HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Semi -Public Sites and Emerald High School Site General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Planned Development Zoning Amendment (PLPA-2020-00054) (2)
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Page 1 of 5
Agenda Item 6.2
DATE:June 15, 2021
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:Semi-Public Sites and Emerald High School Site General Plan Amendment,
Specific Plan Amendment, and Planned Development Zoning Amendment
(PLPA-2020-00054)
Prepared by: Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider a City-initiated General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan (EDSP) Amendment, and Planned Development Zoning Amendment for three sites, including
2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property and 2.0 acres on the East Ranch property, as well as the
23.46-acre future Emerald High School site. The General Plan Amendment and EDSP Amendment
would change the land use designation of a portion of the GH PacVest and East Ranch properties
from Semi-Public to Public/Semi-Public to allow a broader range of uses, including the potential
for affordable housing developed by a non-profit entity. The General Plan Amendment and EDSP
Amendment would also change the land use designation for the Emerald High School site from
Neighborhood Commercial to Public/Semi-Public consistent with the planned use of the property
for a high school. The proposed project would also include amending the existing Planned
Development Zoning to provide consistency with the General Plan Amendment and EDSP
Amendment. In addition, the City Council will consider an Addendum to the EDSP Environmental
Impact Reports (EIRs).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Reports and Approving Amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
for 2.5 Acres on the GH PacVest Property, 2.0 Acres on the East Ranch Property, and the Emerald
High School Site and waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance Approving Amendments
to the Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 Development Plans for 2.5 Acres on the GH PacVest
Property and 2.0 Acres on the East Ranch property in Fallon Village, and the Emerald High School
Site in Dublin Ranch.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The cost to prepare the General Plan Amendment Study for the Semi-Public sites includes staff
time and $26,519 to prepare the environmental analysis, which will be absorbed in the Adopted
1677
Page 2 of 5
Budget in the Planning Division.
DESCRIPTION:
Background
Semi-Public Sites
On October 6, 2020, the City Council received a report and status update on the Housing Element
Update and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Element must include an
inventory of specific sites or parcels that may be available to accommodate the RHNA. At the
meeting, Staff presented an initial review of sites that may be able to accommodate the potential
RHNA. The City Council provided unanimous direction to Staff to prioritize the conversion of the
existing vacant Semi-Public sites to a designation that can accommodate affordable housing.
There are currently two vacant sites with an existing General Plan land use designation of Semi-
Public, including 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property (formerly known as the “Chen” property)
and 2.0 acres on the East Ranch property (formerly known as the “Croak” property) in Eastern
Dublin, as shown in Figure 1 below (as noted with large asterisks). The two sites are located in a
Planned Development (PD) zoning district and have an approved Stage 1 Development Plan. The
GH PacVest and East Ranch properties are generally surrounded by residential uses to the north
and west, by undeveloped land to the south, and by the City Limits and Urban Limit Line to the
east with undeveloped land beyond.Figure 1: General Plan Land Use Mapfor Semi Public Sites
Semi Public SitesFallon RoadDublin Boulevard Extension
1678
Page 3 of 5
Emerald High School Site
There are four vacant parcels totaling 23.46 acres located at 3501 Dublin Boulevard, which will be
the location of Dublin’s second comprehensive high school, Emerald High School (Figure 2). The
site is surrounded by residential development to the north, east, and west, and by commercial
development to the south. Phase One of the school is currently under construction and is designed
to accommodate 1,300 students and includes academic classrooms, a gymnasium, visual and
performing arts classrooms, administrative and counseling space, a football field, a track, and
tennis courts. Phase Two of the project will feature additional academic classrooms, a theater, an
aquatic complex, and stadium bleachers.
The site has a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial and Public/Semi-
Public and is located in a PD zoning district. The site is within the Town Center – Commercial
subarea in the EDSP. Use of the site for a high school is not consistent with the existing land use
designation. The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) conducted the environmental review
associated with the high school pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and used their policy powers to override the General Plan and locate the
school at this site. Figure 2: Emerald High School Vicinity Map
On February 2, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 12-21 approving the initiation of a
General Plan Amendment Study for 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property, 2.0 acres on the East
Ranch property, and the Emerald High School site.
Proposed Project
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and EDSP Amendment to change the
land use designation from Semi-Public to Public/Semi-Public for 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest
property and 2.0 acres on the East Ranch property, and change the land use designation of the
Emerald High School site from Neighborhood Commercial to Public/Semi-Public to be consistent
Dublin Boulevard
Central Parkway
Brannigan Street1679
Page 4 of 5
with actions taken by the DUSD to locate a high school at this site. The proposed project also
includes companion amendments to the existing PD Zoning for consistency with the General Plan
and EDSP Amendments for these sites.
Analysis
General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment
The current General Plan and EDSP land use designation of Semi-Public on the 2.5-acre GH Pac
Vest site and 2.0-acre East Ranch site allows semi-public land uses, such as child care centers,
youth centers, senior centers, special needs program facilities, religious institutions, clubhouses,
community centers, community theatres, hospitals, private schools, and other facilities that
provide cultural, educational, or other similar services and benefit the community. The proposed
land use designation of Public/Semi-Public allows a combination of public and semi-public land
uses. In addition to the semi-public land uses noted above, the Public/Semi-Public land use
designation allows public schools, libraries, city office buildings, State, County, and other public
agency facilities, post offices, fire stations, utilities, and the Dublin Civic Center. As specified in the
General Plan, development of housing on a site designated as Public/Semi-Public is considered
consistent with the General Plan when it is developed by a non-profit entity and serves to meet
affordable housing needs or the housing needs of an underserved economic segment of the
community.
The primary purpose of the proposed amendment to the General Plan and EDSP land use
designation is to allow a broader range of uses, including the potential for affordable housing
developed by a non-profit entity. If the change in land use to Public/Semi-Public is approved, the
two subject sites could be identified in the Housing Element Update to accommodate a portion of
the City’s RHNA.
The Emerald High School does not conform with the existing General Plan as the Neighborhood
Commercial land use designation does not permit public schools. Therefore, Staff is proposing to
amend the land use designation to Public/Semi-Public to create a compatible land use that is
consistent with the future use of the site for a school and eliminate the non-conformity.
Additionally, the proposed EDSP Amendment includes modifying the subarea for the site from
Town Center – Commercial to Town Center – Residential and eliminating the references to the
proposed “Main Street” within the subarea, since commercial activities and street improvements
will not occur as the school is being constructed in their place.
Planned Development Zoning Amendment
The proposed project includes an amendment to the existing Fallon Village and Dublin Ranch PD
zoning Stage 1 Development Plans for the Semi-Public sites and Emerald High School site
respectively. The proposed amendment would change the uses permitted on the subject sites to
ensure consistency with the proposed General Plan Amendment and EDSP Amendment.
Staff has prepared a draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs
(Attachment 2) and the General Plan Amendment and EDSP Amendment, and a draft Ordinance
(Attachment 3) approving the PD Zoning Amendments to the Fallon Village and Dublin Ranch PD
Stage 1 Development Plans. The Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council
approval is provided as Attachment 4.
1680
Page 5 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of
Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared.
Prior CEQA analysis for the Semi-Public Sites includes: 1) the East Dublin General Plan and
Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation
Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these
three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs.” Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines and using the City’s Initial Study Checklist, the City assessed whether any further
environmental review is required for the proposed project and determined an Addendum to the
EDSP EIRs is the appropriate CEQA review. The Addendum is included as Attachment 2. Staff
recommends the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to approve an
Addendum to the EDSP EIRs.
No additional studies or analysis is required for the Emerald High School site, since the DUSD
already completed the environmental review.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
On May 25, 2021, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 21-04,
recommending the City Council adopt an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs, approve amendments to
the General Plan and EDSP, and approve amendments to Planned Development Stage 1
Development Plans for 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property, 2.0 acres on the East Ranch
property, and the Emerald High School site.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
Strategy 3: Create More Affordable Housing Opportunities.
Objective E: Update the City’s General Plan Housing Element in accordance with state law and to
ensure an adequate supply of sites to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation
for the period 2023-31.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
The City Council Agenda was posted. A public notice also was published in the East Bay Times.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Reports and Approving Amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
2) Exhibit A to the Resolution – CEQA Addendum
3) Ordinance Approving Amendments to the Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plans
4)Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-04 (without attachments)
1681
Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 1 of 16
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE
GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR 2.5 ACRES ON THE GH
PACVEST PROPERTY, 2.0 ACRES ON THE EAST RANCH PROPERTY, AND THE
EMERALD HIGH SCHOOL SITE
APNs: 905-0002-001 AND 002; 985-0027-002; AND 985-0078-004, 005, 006, AND 007
(PLPA-2020-000054)
WHEREAS,on October 6, 2020, the City Council received a report and status update on
the Housing Element Update and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the City
Council provided unanimous direction for Staff to prioritize the conversion of existing vacant Semi-
Public sites to a designation that can accommodate affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2021, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan
Amendment Study to change the existing land use designation for 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest
(formerly Chen) property and 2.0 acres on the East Ranch (formerly Croak) property from Semi-
Public to Public/Semi-Public, and for the Emerald High School site from Neighborhood
Commercial to Public/Semi-Public, as well as other amendments to the provisions of the General
Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plans to
ensure consistency (“the Project”); and
WHEREAS,the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and
City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, prior CEQA analysis for the Semi-Public Sites includes: 1) the East Dublin
General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development
Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR
(2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP
EIRs;” and
WHEREAS,the Dublin Unified School District conducted environmental review associated
with the Emerald High School pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and no further analysis is
required; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Addendum for
the Semi-Public sites, which reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS,following a public hearing on May 25, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 21-04, recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports, approve amendments to the General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and approve amendments to Planned Development Stage 1
1682
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 2 of 16
Development Plans for 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property, 2.0 acres on the East Ranch
property, and the Emerald High School site, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference
and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 15, 2021, was submitted outlining the issues
surrounding the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Planned Development
Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, on June 15,
2021, 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 foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Addendum, attached
as Exhibit A, based on the following findings:
1. The City Council considered the Addendum 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
Addendum and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the
proposed Project will have a significant impact on the environment.
3. The Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis as to the
potential environmental effects of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Specific
Plan Amendment, and Rezoning.
4. The Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the City of Dublin
CEQA Guidelines and Procedures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, as set forth below, are in the public interest, will promote
general health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan as amended will remain internally
consistent. The proposed Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies of the
General Plan in each of the elements and will allow the potential for affordable housing
constructed by a non-profit entity. The General Plan Amendments noted below will ensure that
the implementation of the proposed Project is in compliance with the General Plan and that each
element within the General Plan is internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the General Plan:
Figure 1-1 (Dublin General Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to show the land use designations for
the two Semi-Public Sites as Public/Semi-Public as shown below:
1683
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 3 of 16
The location of the Public/Semi-Public sites on the GH PacVest (formerly Chen) and East Ranch
(formerly Croak) properties of Fallon Village will be determined at the time of the Stage 2 Development
Plan approval. The size of the sites will be 2.5 net acres on the GH PacVest property, and 2.0 net acres
on the East Ranch property.
Figure 1-1 (Dublin General Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to show the Emerald High School site
as Public/Semi-Public as shown below:
Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be amended to read
as follows:
Table 2.2. LAND USEDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA
CLASSIFICATION ACRES INTENSITY UNITS1 FACTOR YIELD1
RESIDENTIAL Acres DwellingUnits/Acre Dwelling Units Persons/ Dwelling Unit Population
High Density 56.14 25 .1+1,409+2 .7 3,804+
Medium-High
Density 137.81 14 .1-25 .0 1,943-3,445 2 .7 5,246-9,302
Medium-High Density and Retail Office
0 14 .1-25 .0 0 2 .7 0
Medium-Density 405.4 6 .1-14 .0 2,473-5,676 2 .7 6,667-15,325
Single Family 725 0 .9-6 .0 652-4,350 2 .7 1,760-11,745
Estate Residential 30.5 0 .01-0 .8 0-24 2 .7 0-65
Rural Residential/ Agriculture 329.8 0 .01 3 2 .7 9
TOTAL:1,684.65 6,415-14,757+17,321-39,845+
COMMERCIAL Acres Floor AreaRatio(Gross)Square Feet(millions)Square Feet/ Employee Jobs
General Commercial 299.1 .20-.60 2 .1-6.86 510 5,118-15,333
1684
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 4 of 16
General Commercial/ Campus Office
95 .22 .20-.80 .83-3 .32 385 2,155-7,325
Mixed Use 6.7 .30-1 .00 .9-.29 490 178-596
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office 22 .9 .45 max .45 260 1,731
Neighborhood
Commercial
0.4 .25-.60 .004-.01 490 9-21
Campus Office 195 .58 .25-.80 2 .13-6 .82 260 8,192-26,214
Industrial Park 56 .4 .35 max .86 590 1,458
Industrial Park/ Campus Office 0 .25-.35 0 425 0
Campus Office 137.58 .25-.80 1.50-4.79 260 8,192-26,214
Medical Campus 42.88 .25-.80 .46-4.49 260 1,796-5,747
Medical Campus / Commercial 15.85 .25-.80 .17-.41 510 338-812
TOTAL:872.61 9.40-39.22 30,079–86,351
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC/OPEN SPACE
Acres Floor AreaRatio(Gross)Square Feet(millions)Square Feet/ Employee Jobs
Public/Semi-Public 98.96 .50 max 2 .15 590 3,653
Semi-Public 2.09 .50 max .045 590 77
Acres Number
Parks/Public
Recreation
204.9
Regional Parks 1.2 1
Open Space 699 .56
Schools Acres Floor AreaRatio(Gross)Square Feet(millions)Square Feet/ Employee Jobs
Elementary School 38 .50 max 1 .06 590 1,797
Middle School 27 .8 .50 max .61 590 1,034
High School 23.46 .50 max .51 590 866
TOTAL:1,095.97 5.38 7,427
Acres Dwelling Units Population Square Feet(millions)Jobs
GRAND TOTAL:3,653.23 6,415-14,757+17,321-39,845+14.78-44.6 54,755-133,551
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
SECTION 3.4.2 (Public Transit) shall be amended to read as follows to eliminate references to “Main
Street:”
Public transit opportunities will be maximized for eastern Dublin residents. Local transit service is to be
provided to all land use areas with connections to regional transit, such as BART. The Plan designates the
east-west corridor midway between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive as a "transit spine". This corridor,
which extends across the width of the planning area, will link the Town Center to the future East Dublin
1685
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 5 of 16
BART station and downtown Dublin. Advisory design guidelines which encourage transit use are proposed
for bus shelters and transit stops.
Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be amended to read as follows with no
modifications to the footnotes:
TABLE 4.1
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY
(Amendment Reso# 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 101-
15, 165-15, 151-16, xx-21)
Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
General Commercial 356.8 acres .25-.35 FAR 4.122 MSF
General Commercial/Campus
Office
87.02 acres .28 FAR 1.054 MSF
Industrial Park*61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF
Neighborhood Commercial 36.76 acres .30-.35 FAR .516 MSF
Mixed Use 0 acres .30-1.0 FAR .005 MSF
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office****25.33 acres .45 FAR .497 MSF
Campus Office 94.28 acres .35-.75 FAR 1.840 MSF
Medical Campus 42.88 acres .25-.80 FAR .950 MSF
Medical Campus/Commercial 15.85 acres .25-.60 FAR .250 MSF
Subtotal 717.81 acres 9.981 MSF
RESIDENTIAL
High Density 58.74 acres 35 du/ac 2,056 du
Medium High Density 156.61 acres 20 du/ac 3,132 du
Medium Density**492.71 acres (1)10 du/ac 4,744 du
Single Family***947.25 acres 4 du/ac 3,789 du (3)
Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du
Rural Residential/Agric.539.55 acres .01 du/ac 5 du
Mixed Use 0 acres 15 du/ac 115 du
Subtotal 2,225.26 acres 13,950 du
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public 98.96 acres .24 FAR .99 MSF
Semi-Public 2.09 acres .25 FAR .03 MSF
Subtotal 101.05 acres 1.02 MSF
SCHOOLS
Elementary School 55.8 acres (2)5 schools
Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school
High School 23.46 1 school
Subtotal 100.56 acres
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
City Park 56.3 acres 1 park
Community Park 93.3 acres 3 parks
Neighborhood Park 50.9 acres 7 parks
Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 parks
Natural Community Park 10.4 acres 1 park
Subtotal 227.6 acres 18 parks
Open Space 684.06 acres
TOTAL LAND AREA 4,058.75 acres
1686
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 6 of 16
SECTION 4.5.1 (Location) shall be amended to read as follows to eliminate references to “Main Street:”
Regional serving retail and office commercial uses, which are more auto-oriented because of their large
market area, have been located primarily south of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the freeway and major
interchanges. These locations provide excellent automobile access and high visibility.
Policy 4-12: Concentrate regionally-oriented commercial uses south of Dublin Boulevard and near freeway
interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts on the rest of eastern Dublin.
Note: There are several areas indicated on the land use map that could develop as either general
commercial or campus office uses. This flexibility has been provided in these key areas to respond to
changing market conditions that may occur in the future. The shift from either campus office or general
commercial (the underlying land use designation) to general commercial or campus office would only be
permitted if the established traffic levels of service are not exceeded. Appropriate traffic studies may need
to be conducted in order for the City to make the proper determination regarding traffic levels of service.
Community-oriented commercial development is planned for three mixed-use commercial centers, each
of which is centrally located to a residential area. These centers are: the Town Center (along Tassajara
Rood between Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive); and the Village Centers (located at the north and
south ends of Fallon Road). The Town Center will be the commercial hub for eastern Dublin, but will also
attract people from the entire city and surrounding areas. The Village Centers are intended to be local
serving, primarily comprised of retail uses and small offices.
Policy 4-13: Locate community-oriented commercial development in the "Town Center" within walking
distance or a short ride from most residents, and conveniently served by transit.
Policy 4-14: Encourage the development of neighborhood serving retail and service uses in the "Village
Centers" in order to reduce daily vehicle trips, and contribute to the identity and character of the outlying
residential areas.
SECTION 4.5.2 (Character) shall be amendedto eliminate Policy 4-16, which references the “Main Street.”
Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) shall be amended to read
as follows with no modifications to the footnotes:
TABLE 4.2
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 165-15, 151-
16, xx-21)
Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/Employees Persons/du Population
Commercial
Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266
General
Commercial/Campus
Office*
1.054 MSF 385 2,738
General Commercial 4.122 MSF 510 8,082
Neighborhood Commercial .516 MSF 490 1,053
Mixed Use**0 MSF 490 0
Mixed Use 2/Campus
Office****
.497 MSF 260 1,910
Campus Office 1.840 MSF 260 7,077
Medical Campus .950 260 3,654
1687
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 7 of 16
SECTION 4.9.2 (Town Center Commercial) shall be amended to read as follows to eliminate references
to “Main Street” and the Neighborhood Commercial area:
LOCATION
The Town Center - Commercial subarea located adjacent and perpendicular to Tassajara Road. consists
of a linear T-shaped area located adjacent and perpendicular to Tassajara Road. The subarea extends
north south along Tassajara Road from Dublin Boulevard to just north of Gleason Drive.
LAND USE CONCEPT
As indicated by its name, this subarea represents the commercial core for eastern Dublin. The area is
intended to be a high density, pedestrian-oriented commercial, civic, and entertainment center for Dublin
and the surrounding communities.
The subarea, which extends along Tassajara Road, is intended to include uses with a broader market area
and a greater orientation to the motoring public, including a full range of regional and community retail,
service, office, and restaurant uses. Ideally, a major community shopping center, with supermarket, drug
store, hardware store, liquor store, and other supporting retail and service uses would be located in this
area. Mixed use development is strongly encouraged in the subarea, particularly retail and service uses
on the ground level with office and/or residential uses above.
Table 4.5 (Town-Center-Commercial Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows:
Table 4.6 (Town Center-Residential Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows:
Medical Campus/
Commercial
.250 510 490
Public/Semi Public .99 MSF 590 1,678
Semi-Public .03 MSF 590 51
TOTAL:11.047 MSF 27,999
Residential
High Density 2,056 2.0 4,112
Medium High Density 3,132 2.0 6,264
Medium Density 4,749 2.0 9,498
Single Family***(1)3,789 3.2 12,125
Estate Residential 4 3.2 13
Mixed Use**0 2.0 0
Rural Residential/Agric.5 3.2 16
TOTAL:13,735 32,028
TABLE 4.5
TOWN CENTER -- COMMERCIAL
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, xx-21)
Designation Acres Density Development Potential
General Commercial 65.4 .35 FAR .997 msf
Neighborhood Commercial 10.47 .35 FAR .159 msf
Public/Semi-Public --.25 FAR 0 msf
Semi-Public ----0 msf
TOTAL 75.87 ---1.156 msf
1688
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 8 of 16
TABLE 4.6
TOWN CENTER-- RESIDENTIAL
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(Amended Per Resolution No. xx-21)
Designation Acres Density Development Potential
High Density 33.6 35 du/ac 908 du
Medium High Density 44.9 20 du/ac 852 du
Medium Density 189.0 10 du/ac 1,949 du
Single Family 89.2 4 du/ac 399 du
Subtotal 356.7 ---4,108 du
Open Space 49.8 ---
City Park 56.3 ---1 park
Community Park 80.6 ---1 park
Neighborhood Park 11.6 ---2 parks
Neighborhood Square 7.5 ---5 parks
Nature Park 10.4 ---1 park
Semi-Public ------0 msf
Subtotal 216.2 ---
Elementary School 31.1 ---3 schools
High School 23.46 1 school
TOTAL 606.6 ---4,108 dwelling units
10 parks
3 elementary schools
1 high school
Table 4.9 (Fallon Village Center Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows:
TABLE 4.9
FALLON VILLAGE CENTER
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(Amended Per Resolution No. 92-12, 165-15, and xx-21)
Designation Acres Density Development Potential
Medium Density Residential 38.431 10 du/ac 384 du
Medium High Density
Residential
13.33 20 du/ac 267 du
Residential Subtotal 51.76 651 du
Neighborhood Square 2.0 1 park
Community Park 13.5 1 park
Open Space 3.6 --
Park/Open Space Subtotal 19.1
Public/Semi-Public 8.2 --
Semi-Public 0 --
TOTAL 651 du
Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) shall be amended to show the land use designations for the two Semi-Public
Sites as Public/Semi-Public as shown below:
The location of the Public/Semi-Public sites on the GH PacVest (formerly Chen) and East Ranch
(formerly Croak) properties of Fallon Village will be determined at the time of the Stage 2 Development
Plan approval.
1689
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 9 of 16
Figure 4.2 (Planning Subareas) shall be amended to reclassify the eastern “Town Center – Commercial”
subarea as “Town Center – Residential” subarea.
SECTION 5.2.3 (Town Center Commercial) shall be amended to read as follows to eliminate the
references to “Main Street:”
Three east-west streets are designated in the plan to provide convenient movement across the planning
area to the major north-south corridors.
The southernmost corridor, located approximately a quarter of a mile north of the freeway, is Dublin
Boulevard, providing the principal vehicular connection between eastern Dublin and the western Dublin
community. Dublin Boulevard is also a major transit route which connects residential and employment
users along Dublin Boulevard to BART. Projected to ultimately be a four-lane to six- lane roadway, Dublin
Boulevard would ultimately connect with North Canyons Parkway in Livermore to provide a reliever route
paralleling the freeway. The segment between Croak Road and North Canyons Parkway will be a four-
lane roadway. The minimum right-of-way shall be 136 feet. Dublin Boulevard right-of-way shall be widened
to 154 feet minimum from Tassajara Creek to the Iron Horse Trail to accommodate a bicycle trail along the
north side of the street.
Gleason Road, located approximately a half mile north of and parallel to the Dublin Boulevard extension,
will be widened to a four-lane arterial road along its current alignment. The corridor would primarily serve
the more densely developed southern portion of the planning area, and would extend from Arnold Road to
Fallon Road on the east. It is anticipated that this road will carry predominantly local vehicle trips. The
minimum right- of-way shall be 104 feet. Additional right-of-way will be needed for transitions and additional
turn lanes.
The Plan calls for a third major east-west corridor, Central Parkway, situated between the Dublin Boulevard
and Gleason Road extensions. It will provide two through lanes in each direction. Amendments since 1993
have provided for a reduced number of lanes for and a realignment of Central Parkway so that the street
provides two through lanes west of Fallon road and provides one through lane in each direction east of
Fallon Road. Central Parkway will extend across the width of the planning area. The minimum right-of-way
shall be 106 feet west of Fallon Road; the right-of-way shall be 88 feet east of Fallon Road per the 2005
Fallon Village amendments.
The Plan concentrates residential and employment uses along this road, Gleason Road and Dublin
Boulevard to encourage transit use for local and regional travel. In addition to the Town Center commercial
core, Villages, Gateways, Industrial Park, the sports park, the high school, junior high school and several
elementary schools are all located on these three east-west roadways. A quarter mile represents about a
five-minute walk and is the normally accepted planning standard for what most people find a comfortable
and convenient walking distance.
SECTION 7.1.1 (Town Center Commercial) shall be amended to read as follows to eliminate references
to “Main Street:”
The Town Center Commercial subarea will be the social and cultural hub of the eastern Dublin community.
The image of this area, where residents shop, eat, play and do business each day, will be a major source
of community identity. The emphasis of the guidelines for the Town Center Commercial subarea is on
establishing the character of a town center, with a walkable system of streets well-defined by buildings and
a lively, interesting shopping street catering to pedestrians, transit users and others.
FORM
Development should be compact, and unified by a simple, clear street network which disperses traffic to
low volumes and encourages pedestrian movement in all directions.
1690
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 10 of 16
Develop a street system in the Town Center Commercial area that provides at least one parallel
street south of Central Parkway.
In order to preserve the pedestrian scale at the commercial area, cross streets should be spaced
no more than 500 feet apart.
BUILDING SITING
Buildings should form a continuous edge that gives definition and scale to the street.
Site buildings to orient toward Tassajara Road, with secondary orientation toward side streets into
the residential area (see Figure 7.2).
Setbacks:
o 10-150 foot setback from Tassajara Road for shopping center buildings
o 10 foot minimum and 85-foot maximum setback from Tassajara Road right-of-way for all
other buildings (see Figure 7.4).
o No side yard setbacks required.
BUILDING HEIGHT
Taller buildings can be effectively used to give a sense of enclosure and human scale to the streets.
Permit buildings up to 6 stories high to be developed in the Community Commercial area along
Tassajara Road. The tallest buildings should be located at the corners of Tassajara Road and
Central Parkway to create a "gateway" to the Town Center. If single-story buildings are developed
in this area, they should incorporate a variety of roof forms and heights (see Figure 7.5).
Permit building heights of up to 3 stories (40-foot maximum) in the Neighborhood Commercial area
along Central Parkway. Maintain 20-foot minimum facade heights in the Town Center. Single-story
retail buildings built to a 2-story height will be considered, but should not be the norm (see Figure
7.6).
BUILDING TYPES
Mixed-use buildings and complexes are strongly encouraged in the Town Center. The mixture of office
and residential uses with retail contributes to a downtown that is active not only on weekdays, but during
evenings and weekends as well.
Encourage upper-story office space above retail in the Community Commercial area.
Encourage upper-story residential units and office space above retail ground floors in the
Neighborhood Commercial area.
Incorporate balconies and upper story windows that open on buildings that front streets.
BUILDING ENTRIES
Building entries should be located to encourage pedestrian activity on the major shopping streets.
Locate major building entries in the Community Commercial area so they front on Tassajara Road.
Provide additional pedestrian entries facing the adjacent residential area, aligned with the ends of
local east-west side streets. Pedestrians should not be forced to cut through parking lots to reach
shops and offices (see Figure 7.7).
Locate shop, office, and upper-floor residential entries in the Neighborhood Commercial area so
they front on the street. Entries should be spaced at intervals of no more than 50 feet (see Figure
7.8).
1691
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 11 of 16
Permit larger retail stores (greater than 30,000 s.f.) to have their primary entrance from an off-street
parking lot. However, at least one entry must be provided from the main pedestrian street (See
Figure 7.9).
PARKING
Parking areas should not disrupt the continuity of storefronts or discourage pedestrian access.
Provide on-street parking on all primary streets in the Town Center (see Figure 7.10).
Locate public parking lots behind commercial buildings, away from the main, pedestrian-oriented
street in the Neighborhood Commercial area. (see Figure 7.10).
Provide pedestrian passageways (“paseos”) between commercial buildings from parking areas to
the street. Paseos should have natural light and display windows and/or store entries along their
length (see Figure 7.10).
Divide large parking lots into several smaller parts through siting of internal circulation corridors,
landscaped medians, and buildings (see Figure 7.11).
Plant parking lots with shade trees in a pattern and number that can be reasonably expected to
shade 50 percent of the lot surface ten years after planting and 75 percent at maturity (see Figure
7.12).
Use low hedges, shrub masses, walls and landscaped berms to screen parking lots from street
views, as well as to give a defined edge to the lot.
Do not allow off-street parking lots to take up more than one-half of the street frontage along arterial
streets and parkways. Avoid domination of the Tassajara Road frontage by parking. Encourage
larger projects to incorporate structured parking.
TRANSIT
Central Parkway is to be designed to favor transit movement and convenience for transit users.
Provide bus stops with signs (maps, schedules, etc.), shelters, and other amenities (waste
receptacles, telephones, bicycle storage, etc.) at two-block intervals along Central Parkway.
Provide distinctively designed transit shelters to contribute to the image and identify of the
community, as well as the comfort of the transit user.
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
Major commercial streets such as Tassajara Road and Central Parkway should have a lively, attractive,
and stimulating pedestrian environment.
Develop wide sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian circulation, window shopping, outdoor
merchandising, and cafes.
Encourage development of sidewalk cafes and indoor/outdoor restaurants with retractable
storefronts (see Figure 7.13).
Design ground floor building facades fronting the street to be at least 60% transparent window
surface (see Figure 7.14).
Encourage use of colorful awnings and pedestrian-level store signage along facades (see Figure
7.14).
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Place signage on building faces, rather than on freestanding monuments or poles. The size and
location of signs should be geared toward pedestrians and transit-riders, rather than the
automobile.
1692
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 12 of 16
Screen loading docks and service areas from public view.
SECTION 7.1.2 (Town Center Residential) shall be amended to read as follows to eliminate references to
“Main Street” and reference all schools, rather than just elementary schools:
The Town Center Residential subarea is a relatively urban homing district of apartments, duplexes,
townhouses, and small-lot single family homes. The Town Center Commercial core is within easy walking
distance of mint Town Center Residential neighborhoods. The design guidelines encourage residential
development to occur in a series of pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, where parks and pedestrian areas
become the focus of public activity and neighborhood identity.
