the site.
As Table C shows, changing the General Plan land use designation and zoning for the project site
could result in approximately 54 more trips during the PM peak commute hour if a more intense
land use occupies the current building. The maximum development potential of the project site
would be increased by approximately 115 vehicle trips during the PM peak commute hour.
However, retail/commercial or restaurant uses (the most intensive use that could be developed
under the proposed GPA and Rezoning) attract many of their trips from traffic already on the
206
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐52
adjacent roadway. The percentage of these pass‐by trips is predictable based on the type of use and
application of the appropriate pass‐by rate could reduce the net new trip generation below 100
peak hour trips.
The Alameda County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Program (September
2019) establishes a 100 PM peak hour trip threshold of review of land use actions. A screening
threshold of 100 peak hour trips is commonly used to determine whether a land use project has the
potential to affect vehicle level of service and a detailed traffic analysis may be required. Because
the proposed change in land use designation would result in fewer than 100 additional peak hour
trips within the existing building, the change in land use designation is less likely to affect vehicle
level of service. However, demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building
could result in more than 100 net new peak hour trips depending on the type of use proposed.
Construction of a new building would require discretionary review by the City and the land use
proposed at that time would be subject to review and measurement against the 100 net new peak
hour trip threshold. If, as part of the subsequent discretionary review, a specific proposed land use is
found to have the potential to affect vehicle level of service based on the City’s review standards,
specific measures such as implementation of a travel demand management plan could be
implemented to preserve vehicle level of service.
Table C: Potential Change in Trip Generation
Land Use Size Unit ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates1
Business Park (770) TSF 12.44 0.24 0.16 0.40 0.19 0.23 0.42
Shopping Center (820) TSF 37.75 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81
Existing Building Trip Generation Potential
Existing Business Park
(770) 16.117 TSF 200 4 3 7 3 4 7
Proposed Shopping
Center (820) 16.117 TSF 608 9 6 15 29 32 61
New Trip Generation
Potential 408 5 3 8 26 28 54
Maximum Development Trip Generation Potential
Existing Business Park
(770) 26.448 TSF 329 6 5 11 5 6 11
Proposed Shopping
Center (820) 33.061 TSF 1,248 19 12 31 61 65 126
New Trip Generation
Potential 919 13 8 20 56 59 115
1 Trip rates referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017).
ADT = average daily traffic
TSF = thousand square feet
The proposed project would not modify the public right‐of‐way including pedestrian, bicycle, or
transit facilities. The project would not affect pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities, the project is
not likely to affect vehicle level of service standards established for roadways in the vicinity of the
207
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐53
existing building, and any future new development project would be evaluated and modified to
prevent affecting vehicle level of service standards established by the City. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation
system. This impact would be less than significant.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
(Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
Effective December 28, 2018, the CEQA Guidelines were updated and require the evaluation of
vehicle miles transportation (VMT) as the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts for land use
projects. As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(c), the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3 shall apply prospectively as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15007. A lead agency
could have elected to be governed by the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
immediately; however, beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section was stated to apply
Statewide. The City of Dublin, as lead agency, has not yet adopted specific thresholds related to
VMT metrics. However, simultaneous with clearance of the revised State CEQA Guidelines, the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released the Technical Advisory for Evaluating
Transportation Impacts under CEQA (OPR, December 2018). This State document provides sufficient
guidance to permit the evaluation of project transportation impacts for the purposes of compliance
with CEQA.
The Technical Advisory for Evaluating Transportation Impacts under CEQA suggests that adding local
serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. It continues to suggest that retail
development less than 50,000 square feet be considered to have a less than significant impact on
VMT. The new land uses possible for the project site with the change in land use designation would
be local serving and would be less than 50,000 square feet. Therefore, the proposed project would
neither conflict with nor be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, and the impact
would be less than significant.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact)
As shown in Section 1.0, similar land uses to the proposed land use designation currently exist
adjacent to the project site. Vehicles accessing the project site would not be substantially different
from or incompatible with vehicles accessing adjacent parcels. The project would not alter access or
geometric design features. Therefore, the project would result in no impact.
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
The proposed project would not result in the alteration of any access points. Any future
development would be subject to City review and approval of site plans including emergency access.
As shown in Table C, new vehicle traffic generated by the change in land use designation would be
less than 100 trips in either peak commute hour, which is not likely to affect vehicle level of service.
Therefore, the potential impact to emergency access would be less than significant.
208
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐54
3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that
is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)? Or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe. (No Impact)
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), which became law on January 1, 2015, provides for consultation with
California Native American tribes during the CEQA environmental review process, and equates
significant impacts to “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts.
The consultation provisions of the law require that a public agency consult with local Native
American tribes that have requested placement on that agency’s notification list for CEQA projects.
Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or a decision by a public
agency to undertake a project, the lead agency must notify tribes of the opportunity to consult on
the project, should a tribe have previously requested to be on the agency’s notification list.
209
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐55
California Native American tribes must be recognized by the NAHC as traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project site and must have previously requested that the lead agency notify them
of projects. Tribes have 30 days following notification of a project to request consultation with the
lead agency.
The purpose of consultation is to inform the lead agency in its identification and determination of
the significance of tribal cultural resources. If a project is determined to result in a significant impact
on an identified tribal cultural resource, the consultation process must occur and conclude prior to
adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or certification of an
Environmental Impact Report (PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).
No California Native American tribe formally requested consultation notifications with the City
during the required 30‐day notification period, consistent with the requirements of PRC 21080.3.1.
As such, tribal consultation for the proposed project was not required for this project.
As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the proposed project would not result in any
physical improvements to the project site; therefore, no impact would occur.
210
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐56
3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or
in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
The project site is located in an area currently served by existing utilities. The proposed GPA and
Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses at the project site. This change in the
allowed uses would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded
facilities because such uses are not likely to generate substantial increases in demand as compared
to the existing, currently allowable uses. Construction projects that would result in the development
of new structures on the project site would be evaluated on an individual basis as part of the City’s
development review process and would be required to comply with the most current requirements
for the installation of new utility infrastructure. Proposed uses would also be required to comply
with existing building occupancy limits and so would not be expected to substantially increase the
use of or demand for existing services and infrastructure. Therefore, the relocation or
reconstruction of new or expanded water, recycled water, wastewater, stormwater drainage,
electric power, gas, or telecommunications facilities would not be required, and this impact would
be less than significant.
211
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐57
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (Less‐Than‐
Significant Impact)
Refer to Response 3.19.a. The project site is located in an area currently served by existing utilities.
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses at the project site.
These uses are not likely to generate substantial increase in demand for water as compared to the
existing, currently allowable uses. As described above, future projects that would result in the
development of new structures on the project site would be evaluated on an individual basis as part
of the City’s development review process. Therefore, the proposed project would have sufficient
water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years. This impact would be less than significant.
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
Please refer to Response 3.19.a. for a discussion on the project’s impacts to wastewater treatment.
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would not result in a substantial increase in demand for
wastewater treatment that would exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. This
impact would be less than significant.
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals? (No Impact)
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses at the project site.
This change in the allowed uses would not result in landfill use or capacity because such uses are not
likely to generate substantial increases in solid waste as compared to the existing Business
Park/Industrial use. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with landfill capacity and waste
disposal needs.
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact)
As noted in Response 3.19.d, the proposed GPA and Rezoning would not include a new source of
solid waste and would not exceed the capacity of any landfills that would serve the proposed
project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable solid waste regulations and no
impact would occur.
212
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐58
3.20 WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? (No Impact)
The project site is not located within any State responsibility areas (SRA) for fire service,33 and is not
within a very high fire hazard severity zone.34 In addition, as noted in Section 3.9.f, the proposed
project would not impair the implementation of, or physically interfere with, and adopted
emergency response plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b. Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (No Impact)
Refer to Section 3.20.a. Additionally, as noted in Section 1.0, Project Information, the project site is
bound by existing development on all sides. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate
wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and no impact would occur.
33 CalFire. 2008, op. cit.
34 CalFire. 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Website:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414 (accessed September 1, 2020).
213
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐59
c. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (No Impact)
Refer to Response 3.20.a. The proposed project is not located within an SRA for fire service and is
not within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not require
the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure, and no impact would occur.
d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage
changes? (No Impact)
Refer to Section 3.20.a and 3.20.b. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to
significant risks due to post‐fire slope instability or drainage and runoff changes. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
214
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐60
3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (No
Impact)
Changing the land use and zoning designation at the project site would not adversely affect
protected wildlife species as there are no listed sensitive species or habitats in the vicinity, and no
new construction is included as part of the proposed project. The project site is currently developed
with 16,117‐square‐foot building and associated paved parking. No historic or cultural resources are
located on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the
environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or
wildlife species population to drop below self‐sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)? (Less‐Than‐Significant Impact)
The proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses at the project site.
Although this change in the allowed uses within the project site could increase the intensity of use
at the site (e.g., increase in employees, vehicle trips), such an increase in intensity would not result
215
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 3‐61
in significant impacts. All potential impacts that could result from of the proposed project are
considered to be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential impacts would be
individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. No impact would occur.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Impact)
As described above, the proposed GPA and Rezoning would allow retail, office, and automotive uses
at the project site. Although this change in the allowed uses within the project site could increase
the intensity of use at the site, such an increase in intensity would not result in any environmental
effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings. No impact
would occur.
