|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The benefits of a housing and commercial project in east Dublin outweigh its adverse impacts, the City Council declared in a statement last month, per court order, to regain its compliance with environmental regulations.
Approved during 2024, the Dublin Fallon 580 project covers approximately 192 acres and involves converting 42.6 acres of land designated as open space to parks/public recreation as well as developing 238 residential units and up to nearly 3.3 million square feet of commercial/campus office use.
Kingswood Owners Association, representing over 100 units in the community neighboring the residential project sites, sued the city over the project approvals for allegedly violating the California Environmental Quality Act, planning and zoning law and the subdivision map act.
Although the Dublin Fallon 580 Project did not require a new environmental impact report, the city violated CEQA by failing to provide a statement of overriding considerations specific to the Dublin Fallon 580 project, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Michael Markman stated in an order Nov. 19 denying the city’s petition for modification of a previous order from July of the same year.
As a result, the council voted 4-0-1 during its Jan. 13 regular meeting to ratify, reaffirm and readopt prior statements of overriding considerations for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan with regard to the Dublin Fallon 580 project. Councilmember John Morada abstained.
Project approvals are not impacted by the order, a result of the lawsuit that has not completely satisfied Kingswood Owners Association.
“The statement of overriding considerations is basically what we did before, but we tailored it ever so slightly to focus on what’s involved in this particular project,” city attorney John Bakker said at the meeting.
According to Markman, statements of overriding considerations for the “significant unavoidable impacts” were disclosed in previous CEQA documents regarding the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, so “the city must simply go on record to explain why it is willing to approve the 580 Project despite the unavoidable impacts.”
The city’s resulting statement details impacts of the project including cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and alteration of visual character. However, according to the statement, the project impacts are less than significant due to mitigation measures.
The project also overlaps with visually sensitive ridgelands where development is restricted, but proposed grading maintains the natural ridgeline from the three scenic corridors along Interstate 580 and Fallon Road, then-senior planner Crystal De Castro explained during a July 16, 2024 council meeting.
Each of the benefits would be sufficient to justify approval of the project and override the project’s impacts, according to the statement of overriding consideration.
The project will further the urbanization of east Dublin, help the city toward its Regional Housing Needs Allocation goal for new housing units, provide parks, generate revenue and improve local roadways including the dedication of land for the city’s future construction of the Dublin Boulevard extension through the site.
“The purpose of CEQA is not necessarily to be able to mitigate every single impact down to less than significant,” Dublin community development director Amy Million explained during the Jan. 13 meeting. “We are making a statement to override those impacts because we acknowledge the benefits of the project.”
There is no risk for adopting the statement, Bakker added. Deciding to not adopt the statement, however, would risk a dispute with the project applicant GH Pacvest, LLC.
During public comment Jan. 13, both speakers expressed discontent with the statement of overriding consideration.
“If you’re saying ‘We had vacant land and now we’ve filled it up, isn’t that great?’ I don’t see the benefit,” 2024 mayor candidate Tom Evans said at the meeting. “In fact, if anything, it’s probably not as nice to look at as the rolling hills are.”
Following public comment, Councilmember Michael McCorriston suggested rewording the statement for clarification of the project benefits.
However, the majority of the dais — Vice Mayor Jean Josey, Councilmember Kashef Qaadri and Mayor Sherry Hu — supported approving the statement as-is, reasoning that wordsmithing the statement would not have a material impact.
City officials declined to comment on the lawsuit or its violation of CEQA.
Concerns remain for Kingswood Owners Association boardmember Sachin Bhandari regarding the impacts of development on graded land directly south of the neighborhood’s internal park, and to a lesser extent, residential development on a nearby parcel.
Views from the park will be blocked and dust due to grading will affect air quality, Bhandari said.
Traffic and safety is another concern, Bhandari added, with residents often walking in the area and no additional roads set for construction
“We’re not opposed to the development, but we think that the city … skewed way too strongly towards anything that the developer asked for,” Bhandari told the Pleasanton Weekly.
The association also wanted the city to revoke approval of the project, but the judge did not grant the petition.
Private school principal charged with alleged embezzlement, wage theft, tax evasionFebruary 2, 2026 2:39 pm