FORM
Provide a highly interconnected pattern of streets that accommodate the movement of vehicles while
enhancing opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
BUILDING SITING
Buildings should be built with a setback that is close to the sidewalk to create a well-defined and more
intimate street space. Internally oriental units may be acceptable as long as buildings do not back onto the
street.
Setbacks:
o Provide a landscaped setback of 10 to 20 feet from street ROW
o Side yard setbacks are not required (see Figure 7.16)
o Provide adequate setbacks for high and medium-high density residential buildings along
Gleason and Dublin Boulevard to buffer them from arterial traffic noise. Setbacks can be
used to accommodate parking areas (see Figure 7.17).
o Orient buildings and access to local collector streets or frontage roads rather than fronting
onto high volume arterials.
BUILDING HEIGHT
Buildings should be of a height to enclose the street space, giving it a more intimate scale.
Maximum building heights:
High density area: 4 stories
Medium-high density area: 3 stories
Medium and low density areas: 2 stories
BUILDING TYPES
Buildings should generally be designed to maintain a consistent character in terms of the scale and relation
to the street. Although areas are differentiated by their density designations, developers are encouraged
to meet these requirements with a variety of building types (i.e., single-family, multi-family, attached,
detached, etc.). The following are examples of the most likely building prototypes to be developed within
specific density ranges.
High density area: Apartments/condominiums with one level of parking under the building. The
parking level should be depressed at least half a level below grade to reduce the height of the
building (see Figure 7.18).
Medium-high density area: Apartment, townhouse, multiplex with detached surface parking.
Parking lots and carports should be grouped in interior courts surrounded by residential buildings
(see Figure 7.19).
1693
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 13 of 16
Medium density area: Townhouse, multiplex with garages attached to individual units. Alleys can
be used to provide access to garages (see Figure 7.20).
Single family area: Duplex, zero lot line single family house, small-lot single family house. In
addition, one ancillary unit (granny flat) per duplex or single family house is allowed where lots are
at least 50 feet wide. Ancillary units may be incorporated into the main house or into a detached
garage (see Figure 7.21).
ENTRIES
Entries to residential projects should be designed to promote sidewalk activity and social interchange
between neighbors.
Generally, provide ground floor units with individual entries off the street, incorporating porches and
stoops. Encourage provision of stairways from upper floor units to the street (see Figure 7.22).
Site major building entries and lobbies so that they are visible and accessible from the street, not
just parking areas (see Figure 7.23).
Generally, design units with balconies and windows affording views of the sweet, to create the
security of "eyes on the street" (see Figure 7.24).
PARKING
Residential parking garages should not dominate the residential street frontage.
Reduce the site area needed for off-street parking by allowing curbside parking space around the
project perimeter to count toward the project’s parking requirements.
Encourage development of mid-block alleys to access parking areas and garages. Minimize the
width and number of driveway curb cuts onto the residential street (see Figure 7.25).
Setback garages, carports and parking areas beyond the front setback for the main residence (see
Figure 7.25).
Depress parking structures so that there is never more than half a level of garage above grade
along the street frontage (see Figure 7.26).
AUTO CIRCULATION
The street system should provide a highly interconnected pattern that accommodates the movement
of vehicles while enhancing opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Establish a hierarchy of neighborhood streets by alternating between primarily pedestrian-
oriented residential streets and residential collector streets. The pedestrian orientation of the
streets can be enhanced by slowing or interrupting through traffic at intervals with neighborhood
squares, T-intersection, and street closures.
Prohibit driveways and alleys from residential projects entering onto arterial streets.
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CIRCULATION
The sidewalks along the neighborhood streets should provide an active, friendly pedestrian environment
connecting residences to neighborhood parks, squares and the larger open space system.
Connect pedestrian paths in open space areas, school sites and public parks to the sidewalk
system along public streets.
Connect pedestrian walkways in campus office and retail developments to pedestrian-oriented
streets, via spotlighted crosswalks across major arterials.
OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
1694
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 14 of 16
Parks of different types should be dispersed through the dense residential neighborhoods, giving all
residents nearby open space for informal meeting, socializing and passive play.
Site a string of public places (neighborhood parks, schools, and public building plazas) in a north-
south direction through the Town Center, incorporating the existing drainage channel from the
foothills. This "Central Park" may include formal gardens, ponds, amphitheater or bandshell, as
well as community buildings (see Figure 7.1).
Dedicate "neighborhood squares" at the intersection of neighborhood pedestrian-oriented streets
at approximately 4-block intervals (refer to Section 4.8.4 and Appendix 2 for a discussion of
character and uses of neighborhood squares, also see Figure 4.1).
Design schools and public buildings as neighborhood landmarks and sources of identity, for
example by siting buildings to terminate streets, adding towers and extra height.
Provide sites for infant/preschool child care facilities meeting state standards in the Town Center
Residential area. Parcel sizes and locations will be negotiated by the developer and the City, but
facilities should be sited near neighborhood parks or schools.
APPENDIX 2
Anticipated Land Uses by Designation shall be amended to use consistent language as the General Plan
by identifying the same permitted land uses as follows:
Public/Semi-Public (Maximum .50 Floor Area Ratio)
Anticipated uses include, but are not limited to:
public buildings (e.g., public schools; libraries; city office buildings; State, County and other public
agency facilities; post offices; fire stations; and utilities);
semi-public uses (e.g., child care centers; youth centers; senior centers; special needs program
facilities; religious institutions; clubhouses; community centers; community theaters; hospitals;
private schools; and other facilities that provide cultural, educational, or other similar services and
benefit to the community); and
parks are not included under this designation.
Semi-Public
Anticipated uses include, but are not limited to:
semi-public uses (e.g., child care centers; youth centers; senior centers; special needs program
facilities; religious institutions; clubhouses; community centers; community theaters; hospitals;
private schools; and other facilities that provide cultural, educational, or other similar services and
benefit to the community).
APPENDIX 3
Land Use Summary by Planning Areas sections “Town Center-Commercial” and “Fallon Village Center”
shall be amended as follows:
APPENDIX 3
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY PLANNING SUBAREAS
(Amended Per Resolution No. xx-21)
Planning Subareas Area Density Square Feet Units
1695
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 15 of 16
Land Use Category
Town Center - Commercial
General Commercial 65.4 .35 997,088
Neighborhood Commercial 10.47 .35 159,626
Public/Semi-Public 0 .25 0
Total 75.87 1,156,714
Fallon Village Center
Medium High Density
Residential 13.33 20 267
Medium Density Residential 38.43 10 384
Semi-Public 0 10
Public/Semi-Public*8.2 4
Neighborhood Square 2.0
Community Park 13.5
Open Space 3.6
Total 79.06 651
* The locations of the Public/Semi-Public sites on the Jordan, East Ranch (formerly Croak), and GH PacVest
(formerly Chen) properties of Fallon Village will be determined at the time of the Stage 2 PD approval. The site on
Jordan will be 2.0 net acres within the Fallon Village Center subarea; the site on East Ranch, 2.0 net acres, and the
site on GH PacVest, 2.5 net acres within the Fallon Village Center subarea.
APPENDIX 4
Appendix 4 Land Use Summary by Land Owners “#21 GH PacVest (formerly Chen)” and “#28 East Ranch
(formerly Croak)” shall be amended to read as follows:
APPENDIX 4
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY BY LAND OWNERS
Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units
#21 GH PACVEST (FORMERLY
CHEN)
Medium High Density
Residential 4.0 20 130
General Commercial 72.1 .25 785,169
General Commercial/
Campus Office 18.5 .28 225,641
Semi-Public 0 -
Public/Semi-Public*2.5
Community Park 7.2
Open Space 35.8
Total 140.1 1,010,810 130
1696
Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 16 of 16
#28 EAST RANCH (FORMERLY
CROAK)
Medium Density Residential 10.4 10 104
Single Family Residential 115.4 4 469
Rural Residential/ Agricultural 19.4
Neighborhood Park 11.5
Semi-Public 0
Public/Semi-Public*2.0
Open Space 6.8
Total 165.5 573
* The locations of the Public/Semi-Public sites on the Jordan, East Ranch (formerly Croak), and GH PacVest (formerly
Chen) properties of Fallon Village will be determined at the time of the Stage 2 PD approval. The site on Jordan will
be 2.0 net acres within the Fallon Village Center subarea; the site on East Ranch, 2.0 net acres, and the site on GH
PacVest, 2.5 net acres within the Fallon Village Center subarea.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of June 2021, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
1697
Semi-Public Sites General Plan Amendment,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
and Rezoning
CEQA Addendum
May 25, 2021
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2020-00054
Attachment 2 -
Exhibit A of City Council Resolution
1698
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Addendum | Page 1
Semi-Public Sites GPA
CEQA Addendum
May 25, 2021
Project Overview
The City initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
(SPA) and a Rezoning (RZ) for 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property and 2.0 acres on the East
Ranch property in Eastern Dublin from Semi-Public to Public/Semi-Public to allow a broader
range of public and semi-public uses, including the potential for future development of
affordable housing by a non-profit entity. The GPA, SPA and RZ are also referred to in this
document as the proposed project.
Both sites are located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area and the Fallon Village
project area.
Prior CEQA Analysis
Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2)
the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002);
and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental
review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs” or “previous CEQA findings,” and are
described below.
East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993)
The East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an
Addendum (1993 GPA/SP EIR) were certified by the City Council on August 22, 1994. This EIR
analyzed GPAs affecting a 6,920-acre area and the adoption of the EDSP, which encompassed a
3,328-acre area and provides a comprehensive planning framework for future development in
Eastern Dublin. The area considered in this EIR included the two project sites under
consideration in the proposed GPA, SPA and RZ.
The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts: cumulative
loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of natural gas, electric,
and telephone service communications facilities, consumption of non-renewable natural
resources, increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and
through operation of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and
concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss/degradation of botanically
sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise, and aesthetics.
Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 53-93, the City adopted Mitigation Measures and a
Monitoring Program, which continue to apply to development in the Eastern Dublin Specific
1699
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Addendum | Page 2
Plan area. The City Council also adopted a number of Statement of Overriding Considerations in
connection with their certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Fallon Village Initial Study and East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and
Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002)
In 2002, the City approved an Annexation, Pre-Zoning, and related Planned Development
District Stage I Development Plan for the Fallon Village project. The Fallon Village project site
consists of 1,132 acres within the EDSP area.
An Initial Study (IS) was prepared to determine if the Fallon Village project required additional
environmental review beyond that analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. The IS found that many of
the anticipated impacts of the Fallon Village project were adequately addressed in the 1993
GPA/SP EIR given: 1) the comprehensive planning for the development area; 2) the 1993
GPA/SP EIR‘s analysis of buildout under the EDSP land use designations and policies; 3) the long
term 20-30 year focus of the EDSP and the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; 4) the fact that the Fallon Village
project was specifically contemplated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; and 5) the fact that the Fallon
Village project consisted of the same land uses analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR.
Although the IS concluded that the 1993 GPA/SP EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential
environmental impacts of the Fallon Village project, it also identified the potential for some
new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those previously analyzed.
As a result, the 1993 GPA/SP EIR was updated and supplemented by the Programmatic East
Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002
Supplemental EIR), which updated the analyses of agricultural resources, biology, air quality,
noise, traffic and circulation, schools, and utilities. The area considered in this EIR included the
two project sites under consideration in the proposed GPA, SPA and RZ.
In certifying the 2002 Supplemental EIR, the City adopted Mitigation Measures, a Monitoring
Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cumulative air quality and traffic
impacts that continues to apply to development in Eastern Dublin, including the two project
sites.
Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005)
In 2005, the City considered additional approvals for the 1,132-acre Fallon Village area. These
requested approvals had three components:
1. Amendments to the General Plan and EDSP to include the entire 1,132-acre Fallon
Village area into the EDSP and to reflect changes to the land use designations on the
site;
2. Revisions to the 2002 approval of the Planned Development District Stage I
Development Plan to increase the number of dwellings units by 582 to a total of
3,108 units and increase non-residential uses from 1,081,725 square feet to
2,503,175 square feet of commercial and office uses; and
1700
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Addendum | Page 3
3. A Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and
Lot Line Adjustment for the development of the northernly 488 acres of the Fallon
Village area to allow 1,078 dwelling units, a school, parks, and associated use.
The City Council approved all three components of the Fallon Village project request.
On December 6, 2005, the City Council certified the Final Supplemental Fallon Village Project
Environmental Impact Report (2005 Supplemental EIR) that analyzed the new uses and
revisions to the previous approvals for the Fallon Village project.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and related
mitigation measures. The City adopted Mitigation Measures and a Monitoring Program for this
approval that continues to apply to development in the Fallon Village area, including the two
project sites. In addition, as part of Resolution No. 222-05, the City adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the following significant and unavoidable impacts: traffic impact
to the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection; cumulative impacts to local roadways,
consistent with the Alameda County Congestion Management Plan; demolition of the Fallon
Ranch House; and an increase in regional emissions beyond Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) thresholds.
For the East Ranch site, the 2005 Supplemental EIR analyzed 573 dwelling units, 11.5 acres of
neighborhood park, 6.8 acres of open space, and 2.0 acres of Semi-Public uses.
For the GH PacVest site, the 2005 Supplemental EIR analyzed development of 130 units, per the
Medium High Density Residential land use designation and 2.5 acres of Semi-Public uses.
The City intended the 2005 Supplemental EIR to be used by state or regional agencies in their
review of permits required for development in the Fallon Village area (e.g., California
Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreements, California Endangered
Species Act permits, Water Quality Certification or waiver by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board under the Clean Water Act).
Proposed CEQA Analysis in this Document
The City determined that an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs is the appropriate CEQA review for
the proposed project. This City prepared this Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15164 for the project. The City prepared a CEQA analysis using the City’s Initial Study Checklist,
dated May 25, 2021, incorporated herein by reference, to assess whether any further
environmental review is required for the proposed project. Through this Initial Study, the City
determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required per the following:
1701
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Addendum | Page 4
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEOA Guidelines Section 15162
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental
review. After a review of these conditions, the City determined that no subsequent EIR or
Negative Declaration is required for this project. This is based on the following analysis:
a) Are there substantial changes to the project involving new or more severe significant
impacts?
There are no substantial changes to the project as analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The project
proposes a broader set of allowed uses, including the possibility to construct affordable
housing. Such uses would be similar to other existing and planned development in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. . As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the project does
not constitute a substantial change to the EDSP EIR analysis, will not result in additional
significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are required.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the project is undertaken involving
new or more severe significant impacts?
There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the EDSP EIRs, as amended.
The project proposes a broader set of allowed uses, including the possibility to construct
affordable housing. Such uses would be similar to other existing and planned
development in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. This is documented in the attached
Initial Study.
c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the project will have a
significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or,
previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to
adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR
would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them?
As documented in the attached Initial Study, there is no new information showing a new
or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the prior CEQA documents.
Similarly, the Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation measures are
required for the project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the
project. The CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated
with the proposed development on portions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.
d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be
prepared?
No subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required because there are no significant
impacts of the project beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs, as documented in the
attached Initial Study.
1702
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Addendum | Page 5
Conclusion
This Addendum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached
Initial Study. The Addendum and Initial Study review the proposed GPA, SPA and RZ as
discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City
determines that the proposed project does not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR or
Negative Declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163.
