Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 - 2286 IKEA Continued Meeting Page 1 of 16 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: November 8, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Adjourned Deliberations on IKEA Retail Center Project (PLPA-2016- 00016) Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: After taking testimony and closing the public hearing on October 16, 2018, the City Council adjourned its deliberations on the IKEA Retail Center project (branded as “The Glen at Dublin”) to November 8, 2018. The proposed project is comprised of up to 410,000 square feet of commercial uses, consisting of a 317,000 square foot IKEA store and 93,000 square foot retail center on the 27.45-acre parcel. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792, and a certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. This report includes answers to questions the City Council asked be clarified as part of their request to hold adjourned deliberations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deliberate and take the following actions: a) Adopt a Resolution certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for the IKEA Retail Center project; b) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map and approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; and c) Adopt a Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map for the IKEA Retail Center project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: All costs associated with processing the application will be borne by the Applicant. Based on a fiscal impact report prepared by Keyser Marston on behalf of the City, it is anticipated that the project would generate a total of $1.9 million annually to the City’s General Fund in the form of sales tax, property tax, and other revenues. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Page 2 of 16 On October 16, 2018, the City Cou ncil held a public hearing to consider the proposed project. A copy of the staff report for the October 16, 2018 meeting is included as Attachment 1. At the meeting, the City Council received presentations by Staff and the Applicant, considered public comment and closed the public hearing. The Council requested Staff provide additional information needed and adjourned the meeting and its deliberations to November 8, 2018. This staff report provides responses to the City Council’s request for additional information. LEGAL ISSUES Initiative/Referendum Process Mayor Haubert requested additional information about the referendum and initiative process and how they might apply to the project. California law gives the City’s voters the right to propose both referenda and initiatives. A referendum is a ballot measure in which the voters are asked to either approve or disapprove legislation previously adopted by the City Council. An initiative is a ballot measure in which the voters are asked to approve legislation. Although initiatives are ordinarily initiated by voter petition, state election law gives the City Council the authority to propose measures to the voters. (Elect. Code, § 9222.) The voters’ initiative and referendum power is limited to certain “leg islative acts,” and it does not extend to “administrative acts.” Legislative acts generally involve the formulation of rules to be applied in future cases and include things like ordinances and general plan amendments. Administrative acts involve the application of existing rules to a specific situation, such as a site development review approval or a tentative map. The approval of the IKEA project includes a legislative act and administrative acts. The legislative act is the Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The administrative acts include a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. Referendum Process If the City Council approves the project, opponents of the project could attempt to gathe r signatures to have a referendum election on the ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezone. A successful referendum petition must be signed by 10 percent of the City’s registered voters and must be submitted to the City Clerk within 30 days of the ordinance’s attestation by the City Clerk (which usually takes place the day of or day after the Council meeting) (Elect. Code, § 9237.) The City Clerk then determines whether the petition is signed by the required number of voters. If so, the City Cle rk presents it at City Council’s next regular meeting. The City Council must either repeal the ordinance or submit it to the voters. Assuming that the City Council acted to approve the project on November 20, 2018, and a successful referendum petition was submitted, the earliest, realistic election date for the City Council to call the election is on the established election date of November 5, 2019. In order to make the March 5, 2019 established election date, the petition would Page 3 of 16 need to be certified to the City Council at the December 4, 2018 meeting, which would entail signature gathering and certification occurring in a 14-day period (a near impossibility). The City Council could also call a special election on another date, but, doing so would be much more costly than consolidating with another election. As indicated below, the costs will vary depending on whether the elect ion is consolidated with a countywide election. Whether consolidation is an option is not known presently, because it depends on whether other local cities or districts call for an election on the same date. Initiative Process If the City Council chose to place the PD ordinance on the ballot as a City Council - initiated measure at its November 20, 2018 meeting, the election could be h eld on the next established election date of March 5, 2019 or as a special election on a date after February 17, 2019. Again, the costs vary whether the election can be consolidated with other local elections. Election Costs Referenda and initiatives of this kind cannot be all-mailed ballot elections. (Elect. Code, § 4000.) The estimated costs of either a referendum or an initiative election would be as follows: Countywide Consolidated $4-6 per voter $86,680-$130,020 Standalone Special Election $12-$15 per voter $269,040-$325,050 IKEA property rights and potential constitutional takings claims The staff reports on the project for the October 16 and August 21 City Council meetings discussed the potential for IKEA to assert “takings” claims under the fed eral and state constitutions were the City to disapprove the project and future projects. The agenda reports expressed the view that: 1. The City Council had various grounds for rejecting IKEA’s current project without incurring liability, given that the project’s size is larger than allowed under the current zoning. 2. Were the current project disapproved, IKEA would likely propose a standalone IKEA project (the “replacement project”) of a size allowed in the current zoning. 3. Such a replacement project, if IKEA chooses to pursue it, has a potential to create liability for the City if disapproved. IKEA submitted a letter to the City Attorney on October 10, 2018 expressing IKEA’s “intentions and resolve” to pursue a replacement project if the current o ne is disapproved and to “zealously protect its property rights” under the state and federal constitutions. IKEA’s letter is consistent with the views expressed in the agenda reports. Page 4 of 16 The City Council requested that the City Attorney address the legal issues in greater detail, asking a number of specific questions related to the discussion in the agenda reports and IKEA’s letter. This section addresses each of those questions. Constitutional “takings” law principles and standards In order to prevail on a “takings” claim, a plaintiff must prove that his or her property was taken for “public use” without just compensation in violation of section 19, article I of the California Constitution or the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. While most “takings” involve the government actually seizing a property owner’s land, the courts have also recognized that the regulation of property that “goes too far” may affect a taking of that property. (Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997) 16 Cal.4th 761, 733.) Those so-called “regulatory takings” limit the use of private property to such a degree that the regulation effectively deprives the property owners of economically reasonable use or value of their property (even if the regulation does not formally divest an owner of ownership or physically “take” any property). The first and often key hurdle that a takings plaintiff needs to overcome is to demonstrate that the claim is ready (ripe) for a court’s review. The property owner “bears a heavy burden of showing that a regulation as applied to a particular parcel is ripe for a taking claim” and must first exhaust all administrative remedies. (Milagra Ridge Partners, Ltd. v. City of Pacifica (1998) 62 Cal. App.4th 108, 117.) Practically, this means that a property owner challenging a governmental action “must establish that it has submitted at least one meaningful application for a development project which has been thoroughly rejected, and that it has prosecuted at least one meaningful application for a zoning variance, or something similar, which has been finally denied.” (Long Beach Equities, Inc. v. County of Ventura (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1032.) Denial of a single application, particularly if “grandiose” or beyond what is permitted under cu rrent regulations, would not set up a takings claim. Rather, a takings claim is not ripe until the city reaches a final determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted under the applicable regulations on the property at issue. (MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo (1986) 477 U.S. 340, 348.) Assuming that a takings plaintiff meets the threshold for ripeness, the second hurdle is to demonstrate that the regulation of the property goes too far. Determining whether a taking has occurred involves an “essentially ad hoc” inquiry. (Kavanau, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 774, citing Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 124.) The United States Supreme Court has observed that in resolving claims based on land use regulations, “no precise rule determines when property has been taken” but the “question necessarily requires a weighing of public and private interests.” (Agins v. Tiburon (1980) 447 U.S. 255, abrogated on other grounds by Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528.) Whether a regulation goes “too far” is tested under what have been called the “Penn Central factors.” In Kavanau, the California Supreme Court identified three primary factors to be considered in determining whether there has been a denial of economically viable use of property: “(1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment -backed Page 5 of 16 expectations; and (3) the character of the governmental action.” (Kavanau, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 775, citing Penn Central, supra, 438 U.S. at p. 124.) In addition to the aforementioned factors, subsequent cases, as well as a close reading of Penn Central, indicate a range of other factors that might be relevant to a t akings claim. (Id. at p. 776.) The Kavanau court listed ten additional, nonexclusive factors that might be relevant. (Ibid.) These factors include whether the regulation permits the property owner to profit and to obtain a reasonable return on its investment, whether the regulation provides the property owner benefits or rights that mitigate whatever financial burdens the law has imposed, and whether the regulation prevents the “best use” of the land. (Ibid.) The factors are only relevant “as appropriate to the facts of the case [the court] is considering,” meaning that the analysis will change depending the particular nature of the land at issue and the specific governmental regulations being challenged. (Id. at pp. 776, 781.) History of the general plan and specific designation and zoning for the IKEA site In the original Eastern Dublin planning effort, which included the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and an associated general plan amendment, the City designated IKEA’s property for Campus Office development. That designation allows for typical office uses and ancillary retail. In 2001, the City Council approved Commerce One’s application for an approximately 780,000 square foot campus, which Commerce One abandoned later that year. In 2004, the City changed the land use designation to General Commercial. The City made this change in response to an application from IKEA. IKEA proposed an IKEA store, a retail center, and related improvements on the 27.55 -acre site. The City Council approved various entitlements for the project, including General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments changing the land use designations from Campus Office to General Commercial and rezoning the site to PD -Planned Development and adopting related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans. The original IKEA project included a 317,000-square-foot IKEA building (which is the same size as the currently proposed IKEA store) and 137,000 square feet of associated retail, for a total of 454,000 square feet. The developer began the infrastructure improvements for the project, but the City received notification in 2006 that the IKEA project was no longer moving forward. The General Commercial land use designation is the standard for retail uses under both the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. For example, Hacienda Crossing and Fallon Gateway are both designated General Commercial. The designations allow a floor area ratio of between 0.20 and 0.60, which equates on the IKEA site to be between approximately 240,000 and 715,000 square feet. The General Commercial designations specifically allow both “community-serving” and “regionally oriented retail uses,” with regional uses defined as “high volume retail uses such as discount centers, promotional centers, home improvement centers, furniture outlets, and auto malls.” In 2008, the City considered a new General Commercial project and amended the zoning for the site to accommodate the project. The new property owner, Blake Hunt Ventures, submitted an application to construct a 305,000-square-foot retail commercial Page 6 of 16 shopping center on the same 27.446 acres of land as the prior IKEA site approval. The proposed project was smaller than the original IKEA project. It consisted of 270,000 square feet of retail uses and 35,000 square feet of restaurant uses in a pedestrian - oriented outdoor center. In approving the project, the City Council adopted the Stage 1 and Stage 2 zoning for the 2008 project that remains in effect today. The developer did not pursue the project, presumably due to the state of the economy following 2008. In 2015, the City Council rejected a revised proposal from the then -owner of the property. The applicant proposed a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial to Mixed Use, in order to facilitate a project consisting of 37,000 square feet of restaurants and retail, and 372 residential units. In rejecting the project, the City Council expressed various views. The views included a majority against allowing housing on the site and supporting vibrant commercial on the site. The relationship of the IKEA proposal to the existing land use regulations IKEA re-purchased the property in 2016 and submitted a new proposal. The proposed project is a commercial-retail center anchored by an IKEA store building of 317,000 square feet and an additional 93,000 square feet of lifestyle retail/restaurants. The project would require amendments to Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning but not to the General Plan or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As an exclusively retail use, it is consistent with the General Commercial land use designations of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Under the proposed project, the total square footage for the project is 410,000 square feet, which equates to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.36 (410,000 square feet over the 1,189,624 square foot site). The project’s FAR is consistent with the range of 0.20 to 0.60 FAR allowed in the General Commercial designations. The project requires revisions to the existing Stage 1 and Stage 2 development plans for two reasons. First, an amendment is necessary due to substantial differences between the layout and design of the 2008 project and the currently proposed project. Second, the proposed project would require that the maximum floor area ratio be increased from 0.26 to 0.34 and the maximum building area from 327,400 square feet to 410,000 square feet. Application of Takings Principles to the IKEA project and property The current project. IKEA could not make a viable takings case from the City Council’s denial of the current project. As noted above, the ripeness doctrine requires a property owner asserting a taking to demonstrate that it has sought approvals under the existing regulations and had the proposal “thoroughly rejected,” and then followed up with a subsequent request that is also rejected. There must be a city decision that reveals what, if any, type and intensity of development will be permitted on the site. IKEA will not be at such a point following a City Council denial of the current project. Furthermore, the current project seeks an approval for a density that exceeds the existing zoning for the site. The City could reject that proposal solely on that gr ound, and it would not be likely to face a viable takings claim. Page 7 of 16 The “replacement project.” If the current project were rejected, IKEA would have the opportunity to file another application for development. IKEA’s counsel indicated in his letter IKEA’s intent to “revert to the site’s existing entitlements.” Staff assumes he means that IKEA would propose a standalone, surfaced -parked IKEA store of no more than 305,000 square feet, which is the maximum square footage allowed under the existing zoning. The City Attorney believes that IKEA would have to file and have such a replacement project rejected before it would have a chance of establishing a viable takings claim under the ripeness doctrine. Viable for this purpose means a claim that could survive a motion to dismiss, which would allow for discovery and potentially get the case to a jury. In the case of the IKEA property, the history outlined may allow IKEA to establish that it had, when it purchased the property, distinct investment-backed expectations to be able to develop a general commercial project consistent with the general plan designation and at least the level of development allowed under the existing zoning. The facts and circumstances that would justify that point of view are that: 1. The site was formerly designed Campus Office, and the City re -designated it to the current land use designation of General Commercial. 2. The City previously approved two General Commercial projects, including one that included an identically sized IKEA store and more associated retail than the current project. 3. The City subsequently rejected a proposal to change the General Plan to allow a mixed-use project (residential and commercial). The stated rationales for that rejection included a preference for commercial over residential. All of these actions prior to the IKEA’s acquisition of the property could potentially support a finding that IKEA had reasonable and distinct investment -backed expectations in its ability to pursue a retail development of the site along the lines of what IKEA would propose in the replacement project. It seems plausible that a jury would agree that IKEA could have reasonably relied upon those facts and circumstances in purchasing the property and that those expectations would have been reflected in the price it paid for the property. The Fourth District Court of Appeal found a taking on similar facts. (See Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1256.) There, the property owner had purchased the property in 1980, when the property was designated to allow 4 residential units per acre. (Id. at p. 1260.) Consistent with that designation, the City approved a 4-unit subdivision in 1983. (Ibid.) In 1996, the City re-designated the property to a land use that allowed 1 unit per 20 acres. (Id. at p. 1261.) In 2007, the City denied the property owner’s application for a general plan amendment that would have allowed it to build a four-unit project. (Id. at p. 1262.) The court found that the 1996 re-designation “wholly undermined” the property owner’s “investment -backed Page 8 of 16 expectations” when the property was purchased in 1980, an expectation that was “emphasize[d]” by the City’s 1983 approval of a project similar to the one that was denied in 2007. (Id. at p. 1273.) The facts are perhaps even stronger in IKEA’s case since the City approved two similar retail projects, including an IKEA project, prior to IKEA’s purchase of the property. Ultimately, takings cases are extremely fact-specific and decided on an ad-hoc basis, which makes any legal opinion inherently uncertain, particularly at this early stage. The outcome of a takings case would be highly dependent on the future actions of the City and IKEA on the replacement project. It would be impo ssible for any lawyer to predict the outcome of such a case with any level of certainty before those events have occurred. Thus, the October 16 agenda report concluded that IKEA “could make a viable [takings] case” and “could forcefully argue” that it had reasonable investment- backed expectations when it purchased the site. Similarly, it stated that the City Council would “likely find it more difficult” to disapprove the replacement project without “incurring liability.” These statements reflect the view t hat IKEA may have a viable claim that would be very costly for the City to defend and could potentially lead to financial liability, but it does not reflect the view that the City would lose a lawsuit on such a claim. The City may be able to develop reasonable bases for disapproval of the replacement project that would demonstrate a legitimate public purpose to survive scrutiny under the takings clauses. For example, the City might express a general policy preference for smaller-format, multiple-user lifestyle retail versus the replacement project’s larger- format, single-user retail. Such a preference is consistent with the existing zoning approved with the 2008 project, which includes a site plan that shows several retail buildings, none of which are larger than 50,000 square feet. However, the existing zoning does not explicitly state a preference for smaller format retail and does not specifically single users. In response, IKEA is likely to argue that it was reasonable for it to have an expectation of the ability to pursue a project with large-format retail for various reasons. For example, it could point to the lack of any express language in the ordinance supporting the view that the zoning only allows smaller format retail. In addition, it could point to the fact that the City had previously approved a project on the site that included a large format retailer. In support of its position, IKEA might be able to demonstrate that a smaller-format project is economically infeasible—given retail saturation in the area—without a large format retail anchor, along the lines of the current project. Such a showing would likely require the City, in order to avoid liability, to either interpret the existing zoning or adopt new Planned Development zoning to allow a feasible General Commercial project. Similarly, the City might be able to avoid the claim by changing the General Plan land - use designation to another land-use designation that results in a similar land value. For example, a re-designation to a residential land-use designation might result in a land value that both prevents IKEA from proposing an IKEA project and from asserting a takings claim. Specifically, IKEA might not be able to demonstrate any economic damage arising from the City’s actions, assuming that the economic impact of the re- designation is neutral or positive. Staff believes that may a re -designation to Campus Page 9 of 16 Office, however, may have a negative impact on the property value, because Campus Office land values have tended to be much lower than General Commercial and residential designations. Evidence demonstrating a negative impact on the property value may provide grounds for IKEA to assert economic damages from such a re - designation. Although most general plan and specific amendments have been initiated by property-owner applicants, the City Council can request staff to initiate them at any time, subject to Brown Act requirements. Such amendments require noticed public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council and could requ ire significant environmental review, depending upon the scope and impacts of the changes. On the other side of things, IKEA is likely to carefully tailor the replacement project to conform to the policies and standards in the General Plan, Eastern Dubli n Specific Plan, and existing zoning. In other words, it will design the replacement project to “give the City what it said it wanted.” IKEA is likely to focus on the fact that the General Commercial designation’s authorization of “regionally oriented . . . high volume” retail. (Indeed, it may “try again” if the replacement project is rejected in order to strengthen its case, using the basis for the rejection to further tailor the project to the City’s specifications.) IKEA will also point to City policie s that are supportive of the project, such as Policy 4-12 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which encourages regional retail to be located south of Dublin Boulevard and adjacent to freeway interchanges —as the IKEA project is—so as to limit traffic impacts on the rest of eastern Dublin. The bottom line is that a denial of the replacement project has the strong potential to result in a viable takings claim from IKEA. At the very least, such a claim is likely to lead to expensive litigation. In the worst-case scenario, it could lead in addition to a significant damages award against the City, given the property’s nearly $50,000,000 purchase price in February 2016. The City will of course have multiple opportunities to avoid such an outcome in the course of its further actions on the IKEA’s applications. Comparison with the UDR lawsuit The City Council requested that staff contrast a potential claim from IKEA with the lawsuit the City recently settled with Ashton at Dublin Station LLC, a subsidiary of U DR, Inc. Earlier this year, the City rejected the Ashton at Dublin Station project, a residential apartment project adjacent to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. UDR sued alleging that the City’s actions violated UDR’s rights under a development agreeme nt applicable to the property and the Housing Accountability Act. The cases are similar in that they both had or have the potential to result in lengthy and expensive litigation, with substantial discovery and motion practice. The key differences are best illustrated by the worst-case scenario in each case. The litigation with UDR involved state statutory and development agreement claims that, if successful, would have allowed for the court to require approval of the project. Thus, the worst- case scenario of an unfavorable court decision in the UDR case was that the City could have been forced to approve the project and pay UDR’s attorneys’ fees; the possibility of any award of damages was very remote. By contrast, the worst -case scenario in a takings lawsuit brought by IKEA would be the court could award monetary Page 10 of 16 damages against the City, reflecting the diminution in value resulting from the City’s action. Given the purchase price of nearly $50,000,000, the award could be substantial. Application of Superstore Ordinance Councilmember Goel asked about the relationship of this project to the City’s big box ordinance. The agenda reports for the October 16 and August 21 City Council meetings discussed the City’s Superstore ordinance, which prohibits s tores that exceed 170,000 square feet and also devote at least 10% of its sales floor to the sale of non -taxable merchandise. Staff understands that IKEA will devote less than 10 percent of the total floor sales area to the sale of non-taxable food for human consumption, and the project, if approved, will be conditioned to ensure compliance with this criterion. Application of Fair share Payments for Safety Impacts At the October 16, 2018 meeting, Councilmember Goel asked whether the City can require the developer to contribute a “fair share component” should it be determined in the future that the Project impacts public safety. Historically, the City has looked at whether development has a detrimental impact on services in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area as a whole, and not on a project by project basis. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has a policy that “new development in the Specific Plan area should pay the full cost of infrastructure needed to service the area and should fund the costs of mitigating adverse project impacts of the City’s existing infrastructure and services.” Currently, there are no conditions proposed that would require the developer to pay any share of increased public safety costs, and staff has indicated that the incremental costs would be covered by the incremental revenues (sales and property taxes) arising from the project. As a general rule, California courts have long required a local agency imposing a requirement to pay a fee to demonstrate a nexus between the fee and the impacts of development. (See e.g. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n (1987) 483 US 825,834; Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 US 374.) A developer can challenge an ad hoc monetary exaction by arguing that there is no “rough proportionality” between the government’s demand and the impacts of the development. Although there is no “set formula” for analyzing whether the Nollan/Dolan nexus requirements have been met, the court conducts an ad hoc factual inquiry into the nexus between the subject property interests served by the exaction and the extent to which the amount of the exaction is proportional to the burden imposed by the proposed use. (See e.g San Marcos v. Loma San Marcos LLC (2015) 234 CA.4th 1045, 1060) (impact fees were reasonably-related and roughly proportional to the impact of the project.) Note that substantive and procedural due process prerequisites for the imposition or increase of certain fees have been codified in the Mitigation Fee Act, stating that in any action imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project, the local agency shall determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. (Gov’t C ode, §66001(b).) Page 11 of 16 The record does not contain facts demonstrating a nexus between any fee and the need for public services. The Supplemental EIR reviewed existing public services and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area including an assessment of fire protection, emergency medical services, and law enforcement. It specifically concluded that “there were no potentially significant impacts identified for Public Services and Utilities and therefore no mitigations were required.” (City of Dublin-IKEA Supplemental EIR Section 3.5) Although the EIR estimates some increase in calls for service as a result of the Project, Dublin Police Services and the Fire Department both anticipate that the project can be served with existing resources. The EIR specifically concludes that the project “would not create the need to construct new or expand existing fire protection or emergency medical services facilities nor would it create a need for new or expanded law enforcement facilities. (Id.) Similarly, a Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed IKEA in Dublin, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. for IKEA, concluded that tax revenues generated by the Project will significantly exceed costs associated with providing City services to the new development and its employees. As proposed, the abovementioned study estimated that the Project would result in an annual net fiscal benefit of $1.8 million to the City’s General Fund. (Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed IKEA in Dublin, California, August 22, 2017, p. 2) In addition, the IKEA study nets out the purported costs of serving the development from the revenues (including for fire and police) The study estimates incremental costs by attributing a portion of the existing police and fire budgets to the project based on the estimated increase in service population. Attributing costs to the project in this way, despite the fact that the project can be served by existing resources, reduces the revenues from the pr oject by $116,663.88, annually A City commissioned study prepared by Keyser Marston Associates made a similar conclusion, estimating that the Project would generate ongoing tax revenues to the City of Dublin totally about $1.85 million per year. (Tax Revenues to the City of Dublin to be generated by the Proposed IKEA Retail Center , October 2018, p. 3). The City’s study did not attempt to estimate Project costs. It should be noted that IKEA will be required to develop a security plan for the overall center, with the approval of the Chief of Police, in an effort to ensure that enhanced measures are in place to minimize the number of calls for service to Dublin Police Services. This plan will address, among other things, the possibility of using of private security at the IKEA store. At the October 16, 2018 Council meeting, IKEA representatives also expressed a willingness to fund traffic control officers for the Project opening, etc. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & THE CEQA PROCESS Significant and Unavoidable / Statement of Overriding Considerations Councilmember Goel requested information about the process under CEQA for addressing significant and unavoidable impacts. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must include proposed mitigation measures, where feasible, that are designed to Page 12 of 16 minimize the project’s significant environmental impact by reducing or avoiding them. As such, an EIR must describe any significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. The EIR must describe both 1) significant effects that cannot be mitigated and 2) effects that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. These effects are referred to as “significant and unavoidable impacts.” When the City approves a project with significant environmental effects that will not be avoided or substantially lessened, it must adopt a statement disclosing that because of the project’s overriding benefits, it is approving the project despite the environmental harm. The City is also required to set forth the reasons for its actions, based on the final environmental document and other information in the record. Reflecting case law, the CEQA Guidelines require that the statement of overriding considerations be supported by substantial evidence in the record of the City’s proceedings. A “statement of overriding considerations” indicates that even though a project would result in one or more unavoidable adverse impacts, specific economic, social or other stated benefits are sufficient to warrant project approval. A statement of overriding considerations often expresses the “large, more general reasons for approving the project, such as the need to create new jobs, provide housing, generate taxes ,and the like.” (Concerned Citizens of S. Cent. L.A. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1994) 24 CA.4th 826, 847.) The findings regarding significant impacts and mitigation measures are included as Attachment 5; findings concerning infeasibility of alternatives and potential additional mitigation measures included as Attachment 6 and the Statement of Overriding Considerations included as Attachment 7. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION Impacts to Livability Councilmember Goel asked how the project would impact the quality of life (livability) of Dublin residents. The majority of traffic accessing the project site will do so via I-580 and the Hacienda Drive interchange minimizing the impact to other areas of Dublin. Based on the transportation analysis, traffic on Dublin Boulevard is anticipated to increase as follows during the opening year: • Weekday mornings (peak hour between 7 and 9 a.m.) o East of Hacienda Drive – About 40 more vehicles in the peak direction (WB) or about 3% increase o West of Hacienda Drive – About 50 more vehicles in the peak direction (WB) or about 3% increase • Weekday evenings (peak hour between 4 and 7 p.m.) o East of Hacienda Drive – About 55 more vehicles in the peak direction (EB) or about 2% increase o West of Hacienda Drive – About 125 more vehicles in the peak direction (EB) or about 5% increase • Saturday (peak hour between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m.) Page 13 of 16 o East of Hacienda Drive – About 115 more vehicles in the peak direction (WB) or about 6% increase o West of Hacienda Drive – About 235 more vehicles in the peak direction (WB) or about 10% increase With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures including adaptive signal systems, the traffic volumes added to Dublin Boulevard are not anticipated to significantly increase the travel time between East Dublin and West Dublin. Finally, the PM peak hour traffic volumes on I-580 during the opening year are estimated to increase by about 110 vehicles (1.4% increase) in the eastbound direction and 145 (2.7% increase) in the westbound direction. These increases in freeway volume are unlikely to be noticed by the fre eway motorists. One Hour Study vs Shorter Study Councilmember Goel asked why the traffic analysis used a one-hour segments to measure traffic impacts rather than 15-minute segments, which might show greater impacts. The City uses the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology to calculate intersection delay for the level of service (LOS) calculations. This methodology applies a peak hour factor (PHF) to the peak hour traffic volumes to represent 15 -minute volumes. Therefore, the methodology and findings reported in the IKEA EIR are representative of the worst 15-minute period during the hour. Truck Delivery Route Councilmember Goel requested information on what routes will be taken by delivery trucks to service the IKEA store. Deliveries will be m ade to the rear of the store. The loading docks are accessed from a one -way entry off of Arnold Road. Truck egress is also via Arnold Road. The anticipated route for the delivery trucks to the IKEA loading area off Arnold Road would be from I -580 to Hacienda Drive to Martinelli Way to Arnold Road. The trucks would enter the project site from the rear of the IKEA building directly to the delivery docks. AESTHETICS, COLOR & SIGNAGE Project Signage Councilmember Goel requested additional information abo ut the Project’s proposed signage. The Dublin Municipal Code requires that new signage for a development of this size (four or more acres, 40,000 square feet or larger or buildings more than two stories high) are subject to a Master Sign Program. Master S ign Programs are processed through a Site Development Review Permit reviewed and approved by the Community Page 14 of 16 Development Director. As part of this process, a public notice is mailed notifying the public of a pending decision. Typically, on projects of this size, the Master Sign Program/Site Development Review Permit is processed after the other entitlements are obtained. Any signs shown in the Project Plans are for illustrative purposes only and the full details of the sign sizes, location, content, materials, and construction would be shown in the separate sign package. Condition of Approval #25 of the Site Development Review Permit Resolution (Attachment 10) confirms this requirement. The Applicant has not submitted a Master Sign Program/Site Development Review Permit application, and therefore the size, design or location of the proposed signage is not known. With that said, during the Planning Commission meetings for the project, several comments were made with regard to the signage shown for the IKEA b uilding in the project renderings. Comments such as the signs are overpowering, and no banners or pictures should be allowed on the outside of the building were noted. Staff will consider these comments during review of the Master Sign Program. Consistency of the Blue/Yellow Building with General Plan Policies Councilmember Goel asked about the predominantly blue and yellow IKEA building’s consistency with General Plan policies. Bold colors on retail development are not unusual in Eastern Dublin. Se veral large commercial storefronts employ some combination of blue and yellow in the project vicinity: Best Buy in Hacienda Crossings (across the street from the IKEA Retail Center Project site) and Dublin Chevrolet. Moreover, Fallon Gateway features red colored buildings associated with Target and BJ’s Brewhouse, Persimmon Place features orange and peach colored buildings, and Hacienda Crossings features buildings of numerous colors (terra cotta, red, white, peach, blue, yellow, etc.). Councilmember Goel requested additional information on what proportion of the exterior of retail buildings in the City include bold colors. The following is an approximation based on the field observation and previous project plans. The Best Buy located in Hacienda Crossings is covered by roughly 50% with blue and yellow along the front façade only. The other sides of the building are a neutral brown color. The Target in Fallon Gateway is colored over 75% in a dark red color on all sides of the three -sided building. The Chevrolet dealership is comprised of a bright blue color framing the main entry. This blue color covers approximately 25% blue of front façade only. IKEA agreed to reduce the amount of blue and yellow following the workshops with the City Council and Planning Commission by approximately 75%. The blue and yellow colors were replaced with either gray siding, metal screening for the stairs or glazing resulting in approximately 25% of the exterior building covered in blue or yellow. In summary, Dublin currently has a number of prominent retail buildings that employ a variety of colors (including within the same retail node) and IKEA’s blue and yellow scheme would be in visual context with other retail nodes along the I-580 corridor. Page 15 of 16 NOISE IMPACTS TO RESIDENTIAL Councilmember Goel requested additional information about the potential for noise from deliveries to have impacts on residences in the Transit Center. The City’s Municipal Code contains a performance standard that addresses noise levels associated with the operation of mechanical equipment; however, this standard does not address noise levels associated with other types of stationary noise sources. Chapter 5.28 (Noise Ordinance) does not allow a person to make noise in a way that disturbs or injures or endangers the health, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. This fairly subjective criteria is based on the following standards: 1. The level, intensity, character and duration of the noise; 2. The level, intensity and character of background noise, if any; 3. The time when and the place and zoning district where the noise occurred; 4. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; and 5. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant. The proposed project would include new stationary noise sources such as delivery truck loading and unloading activities. The Draft SEIR analyzed the noise impacts of the project from construction through operation, including the delivery of goods via large trucks. The proposed project would result in approximately 5 - 7 delivery trucks that would access the site daily. Main deliveries would typically occur during non -public hours. Noise from truck deliveries and loading and unloading acti vities are considered to be a stationary noise. A stationary noise is any entity in a fixed location that emits noise. Noise generated from the use of motor vehicles over public roads is preempted from local regulation and therefore was not analyzed in the Draft SEIR. Existing delivery truck loading/unloading activities in the project vicinity (Persimmon Place, Hacienda Crossing) typically result in maximum noise levels from 75 dBA to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The loading areas for these commercial shopping centers are located near Dublin Boulevard and situated closer to residential uses than the proposed project site. The closest residential use to the project site is the multi-family residential homes located more than 800 feet to the northeast of the project site located at the northeast intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. The closest residential land uses to the west of the project site are located at Martinelli Way and Campus Drive, more than 860 feet from the project’s nearest boundary. The closest residential use would be located more than 1,000 feet from the nearest loading dock where loading and unloading activities would take place. At this distance, noise levels generated by truck loading and unloading activities would range up to 5 9 dBA Lmax. The noise levels generated by truck loading and unloading activities would not exceed or increase existing ambient noise levels and therefore the Draft SEIR found the impact to be less than significant. CONCLUSION: Page 16 of 16 The recommendation is to 1) Adopt a Resolution certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for the IKEA Retail Center project (Attachments 2 – 8); 2) W aive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map and approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 9); and 3) Adopt a Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map for the IKEA Retail Center project (Att achments 10- 12). NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A public notice is not required as this item was continued from the October 16, 2018 meeting. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated October 16, 2018 without Attachments 2. Resolution Adopting the Environmental Impact Report 3. Exhibit A to Attachment 2 - IKEA Retail Center Draft SEIR 4. Exhibit B to Attachment 2 - IKEA Retail Center Final SEIR 5. Exhibit C to Attachment 2 - Findings Mitigation Measures 6. Exhibit D to Attachment 2 - Findings Alternatives 7. Exhibit E to Attachment 2 - Statement of Overriding Considerations 8. Exhibit F to Attachment 2 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9. Ordinance Adopting Planned Development Zoning 10. Resolution Approving SDR VTM 11. Exhibit A to Attachment 10 - Project Plans 12. Exhibit B to Attachment 10 - Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 13. Public Comment STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: IKEA Retail Center (PLPA-2016-00016) Prepared by: Amy Million, Principal Planner 1=r14x0111I1IV1=--illI,,I,IT-11IWO The City Council will consider the IKEA Retail Center project (branded as "The Glen at Dublin"). The proposed project is comprised of up to 410,000 square feet of commercial uses, consisting of a 317,000 square foot IKEA store and 93,000 square foot retail center on the 27.45-acre parcel. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792, and a certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing, deliberate and take the following actions: ay Adopt a Resolution certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for the IKEA Retail Center project; b) Waive the reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map and approving a Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; and c) Adopt a Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map for the IKEA Retail Center project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: All costs associated with processing the application will be borne by the Applicant. Based on a fiscal impact report prepared by Keyser Marston on behalf of the City, it is anticipated that the project would generate an additional $1.765 million annually to the City's General Fund in the form of sales tax, property tax, and other revenues. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background Page 1 of 21 The subject 27.45-acre parcel is located south of Martinelli Way between Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road as shown in Figure 1 below. The property currently has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial, which accommodates a range of regional and community -serving retail, service, and office uses. Figure 1. 