216
217
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 4‐1
4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
LSA Associates, Inc.
157 Park Place
Point Richmond, California 94801
Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal in Charge
Shanna Guiler, AICP, Associate, Project Manager
Patty Linder, Graphics and Production
Charis Hanshaw, Document Management
2491 Alluvial Avenue, PM 626
Clovis, California 93611
Amy Fischer, Principal, Air Quality & Noise Specialist
Cara Carlucci, Air Quality and Noise Specialist
20 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614
Arthur Black, Associate, Transportation
218
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 4‐2
This page intentionally left blank
219
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 5‐1
5.0 REFERENCES
Alameda County Community Development Agency. 2012. Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. August. Available online at: www.acgov.org/cda/planning/
generalplans/airportlandplans.htm (accessed September 1, 2020).
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2020a. Shaking Scenarios Map. Available online at:
mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086
fc8 (accessed September 1, 2020).
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2020b. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Available
online at: mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab
29b35dfcd086fc8 (accessed September 1, 2020).
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2020c. Interactive Landslide Hazards Map. Available
online at: mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29
b35dfcd086fc8 (accessed September 1, 2020).
Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2013. Plan Bay
Area. July 18.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Clean Air Plan. April 19.
CalFire. 2008. Alameda County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Available online at:
osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6638/fhszl_map1.pdf (accessed September 1, 2020).
CalFire. 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Website: https://gis.data.ca.gov/
datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414 (accessed September 1, 2020).
California Department of Conservation (DOC). California Farmland Conservancy. California Important
Farmland Finder. Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed August 27, 2020).
California Department of Conservation. 2018. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application.
Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed September 1, 2020).
California Energy Commission. 2019. 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy
Commission. Docket # 19‐IEPR‐01.
California, State of. 2019. California Official Tsunami Inundation Maps. Website:
www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps (accessed September 10, 2020).
Dublin, City of. 2017. City of Dublin General Plan. November 21. Available online at:
www.dublin.ca.gov/171/General‐Plan#Chapter%201 (accessed December 16, 2020).
220
K ENT P ROPERTY G ENERAL P LAN A MENDMENT AND R EZONING
D UBLIN, C ALIFORNIA
P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
I NITIAL S TUDY/NEGATIVE D ECLARATION
J ANUARY 2021
P:\DUB1601.01 Kent Property GPA\PRODUCTS\CEQA\Public Review Draft\KentGPA_Public Review Draft ISND.docx (01/04/21) 5‐2
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center (map). Website:
msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=6207%20Sierra%20Court%2C%20Dublin%2C%2
0CA%20#searchresultsanchor (accessed September 10, 2020).
SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC. 2013. Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan, 6400
Sierra Court, Dublin, California. July 1. Available online at: documents.geotracker.water
boards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/8705445766/SL0600196603.PDF (accessed
September 1, 2020).
State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. Geotracker Website Application. Available online at:
geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=6207+Sierra+Court%2C
+Dublin%2C+CA (accessed September 1, 2020).
TetraTech. 2018. Tri‐Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. September. Available online at: dublin.ca.
gov/DocumentCenter/View/20467/2018‐09‐04_HMP‐Volume‐1‐_Tri‐Valley_FINAL (accessed
September 1, 2020).
Tri‐Valley History Council. 2011. Tri‐Valley Directory of Historical Resources and Places of Interest.
Available online at: www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/6884 (accessed
September 1, 2020).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System. Website:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical‐habitat.html (accessed August 27, 2020).
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 2019. Web Soil Survey. Available
online at: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (accessed September 1,
2020).
United States Geological Survey. 2018. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Website:
www.usgs.gov/natural‐hazards/earthquake‐hazards/science/modified‐mercalli‐intensity‐
scale?qt‐science_center_objects=0#qt‐science_center_objects (accessed September 1,
2020).
221
Attachment 3
Ordinance. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. xx-21
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6207 SIERRA COURT
FROM THE M-1 ZONING DISTRICT TO THE C-2 ZONING DISTRICT
(APN 941-0205-013-04)
PLPA-2019-00002
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recital
A.The City-initiated Rezoning of the Project site, located at 6207 Sierra Court, proposes to
change the zoning from M-1 (Light Industrial) to C-2 (General Commercial).
B.Following a duly noticed public hearing on January 26, 2021, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 21-01, recommending that the City Council adopt the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) and approve the General Plan Amendment and
Rezoning, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at
City Hall during normal business hours.
C.A Staff Report for the City Council, dated February 16, 2021, and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the proposed Rezoning. At a properly noticed public
hearing on February 16, 2021, the City Council considered the Planning Commission’s
recommendation on the IS/ND, General Plan Amendment and Rezoning.
Section 2.Findings and Determinations.