The City further determines that the EDSP EIRs adequately address the potential environmental
impacts of the Semi-Public Sites GPA, SPA and RZ.
As provided in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum need not be circulated for
public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a
decision on this project.
The Initial Study and the EDSP EIRs are incorporated herein by reference and are available for
public review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall,
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA.
1703
Semi-Public Sites General Plan Amendment,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
and Rezoning
Environmental Checklist / Initial Study
May 25, 2021
Planning Application Number: PLPA-2020-00054
1704
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study| Page i
5/18/21
Table of Contents
Project Background 1
Project Purpose 2
Project Description 2
CEQA Analysis 5
Determination 6
Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Agricultural and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................... 10
Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 11
Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 14
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 17
Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 20
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 23
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 25
Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 27
Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................... 30
Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................... 31
Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Population and Housing ............................................................................................................. 34
Public Services ............................................................................................................................ 35
Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 38
Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 40
Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 43
Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................... 44
Wildfires ..................................................................................................................................... 47
1705
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study| Page ii
5/18/21
Appendices
A Traffic Generation Evaluation Memorandum
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location
Note: All figures are included at the end of the document.
List of Tables
Table 1: General Plan Comparison of Semi-Public and Public/Semi-Public Uses
Table 2: Trip Generation Comparison Summary
1706
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 1
5/18/21
Semi-Public Sites General Plan Amendment, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and Rezoning
CEQA Initial Study
Project Background
Project Title
Semi-Public Sites General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and
Rezoning
PLPA-2020-00054
Lead Agency
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact
Michael P. Cass
Principal Planner
Phone: 925-833-6610
michael.cass@dublin.ca.gov
Project Location & Setting
The proposed project involves two vacant sites (collectively the project site) with an existing
General Plan land use designation of Semi-Public, namely, 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property
(formerly known as the “Chen” property) and 2.0 acres on the East Ranch property (formerly
known as the “Croak” property). As shown in Figure 1: Project Location, both sites are located
in Eastern Dublin.
Both properties are surrounded by residential uses to the north and west, by undeveloped land
to the south, and by the City Limits and Urban Limit Line to the east with undeveloped land
beyond.
The two sites are located in the Planned Development (PD) zoning district and have an
approved Stage 1 Development Plan. The specific location of the Semi-Public sites on each
property would be determined at the time of Stage 2 Development Plan approval.
Project Applicant
City of Dublin
1707
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 2
5/18/21
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
General Plan Designation
Semi-Public
Zoning
PD Planned Development
Project Purpose
On October 6, 2020, the City Council received a report and status update on the Housing
Element Update and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Element must
include an inventory of specific sites or parcels that may be available to accommodate the
RHNA. At the meeting, Staff presented an initial review of sites that may be able to
accommodate the potential RHNA. The City Council provided unanimous direction for City Staff
to prioritize the conversion of the existing vacant Semi-Public sites to a designation that could
accommodate affordable housing.
The project is consistent with the City’s Two-Year Strategic Plan July 2020-June 2022, in
particular:
Strategy 3: Create More Affordable Housing Opportunities.
Objective E: Update the City’s General Plan Housing Element in accordance with state
law and to ensure an adequate supply of sites to accommodate the City’s Regional
Housing Needs Allocation for the period 2023-31.
The proposed project would allow a broader range of uses, including the potential for future
development of affordable housing by a non-profit entity.
Project Description
The City initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
(SPA) and Rezoning (RZ) for 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property and 2.0 acres on the East
Ranch property in Eastern Dublin from Semi-Public to Public/Semi-Public to allow a broader
range of uses, including the potential for future development of affordable housing by a non-
profit entity. As shown in Figure 1: Project Location, collectively, these two properties
constitute the project site.
The proposed project would also amend the land use designations in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and the Planned Development zoning designation for consistency with the General Plan
Amendment.
1708
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 3
5/18/21
The proposed project does not propose any specific development project. Any such
development would occur subsequently as part of a Stage 2 Development Plan application. As
such, the analysis in this Initial Study is considered programmatic as it relates to a change in
land use designation as a matter of policy and regulation.
According to the City’s General Plan, the Semi-Public land use designation allows quasi-public
uses such as child care centers, youth centers, senior centers, special needs program facilities,
religious institutions, clubhouses, community centers, community theatres, hospitals, private
schools, and other facilities that provide cultural, educational, or other similar services and
benefit the community.
As shown in the Table 1: General Plan Comparison of Semi-Public and Public/Semi-Public
Allowed Land Uses, the Public/Semi-Public land use designation allows a combination of public
facilities land uses and semi-public facilities land uses. In particular, development of housing on
a site designated on the General Plan Land Use Map as Public/Semi-Public shall be considered
consistent with the General Plan when it is developed by a non-profit entity and serves to meet
affordable housing needs or the housing needs of an underserved economic segment of the
community.
Both sites are located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area and the Fallon Village
project area.
1709
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 4
5/18/21
Table 1: General Plan Comparison of Semi-Public and Public/Semi-Public Uses
Land Use Semi-Public
Public/Semi-
Public
Public schools X
Libraries X
City office buildings X
State, County, and other public agency facilities X
Post offices X
Fire stations X
Utilities X
Dublin Civic Center X
Childcare centers X X
Youth centers X X
Senior centers X X
Special needs program facilities X X
Religious institutions X X
Clubhouses X X
Community centers X X
Community theatres X X
Hospitals X X
Private schools X X
Other facilities that provide cultural, educational, or other similar
services and benefit the community X X
Housing developed by a non-profit entity and serves to meet
affordable housing needs or the housing needs of an underserved
economic segment of the community
X
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
None.
1710
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 5
5/18/21
CEQA Analysis
The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project per the
criteria as described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15162. For convenience, this analysis uses the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a
framework. Different from the standard CEQA checklist included in Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines are the impact options included in this analysis.
Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2)
the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002);
and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental
review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs” or “previous CEQA findings,” and are
described below.
The impact check-boxes indicate that the project would not result in a new impact, a
substantial increase in the severity of an impact, or an equal to or less severe impact, than
those identified in previous CEQA findings.
As such, no new environmental review is required because none of the standards under Public
Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met which would trigger
the need for additional CEQA documentation. There are no significant project changes, new
information, or change in circumstances that result in a new or substantial increase in severity
of a significant impact from those identified in the EDSP EIRs. Therefore, no standards for
requiring supplemental environmental review or documentation under CEQA are met and none
are required for the project.
1711
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 6
5/18/21
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless
mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.
X
CITY OF DUBLIN
_____________________ _____________________________
Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner Date
May 25, 2021
1712
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 7
5/18/21
Aesthetics
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The previous EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigations for visual resources:
Impact 3.8/A: Standardized "Tract" Development within the project area which did not
respond to natural site conditions could cause a significant impact. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0, which requires consistency with EDSP Goal 6.3.4, reduces
this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.8/B: Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character was identified as a
significant and unavoidable impact even with adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 2,
which would implement the EDSP plan with retention of predominant natural features
and encourages a sense of place in Eastern Dublin.
Impact 3.8/C: Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features identifies the potential of EDSP
buildings and related improvements to obscure or alter existing features and reduce the
visual uniqueness of the Eastern Dublin area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
3.8/3.0, which would implement EDSP Policy 6-28, reduces this impact to an
insignificant level.
Impact 3.8/D: Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides notes that grading and excavation
of building sites in hillside areas would compromise the visual quality of the EDSP area.
Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0 through 3.8/4.5 are included in the EDSP EIR to reduce
Impact 3.8/D to an insignificant level. These mitigation measures require
implementation of EDSP Policies 6-32 through 6-38.
Impact 3.8/E: Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges states that structures built in
proximity to ridges may obscure or fragment the profile of visually sensitive ridgelines.
Implementation of Mitigation measures 3.8/5.0 through 3.8/5.2 would reduce this
1713
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 8
5/18/21
impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require the implementation of
EDSP Policies 6-29 and 5-30 and General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy E.
Impact 3.8/F: Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands is identified as a significant and
unavoidable impact. No mitigation measure has been identified which can either fully or
partially reduce this impact.
Impact 3.8/G: Alteration of the Visual Character of Watercourses which involves the
potential for elimination of the visibility and function of watercourses would be
mitigated to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 6.0, which
required future development to implement EDSP Policy 6-39.
Impact 3.8/H: Alteration of Dublin's Visual Identity as a Freestanding City is mitigated to
a level of insignificance by implementation of the EDSP land use plan (Mitigation
Measure 3.8/5.0).
Impact 3.8/I: Scenic Vistas includes the alteration of the character of existing scenic
vistas and important sightlines. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0
and 3.8/7.1 this impact would be reduced to an insignificant level. Mitigation Measure
3.8/7.0 requires adherence to EDSP Policy 6-5 and Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.1 requires
the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP site and to identify and map viewsheds of
scenic vistas.
Impact 3.8/J: Scenic Routes identifies that the urban development of the EDSP will
significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in Eastern Dublin.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8 / 8.8 and 8.1 will reduce this impact to an
insignificant level. These two measures require implementation of EDSP Action
Programs 6Q and 6R.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Scenic vistas, views
The project site is vacant and classified by the EDSP EIR as “dry-farming rotational cropland.”
The EDSP does identify certain ridgelands and ridgelines as visually sensitive and the City
pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 6-5 and Action Program 6Q adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic
Corridor, Policies and Standards as means to preserve scenic vistas.
Previous CEQA findings found potentially significant impacts to scenic vistas and views. The
impact was addressed with implemental of Mitigation Measures 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5, 3.8/5.0-
5.2, 3.8/6.0, 3.8/7.0 and 3.8/7.1 EDSP Policies 6-29 through 6-38 which provide guidelines for
grading and building design as a means to preserve scenic vistas and view corridors apply to the
project and EDSP area.
1714
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 9
5/18/21
(b) Scenic resources
The EDSP EIRs found potentially significant impacts to scenic resources. The impact was
addressed with implemental of Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8 and EDSP Policies 6-30
through 6-31. These mitigation measures are implemented at a project level as means to
preserve scenic vistas and view corridors.
No scenic resources exist on the project site, including but not limited to significant stands of
trees, rock outcroppings, or bodies of water, so there would be no impact.
(c) Substantially degrade the visual character of the site or surrounding area
The EDSP EIRs found that development within the EDSP area would alter the existing visual
characters of the upland grasses and fields. No mitigation measure could be identified to fully
or partially reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The City adopted a Statement of
Overriding Consideration for this impact; thus, no additional analysis was found necessary.
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
Previous CEQA findings found less than significant impacts at both the program and
development level. Future development associated with the project would not increase the
amount of light and glare that was not previously anticipated in the EDSP and would be
required to comply with adopted City regulations for lighting.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified aesthetic/visual impacts, nor
result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, there would
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetic resources beyond what
has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental
review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
1715
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 10
5/18/21
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in
the Severity
of an Impact
Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The previous EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigations for agricultural
resources:
Impact 3.1/C Discontinuation of Agricultural Uses states that agricultural uses within the
area would be decreased as a result of the implementation of the EDSP. However, since
most land owners at the time the ESDP EIR was written had filed non-renewal notices
for their Williamson Act contracts it was assumed that agricultural uses would decline
independent of the implementation of the EDSP so the impact was insignificant and no
mitigation was required.
Impact 3.1/D Loss of Farmland of Local Importance states that agricultural lands of local
importance would be lost as a result of the EDSP. Since these agricultural lands of local
1716
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 11
5/18/21
importance were not classified as prime farmland, however, the impact was insignificant
and no mitigation was required.
The previous EDSP EIRs evaluated if the soils were considered as “prime agricultural soils”
through the adopted criteria established by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56064, referred to as Assembly Bill 2838). It was
determined that no additional prime or agricultural lands beyond those identified in previous
EIRs were found.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-e) Convert farmland or conflict with zoning
Previous CEQA findings found there were no significant impacts with respect to agricultural
resources. No new conditions have been identified for the project with respect to conversion of
prime farmland to a non-agricultural use. No new or more severe significant impacts would
result from the project than were previously analyzed.
No agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the project site nor are
any agricultural operations on-going. There is no forest land within the project site.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified agricultural impacts, nor result in
new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to agricultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the
previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore,
no further environmental review is required.
Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
X
1717
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 12
5/18/21
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRS identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for air quality:
Impact 3.11/A: Dust Deposition from Construction Activity states that project
construction will generate respirable particulate matter that could potentially impact
nearby areas significantly. Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 mitigates this impact to an
insignificant level but dust emissions remain a potentially significant cumulative impact.
Impact 3.11/B: Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions acknowledges that operating
construction equipment will generate exhaust pollutants. Since the build out of the
EDSP is long-term the impact of these emissions is potentially significant. Mitigation
Measures 3.11/2.0 through 3.11/4.0 do not sufficiently reduce the anticipated ozone
precursor emission to within Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
standards so air quality impacts remain potentially significant and contribute to a
potentially significant cumulative impact.
Impact 3.11/C: Mobile Source Emissions: ROG or NOx states that as a result of vehicle
trips generated by the full build out of the EDSP ROG and NOx emissions will exceed the
BAAQMD threshold causing a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0 through
3.11/11.0 reduce this impact but not sufficiently to reduce it to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.11/D: Mobile Source Emissions CO2 notes that the EDSP will not cause any new
CO2 emission standard violations and, therefore, has an insignificant impact.
Impact 3.11/E: Stationary Source Emissions notes that project related NOx emissions
from fuel consumption for energy demand exceeds BAAQMD’s significance threshold
causing a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 and 3.11/13.0 reduce this
impact but not sufficiently to reduce it an insignificant level. This impact also contributes
to a potentially significant cumulative impact for the area.
The EDSP EIRs found a significant and unavoidable impact (AQ-2) associated with regional
emissions. The EIR analysis determined that project would exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of
significance for reactive organic gases and nitrogen and, thus, the project would have a
significant effect on regional ozone air quality. The lowered national eight-hour standard for
ozone would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
e) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
1718
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 13
5/18/21
include bicycle/pedestrian paths as well as extension of transit service, which are being
implemented as part of the project.
The EDSP EIRs found a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact (AQ-2) associated with
project contributions to regional air quality. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for this impact, which includes the project.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consistent with air quality plans
The project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan adopted by BAAQMD since the project
site has been included in Dublin's planned growth, which is the basis of the Clean Air Plan.
(b) Violate air quality standards or cause cumulatively considerable air pollutants
The project is located in the Livermore-Amador Valley where, per BAAQMD, air pollution is
high. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone and there is a transport of pollutants
that occur between Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. Since certification
of the EDSP EIRs, the thresholds with respect to air quality have been revised. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also lowered the national eight-hour standard for
ozone from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm in 2015. The BAAQMD also lowered the state one-hour
standard for nitrogen dioxide to 0.18 ppm and retained the national average standard of 0.030
ppm. The new thresholds do not represent “new information” as specifically defined under
CEQA as the information used to develop these new thresholds was known, or could have been
known, when the EDSP EIRs were prepared.
The previous CEQA findings found that proposed development would result in a significant and
unavoidable emission of air pollutants exceeding the applicable BAAQMD standards. Mitigation
Measures 3.11/2.0 through 3.11/4.0, 3.11/5.0 through 3.11/11.0, 3.11/12.0, and 3.11/13.0
were recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant level but were insufficient to
reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these significant and
unavoidable impacts that applies to the project.
