The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.1 Fallon East General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (PLPA-2021-00009)STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 6 Agenda Item 6.1 DATE:February 15, 2022 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT:Fallon East General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (PLPA-2021-00009)Prepared by:Amy Million,Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will consider approval of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for approximately 73 acres east of Fallon Road on the GH PacVest and Alameda properties. The amendment would change the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office. Additionally, the City Council will consider an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Conduct a public hearing, deliberate and adopt the Resolution Approving an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for 72.1 Acres of the GH PacVest Property and the 1.25-Acre Alameda Property. FINANCIAL IMPACT:None. DESCRIPTION:Background: The City Council identified in their Two-Year Strategic Plan the objectives of looking to establish an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road, and working with area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Boulevard extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, and supporting infrastructure. The properties east of Fallon Road are situated along the designated right-of-way 186 Page 2 of 6 for the future Dublin Boulevard extension. The GH PacVest property (approximately 190 acres) is bound by Fallon Road to the west, I-580 to the south, and Croak Road to the south and east. The Alameda property (1.25 acres) is located north of the I-580 off ramp bound by Fallon Road to the west, and Croak Road to the north and east. See Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Location Map and Property Ownership On September 15, 2020, the City Council received an initial report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework. The City Council was supportive of the Staff recommendation to create a hybrid land use designation to provide flexibility desired by the existing landowners while supporting the City’s goal of these properties developing with economic and job-rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and Incubators.On October 20, 2020, the City Council received a second report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework that provided the initial framework for the creation of an Economic Development Zone (EDZ). On March 16, 2021, the City Council received a third report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework and initiated a General Plan Amendment Study for the proposed amendment.On April 20, 2021, the City Council’s Economic Development Committee (EDC) received a presentation on the proposed EDZ incentives package, and supported it as presented. On May 18, 2021, the City Council established the Fallon East Economic Development Zone to encourage private investment in the targeted industry sectors as prioritized by the City Council. Establishment of the economic development zone included a description of the properties within the zone, and an Incentives Package to assist with the attraction of job-rich and/or high-wage 187 Page 3 of 6 businesses within the targeted industries.Over the past year, the City has been holding discussions with the larger landowners of these properties to better understand their vision for developing their properties. These meetings also included discussions on proposed land use changes, creation of the economic development zoneand the Dublin Boulevard extension project. Proposed AmendmentThe proposed project is a City-led General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office on 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property (APN: 985-0027-002-00) and on the 1.25-acre Alameda property (APN: 985-0027-003-00). The project also includes amending the land use designation for these properties in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). Figure 2 shows the existing Land Use Map and Figure 3 shows the proposed Land Use Map. Figure 2. Existing Land Use Map 188 Page 4 of 6 Figure 3. Proposed Land Use Map The proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation will retain all the land uses currently allowed under the General Commercial designation and create additional flexibility allowed by the Campus Office designation. This hybrid land use designation allows for a wide variety of minimum-impact, light industrial uses as well as commercial uses which are compatible with the overall character and economic health of the area.The project area is located within the Fallon Gateway area of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. In response to City Council’s input at their March 16, 2021 meeting on the vision for sustainable development of this area in conjunction with the future economic development zone, the amendment also includes the following additional language encouraging sustainable development for the Fallon Gateway area: The commercial and industrial land east of Fallon Road and south of the AirportProtectionAreaservesastheentrytoDublinfromtheeastandisenvisionedforsustainabledevelopmentthatprovidesemploymentopportunitiesandconnects thosejobstotheregionalandlocalpublictransportationsystem.Developments are required toincorporatethefollowingsustainabilitypractices: Build off the City’s Complete Streets Policy and incorporate complete streetsconceptswithintheprivatedevelopment’s circulation system to ensure strongbicycle,pedestrian,and transit connections within and between the privatedevelopmentsandconnectionstotheCity’s streets and existing and future transithubs. 189 Page 5 of 6 Strong bicycle and pedestrian connections per the vision and goals of the City’sBicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Electric vehicle charging stations within each development. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce the demand ofsingle occupancy vehicles, such as transit subsidy programs, shuttles,showers/lockers, bike share programs, parking, mobility and micromobility hubs. Buildings and related private infrastructure to help with electric gridmanagement, by incorporating load shifting technologies, solar panels, batterystorage and micro-grids. Reduce consumption of materials through reuse or recycling of all municipal solidwaste materials back into nature or the marketplace in a manner that protectshuman health and the environment toward zero-waste goals. Incorporate smart cities technology infrastructure, and fiber-opticcommunications infrastructure. Street infrastructure for private drive aisles and streets and public streetscertified as Greenroads.org Gold level or greater, ASCE Envision Rating of Gold orgreater or similar equivalent. Design and construct buildings that meet the requirements to achieve LEED Goldstatus or above.The City Council Resolution approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 1. Planned Development ZoningThe existing zoning for the GH PacVest portion of the project area is Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05, which is the Stage 1 Development Plan for Fallon Village. The existing zoning for the Alameda property is Planned Development Ordinance No. 11-94, adopted with the annexation of 1,538 acres west of Fallon Village as part of the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Planned Development zoning for these properties designated them as General Commercial which is consistent with the existing General Commercial and proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designations and, therefore, no amendment to the Planned Development zoning districts is required at this time. However, all future development would need, at minimum, a Planned Development Zoning Stage 2 Development Plan. It is anticipated that future development on these parcels will include an amendment to the existing Planned Development Zoning to broaden the allowable uses to incorporate all new land uses allowed under the General Commercial/ Campus Office land use designation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. Prior CEQA analysis for the Fallon East project area includes: 1) the East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR 190 Page 6 of 6 (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs.” Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines and using the City’s Initial Study Checklist, the City assessed whether any further environmental review is required for the proposed project and determined an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs is the appropriate CEQA review. The Addendum is included as Attachment 2. Staff recommends that the City Council to approve the Addendum to the EDSP EIRs before approval of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:Strategy 5: Large Land Tract Development and Open Space.Objective A: Look to Establish an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road.Objective B: Work with the area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Blvd. extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, as well as supporting infrastructure. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:On December 14, 2021, the Planning Commission considered the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Three representatives of the property owner, GH PacVest, spoke during the public hearing and requested that action on the proposed amendment be postponed to incorporate land use changes they would like to pursue for a future developmenton their property and for the City to prepare further CEQA analysis to support those changes. After discussing the property owners request, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend postponement to the City Council (Attachment 3). In their deliberations, the Planning Commission said they did not see any draw back in postponing action and also commented that they liked the economic development zone and vision for the area east of Fallon Road and thought the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment was a move in the right direction. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. Additionally, the City Council agenda was posted, and all Fallon East property owners were notified of this meeting. ATTACHMENTS:1) Resolution Approving an Addendum to the East Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for 72.1 Acres of the GH PacVest Property and the 1.25-Acre Alameda Property2) Exhibit A to the Resolution – CEQA Addendum 3) Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-12 without Exhibit A 191 Attachment 1 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 1 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 72.1 ACRES OF THE GH PACVEST PROPERTY AND THE 1.25-ACRE ALAMEDA PROPERTY APN: 985-0027-002-00 AND 985-0027-003-00 (PLPA-2021-00009) WHEREAS,the City Council identified in their Two-Year Strategic Plan the objectives of establishing an economic development zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road, and working with area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Boulevard extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, as well as supporting infrastructure; and WHEREAS,on September 15, 2020, the City Council received an initial report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework supporting the City Council’s Two-Year Strategic Plan objectives. The City Council was supportive of the Staff recommendation to create a hybrid land use designation to provide flexibility desired by the existing landowners while also supporting the City’s goal of these properties developing with economic and job-rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and Incubators; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2021, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office for 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property and the 1.25-acre Alameda property (“the Project”); and WHEREAS,the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, prior CEQA analysis for the Project area includes: 1) the East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs;” and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Addendum for the Project (the “Addendum”) shown as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and concludes that the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and 192 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 2 of 9 WHEREAS, consistent with Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required; and WHEREAS,following a public hearing on December 14, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 21-12, recommending that the City Council postpone taking action on the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property and the 1.25-acre Alameda property, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the EDSP EIRs referenced above, before taking action on the Project, and the Planning Commission did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove as set forth before taking any action; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated February 15, 2022, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, on February 15, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, as set forth below, are in the public interest, will promote general health, safety and welfare, and that the General Plan as amended will remain internally consistent. The proposed Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies of the General Plan in each of the elements and will support additional employment opportunities through commercial and light industrial developments. The General Plan Amendment noted below will ensure that the implementation of the proposed Project is in compliance with the General Plan and that each element within the General Plan is internally consistent. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the General Plan: Figure 1-1 (Dublin General Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to change the General Commercial land use designation to General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation as follows: NOTE: No changes are proposed to the Airport Protection Area or the Airport Safety Zone 6 overlay boundaries. The overlays have been removed from this image for clarity. 193 Reso.No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 3 of 9 Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be amended to read as follows: Table 2.2. LAND USEDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA CLASSIFICATION ACRES INTENSITY UNITS1 FACTOR YIELD1 RESIDENTIAL Acres DwellingUnits/Acre Dwelling Units Persons/ Dwelling Unit Population High Density 56.14 25 .1+1,409+2 .7 3,804+ Medium-High Density 137.81 14 .1-25 .0 1943-3,445 2 .7 5,246-9,302 Medium-High Density and Retail Office 0 14 .1-25 .0 0 2 .7 0 Medium-Density 405.4 6 .1-14 .0 2,473-,5,676 2 .7 6,667-15,325 Single Family 725 0 .9-6 .0 652-4,350 2 .7 1,7,60-11,745 Estate Residential 30 .5 0 .01-0 .8 0-24 2 .7 0-65 Rural Residential/ Agriculture 329.8 0 .01 3 2 .7 9 TOTAL:1,684.65 6,415-14,757+17,321-39,845+ COMMERCIAL Acres Floor AreaRatio(Gross)Square Feet(millions)Square Feet/ Employee Jobs General Commercial 225.75 .20-.60 1.9-5.9 510 3,856-11,569 General Commercial/ Campus Office 168.57 .20-.80 1.46-5.87 385 3,814-15,258 Mixed Use 6.7 .30-1 .00 ..9-.29 490 178-596 Mixed Use 2/ Campus Office 22 .9 .45 max .45 260 1,731 Neighborhood Commercial 0.4 .25-.60 .004-.01 490 9-21 Campus Office 195 .58 .25-.80 2 .13-6 .82 260 8,192-26,214 Industrial Park 56 .4 .35 max .86 590 1,458 194 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 4 of 9 Industrial Park/ Campus Office 0 .25-.35 0 425 0 Campus Office 137.58 .25-.80 1.50-4.79 260 5,763-18,440 Medical Campus 42.88 .25-.80 .46-4.49 260 1,796-5,747 Medical Campus / Commercial 15.85 .25-.80 .17-.41 510 338-812 TOTAL:872.61 9.83-29.89 27,135-81,846 PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC/OPEN SPACE Acres Floor AreaRatio(Gross)Square Feet(millions)Square Feet/ Employee Jobs Public/Semi-Public 98.96 .50 max 2 .15 590 3,653 Semi-Public 2.09 .50 max .045 590 77 Acres Number Parks/Public Recreation 204-.9 Regional Parks 1 .2 1 Open Space 699 .56 Schools Acres Floor AreaRatio(Gross)Square Feet(millions)Square Feet/ Employee Jobs Elementary School 38 .50 max 1 .06 590 1,797 Middle School 27 .8 .50 max .61 590 1,034 High School 23.46 .50 max .51 590 866 TOTAL:1,095.97 5.38 7,427 Acres Dwelling Units Population Square Feet(millions)Jobs GRAND TOTAL:3,653.23 6,415-14,757+17,321-39,845+15.21-35.27 51,883-129,118 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: Section 2.3 Ownership Patterns shall be amended to update the land ownership of Chen to GH PacVest as follows: 2.3 OWNERSHIP PATTERNS Ownership patterns in the planning area as shown in Figure 2.4. There are 49 recorded parcels in the planning area which are owned by 33 different landowners. Since 1993, approval of subsequent amendments, such as the addition of the Dublin Transit Center and portions of Fallon Village, as well as the subdivision of land has increased the number of parcels and landowners. Landowners' names and size of holdings are listed in Figure 2.4. Ownership holdings range in size from 0.4 acres to 1,251 acres. The acreage of two small properties, the EBJ Properties (1.1 acres) and Pleasanton Ranch Investment parcels (0.4 acres), was included on maps and in tables with the GH PacVest property prior to 2005. Figure 2.4 illustrates only the original parcels prior to their being subdivided. Figure 2.4 Ownership Patterns shall be amended to update the land ownership of 21 and 22 from Chen 195 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 5 of 9 and Anderson, respectively, to GH PacVest Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be amended to read as follows with no modifications to the footnotes: TABLE 4.1 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY (Amendment Reso# 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 101- 15, 165-15, 151-16, xx-22) Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL General Commercial 283.45 acres .25-.35 FAR 3.087 MSF General Commercial/Campus Office 160.37 acres .28 FAR 1.956 MSF Industrial Park*61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF Neighborhood Commercial 36.76 acres .30-.35 FAR .516 MSF Mixed Use 0 acres .30-1.0 FAR .005 MSF Mixed Use 2/Campus Office****25.33 acres .45 FAR .497 MSF Campus Office 94.28 acres .35-.75 FAR 1.840 MSF Medical Campus 42.88 acres .25-.80 FAR .950 MSF Medical Campus/Commercial 15.85 acres .25-.60 FAR .250 MSF Subtotal 720.22 acres 9.848 MSF RESIDENTIAL High Density 58.74 acres 35 du/ac 2,056 du Medium High Density 156.61 acres 20 du/ac 3,132 du Medium Density**492.71 acres (1)10 du/ac 4,744 du Single Family***947.25 acres 4 du/ac 3,789 du (3) Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du Rural Residential/Agric.539.55 acres .01 du/ac 5 du Mixed Use 0 acres 15 du/ac 115 du Subtotal 2,225.26 acres 13,950 du PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 98.96 acres .24 FAR .99 MSF Semi-Public 2.09 acres .25 FAR .03 MSF Subtotal 101.05 acres 1.02 MSF SCHOOLS Elementary School 55.8 acres (2)5 schools Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school High School 23.46 acres 1 school Subtotal 100.56 acres PARKS AND OPEN SPACE City Park 56.3 acres 1 park Community Park 93.3 acres 3 parks Neighborhood Park 50.9 acres 7 parks Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 parks Natural Community Park 10.4 acres 1 park Subtotal 227.6 acres 18 parks Open Space 684.06 acres TOTAL LAND AREA 4,058.75 acres Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) shall be amended to read as follows with no modifications to the footnotes: 196 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 6 of 9 Section 4.9.4 Fallon Gateway shall be amended to update the land use concept for the area east of Fallon Road as follows: 4.9.4 