'Project Location The project site is currently vacant except for a DSRSD water turnout structure located at the southwest corner of the site and a water fluoridization structure located immediately adjacent to the turnout. The site is generally flat with localized high areas and stockpile areas resulting from the site -clearance and clean-up activities. When the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted in 1995, the site was designated Campus Office. Commerce One received entitlements to build a corporate campus on the site and abandoned those plans in 2001. IKEA subsequently acquired the site, and, in 2004, the City Council approved the development of a 317,000 square foot IKEA retail store and a 137,000 square foot "lifestyle center" by Blake Hunt Ventures on the subject parcel (total of 454,000 square feet). The approvals included General Plan and Specific Plan amendments changing the land use designation to General Commercial. In late 2006, IKEA withdrew its plans to build a store in Dublin, and Blake Hunt Ventures acquired the IKEA portion of the project site to enlarge and redesign their commercial shopping center on the entire 27.45 acres. In 2008, the City Council approved an application by Blake Hunt Ventures to construct a 327,400 square foot commercial center referred to as "The Green on Park Place." The project was ultimately impacted by the Great Recession and did not move forward. Subsequently, the City Council considered a General Plan Amendment application to change the General Commercial designation to mixed use. In February 2013 the City Page 2 of 21 Council directed Staff to study a mixed -use development proposal for 372 residential units and 37,000 square feet of restaurant uses on the site ("The Green"). The City Council denied the project in April 21, 2015. Following that action, the property owner marketed the property, and IKEA decided to acquire the property (again) thereafter. The current General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is General Commercial which would allow between 239,144 and 717,433 square feet of development (floor area ratio of 0.20-0.60). The current zoning for the parcel is Planned Development (Ord. No. 34-08) approved for "The Green on Park Place" project. Among other things, the zoning limits the development to 327,400 square feet (maximum floor area ratio of 0.27) with heights of up to 55 feet. Proposed Project The Applicant proposes to construct an IKEA retail store and adjacent retail center on the project site. The proposed IKEA Retail Center project, branded as "The Glen at Dublin", consists of up to 410,000 square feet of commercial uses. Accordingly, IKEA has applied for the following land use entitlements: • Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan to establish zoning uses and development standards; • Site Development Review requesting approval of the site layout and architecture; • Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the site into two parcels; and • Certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. In response to a question raised during the August 21, 2018 City Council study session on the proposed project, the project was modified to reduce the size of the IKEA store from 339,099 square feet to 317,000 square feet. Refer to attached letter from IKEA (Attachment 1). IKEA's proposal is to eliminate approximately 22,099 square feet from the warehouse area and therefore reduce the overall size of the building to approximately 317,000 square feet. This is achieved by pulling in one side of the building in the southern end, and thereby shortening the length of the building by approximately 60 feet. This reduction will have no effect on the overall design or function of the building or the site, and the only changes are: (i) a reduction of the warehouse area where goods are stored; and (ii) an increase in open space on the south side. The Planning Commission considered this modification at their September 11, 2018 Study Session and September 25, 2018 Public Hearing for the Project. IKEA initially proposed that the square footage associated with the reduced size of the IKEA store would be available for future development on the retail center. Based on feedback received at the Planning Commission, IKEA requested that the Planned Development ordinance be revised to reduce the maximum square footage to reflect the proposed SDR. In other words, the zoning would prohibit development that exceeds the square footage being approved with the project. Page 3 of 21 On October 4, 2018, IKEA submitted a letter which further refined their project in response to the Planning Commission meeting on September 25, 2018 where several Commissioners requested that the proposed Planned Development be modified to be consistent with the size of the retail center as shown in the Site Development Review Permit and project plans. The letter, included as Attachment 2, revises the maximum building area for Commercial Area 2 (retail center) from 115,099 square feet to 93,000 square feet. This revision is reflected in the draft Ordinance. With these amendments, the proposed request is for a 317,000 square foot IKEA building on Commercial Area 1 and a 93,000 square foot retail center on Commercial Area 2 for a total of 410,000 square feet of commercial uses. ANALYSIS: Planned Development Rezone The application includes a Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. The Planned Development Rezoning for the property will establish the detailed Development Plan (site plan) for the site (See Figure 2 below), the specific uses that are permitted by right, conditionally permitted, and prohibited, the overall development density and intensity (e.g. floor area ratio, building heights) for the site, and design guidelines for the two commercial areas (e.g. IKEA store and the retail center as further described below). IKEA is proposing that the Planned Development Zoning District allow for a variety of retail and service uses to accommodate the proposed project. The draft Ordinance providing the details of the proposed zoning is included as Attachment 3. Page 4 of 21 Figure 2. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan IKEA — Commercial Area ?: The western half of the project site "Commercial Area 1" is proposed for an up to 317,000 square foot IKEA store above two floors of partially subterranean parking for approximately 1,026 parking spaces. Commercial Area 1 is connected to Commercial Area 2 through a large pedestrian plaza leading from the front entry to the IKEA store to the plaza area of the adjacent retail center. Retail Center — Commercial Area 2: The eastern half of the project site "Commercial Area 2" is proposed as a 93,000 square foot "lifestyle" retail center. According to the applicant the retail center would focus on the social and pedestrian experience and contain a mix of up -scale restaurants, retailers and related services. It is anticipated that approximately 58,000 square feet would be food -related uses, and any such uses above that amount would require the applicant to demonstrate, through a traffic study, that the trip generation would remain within the scope of trip generation analyzed in the E1R. The site plan contains multiple buildings that are oriented around a central plaza, encouraging a social and pedestrian friendly atmosphere. Enhanced landscape and hardscape treatments, including large specimen trees, manicured elements, site furniture and colored/textured paving, will be utilized. Three additional pad buildings are placed within the parking area along the perimeter of the parcel. Parking will also be provided around the perimeter. A total of approximately 568 parking spaces are provided on the eastern half of the project site. Page 5 of 21 Planned Development Requirements: Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose, and requirements of the Planned Development District. The Planned Development Ordinance contains requirements that ensure the project components will be developed as a cohesive and complementary project. The Development Plan establishes the following regulations for use of the subject property: permitted and conditionally permitted uses, development regulations, including setbacks, floor area ratio, height limits, and parking requirement, standards and design guidelines, site plan of the Project, and other requirements which regulate the improvement and maintenance of the property. An overview of the Planned Development Zoning District is provided below. Permitted, Conditional and Temporary Land Uses: The list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses is as provided in the Planned Development Zoning District for the project site (Attachment 3). The list is divided into Commercial Area 1 and 2. Both areas allow for a variety of commercial land uses, focusing on attracting quality retail and restaurant uses. Outdoor seating and dining will be an integral feature of the retail center due to its pedestrian -focused nature. The Planned Development Zoning District permits the establishment of outdoor dining areas. The Ordinance includes a threshold for the amount of restaurant uses allowed without additional traffic analysis. Also included in the permitted uses are retail kiosks and mobile food truck vendors. The goal of these uses is to further activate the center with alternative retail experiences. The ordinance addresses the potential to locate retail kiosks, both temporary and permanent, within the pedestrian plazas. These can be used temporarily for seasonal vendors or permanently for smaller businesses that do not need or want a full-size tenant space. In addition, the ordinance accommodates for mobile food trucks in the parking area. Mobile food truck events, which have become increasingly popular throughout the area, would be allowed with specified parameters. Other temporary uses such as farmers' markets and pumpkin patches are also included. Similar to the other commercial zoning districts in Dublin, the proposed conditional uses include animal sales and service, hotels, and outdoor storage among others. The details of the Planned Development Zoning District are provided in the draft Ordinance which is Attachment 3 to the Staff Report. Design Theme: According to the Applicant, the IKEA Retail Center project is the first of its projects to fully connect lifestyle shops and restaurants with an IKEA store. The architecture for the proposed project combines a variety of materials, textures and colors intended to provide visual interest and to complement its surroundings. Building materials will consist of a variety of colors, and textures to add richness to the wall planes. Materials include composite wood, Richlite (a composite paper product), stucco, metal, and masonry. Awnings, canopies, trellises, light fixtures, and landscaping all contribute to the layers of detail at the pedestrian level. Finish materials are shown in the project plans. Page 6 of 21 The central plaza, which connects to the front entrance of the IKEA store, provides a multi -functional outdoor space where people will gather and socialize. Buildings throughout the Project are no more than 35 feet in height and one story, except for the IKEA building which measures a maximum of 65 feet at its tallest point. The proposed maximum height of 35 feet for Commercial Area 2 allows for a variety of rooflines and architectural features for the one-story commercial buildings. The 65 feet accommodates the proposed IKEA building which has an average height of 61 feet. Most of the building measures 58'6" (blue and grey panels); however, the yellow panels at the front entry extend to 65 feet. The design of the Project is provided in more detail below (Site Development Review Permit) and completely illustrated by the proposed building elevations and landscape plans that are presented in the project plans. Site Development Review Permit A Site Development Review permit for the entire project site, including both the IKEA building and the retail center is included in the proposed application. The City Council resolution approving the Site Development Review Permit is included as Attachment 4. The following is a summary of the key components of the project associated with the Site Development Review. Overall Project Design: The project, as proposed, is designed to include a 317,000 square foot 1KEA store located on the westerly 13.65 acres of the 27-acre site and a 93,000 square foot lifestyle retail center on the easterly 13.66 acres. As previously stated, IKEA modified the proposed project to reduce the size of the IKEA store from 339,099 square feet to 317,000 square feet. This modification eliminates approximately 22,099 square feet from the warehouse area and will therefore reduce the overall size of the building to approximately 317,000 square feet. This change is not reflected in the project plans. This will be achieved by pulling in one side of the building in the southern end, and thereby shortening the length of the building by approximately 60 feet. This reduction will have no effect on the overall design or function of the building or the site, and the only changes are: (i) a reduction of the warehouse area where goods are stored; and (ii) an increase in open space on the south side. This modification to the project description is reflected in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment 3) and in the Site Development Review Permit Draft Resolution as Condition of Approval No. 18 (Attachment 4). The project is proposed to be constructed as one phase providing for build out of both areas concurrently. The project includes the construction of proposed buildings, associated parking, landscaping and frontage improvements along Arnold Road and Martinelli Way. Site Plan, Access, Circulation, and Parking: Page 7 of 21 As shown on the proposed site plan (Figure 3 below and Sheet SP-18 of the Project Plans, Attachment 5), the overall orientation of the project is inward to the pedestrian plaza, with main entry of the IKEA building facing the central plaza of the retail center. The retail center has five buildings surrounding the plaza with an additional pad building along Martinelli Way and a secondary area near the intersection of Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive formed by two buildings and a smaller plaza linking the development to the fronting public streets. s. uveraii site Tian Y nll In IHHHI IAA 4)i HHHHHN fl, I�f TOTAL UPPER LEVa PMKffiG 5OOSPACES I1111I Vfl ll� 379,899 SF ILLLIHHInf� f1ffl-M ll lfllll�,lfllllllf� �. •: 7 i} Ali O EL7vA a N ®LJG B I �i BLOC,G I BLDGH I i{ j i BLOC, F 9LDC3 E I L Primary vehicle access into the site will be provided from Martinelli Way at the existing intersection at Persimmon Place. The existing 3-way intersection will be improved into a full intersection creating the main driveway into the development shown as IKEA Place. Secondary access points are provided to the east on Martinelli Way, an the southern end of Arnold Road, and an exit only on Arnold Road near Martinelli Way. At the main vehicle access, visitors will enter the Project Site and then make a choice of turning right into the IKEA parking structure, turning left to the retail center, or continuing straight to the southern portion of the development where access to both the IKEA parking structure and the retail center's southern parking area. Once parked, IKEA visitors can access the IKEA store internally by stairs or elevator up to the main lobby. Visitors who made purchases requiring convenience loading would return to their vehicles and move them to customer loading spaces located within the parking structure. After loading, the customers could leave the site at the two egress points along Arnold Road or the main exit at Martinelli Way and IKEA Place. Additional large Page 8 of 21 vehicle loading is provided for customers on the south side of the store outside of the parking structure. IKEA truck loading and trash pickup will be separated from customer traffic and will be located on the western side of the IKEA building in the elevated loading dock, on the opposite side of the store from the main customer entry. The site plan shows a total of 1,643 parking spaces. Based on the mixture of retail and restaurant uses in the center, the minimum number of spaces required per the Dublin Zoning Ordinance is 1,639. The reduction to the size of the IKEA store would simultaneously reduce the number of required and provided parking spaces within the parking structure. For Commercial Area 1, the provided parking accommodates for the 8+ outdoor seating patios associated with the planned restaurant tenant spaces. Therefore, the Project has adequate amount of parking to meet the City's requirements. A multi -use Class 1 bike path is proposed along the eastern and southern edges of the project site. This trail would provide safe pedestrian and bicycle access through the project site as well as connection to the BART station and the Iron Horse Regional Trail. The project will also include a new bicycle lane and sidewalk along the east side of Arnold Way and a 14-foot wide sidewalk along the south side of Martinelli Way. Building DesignlArchifecture — IKEA: The design of the IKEA building utilizes many of the iconic IKEA features through simple rectilinear forms and a distinctive store entrance. The exterior colors are gray as well as the traditional blue and yellow, to match the colors of the flag of Sweden, the home of IKEA's original store. The building is four stories with two floors of retail above two floors of podium parking. The two floors of parking are partially subterranean. The building stands approximately 65 feet at its tallest point. The building is enhanced with bold geometry, and varying building materials such as composite metal panels, steel elements, and clear anodized glass and aluminum storefront, all of which are durable and of high quality. The renderings provided on Sheets A600-663 of the Project Plans demonstrate the exterior elevations, and Sheet A404 illustrates the location of the various colors and materials on the building elevations. A colors and materials board will be available at the City Council meeting for review and consideration. Page 9 of 21 Existing development along the 1-580 corridor in Dublin includes a variety of different building colors, materials, architectural styles and sizes. Several commercial buildings employ similar blue and yellow tones in the project vicinity including, Best Buy at Hacienda Crossings, and Dublin Chevrolet. Moreover, Fallon Gateway features red colored buildings associated with Target and BYs Brew House, Persimmon Place features orange and peach colored buildings, and Hacienda Crossings features buildings of numerous colors (terra cotta, red, white, peach, blue, yellow, etc.). In summary, Dublin currently has a number of prominent retail buildings that employ a variety of bold colors and designs. The proposed IKEA with its blue and yellow scheme would be in visual context with other retail nodes along the 1-580 corridor. Building DesignlRrchifecture — Retail Center: The architectural concept for the Retail Center is clean and contemporary referred by the Applicant as "Contemporary Casual". Contemporary Casual embodies the qualities of a strong relationship between the indoor and outdoor environments, reinforced through the use of earth tones, unique - materials and inviting, dynamic patio spaces. The project offers a variety of I contemporary building _ materials such as stone, _ wood, metal, architectural - concrete and cement plaster. The single -story - building forms are horizontally oriented with varying roof lines that create a unique design statement for the center while complementing the IKEA store and blending well with the surrounding development. The building forms are highlighted with functional Page 10 of 21 outdoor spaces where people can gather and socialize, with landscaping, outdoor seating, enhanced paving treatment, and other features to provide an appropriate urban scale for the development. A color and material palette has been provided that illustrates the variety of colors and textures for the buildings. A colors and materials board will be presented at the City Council meeting for review and consideration. Sustainability. All IKEA stores are centered around sustainable design principles, but the exact details vary from store to store. All new IKEA stores in the U.S. are designed at a minimum to meet the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standard; similarly, the proposed Dublin store will be designed to LEED-Silver, but possibly meet LEED-Gold. Gold scores are equivalent to the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method "Excellent," which includes important measures like energy efficiency in lighting and cooling. The proposed store will incorporate below store parking to reduce its heat island effect and is located very closely to mass transit hub where it will be part of a sustainable infrastructure system. The store will also have low flow water fixtures, bicycle storage, showers for co-workers, electric cars chargers, and an insulated thermally efficient building envelope. Additionally, photovoltaic solar will be employed to offset its carbon emissions, and also included significantly more glazing than other stores, thereby allowing for additional natural daylighting. For the lifestyle retail -restaurant center, the project is designed for compliance with the California Green Building Code Tier 1 requirements. Landscape Concept The landscape concept emphasizes the outdoor uses areas focusing on providing a variety of pedestrian experiences. Sheet L.1.1 most clearly illustrates the landscape for the project as a whole. The landscape emphasizes drought -tolerant, water -conserving plant selections throughout. The focus of the landscape plan is the project's central plaza which connects the IKEA store to the rest of the commercial center. At the west end of the plaza is the "IKEA Link" and the formal "Tulleries Alee" which serve as the Page 11 of 21 pedestrian connection between the retail center front entrance of the IKEA store. In the middle of the plaza is "The Lawn" that offers an open space with moveable furnishings maximizing flexibility and emphasizing social gathering. "The Grove" and "The Deck" are both located on the eastern end of the plaza. These areas are designed to function as an outdoor room with a more intimate feel providing another opportunity for lounging and gathering. Finally, the "Depot Plaza" located outside of the central plaza and adjacent to the pad buildings near Hacienda Drive provides a second plaza area. This plaza continues the pedestrian experience by providing a gathering space to connect the pad buildings with the central area of the center and a connection to the corner of Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive. The various materials and furnishings that will be employed in the plaza areas are shown on Sheet L2.1 and L2.2 of the Project Plans and the tree and plant palettes are shown on Sheets L3.2 and L3.3. In response to comments from the Planning Commission throughout the September 25, 2018 meeting, IKEA is also proposing potential shade elements for the "Lawn" to be considered by the City Council. This revision was included in IKEA's October 4, 2018 letter along with the reduction in the maximum building area for Commercial Area 2. The Resolution approving the Site Development Review Permit for the IKEA Retail Center is included as Attachment 4 to the Staff Report. Public Art Compliance: The applicant intends to satisfy the City's public art requirement through the payment of in -lieu fees. Condition of Approval No.19 confirms this intention. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792 The subject property, as it is configured today, is reflective of the 2008 "The Green on Park Place" Project. The site consists of three parcels, utility easements and traffic signal easement along Arnold and an emergency vehicle access easement based on the layout of the buildings. The proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map will adjust the lot lines resulting in two similarly sized parcels and clean-up the unnecessary easements. The Applicant has submitted a tentative parcel map to subdivide the 27.45-acre parcel into two parcels: ±13.66 acres (Parcel 1 - IKEA) and ±13.79 (Parcel 2 - Retail Center). The tentative map will allow for the two parcels to be under separate ownership. The Tentative Map is included as Attachment 6. The Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Map 10792 is included as Attachment 5 to this Staff Report. Fiscal Impact and Project Benefits The City initiated an analysis by Keyser Marston to better understand the financial impact of the project on the City's overall General Fund. Based on the analysis Page 12 of 21 provided, the project is anticipated to generate a net new $1,748,000 in annual recurring revenue. Approximately $1,536,000 of this amount is the City's share of the anticipated sales and use tax revenue. The bulk of the remainder is $212,000 in property tax revenue, reflecting the increased assessed value resulting from the new construction. Staff does not anticipate that the project would impose material costs on the City's budget, since the site can be served with existing public safety resources, as is noted in Chapter 3.5 of the Environmental Impact Report. Second, the project includes the Lifestyle Retail component that will meet a community need for active gathering spaces and upscale restaurant and retail. The original proposal from IKEA did not include the additional retail development. It is likely (for the reasons discussed in the "Vested Rights; Extent of City Discretion" below) that if the project is not approved IKEA would apply for a standalone IKEA project with surface parking. Traffic Impacts At the Planning Commission study session and public hearing, members of the public made comments regarding traffic. While the development will have traffic impacts, it is important to put those impacts in the appropriate context. Speaking generally, the traffic impacts are less than one might expect for a project of this size for three primary reasons. First, the project's location is immediately adjacent to the freeway interchange that allows for efficient ingress to and egress from the site. Second, the adjacent roadways have adequate "supply" to meet the traffic demand from the project, due to being improved to facilitate the original IKEA project. For example, eastbound Hacienda Drive at Martinelli Way is improved with 3 left turn lanes, and east and west bound Martinelli Way has multiple turn pockets to accommodate large traffic volumes. Third, the project's traffic is more limited during the morning and evening peak hours when traffic in the area is most significant. IKEA traffic tends to be most significant on weekends, when there is less background traffic. So, there will be no noticeable impact on school drop-offs and morning commute, and limited impact during the evening commute. In addition, the other unavoidable impacts are better characterized as resulting from the background conditions rather than the project. For example, the City has determined that it is not feasible to complete any additional improvements in the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection, and it operates below the level of service standard in many current and future conditions. Even the project's limited addition of traffic to this intersection is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Several other freeway and roadway segments involve significant and unavoidable impacts even though very limited traffic is added to a segment that is already operating below standards. Finally, many of the impacts that are described as unavoidable can actually be avoided. However, because the improvements are in the jurisdiction of another agency (City of Page 13 of 21 Pleasanton or Caltrans) and their completion cannot be assured, they must be treated as unmitigated. Examples of this include planned 1-580 interchange improvements and intersection improvements in the City of Pleasanton, to which IKEA would be required to make a fair share contribution. Application of Superstore Ordinance The Dublin Municipal Code prohibits "Superstores," and the proposed IKEA store's size, 317,000 square feet, has raised questions about whether it is prohibited by the "Superstore Ordinance." However, because of the specific format of the proposed IKEA store, the Superstore Ordinance does not apply to the project. The Municipal Code's definition of "Superstore" focuses both on the size of the building and on the percentage of floor area devoted to the sale of non-taxable merchandise. (Municipal Code, Chapter 8.42.) A superstore is a store that exceeds 170,000 square feet and also devotes at least 10% of its sales floor to the sale of non-taxable merchandise. The Superstore ordinance defines "Non-taxable merchandise" as "products, commodities or items, the sale of which is not subject to California State sales tax." Under California law, sales of food for human consumption are generally not subject to sales tax, although meals in restaurants are taxable. The superstore ordinance, then, is aimed at a specific type of big box retailer, but not all big box retailers. In order to develop, IKEA will need to ensure they d❑ not exceed the allowed threshold for non-taxable merchandise. IKEA stores' floor areas are primarily focused on the sale of home furnishings, which are taxable, but typically a portion of the floor area may be devoted to the sale of food. Staff understands that IKEA will devote less than 10 percent of the total floor sales area to the sale of non-taxable food for human consumption, and the project, if approved, will be conditioned to ensure compliance with this criterion. Vested Rights: Extent of City Discretion IKEA does not have a vested right to its project, but the City Council's discretion with respect to development on the site is somewhat constrained by state and federal law. IKEA has neither a development agreement nor a vesting tentative map that grant it vested rights in the City's existing land use regulations. Thus, under general principles of California's land use law, the City could theoretically change the underlying land use regulations in a way that prevented IKEA from pursuing its project. On the other hand, it seems likely, for the reasons detailed below, that IKEA could make a viable case that a fundamental disapproval of retail development on the site would constitute a partial "taking" under the California and United States Constitutions. Were a court to find that the City "took" the property (whether partially, temporarily, or permanently), the City would be liable for damages equal to the diminished value determined by the court, which could be multi -millions of dollars given that IKEA paid nearly $50,000,000 for the property in 2016. Page 14 of 21 The development history of the site is such that IKEA could forcefully argue that when it purchased the site had "distinct investment backed expectations" —one of the key factors under the takings clause —that the site could be developed with retail consistent with the General Commercial designation. IKEA could focus on the fact that the City previously approved two retail projects on the site, including a project anchored by an IKEA store, and more recently rejected a proposal that would have allowed residential on the site. Despite the possible constraints under the takings clause, the City Council has significant discretion over the form that the retail project takes. For example, IKEA is requesting a Planned Development Rezoning that would increase the existing density and height limits beyond that which was in place when it purchased the property. The City Council would likely not have takings liability if it were to require IKEA to stay within the existing density and height limits in the existing PD zoning (0.27 floor area ratio and 55-foot height limit). Such a decision by the City Council would likely result in IKEA proposing a stand-alone IKEA store applying the maximum floor area ratio (up to 322,845 square feet) with all surface parking and without the lifestyle retail center component. Indeed, IKEA has indicated that it intends to pursue a standalone IKEA project if the proposed project is not approved. The City Council would likely find it more difficult to disapprove such a follow-on project without incurring liability. The City Council, in addition, has significant discretion in considering the P❑ Rezoning and SDR. Factors such as site design, architecture, and the project's compatibility with its surroundings could likely support a denial, so long as those bases did not reflect a fundamental denial of retail (General Commercial) on the site. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLANS, AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial which allows for a variety of commercial uses including both retail and restaurant uses which the proposed project will achieve. The General Plan encourages projects to relate well to the surrounding developments, and the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that includes commercial, office, and residential uses. The proposed project is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the Plan states that regionally -oriented commercial uses should be located south of Dublin Boulevard and near freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts to the rest of Dublin, and the retail center is intended to serve the community as well as the region. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES: The Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and Dublin San Ramon Services District reviewed the project and provided Conditions of Approval where appropriate to ensure that the Project is established in compliance with all local Page 15 of 21 Ordinances and Regulations. Conditions of Approval from these departments and agencies have been included in the attached Resolution (Attachment 4). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan was certified by the City of Dublin on May 10, 1993. This 1993 EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of urban development on the subject property. As part of the certification of the EIR for this Project, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for various unavoidable and significant environmental impacts including, but not limited to, traffic and circulation impacts to Dublin intersections near I-580 as well as to 1-580. In 2003, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for a proposed IKEA furniture store and associated development on the subject property (SCH No. 2003092076) (IKEA SEIR). The IKEA SEIR analyzed a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and related applications to allow the development of a 317,000- square- foot IKEA store on the westerly portion of the site and a 137,000- square- foot separate "lifestyle" retail center on the eastern portion of the site. On March 16, 2004, Dublin City Council certified the IKEA SEIR by Resolution No. 44- 04 and approved the amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan to designate the site for General Commercial use. As part of the certification, City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this Project for unavoidable significant impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR that applied to the IKEA project as well as unavoidable significant impacts that were identified in the 1KEA SEIR for the IKEA project. Those impacts related to air quality, land use/open space, and traffic. The City prepared an Initial Study for the Project to determine if any subsequent environmental review was required beyond the 1993 EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and IKEA SEIR. The Initial Study concluded that much of the impact analysis in the 1993 EIR and IKEA SEIR continue to apply to the Project. However, the Initial Study concluded that additional environmental review was required under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 based primarily on newly identified sensitive biological species on -site, potential new traffic impacts and related air quality effects. A Draft Supplemental EIR was prepared and circulated to the public for the required 45 days. The comment period was open from January 31, 2018 to March 16, 2018. The City received 124 comment letters during the public review and comment period. Responses have also been prepared to each of the all of comments received by the City. The comments and associated responses together constituted the Final SEIR. The Draft SEIR and Final SEIR are included as Exhibits A and 6 to Attachment 7 (CEQA Resolution) to the Staff Report. The Draft SEIR (Attachment 8, Exhibit A to Attachment 7) thoroughly and comprehensively assessed the potential for the Project to cause or contribute to Page 16 of 21 significant impacts beyond those identified in the 1993 EIR and IKEA SEIR. Where new potentially significant impacts were identified, appropriate mitigation measures were also proposed to reduce or avoid the impacts. These impacts will be addressed in mitigation findings upon City Council approval of the Project. The Draft SEIR examined potential environmental impacts resulting from the project in the following topic areas: • Air QualitylGreenhouse Gas Emissions • Biological Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Noise • Public Services and Utilities • Transportation • Urban Decay Air QualitylGreenhouse Gas Emissions The 1993 EIR identified cumulative air quality impacts as a significant unavoidable impact of development in Eastern ❑ublin; however, the impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions were not examined. The Draft SEIR examined the project's characteristics under the most current requirements for both air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. The Draft SEIR identifies potentially significant impacts to air quality and includes mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a level that is less than significant. The impact due to Project greenhouse gas emissions were found less than significant. Biological Resources The 1993 EIR identified numerous sensitive habitats and protected species with the potential to occur in the Eastern Dublin Extended Area and identified the cumulative loss of sensitive habitat as a significant unavoidable impact of development. The Draft SEIR identified the potential for species to be found onsite (i.e. Congdon tarplant, burrowing owls and wetlands). The ❑raft SEIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce the impacts in these areas to a level that is less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials As previously noted, the project site is vacant except for a water utility building on the southwest corner. The site is generally flat with localized high areas and stockpile areas resulting from the site -clearance and clean-up activities. The Draft SEIR identified the soil stockpiles with potential to contain hazardous materials. A mitigation measure to reduce this impact to less than significant was identified. Noise The 1993 EIR identified noise impact to residences from construction noise and mitigation measure IM 3.141E was adopted requiring projects to create a Construction Noise Management Program to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. The Draft SEIR expanded on this mitigation measure and provided additional specificity to Page 17 of 21 address the surrounding development. No new impacts were identified in the Draft SEIR that were not previously identified in the 1993 EIR. Public Services and Utilities There were no potentially significant impacts identified for Public Services and Utilities and therefore no mitigations were required. Transportation The 1993 EIR analyzed the traffic impacts of the project site with Campus Office uses as proposed at the time. As part of the ]KEA project in 2004, the applicant included changes the land use designations to General Commercial and therefore the IKEA SEIR traffic analysis examined how the previous ]KEA project would change the traffic analysis and assumptions in the 1993 EIR. The land use designation for the project site remain General Commercial; however, the traffic analysis was updated to reflect the updated project. The traffic analysis identified potentially significant impacts to intersection and queues in the near term and cumulative conditions. For some impact locations, mitigation measures such as Adaptive Signal Control Technologies, Eastern Dublin TIF payments, proportionate share payments toward improvements and a Transportation Demand Management Program address the impacts and reduce them to a level of less than significant. Similar to other projects of this size, impacts to transportation were identified where, even with the implementation of mitigation measures, the effects to the environment are still expected to be significant. Although mitigation measures were written to reduce the level of the impact, the impact could not be fully reduced to less than significant in all instances. In cases where the implementation of the mitigation measure was not guaranteed because neither the City nor the Applicant has control over the impact area, mitigations were proposed, but the impact was acknowledged to be significant and unavoidable. For example, MM TRANS-2c requires the Applicant to work with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to identify the pay the project's proportionate share for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road11-580. While the identified improvements may be constructed, the City of Dublin nor the Applicant has the authority to ensure that they do. In order to approve the project, the City Council must make findings regarding significant impacts and mitigation measures (Attachment 10), findings concerning infeasibility of alternatives and potential additional mitigation measures (Attachment 11) and will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) (Attachment 12) that identifies all environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated and explain why the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental impacts. The findings and SOC is required in order to approve the project, if desired by a majority of the City Council. Urban Decay Page 18 of 21 The Project impacts that could potentially lead to urban decay were found less than significant and, therefore, no mitigation is required. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: The project assists the City Council in meeting the following Strategic Plan item: • Strategy 1: Assure the City's long-term financial sustainability o Strategic Objective C: Look for additional ways to increase sales tax revenue for the City. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: Community Meetings The City hosted a community engagement program for the IKEA retail center project. This outreach program was comprised of four community meetings, as further described below, to inform the community about the proposed project and the environmental analysis, and to solicit feedback on the project plans as they evolved. Notifications of the meetings were provided via email to all interested parties, posted on the City's website and mailed to adjacent property owners and occupants as described below for the Public Notice for Public Hearings. y Community Meeting #1: Open House — June 13, 2016 The purpose was to introduce the community to the proposed project and receive their feedback. The meeting was attended by 45 community members. Public Scoping Meeting: Scoping Meeting for Supplemental F1R — September 7, 2017 City Staff provided an overview of the proposed scope and content of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Approximately 10 community members attended the meeting. Community Meeting #2: Transportation and Traffic — December 6, 2017 Staff and the City's team of technical experts presented the preliminary findings from the traffic impact analysis that was prepared for the proposed project. Approximately 20 community members attended the meeting. Community Meeting #3: Site Design and Aesthetics — February 21, 2018 Staff was joined by the Applicant's design professionals including the architects, landscape architects, and civil engineer to provide an overview of the proposed site design and architecture for the proposed IKEA store and retail center. Approximately 25 community members attended the meeting. City Council Study Session On August 21, 2018, City Council held a study session to receive the status report on the project and provide feedback regarding the proposed project to both Staff and the Applicant. Page 19 of 21 Planning Commission Action On September 25, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended the following by a 4-0 vote to Certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission also recommended by a 3-1 vote to not adopt an Ordinance amending the existing Planned Development Zoning District with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; and adopt a Resolution denying a Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792 for the IKEA Retail Center Project. The Commission determined that the SEIR adequately analyzed and disclosed the project's impacts and therefore recommended certification of the SEIR; however, the Planning Commission was unable to make the necessary findings for approval of the project as detailed in the attached resolution. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 18- 22 and 18-23 as well as the draft minutes from the September 25, 2018 meeting are attached to this report (Attachments 13, 14 & 15). Public Notice for Public Hearing In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the IKEA Retail Center project site. A public notice was also provided to an expanded area beyond 300 feet, as shown in Figure 2 below and to interested parties. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant A public notice also was published in the East Bay Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. A Planning Application sign was posted on the project site and the project was also included on the City's development projects webpage. A copy of this Staff Report has been provided to the Applicant. I's11111>i_[y:1614►11 &-3 1. IKEA Letter August 2018 Page 20 of 21 2. IKEA Letter October 2018 3. City Council Draft ❑rdinance Amending the Zoning Map and Approving a Planned Development Zoning ❑istrict 4. City Council ❑raft Resolution Approving an Site Development Review and a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792 5. Exhibit A to Attachment 4 Project Plans 6. Exhibit B to Attachment 4 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792 7. City Council Draft Resolution Certifying a Supplemental E1R and Adopting EIR Findings 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 7 IKEA Retail Center Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 9. Exhibit B to Attachment 7 IKEA Retail Center Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 10. Exhibit C to Attachment 7 Findings Mitigation Measures 11. Exhibit D to Attachment 7 Findings Alternatives 12. Exhibit E to Attachment 7 Statement of Overridding Considerations 13. Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-22 14. Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-23 15. Planning Commission Meeting ❑raft Minutes dated September 25, 2018 16. Public Comment 17. Tax Revenues to the City generated by IKEA hft Foss, City Manager 1011012018 Page 21 of 21 1 RESOLUTION NO. XX – 18 AN RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CERTIFYING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS, FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDDING CONSIDERATIOS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROJECT FOR THE IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2016-00016 (APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-02, 986-0033-006-00) WHEREAS, the Applicant, IKEA Property, Inc., submitted an application to construct the IKEA Retail Center project, which consists of up to 412,099 square feet of commercial uses on the 27.45-acre parcel. The proposed project would be an IKEA store up to 327,000 square feet and a retail center. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Map and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “IKEA Retail Center Project” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, the project site is approximately 27.45 acres located south of Martinelli Drive between Hacienda Road and Arnold Road (APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-02, 986- 0033-006-00); and WHEREAS, the Project site is relatively flat and is vacant except for minor utility structures; and WHEREAS, the project is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Progr am Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 (“Eastern Dublin EIR” or “EDEIR”, SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the IKEA Retail Center project consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15163 and determined that a supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR was required in order to analyze substantial changes in circumstances and new information that could result in a new or potentially more significant impact than identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation dated August 17, 2017 was circulated with the Initial Study to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the supplemental EIR; and 2 WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR dated January 31, 2018 (SCH No. 2017082047), attached as Exhibit A, which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the Project. The Draft Supplemental EIR was circulated for the required 45-day public review period, from January 31, 2018 to March 16, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City received 124 comment letters on the project during the public review period. The City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR dated September 14, 2018, attached as Exhibit B, containing written responses to all comments received during the public review period, which responses provide the City’s good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments. The Final Supplemental EIR also contain minor clarifications and modifications to the Draft Supplemental EIR; and WHEREAS, the Draft Supplemental EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the project such as, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, hazards/hazardous materials, noise, and transportation , most of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the project must include impact and mitigation findings as set forth in attached Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, some of the Supplemental impacts cannot be lessened to a level of less than significant; therefore, approval of the project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in attached Exhibit D, and must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit E; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on September 25, 2018 at which time they reviewed and considered the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs, and all reports, recommendations and testimony before them. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Supplemental EIR (Resolution 18-xx); and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission minutes and recommendation, a staff report, the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs, and all written and oral testimony at a duly noticed public hearing on October 16, 2018, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard and continued the item the November 8, 2018; and WHEREAS, Staff Reports, dated October 16, 2018 and November 8, 2018 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project and Draft and Final Supplemental EIR for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts and constitute the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the IKEA Project; and WHEREAS, the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs are separately bound documents, incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review in the City community development department, file PLPA-2016-00016. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the IKEA Retail Center project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568; and 3 WHEREAS, a Mitigation and Monitoring Program, as required by CEQA, is contained in attached Exhibit F. 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 Dublin City Council certifies the following. A. The Supplemental EIR for the IKEA Retail Center project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. B. The Supplemental EIR for the IKEA Retail Center project and the Eastern Dublin EIR were presented to and reviewed by the City Council prior to taking action on the IKEA Retail Center project. C. The Supplemental EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis as to the potential environmental effects of the IKEA Retail Center project. The Supplemental EIR provides information to the decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the Project. D. The EIR adequately describes the Project, its significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council certifies the Supplemental EIR consisting of the Draft Supplemental EIR as set forth in Exhibit A and the Final Supplemental EIR as set forth in Exhibit B, adopts the impact and mitigation findings set forth in Exhibit C, the findings regarding alternatives set forth in Exhibit D, the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit E, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit F, which exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F are incorporated herein by reference PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _______ day of _______ 2018, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk   NORTH AMERICA  |  EUROPE  |  AFRICA  |  AUSTRALIA  |  ASIA  WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM  DRAFT  Supplemental Environmental Impact Report  IKEA Retail Center Project  City of Dublin, Alameda County, California  State Clearinghouse Number 2017082047  Prepared for:     City of Dublin  100 Civic Plaza  Dublin, CA 94568  925.833.6610  Contact: Amy Million, Principal Planner  Prepared by:  FirstCarbon Solutions  1350 Treat  Boulevard, Suite 380  Walnut Creek, CA 94597  925.357.2562  Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director  Grant Gruber, Project Manager  Janna Waligorski, Project Manager  Report Date: January 31, 2018  THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Table of Contents      FirstCarbon Solutions iii  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐01 TOC.docx  Table  of Contents  Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... xi  Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... ES‐1  Purpose ................................................................................................................................. ES‐1  Project Summary .................................................................................................................. ES‐1  Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................ ES‐3  Summary of Project Alternatives .......................................................................................... ES‐4  Areas of Controversy ............................................................................................................ ES‐4  Public Review of the Draft Supplemental EIR ....................................................................... ES‐4  Executive Summary Matrix ................................................................................................... ES‐5  Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1‐1  1.1 ‐ Overview of the CEQA Process ....................................................................................... 1‐1  1.2 ‐ Scope of the SEIR ............................................................................................................ 1‐4  1.3 ‐ Organization of the SEIR ................................................................................................. 1‐9  1.4 ‐ Documents Incorporated by Reference ........................................................................ 1‐11  1.5 ‐ Documents Prepared for  the Project ........................................................................... 1‐11  1.6 ‐ Review of the Draft SEIR ............................................................................................... 1‐11  Section 2: Project Description ..................................................................................................... 2‐1  2.1 ‐ Project Location and Setting........................................................................................... 2‐1  2.2 ‐ Project Background ........................................................................................................ 2‐9  2.3 ‐ Project Characteristics .................................................................................................. 2‐10  2.4 ‐ Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2‐14  2.5 ‐ Intended Uses of this Draft SEIR ................................................................................... 2‐17  Section 3: Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................................... 3‐1  Organization of Issue Areas .................................................................................................... 3‐1  Issues Addressed in this SEIR .................................................................................................. 3‐1  Level of Significance ............................................................................................................... 3‐1  Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measure Format .................................................................. 3‐2  3.1 ‐ Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................... 3.1‐1  3.2 ‐ Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 3.2‐1  3.3 ‐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 3.3‐1  3.4 ‐ Noise ............................................................................................................................ 3.4‐1  3.5 ‐ Public Services and Utilities ......................................................................................... 3.5‐1  3.6 ‐ Transportation ............................................................................................................. 3.6‐1  3.7 ‐ Urban Decay ................................................................................................................ 3.7‐1  Section 4: Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................... 4‐1  4.1 ‐ Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4‐1  4.2 ‐ Cumulative Impact Analysis ........................................................................................... 4‐2  Section 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project ........................................................................... 5‐1  5.1 ‐ Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5‐1  5.2 ‐ Project Objectives ........................................................................................................... 5‐3  5.3 ‐ Alternative 1—No Project Alternative ............................................................................ 5‐3  5.4 ‐ Alternative 2—Existing Planned Development Alternative ............................................ 5‐4  5.5 ‐ Alternative 3—Reduced Density Alternative .................................................................. 5‐8  5.6 ‐ Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................... 5‐11  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Table of Contents Draft Supplemental EIR      iv FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐01 TOC.docx  5.7 ‐ Alternatives Rejected  From Further Consideration ..................................................... 5‐11  Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations ......................................................................................... 6‐1  6.1 ‐ Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................................... 6‐1  6.2 ‐ Growth‐Inducing Impacts .............................................................................................. 6‐2  6.3 ‐ Energy Conservation ...................................................................................................... 6‐3  6.4 ‐ Vehicle  Miles Traveled.................................................................................................. 6‐10  Section 7: Effects Found Not To  Be Significant ............................................................................. 7‐1  7.1 ‐ Introduction ................................................................................................................... 7‐1  7.2 ‐ Effects  Found Not To  Be Significant ............................................................................... 7‐1  Section 8: Persons and Organizations Consulted/List of Preparers ............................................... 8‐1  8.1 ‐ Persons and Organizations Consulted ............................................................................ 8‐1  8.2 ‐ List of Preparers ............................................................................................................. 8‐3  Section 9: References .................................................................................................................. 9‐1    Appendix A: IKEA Retail Center Project Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and Comments  A.1 ‐ IKEA Retail Center Project Initial Study  A.2 ‐ Notice of Preparation  A.3 ‐ Comments  Appendix B: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Information  B.1 ‐ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Assumptions  B.2 ‐ Health Risk Assessment  Appendix C: Biological Resources Supporting Information  C.1 ‐ Biological Resources Assessment  C.2 ‐ Wetland  Delineation  Appendix D: Hazardous Materials Supporting Information  D.1 ‐ 2007 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment  D.2 ‐ 2013 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment  D.3 ‐ 2013 Subsurface Investigation Report  D.4 ‐ 2014 Additional Subsurface Investigation Report  Appendix E: Noise Supporting Information  Appendix F: Traffic Impact Assessment  Appendix G: Urban Decay Study  Appendix H: Public Services and Utilities Supporting Information       City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Table of Contents      FirstCarbon Solutions v  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐01 TOC.docx  List of Tables   Table  ES‐1: IKEA Retail Center Project Summary ............................................................................... ES‐2  Table  ES‐2: Executive Summary Matrix ............................................................................................. ES‐7  Table  1‐1: IS‐NOP Comment Letters .................................................................................................... 1‐4  Table  2‐1: IKEA Retail Center Project Summary ................................................................................. 2‐10  Table  3.1‐1: Air Quality Monitoring Summary .................................................................................. 3.1‐3  Table  3.1‐2: Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone ......................................................... 3.1‐5  Table  3.1‐3: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status .................................................... 3.1‐6  Table  3.1‐4: Greenhouse Gases ........................................................................................................ 3.1‐7  Table  3.1‐5: Description of Air Pollutants and Potential Adverse Health Effects  ........................... 3.1‐12  Table  3.1‐6: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures ...................... 3.1‐37  Table  3.1‐7: Construction‐Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Prior to Mitigation ................. 3.1‐43  Table  3.1‐8: Mitigated Construction‐Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ............................... 3.1‐44  Table  3.1‐9: Annual Operational Air Emissions .............................................................................. 3.1‐45  Table  3.1‐10: Daily Operational Air Emissions ................................................................................ 3.1‐46  Table  3.1‐11: Cancer Risk Parameters for  Off‐site Residents ......................................................... 3.1‐50  Table  3.1‐12: Cancer Risk Parameters for  Off‐site Workers  ............................................................ 3.1‐51  Table  3.1‐13: Nearby Sensitive Receptors Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risk  Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 3.1‐52  Table  3.1‐14: Nearby Off‐site Workers  Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risk  Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 3.1‐52  Table  3.1‐15: Cumulative Cancer Risk Impacts ............................................................................... 3.1‐55  Table  3.1‐16: Cumulative Noncancer Chronic Impacts ................................................................... 3.1‐56  Table  3.1‐17: Cumulative Noncancer Acute Impacts ...................................................................... 3.1‐56  Table  3.1‐18: Cumulative PM2.5 Concentrations ............................................................................. 3.1‐57  Table  3.1‐19: Odor Screening Distances ......................................................................................... 3.1‐58  Table  3.1‐20: Project Construction‐Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................... 3.1‐61  Table  3.1‐21: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis—Operational Year  2030 ........................... 3.1‐63  Table  3.1‐22: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis—Operational Year  2050 ........................... 3.1‐64  Table  3.1‐23: Project Consistency with Applicable CAP Measures ................................................. 3.1‐66  Table  3.2‐1: Biological Community Summary ................................................................................... 3.2‐1  Table  3.3‐1: Summary of Environmental Assessments ..................................................................... 3.3‐2  Table  3.3‐2: Indoor Radon Summary ................................................................................................ 3.3‐7  Table  3.4‐1: Typical  A‐Weighted Noise Levels .................................................................................. 3.4‐2  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Table of Contents Draft Supplemental EIR      vi FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐01 TOC.docx  Table  3.4‐2: Typical  Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax .................................... 3.4‐9  Table  3.4‐3: Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment .............................................................. 3.4‐10  Table  3.4‐4: Noise Monitoring Results Summary ........................................................................... 3.4‐12  Table  3.4‐5: Existing Traffic  Noise Levels ........................................................................................ 3.4‐13  Table  3.4‐6: Federal Transit  Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria ..................... 3.4‐15  Table  3.4‐7: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments  Community Noise Exposure (dB) ................................................................................ 3.4‐16  Table  3.4‐8: Construction Noise Model Results Summary (dBA) ................................................... 3.4‐21  Table  3.4‐9: Existing and Near‐term Traffic  Noise Modeling Results ............................................. 3.4‐23  Table  3.4‐10: Cumulative Traffic  Noise Modeling Results .............................................................. 3.4‐24  Table  3.5‐1: Fire Station Summary ................................................................................................... 3.5‐1  Table  3.5‐2: Groundwater Pumped by Zone 7 on DSRSD’s Behalf ................................................... 3.5‐8  Table  3.5‐3: Groundwater Projected to be Pumped by Zone 7 on DSRSD’s Behalf ......................... 3.5‐8  Table  3.5‐4: DSRSD Current and Projected Future Water Supplies ................................................ 3.5‐11  Table  3.5‐5: Landfill Summary ........................................................................................................ 3.5‐12  Table  3.5‐6: Potable Water  Consumption Estimate ....................................................................... 3.5‐25  Table  3.5‐7: 2015 Urban Water Management Projections ............................................................ 3.5‐25  Table  3.5‐8: Wastewater Generation Estimate .............................................................................. 3.5‐26  Table  3.5‐9: Construction Solid Waste Generation Estimate ......................................................... 3.5‐28  Table  3.5‐10: Annual Operational Waste Generation Estimate ..................................................... 3.5‐29  Table  3.6‐1: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria .............................................................................. 3.6‐8  Table  3.6‐2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria ......................................................................... 3.6‐9  Table  3.6‐3: Freeway Mainline LOS Criteria ..................................................................................... 3.6‐9  Table  3.6‐4: Peak‐Hour Roadway Segment LOS Thresholds ........................................................... 3.6‐10  Table  3.6‐5: Existing Conditions Peak‐Hour Intersection Levels of Service .................................... 3.6‐11  Table  3.6‐6: Existing Conditions—95th Percentile Queues ............................................................. 3.6‐14  Table  3.6‐7: Existing Conditions Freeway Analysis ......................................................................... 3.6‐15  Table  3.6‐8: Maximum and Average Observed IKEA Trip  Generation Rates .................................. 3.6‐34  Table  3.6‐9: Trip  Generation Estimates for IKEA Only .................................................................... 3.6‐35  Table  3.6‐10: Non‐IKEA Use Trip  Generation ................................................................................. 3.6‐36  Table  3.6‐11: Total  Trip  Generation ................................................................................................ 3.6‐36  Table  3.6‐12: Existing with Project Condition Peak‐Hour Intersection Levels of Service ............... 3.6‐63  Table  3.6‐13: Existing with Mitigation Peak‐Hour Intersection Levels of Service .......................... 3.6‐68  Table  3.6‐14: Existing With Project With Mitigation Conditions—95th Percentile Queues ........... 3.6‐70  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Table of Contents      FirstCarbon Solutions vii  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐01 TOC.docx  Table  3.6‐15: Near Term  Conditions Peak‐Hour Intersection Levels of Service ............................. 3.6‐73  Table  3.6‐16: Near‐Term  with Mitigation Peak‐Hour Intersection Levels of Service ...................... 3.6‐95  Table  3.6‐17: Near‐Term  Plus Project With Mitigation—95th Percentile Queues ........................... 3.6‐98  Table  3.6‐18: Cumulative Conditions Peak‐Hour Intersection Levels of Service .......................... 3.6‐102  Table  3.6‐19: Cumulative with Mitigation Peak‐Hour Intersection Levels of Service ................... 3.6‐125  Table  3.6‐20: Cumulative With Project With Mitigation—95th Percentile Queues ...................... 3.6‐129  Table  3.6‐21: Existing Conditions Freeway Analysis ..................................................................... 3.6‐145  Table  3.6‐22: Near‐Term  Conditions Freeway Analysis ................................................................ 3.6‐148  Table  3.6‐23: Cumulative Conditions Freeway Analysis ............................................................... 3.6‐152  Table  3.6‐24: Ramp Meter Analysis—Existing Conditions ............................................................ 3.6‐156  Table  3.6‐25: Ramp Meter Analysis—Near‐Term  Conditions ....................................................... 3.6‐156  Table  3.6‐26: Ramp Meter Analysis—Cumulative Conditions ...................................................... 3.6‐156  Table  3.6‐27: Internal Intersections Peak‐Hour Intersection Levels of Service ............................ 3.6‐165  Table  3.7‐1: Population Trends (2010–2022) .................................................................................... 3.7‐3  Table  3.7‐2: Long‐Term  Population Projections ................................................................................ 3.7‐3  Table  3.7‐3: Housing Trends  (2010–2022) ........................................................................................ 3.7‐4  Table  3.7‐4: Household Income ........................................................................................................ 3.7‐7  Table  3.7‐5: Household Tenure  (2017) ............................................................................................. 3.7‐7  Table  3.7‐6: Retail Overview (Quarter 3 2017) ................................................................................. 3.7‐8  Table  3.7‐7: Comparative Per Capita Taxable  Retail Sales for Key Categories (Quarter 4  2015–Quarter 3 2016) ................................................................................................ 3.7‐17  Table  3.7‐8: Benchmarks for Leakage Analysis ............................................................................... 3.7‐18  Table  3.7‐9: Summary of Leakage Analysis ..................................................................................... 3.7‐29  Table  3.7‐10: Proposed Project’s Estimated Retail Sales ................................................................ 3.7‐35  Table  3.7‐11: Estimates of Sales Leakage Capture .......................................................................... 3.7‐36  Table  3.7‐12: Estimates of Capture of Sales from Secondary Market Area .................................... 3.7‐37  Table  3.7‐13: Cumulative Sales Impacts in the Primary Market Area ............................................ 3.7‐40  Table  4‐1: Cumulative Projects ............................................................................................................ 4‐1  Table  5‐1: Existing Planned Development Alternative ........................................................................ 5‐5  Table  5‐2: Existing Planned Development Alternative Trip  Generation Comparison .......................... 5‐7  Table  5‐3: Reduced Density Alternative .............................................................................................. 5‐8  Table  5‐4: Reduced Density Alternative Trip  Generation Comparison .............................................. 5‐10  Table  5‐5: Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................................. 5‐11  Table  5‐6: Potential Alternative Locations ......................................................................................... 5‐15  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Table of Contents Draft Supplemental EIR      viii FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐01 TOC.docx  Table  6‐1: Transportation Energy Demand ......................................................................................... 6‐7  Table  6‐2: Electricity Consumption Estimate ...................................................................................... 6‐8  Table  6‐3: Natural Gas Consumption Estimate ................................................................................... 6‐9  Table  6‐4: StreetLight Data Vehicle  Miles Traveled Summary ........................................................... 6‐11  Table  6‐5: Project Generated VMT Summary ................................................................................... 6‐11  Table  6‐6: Citywide VMT ................................................................................................................... 6‐12    List of Exhibits  Exhibit 2‐1: Regional Location Map .................................................................................................... 2‐3  Exhibit 2‐2: Local Vicinity, Aerial Base ................................................................................................. 2‐5  Exhibit 2‐3: Site Photograph ............................................................................................................... 2‐7  Exhibit 2‐4: Conceptual Site Plan ...................................................................................................... 2‐15  Exhibit 3.2‐1: Biological Communities Map ..................................................................................... 3.2‐3  Exhibit 3.2‐2: 5‐mile Special‐status Plant Map ................................................................................ 3.2‐7  Exhibit 3.2‐3: 5‐mile Special‐status Wildlife Map ............................................................................ 3.2‐9  Exhibit 3.4‐1: Noise Monitoring Locations Map............................................................................... 3.4‐5  Exhibit 3.4‐2: Construction Noise Modeling Receptor Locations .................................................... 3.4‐7  Exhibit 3.6‐1: Project Site Vicinity .................................................................................................... 3.6‐5  Exhibit 3.6‐2a: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes, Intersection Lane  Configurations and Traffic  Controls ............................................................................ 3.6‐19  Exhibit 3.6‐2b: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes, Intersection Lane  Configurations and Traffic  Controls ............................................................................ 3.6‐21  Exhibit 3.6‐2c: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes, Intersection Lane  Configurations and Traffic  Controls ............................................................................ 3.6‐23  Exhibit 3.6‐2d: Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes, Intersection Lane  Configurations and Traffic  Controls ............................................................................ 3.6‐25  Exhibit 3.6‐3: Project Trip  Distribution ........................................................................................... 3.6‐39  Exhibit 3.6‐4a: Project Trip  Assignment ......................................................................................... 3.6‐41  Exhibit 3.6‐4b: Project Trip  Assignment ......................................................................................... 3.6‐43  Exhibit 3.6‐4c: Project Trip  Assignment ......................................................................................... 3.6‐45  Exhibit 3.6‐4d: Project Trip  Assignment ......................................................................................... 3.6‐47  Exhibit 3.6‐4e: Project Trip  Assignment ......................................................................................... 3.6‐49  Exhibit 3.6‐5a: Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes, Intersection  Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls.................................................................... 3.6‐55  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Table of Contents      FirstCarbon Solutions ix  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐01 TOC.docx  Exhibit 3.6‐5b: Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes, Intersection  Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls .................................................................... 3.6‐57  Exhibit 3.6‐5c: Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes, Intersection  Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls .................................................................... 3.6‐59  Exhibit 3.6‐5d: Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes, Intersection  Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls .................................................................... 3.6‐61  Exhibit 3.6‐6a: Near‐term without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls ................................................ 3.6‐77  Exhibit 3.6‐6b: Near‐term without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls ................................................ 