(c-d) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors
The health risk of diesel exhaust from roadway traffic was previously analyzed. The 1999
BAAQMD CBQA Guidelines (1999 Guidelines) identified diesel engine particulate matter as a
toxic air contaminant based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) findings. There were
several studies published prior to 2002 that demonstrated potential health impacts to
residences living close to freeways. (See studies cited in CARB's 2005 “Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook".) The 1999 Guidelines encourage lead agencies to address impacts to sensitive
receptors (such as residences) to exposure of high levels of diesel exhaust from sources such as
1719
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 14
5/18/21
a high-volume freeway (1999 BAAQMD CBQA Guidelines, p. 47). The project site is located
more than a mile from the closest freeway and, therefore, not subject to potential impacts.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified air quality impacts, nor result in
new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, there would
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality resources beyond what
has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental
review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Biological Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
1720
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 15
5/18/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for biological
resources:
Impact 3.7/A: Direct Habitat Loss found that the implementation of the EDSP would
result in substantial reduction of habitat and range, a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0 through 3.7/4.0 reduce this impact to an insignificant level
though the project does still contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact
and does result in a significant irreversible change.
Impact 3.7/B: Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal recognizes that dust generation
from construction, increased erosion, sedimentation, and potential for slope failure, and
alteration of drainage patterns could cause a potentially significant impact. Mitigation
Measures 3.7/5.0, 3.6/ 18.0, 3.6/22.0, 3.6/23.0, and 3.11/8 reduce this impact to an
insignificant level.
Impact 3.7/C: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat recognizes that
habitat could be lost directly or indirectly as a result of the implementation of the EDSP
resulting in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0 through
3.7/17.0 reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
Impacts 3.7/D and 3.7/E pertain to threatened and endangered species. Mitigation
Measures 3.7/18.0 and 3.7/19.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level.
Impacts 3.7/F through 3.7/I pertain to species who are federal candidates for listing as
endangered or threatened. Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 through 3.7/22.0 reduce these
impacts to an insignificant level.
Impacts 3.7/J through 3.7/R pertain to California species of special concern. Mitigation
Measures 3.7/23.0 through 3.7/28.0, 3.4/42.0, 3.7/6.0 through 3.7/17, and 3.7/21.0
reduce all impacts to less than significant.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
1721
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 16
5/18/21
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species
No changes have occurred to the project site since certification of the EDSP EIRs.
The project site is located within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS)
planning area which was adopted as a guidance document for analyzing impacts to listed
species within eastern Alameda County in 2010. The EACCS embodies a regional approach to
permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development,
infrastructure, and other activities. The EACCS guidelines provide more protection for biological
resources than the guidelines at the time of the EDSP EIRs. However, EACCS guidelines only
apply to public projects and are not a requirement for private development projects.
Furthermore, mitigation measures contained in the EDSP EIRs, especially those related to the
San Joaquin Kit Fox and Western Burrowing Owl, would also continue to apply to public and
private development projects.
(b, c) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, natural community, or wetlands
Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be
required to comply with the above referenced mitigation measures and, for public
development, the EACCS. Therefore, impacts would be equal or less severe than those
identified in the EDSP EIRs, and no further mitigation is required.
(d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife
The existing vegetation within the East Ranch portion of the project site consists of mostly
grasses with some non-native trees that were planted by the Croak family as ornamental
landscape trees which is not native habitat for migratory species. The GH PacVest portion of the
project site consists of grasses only. There are no creeks or streams on the project site that
would allow for migration of fish species. Impacts to migratory fish or wildlife would be
insignificant.
(e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation or any adopted habitat
conservation or natural community conservation plans.
The only trees on the project site are ornamental non-native trees which are not protected per
Chapter 5.6 Heritage Trees of the Dublin Municipal Code and, therefore, there would be no
impact.
The EACCS is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan,
but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting
process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. Future
development would be required to implement the EACCS guidelines.
1722
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 17
5/18/21
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified biological resources impacts, nor
result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, there would
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological resources beyond what
has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental
review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section
15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for cultural resources:
Impact 3.9/A: Disruption or Destruction of Identified Prehistoric Resources recognized
impacts associated with the disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources
which would be reduced to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures
3.9/1.0-4.0, which require a program of mechanical or hand subsurface testing for
midden deposits, recordation of identified cultural resources on State of California site
survey forms, preparing a plan testing of each resource and, if required, having the City
retain the services of a qualified archeologist to develop a cultural resource protection
program.
Impact 3.9/B: Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Pre-Historic Resources identified
an impact related to the disruption or destruction of unidentified pre-historic resources.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level
1723
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 18
5/18/21
by requiring a halt to development activities that could impact unidentified cultural
resources and completion of follow-on site surveys within Eastern Dublin.
Impact 3.9/C: Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources would be
mitigated to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0 through
3.9/12.0 that requires in-depth analysis of properties with cultural resources,
encouragement of adaptive reuse of historic structures to the extent feasible, review of
potential historic resources by an architectural historian and development of a
preservation program for historic sites and disruption or destruction of unidentified
historic resources.
Impact 3.9/D: Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Historic Resources would be
reduced to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures M 3.9 / 5.0, 6.0,
7.0, 9.0, 10.0, and 12.0.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Historic resources
Both project sites are vacant and, therefore, there would be no impact to historic resources.
(b) Archaeological resources
Previous CEQA findings require adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0, which would
reduce this impact to an insignificant level by requiring a halt to future development activities
that could impact unidentified cultural resources and completion of follow-on site surveys.
(d) Human remains
The project is subject to existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the
previous EDSP EIRs as well as state and local regulations regarding potential impacts to human
remains.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified cultural resources impacts, nor
result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, there would
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources beyond what
has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental
review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
1724
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 19
5/18/21
Energy
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
6. Energy. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or
operation??
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts to energy as it was not a separate topic for
analysis when the EDSP EIRs were completed. Utilities and service systems impacts and
mitigation measures, some of which are related to the demand for energy of additional service
systems, were identified and can be found in the utilities and service systems section of this
document. Additional impacts and mitigations for energy from the EDSP EIRs include:
Impact 3.4/Q: Demand for Utilities Extensions notes that the build out of the GP/EDSP
will significantly increase demand for gas, electric and telephone services. To supply
adequate electrical service to the project, PG&E estimates that a new distribution
system will have to be constructed. Extension of utility lines are necessary if the
GP/EDSP is approved and built. There is no mitigation to this impact and it remained a
significant and unavoidable impact.
Impact 3.4/S: Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources noted that the
provision of adequate natural gas and electrical service will require the consumption of
non-renewable natural resources. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/45.0 and 3.4/46.0 would reduce the impact as much as
possible.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable
impacts of the GP/EDSP, which includes the project.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
1725
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 20
5/18/21
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Consumption of energy
The EDSP EIRs identified that development of the Eastern Dublin area would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact due to the consumption of non-renewable natural
resources, including energy consumption. Mitigation measures are identified in the EDSP EIRs
that would help mitigate this impact.
Furthermore, since preparation of the EDSP EIRs, the California Building Energy Efficiency
Standards contained in 24 Cal Code Regs pt. 6 have been revised and updated and include more
stringent requirements to prevent the unnecessary consumption of energy. The project would
be required to comply with these standards. In addition, Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.94
(Green Building) encourages sustainable construction practices in planning, design, energy and
water efficiency and conservation, material conservation, resource efficiency and
environmental quality.
(b) State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
The project does not contain any features that would conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and is required to comply with state and local
energy regulations, as described above.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified energy impacts, nor result in new
significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, there would
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy beyond what has been
analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are
met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Geology and Soils
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
X
1726
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 21
5/18/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for geology and soils:
Impact 3.6/A: Fault Ground Rupture was found to have insignificant impact since no
known active or potentially active faults traverse the EDSP area and Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zones are not located within the EDSP area.
Impact 3.6/B: Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects identified potentially
significant and unavoidable impacts from primary effects of seismic ground shaking that
were insufficiently mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0.
1727
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 22
5/18/21
Impacts 3.6/C through 3.6/L were identified as potentially significant but mitigatable by
Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 2.0 through 3.6/28.0 to a level of insignificance.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable
impacts of the GP/EDSP, which includes the proposed project.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP
EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Seismic hazards
As described in the previous EDSP EIRs, the project site is located in the Coast Range
geomorphic province of California. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. No faults and/or their traces have been mapped at the site. The
previous EDSP EIRs used applicable building code data which included Peak Ground
Accelerations of 0.6g. The 2019 California Building Code (CBC) increased Peak Ground
Acceleration, a seismic design parameter used in the previous CEQA analysis, to 0.77g.
The EDSP EIRs analyzed and found potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated
with primary effects of seismic ground shaking (Impact 3.6/B; MM 3.6/1.0); potentially
significant but mitigable secondary effects of seismic ground shaking including seismically
induced settlement, land sliding, and compaction (Impact 3.5/c; MM 3.6/2.0- 8.0); alterations
of site landforms (Impact 3.6/D; MM 3.6/9-10), groundwater (Impacts 3.6/F and 3.6/G; MM
3.6/11-13), expansive soils (Impact 3.6/H; MM 3.6/14-16), natural slope stability (Impact 3.6/I;
MM 3.6/17-19), cut-and-fill slope stability (Impact 3.6/J; MM 3.6/20-26), erosion and
sedimentation (Impacts 3.6/K and L; MM 3.6/27-28).
The EDSP EIRs analyzed and found potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated
with primary effects of seismic ground shaking. The project would over excavate potentially
liquefiable soils and replace them with engineered fill.
Previous geotechnical field explorations have determined there are no mapped landslides on
the project site.
(b) Erosion/topsoil loss
Construction of the project would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of
surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and
sedimentation caused by grading activities. The project would be required to implement
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) erosion control measures as enforced by the
City in addition to any mitigation measures included in the EDSP EIRs. The City's requirement to
implement site-specific erosion and other controls would reduce erosion impacts from the
project site. The project would also implement erosion control measures such as soil covering
vegetation and landscaping after completion of construction.
1728
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 23
5/18/21
(c-d) Soil stability
Previous geotechnical investigations described in the EDSP EIRs did not identify any unstable
geologic or soil units or those that would be unstable after the project site is developed.
Previous geotechnical investigations did identify expansive soils within the project site. Per the
requirements in the EDSP EIRs, future development projects would require remedial grading,
including over-excavation, keyways, subdrains and engineering fill per geotechnical engineer
direction.
(e) Soil capability to support waste water disposal, including septic
Future development would not use a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal systems
and, therefore, there would be no impact.
(f) Unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
The EDSP EIRs analyzed and found that no potential of buried prehistoric sites with undisturbed
or partially disturbed sources cultural deposits are associated with the project site.
Conclusion
The project does not propose changes beyond what was previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs
that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this
environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the
previously identified geology and soil impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to geology and soil beyond what has been analyzed in the
previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore,
no further environmental review is required.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial Increase
in the Severity of an
Impact Identified in
the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
1729
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 24
5/18/21
Previous CEQA Documents
Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the issue of the contribution of greenhouse gases to climate
change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in
2006.
Because the EDSP EIRs were previously certified, the determination of whether greenhouse
gases and climate change need to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on
supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines,
Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed
under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which
was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified as
complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)).
Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the prior EIRs; however,
these impacts are not new information that was not known or could not have been known at
the time these previous EIRs were certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gases
was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas
emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout
the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997.
Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the
certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires
analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental
analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations
As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of GHG emission impacts, nor result in new significant
impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to GHG emissions, and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
1730
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 25
5/18/21
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of
an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not include an analysis of impacts resulting from hazards and hazardous
materials.
1731
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 26
5/18/21
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials
No development project is proposed, only a change in allowable uses with the intent of
providing affordable housing, which does not involve the use of hazardous materials. To the
extent there are potentially hazardous materials used in construction, the impacts would be
less than significant due to compliance with regulatory requirements.
(b) Potential release of hazardous materials into the environment
The proposed change in land use would not create a significant hazard to the pubic or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment.
(c) Emit hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school
The proposed land use change would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within on-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school since the expansion of uses would not involve the handling of hazardous
materials.
(d) Listed as a hazardous materials site
No development project is proposed, only a change in allowable uses with the intent of
providing affordable housing, which does not involve the use of hazardous materials.
(e) Proximity to a public or private airport
The project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working in the
project area. The project site is not located within the Airport Protection Area (APA) of the
Livermore Airport (Livermore Executive Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012). The
project is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Livermore Airport, but the
proposed expansion of uses are allowed in the AIA and would not cause a significant safety
hazard.
(f) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked or
otherwise altered.
(h) Expose people or structures to wildland fires
As further discussed in the Wildfire section below, the project would not expose people or
structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
1732
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 27
5/18/21
on the information in this environmental analysis, the project would result in less than
significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, the project would result in less than
significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials s, and no other CEQA standards
for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin??
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
X
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site? X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite?
X
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? X
1733
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 28
5/18/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for hydrology and
water quality:
Impact 3.5/P identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the Eastern
Dublin area. Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0-3.5/40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft
of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to
DSRSD, minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water
recycling and conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and
supplies, and to ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally
preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers.
Impact 3.5/Q noted that the EDSP would increase demand to serve development at
build-out under the then-applicable General Plan and required an additional 25,000
acre-feet annually. Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 3.5/31.0 reduced the impact
to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/V identified an impact due to flooding as a result of water storage reservoir
failure but would be mitigated to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measure 3.5/41.0.
Impact 3.5/Y: Potential Flooding was found to be potentially significant but was reduced
to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through 3.5/48.0.
Impact 3.5/Z: Reduced Groundwater Recharge was a potentially significant impact but
Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/AA: Non-Point Sources of Pollution was found to be a potentially significant
impact but was reduced to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 and
3.5/52.0.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potential impacts related to “cumulative stormwater
generation/capacity of local channels” and “changes in non-point source water quality
regulations.” Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-SD-1 and SM-SD-2 were adopted to
reduce these potential supplemental impacts to less than significant. SM-SD-1 required water
quality and hydrologic design recommendations requiring implementation of bio-
retention/filtration facilities with all subsequent individual development projects in the Fallon
Village project area. SM-SD-2 required future individual development projects within the
project area to comply with the storm water quality and hydromodification management
1734
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 29
5/18/21
provisions of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program as administered by the City of
Dublin.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements
Any future development project will be required to be designed to treat all of its storm water
runoff for water quality and hydromodification management to meet current Municipal
Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit,
Provision C.3 requirements as prescribed in the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit issued by the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. As a result, the project would meet
the requirements of current RWQCB C.3 requirements, which are more stringent than those
considered in the EDSP EIRs.
(b) Substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supplies
Future water sources would rely on surface water supplies from the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD) and not local groundwater supplies. The project is required to support Zone 7’s
groundwater recharge program to only pump groundwater it artificially recharges using its
imported surface water or locally-stored runoff from Arroyo del Valley. Compliance with this
would maintain groundwater at a no net loss for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. As a
result, the project would not result in a net increase in groundwater extraction from Livermore
Valley Groundwater Basin.
(c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns
Future development would not significantly change drainage patterns and proposed storm
drain facilities would be adequately sized for project runoff. The project would incorporate and
comply with the drainage system master planned improvements as they were designed and
approved in the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan with appropriate sizing and construction of
downstream facilities such as the G3 Culvert Regional Conveyance facility constructed with the
Dublin Ranch project, extended by the Fallon Village project. Future development would also be
required to pay fees to the Dublin Ranch East Side Storm Drain Benefit District for construction
of the downstream regional facilities. Per SM-SD-2, future development would also pay
required Zone 7 Special Drainage fees (SDA-7-1) for regional storm drain facilities.