FALLON GATEWAY LOCATION This subarea is located at the Fallon Road interchange with I-580 and occupies the areas east and west of Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and the freeway, and extending north to the Airport Protection Area boundary. The subarea also extends north to include the northeast and northwest quadrants of the intersection of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard (see Figure 4.2). In 2006, the Fallon Village amendment expanded the Fallon Gateway Subarea to the west and north to encompass the entire GH PacVest property (as the Dublin Boulevard alignment had shifted north) except for the areas designated as Community Park and Medium High Density Residential. Also, the EBJ Partners, Pleasanton Ranch Investments parcels and the areas of the GH PacVest, Righetti and Branaugh properties within the Livermore Airport Protection Area (formerly the Industrial subarea) were added to the Fallon Gateway Subarea. LAND USE CONCEPT TABLE 4.2 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 159-14, 165-15, 151- 16, xx-22) Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/Employees Persons/du Population Commercial Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266 General Commercial/Campus Office* 1.956 MSF 385 5,081 General Commercial 3.087 MSF 510 6,053 Neighborhood Commercial .516 MSF 490 1,053 Mixed Use**0 MSF 490 0 Mixed Use 2/Campus Office**** .497 MSF 260 1,910 Campus Office 1.840 MSF 260 7,077 Medical Campus .950 260 3,654 Medical Campus/ Commercial .250 510 490 Public/Semi Public .99 MSF 590 1,678 Semi-Public 0.03 MSF 590 51 TOTAL:10.863 MSF 28,313 Residential High Density 2,056 2.0 4,112 Medium High Density 3,132 2.0 6,264 Medium Density 4,749 2.0 9,498 Single Family***(1)3,789 3.2 12,125 Estate Residential 4 3.2 13 Mixed Use**0 2.0 0 Rural Residential/Agric.5 3.2 16 TOTAL:13,735 32,028 197 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 7 of 9 The land use concept for the Fallon Gateway encourages the development of General Commercial and Campus Office uses that will benefit from the visibility and easy access provided by their location near I-580, Dublin Boulevard, and Fallon Road. The focus for this area is to develop with economic and job-rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and Incubators. Given the subarea’s eastern location away from Downtown Dublin and the Town Center in eastern Dublin, it is anticipated that the commercial development will accommodate retail uses that are less suited for the commercial core areas either because they require larger land areas, better freeway access, and/or different development standards. Uses in this category include that segment of the retail market that typically deals with high sales volumes and/or bulky or big- ticket items; has relatively low-overhead; draws from a regional market area; and is highly auto- oriented. Examples of such uses include large-scale retail, commercial recreation and entertainment facilities, home improvement centers, nurseries, and similar uses. The subarea should not include uses that would directly compete with and/or decrease the vitality of the commercial areas in the Town Center or Downtown Dublin. The commercial and industrial land east of Fallon Road and extending north to the Airport Protection Area boundary serves as the entry to Dublin from the east and is envisioned for sustainable development that provides employment opportunities and connects those jobs to the regional and local public transportation system. Developments are required to incorporate the following sustainability practices: Build off the City’s Complete Streets Policy and incorporate complete streets concepts within the private development’s circulation system to ensure strong bicycle, pedestrian and transit connections within and between the private developments and connections to the City’s streets and existing and future transit hubs. Strong bicycle and pedestrian connections per the vision and goals of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Electric vehicle charging stations within each development. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce the demand of single occupancy vehicles, such as transit subsidy programs, shuttles, showers/lockers, bike share programs, parking, mobility and micromobility hubs. Buildings and related private infrastructure to help with electric grid management, by incorporating load shifting technologies, solar panels, battery storage and micro-grids. Reduce consumption of materials through reuse or recycling of all municipal solid waste materials back into nature or the marketplace in a manner that protects human health and the environment toward zero-waste goals. Incorporate smart cities technology infrastructure, and fiber-optic communications infrastructure. Street infrastructure for private drive aisles and streets and public streets certified as Greenroads.org Gold level or greater, ASCE Envision Rating of Gold or greater or similar equivalent. Design and construct buildings that meet the requirements to achieve LEED Gold status or above. 198 Reso.No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 8 of 9 Table 4.7 (Fallon Gateway Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as follows: 1In 2006, the Fallon Village amendment expanded the Fallon Gateway Subarea to the west and north to encompass the entire GH PacVest property (as the Dublin Blvd. alignment had shifted north) except for the areas designated as Community Park and Medium High Density Residential. Additionally, the EBJ Partners and Pleasanton Ranch Investments parcels and the areas of the GH PacVest, Righetti and Branaugh properties within the Livermore Airport Protection Area (formerly the Industrial subarea) were added to the Fallon Gateway Subarea. See Figure 4.2.Medical Campus 42.88 .51 FAR .950 msf Figure 4-1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map) shall be amended to change the General Commercial land use designation to General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation for the Project site as follows: Appendix 3 Land Use Summary by Planning Areas section “Fallon Gateway” shall be amended as follows: APPENDIX 3 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY BY PLANNING SUBAREAS Planning Subareas Land Use Category Area Density Square Feet Units Fallon Gateway General Commercial 47.85 .25 521,087 TABLE 4.7 FALLON GATEWAY SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL1 Designation Acres Density Development Potential General Commercial 47.85 .25 FAR 521,087 General Commercial/Campus Office 146.05 .28 FAR 1,781,343 Medical Campus 42.88 .51 FAR 950,000 Industrial Park 61.3 .28 FAR 747,664 TOTAL 298.08 ---4,000,094 199 Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 2/15/22 Page 9 of 9 General Commercial/ Campus Office 146.05 .28 1,781,343 Medical Campus 42.88 .51 950,000 Industrial Park 61.3 .28 747,664 Total 298.08 ---4,000,094 Appendix 4 Land Use Summary by Land Owner “#21 GH PacVest” shall be amended to read as follows: APPENDIX 4 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY BY LAND OWNERS Owner/Land Use Category Acres Density Square Feet Units #21 GH PACVEST (FORMERLY CHEN) Medium High Density Residential 4.0 20 130 General Commercial / Campus Office 90.6 .28 1,105,030 Semi-Public*0 Public / Semi-Public*2.5 Community Park 7.2 Open Space 35.8 - Total 140.1 1,105,030 130 Appendix 4 Land Use Summary by Land Owners “#22 Anderson” shall be amended update the land ownership of Anderson to “#22 GH PacVest (Formerly Anderson)”. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15 th day of February 2022, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 200 Fallon East General Plan Amendment/ Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment CEQA Addendum August 25, 2021 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2021-00009 201 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Addendum | Page 1 8/27/21 Fallon East General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment CEQA Addendum August 25, 2021 Project Overview The project, or proposed project, is a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office on 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property (APN: 985-0027-002-00) and on the 1.25-acre Alameda property (APN: 985-0027-003-00). The proposed project would also include amending the land use designation in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The existing Planned Development zoning for these properties is generally consistent with the proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation and, therefore, no amendment to the Planned Development zoning is required at this time. The City Council’s Two-Year Strategic Plan includes an objective to look at establishing an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road. This action would further that strategic priority. The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area, and the Fallon Village project area. Prior CEQA Analysis Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993), 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002), and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs” or “previous CEQA findings,” and are described below. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993) The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and an addendum (1993 GPA/SP EIR) were certified by the City Council on August 22, 1994. This EIR analyzed General Plan Amendments affecting a 6,920-acre area and the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), which encompassed a 3,328 -acre area and provides a comprehensive planning framework for future development in Eastern Dublin. The area considered in this EIR included the project site within the General Plan Amendment area. The 1993 GPA/SP EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts: cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of natural gas, electric, and telephone service community facilities, consumption of non-renewable natural resources, 202 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Addendum | Page 2 8/27/21 increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss/degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise, and aesthetics. Pursuant to Resolution No. 53-93, the City adopted a Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program, which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to development in Eastern Dublin. The Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with their certification of the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002) In 2002, the City of Dublin approved an annexation, pre-zoning, and related PD-Planned Development District Stage I Development Plan for the East Dublin Properties area (same area later named “Fallon Village”). The East Dublin Properties project site consists of 1,132 acres within the EDSP area, and includes in its entirety the 165 -acre East Ranch project site. An Initial Study (IS) was prepared to determine if the East Dublin Properties project required additional environmental review beyond that analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. The IS found that many of the anticipated impacts of the East Dublin Properties project were adequately addressed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR given: 1) the comprehensive planning for the development area; 2) the 1993 GPA/SP EIR‘s analysis of buildout under the EDSP land use designations and policies; 3) the long term 20-30 year focus of the EDSP and the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; 4) the fact that the East Dublin Properties project was specifically contemplated in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR; and 5) the fact that the East Dublin Properties project consisted of the same land uses analyzed in the 1993 GPA/SP EIR. Although the IS concluded that the 1993 GPA/SP EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the East Dublin Properties project, it also identified the potential for some new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those previously analyzed. As a result, the 1993 GPA/SP EIR was updated and supplemented by the Programmatic East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002 Supplemental EIR) which updated the analyses of agricultural resources, biology, air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, schools, and utilities. In certifying the 2002 Supplemental EIR, the City adopted a Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program and a Statement of Considerations for cumulative air quality and traffic impacts that continues to apply to development in Eastern Dublin, including the project site. Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005) In 2005, the City of Dublin considered additional approvals for the 1,132-acre Fallon Village area. These requested approvals had three components: 203 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Addendum | Page 3 8/27/21 1. Amendments to the General Plan and EDSP to include the entire 1,132-acre Fallon Village area into the EDSP and to reflect changes to the land use designations on the site; 2. Revisions to the 2002 approval of the Stage I Planned Development Planned Zoning and Stage I Development Plan to increase the number of dwellings units by 582 to a total of 3,108 units and increase non-residential uses from 1,081,725 square feet to 2,503,175 square feet of commercial and office uses; and 3. A Stage II Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and Lot Line Adjustment for the development of the northernly 488 acres of the Fallon Village area to allow 1,078 dwelling units, a school, parks and associated use. The City approved all three components of the Fallon Village project request. On December 6, 2005, the City certified the Final Supplemental Fallon Village Project Environmental Impact Report (2005 Supplemental EIR) that analyzed the new uses and revisions to the previous approvals for the Fallon Village project. The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and related mitigation measures. The City adopted a Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program for this approval that continues to apply to development in the Fallon Village area, including the project site. In addition, as part of Resolution No. 222-05, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following significant and unavoidable impacts: traffic impact to Dublin/Dougherty intersection, cumulative impacts to local roadways, consistent with the Alameda County Congestion Management Plan, demolition of the Fallon Ranch House and an increase in regional emissions beyond Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds. The City intended this 2005 Supplemental EIR to be used by state or regional agencies in their review of permits required for development in the Fallon Village area (e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreements, California Endangered Species Act permits, Water Quality Certification or waiver by the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Clean Water Act) (see, Draft 2005 Supplemental EIR, p. 27). Proposed CEQA Analysis in this Document The City prepared a CEQA analysis using the City’s Initial Study Checklist, dated August 25, 2021, incorporated herein by reference, to assess whether any further environmental review is required for the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for the project and an Addendum to the EDSP EIRs is the appropriate CEQA review per the following: 204 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Addendum | Page 4 8/27/21 No Subsequent Review is Required per CEOA Guidelines Section 15162 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for this project. This is based on the following analysis: a) Are there substantial changes to the project involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the project as analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. The proposed project would create additional flexibility allowed by the proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation. This hybrid General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation allows for a wide variety of minimum- impact, light industrial uses as well as commercial uses which are compatible with the overall character and economic health of the surrounding industrial area. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the project does not constitute a substantial change to the EDSP EIRs analysis, will not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are required. b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the EDSP EIRs. The proposed project would create additional flexibility allowed by the proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation which are compatible with the overall character and economic health of the surrounding industrial area. This is documented in the attached Initial Study. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them? As documented in the attached Initial Study, there is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs. Similarly, the Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation measures are required for the project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the project. The EDSP EIRs adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed development on portions of the EDSP area. 205 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Addendum | Page 5 8/27/21 d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared? No subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required because there are no significant impacts of the project beyond those identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other standards for supplemental review under CEQA are met, as documented in the attached Initial Study. Conclusion This Addendum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached Initial Study. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the proposed project does not require a subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 . The City further determines that the EDSP EIRs adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the Fallon East General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. As provided in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a decision on this project. The Initial Study and EDSP EIRs are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA. 206 Fallon East General Plan Amendment/ Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Checklist/Initial Study August 25, 2021 Planning Application Number: PLPA-2021-00009 207 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study| Page i Table of Contents Project Background 1 Project Purpose 2 Project Description 3 CEQA Analysis 9 Determination 10 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 11 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................... 13 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 15 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 18 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 22 Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 26 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 29 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 30 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 32 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................... 36 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................... 37 Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 38 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................. 40 Public Services ............................................................................................................................ 41 Recreation .................................................................................................................................. 44 Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 46 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 53 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................... 