A.Pursuant to Section 8.120.050.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as
follows:
1. The Rezoning is consistent with the Dublin General Plan because:the allowed uses in
the C-2 zoning district are consistent with the amended General Plan land use
designation of Retail/Office and Automotive. No Specific Plans apply to the project site.
B.Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on February 16, 2021, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. xx-21, adopting an Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the
project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference.
Section 3.Zoning Map Amendment.Pursuant to Chapter 8.120, Title 8 of the City of Dublin
Municipal Code, the Dublin Zoning Map is hereby amended to Rezone the Project site, consisting
of 1.5+ gross acres, from the M-1 (Light Industrial) to the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning
District.
A map of the Rezoning area is shown below:
222
Attachment 3
Ordinance.No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 2 of 2
Section 4.Effective Date.This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its
adoption.
Section 5.Posting.The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted
in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of _____2021 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
3668428.1
General
Commercial (C-2)
223
Attachment 4
Reso. No. 21-01, Item 5.1, Adopted 01/26/21 Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 21-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT AND AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 6207 SIERRA COURT FROM BUSINESS
PARK/INDUSTRIAL TO RETAIL/OFFICE AND AUTOMOTIVE AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING THE REZONING FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M-1) TO GENERAL
COMMERCIAL (C-2)
(APN 941-0205-013-04)
PLPA-2019-00002
WHEREAS,the 1.5-acre Project site is located at 6207 Sierra Court at the intersection of
Dublin Boulevard and Sierra Court (APNs 941-0205-013-04); and
WHEREAS, the existing General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Business
Park/Industrial; and
WHEREAS,the City proposes to amend the existing General Plan land use designation
on the Project site to Retail/Office and Automotive; and
WHEREAS, the existing Zoning District for the Project site is Light Industrial (M-1); and
WHEREAS,the City proposes to amend the existing Zoning District on the Project site to
General Commercial (C-2); and
WHEREAS,the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain
projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents
be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed project, which found
that there was no substantial evidence that the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning would
have a significant adverse effect on the environment and, therefore, pursuant to the requirements
of CEQA, the City prepared a Negative Declaration (ND), dated January 2021, which reflects the
City’s independent judgment and analysis; and
WHEREAS, the IS/ND was circulated for 20 days for public comment from January 6, 2021
to January 26, 2021; and
WHEREAS, no comments were received on the IS/ND; and
224
Reso. No. 21-01, Item 5.1, Adopted 01/26/21 Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, Staff Report, dated January 26, 2021, and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and
associated environmental review; and
WHEREAS, consistent with Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code and
Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resource Code, the City obtained a contact list of local Native
American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the
contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan Amendment
and IS/ND. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the statutory consultation
periods and no further action is required; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public
hearing on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the IS/ND, all above-referenced reports,
recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
recommends the City Council adopt the IS/ND, attached as Exhibit A, based on the following
findings:
1. The Planning Commission considered the IS/ND and public comments prior to taking
action on the project.
2. The Planning Commission finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, including
the IS/ND and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the
proposed Project will have a significant impact on the environment.
3. The IS/ND reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis as to the potential
environmental effects of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning.
4. The IS/ND has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the Dublin CEQA
Guidelines and Procedures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the Resolution attached as Exhibit B adopting the IS/ND and amending the
General Plan land use designation for the Project site from Business Park/Industrial to
Retail/Office and Automotive, based on findings that the amended General Plan will remain
consistent as so amended.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the Ordinance attached as Exhibit C approving amending the Zoning Map for
the Project site from Light Industrial (M-1) to General Commercial (C-2) based on findings that
the Rezoning is in the public interest, promotes general health, safety and welfare.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of January 2021 by the following
vote:
225
Reso. No. 21-01, Item 5.1, Adopted 01/26/21 Page 3 of 3
AYES: GRIER, BENSON, THALBLUM, TYLER
NOES: WRIGHT
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
3668429.1
226
Kent Property - 6207 Sierra CourtGeneral Plan Amendment and RezoningCity Council February 16, 20211
Project Location2
Project Summary•General Plan Amendment:From Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive•Rezoning: From Light Industrial (M-1) to General Commercial (C-2)3
Site Layout and Access4
General Plan Amendment5Existing General Plan Proposed General Plan
Rezoning6Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
Environmental Review•Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS/ND) prepared oProject would not have a significant impactoNo Mitigation Measures requiredoResolution recommending City Council adopt the IS/ND7
Recommendation•Planning Commission considered proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning on January 26 and recommend that City Council : oAdopt Resolution adopting Initial Study/Negative Declaration and amending General Plan land use designation at 6207 Sierra Court from Business Park/Industrial to Retail/Office and Automotive; and oAdopt Ordinance amending Zoning Map for property located at 6207 Sierra Court from M‐1 zoning district to C‐2 zoning district 8
9