(g) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
The project site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk
of potential mudflow is considered low since no historic landslides or mudflows have been
identified on the project site. There would be no impact with implementation of the project.
1735
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 30
5/18/21
(h) Conflict with water quality control or groundwater management plan
Future development would be required to incorporate and comply with the drainage system
master planned improvements as they were designed and approved in the Dublin Ranch
Drainage Master Plan.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified hydrology and water quality
impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, there would
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality
beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impact for land use and planning:
Impact 3.1/A found that there were significant and unavoidable impacts from the EDSP
as a result of the loss of agricultural and open space lands. No mitigation measures were
identified for those impacts.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable
impact, which includes the project.
1736
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 31
5/18/21
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Physically divide an established community
Any future development would be a continuation of development in adjacent land uses.
Allowed future uses would be compatible with the existing land uses and would not divide an
established community.
(b) Conflict with general plan
The project site is located in the EDSP project boundary and would be consistent with
environmental goals and policies contained in the City’s General Plan.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified land use and planning impacts,
nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to land use and planning beyond what has been analyzed in the
previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore,
no further environmental review is required.
Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not include an analysis of impacts to mineral resources.
1737
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 32
5/18/21
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a-b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource
The City does not have any mineral extraction areas so there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to mineral resources, and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Conclusion
Because the City does not have any mineral extraction areas, there would be no impact, and no
other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental
review is required.
Noise
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for noise:
Impact 3.10/A: Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise identified
future vehicular traffic associated with development proposed in Eastern Dublin as
potentially significant to future residents. This impact would be mitigated to an
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10 / 1.0 that requires
acoustic studies for all future residential development in the Eastern Dublin area.
1738
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 33
5/18/21
Impact 3.10/B: Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise would be a
potentially significant impact to existing residents in the Eastern Dublin area as
development occurs in accord with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan. This impact would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.10 I 2.0, which requires future development projects to provide noise protection to
existing residential uses in Eastern Dublin; however, noise impacts to existing residents
along Fallon Road would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 3.10/ C: Exposure of Existing and Proposed Development to Airport Noise was
considered an insignificance impact and no mitigation was required.
Impact 3.10/D: Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future
Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) and the County
Jail identified potentially significant noise for future residents within 6,000 feet of Parks
RFTA. This impact would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0
that requires acoustic studies for development near Parks RFTA and the County Jail;
however, reduction of noise from Parks RFTA may not be feasible, so this impact would
be significant and unavoidable.
Impact 3.10/E: Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise
would be a potentially significant impact related to noise associated with construction
of the EDSP, including but not limited to buildings, roads, and utilities. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0 would reduce construction noise impacts to
a level of insignificance through preparation and submittal of Construction Noise
Management Plans and compliance with local noise standards.
Impact 3.10/F: Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by
Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development would result from close proximity of
different land use types that may result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation
Measure 3.10 /6.0 requires the preparation of noise management plans for all mixed-
use developments within the Eastern Dublin area. This measure would reduce noise
generated by mixed-use development to a level of insignificance.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable
impacts described above, which includes the project.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Exposure to or generate noise exceeding standards
The EDSP EIRs identified the sources of major noise affecting the EDSP area to be vehicular
traffic stemming from Interstate 580, aircraft flyovers from the Livermore Municipal Airport,
Parks RFTA, and County Jail. The short-term noise measurement results noted that other than
site grading associated with the construction of the development the roadway noise and
aircraft flyovers would dominate any noise levels generated by the project.
1739
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 34
5/18/21
(b) Exposure to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise
The EDSP EIRs identified a potentially significant impact for future roadway noise as well as
construction noise as a result of the build out of the EDSP, which includes the project site.
Implementation of mitigation measures within the EDSP EIRs reduces this impact to an
insignificant level.
(c) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport
The project would not result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people working or living in
the project area. A portion of the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area of
Livermore Municipal Airport, but is not located within the Airport Protection Area (APA) of the
airport (Livermore Executive Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2012). Therefore, the
project site would not be subjected to substantial aircraft noise from this airport different from
that previously analyzed.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified noise impacts, nor result in new
significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, there would
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to noise beyond what has been
analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are
met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
1740
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 35
5/18/21
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not identify any significant impacts or mitigation measures for population
and housing.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Population growth
While the broadening of allow uses could result in an increase of residential development, it is
only a total of 4.5 acres and as such, would not induce substantial additional population growth
in the Eastern Dublin area which has long been envisioned in the Dublin General Plan and the
EDSP.
(b) Housing and resident displacement
Since the project site is vacant, no housing units or people would be displaced as a result of the
project.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified population and housing impacts,
nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to population and housing beyond what has been analyzed in
the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
1741
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 36
5/18/21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for public services:
Impacts 3.4/A and 3.4/B are related to the provision of police services. One notes that
there would be a demand for increased police services with implementation of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the other identifies an
impact related to the hilly topography of the Eastern Dublin area that could present
accessibility and crime-prevention issues. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/1.0
through 3.4/ 5.0 would reduce impacts to the Dublin Police Department to an
insignificant level.
Impacts 3.4/C through 3.4/E are related to the provision of fire services. The build out of
the GP/EDSP would increase the demand for fire services and the outlying areas of the
GP/EDSP were beyond the fire response area at the time resulting in extended fire
response times. The build out of the GP/EDSP would also result in the settlement of
population and construction of new communities in proximity to high fire hazard open
space areas. This would pose an increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if
open space areas are not maintained for fire safety. Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0
through 3.4/13.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level.
Impacts 3.4/F through 3.4/J are related to schools. The buildout of the GP/EDSP will
increase the demand for new classroom space and school facilities in proportion to the
number of residential units constructed, far exceeding the current available capacity of
either school district at the time. Overcrowding at existing schools could occur if
insufficient new classroom space is provided. Development of eastern Dublin under
existing jurisdictional boundaries would result in the area's being served by two
different school districts. The division of the project site by two different school districts
would adversely affect financing of schools in eastern Dublin and complicate provision
of education to planning area students. The cost of providing new school facilities
proposed in the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan could adversely impact local
school districts by creating an unwieldy financial burden unless some form of financing
is identified. Mitigation Measures 3.4/13.0 through 3.4/19.0 reduce these impacts to an
insignificant level.
Impacts 3.4/K through 3.4/N are related to parks and public facilities. Without the
addition of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new park and recreation
facilities resulting from buildout of the GP/EDSP would create potentially significant
impacts. Acquisition and improvement of new park and recreation facilities may place a
1742
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 37
5/18/21
financial strain on existing City revenue sources causing a potentially significant impact.
Development of residential and commercial areas in eastern Dublin without adequate
provision of trail easements may thwart efforts to develop a regional trail system. Urban
development along project stream corridors and ridgelines would adversely impact
outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents and obstruct the
formation of an interconnected open space system. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0
through 3.4/36.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR analyzed the adequacy of park acreage within the Fallon Village
project area and found it to be consistent with the number, size and locations of parks within
the program level Stage 1 PD and with the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the
EDSP EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Fire
Future development would increase demand for fire and emergency services by increasing the
amount of permanent daytime population on the project site. Features would be incorporated
into the project as part of existing City ordinances and development requirements which assist
in reducing impacts. These features include installation of on-site fire protection measures such
as fire sprinklers and installation of new fire hydrants that meet the minimum fire flow
requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
As part of the City’s Development Fee Program, any future development project would be
required to pay an impact fee for fire facilities to serve new development in the City. This
impact fee relates to funding new fire facilities in Eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water
supplies and pressure for fire suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards.
(b) Police
Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be expected associated with a
future development project. This increase in calls for service would be off-set through
adherence to City of Dublin safety requirements from the Dublin Police Services.
(c) Schools
No new impacts to school service are anticipated since payment of mandated statutory impact
fees at the time of issuance of building permits would provide mitigation of educational impacts
of the project pursuant to State law.
(d, e) Parks and other public facilities
Future development would be required to comply with all prior mitigation measures and, if
applicable, would pay the required Park Fee as part of the Public Facility fees.
1743
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 38
5/18/21
Construction associated with future development would incrementally increase the long-term
maintenance demand for roads and other public facilities. However, such additional
maintenance demands would be off-set by additional City fees and property tax revenues
accruing to the City and, therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified public services impacts, nor result
in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, there would
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services beyond what has
been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review
are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for recreation:
Impact 3.4/K indicated that increased demand for parks as a result of buildout of the
GP/EDSP would represent a significant impact on the ability of the City to provide park
service for future residents. It would also be a potentially significant cumulative impact
for the community due to lack of sufficient city-wide park facilities that would not meet
a standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 population. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0-
28 were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.4/L identified a park facility fiscal impact on the City of Dublin. The fiscal strain
of providing new park facilities would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation
1744
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 39
5/18/21
Measures 3.4/ 29.0-31.0 would require that each new development in Eastern Dublin
provide a fair share of parks and open space facilities. Development of a parks
implementation plan was also called for. Finally, adoption of a park in-lieu fee program
was required. These mitigation measures reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
Impacts 3.4/ M and N dealt with the regional trail system and open space connections.
Development of residential and commercial areas in Eastern Dublin was anticipated to
have a potentially significant impact to the construction of a regional trail system.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 32.0 would require the establishment of a trail
system with connections to planned regional and sub-regional trails, which would
reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.4/N notes that urban development along stream corridors and ridgelines
would adversely impact outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents
and potentially obstruct the formation of an interconnected open space system.
Mitigation Measures 3.4 / 33.0-36.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP
EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, b) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration or require new
recreation facilities
The City’s park and recreational facilities are composed of neighborhood facilities, community
facilities, community parks and community center. The EDSP identified 46.8 acres of parkland
for the Fallon Ranch project area which is consistent with the City of Dublin 2015 Parks and
Recreation Master Plan ratio of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Because sufficient
park land has been constructed and it being planned, future development associated with the
project site would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and/or regional parks such
that a substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; nor would
it require the construction/expansion of a recreational facility elsewhere which would have an
adverse physical effect on the environment.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified recreation impacts, nor result in
new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, there would
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to recreation beyond what has been
analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are
met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
1745
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 40
5/18/21
Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for transportation and
traffic:
Impacts 3.3/A through 3.3/E identified significant, significant cumulative, and significant
and unavoidable adverse impacts related to daily traffic volumes on I-580 for Year 2010
with and without build-out of the GP/EDSP and under a Year 2010 cumulative build-out
scenario. Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 through 3.3/5.0 reduced these impacts but not
sufficiently to avoid significant cumulative impacts.
Impacts 3.3/F through 3.3/N identified impacts to levels of service and PM peak hour
traffic volumes at 18 intersections and at I-580 ramps. Mitigation Measures 3.3/6.0
through 3.3/8.0 and 3.3/10.0 through 3.3/14.0 were adopted to reduce these impacts.
Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M and 3.3/N were unable to be reduced to an insignificant level.
Impacts 3.3/O and 3.3/P identified significant impacts related to transit service
extensions and the provision of safe street crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.
Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0-15.3 and 3.3/16.0-16.1 were adopted which reduced
these impacts to a level of insignificance.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the remaining significant and
unavoidable cumulative impacts of Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E, 3.3/I, 3.3/M and 3.3/N, which apply to
the project.
1746
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 41
5/18/21
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP
EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Conflict with applicable transportation circulations plans/standards
As described in Appendix A: Traffic Generation Evaluation Memorandum (Kimley-Horn, April 9,
2021), a trip generation evaluation was prepared to determine if the proposed change in land
uses would potentially result in a transportation impact. The evaluation compared vehicle trips
generated by the highest intensity land use under the Semi-Public land use designation (a day
care center and a recreational community center) to the likely use of the Public/Semi-Public
land use (an affordable housing project).
As shown in Table 2: Trip Generation Comparison Summary, the new Public/Semi-Public use
would not exceed the existing highest trip generating land uses and, therefore, the proposed
GPA, SPA and Rezoning would not result in any significant transportation impacts.
Table 2: Trip Generation Comparison Summary
GPA/SPA Use
ITE Land Use
Code Land Use Size Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Semi-Public
565 Day Care Center 10 KSF 110 111
495 Recreational
Community Center 88.01 KSF 155 203
- Subtotal 98.01 KSF 265 314
Public/Semi-Public 223 Affordable Housing
(Income Limits) 135 Dwelling
Units 138 84
Difference (Public/Semi-Public – Semi-Public) -127 -230
It should also be noted that a residential density of 40 units per acre was also considered as the
upper range in density for this site. At this density, 40 residential units per acre for 4.5 acres
would result in a total of 180 residential units. This number of units would generate an
estimated 184 AM peak hour trips and 112 PM peak hour trips. At this density, affordable
housing would still result in fewer AM and PM peak hour trips than the Semi-Public scenario.
(b) Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the issue of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has become a
more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of SB 743 in 2013. Previously, CEQA
analysis was conducted using a level of service (LOS) measurement that evaluated traffic delay.
As specified under SB 743, and implemented under Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA
Guidelines (effective December 28, 2018), VMT is the required metric to be used for identifying
CEQA impacts and mitigation. In December 2018, OPR published a Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts, including guidance for VMT analysis. The Office of
1747
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 42
5/18/21
Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines and lead agencies were given until
July 1, 2020, to implement the updated guidelines for VMT analysis.
Because EDSP EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether VMT needs to be
analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public
Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). VMT is not
required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of
substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the
previous EIRs were certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)).
VMT impacts were not analyzed in the prior EIRs; however, these impacts are not new
information that was not known or could not have been known at the time these previous EIRs
were certified. The issue of VMT as a metric for analyzing traffic was widely known prior to the
certification of these EIRs.
Therefore, the impact of VMT was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs.
Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or
Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this
issue is required under CEQA.
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
Future development of the project site would add sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian
travel ways where none currently exist and would be required to comply with current City
engineering design standards and other safety standards to ensure that no safety hazards
would be created or exacerbated.
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access
Future development of the project site would be required to go through Stage 2 Planned
Development application, which would ensure that all roadways would be designed consistent
with City roadway design standards.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified transportation impacts, nor result
in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, there would
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation beyond what has
been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review
are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
1748
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 43
5/18/21
Tribal Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts to tribal cultural resources as it was not a
separate topic for analysis when the EIRs were completed. Cultural resource impacts and
mitigation measures, some of which could pertain to tribal resources, were identified and can
be found in the cultural resources section of this document.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources
Both project sites are vacant and, therefore, there would be no impact to historic resources.
(b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1
The project is subject to existing cultural resource mitigation measures, as described above in
Cultural Resources section.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on this environmental analysis, the project would not result in new significant impacts to tribal
cultural resources.
1749
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 44
5/18/21
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in
the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards,
or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? X
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for utilities and service
systems:
Impact 3.5/B identified the lack of a collection system as a significant impact. Mitigation
Measures 3.5/1.0-3.5/5.0, generally preventing development until such facilities are
constructed by developers, were adopted to mitigate this impact to an insignificant
level.
1750
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 45
5/18/21
Impact 3.5/C noted potential growth-inducing impacts of pipeline construction. These
impacts were mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.5/6.0, preventing the construction of
facilities greater than those required for the GPA/EDSP, to an insignificant level.