54 Wildfires ..................................................................................................................................... 58 208 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study| Page ii Appendices A Traffic Generation Evaluation Memorandum List of Figures Figure 1: Project Location and Property Ownership Figure 2: Existing General Plan Land Use Map Figure 3: Proposed General Plan Land Use Map List of Tables Table 1: General Plan Comparison of Semi-Public and Public/Semi-Public Uses Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison 209 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 1 Fallon East General Plan Amendment/ Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment CEQA Initial Study Project Background Project Title Fallon East General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment PLPA-2021-00009 Lead Agency City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Contact Amy Million Principal Planner Phone: 925-833-6610 amy.million@dublin.ca.gov Project Location & Setting The project site is located east of Fallon Road and north of I -580. As shown in Figure 1: Project Location and Property Ownership, the project site is located in Eastern Dublin along the designated right-of-way for the future Dublin Boulevard extension. The project site consists of 72.1 acres on the GH PacVest property (APN: 985-0027-002-00) and is bound by Fallon Road to the west, I-580 to the south, and Croak Road to the south and east. The 1.25-acres Alameda property (APN: 985-0027-003-00) is located north of the I-580 off ramp and is bound by Fallon Road to the west, and Croak Road to the north and east. Combined, the two propertie s total 73.35 acres. Both properties are currently undeveloped, consisting of open grassland. Surrounding land uses consists of open grassland to the north, east and south, and commercial development west of Fallon Road. The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area, and the Fallon Village project area. 210 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 2 Figure 1: Project Location and Property Ownership Project Applicant City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Designation General Commercial Zoning PD Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05 and Ordinance No. 11-94 Project Background and Purpose The City Council identified in their Two-Year Strategic Plan the objectives of looking to establish an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road, and working with area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Boulevard extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, and supporting infrastructure. On September 15, 2020, the City Council received an initial report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework. The City Council was supportive of the Staff 211 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 3 recommendation to utilize the hybrid General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation to provide flexibility desired by the existing landowners while supporting the City’s goal of these properties developing with economic and job -rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and Incubators. On October 20, 2020, the City Council received a second report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework that provided the initial framework for the creation of an Economic Development Zone. On May 18, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 50- 21 approving the establishment of the Fallon East Economic Development Zone Map and Incentives Package. Over the past year, the City has been holding discussions with some of the larger landowners of these properties to better understand their vision for developing their properties. In January and February 2021, Staff met with the Fallon East property owners to discuss the City Council’s discussions to date including the preliminary land use changes, creation of the Economic Development Zone, and the Dublin Boulevard extension project. Project Description The project, or proposed project, is a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office on 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property (APN: 985-0027-002-00) and on the 1.25-acre Alameda property (APN: 985-0027-003-00). The existing and proposed General Plan land use changes are shown in Figures 2: Existing General Plan Land Use Map and Figure3: Proposed General Plan Land Use Map, respectively. 212 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 4 Figure 2: Existing General Plan Land Use Map Figure 3: Proposed General Plan Land Use Map 213 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 5 The proposed project would also include amending the land use designations in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The existing zoning for the GH PacVest portion of the project area is Planned Development Ordinance No. 32-05, which is the Stage 1 Development Plan for Fallon Village. The existing zoning for the Alameda property is Planned Development Ordinance No. 11-94, adopted with the annexation of 1,538 acres west of Fallon Village as part of the General Plan Amendment and EDSP. The Planned Development zoning designations for these properties is generally consistent with the existing General Commercial and proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designations and, therefore, no amendments to the Planned Development zoning districts are required at this time. It is anticipated that future development on these parcels will include an amendment to the existing Planned Development zoning to broaden the allowable uses to incorporate all the new land uses allowed under the General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation. The proposed project does not propose any specific development project. Any such development would occur subsequently as part of a Stage 2 Development Plan application. As such, the analysis in this Initial Study is considered programmatic as it relates to a change in land use designation as a matter of policy and regulation. The proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation will retain all the land uses currently allowed under the General Commercial designation and create additional flexibility allowed by the Campus Office designation. This hybrid General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation allows for a wide variety of minimum-impact, job-rich and high- wage businesses, which are compatible with the overall character and economic health of an industrial area, and are consistent with the City Council’s strategic objectives. The target industry sectors prioritized by the City Council include: J Life Sciences 1 J Advanced Manufacturing J Clean/Green Technology J Automation and Robotics J Technology J Startups and Incubators The proposed project also includes additional policy language encouraging sustainable development for the Fallon Gateway area as provided in the EDSP. The commercial and industrial land east of Fallon Road and south of the Airport Protection Area serves as the entry to Dublin from the east and is envisioned for sustainable development that provides employment opportunities and connects those jobs to the regional and local public transportation system. Developments would be required to incorporate sustainability practices 1 The life sciences sector includes but is not limited to companies operating in the fields of biotechnology (including genetics), pharmaceutical, medical device and diagnostics, food science/food processing, a nd other efforts towards the discovery, development and delivery of products to improve the lives of organisms. 214 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 6 related to transportation to reduce the demand on single occupancy vehicles, energy efficiency, and waste reduction. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required None. 215 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 7 For reference, the Dublin General Plan defines the relevant land use designations as follows: General Commercial (FAR: .20 to .60; Employee Density: 510 square feet per employee) This designation accommodates a range of regional- and community-serving retail, service, and office uses. Uses allowed in this designation include, but are not limited to: retail uses, including major community-serving uses (e.g., supermarkets, drug stores, hardware stores, apparel stores, etc.) and regionally-oriented retail uses (e.g., high-volume retail uses such as discount centers, promotional centers, home improvement centers, furnitu re outlets, and auto malls); all office uses; hotels; banks; service uses; and restaurants and other eating and drinking establishments. Mixed use projects incorporating retail, service, and/or office uses are encouraged, with residential uses also allowed as part of the mix when location and design ensure compatibility. Campus Office (FAR: .25 to .80; Employee Density: 260 square feet per employee) This designation is intended to provide an attractive, campus-like setting for office and other non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or glare. Allowed uses include, but are not limited to, the following: professional and administrative offices; administrative headquarters; research and development; business and commercial services; and, limited light manufacturing, assembly and distribution activities. Ancillary uses which provide services to businesses and employees in the Campus Office area are permitted. These uses include restaurants, gas stations, convenience shopping, copying services, branch banks, and other such services. Under special circumstances (e.g., where a mixed-use development would decrease potential peak-hour traffic generation, meet a specific housing need, encourage pedestrian access to employment and shopping, or create an attractive, socially-interactive neighborhood environment), residential uses may be permitted as part of a master planned mixed use development. In such developments, the residential component would not be permitted to occupy more than 50% of the developed area. General Commercial/Campus Office (FAR: .20 to .80; Employee Density: 385 square feet per employee) Combined land use district. See designations under Eastern Extended Planning Area for General Commercial and Campus Office. Example: Lowe’s and Fallon Village. For reference, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan defines the relevant land use designations as follows: General Commercial (.20 to .60 Floor Area Ratio) Accommodates a range of regional and community-serving retail, service, and office uses. Mixed use projects incorporating retail, service, and/or office uses are encouraged, with 216 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 8 residential uses also allowed as part of the mix when location and design ensure compatibility. Note: There is one area indicated on the amended land use map, located on the southwest quadrant of Area H of Dublin Ranch that could develop as either general commercial or campus office uses. This flexibility has been provided in this area to respond to changing market conditions that may occur in the future. The shift from general commercial (the underlying land use designation) to campus office would be permitted if the established traffic levels of service are not exceeded. Appropriate traffic studies may need to be conducted in order for the City to make the proper determination regarding traffic levels of service. The development of either general commercial or campus office uses will be established at the Stage 2 Planned Development application process. Campus Office (.25 to .80 Floor Area Ratio) Provides an attractive, campus-like setting or office and other non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related to emissions, noise, odors, or outdoor storage and operations. Ancillary uses which provide support services to businesses and employees are permitted. Under special circumstances (e.g., where a mixed-use development would decrease potential traffic generation and/or contribute to greater social interaction and more vital live/work environment), residential uses may be permitted as part of a master planned mixed use development. In such developments, the residential component would not be permitted to occupy more than 50% of the developed area. A floor area ratio of up to 1.2 may be granted at the discretion of the City Council for the 37-acre parcel adjacent to the eastern Dublin BART station in the southwest quadrant of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. A 5-acre hotel site is anticipated within this 37-acre parcel. The precise location of the hotel site will be established through the planned development application process. Note: There are several areas indicated on the land use map that could develop as either general commercial or campus office uses. This flexibility has been provided in these key areas to respond to changing market conditions that may occur in the future. The shift from campus office (the underlying land use designation) to general commercial would only be permitted if the established traffic levels of service are not exceeded. Appropriate traffic studies may need to be conducted in order for the City to make the proper determination regarding traffic levels of service. General Commercial/Campus Office (.20 to .80 Floor Area Ratio) Provides flexibility in permitting a range of regional and community-serving retail and office uses. Mixed use projects incorporating retail, service and office uses are encouraged. 217 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 9 CEQA Analysis The discussion below analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project per the criteria as described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. For convenience, this analysis uses Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a framework. Different from the standard CEQA checklist included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guid elines are the impact options included in this analysis. Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs” or “previous CEQA findings.” The impact check-boxes indicate that the project would not result in a new impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an impact, or an equal to or less severe impact, than those identified in previous CEQA findings. As such, no new environmental review is required because none of the standards under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met which would trigger the need for additional CEQA documentation. There are no significant project changes, new information, or change in circumstances that result in a new or substantial increase in severity of a significant impact from those identified in the EDSP EIRs. Therefore, no standards for requiring supplemental environmental review or documentation under CEQA are met and none are required for the project. 218 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 10 Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. X CITY OF DUBLIN _____________________ _____________________________ Amy Million, Principal Planner Date 219 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 11 Aesthetics ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X Previous CEQA Documents The previous EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigations for visual resources: ▪ Impact 3.8/A: Standardized "Tract" Development within the project area which did not respond to natural site conditions could cause a significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0, which requires consistency with EDSP Goal 6.3.4 , reduces this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.8/B: Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact even with adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 2, which would implement the EDSP plan with retention of predominant natural features and encourages a sense of place in Eastern Dublin. ▪ Impact 3.8/C: Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features identifies the potential of EDSP buildings and related improvements to obscure or alter existing features and re duce the visual uniqueness of the Eastern Dublin area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0, which would implement EDSP Policy 6-28, reduces this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.8/D: Alteration of Visual Quality of Hillsides notes that grading and excavation of building sites in hillside areas would compromise the visual quality of the EDSP area. Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0 through 3.8/4.5 are included in the EDSP EIR to reduce Impact 3.8/D to an insignificant level. These mitigation measures require implementation of EDSP Policies 6-32 through 6-38. ▪ Impact 3.8/E: Alteration of Visual Quality of Ridges states that structures built in proximity to ridges may obscure or fragment the profile of visually sensitive ridgelines. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0 through 3.8/5.2 would reduce this 220 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 12 impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require the implementation of EDSP Policies 6-29 and 5-30 and General Plan Amendment Guiding Policy E. ▪ Impact 3.8/F: Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands is identified as a significant and unavoidable impact. No mitigation measure has been identified which can either fully or partially reduce this impact. ▪ Impact 3.8/G: Alteration of the Visual Character of Watercourses which involves the potential for elimination of the visibility and function of watercourses would be mitigated to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 6.0, which required future development to implement EDSP Policy 6-39. ▪ Impact 3.8/H: Alteration of Dublin's Visual Identity as a Freestanding City is mitigated to a level of insignificance by implementation of the EDSP land use plan (Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0). ▪ Impact 3.8/I: Scenic Vistas includes the alteration of the character of existing scenic vistas and important sightlines. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 3.8/7.1 this impact would be reduced to an insignificant level. Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.0 requires adherence to EDSP Policy 6-5 and Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.1 requires the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP site and to identify and map viewsheds of scenic vistas. ▪ Impact 3.8/J: Scenic Routes identifies that the urban development of the EDSP will significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in Eastern Dublin. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8 / 8.8 and 8.1 will reduce this impact to an insignificant level. These two measures require implementation of EDSP Action Programs 6Q and 6R. The EDSP EIRs found significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts (Impact 3.8/B and Impact 3.8/F) associated with the alteration of the visual character of rural/open space and flatlands. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts, which includes the project. No additional impacts or mitigation were identified in either the 2002 or 2005 Supplemental EIRs. The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Scenic vistas, views The project site is vacant and classified by the EDSP EIR as “dry-farming rotational cropland.” The EDSP does identify certain ridgelands and ridgelines as visually sensitive and the City pursuant to Specific Plan Policy 6-5 and Action Program 6Q adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor, Policies and Standards as means to preserve scenic vistas. 