3.6‐79  Exhibit 3.6‐6c: Near‐term without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls ................................................ 3.6‐81  Exhibit 3.6‐6d: Near‐term without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls ................................................ 3.6‐83  Exhibit 3.6‐7a: Near‐term with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls ................................................ 3.6‐85  Exhibit 3.6‐7b: Near‐term with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls ................................................ 3.6‐87  Exhibit 3.6‐7c: Near‐term with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls ................................................ 3.6‐89  Exhibit 3.6‐7d: Near‐term with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls ................................................ 3.6‐91  Exhibit 3.6‐8a: Cumulative without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls .............................................. 3.6‐107  Exhibit 3.6‐8b: Cumulative without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls .............................................. 3.6‐109  Exhibit 3.6‐8c: Cumulative without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls .............................................. 3.6‐111  Exhibit 3.6‐8d: Cumulative without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls .............................................. 3.6‐113  Exhibit 3.6‐9a: Cumulative with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls .............................................. 3.6‐115  Exhibit 3.6‐9b: Cumulative with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls .............................................. 3.6‐117  Exhibit 3.6‐9c: Cumulative with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls .............................................. 3.6‐119  Exhibit 3.6‐9d: Cumulative with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic  Volumes,  Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic  Controls .............................................. 3.6‐121  Exhibit 3.6‐10a: Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic  Control Changes from  Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 3.6‐131  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Table of Contents Draft Supplemental EIR      x FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐01 TOC.docx  Exhibit 3.6‐10b: Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic  Control Changes from  Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3.6‐133  Exhibit 3.6‐10c: Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic  Control Changes from  Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3.6‐135  Exhibit 3.6‐10d: Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic  Control Changes from  Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3.6‐137  Exhibit 3.6‐10e: Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic  Control Changes from  Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3.6‐139  Exhibit 3.6‐10f: Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic  Control Changes from Existing  Conditions ................................................................................................................. 3.6‐141  Exhibit 3.7‐1: Dublin IKEA Market Area ........................................................................................... 3.7‐5  Exhibit 3.7‐2: Retail Absorption and Vacancy  Trends  in Tri ‐Valley, 2010–2017 ............................. 3.7‐11  Exhibit 3.7‐3: Average Asking Rent in the Tri ‐Valley Area, 2010–2017 .......................................... 3.7‐13  Exhibit 3.7‐4: Taxable  Retail Sales Trends for Key Categories in California and the Bay  Area ............................................................................................................................ 3.7‐19  Exhibit 3.7‐5: Taxable  Retail Sales Trends for Key Categories in the Bay Area and PMA ............... 3.7‐21  Exhibit 3.7‐6: City of Dublin and PMA Taxable  Retail Sales Trends in Key Categories ................... 3.7‐23  Exhibit 3.7‐7: Per Capita Taxable  Retail Sales Trends for Key Categories, 2010–2016 ................... 3.7‐25  Exhibit 3.7‐8: Per Capita Sales in the PMA as Percent of Bay Area Per Capita Sales ..................... 3.7‐27  Exhibit 3.7‐9: PMA Retail Sales Leakage for Key Categories .......................................................... 3.7‐31  Exhibit 5‐1: Potential Alternative Locations ...................................................................................... 5‐13      City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations      FirstCarbon Solutions xi  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐02 Acronyms.docx  ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS  °F Fahrenheit  µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter  AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards  AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials  AB Assembly Bill  ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments  ACE Altamont Commuter Express  ACM asbestos containing material  ACSPA Alameda County Surplus Property Authority  ADT average daily traffic  af acre‐foot   af/yr acre‐feet per year  AFY acre‐feet per year  AIA Airport Influence Area  Alameda CTC Alameda County Transportation Commission  ALUC Airport Land Use  Commission  APCD Air Pollution Control District  APN Assessors Parcel Number  AQMD Air Quality Management   AQP Air Quality Plan  ARB California Air Resources Board  ASTM American Society for Testing  and Materials  ATCM  Airborne Toxic  Control Measures  BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District  BART Bay Area Rapid Transit   BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics  BMPs Best Management Practices  BTEX  benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene or xylene  C Celsius  CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards  CAD computer aided design  CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy  CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program  CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency  CalOSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Agency  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft Supplemental EIR      xii FirstCarbon Solutions  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐02 Acronyms.docx  Caltrans California Department of Transportation  CAP Clean Air Plan  CCR California Code of Regulations  CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife  CEC California Energy Commission  CEQA California Environmental Quality Act  CESA California Endangered Species Act  CFC chlorofluorocarbon  CFR Code of Federal Regulations  CH4 methane  CMP Congestion Management Plan  CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database  CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level  CNPS California Native Plant Society  CO carbon monoxide  CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent  CPUC California Public Utilities Commission  CRPR California Rare Plant Ranking  CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency  dB decibel  dB decibel  DERWA East Bay Municipal Utility Recycled Water Authority  DOT United  States Department of Transportation  DPM diesel particulate matter  DRFA Dougherty Regional Fire Authority  DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District  DTSC California Department of Toxic  Substances Control  DWR Department of Water  Resources  EACCS East Alameda County Conservation Strategy  EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility  District  EDR Environmental Data Resources  EIR Environmental Impact Report  EPA United  States Environmental Protection Agency  ESA Endangered Species Act  ESA Environmental Site Assessment  F Fahrenheit  FAR  Floor Area Ratio  FCG Fish and Game Code  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations      FirstCarbon Solutions xiii  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐02 Acronyms.docx  FCS FirstCarbon Solutions  FHWA Federal Highway Administration  FTA Federal Transit  Administration  GHG greenhouse gas  GPQ groundwater pumping quota  GPS Global Positioning Systems  GWh/y gigawatt‐hours per year  GWP global warming potential  HCM Highway Capacity Manual  HFC hydrofluorocarbon  HOV/HOT High Occupancy Vehicle/High  Occupancy Toll   HRA Health Risk Assessment  I Interstate  in/sec inch per second  IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act  ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers  LAVTA Livermore Amador Valley Transit  Authority  Ldn day/night average sound level  LED light emitting diode  Leq equivalent sound level  LID Low Impact Development  Lmax maximum noise level  LOS Level of Service  LUTIS  Leaking Underground Storage Tank  Information System  MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty  Act  mgd million gallons per day  MM Mitigation Measure  MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity  mph miles per hour  MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization   MT CO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents  MTS Metropolitan Transportation  System  MUTCD Manual on Uniform  Traffic  Control Devices  N2O nitrous oxide  NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards  NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants  NO2 nitrogen dioxide  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft Supplemental EIR      xiv FirstCarbon Solutions  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐02 Acronyms.docx  NOC Notice of Completion  NOP Notice of Preparation  NOx nitrogen oxides  NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service  O3 ozone  OCP organochlorine pesticide  OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment  ONAC Federal  Office  of Noise Abatement and Control  OPR Office  of Planning and Research  OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration  PAH  polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons  pc/mi/ln passenger cars per mile per lane  PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls  pCi/L picocuries per liter  PFC perfluorocarbon  PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company  Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment  PMA Primary Market Area  PMx particulate matter  ppb parts per billion  ppm parts per million  PPV peak particle velocity  PVC polyvinyl chloride  RCRA Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  REC recognized environmental condition  rms root mean square  ROG reactive organic gases  RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board  SB Senate Bill  SBOE State Board of Equalization  SF6 sulfur hexafluoride  SIP State Implementation Plan  SMA Secondary Market Area  SO2 sulfur dioxide  SR State Route  SRVRWP San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Program  STC Standard Transmission Class  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations      FirstCarbon Solutions xv  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00‐02 Acronyms.docx  SWP State Water Project  SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan  SWRCB State Water  Resources Control Board  SWRCB State Water  Resources Control Board  TAC  toxic air contaminants  TCM  transportation control measures  TDM Transportation  Demand Management  TDS total dissolved solids  therms/y therms per year  TIF transportation impact fees  TMA Transportation  Management Association  TSM Transportation  Systems Management  TVTC Tri ‐Valley Transportation Council  USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers  USFWS United  States Fish and Wildlife Service  USTs underground storage tanks  UWMP Urban Water  Management Plan  V/C  volume to capacity ratio  VdB  velocity in decibels  VMT vehicle miles of travel  VOC volatile organic compound  WBWG Western Bat Working  Group  WD Wetland Delineation    THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the IKEA Retail Center Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2017082047). This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.). This Draft SEIR supplements an earlier Environmental Impact Report prepared to address the impacts of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City of Dublin on May 10, 1993 (State Clearinghouse Number (SCH) 91103064) (Eastern Dublin EIR). The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of urban development on the Project site. Therefore, this Draft SEIR only addresses those project impacts that require further environmental review to the analysis in the Eastern Dublin EIR based on the standards under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15613. As required by CEQA, the City has prepared and circulated an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) for this Draft Supplement EIR to interested public and private parties. A copy of the IS/NOP is included as Appendix A and responses to the NOP are included in Appendix A. The IS/NOP explains which impact areas were scoped out of this Draft SEIR based on the analysis in the Eastern Dublin EIR and which impact areas would be addressed in this Draft SEIR. The Introduction Section of this Draft SEIR explains in more detail the rules on supplemental environmental review under CEQA and the application of those rules to the project and development of this Draft SEIR. The purpose of this Draft SEIR is to inform decision-makers, representatives of affected and responsible agencies, the public, and other interested parties of the potential environmental effects that may result from implementation of the proposed project. This Draft SEIR describes potential impacts relating to a wide variety of environmental issues and methods by which these impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Project Summary Project Location The project site is located at 5344 and 5411 Martinelli Way in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. The 27.45-gross-acre project site is bounded by Arnold Road (west), Martinelli Way (north), Hacienda Drive (east), and I-580 (south) in the eastern portion of the City of Dublin. Project Description The project is proposing the development of up to 432,099 square feet of commercial uses on 27.45 acres. The project would be anchored by an IKEA store of up to 339,099 square feet and would feature up to 93,000 square feet of lifestyle retail-restaurant uses. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Executive Summary Draft Supplemental EIR ES-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-1 summarizes the project and Exhibit 2-4 depicts the conceptual site plan. Table ES-1: IKEA Retail Center Project Summary Use Acreage Square Feet Characteristics Major 1 (IKEA) 13.65 339,099 2 stories above two story parking structure Lifestyle retail-restaurant 13.66 8,000 Freestanding restaurant 34,560 Multiple buildings, retail use 50,440 Multiple buildings, restaurant/food use Subtotal 27.45 93,000 ― Dedication for Rail Line (BART) (0.16) ― ― Total 27.31 432,099 ― Source: GreenbergFarrow, 2017. Project Objectives The objectives of the proposed project are to: 1. Positively contribute to the local economy through new capital investment, creation of new employment opportunities, expansion of the tax base, and increased retail offerings. 2. Reinforce Dublin’s status as a regional retail node by increasing commercial retail and service offerings within an established regional and highway-oriented commercial area. 3. Develop a new regional-serving retail use close to I-580, Dublin Boulevard, and public transit options in order to better serve the retail demands of the Trade Area, while also minimizing the need for infrastructure improvements. 4. Promote economic growth in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 5. Facilitate the reuse of a former, underutilized portion of Camp Parks that is zoned for commercial use and is currently in the Dublin city limits. 6. Develop smaller retail, or restaurant uses that complement the major anchor and provide consumers with additional competitive and convenient options. 7. Design a site plan to minimize overall access and circulation conflicts, and that is also accessible to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. 8. Complete site remediation efforts in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and prevent future environmental degradation. 9. Improve the overall visual appearance of the area by developing new commercial uses that employ high-quality contemporary architecture and landscaping. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-3 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The proposed project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts: • Existing With Project Conditions Traffic: The proposed project would contribute new trips to the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way causing a queue impact under Existing With Project Conditions. While mitigation measures are proposed to fully mitigate the impact, the proposed mitigations may not be feasible. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Near-Term With Project Conditions Traffic: The proposed project would contribute new trips to facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels under Near-Term With Project Conditions. All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, it would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Lastly, certain feasible mitigation measures require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Cumulative With Project Conditions Traffic: The proposed project would contribute new trips to facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels under Cumulative With Project Conditions. All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, it would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Lastly, certain feasible mitigation measures require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Freeways: The proposed project would contribute new trips to freeway facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels (freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Lastly, certain feasible mitigation measures require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Congestion Management Program: The proposed project would contribute new trips to Congestion Management Program facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels (freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Lastly, certain feasible mitigation measures require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Public Transit, Bicycles, and Pedestrians: The proposed project may increase pedestrian crossings across the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange. Although the City of Dublin and City of Pleasanton are developing plans for pedestrian improvements, implementation of the improvements requires the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Executive Summary Draft Supplemental EIR ES-4 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Summary of Project Alternatives Below is a summary of the alternatives to the proposed project considered in Section 5, Alternatives to the proposed project. • No Project Alternative: The proposed project would not be pursued and the project site would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. • Existing Planned Development Alternative: The project site would be developed consistent with existing planned development, which allows up to 327,400 square feet of retail (with ancillary office use) and restaurant uses. • Reduced Density Alternative: The proposed IKEA and lifestyle retail/restaurant uses would be pursued, albeit with 25 percent less square footage that the proposed project. In total, 324,074 square feet of commercial uses would be developed. Areas of Controversy Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b), a summary section must address areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public, and it must also address issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was issued on August 17, 2017. The NOP describing the original concept for the project and issues to be addressed in the SEIR was distributed to the Office of Planning and Research, responsible agencies, and other interested parties for a 30- day public review period extending from August 17, 2017 through September 18, 2017. The NOP identified the potential for significant impacts on the environment related to the following topical areas: • Aesthetics • Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Noise • Public Services (law enforcement and schools) • Transportation/Traffic • Urban Decay • Utilities (water and wastewater) Public Review of the Draft Supplemental EIR Upon completion of the Draft Supplemental EIR, the City of Dublin filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code, Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft Supplemental EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft Supplemental EIR in City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-5 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft Supplemental EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review on the City of Dublin’s website, City of Dublin offices, and the Dublin Library. The address for each location is provided below: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Hours: Monday–Friday: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Dublin Library 200 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Hours: Monday–Thursday: 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Friday: Closed Saturday: 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Website: https://dublin-development.icitywork.com/ Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental EIR during the 45-day public review period. Written comments on this Draft Supplemental EIR should be addressed to: Ms. Amy Million, Principal Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Phone: 925.833.6610 Fax: 925.833.6628 Email: amy.million@dublin.ca.gov Submittal of electronic comments in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format is encouraged. Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the City of Dublin on the project, at which the certification of the Final Supplemental EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision-makers for the project. Executive Summary Matrix Table ES-2 below summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and resulting level of significance after mitigation for the relevant environmental issue areas evaluated for the proposed project. The table is intended to provide an overview; narrative discussions for the issue areas are included in the corresponding section of this Draft Supplemental EIR. Table ES-2 is included in the Draft Supplemental EIR as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1). THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-7 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2: Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.1—Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact AIR-1: The project may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Implement Mitigation Measures AIR-3a, AIR-3b, AIR-3c, TRANS-1a, TRANS-1b, TRANS-1c, TRANS-1d, TRANS-1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-4a, TRANS-7a, TRANS-7b, and TRANS-7c Less than significant impact. Impact AIR-2: The project may violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact AIR-3: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-7a and: MM AIR-3a: During construction, the following air pollution control measures shall be implemented: • All Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or more as needed. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Less than significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-8 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact both at the City of Dublin and at the office of the General Contractor regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 2 business days of a complaint or issue notification. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM AIR-3b: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Dublin that demonstrates that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 interim off-road emissions standards. MM AIR-3c: The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the architectural coating (paint and primer) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 45 grams per liter or less. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the proposed project, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin. Impact AIR-4: The project may have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact AIR-5: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact AIR-6: Implementation of the project would generate direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact AIR-7: Implementation of the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-9 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.2—Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: The proposed project may have a substantial adverse effect on special-status plant and wildlife species. MM BIO-1a: Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant with potential to occur in the project site. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If the Congdon’s tarplant are found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required: 1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant is present within or adjacent to the proposed project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for Congdon’s tarplant shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions. 2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of Congdon’s tarplant shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the Less than significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-10 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 shall be developed in consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant. A mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the Congdon’s tarplant, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations of Congdon’s tarplant. MM BIO-1b: No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance will vary based on species and conditions at the site, but is usually at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. This mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). MM BIO-1c: Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following measures that pertain to burrowing owl, as applicable: 1. Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment. Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the burrowing owl for the entire site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities and the second City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-11 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation survey shall be conducted within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth in this mitigation shall be followed. 2. Implement Avoidance Measures. If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. • Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1 through 31 August. • Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. • Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. • Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. • Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows. • Do not fumigate or use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). 3. Conduct Burrow Exclusion. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out pursuant to the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-12 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 4. Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl in a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the Plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities. MM BIO-1d: Pre-removal bat surveys of the existing on-site building shall occur no more than 30 days before its removal. If bats are found, then a qualified biologist shall develop an appropriate relocation plan consistent with USFWS, CDFW, and East Alameda County Conservation Strategy standards and policies. Impact BIO-2: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact BIO-3: The proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands or jurisdictional features. MM BIO-3a: As part of the design, an updated wetland delineation shall be completed for the site consistent with current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) protocol to determine if wetlands are subject to USACE jurisdiction. MM BIO-3b: Prior to any ground-disturbing activity on the site, the project applicant shall acquire appropriate permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the USACE if the wetlands are determined to be subject to USACE jurisdiction, and shall obtain Section 401 certification from the RWQCB and approval of a wetlands mitigation plan that meets the following standards. A mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. Specifically, a wetland mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented that includes creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands Less than significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-13 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment of an endowment for the long-term management of the site. The mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the applicable regulatory agency (USACE and/or RWQCB) and the City. Section 3.3—Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact HAZ-2: The proposed project may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the disturbance of a hazardous materials site listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. MM HAZ-2: Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to sample any soil stockpiles that may be present for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), diesel and oil range petroleum hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If sampling determines that concentrations of these substances exceed acceptable human health exposure levels, the applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to properly remove and dispose of the impacted soils. If sampling determines that concentrations of these substances do not exceed acceptable human health exposure levels, no further action is required. Less than significant impact. Section 3.4—Noise Impact NOI-1: The project could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. MM NOI-1: To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi-part mitigation measure shall be implemented for the proposed project: • The project shall comply with Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR requiring development projects in the project area to submit a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents. Less than significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-14 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • The project shall comply with Mitigation Measures 3.10/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR requiring all construction operations to comply with local noise standards and be limited to normal daylight hours. All stationary equipment shall be adequately muffled and located away from sensitive receptors. • The construction contractor shall limit all on-site noise-producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily. • The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine-driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem, as deemed acceptable by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. The construction contractor shall conspicuously post the contact name and telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-15 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact NOI-2: The project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact NOI-3: The project could result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact NOI-4: The project could result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Less than significant impact. Section 3.5—Public Services and Utilities Impact PSU-1: The proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded fire protection or emergency medical services facilities that may result in physical impacts on the environment. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact PSU-2: The proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded law enforcement facilities that may result in physical impacts on the environment. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact PSU-3: The proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded school facilities that may result in physical impacts on the environment. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact PSU-4: The proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded park and recreational facilities that may result in physical impacts on the environment. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact PSU-5: The proposed project would not require new or expanded water treatment facilities or infrastructure, or additional water supply entitlements. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-16 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact PSU-6: The proposed project would not require expansion of existing or construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact PSU-7: The proposed project would not require new or expanded downstream storm drainage facilities. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact PSU-8: The proposed project would not generate substantial amounts of solid waste that may result in inadequate landfill capacity with statutes or regulations concerning solid waste. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Section 3.6—Transportation Impact TRANS-1: The proposed project may cause intersections and queues to operate below acceptable levels under Existing Plus Project conditions. MM TRANS-1a: The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. MM TRANS-1b: The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. MM TRANS-1c: The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. MM TRANS-1d: The project applicant shall fund the conversion of the southbound through lane on Arnold Road to a left-turn-only lane and install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the intersection of Arnold Road and Martinelli Way prior to project occupancy. The applicant shall be Significant unavoidable impact: • Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way Less than significant impact: All other locations. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-17 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation responsible for the full cost of the improvement. MM TRANS-1e: The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the intersection of IKEA Place and Martinelli Way. The project applicant shall modify the northbound intersection approach to provide a left-turn and a through-right shared lane such that north/south protected left-turn signal phasing can be provided (as opposed to split phasing). The improvements shall be installed prior to project occupancy. MM TRANS-1f: The Project Applicant shall fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. The City of Dublin will modify the Eastern Dublin TIF improvement to provide a third westbound left-turn lane in lieu of the westbound right-turn-only lane. MM TRANS-1g: The Project Applicant shall fund extending the length of the northbound left-turn pocket by approximately 100 feet through median modifications and widening along the project frontage in order to provide a second eastbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way. The improvements shall be installed prior to project occupancy. Impact TRANS-2: The proposed project may cause intersections and queues to operate below acceptable levels under Near-Term Plus Project conditions. Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1b, TRANS-1c, TRANS-1d, TRANS-1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-1g, TRANS-4a and: MM TRANS-2a: The project applicant shall work with the City of Pleasanton to identify and pay the project’s proportionate share towards near-term improvements at Owens Drive/Hopyard Road consisting of modifying the westbound approach to provide 1 left turn, 1 through, and 2 right-turn only lanes. MM TRANS-2b: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the Eastern Dublin TIF fee as the project’s proportionate share for the improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of constructing two additional Significant and unavoidable impacts: • Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, • Hopyard Road/Owens Drive, • Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound, • Martinelli Way/IKEA Place, and • Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way. Less than significant impact: All other locations. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-18 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation northbound through lanes (for a total of four), construct two additional eastbound through lanes on eastbound Dublin Boulevard (for a total of four) to allow for the opening of the third eastbound through lane that has already been constructed, and to convert one of the two eastbound right-turn-only lanes to a fourth eastbound through lane. MM TRANS-2c: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to identify and pay the project’s proportionate share for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of modifying the southbound approach to construct a second southbound left-turn lane in addition to re-timing the traffic signal. MM TRANS-2d: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin the Eastern Dublin TIF for improvements to the intersection of Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard. The improvements would consist of a second northbound left-turn lane at Fallon Road. Impact TRANS-3: The proposed project may cause intersections and queues to operate below acceptable levels under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1b, TRANS-1c, TRANS-1d, TRANS-1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-1g, TRANS-2b, TRANS-2c, TRANS-4a and: MM TRANS-3a: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have paid the City of Pleasanton the proportionate share fees for improvements to the intersection of Hopyard Road/Owens Drive in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of the following: • Modify the northbound approach: 2 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn, • Modify the southbound approach: 3 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn, • Modify the eastbound approach: 2 left turn, 2 through, 1 right turn, • Modify the westbound approach 2 left turn, 1 through-right shared, 1 right turn, and • Un-split eastbound/westbound signal operations. MM TRANS-3b: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with proportionate share fees for Significant unavoidable impact: • Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard • Hopyard Road/Owens Drive • Hacienda Drive/Owens Drive • Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps • Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive • Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard • Martinelli Way/IKEA Way (Persimmon Place) • Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way Less than significant impact: All other facilities. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-19 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation improvements to the intersection of Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard. The improvement shall consist of reconstructing the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound left-turn lane and constructing a second receiving lane on the north side of the intersection. MM TRANS-3c: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have paid the City of Pleasanton the proportionate share fees for improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive/Owens Drive in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of converting a southbound through lane to a third southbound left-turn, and convert an eastbound through lane to a third eastbound left-turn lane, in conjunction with signal timing adjustments. MM TRANS-3d: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the City of Dublin shall modify the Eastern Dublin TIF at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard to provide a second northbound right-turn lane in lieu of a fourth northbound through lane with a right-turn overlap phase and retain the two eastbound right-turn-only lanes in lieu of a fourth eastbound through lane. The project applicant shall then pay the Eastern Dublin TIF fee as the project’s proportionate share for the improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. MM TRANS-3e: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. Impact TRANS-4: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of freeway facilities. MM TRANS-4a: Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the proposed project, the applicant shall retain a qualified transportation consultant to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The TDM set forth strategies to achieve the reduction target, which may include: • Ridesharing/Carpooling matching program Significant unavoidable impact: • I-580 between Foothill Road and El Charro Road • I-680 between Stoneridge Drive and Alcosta Road • Dougherty Road & I-580 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-20 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • Posting transit information in employee-only areas • Provision of employee lockers • Provision of secure bicycle storage areas • Flex scheduling/Compressed scheduling • Staggered shifts to avoid shift changes during peak commute hours MM TRANS-4b: As an ongoing effort, the City of Dublin shall coordinate with Caltrans to optimize ramp metering rates at I-580 on-ramps within the Dublin city limits. MM TRANS-4c: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share for the installation of an additional mixed-flow on-ramp lane for southbound Hacienda Drive to westbound I-580. This mitigation measure shall be coordinated with Mitigation Measure TRANS-8d. Westbound Ramp • Hacienda Drive & I-580 Westbound Ramp • Hacienda Drive & I-580 Eastbound Ramp. Less than significant impact: All other facilities. Impact TRANS-5: The project may conflict with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads, highways, or freeways. Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a. Significant unavoidable impact: • Dublin Boulevard • Hopyard Road • Foothill Road • Isabel Avenue Less than significant impact: All other facilities. Impact TRANS-6: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact TRANS-7: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Executive Summary FirstCarbon Solutions ES-21 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec00-03 ExecSummary.docx Table ES-2 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact TRANS-8: The project may conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. MM TRANS-8a: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that depict a Class II bike lane on Arnold Road and a 10-foot sidewalk on Martinelli Way. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. MM TRANS-8b: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that include bicycle detection as part of the signal modifications to the intersections of Martinelli Way with Arnold Road, IKEA Place and Hacienda Drive. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. MM TRANS-8c: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that identify bicycle storage facilities in appropriate locations throughout the project site. The following minimum amounts of bicycle parking shall be provided: 80 short-term—51 bicycle parking spaces near the IKEA entrance and 29 bicycle spaces distributed throughout the retail/restaurant area—and 80 long-term bicycle parking spaces with the same distribution. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. MM TRANS-8d: During construction, the applicant shall maintain safe and convenient pedestrian access in the project vicinity. In cases where pedestrian facilities are temporarily closed, detours shall be established. MM TRANS-8e: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with fair share fees for pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange. This mitigation measure shall be coordinated with Mitigation Measure TRANS-4c. Significant unavoidable impact: • Hacienda Drive pedestrian mobility. Less than significant impact: All other topics. Section 3.5—Urban Decay Impact UD-1: The proposed project would not result in project-level urban decay. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. Impact UD-2: The proposed project would not result in cumulative urban decay. No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Introduction      FirstCarbon Solutions 1‐1  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec01‐00 Introduction.docx  SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION  1.1 ‐ Overview of the CEQA Process  This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) is prepared in accordance with  the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts  associated with the implementation of the IKEA Retail Center Project (State Clearinghouse  No. 2017082047).  This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public  Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations,  Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.).  This Draft SEIR is intended to serve as an informational document  for the public agency decision makers and the public regarding the proposed project.  1.1.1 ‐ Overview  The proposed project consists of up to 432,099 square feet  of commercial uses on 27.45 acres.  The  project would be anchored by an IKEA store of up to 339,099 square feet and feature up to 93,000  square feet of lifestyle retail‐restaurant uses.  Section 2, Project Description provides a complete  description of the project.  1.1.2 ‐ Purpose and Authority  This Environmental Impact Report supplements an earlier Environmental Impact Report prepared to  address the impacts of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.  The Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan  was certified by the City of Dublin on May 10, 1993 by Resolution Nos. 51‐93 and 53‐93 and included  approximately 6,920 acres of land for the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and 3,328 acres of land for  the Specific Plan within the GPA area generally bounded by the Interstate 580 (I‐580) freeway to the  south, the Alameda County/Contra Costa County line to the north, Parks Reserve Forces Training   Area (Parks RFTA) to the west and the ridgeline between Collier Canyon and Doolan Canyon to the  east. This Environmental Impact Report is hereafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR.  The State  Clearinghouse (SCH) Number for this EIR is 91103064.  The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the  environmental impacts of urban development on the subject property.  In 2003, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for a proposed IKEA  furniture store and associated development on the subject property (SCH No. 2003092076) (IKEA  SEIR).  The SEIR analyzed a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and related  applications to allow the development of a 317,000‐square‐foot IKEA store on the westerly portion  of the site and a 137,000‐square‐foot separate “lifestyle” retail center on the eastern portion of the  site.  On March 16, 2004, Dublin City Council certified the IKEA SEIR by Resolution No. 44‐04 and  approved the amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plan to designate the site for General  Commercial use.  The IKEA project was never built and new entitlements are being sought for the  property.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Introduction Draft Supplemental EIR      1‐2 FirstCarbon Solutions  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec01‐00 Introduction.docx  In 2014, a second SEIR was prepared for a proposed project known as The Green Mixed‐Use Project  (SCH No. 2013072032).  The SEIR analyzed a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan  Amendment and related applications to allow a mixed‐use development consisting of 40,000 square  feet of commercial uses and 400 dwelling units on the subject property.  The Dublin City Council  denied the General Plan Amendment, the SEIR was not certified, and The Green Mixed‐Use Project  was never built.  Some of the technical reports for The Green Mixed‐Use Project are used as  references in this document.  However, since The Green Mixed‐Use Project SEIR was not certified,  this SEIR is not a supplement to that EIR.    As required by CEQA, the City has prepared and circulated an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation  (IS/NOP) for this Draft Supplement EIR to interested public and private parties.  Copies of the IS/NOP  and responses to the NOP are included as Appendix A.  Pursuant to the CEQA standards for  supplemental environmental review, the IS/NOP reviewed the potential environmental impacts of  the proposed project and determined (1) which impact areas required supplemental environmental  review to be addressed in this Draft SEIR and (2) which impact areas were analyzed in the Eastern  Dublin EIR and no further environmental review is required under CEQA standards.  This issue is  discussed in more detail below.  Scope of Supplemental EIR  Once an EIR is certified for  a project, CEQA prohibits Lead Agencies from preparing a supplemental  or subsequent EIR except under specific circumstances.  According to CEQA Guidelines Section  15162, additional EIR‐level review may be required only when substantial changes to the project  would cause new or substantially increased significant effects, or when substantial changes in  circumstances would result in new or substantially increased significant effects, or when substantial  new information shows the project would cause new or substantially increased significant effects, or  shows that previously infeasible mitigation measures would now be feasible but the project  proponent declines to adopt them.  As reflected in the Initial Study, the proposed project is a modification to the development analyzed  in the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR.  Many of the impacts are similar to the impacts disclosed  and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the IKEA SEIR  The Initial Study identifies impacts to the categories of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions,  biological resources, noise,  and transportation for further review in a Supplemental EIR.  After  completion of the Initial Study, the topic of hazards and hazardous materials, public services and  utilities, and urban decay were also found to require supplemental review and has been analyzed in  this document.  This Draft SEIR describes the degree to which the project’s potential impacts to  these environmental categories were addressed in the previously certified Eastern Dublin EIR.  It  further describes the type and extent of potential significant impacts affecting the project site  beyond those analyzed in previous EIRs.  Where supplemental significant impacts are identified,  supplemental mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level  to the extent feasible.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Introduction      FirstCarbon Solutions 1‐3  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec01‐00 Introduction.docx  CEQA requires that an EIR identify a reasonable range of alternatives, which was done in the Eastern  Dublin EIR.  One of these alternatives was adopted in modified form in the 1993 approvals.   However, since this Draft SEIR analyzes the impacts of a specific project on the subject property, the  Draft SEIR identifies additional project‐specific alternatives that could avoid or potentially lessen  identified impacts.  