Impacts 3.5/D, 3.5/E and 3.5/G identified current and future inadequate treatment plant
capacity in DSRSD's treatment plan and inadequate disposal capacity as significant
impacts. All were mitigated to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.0
through 3.5/9.0 and 3.5/11.0 through 3.5/14.
Impacts 3.5/F and 3.5/H relate to the increased energy usage as a result of Impacts
3.5/D, E, and G. Both were mitigated by Mitigation Measures 3.5/10.0, 3.5/15.0 and
3.5/16.0 but remained significant and unavoidable impacts
Impact 3.5/I noted that a failure of the export disposal system could have a potentially
significant impact but Mitigation Measure 3.5/17.0 reduce this impact to an insignificant
level.
Impact 3.5/L noted that the proposed recycled water system must be constructed and
operated properly in order to prevent any potential contamination of or cross-
connection with potable water supply systems. Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0 reduced
this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/P identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the Eastern
Dublin area. Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0-3.5/40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft
of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to
DSRSD, minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water
recycling and conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and
supplies, and to ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally
preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers.
Impact 3.5/Q noted that buildout of the GP/EDSP will increase water demand.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 3.5/31.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant
level.
Impact 3.5/R noted that there would be a significant impact since the increase in water
demands through development of the GP/EDSP will require an expansion of existing
water treatment facilities in order to deliver safe and potable water. Mitigation
Measures 3.5/32.0 and 33.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/S noted that at the time there was no water service in the area, with the
exception of a Zone 7 water supply connection to Alameda County for the old Santa Rita
Jail. With the development of the GP/EDSP, a water distribution system and storage
system would be required. If a water distribution system was not constructed, this
would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0 through 3.5/38.0 reduced
this impact to an insignificant level.
Impact 3.5/U accounted for the increased energy requirement as a result of increased
water demands requiring a water distribution system. Mitigation Measure 3.5/40.0
mitigated this impact but was insufficient to reduce the impact to a less than potentially
significant level.
1751
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 46
5/18/21
Impact 3.5/Z: Reduced Groundwater Recharge was a potentially significant impact but
Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level.
The City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for Impacts 3.3/F and H,
which includes the project.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR analyzed supplemental impacts of wastewater collection and
disposal capacity as changed conditions since the 2002 Supplemental EIR. There were found to
be no supplemental impacts to wastewater collection based on the latest 2005 Wastewater
Collection System Master Plan Update by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) using
the latest sewer generation rates and long-term wastewater planning. Wastewater disposal
capacity was found to be adequate based on completion of a 2005 Livermore-Amador Valley
Water Management Agency export pipeline expansion project and no supplemental impacts
were found with regard to wastewater disposal.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in
Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a, c) Wastewater treatment requirements and facilities
DSRSD is the water and sewer provider for the project site. DSRSD has master planned the
wastewater collection system, treatment capacity and disposal capacity in accordance with the
General Plan and EDSP demand levels as documented in the latest 2017 Wastewater Collection
System and Treatment Facilities Master Plans.
The project is included within the build out of the GP/EDSP and, therefore, accounted for.
Connection fees are based on these master plans and also account for the proposed level of
development on the project site. Previous potential impacts due to growth inducing system
expansion no longer apply as the project is located at the far eastern edge of DSRSD’s service
area and would not require expansion of the system. Therefore, no supplemental impacts have
been identified.
(b) Sufficient water supplies
DSRSD has master planned their water supply capacity, water distribution system, reservoirs
and pumping in the project area in accordance with the General Plan and EDSP demand levels
as documented in the current Urban Water Management Plan (2016). Connection fees are
based on these master plans and account for the proposed level of development on the project
site. Therefore, no supplemental impacts have been identified.
Per SB221, the project would be required to obtain written verification from DSRSD that
sufficient water supply is available for the project. Previous potential impacts due to growth
inducing system expansion no longer apply as the project site is located within DSRSD’s service
area.
1752
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 47
5/18/21
(d, e) Solid waste disposal and regulatory compliance
Approval of the project would incrementally increase the generation of solid waste. Over the
long term, the amount of solid waste reaching the landfill would decrease as statewide
regulations mandating increased recycling take effect.
The EDSP EIRs found that there would be adequate capacity within the local landfill to
accommodate increases in the amount of solid waste.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified utilities and service system
impacts, nor result in new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, there would
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems
beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
Wildfires
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
20. Wildfires. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
1753
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 48
5/18/21
Previous CEQA Documents
The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts of wildfires as it was not a separate topic for
analysis when the EDSP EIRs were completed. Public services impacts and mitigation measures,
some of which related to the provision of fire services pertain to wildfires, were identified and
are discussed in the Public Services section.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP
EIRs.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Impair emergency response plan
In accordance with the City’s Wildfire Management Plan and Chapter 7.32 of the Dublin
Municipal Code, all residential lots adjacent to open space shall be constructed with special
materials and have a 20-foot-wide emergency access road behind them in the buffer zone.
(b) Pollutants or uncontrolled spread
Future development would be required to comply with Stage 2 Planned Development
application requirements which would minimize the risk that any pollutant concentrations or
wildfire risk as a result of slope, prevailing winds, or other factors that exacerbate wildfire risks
could occur beyond what was analyzed in the EDSP EIRs.
(c) Infrastructure
Future development would be required to comply with Stage 2 Planned Development
application requirements which would ensure that all infrastructure is constructed according to
the latest City and State fire code requirements.
(d) Slope instability resulting in post-fire slope instability
As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section, the project includes an erosion
control plan that implements slope erosion control measures during and post-construction and
does not change historic drainage patterns outside of the project site. The project would not
result in changes to drainage or slopes beyond what was previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs.
Conclusion
The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project sites than
were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based
on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not
substantially increase the severity of the previously identified wildfire impacts, nor result in
new significant impacts.
With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts from wildfires beyond what has been analyzed in the previous
EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no
further environmental review is required.
1754
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 49
5/18/21
Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New
Significant
Impact
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of an
Impact Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
Equal or Less
Severe Impact
than Identified
in the EDSP EIRs
21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
X
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
No New Impact. As discussed and analyzed in this document, the proposed project would not
degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, for the reasons discussed in Biological
Resources, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Further, for the reasons identified in Cultural
Resources, the project site does not contain any significant cultural resources, and no impacts
to such resources would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as
1755
City of Dublin Semi-Public Sites GPA/SPA/RZ
CEQA Initial Study | Page 50
5/18/21
previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore,
no further environmental review is required for this impact area.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
No New Impact. The proposed project has the potential to result in incremental environmental
impacts that are part of a series of approvals that were anticipated under the Eastern Dublin
EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the project’s cumulatively considerable impacts where
effects had the potential to degrade the quality of the environment as a result of build-out of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The implementation of the proposed project, with mitigation,
would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously
identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards
for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for
this impact area.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No New Impact. The proposed project would not create adverse environmental effects that
would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The
proposed project would allow for the conversion an existing vacant site to an urban use,
specifically the construction of two low to mid-rise (3-story and 5-story) R&D buildings, a
parking structure, surface parking, and related improvements, including landscaping. None of
these uses or activities would result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly, as discussed throughout this document. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously
identified significant impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this
impact area.
1756
kimley-horn.com 824 Bay Avenue, Suite 10, Capitola, CA 95010 831 316 1430
MEMORANDUM
May 25, 2021
TO: Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner, City of Dublin
Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation and Operations Manager, City of Dublin
FROM: Bill Wiseman and Ben Huie, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
RE: Trip Generation Evaluation for the Semi-Public Sites GPA – CEQA Analysis
Kimley-Horn is preparing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for a City-
initiated General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
(SPA) and Rezoning (RZ) for 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property and 2.0 acres on the East
Ranch property in eastern Dublin, CA. This study evaluates the potential transportation
impacts associated with changing the existing General Plan land use designation for the two
sites from Semi-Public to Public/Semi-Public to allow a broader range of uses, including the
potential for affordable housing developed by a non-profit entity.
The purpose of this memorandum is to determine if the change in land use designation
would result in additional vehicles trips generated and, consequently, a potential
transportation impact.
Project Description
The proposed GPA, SPA, and RZ would occur on 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property and
2.0 acres on the East Ranch property in Eastern Dublin, CA. Both sites are located within
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area. Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the East
Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993), 2) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR
(2002), and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three
environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs.” This project tiers off of
these previous EDSP EIRs which, at that time, significant impacts related to transportation
were based on level of service (LOS) and not vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, this
transportation evaluation focuses on vehicle trips generated, and not VMT.
Appendix A
1757
Michael Cass
City of Dublin
Page 2
According to the City’s General Plan, the Semi-Public land use designation and the
Public/Semi-Public land use designation allows multiple land uses at a maximum floor-area
ratio (FAR) of 0.50 and an employee density of 590 square feet per employee. Table 1:
General Plan Comparison of Semi-Public and Public/Semi-Public Uses shows a comparison
of the allowed uses between the two land use designations.
Table 1: General Plan Comparison of Semi-Public and Public/Semi-Public Allowed Land Uses
Land Use Semi-Public Public/Semi-
Public
Public schools X
Libraries X
City office buildings X
State, County, and other public agency facilities X
Post offices X
Fire stations X
Utilities X
Dublin Civic Center X
Childcare centers X X
Youth centers X X
Senior centers X X
Special needs program facilities X X
Religious institutions X X
Clubhouses X X
Community centers X X
Community theatres X X
Hospitals X X
Private schools X X
Other facilities that provide cultural, educational, or other similar
services and benefit the community X X
Housing developed by a non-profit entity and serves to meet
affordable housing needs or the housing needs of an underserved
economic segment of the community
X
In particular, development of affordable housing on a site designated on the General Plan
Land Use Map as Public/Semi-Public Facilities shall be considered consistent with the
General Plan when it is developed by a non-profit entity and serves to meet affordable
housing needs or the housing needs of an underserved economic segment of the
community.
Trip Generation Evaluation
1758
Michael Cass
City of Dublin
Page 3
To determine if the change in land uses would potentially result in a transportation impact,
the vehicle trips generated by the highest intensity land use under the Semi-Public land uses
was compared to the likely use of the Public/Semi-Public land use.
To estimate the number of trips generated by each land use, Kimley-Horn utilized the
appropriate trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). To estimate the land use sizes, it was assumed
that the sum of the two parcels (i.e., 4.5 acres) would be developed at the maximum floor
area ratio (FAR) of 0.5. This results in a building area of 98.01 thousand square feet (KSF).
For the school uses, it was assumed that each parcel could construct a school of up to 300
students each. The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for each of the
Semi-Public land uses is shown in Table 1: Estimated Trip Generation for Semi-Public Uses.
Table 1: Estimated Trip Generation for Semi-Public Uses
ITE Land
Use Code Land Use Size Units Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
495 Recreational
Community Center 98.01 KSF 2,826 172 114 58 226 106 120
534 Private School (K-8) 600 Students 2,466 546 300 246 156 72 84
536 Private School (K-12) 600 Students 1,488 480 293 187 102 44 58
560 Church 98.01 KSF 682 32 19 13 48 22 26
565 Day Care Center 98.01 KSF 4,668 1,078 561 517 1,090 512 578
610 Hospital 98.01 KSF 1,052 87 59 28 95 30 65
620 Nursing Home 98.01 KSF 652 54 42 12 58 24 34
Maximum Trip Generator = Day Care Center 4,668 1,078 561 517 1,090 512 578
As shown, a day care center results in the highest number of daily, AM peak hour, and PM
peak hour trips with 4,668 daily trips, 1,078 AM peak hour trips, and 1,090 PM peak hour
trips. However, since the maximum size of the day care centers that were surveyed for the
ITE Trip Generation Manual was approximately 10 KSF, it was unrealistic to assume a 98.01
KSF day care center for this evaluation. Therefore, the size of the day care center was
limited to 10 KSF and the remaining 88.01 KSF was assumed to be a recreational community
center. It should be noted that the average size of the recreational community centers
surveyed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual was approximately 78 KSF square feet and
therefore this is a realistic evaluation. The trip generation for this scenario is shown in
Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for Day Care Center and Recreational Community
Center. This scenario would result in 265 AM peak hour trips and 314 PM peak hour trips.
1759
Michael Cass
City of Dublin
Page 4
Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for Day Care Center and Recreational Community Center
ITE Land
Use Code Land Use Size Units Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Total In Out Total In Out
495 Recreational
Community Center 88.01 KSF 2,538 155 102 53 203 95 108
565 Day Care Center 10 KSF 478 110 57 53 111 52 59
Maximum Trip Generator = Day Care Center 3,220 265 159 106 314 147 167
For the proposed Public/Semi-Public land uses, it was assumed that the land use would be
affordable housing. To estimate the size of the affordable housing for both parcels
combined, a density of 30 residential units per acre for 4.5 acres was assumed, resulting in a
total of 135 residential units. Using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, land use code
223 for Affordable Housing (Income Limits) was assumed. This land use is estimated to
generate 138 AM peak hour trips and 84 PM peak hour trips. No daily trip information for
this land use is provided in the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.
Table 3: Trip Generation Comparison Summary shows a peak hour trip comparison for the
allowed Semi-Public use versus the likely land use for the Public/Semi-Public. The new
Public/Semi-Public use would not exceed the existing highest trip generating land use and,
therefore, the proposed GPA, SPA and Rezoning would not result in any significant
transportation impacts.
Table 3: Trip Generation Comparison Summary
GPA/SPA Use
ITE
Land
Use
Code
Land Use Size Units AM Peak
Hour PM Peak Hour
Semi-Public
565 Day Care Center 10 KSF 110 111
495 Recreational
Community Center 88.01 KSF 155 203
- Subtotal 98.01 KSF 265 314
Public/Semi-Public 223 Affordable Housing
(Income Limits) 135 Dwelling
Units 138 84
Difference (Public/Semi-Public – Semi-Public) -127 -230
It should also be noted that a residential density of 40 units per acre was also considered as
the upper range in density for this site. At this density, 40 residential units per acre for 4.5
acres would result in a total of 180 residential units. Using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th
Edition, land use code 223 for Affordable Housing (Income Limits) was assumed. This land
use is estimated to generate 184 AM peak hour trips and 112 PM peak hour trips. At this
1760
Michael Cass
City of Dublin
Page 5
density, affordable housing would still result in fewer AM and PM peak hour trips than the
Semi-Public scenario.