221 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 13 Previous CEQA findings found potentially significant impacts to scenic vistas and views. Th e impacts were addressed with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5, 3.8/5.0-5.2, 3.8/6.0, 3.8/7.0 and 3.8/7.1. EDSP Policies 6-29 through 6-38, which provide guidelines for grading and building design as a means to preserve scenic vistas and view corridors, apply to the project and EDSP area. (b) Scenic resources The EDSP EIRs found potentially significant impacts to scenic resources. The impacts were addressed with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8 and EDSP Poli cies 6- 30 through 6-31. These mitigation measures are implemented at a project level as means to preserve scenic vistas and view corridors. No scenic resources exist on the project site, including but not limited to significant stands of trees, rock outcroppings, or bodies of water, so there would be no impact from future development as a result of this land use change. (c) Substantially degrade the visual character of the site or surrounding area The EDSP EIRs found that development within the EDSP area wo uld alter the existing visual character of rural/open space and flatlands. No mitigation measure could be identified to fully or partially reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for these impacts; thus, no additional analysis was found necessary. (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare Previous CEQA findings found less than significant impacts at both the program and development level. Future development associated with the project would not increase the amount of light and glare that was not previously anticipated in the EDSP and would be required to comply with adopted City regulations for lighting. Conclusion The project does not propose changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified aesthetic/visual impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetic resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 222 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 14 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X Previous CEQA Documents The previous EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigations for agricultural resources: ▪ Impact 3.1/C Discontinuation of Agricultural Uses states that agricultural uses within the area would be decreased as a result of the implementation of the EDSP. However, since most land owners at the time the ESDP EIR was written had filed non -renewal notices for their Williamson Act contracts it was assumed that agricultural uses would decline independent of the implementation of the EDSP so the impact was insignificant and no mitigation was required. ▪ Impact 3.1/D Loss of Farmland of Local Importance states that agricultural lands of local importance would be lost as a result of the EDSP. Since these agricultural lands of local 223 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 15 importance were not classified as prime farmland, however, the impact was insignificant and no mitigation was required. The previous EDSP EIRs evaluated if the soils were considered as “prime agricultural soils” through the adopted criteria established by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Government Code Section 56064, referred to as Assembly Bill 2838). It was determined that no additional prime or agricultural lands beyond those identified in previous EIRs were found. No additional impacts or mitigation were identified in either the 2002 or 2005 Supplemental EIRs. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a-e) Convert farmland or conflict with zoning Previous CEQA findings found there were no significant impacts with respect to agricultural resources. No new conditions have been identified for the project with respect to conversion of prime farmland to a non-agricultural use. No new or more severe significant impacts would result from the project than were previously analyzed. No agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the project site nor are any agricultural operations on-going. There is no forest land within the project site. Conclusion The project does not propose changes that were not previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified agricultural impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, there would be no new or subst antially more severe significant impacts to agricultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Air Quality ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- X 224 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 16 Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for air quality: ▪ Impact 3.11/A: Dust Deposition from Construction Activity states that project construction will generate respirable particulate matter that could potentially impact nearby areas significantly. Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 mitigates this impact to an insignificant level but dust emissions remain a potentially significant cumulative impact. ▪ Impact 3.11/B: Construction Equipment/Vehicle Emissions acknowledges that operating construction equipment will generate exhaust pollutants. Since the build out of the EDSP is long-term the impact of these emissions is potentially significant. Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 through 3.11/4.0 do not sufficiently reduce the anticipated ozone precursor emission to within Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standards so air quality impacts remain potentially significant and contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact. ▪ Impact 3.11/C: Mobile Source Emissions ROG or NOx states that as a result of vehicle trips generated by the full build out of the EDSP ROG and NOx emissions will exceed the BAAQMD threshold causing a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0 through 3.11/11.0 reduce this impact but not sufficiently to reduce it to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.11/D: Mobile Source Emissions CO2 notes that the EDSP will not cause any new CO2 emission standard violations and, therefore, has an insignificant impact. ▪ Impact 3.11/E: Stationary Source Emissions notes that project related NO x emissions from fuel consumption for energy demand exceeds BAAQMD’s significance threshold causing a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 and 3.11/13.0 reduce this impact but not sufficiently to reduce it an insignificant level. This impact also contributes to a potentially significant cumulative impact for the area. The 1993 GP/SPA EIR determined that future project development will have a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality as a result of dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile source emissions of ROG and NOx, and stationary source emissions. While some measures have been adopted to partially mitigate these impacts, the impacts remain potentially significant, particularly given the region's existing non-compliance attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? X 225 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 17 with air quality standards. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these four impacts, which includes the project. In addition to Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 of the 1993 GP/SPA EIR, the 2005 Supplemental EIR included Supplemental Mitigation SM-AQ-1 which requires compliance with BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines for construction contractors including: to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, and sand; sweep daily impervious surfaces and staging areas; and installing erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff. Future development projects resulting from the proposed land use change would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Consistent with air quality plans The project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan adopted by BAAQMD since the project site has been included in Dublin's planned growth as previously analyzed and is consistent with the City’s General Plan, which is the basis of the Clean Air Plan. (b) Violate air quality standards or cause cumulatively considerable air pollutants The project is located in the Livermore-Amador Valley where, per BAAQMD, air pollution is high. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone and there is a transport of pollutants that occurs between Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the thresholds with respect to air quality have been revised. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the national eight-hour standard for ozone from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm in 2015. The California Air Resources Board also lowered the state’s one-hour standard for nitrogen dioxide to 0.18 ppm and retained the national average standard of 0.030 ppm. The new thresholds do not represent “new information” as specifically defined under CEQA as the information used to develop these new thresholds was known, or could have been known, when the EDSP EIRs were prepared. The previous CEQA findings found that proposed development would result in a significant and unavoidable emission of air pollutants exceeding the applicable BAAQMD standards. Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 through 3.11/4.0, 3.11/5.0 through 3.11/11.0, 3.11/12.0, and 3.11/13.0 were recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant level but were insufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these significant and unavoidable impacts that applies to the project. (c-d) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors The health risk of diesel exhaust from roadway traffic was previously analyzed. The 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1999 Guidelines) identified diesel engine particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) findings. There were several studies published prior to 2002 that demonstrated potential health impacts to 226 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 18 residences living close to freeways. (See studies cited in CARB's 2005 “Air Quality and Land Use Handbook".) The 1999 Guidelines encourage lead agencies to address impacts to sensitive receptors (such as residences, schools and churches) to exposure of high levels of diesel exhaust from sources such as a high-volume freeway (1999 BAAQMD CBQA Guidelines, p. 47). The project site is adjacent to I-580 and future development would not include land uses that are considered sensitive receptors. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified air quality impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Biological Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X 227 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 19 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for biological resources: ▪ Impact 3.7/A: Direct Habitat Loss found that the implementation of the EDSP would result in substantial reduction of habitat and range, a potentially significant impact . Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0 through 3.7/4.0 reduce this impact to an insignificant level though the project does still contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact and does result in a significant irreversible change. ▪ Impact 3.7/B: Indirect Impacts of Vegetation Removal recognizes that dust generation from construction, increased erosion, sedimentation, and potential for slope failure, and alteration of drainage patterns could cause a potentially significant impact . Mitigation Measures 3.7/5.0, 3.6/ 18.0, 3.6/22.0, 3.6/23.0, and 3.11/8 reduce this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.7/C: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat recognizes that habitat could be lost directly or indirectly as a result of the implementation of the EDSP resulting in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0 through 3.7/17.0 reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. ▪ Impacts 3.7/D and 3.7/E pertain to threatened and endangered species. Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0 and 3.7/19.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.7/F through 3.7/I pertain to species who are federal candidates for listing as endangered or threatened. Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 through 3.7/22.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.7/J through 3.7/R pertain to California species of special concern. Mitig ation Measures 3.7/23.0 through 3.7/28.0, 3.4/42.0, 3.7/6.0 through 3.7/17, and 3.7/21.0 228 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 20 reduce all impacts to less than significant. The EDSP EIRs found a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact (Impact 3.7/A) associated with direct habitat loss. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact, which includes the project. The 2002 Supplemental EIR and the 2005 SEIR discussed potential impacts to special-status plants and included mitigation to address these impacts. See, e.g., 2002 Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2; 2005 Mitigation Measure SSM-BIO-1 (revising 2002 SM-BIO-4). The previously adopted mitigation would be applied to the current project. The 2002 Supplemental EIR and the 2005 SEIR discussed potential impacts to C alifornia Red- legged frog (CRLF) and California Tiger Salamander (CTS) and included mitigation. See, e.g., 2005 Supplemental Mitigation Measure SSM-BIO-2 (revising 2002 SM-BIO-14) for CLRF. See, e.g., 2005 Supplemental Mitigation Measures SSM-BIO-3 & SSM-BIO-4 (revising 2002 SM-BIO- 19) for CTS. The previously adopted mitigation would be applied to the current project. The 2002 Supplemental EIR also included mitigation for impacts to aquatic features. See, e.g., 2002 Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 and SM-BIO-6. The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species No changes have occurred to the project site since certification of the EDSP EIRs. The EDSP EIRs included a comprehensive assessment of habitat and wildlife resources (i.e., riparian habitat, natural community, and wetlands). They identified potential impacts related to the general effect of potential development in Eastern Dublin, including direct habitat loss, indirect habitat loss due to vegetation removal for construction and development activities, and loss or degradation of sensitive habitat (Impact 3.7 / A, B, and C). The EDSP EIRs also identified potential impacts related to wildlife species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, CRLF, CTS, and others (Impact 3.7 /D - S). Raptor electrocutions associated with proposed high-voltage power lines were addressed in depth in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (Impact 3.7 /L), and included a number of mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 3.7 / 26.0a-d). Mitigation measures were adopted to, among other things, prepare resource management plans, avoid development in sensitive areas, and revegetate disturbed areas (generally Mitigation Measures 3.7 / 1.0 - 28.0). All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to the proposed project. Even with mitigation, the City concluded that the cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat was significant and unavoidable (Impact 3.7 / A). The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53 -93). 229 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 21 The 2002 SEIR determined that species and habitats not previously considered or analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR could occur in the project area. Furthermore, designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog and changes in regulatory standards for this and other species since the certification of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR were thought to create new potentially significant impacts. To address these issues, the 2002 SEIR described a number of impacts and mitigation measures to supplement those in the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. Mitigation Measure SM-B1O-1 in the 2002 SEIR required preparation of a Resource Management Plan (RMP). The purpose of the RMP was to address biological resource impacts of future development in a coordinated manner rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis as development plans for individual parcels are prepared over time. The RMP was completed in 2004. The mitigation measures established in the EDSP EIRs fulfill the City's obligations under CEQA with respect to biological resources. However, the City recognizes that future development activity within the project area may require one or more permits from a variety of state and federal resources agencies. Development project proponents will be responsible for obtaining all such necessary permits. Those permits may impose mitigation requirements which are different from and/ or greater than the mitigation measures established in the EDSP EIRs. (b, c) Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat , natural community, or wetlands Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with the above referenced mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts would be equal or less severe than those identified in the EDSP EIRs, and no further mitigation is required. (d) Interfere or impede the movement of migratory fish or wildlife The existing vegetation within the project site consists of mostly grasses which are not native habitat for migratory species. There are no creeks or streams on the project site that would allow for migration of fish species. Therefore, impacts to migratory fish or wildlife would be insignificant. (e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation or any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. The protection of heritage trees in the City of Dublin is covered by Chapter 5.6 Heritage Trees of the Dublin Municipal Code. The proposed project does not modify these requirements and they would continue to apply on future development of these parcels. As a result there would be no impact. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not 230 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 22 substantially increase the severity of the previously identified biological resources impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Cultural Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? X c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for cultural resources: ▪ Impact 3.9/A: Disruption or Destruction of Identified Prehistoric Resources recognized impacts associated with the disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources which would be reduced to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0, which require a program of mechanical or hand subsurface testing for midden deposits, recordation of identified cultural resources on State of California site survey forms, preparing a plan testing of each resource and, if required, having the City retain the services of a qualified archeologist to develop a cultural resource protection program. ▪ Impact 3.9/B: Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Pre-Historic Resources identified an impact related to the disruption or destruction of unidentified pre-historic resources. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level by requiring a halt to development activities that could impact unidentified cultural resources and completion of follow-on site surveys within Eastern Dublin. 