Conclusion
The proposed GPA, SPA, and RZ of parcels from Semi-Public to Public/Semi-Public would not
result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation beyond
what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for
supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
1761
Attachment 3
Ord. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 1 of 6
ORDINANCE NO. XX – 21
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING STAGE 1
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR 2.5 ACRES ON THE GH PACVEST PROPERTY AND 2.0
ACRES ON THE EAST RANCH PROPERTY IN FALLON VILLAGE AND THE EMERALD
HIGH SCHOOL SITE IN DUBLIN RANCH
APNs: 905-0002-001 AND 002; 985-0027-002; AND 985-0078-004, 005, 006, AND 007
(PLPA-2020-000054)
The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
WHEREAS,on October 6, 2020, the City Council received a report and status
update on the Housing Element Update and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the
City Council provided unanimous direction for Staff to prioritize the conversion of existing vacant
Semi-Public sites to a designation that can accommodate affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2021, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan
Amendment Study to change the existing land use designation for 2.5 acres of the GH PacVest
(formerly Chen) property and 2.0 acres on the East Ranch (formerly Croak) property from Semi-
Public to Public/Semi-Public, and for the Emerald High School site from Neighborhood
Commercial to Public/Semi-Public, as well as other amendments to the provisions of the General
Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plans to
ensure consistency (“the Project”); and
WHEREAS,the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and
City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, prior CEQA analysis for the Semi-Public Sites includes: 1) the East Dublin
General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2002); and
3) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR
(2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP
EIRs;” and
WHEREAS,the Dublin Unified School District conducted environmental review associated
with the Emerald High School pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and no further analysis is
required; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Addendum for
the Semi-Public sites, which reflected the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
1762
Ord. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS,following a public hearing on May 25, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 21-04, recommending that the City Council adopt an Addendum to the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports, approve amendments to the General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and approve amendments to Planned Development Stage 1
Development Plans for 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property, 2.0 acres on the East Ranch
property, and the Emerald High School site, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference
and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 15, 2021 was submitted outlining the issues
surrounding the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Planned Development
Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, on June 15,
2021, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. xx-21, approving
an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs; 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 foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
SECTION 2: FINDINGS
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows:
1. The Planned Development (“PD”) Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment for the
proposed Public/Semi-Public sites meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that
it provides a comprehensive development plan that will be consistent with the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended and protects the integrity and
character of the area by creating a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding
land uses. The Project will allow a broader range of uses, including the potential for
affordable housing developed by a non-profit entity. The PD Stage 1 Development Plan
for the Emerald High School site will eliminate a non-conforming situation since a high
school is currently not a permitted use.
2. Development of the Project under the PD zoning will be harmonious and compatible with
existing and future development in the surrounding area in that the site will provide a
variety of uses for the proposed Public/Semi-Public sites. The subject sites are
surrounded by residential uses to the north and west, by undeveloped land to the south,
and by the City Limits and Urban Limit Line to the east with undeveloped land beyond.
The Emerald High School site is surrounded by residential development to the north,
east, and west, and by commercial development to the south.
1763
Ord. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 3 of 6
B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds
as follows:
1.The PD zoning for the proposed Public/Semi-Public sites will be harmonious and
compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area will take into
account adjacent land uses and will provide a wide range of amenities to and for the
community within the development and the surrounding neighborhoods. The specific
location of the proposed Public/Semi-Public sites on each property would be determined
at the time of Planned Development Stage 2 Development Plan approval.
2. The conditions of the proposed Public/Semi-Public sites were documented in the
Addendum that has been prepared, and the environmental impacts that have been
identified will be mitigated to the greatest degree possible. There are no significant site
challenges or impacts identified in the Addendum beyond what was previous studied in
the EDSP EIRs. The sites are physically suitable for the uses permitted through the PD
zoning. The Emerald High School Site is currently being developed with a new high
school and the project’s impacts were already evaluated by the Dublin Unified School
District.
3. The PD zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the Project
will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards.
4. The PD zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the Dublin General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, in that the proposed uses are compatible with
the General Plan land use designation of Public/Semi-Public.
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council adopted an Addendum
via Resolution No. xx-21 on June 15, 2021, prior to approving the Project.
SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set
forth in the Planned Development (PD) Stage 1 Development Plans. PD Districts and the Stage
1 Development Plans provide flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that
the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of
the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. Amendments to the PD Stage 1 Development Plans shall be
in accordance with Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors.
Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan
On December 20, 2005, the City Council approved a Stage 1 Development Plan for the 1,134-
acre Fallon Village Project, pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The
Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plan for the Fallon Village Project is amended as
shown below:
1. Statement of Proposed Uses. Add “PD-Public/Semi-Public” and the permitted uses as
follows:
PD-Public/Semi-Public
1764
Ord. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 4 of 6
Intent.Identifies areas where institutional or community facilities uses are anticipated.
The exact location of parcels with a Public/Semi-Public designation shall be determined
at Stage 2. The Public/Semi-Public parcels on the GH PacVest (formerly Chen) and East
Ranch (formerly Croak) properties (net 2.5- acres and 2.0- acres respectively) shall be
located within the Fallon Village Center.
Permitted Uses, including, but not limited to:
Public schools
Libraries
City office buildings
State, County, and other public agency facilities
Post offices
Fire Stations
Utilities
Child care centers
Youth centers
Senior centers
Special needs program facilities
Religious institutions
Clubhouses
Community centers
Community theater
Hospitals
Private school
Other facilities that provide cultural, educational, or other similar services and
benefit the community
Housing developed by a non-profit entity and serves to meet affordable housing
needs of an underserved segment of the community
Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director
3. Stage 1 Site Plan. Amend the Stage 1 PD Amendment Site Plan for 2.5 net acres on the GH
PacVest property and 2.0 net acres on the East Ranch property to be designated as Public/Semi-Public
and amend the note as shown below:
Note: The Semi-Public (SP) and Public/Semi-Public obligation for the entire Fallon Village plan area is 8.6
net acres. This PD-1 Site Plan provides 2.1 net acres (2.8 gross acres) of SP on the Braddock and Logan
properties, 2.5 net acres on the GH PacVest property, and 2.0 net acres on the East Ranch property, and
2.0 acres on the Jordan property in the Village Center. Final location of the Public/Semi-Public sites on the
GH PacVest (formerly Chen) and East Ranch (formerly Croak) properties of Fallon Village will be
determined at the time of the Stage 2 Development Plan approval.
4. Stage 1 Design Guidelines. Amend the Stage 1 Design Guidelines by amending the Land
Use Diagram for 2.5 net acres on the GH PacVest property and 2.0 net acres on the East Ranch property
to be designated from Semi-Public to Public/Semi-Public.
5. Site area, proposed densities.Amend the table below as follows:
Land Use Acreage Density
Single Family Residential 403.6 acres 0-6.0 units/acre
Medium Density Residential 60.1 acres 6.1-14.0 units/acre
1765
Ord. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 5 of 6
Medium High Density
Residential
23.8 acres 14.1-25.0 units/acre
Rural Residential/Agriculture 142.9 acres 1 unit/100 acres
Mixed Use 6.4 acres 0.3-1.00 FAR
General Commercial 72.1 acres 0.20-0.60 FAR
General Commercial/
Campus Office
72.7 acres 0.2-0.80 FAR
Industrial Park 61.3 acres 0.35 FAR
Community Park 18.3 acres --
Neighborhood Park 23.6 acres --
Neighborhood Square 8.0 acres --
Open Space 211.2 acres --
Elementary School 21.1 acres --
Semi-Public 4.1 acres 0.50 FAR
Public/Semi-Public 4.5 acres 0.50 FAR
6.Phasing Plan.Amend the Phasing Plan for 2.5 net acres on the GH PacVest property and 2.0
net acres on the East Ranch property to be designated as Public/Semi-Public.
7.Master Neighborhood Landscaping Plan.Amend the Master Neighborhood Landscaping
Plan for 2.5 net acres on the GH PacVest property and 2.0 net acres on the East Ranch property to be
designated as Public/Semi-Public.
Dublin Ranch Site Stage 1 Development Plan
On March 21, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 06-00 amending the Zoning Map to
rezone property north of I-580, east of Tassajara Road, and west of Fallon Road to a Planned
Development zoning district and a PD Stage 1 Development Plan. The PD Stage 1 Development
Plan is amended to add a high school as a permitted use for 3501 Dublin Boulevard, APN 958-
0078-004, 005, 006, and 007.
2. Permitted and Conditional Uses. Amend the “PD-Public/Semi-Public” permitted and
conditional uses by adding public schools as a permitted use, as follows:
PD-Public/Semi-Public
1) Permitted Uses. The following are uses permitted for this PD/P-SP (Planned
Development Public/Semi-Public zoning district):
Public, semi-public, and institutional uses, including, but not limited to:
Fire station
Library
Other governmental and quasi-governmental offices as determined by the
Community Development Director
Police station
Post office
Community center
Religious facility
Schools/public
2) Conditional uses
1766
Ord. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 6 of 6
Schools/private (PC)
Day care center (PC)
4. Site Plan and Architecture. Amend the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for Area G for the
Emerald High School Site from Neighborhood Commercial to Public/Semi-Public. Additionally, eliminate
the Conceptual Detail Plan and Main Street Elevations. Also, amend the Circulation, Entry, and Open
Space Plan by eliminating the proposed Main Street.
Section 4.Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30)
days following its final 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 15th day of June 2021, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
1767
RESOLUTION NO. 21 -04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN
DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS, APPROVE
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT
PLANS FOR 2.5 ACRES ON THE GH PACVEST PROPERTY, 2.0 ACRES ON THE EAST
RANCH PROPERTY, AND THE EMERALD HIGH SCHOOL SITE
APNs: 905-0002-001 AND 002; 985-0027-002; AND 985-0078-004, 005, 006, AND 007
(PLPA-2020-000054)
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2020, the City Council received a report and status update on
the Housing Element Update and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the City
Council provided unanimous direction for Staff to prioritize the conversion of existing vacant Semi
Public sites to a designation that can accommodate affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2021, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan
Amendment Study to change the existing land use designation for 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest
property and 2.0 acres on the East Ranch property from Semi-Public to Public/Semi-Public, and
for the Emerald High School site from Neighborhood Commercial to Public/Semi-Public, as well
as other amendments to the provisions of the General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plans to ensure consistency("the Project"); and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA
Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, prior CEQA analysis for the Semi-Public Sites includes: 1) the East Dublin
General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2002); and
3)the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR
(2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the "EDSP
EIRs;" and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Unified School District conducted environmental review associated
with the Emerald High School pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and no further analysis is
required; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Addendum for
the Semi-Public sites, which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the
potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the General
Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Planned Development Stage 1 Development
Plan Amendment; and
Reso. No. 21-04, Item 6.2, Adopted 05/25/21 Page 1 of 3
Attachment 4
1768
1769
1770
Item 6.2:
Semi-Public Sites and Emerald High
School General Plan, Specific Plan,
and Planned Development Zoning
Amendment
City Council
June 15, 2021 1771
Background
•Semi-Public Sites
–October 6, 2020 -City Council received status report on
Housing Element Update and Regional Housing Needs
Allocation
–City Council provided unanimous support to prioritize
conversion of existing vacant Semi-Public sites
•Emerald High School
•On February 2, 2021, the City Council approved
the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study
1772
Semi-Public Sites
•Two Vacant Semi-Public
Sites (shown as ):
–2.5 acres on the GH
PacVest property
–2.0 acres on the East
Ranch property
•PD Zoning
•Approved Stage 1
Development Plan
1773
Emerald High School
•4 Parcels
•23.46 acres
•Neighborhood
Commercial General Plan
Land Use Designation
•PD Zoning
•Currently Under
Construction
1774
Proposed Project
•General Plan Amendment to change land use
designation from:
–Semi-Public to Public/Semi-Public for 2.5 acres of
GH PacVest property and 2.0 acres of the East
Ranch property
–Neighborhood Commercial to Public/Semi-Public
for Emerald High School site
•Associated amendments to Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and PD zoning for consistency
with General Plan
1775
Purpose
•For Semi-Public Sites -Allow a broader range of
uses, including the potential for affordable
housing developed by a non-profit entity
•For Emerald High School site -Create a
compatible land use that is consistent with the
future use as a school and eliminate the non-
conformity
1776
Environmental Determination
•Prior CEQA analysis for the Semi-Public Sites includes:
–East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR;
–East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and
Annexation Supplemental EIR; and
–Fallon Village Supplemental EIR
•Prepared an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs
•No additional studies or analysis is required for
Emerald High School site, since the DUSD already
completed the environmental review
1777
Planning Commission Review
•On May 25, 2021, the Planning Commission
considered the proposed project and
recommended approval to the City Council
1778
Recommendation
•Adopt the Resolution:
–Adopting an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports; and
–Approving amendments to the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
•Waive the reading and introduce the
Ordinance approving amendments to the
Planned Development Stage 1 Development
Plans
1779
1780
June 15, 2021
SB 343
Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials
that have been received by the City Clerk’s office that
relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets
have been distributed to the City Council be available
to the public.
The attached documents were received in the City
Clerk’s office after distribution of the June 15, 2021,
Regular City Council meeting agenda packet.
Item 6.2
1781
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 15, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Item 6.2: Semi-Public Sites and Emerald High School Site General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Planned Development Zoning Amendment (PLPA-2020-00054)
Prepared by: Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner At the June 15, 2021 City Council Meeting, the City Council will consider a City-initiated General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) Amendment, and Planned Development Zoning Amendment for three sites, including 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property and 2.0 acres on the East Ranch property, as well as the 23.46-acre future Emerald High School site. The General Plan Amendment and EDSP Amendment would change the land use designation of a portion of the GH PacVest and East Ranch properties from Semi-Public to Public/Semi-Public to allow a broader range of uses, including the potential for affordable housing developed by a non-profit entity. The General Plan Amendment and EDSP Amendment would also change the land use designation for the Emerald High School site from Neighborhood Commercial to Public/Semi-Public consistent with the planned use of the property for a high school. The proposed project would also include amending the existing Planned Development Zoning to provide consistency with the General Plan Amendment and EDSP Amendment. In addition, the City Council will consider an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EDSP Environmental Impact Reports (EDSP EIRs). After the agenda was posted, the City identified the need to make the following minor, non-substantive modifications to the Resolution, where underlined text is proposed to be added and text with a strikethrough is proposed to be deleted:
Page 2 and 3: Figure 1-1 (Dublin General Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to revise the text associated with show the land use designations for the two Semi-Public Sites as that are being changed to Public/Semi-Public as shown below:
The location of the Public/Semi-Public sites on the GH PacVest (formerly Chen) and East Ranch (formerly Croak) properties of Fallon Village will be determined at the time of the Stage 2 Development Plan approval. The size of the sites will be 2.5 net acres on the GH PacVest property, and 2.0 net acres on the East Ranch property.
Page 12:
1782
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
SECTION 7.1.2 (Town Center Residential) shall be amended to read as follows to eliminate references
to “Main Street” and reference all schools, rather than just elementary schools:
The Town Center Residential subarea is a relatively urban homing district of apartments, duplexes, townhouses, and small-lot single family homes. The Town Center Commercial core is within easy walking distance of mint many Town Center Residential neighborhoods. The design guidelines encourage residential development to occur in a series of pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, where parks and pedestrian areas become the focus of public activity and neighborhood identity.
Page 14, Appendix 2:
Anticipated Land Uses by Designation shall be amended to use consistent language as the General
Plan by identifying the same permitted land uses as follows:
Public/Semi-Public (Maximum .50 Floor Area Ratio) Anticipated uses include, but are not limited to:
• public buildings (e.g., public schools; libraries; city office buildings; State, County and other public agency facilities; post offices; fire stations; and utilities);
• semi-public uses (e.g., child care centers; youth centers; senior centers; special needs program facilities; religious institutions; clubhouses; community centers; community theaters; hospitals; private schools; and other facilities that provide cultural, educational, or other similar services and benefit to the community); and
• housing developed by a non-profit entity and serves to meet affordable housing needs of an underserved segment of the community; and
• parks are not included under this designation. The minor modifications include clarification that it is a modification to the map text, correcting a minor typographical error, and adding affordable housing as a permitted use to maintain General Plan consistency. Staff recommends the City Council adopt the Resolution adopting an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and approving amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance approving amendments to the Planned Development Stage 1 Development Plans for 2.5 acres on the GH PacVest property and 2.0 acres on the East Ranch property in Fallon Village, and the Emerald High School site in Dublin Ranch.
1783