231 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 23 ▪ Impact 3.9/C: Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic Resources would be mitigated to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0 through 3.9/12.0 that requires in-depth analysis of properties with cultural resources, encouragement of adaptive reuse of historic structures to the extent feasible, review of potential historic resources by an architectural historian and development of a preservation program for historic sites and disruption or destruction of unidentified historic resources. ▪ Impact 3.9/D: Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Historic Resources would b e reduced to an insignificant level by adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9 / 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 9.0, 10.0, and 12.0. The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Historic resources The project site is vacant and, therefore, there would be no impact to historic resources. (b) Archaeological resources Previous CEQA findings require adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0, which would reduce this impact to an insignificant level by requiring a halt to future development activities that could impact unidentified cultural resources and completion of follow -on site surveys. (d) Human remains Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be subject to existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the previous EDSP EIRs as well as state and local regulations regarding potential impacts to human remains. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified cultural resources impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 232 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 24 Energy ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 6. Energy. Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?? X b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts to energy as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the EDSP EIRs were completed. Utilities and service systems impacts and mitigation measures, some of which are related to the demand for energy of additional se rvice systems, were identified and can be found in the utilities and service systems section of this document. Additional impacts and mitigations for energy from the EDSP EIRs include: ▪ Impact 3.4/Q: Demand for Utilities Extensions notes that the build out of the GP/EDSP will significantly increase demand for gas, electric and telephone services. To supply adequate electrical service to the project, PG&E estimates that a new distribution system will have to be constructed. Extension of utility lines are nece ssary if the GP/EDSP is approved and built. There is no mitigation to this impact and it remained a significant and unavoidable impact. ▪ Impact 3.4/S: Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources noted that the provision of adequate natural gas and electrical service will require the consumption of non-renewable natural resources. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 3.4/45.0 and 3.4/46.0 would reduce the impact to the extent feasible. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, which includes the project. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with the above referenced mitigation measures. The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs. 233 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 25 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Consumption of energy The EDSP EIRs identified that development of the Eastern Dublin area would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to the consumption of non-renewable natural resources, including energy consumption. Mitigation measures are identified in the EDSP EIRs that would help mitigate this impact. Furthermore, since preparation of the EDSP EIRs, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained in 24 Cal Code Regs pt. 6 have been revised and updated and include more stringent requirements to prevent the unnecessary consumption of energy. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with these standards. In addition, Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.94 (Green Building) encourages sustainable construction practices in planning, design, energy and water efficiency and conservation, material conservation, resource efficiency and environmental quality. The proposed project also requires future development project s to incorporate sustainability practices the related to transportation to reduce the demand on single occupancy vehicles, energy efficiency, and waste reduction. (b) State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency The project does not contain any features that would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and is required to comply with state and local energy regulations, as described above. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified energy impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measure s identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 234 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 26 Geology and Soils ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: X i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for geology and soils: 235 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 27 ▪ Impact 3.6/A: Fault Ground Rupture was found to have insignificant impact since n o known active or potentially active faults traverse the EDSP area and Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are not located within the EDSP area. ▪ Impact 3.6/B: Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects identified potentially significant and unavoidable impacts from primary effects of seismic ground shaking that were insufficiently mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0. ▪ Impacts 3.6/C through 3.6/L were identified as potentially significant but mitigatable by Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 2.0 through 3.6/28.0 to a level of insignificance. The 2005 Supplemental EIR Mitigation Measure SM-GEO-1 requires that prior to construction, design level geotechnical report(s) and corrective grading plan(s) depicting the locations and depths of landslide repairs, keyways, and subsurface drains be prepared and submitted to the City for review. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts of the GP/EDSP, which includes the proposed project. The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Seismic hazards As described in the EDSP EIRs, the project site is located in the Coast Range geomorphic province of California. The project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. No faults and/or their traces have been mapped at the site. The EDSP EIRs used applicable building code data which included Peak Ground Accelerations of 0.6g. The 2019 California Building Code (CBC) increased Peak Ground Acceleration, a seismic design parame ter used in the previous CEQA analysis, to 0.77g. The EDSP EIRs analyzed and found potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated with primary effects of seismic ground shaking (Impact 3.6/B; MM 3.6/1.0); potentially significant but mitigable secondary effects of seismic ground shaking including seismically induced settlement, land sliding, and compaction (Impact 3.5/c; MM 3.6/2.0- 8.0), alterations of site landforms (Impact 3.6/D; MM 3.6/9-10), groundwater (Impacts 3.6/F and 3.6/G; MM 3.6/11-13), expansive soils (Impact 3.6/H; MM 3.6/14-16), natural slope stability (Impact 3.6/I; MM 3.6/17-19), cut-and-fill slope stability (Impact 3.6/J; MM 3.6/20-26), and erosion and sedimentation (Impacts 3.6/K and L; MM 3.6/27-28). The EDSP EIRs analyzed and found potentially significant and unavoidable impacts associated with primary effects of seismic ground shaking. The project would over excavate potentially liquefiable soils and replace them with engineered fill. 236 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 28 USGS maps show areas of potential seismic induced landsliding and liquefaction within the project area. Implementation of MM 3.6/2.0- 8.0 would reduce these impacts to less than significant.(b) Erosion/topsoil loss Construction of the project would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. The project would be required to implement Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) erosion control measures as enforced by the City in addition to any mitigation measures included in the EDSP EIRs. The City's requirement to implement site-specific erosion and other controls would reduce erosion impacts from the project site. The project would also implement erosion control measures such as soil covering vegetation and landscaping after completion of construction . (c-d) Soil stability Previous geotechnical investigations described in the EDSP EIRs did not identify any unstable geologic or soil units or those that would be unstable after the project site is developed. Previous geotechnical investigations did identify expansive soils within the project site. Per the requirements in the EDSP EIRs, future development projects would require remedial grading, including over-excavation, keyways, subdrains and engineering fill per geotechnical engineer direction. (e) Soil capability to support waste water disposal, including septic Future development would not use a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal systems and, therefore, there would be no impact. (f) Unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature The EDSP EIRs analyzed and found that no potential of buried prehistoric sites with undisturbed or partially disturbed sources cultural deposits are associated with the project site. Conclusion The project does not propose changes beyond what was previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified geology and soil impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to geology and soil beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 237 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 29 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X Previous CEQA Documents Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the issue of the contribution of greenhouse gases to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006 and SB 32 in 2016. Because the EDSP EIRs were previously certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gases and climate change need to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)). Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the prior EIRs; however, these impacts are not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time these previous EIRs were certified . The issue of climate change and greenhouse gases was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA . 238 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 30 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a, b) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or conflict with GHG plans or regulations As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Conclusion The impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplement al environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X 239 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 31 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X Previous CEQA Documents The 1993 GP/SPA EIR did not include an analysis of impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. However, the 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potential hazard impacts. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-HAZ-1 requires project developers to survey for asbestos and lead- based paints (which do not apply as there are no structures on the project site). Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-HAZ-2 and -3 addresses procedures for the removal of soil/groundwater contamination, if present. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials No development project is proposed, only a change in allowable land uses with the intent of broadening the types of allowed uses to accommodate business such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology, and startups and incubators. To the extent there are potentially hazardous materials used in construction or during commercial operations, the impacts would be less than significant due to compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. (b) Potential release of hazardous materials into the environment The proposed change in land use would not create a significant hazard to the pubic or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (c) Emit hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school The proposed land use change would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within on-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school since the expansion of uses would not involve the handling of hazardous materials. (d) Listed as a hazardous materials site The project site is vacant and has not been listed as a hazardous materials site in the EDSP EIRs and, therefore, there is no impact. 240 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 32 (e) Proximity to a public or private airport The project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working in the project area. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the Livermore Airport and within its Airport Safety Zone, Airport Protection Area, and Airport Influence Area. However, the proposed expansion of uses are allowed per the Livermore Executive Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012), and would not cause a significant safety hazard. (f) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked or otherwise altered. (h) Expose people or structures to wildland fires As further discussed in the Wildfire section below, the project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in this environmental analysis, the project would result in less than significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Hydrology and Water Quality ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?? X 241 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 33 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: X i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? X ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? X iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? X e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for hydrology and water quality: ▪ Impact 3.5/P identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the Eastern Dublin area. Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0-3.5/40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to DSRSD, minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water recycling and conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and supplies, and to ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed b y developers. ▪ Impact 3.5/Q noted that the EDSP would increase demand to serve development at build-out under the then-applicable General Plan and required an additional 25,000 acre-feet annually. Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 3.5/31.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level. 242 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 34 ▪ Impact 3.5/V identified an impact due to flooding as a result of water storage reservoir failure but would be mitigated to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measure 3.5/41.0. ▪ Impact 3.5/Y: Potential Flooding was found to be potentially significant but was reduced to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through 3.5/48.0. ▪ Impact 3.5/Z: Reduced Groundwater Recharge was a potentially significant impact but Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.5/AA: Non-Point Sources of Pollution was found to be a potentially significant impact but was reduced to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 and 3.5/52.0. The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potential impacts related to “cumulative stormwater generation/capacity of local channels” and “changes in non-point source water quality regulations.” Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-SD-1 and SM-SD-2 were adopted to reduce these potential supplemental impacts to less than significant. SM -SD-1 required water quality and hydrologic design recommendations requiring implementation of bio- retention/filtration facilities with all subsequent individual development projects in the Fallon Village project area. SM-SD-2 required future individual development projects within the project area to comply with the storm water quality and hydromodification management provisions of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program as administered by the City of Dublin. The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements Any future development project will be required to be designed to treat all of its storm water runoff for water quality and hydromodification management to meet curre nt Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, Provision C.3 requirements as prescribed in the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. As a result, the project would meet the current RWQCB C.3 requirements, which are more stringent than those considered in the EDSP EIRs. (b) Substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supplies Future water sources would rely on surface water supplies from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and not local groundwater supplies. The project is required to support Zone 7’s groundwater recharge program to only pump groundwater it artificially recharges using its imported surface water or locally-stored runoff from Arroyo del Valley. Compliance with this would maintain groundwater at a no net loss for the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin . As a result, the project would not result in a net increase in groundwater extraction from Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. 243 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 35 (c) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns Future development would not significantly change drainage patterns and proposed storm drain facilities would be required per City and State regulations to be adequately sized for project runoff. The project would incorporate and comply with the drainage system master planned improvements as they were designed and approved in the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan with appropriate sizing and construction of downstream facilities such as the G3 Culvert Regional Conveyance facility constructed with the Dublin Ranch project, extended by the Fallon Village project. Future development would also be required to pay fees to the Dublin Ranch East Side Storm Drain Benefit District for construct ion of the downstream regional facilities. Per SM-SD-2, future development would also pay required Zone 7 Special Drainage fees (SDA-7-1) for regional storm drain facilities. (g) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow The project site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche . The risk of potential mudflow is considered low since no historic landslides or mudflows have been identified on the project site. There would be no impact with implementation of the project. (h) Conflict with water quality control or groundwater management plan Future development would be required to incorporate and comply with the drainage system master planned improvements as they were designed and approved in the Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified hydrology and water quality impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 244 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 36 Land Use and Planning ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs identified the following impact for land use and planning: ▪ Impact 3.1/A found that there were significant and unavoidable impacts from the EDSP as a result of the loss of agricultural and open space lands. No mitigation measures were identified for those impacts. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant and unavoidable impact, which includes the project. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Physically divide an established community The proposed General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation will expand the types of office and light industrial uses already allowed in the area. Allowed future uses would be compatible with the existing land uses and would not divide an established community. (b) Conflict with general plan The project site is located in the EDSP project boundary and would be consistent with environmental goals and policies contained in the City’s General Plan. The proposed project includes amendments to the EDSP and the General Plan to ensure consistency between the two documents. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not 245 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 37 substantially increase the severity of the previously identified land use and planning impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to land use and planning beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Mineral Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and t he residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs did not include an analysis of impacts to mineral resources. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a-b) Loss of known or identified mineral resource The City does not have any mineral extraction areas so there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to mineral resources. Conclusion Because the City does not have any mineral extraction areas, there would be no impact, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 246 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 38 Noise ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 13. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for noise: ▪ Impact 3.10/A: Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise identified future vehicular traffic associated with development proposed in Eastern Dublin as potentially significant to future residents. This impact would be mitigated to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 that requires acoustic studies for all future residential development in the Eastern Dublin area. ▪ Impact 3.10/B: Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise would be a potentially significant impact to existing residents in the Eastern Dublin area as development occurs in accord with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. This impact would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/2.0, which requires future development projects to provide noise protection to existing residential uses in Eastern Dublin; however, noise impacts to existing residents along Fallon Road would remain significant and unavoidable. ▪ Impact 3.10/ C: Exposure of Existing and Proposed Development to Airport Noise was considered an insignificance impact and no mitigation was required. ▪ Impact 3.10/D: Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) and the County Jail identified potentially significant noise for future residents within 6 ,000 feet of Parks RFTA. This impact would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 that requires acoustic studies for development near Parks RFTA and the County Jail; 247 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 39 however, reduction of noise from Parks RFTA may not be feasible, so this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ▪ Impact 3.10/E: Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise would be a potentially significant impact related to noise associated with construction of the EDSP, including but not limited to buildings, roads, and utilities . Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 3.10/5.0 would reduce construction noise impacts to a level of insignificance through preparation and submittal of Construction Noise Management Plans and compliance with local noise standards. ▪ Impact 3.10/F: Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development would result from close proximity of different land use types that may result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 3.10/6.0 requires the preparation of noise management plans for all mixed-use developments within the Eastern Dublin area. This measure would reduce noise generated by mixed-use development to a level of insignificance. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts described above, which includes the project. The 2002 Supplemental EIR identified potential noise impacts associated with commercial land uses. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires a noise insulation plan for commercial and industrial uses. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2 restricts heavy truck traffic to designated arterial roadways and truck routes. The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified potential noise impacts associated with aircraft flyovers and roadway noise. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires written notification to occupants of residential dwellings of the potential for aircraft overflights within the Fallon Village project area. Supplemental Mitigation M easures SM-NOISE -2 through -4 address measures associated with reducing roadway noise that may affect sensitive noise receptors such as residential, schools, and parks. The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Exposure to or generate noise exceeding standards The EDSP EIRs identified the sources of major noise affecting the EDSP area to be vehicular traffic stemming from Interstate 580, aircraft flyovers from the Livermore Municipal Airport, Parks RFTA, and County Jail. The short-term noise measurement results noted that other than site grading associated with the construction of the development the roadway noise and aircraft flyovers would dominate any noise levels generated by the project. 248 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 40 (b) Exposure to ground borne vibration or ground borne noise The EDSP EIRs identified a potentially significant impact for future roadway noise as well as construction noise as a result of the build out of the EDSP, which includes the project site. Implementation of mitigation measures within the EDSP EIRs reduces this impact to an insignificant level. (c) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport The project would not result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people working in the project area. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the Livermore Airport and is located within its Airport Safety Zone, Airport Protection Area, and Airport Influence Area. However, the proposed expansion of uses are allowed per the Livermore Executive Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012). Furthermore, the type of (light) aircraft and frequency of noise would not result in excessive noise level impacts to commercial uses, particularly those that are industrial in nature, nor be different from that previously analyzed. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified noise impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to noise beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Population and Housing ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X 249 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 41 Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs did not identify any significant impacts or mitigation measures for population and housing. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Population growth Future development would not induce substantial additional population growth in the Eastern Dublin area since development on the project site has long been envisioned in the Dublin General Plan and EDSP. Furthermore, no residential development is allowed on the project site because it is located within the Livermore Airport – Airport Protection Area. (b) Housing and resident displacement Since the project site is vacant, no housing units or people would be displaced as a result of the project. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified population and housing impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population and housing beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Public Services ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significa nt environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X 250 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 42 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for public services: ▪ Impacts 3.4/A and 3.4/B are related to the provision of police services. One notes that there would be a demand for increased police services with implementation of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the other identifies an impact related to the hilly topography of the Eastern Dublin area that could present accessibility and crime-prevention issues. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/1.0 through 3.4/ 5.0 would reduce impacts to the Dublin Police Department to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.4/C through 3.4/E are related to the provision of fire services. The build out of the GP/EDSP would increase the demand for fire services and the outlying areas of the GP/EDSP were beyond the fire response area at the time resulting in extended fire response times. The build out of the GP/EDSP would also result in the settlement of population and construction of new communities in proximity to high fire hazard open space areas. This would pose an increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space areas are not maintained for fire safety. Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 through 3.4/13.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.4/F through 3.4/J are related to schools. The buildout of the GP/EDSP will increase the demand for new classroom space and school facilities in proportion to the number of residential units constructed, far exceeding the current available capacity of either school district at the time. Overcrowding at existing schools could occur if insufficient new classroom space is provided. Development of Eastern Dublin under existing jurisdictional boundaries would result in the area's being served by two different school districts. The division of the project site by two different school districts would adversely affect financing of schools in eastern Dublin and complicate provision of education to planning area students. The cost of providing new school facilities proposed in the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan could adversely impact local school districts by creating an unwieldy financial burden unless some form of financing is identified. Mitigation Measures 3.4/13.0 through 3.4/19.0 reduce these impacts to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.4/K through 3.4/N are related to parks and public facilities. Without the addition of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new park and recreation 251 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 43 facilities resulting from buildout of the GP/EDSP would create potentially significant impacts. Acquisition and improvement of new park and recreation facilities may place a financial strain on existing City revenue sources causing a potentially significant impact. Development of residential and commercial areas in eastern Dublin without adequate provision of trail easements may thwart efforts to develop a regional trail system . Urban development along project stream corridors and ridgelines would adversely impact outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents and obstruct the formation of an interconnected open space system. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0 through 3.4/36.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. The 2002 Supplemental EIR covered the proposed detachment of the Fallon Village project area from the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District and annexation into the City of Dublin. This reorganization was approved by Alameda County Local Formation Agency in 2002. The 2005 Supplemental EIR analyzed the adequacy of park acreage within the Fallon Village project area and found it to be consistent with the number, size and locations of parks within the program level Stage 1 PD and with the City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in the EDSP EIRs. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Fire Future development would increase demand for fire and emergency services by increasing the amount of daytime population (i.e., employees) on the project site. Features would be incorporated into the project as part of existing City ordinances and development requirements which assist in reducing impacts. These features include installation of on-site fire protection measures such as fire sprinklers and installation of new fire hydrants that meet the minimum fire flow requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. As part of the City’s Development Fee Program, future development would be required to pay an impact fee for fire facilities to serve new development in the City. This impact fee relates to funding new fire facilities in Eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for fire suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards. (b) Police Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be expected associated with a future development project. This increase in calls for service would be off-set through adherence to City of Dublin safety requirements from Dublin Police Services. (c) Schools The project area is within in the boundary of the Airport Protection Area for the Livermore Municipal Airport, where residential is not an allowed use; therefore, there would be no 252 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 44 impacts. In addition, no new impacts to school service are anticipated since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits would provide mitigation of educational impacts of the project pursuant to State law. (d, e) Parks and other public facilities Future development would be required to comply with all prior mitigation measures and, if applicable, would pay the required Park Fee as part of the Public Facility fees. Construction associated with future development would incrementally increase the long-term maintenance demand for roads and other public facilities. However, such additional maintenance demands would be off-set by additional City fees and property tax revenues accruing to the City and, therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified public services impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Recreation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 16. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X 253 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 45 Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for recreation: ▪ Impact 3.4/K indicated that increased demand for parks as a result of buildout of the GP/EDSP would represent a significant impact on the ability of the City to provide park service for future residents. It would also be a potentially significant cumulative impact for the community due to lack of sufficient city-wide park facilities that would not meet a standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 population. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0- 28 were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.4/L identified a park facility fiscal impact on the City of Dublin. The fiscal strain of providing new park facilities would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.4/ 29.0-31.0 would require that each new development in Eastern Dublin provide a fair share of parks and open space facilities. Development of a parks implementation plan was also called for. Finally, adoption of a park in-lieu fee program was required. These mitigation measures reduce this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.4/ M and N dealt with the regional trail system and open space connections. Development of residential and commercial areas in Eastern Dublin was anticipated to have a potentially significant impact to the construction of a regional trail system . Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 32.0 would require the establishment of a trail system with connections to planned regional and sub -regional trails, which would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.4/N notes that urban development along stream corridors and ridgelines would adversely impact outdoor recreational opportunities for future Dublin residents and potentially obstruct the formation of an interconnected open space system. Mitigation Measures 3.4 / 33.0-36.0 would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP EIRs. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a, b) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities causing deterioration or require new recreation facilities The City’s park and recreational facilities are composed of neighborhood facilities, community facilities, community parks and community center. The EDSP identified a total of 17 parks on 219 acres which is consistent with the City of Dublin 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan ratio of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Sufficient park land has been constructed and it being planned, and future development associated with the proposed project is limited to commercial uses. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and/or regional parks such that a substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; nor would it require the construction/expansion of a recreational facility elsewhere which would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. 254 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 46 Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified recreation impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to recreation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Transportation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? X b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?? X c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for transportation and traffic: ▪ Impacts 3.3/A through 3.3/E identified significant, significant cumulative, and significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to daily traffic volumes on I-580 for Year 2010 with and without build-out of the GP/EDSP and under a Year 2010 cumulative build-out scenario. Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 through 3.3/5.0 reduced these impacts but not sufficiently to avoid significant cumulative impacts. 255 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 47 ▪ Impacts 3.3/F through 3.3/N identified impacts to levels of service and PM peak hour traffic volumes at 18 intersections and at I-580 ramps. Mitigation Measures 3.3/6.0 through 3.3/8.0 and 3.3/10.0 through 3.3/14.0 were adopted to reduce these impacts. Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M and 3.3/N were unable to be reduced to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.3/O and 3.3/P identified significant impacts related to transit service extensions and the provision of safe street crossings for pedestrians and bicycles. Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0-15.3 and 3.3/16.0-16.1 were adopted which reduced these impacts to a level of insignificance. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the remaining significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts of Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E, 3.3/I, 3.3/M and 3.3/N, which apply to the project. The 2002 Supplemental EIR identified a number of additional transportation impacts related to the project area. Supplemental mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant include: ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-1 requires future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the I-580 eastbound off-ramp approach at Hacienda Drive to add a third eastbound left turn lane. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-2 requires future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from three lanes to four lanes including three through lanes and one auxiliary lane that leads exclusively to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp. The westbound loop on-ramp shall be modified as necessary to meet Caltrans' standards and design criteria. Project developers also shall contribute to widening the westbound off ramp approach to add a third westbound left-tum lane. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-3 requires future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to construction which converts the eastbound Santa Rita off- ramp through lane to a shared left tum/through lane. Project developers also shall contribute to a traffic signal upgrade which includes a westbound right -turn overlap from Pimlico Drive. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-4 requires that future project developers to install a traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard/Street D intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-5 requires that future project developers to install a traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-6 requires that future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to configure the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to include one left-tum lane, three through lanes and two right tum lanes. 256 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 48 ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-7 requires future project developers to construct an additional through lane on northbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes), construct an additional left-tum lane on westbound Dublin Boulevard (for a total of three left-tum lanes) and construct an additional through lane on southbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes). In addition, the City will monitor the intersection for peak hour volumes on a periodic basis, as described ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-8 requires future project developers to pay studies to assess the feasibility of locating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection farther north to allow for a signalized Project intersection between the I - 580 westbound ramps/Fallon Road intersection and the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection (the "auxiliary intersection"). ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-9 requires future project developers to be responsible for widening Fallon Road between 1-580 and Dublin Road to its ultimate eight lanes and shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to its ultimate six lane width ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Traffic-10 requires future project developers to be responsible for widening Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from two lanes to four lanes. The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified a number of additional transportation impacts related to the project area. Supplemental mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant include: ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-1 requires future project developers to make a project contribution to Dublin/Dougherty intersection. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-2 requires future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to the widening of the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 lanes to 4 lanes including three through lanes and one auxiliary lane that leads exclusively to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-3 requires future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to construction which converts the eastbound Santa Rita off- ramp through lane to a shared left tum/through lane. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-4 requires future project developers to install a traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard/Street D intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-5 requires future project developers to install a traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road intersection at the time development occurs in this area utilizing this intersection. 257 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 49 ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-6 requires future project developers to contribute a pro-rata share to configure the eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach to include 1 left-tum lane, three through lanes and two right tum lanes. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-7 requires future project developers to construct an additional through lane on northbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes), construct an additional left-tum lane on westbound Dublin Boulevard (for a total of three left-tum lanes) and construct an additional through lane on southbound Fallon Road (for a total of four through lanes). ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-8 requires future project developers to pay studies to assess the feasibility of locating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection farther north to allow for a signalized Project intersection between the I - 580 westbound ramps/Fallon Road intersection and the Fallon Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection (the "auxiliary intersection"). ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-9 requires future project developers to responsible for widening Fallon Road between 1-580 and Dublin Road to its ultimate eight lanes and shall be responsible for widening Fallon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to its ultimate six lane width. ▪ Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-10 requires future project developers to responsible for widening Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road from two lanes to four lanes. The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP EIRs. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Conflict with applicable transportation circulations plans/standards As described in Appendix A: Traffic Generation Evaluation Memorandum (Kimley-Horn, June 22, 2021), a trip generation evaluation was prepared to determine if the change in land uses would potentially result in a transportation impact. Vehicle trips generated under the General Commercial land uses were compared to the uses allowed under the hybrid General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation. According to the City’s General Plan, the General Commercial land use designation allows commercial land uses at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.20 to 0.60, compared to 0.20 to 0.80 for General Commercia/Campus Office. For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that the development for the General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation would be constructed at a density of 0.28 FAR, and the General Commercial land use designation would be constructed at a density of 0.25 FAR. Consistent with the City’s strategy to broaden the types of allowed uses to accommodate business such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology, and startups and 258 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 50 incubators, a General Light Industrial land use category was selected from trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). This was compared to the General Office Building and Shopping Center land use categories, both of which are currently allowed per the City’s General Plan General Commercial land use designation. Due to the lower trip rate for the new allowed uses, any combination of the new allowed uses and previously allowed uses is expected to generate fewer peak hour trips than the previously allowed uses. Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for each allowed land use for General Commercial at a 0.25 FAR is shown in Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR. Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR ITE Land Use Code Land Use Size Units Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out 710 General Office Building 798.78 KSF 7,782 927 797 130 919 147 772 820 Shopping Center 798.78 KSF 30,156 751 466 285 3,043 1,461 1,582 The highest trip number is shown in bold and shaded. As shown in Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR, the higher of the two uses for each period would result in 30,156 daily trips, 927 AM peak hour trips, and 3,043 PM peak hour trips. Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for the likely mix of land uses for General Commercial/Campus Office at a 0.28 FAR is shown in Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR. This assumes 50 percent of the building area would be general light industrial, 25 percent would be general office building, and 25 percent would be shopping center. Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR ITE Land Use Code Land Use Size Units Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out 110 General Light Industrial 447.32 KSF 2,220 313 275 38 282 37 245 710 General Office Building 223.66 KSF 2,180 259 223 36 257 41 216 820 Shopping Center 223.66 KSF 8,444 210 130 80 852 409 443 Total 12,844 782 628 154 1,391 487 904 259 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 51 As shown in Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR, likely mix of uses would generate 12,844 daily trips, 782 AM peak hour trips, and 1,391 PM peak hour trips. Trip Generation Comparison The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation was compared between the higher trips for the potential uses for General Commercial at a 0.25 FAR versus the likely mix of uses for the General Commercial/Campus Office at a 0.28 FAR. This comparison is shown in Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison. Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison Scenario Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out General Commercial 30,156 927 3,043 797 285 1,461 1,582 General Commercial/Campus Office 12,844 782 1,391 628 154 487 904 Difference -17,312 -145 -1,652 -169 -131 -974 -678 As shown in Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison, the new General Commercial/Campus Office use would not exceed the existing General Commercial use for the daily, AM peak hour, or PM peak hour trips and, therefore, the proposed General Plan amendment would not result in any significant transportation impacts and no further environmental review is required. However, it should be noted that future proposed development may need further traffic analysis to determine that there will be no new significant transportation impacts due to the change in traffic levels since the certification of the previous EDSP EIRs. (b) Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 Since certification of the EDSP EIRs, the issue of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of SB 743 in 2013. Previously, CEQA analysis was conducted using a level of service (LOS) measurement that evaluated traffic delay. As specified under SB 743, and implemented under Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines (effective December 28, 2018), VMT is the required metric to be used for identifying CEQA impacts and mitigation. In December 2018, OPR published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts, including guidance for VMT analysis. The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines and lead agencies were given until July 1, 2020, to implement the updated guidelines for VMT analysis. Because EDSP EIRs have been certified, the determination of whether VMT needs to be analyzed for this project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). VMT is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it co nstitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified as complete” (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3)). 260 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 52 VMT impacts were not analyzed in the prior EIRs; however, these impacts are not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time these previous EIRs were certified. The issue of VMT as a metric for analyzing traffic was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. Therefore, the impact of VMT was known at the time of the certification of the EDSP EIRs. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's im pacts on this issue is required under CEQA. (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature Future development of the project site would add sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist and would be required to comply with current City engineering design standards and other safety standards to ensure that no safety hazards would be created or exacerbated. (d) Result in inadequate emergency access Future development of the project site would be required to go through Stage 2 Planned Development application, which would ensure that all roadways would be designed consistent with City roadway design standards. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified transportation impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 261 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 53 Tribal Cultural Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or X b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts to tribal cultural resources as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the EIRs were completed. Cultural resource impacts and mitigation measures, some of which could pertain to tribal resources, were identified and can be found in the Cultural Resources section of this document. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources The project site is vacant and, therefore, there would be no impact to historic resources. (b) Significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 The project is subject to existing cultural resource mitigation measures, as described above in Cultural Resources section. In addition, per Senate Bill 18 the City of Dublin sent letters to eight California Native American Tribes regarding the proposed project. No requests for consultation were received. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based 262 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 54 on this environmental analysis, the project would not result in new significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Utilities and Service Systems ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? X b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? X c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? X e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs identified the following impacts and mitigation measures for utilities and service systems: ▪ Impact 3.5/B identified the lack of a collection system as a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-3.5/5.0, generally preventing development until such facilities are 263 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 55 constructed by developers, were adopted to mitigate this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.5/C noted potential growth-inducing impacts of pipeline construction. These impacts were mitigated by Mitigation Measure 3.5/6.0, preventing the construction of facilities greater than those required for the GPA/EDSP, to an insignificant level. ▪ Impacts 3.5/D, 3.5/E and 3.5/G identified current and future inadequate treatment plant capacity in DSRSD's treatment plan and inadequate disposal capacity as significant impacts. All were mitigated to an insignificant level by Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.0 through 3.5/9.0 and 3.5/11.0 through 3.5/14. ▪ Impacts 3.5/F and 3.5/H relate to the increased energy usage as a result of Impacts 3.5/D, E, and G. Both were mitigated by Mitigation Measures 3.5/10.0, 3.5/15.0 and 3.5/16.0 but remained significant and unavoidable impacts. ▪ Impact 3.5/I noted that a failure of the export disposal system could have a potentially significant impact but Mitigation Measure 3.5/17.0 reduce this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.5/L noted that the proposed recycled water system must be constructed and operated properly in order to prevent any potential contamination of or cross - connection with potable water supply systems. Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.5/P identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the Eastern Dublin area. Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0-3.5/40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft of ground water resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to DSRSD, minimize the effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water recycling and conservation and by encouraging the development of new facilities and supplies, and to ensure the development of a water distribution system by generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers. ▪ Impact 3.5/Q noted that buildout of the GP/EDSP will increase water demand. Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 3.5/31.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.5/R noted that there would be a significant impact since t he increase in water demands through development of the GP/EDSP will require an expansion of existing water treatment facilities in order to deliver safe and potable water . Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0 and 33.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.5/S noted that at the time there was no water service in the area, with the exception of a Zone 7 water supply connection to Alameda County for the old Santa Rita Jail. With the development of the GP/EDSP, a water distribution system and storage system would be required. If a water distribution system was not constructed, this would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0 through 3.5/38.0 reduced this impact to an insignificant level. ▪ Impact 3.5/U accounted for the increased energy requirement as a result of increased water demands requiring a water distribution system. Mitigation Measure 3.5/40.0 264 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 56 mitigated this impact but was insufficient to reduce the impact to a less than potentially significant level. ▪ Impact 3.5/Z: Reduced Groundwater Recharge was a potentially significant impact but Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 reduced the impact to an insignificant level. The 2005 Supplemental EIR analyzed supplemental impacts of wastewater collection and disposal capacity as changed conditions since the 2002 Supplemental EIR. There were found to be no supplemental impacts to wastewater collection based on the latest 2005 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) using the latest sewer generation rates and long-term wastewater planning. Wastewater disposal capacity was found to be adequate based on completion of a 2005 Livermore -Amador Valley Water Management Agency export pipeline expansion project and no supplemental impacts were found with regard to wastewater disposal. The City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for Impacts 3.3/F and H, which includes the project. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a, c) Wastewater treatment requirements and facilities DSRSD is the water and sewer provider for the project site . DSRSD has master planned the wastewater collection system, treatment capacity and disposal capacity in accordance with the General Plan and EDSP demand levels as documented in the latest 2017 Wastewate r Collection System and Treatment Facilities Master Plans. The project area is included within the build out of the GP/EDSP and the proposed project does not increase the demand for water and sewer; therefore, its demand has already been accounted for. Connection fees are based on these master plans and also account for the proposed level of development on the project site. Previous potential impacts due to growth inducing system expansion no longer apply as the project is located within the DSRSD’s service area and would not require expansion of the system. Therefore, no supplemental impacts have been identified. (b) Sufficient water supplies DSRSD has master planned their water supply capacity, water distribution system, reservoirs and pumping in the project area in accordance with the General Plan and EDSP demand levels as documented in the current Urban Water Management Plan (2016). Connection fees are based on these master plans and account for the proposed level of development on the project site. Therefore, no supplemental impacts have been identified . 265 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 57 Per SB 221, future development projects would be required to obtain written verification from DSRSD that sufficient water supply is available. This may include the use of recycled water as a way of water conservation. Previous potential impacts due to growth inducing system expansion no longer apply as the project site is located within DSRSD’s service area. (d, e) Solid waste disposal and regulatory compliance Approval of future development projects would incrementally increase the generation of solid waste. Over the long term, the amount of solid waste reaching the landfill would decrease as a result of statewide regulations mandating increased recycling and organics diversion. In addition, future development projects would be required to comply with the Dublin Municipal Code regarding solid waste which includes DMC Chapter 5.32 - Solid Waste Management; 7.30 - Waste Management Plan; and Chapter 7.98 - Solid Waste and Recycling Enclosure Standards. In addition, future development projects would be required to incorporate transportation sustainability practices to reduce the demand on single occupancy vehicles, energy efficiency, and waste reduction. The EDSP EIRs found that there would be adequate capacity within the local landfill to accommodate increases in the amount of solid waste. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified utilities and service system impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EDSP EIRs, as applicable. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 266 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 58 Wildfires ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 20. Wildfires. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?? X b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? X c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment X d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? X Previous CEQA Documents The EDSP EIRs did not specifically analyze impacts of wildfires as it was not a separate topic for analysis when the EDSP EIRs were completed. Public services impacts and mitigation measures, some of which related to the provision of fire services pertain to wildfires, were identified and are discussed in the Public Services section. The project would be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures as set forth in EDSP EIRs. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures (a) Impair emergency response plan Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development projects would be required to comply with the City’s Wildfire Management Plan and Chapter 7.32 of the Dublin Municipal Code to ensure that emergency access and response plans are not impaired . Future development would also be required to comply with Site Development Review Permit application requirements to ensure there is adequate fire protection and emergency response access. 267 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 59 (b) Pollutants or uncontrolled spread Future development would be required to comply with Site Development Review Permit application requirements which would minimize the risk that any pollutant concentrations or wildfire risk as a result of slope, prevailing winds, or other factors that exacerbate wildfire risks could occur beyond what was analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. (c) Infrastructure Future development would be required to comply with Site Development Review Permit application requirements which would ensure that all infrastructure is constructed according to the latest City and State fire code requirements. (d) Slope instability resulting in post-fire slope instability As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section, the project includes an erosion control plan that implements slope erosion control measures during and post-construction and does not change historic drainage patterns outside of the project site. The project would not result in changes to drainage or slopes beyond what was previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs. Conclusion The project does not propose substantial changes to the land uses for the project site than were previously analyzed in the EDSP EIRs that would require major changes to the EIRs. Based on the information in EDSP EIRs and this environmental analysis, the project would not substantially increase the severity of the previously identified wildfire impacts, nor result in new significant impacts. Given the programmatic nature of the proposed project, any future development would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts from wildfires beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. Mandatory Findings of Significance ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs 21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate X 268 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 60 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues New Significant Impact Substantial Increase in the Severity of an Impact Identified in the EDSP EIRs Equal or Less Severe Impact than Identified in the EDSP EIRs important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No New Impact. As discussed and analyzed in this document, the proposed p roject would not degrade the quality of the environment. Additionally, for the reasons discussed in the Biological Resources section, the proposed project, with mitigation, would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Further, for the reasons identified in the Cultural Resources section, the project site does not contain any significant cultural resources, and no impacts to such resources would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previousl y identified significant impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable futu re projects)? No New Impact. The proposed project has the potential to result in incremental environmental impacts that are part of a series of approvals that were anticipated under the EDSP EIRs. The 269 City of Dublin Fallon-East GPA/SPA CEQA Initial Study | Page 61 EDSP EIRs considered the project’s cumulatively considerable impacts where effects had the potential to degrade the quality of the environment as a result of build -out of the EEDSP. Implementation of the proposed project, with mitigation, would not result in any new cumulative impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant cumulative impact as previously analyzed, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. The proposed project would not create adverse environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would allow for a broader variety of land uses, including industrial uses such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology, and startups and incubators. None of these uses or activities would result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as discussed throughout this document . Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed , and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for this impact area. 270 kimley-horn.com 824 Bay Avenue, Suite 10, Capitola, CA 95010 831 316 1430 MEMORANDUM August 26, 2021 TO: Amy E. Million, Principal Planner, City of Dublin Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation and Operations Manager, City of Dublin FROM: Bill Wiseman and Ben Huie, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. RE: Trip Generation Evaluation for the Fallon-East GPA/SPA – CEQA Analysis Kimley-Horn is preparing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for a City- initiated General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) for 72.1 acres on the GH PacVest property and 1.25 acres on the Alameda property in eastern Dublin, CA. This study evaluates the potential transportation impacts associated with changing the existing General Plan land use designation for the project sites from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office to create additional flexibility allowed by the Campus Office designation. This hybrid land use designation allows for a wide variety of minimum-impact, light industrial uses as well as commercial uses which are compatible with the overall character and economic health of the industrial are a. The purpose of this memorandum is to determine if the change in land use designation would result in additional vehicles trips generated and, consequently, a potential transportation impact. Project Description The proposed GPA and SPA would occur on 72.1 acres on the GH PacVest property and 1.25 acres on the Alameda property in Eastern Dublin, CA. Both sites are located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) area. Prior CEQA analysis includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs”. This project tiers off of these previous EDSP EIRs which, at that time, significant impacts related to transportation were based on level of service (LOS) and not vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, this transportation evaluation focuses on vehicle trips generated, and not VMT. 271 Amy Million City of Dublin Page 2 According to the City’s General Plan, the General Commercial land use designation allows commercial land uses at a maximum floor-area ratio (FAR) of 0.20 to 0.60. The General Commercia/Campus Office land use designation allows commercial land uses at a maximum floor-area ratio (FAR) of 0.20 to 0.80. Therefore, the only difference between the two land use designations is the increase in the upper limit of FAR from 0.6 0 to 0.80. However, for the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that the development for the General Commercial/Campus Office land use designation would be constructed at a density of 0.28 FAR, and the General Commercial land use designation would be constructed at a density of 0.25 FAR. Trip Generation Evaluation To determine if the change in land uses would potentially result in a transportation impact, the vehicle trips generated under the General Commercial land uses were compared to the uses allowed under the General Commercial/Campus Office land use. Consistent with the City’s strategy to broaden the types of allowed uses to accommodate business such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology, and startups and incubators, a General Light Industrial land use category was selected from trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). This was compared to the General Office Building and Shopping Center land use categories, both of which are currently allowed in the City’s General Plan General Commercial land use designation. To estimate the land use sizes, it was assumed that the sum of the two parcels (i.e., 73.35 acres) would be developed at a density of 0.25 FAR, resulting in a building area of 798.78 thousand square feet (KSF) for General Commercial or at a density of 0.28 FAR, resulting in a building area of 894.64 KSF for General Commercial/Campus Office. Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for each allowed land use for General Commercial at a 0.25 FAR is shown in Table 1: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR. 272 Amy Million City of Dublin Page 3 Table 1: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR ITE Land Use Code Land Use Size Units Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out 710 General Office Building 798.78 KSF 7,782 927 797 130 919 147 772 820 Shopping Center 798.78 KSF 30,156 751 466 285 3,043 1,461 1,582 The highest trip number is shown in bold and shaded. As shown in Table 1: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial at 0.25 FAR, the higher of the two uses for each period would result in 30,156 daily trips, 927 AM peak hour trips, and 3,043 PM peak hour trips. Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation for the likely mix of land uses for General Commercial/Campus Office at a 0.28 FAR is shown in Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR. This assumes 50 percent of the building area would be general light industrial, 25 percent would be general office building, and 25 percent would be shopping center. Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR ITE Land Use Code Land Use Size Units Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out 110 General Light Industrial 447.32 KSF 2,220 313 275 38 282 37 245 710 General Office Building 223.66 KSF 2,180 259 223 36 257 41 216 820 Shopping Center 223.66 KSF 8,444 210 130 80 852 409 443 Total 12,844 782 628 154 1,391 487 904 As shown in Table 2: Estimated Trip Generation for General Commercial/Campus Office at 0.28 FAR, likely mix of uses would generate 12,844 daily trips, 782 AM peak hour trips, and 1,391 PM peak hour trips. Trip Generation Comparison The daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation was compared between the higher trips for the potential uses for General Commercial at a 0.25 FAR versus the likely mix of uses for the General Commercial/Campus Office at a 0.28 FAR. This comparison is shown in Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison. 273 Amy Million City of Dublin Page 4 Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison Scenario Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out General Commercial 30,156 927 3,043 797 285 1,461 1,582 General Commercial/Campus Office 12,844 782 1,391 628 154 487 904 Difference - 17,312 -145 -1,652 - 169 -131 -974 -678 As shown in Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation Comparison, the new General Commercial/Campus Office use would not exceed the existing General Commercial use for the daily, AM peak hour, or PM peak hour trips and, therefore, the proposed General Plan amendment would not result in any significant transportation impacts. Conclusion The proposed GPA and SPA of parcels from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation beyond what has been analyzed in the previous EDSP EIRs, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met . Therefore, no further environmental review is required. 274 RESOLUTION NO. 21 – 12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL POSTPONE TAKING ACTION ON THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 72.1 ACRES OF THE GH PACVEST PROPERTY AND THE 1.25-ACRE ALAMEDA PROPERTY; APN: 985-0027-002-00 AND 985-0027-003-00 (PLPA-2021-00009) WHEREAS, the City Council identified in their Two-Year Strategic Plan the objectives of establishing an economic development zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road, and working with area property owners in conjunction with the Dublin Boulevard extension project on issues such as road and project mitigation, entitlements, as well as supporting infrastructure; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 2020, the City Council received an initial report on the Fallon East Property Planning and Development Framework supporting the City Council’s Two-Year Strategic Plan objectives. The City Council was supportive of the Staff recommendation to create a hybrid land use designation to provide flexibility desired by the existing landowners while also supporting the City’s goal of these properties developing with economic and job-rich uses such as Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, Technology Startups, and Incubators; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2021, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study to evaluate changing the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office for 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property and the 1.25-acre Alameda property (“the Project”); and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the CEQA Guidelines and City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines and Procedures require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, prior CEQA analysis for the Project area includes: 1) the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993); 2) the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002); and 3) the Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005). Collectively, these three environmental review documents are referred to as the “EDSP EIRs;” and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and 15162, the City prepared an Addendum for the Project (the “Addendum”) shown as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and concludes that the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the EDSP EIRs and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and WHEREAS, consistent with Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City Attachment 3 275 Page 2 of 2 obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, representatives of the property owner, GH PacVest, requested postponement of the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to provide time to incorporate land use changes necessary for a future development on their property and for the City to prepare further CEQA analysis to support those changes; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum, the EDSP EIRs, all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project, and the Planning Commission did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove as set forth before taking any action; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the necessity of bringing forth the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment at this time given GH PacVest’s testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council postpone approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office for 72.1 acres of the GH PacVest property and the 1.25-acre Alameda property to provide time to incorporate land use changes necessary for a future development on their property and for the City to prepare further CEQA analysis to support those changes. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of December 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Dawn Benson, Catheryn Grier, Janine Thalblum, Renata Tyler, Stephen Wright NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Assistant Community Development Director 276 Item 6.1Fallon EastGeneral Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan AmendmentCity CouncilFebruary 15, 2022277 Project Location278 Background•City Council’s Two-Year Strategic Plan –Establishing an Economic Development Zone to prioritize commercial and industrial development east of Fallon Road•City Council Meetings on Sept 15 & Oct. 20•Economic and job-rich developments –Life Science, Advanced Manufacturing, Clean/Green Technology, Automation and Robotics, R&D, Technology Startups and Incubators279 Background Cont. •City Council March 16, 2021 GPA Initiation•City Council May 18, 2021 Fallon Road Economic Development Zone280 Existing v. Proposed Land Use EXISTINGPROPOSED281 Incorporating Sustainability1. Complete Streets + more2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections3. EV charging stations4. Transportation Demand Management measures5. Smart technology and electric infrastructure6. Reuse and recycling7. LEED (building) and Greenroads (streets) 282 Environmental Review•Prior CEQA Analysis– Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (1993)– East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (2002)– Fallon Village Supplemental EIR (2005)•Addendum– Equal or Less Severe Impacts 283 Planning Commission Review •December 14, 2021–Vote 5-0•Recommended postponement of GPA–Incorporate the request by GH PacVest284 Recommendation Conduct a public hearing, deliberate and take the following action:Adopt the ResolutionApproving an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Approving of a General Plan Amendment to Change the Land Use Designation from General Commercial to General Commercial/Campus Office for Approximately 73 acres of the GH PacVest and Alameda Properties285