The Eastern Dublin EIR, IKEA SEIR, and The Green Mixed‐Use Project SEIR and its references are  available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza,  Dublin, CA 94568.  This Draft SEIR provides a project‐level analysis of the environmental effects of the IKEA Retail Center  Project.  The environmental impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in the Draft SEIR to the  degree of specificity appropriate, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15146.  This document  addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the  planning, construction, or operation of the project.  It also identifies appropriate and feasible mitigation  measures and alternatives that may be adopted to significantly reduce or avoid these impacts.  CEQA requires that an SEIR contain certain minimum specific elements.  These elements are  contained in this Draft SEIR and include:   Table  of Contents   Executive Summary   Introduction   Project Description   Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures   Cumulative Impacts   Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts   Alternatives to the Proposed Project   Growth‐Inducing Impacts   Effects  Found  Not To  Be Significant   Areas of Known Controversy    1.1.3 ‐ Lead Agency Determination  The City of Dublin is designated as the lead agency for the project.  CEQA Guidelines Section 15367  defines the lead agency as “. . . the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying  out or approving a project.”  Other public agencies may use this Draft SEIR in the decision‐making or  permit process and consider the information in this Draft SEIR along with other information that may  be presented during the CEQA process.  This Draft SEIR was prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions, an environmental consultant.  Prior to public  review, it was extensively reviewed and evaluated by the City of Dublin.  This Draft SEIR reflects the  independent judgment and analysis of the City of Dublin as required by CEQA.  Lists of organizations  and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel are provided in Sections 8 of this Draft  SEIR, respectively.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Introduction Draft Supplemental EIR      1‐4 FirstCarbon Solutions  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec01‐00 Introduction.docx  1.2 ‐ Scope of the SEIR  This Draft SEIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project.  The City of  Dublin issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project on August 17, 2017, which  circulated between August 17 and September 18, 2017 for the statutory 30‐day public review period.   The scope of this Draft SEIR includes the potential environmental impacts identified in the NOP and  issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP.  The NOP is contained in Appendix A  of this Draft SEIR.  Fifty‐two comment letters were received in response to the NOP.  They are listed in Table  1‐1 and  provided in Appendix A of this Draft SEIR.  Table  1‐1: IS‐NOP Comment Letters  Agency/Organization Author Date Summary of Relevant Comments  California Native  American Heritage  Commission  Frank Lienert, Associate  Governmental Program  Analyst  August 24,  2017  Native America consultation (AB‐52  and SB‐18); Cultural Resources  Assessment  Cal Trans District 4 Patricia Maurice, District  Branch Chief, Local  Development— Intergovernmental Review  September  14, 2017  Travel demand analysis; transportation  impact fee; intermodal planning;  vehicle trip reduction; cultural  resources; encroachment permit  City of Pleasanton Gerry Beaudin, AICP,  Community Development  Director  September  14, 2017  Regional and local traffic circulation  system  Alameda County Flood  Control and Water  Conservation District  Zone 7  Elke Rank September  15, 2017  Groundwater quality; on‐site  groundwater well; site drainage;  recycled water for irrigation; water  supply and demand; Zone 7 water  infrastructure.  City of Livermore Steve Stewart, Planning  Manager  September  18, 2017  Request for coordination with BART Dublin San Ramon  Services District  Rhodora N. Biagtan,  Principal Engineer  September  18, 2017  Utilities and service systems details;  DSRSD potable water facility on‐site  N/A Brian Aguirre August 22,  2017  A second high school is of higher  priority than retail.  N/A Catherine & William Kuo September  7, 2017  Ikea suitability; color and theme  N/A David DiVecchio September  10, 2017  Statistical analysis of current Ikea  stores is needed; expanded traffic  study area; public notice on the EIR  process.  N/A Gabrielle Marshall September  12, 2017  Project location   City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Introduction      FirstCarbon Solutions 1‐5  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec01‐00 Introduction.docx  Table  1‐1 (cont.): IS‐NOP Comment Letters  Agency/Organization Author Date Summary of Relevant Comments  N/A John Koltz September  12, 2017  Traffic impact analysis of I‐580 on  weekends; view shed.  N/A Tammy Ficarra September  15, 2017  Additional traffic analysis; impact on I‐ 580/I‐680 interchange; comparison of  tax revenue from other businesses;  actual public interest in Big Box   businesses  N/A Y. Satar September  15, 2017  City Council does not listen to public  concerns on this project; traffic  N/A Nora and Jerry SooHoo September  15, 2017  Overload of existing overloaded traffic  system impacts quality of life  N/A Russell Duley September  15, 2017  Traffic  N/A Dennis Berger September  15, 2017  Uncontrolled growth; traffic and  congestion  N/A Richard Schechter September  15, 2017  Traffic impact on I‐580, I‐680, Dublin  Blvd, and Hacienda Blvd.; parking;  aesthetics.  N/A Angie [No last name  provided]  September  15, 2017  Opposed to IKEA in central Dublin. N/A Katie Marini September  15, 2017  Opposed to IKEA in Dublin.  N/A Perrin Guess September  16, 2017  Congestion; aesthetics; information on commercial projects rejected by the  City; other priorities (second high  school)   N/A Manish Raman September  16, 2017  Traffic; air quality; infrastructure N/A Tomek [No last name  provided]  September  16, 2017  Traffic; road quality  N/A Kris Balaram September  16, 2017  Short‐and long‐term transportation  and congestion forecast; EIR should be  easily understood; evaluation of  mitigation measures effectiveness;  alternative evaluation.  N/A Wendy Jemo September  16, 2017  Traffic N/A Jai Jayaraj September  16, 2017  Traffic; the project will attract anti‐ social elements and increase crime;  decline in property values.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Introduction Draft Supplemental EIR      1‐6 FirstCarbon Solutions  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec01‐00 Introduction.docx  Table  1‐1 (cont.): IS‐NOP Comment Letters  Agency/Organization Author Date Summary of Relevant Comments  N/A Jojo Clay September  17, 2017  Supporting the project  N/A Nathan Janken September  17, 2017  Traffic and congestion  N/A John Heyer September  17, 2017  Aesthetics; traffic; financial analysis of  the benefit to the City compared to  another business  N/A Lianne Marshall September  17, 2017  The project is inconsistent with the  Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; aesthetics;  traffic.  N/A Mukesh Idnani September  17, 2017  Traffic N/A Jennifer Butler September  17, 2017  Traffic impact study; aesthetics;  parking; increase in crime and less  desirable people drawn to the area  N/A Jegadheesa Murugesan September  17, 2017  Traffic with additional 2,000 expected  homes and a Costco; parking; impact on  quality of life; emergency movement  N/A Danielle Cooper September  17, 2017  Home value; traffic  N/A Rowena Morgan September  17, 2017  Aesthetics; traffic; dust and pollution N/A Wellman Ho September  17, 2017  Traffic N/A Marie‐Anne Poudret September  17, 2017  A more wholesome project, like a  performing arts center, should be built;  traffic; crime; flood zone; aesthetics.  N/A Jennifer Situ & Vick Tran September  17, 2017  Traffic and congestion  N/A Minh Thai September  18, 2017  Information on the actual building;  Dublin Ordinance Chapter 8.42  Superstores; aesthetics and  suggestions for architecture and color;  traffic; tax revenue should fund the  building of a second high school in East  Dublin; no additional housing  development until second high school  is built.  N/A Tim Adelin September  18, 2017  Traffic; quality of life  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Introduction      FirstCarbon Solutions 1‐7  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec01‐00 Introduction.docx  Table  1‐1 (cont.): IS‐NOP Comment Letters  Agency/Organization Author Date Summary of Relevant Comments  N/A Hilary Nindorf September  18, 2017  Environmental impacts to traffic, noise,  water usage and power; environmental  impacts to constructions; quality of life N/A Jasmine Vasa September  18, 2017 Traffic and congestion  N/A Rick Camacho September  18, 2017 Traffic; infrastructure; quality of life;  impacts to existing business  N/A Ingemar Gaedeke September  18, 2017 Traffic congestion; aesthetics N/A Kerrie Chabot September  18, 2017  Full weekend traffic analysis; parking  analysis; Dublin City Ordinance  opposes Big Box retail; aesthetics;  parking lot safety; pick‐up location  rather than a full store  N/A Marlene Massetti September  18, 2017  Identify and analyze all potential  impacts to wetlands on‐site; the East  Dublin Specific Plan referenced in the  EIR is outdated; toxic materials;  analysis of specific effects; aesthetics  and architecture; City Ordinance  against “big box” stores.  N/A Gabrielle Blackman September  18, 2017  Parking; aesthetics; impact on small  businesses; design standards in the  General Plan Community Development  Element; safety and crime in the  parking lot; air quality  N/A Mark Kang September  18, 2017 Congestion N/A Jing Firmeza September  18, 2017  4:1 parking ratio, traffic; tax revenue is  not enough to pay for extra  infrastructure; Class A businesses are  more appropriate to this location near  a BART station  N/A Catherine & William Kuo September  18, 2017 Aesthetics, traffic, parking  N/A Jacqui Alexander September  18, 2017 Traffic and congestion; study on  increased traffic  N/A Vanessa Sood September  18, 2017  Statistical analysis of current Ikea  stores is needed; expanded traffic  study area; public notice on the EIR  process. N/A Minh Thai September 18, 2017  Traffic study; potential annual tax  revenue study    City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Introduction Draft Supplemental EIR      1‐8 FirstCarbon Solutions  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec01‐00 Introduction.docx  1.2.1 ‐ Environmental Issues Scoped Out of SEIR or Determined not to be  Significant  Consistent with the City’s practice for projects in Eastern Dublin, the City prepared an Initial Study to  determine if the IKEA Retail Center Project would require additional environmental review beyond  that analyzed in the previous EIR.  The Initial Study may be found in Appendix A.  The Initial Study  disclosed that many anticipated impacts of the proposed actions have been adequately addressed in  the Eastern Dublin EIR and that certain topical areas were determined not to be significant.  Impacts Scoped Out Based on Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR  These impact areas are those which rely on analysis in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no supplemental  environmental review is required under CEQA standards because there are no new or substantially  more severe impacts than those disclosed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no other CEQA standards for  supplemental review are met.   Aesthetics   Agriculture and Forestry Resources   Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources   Geology/Soils   Hydrology and Water  Quality   Land Use/Planning   Mineral Resources   Population/Housing   Recreation     Effects Found To  Be Less Than Significant  The following checklist questions were determined not to be significant based on the analysis  presented in Section 7, Effects Found Not To  Be Significant.   In addition, certain subjects within various topical areas were determined not to be significant based  on limited analysis, as follows.     Wildlife movement, corridors, and nursery sites (Section 3.2, Biological Resources)     Local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources (Section 3.2, Biological Resources)     Conservation plans (Section 3.2, Biological Resources)     Public airports or public use airports (Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials)     Private airstrips (Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials)     Exposure of schools to hazardous materials or emissions (Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous  Materials)     Emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous  Materials)    City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Introduction FirstCarbon Solutions 1-9 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx • Wildland Fires (Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) • Noise related to public airports or public use airports (Section 3.4, Noise) • Noise related to private airstrips (Section 3.4, Noise) • Air traffic patterns (Section 3.6, Transportation) • Tribal Cultural Resources1 1.2.2 - Potentially Significant Environmental Issues The NOP found that the following topical areas may contain potentially significant environmental issues that will require further analysis in the Draft SEIR. These sections are as follows: • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Biological Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Noise • Public Services and Utilities • Transportation • Urban Decay • Energy 1.3 - Organization of the SEIR This Draft SEIR is organized into the following main sections: • Section ES: Executive Summary. This section includes a summary of the proposed project and alternatives to be addressed in the Draft SEIR. A brief description of the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and overview of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in addition to a table that summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation, are also included in this section. • Section 1: Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview describing the purpose of this Draft SEIR, its scope and components, and its review and certification process. • Section 2: Project Description. This section includes a detailed description of the proposed project, including its location, site, and project characteristics. A discussion of the project objectives, intended uses of the Draft SEIR, responsible agencies, and approvals that are needed for the proposed project are also provided. • Section 3: Environmental Impact Analysis. This section analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Impacts are organized into major topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, methodology, significance criteria, 1 The CEQA Guidelines Checklist was amended in 2015 to include the topic of Tribal Cultural Resources. Thus, the 1993 EDSP EIR is silent on this topic. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Introduction Draft Supplemental EIR 1-10 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx impacts, mitigation measures, and significance after mitigation. The specific environmental topics that are addressed within Section 3 are as follows: - Section 3.1—Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Addresses the potential air quality impacts associated with project implementation, as well as consistency with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Clean Air Plan. In addition, the section also evaluates project emissions of greenhouse gases. - Section 3.2—Biological Resources: Addresses the project’s potential impacts on habitat, vegetation, and wildlife; the potential degradation or elimination of important habitat; and impacts on listed, proposed, and candidate threatened and endangered species. - Section 3.3—Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Addresses the potential for the presence of hazardous materials or conditions on the project site and in the project area that may have the potential to impact human health. - Section 3.4—Noise: Addresses the potential noise impacts during construction and at project buildout from mobile and stationary sources. The section also addresses the impact of noise generation on neighboring uses. - Section 3.5—Public Services and Utilities: Addresses the potential impacts upon service providers, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, parks and recreational facilities, water supply, wastewater, and solid waste. - Section 3.6—Transportation: Addresses the impacts on the local and regional roadway system, public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian access. - Section 3.7—Urban Decay: Addresses the potential impacts of potential long-term closures of competing outlets that results in physical deterioration and ultimately manifests itself as urban decay. • Section 4: Cumulative Effects. This section discusses the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project, including the impacts of past, present, and probable future projects. • Section 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. This section compares the impacts of the proposed project with three land-use project alternatives: the No Project Alternative, the Existing Planned Development Alternative, and the Reduced Density Alternative. An environmentally superior alternative is identified. In addition, alternatives initially considered but rejected from further consideration are discussed. • Section 6: Other CEQA Considerations. This section provides a summary of significant environmental impacts, including unavoidable and growth-inducing impacts. This section discusses the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project, including the impacts of past, present, and probable future projects. In addition, the proposed project’s energy demand is discussed. • Section 7: Effects Found Not To Be Significant. This section contains analysis of the topical sections not addressed in Section 3. • Section 8: Persons and Organizations Consulted/List of Preparers. This section contains a full list of persons and organizations that were consulted during the preparation of this Draft SEIR. This section also contains a full list of the authors who assisted in the preparation of the Draft SEIR, by name and affiliation. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Introduction      FirstCarbon Solutions 1‐11  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec01‐00 Introduction.docx   Section 9: References.  This section contains a full list of references that were used in the  preparation of this Draft SEIR.     Appendices.  This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to  the Draft SEIR, as well as all technical material prepared to support the analysis.    1.4 ‐ Documents Incorporated by Reference   As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this Draft SEIR has referenced several technical  studies, analyses, and previously certified environmental documentation.  Information from the  documents, which have been incorporated by reference, has been briefly summarized in the  appropriate section(s).  The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document  and the Draft SEIR has also been described.  The documents and other sources that have been used  in the preparation of this Draft SEIR include but are not limited to:   City of Dublin General Plan   Eastern Dublin Specific Plan   Dublin‐San Ramon Services District 2015 Urban Water  Management Plan     These documents are specifically identified in Section 9, References, of this Draft SEIR.  In  accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b), the General Plan, the Specific Plan, Urban Water  Management Plan, and the referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation of the  Draft SEIR are available for review at the Community Development Department at the address  shown in Section 1.6 below.  1.5 ‐ Documents Prepared for the Project  The following technical studies and analyses were prepared for the proposed project:   Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis (Appendix B)   Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B)   Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix C)   Noise Analysis (Appendix E)   Traffic  Impact Analysis (Appendix F)   Urban Decay Analysis (Appendix G)    1.6 ‐ Review of the Draft SEIR  Upon completion of the Draft SEIR, the City of Dublin filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the  State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (Public Resources Code,  Section 21161).  Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft SEIR has been distributed to responsible and  trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all  parties requesting a copy of the Draft SEIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3).   During the public review period, the Draft SEIR, including the technical appendices, is available for  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Introduction Draft Supplemental EIR      1‐12 FirstCarbon Solutions  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec01‐00 Introduction.docx  review on the City of Dublin’s website, at the City of Dublin offices, and at the Dublin Library.  The  address for each location is provided below:  City of Dublin  Community Development Department  100 Civic Plaza  Dublin, CA 94568  Hours:  Monday–Friday: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.  Dublin Library  200 Civic Plaza  Dublin, CA 94568   Hours:   Monday–Wednesday: 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.  Thursday: 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.  Saturday: 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.  Sunday: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.    Website: https://dublin‐development.icitywork.com/  Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the Draft SEIR  during the 45‐day public review period.  Written comments on this Draft SEIR should be addressed to:  Ms. Amy Million, Principal Planner  City of Dublin  Community Development Department  100 Civic Plaza  Dublin, CA 94568  Phone: 925.833.6610  Fax: 925.833.6628  Email: amy.million@dublin.ca.gov    Submittal of electronic comments in Microsoft Word  or Adobe PDF format is encouraged.  Upon  completion of the public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues  raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days  prior to the public hearing before the City of Dublin on the project, at which the certification of the  Final SEIR will be considered.  Comments received and the responses to comments will be included  as part of the record for consideration by decision makers for the project.    City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 2-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) analyzes the potential environmental effects of the proposed IKEA Retail Center Project in the City of Dublin. 2.1 - Project Location and Setting 2.1.1 - Location The project site is located at 5344 and 5411 Martinelli Way in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California (Exhibit 2-1). The 27.45 gross-acre project site is bounded by Arnold Road (west), Martinelli Way (north), Hacienda Drive (east), and Interstate 580 (I-580) (south); refer to Exhibit 2-2. The project site is located on the Dublin, California, United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, Section 5 (Latitude 37°42’10” North; Longitude 121°53’27” West). 2.1.2 - Existing Conditions The project site contains mostly unimproved, undeveloped land. The project site was previously cleared and graded, and is regularly disked for weed abatement purposes. A fence surrounds the project site. The elevation ranges from approximately 343 feet in the north to approximately 338 feet in the south. An unoccupied, prefabricated, single-story building is located in the northern portion of the project site on an asphalt pad. An asphalt driveway connects the building pad to a driveway on Martinelli Way. Ornamental landscaping is located around the building. A single-story masonry block utility building is located in the southeast corner of the site along Arnold Road. This building is owned and operated by Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and serves as a “turnout” between the Zone 7 water system and the DSRSD water system. The site contains areas where soil has been stockpiled. Two of the stockpiles contain detectable concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, diesel and oil range petroleum hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls. The other stockpiles have been tested for hazardous materials and determined to be within acceptable levels for commercial development. The project site contains 1.92 acres of seasonal wetland depressions. Approximately 6.81 acres containing Congdon’s tarplant are intermixed with on-site grassland habitat. Vehicular access to the project site is currently available through three driveway stub-outs on Martinelli Way and three driveway stub-outs on Arnold Road. The middle driveway on Martinelli Way (which connects to the unoccupied building) is signalized and aligned with the main entrance to Persimmon Place retail center on the opposite side of the roadway. The project site is precluded from taking vehicular access on Hacienda Drive pursuant to a “No Access” easement. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Project Description Draft Supplemental EIR 2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx An asphalt pedestrian path is located along the project frontages with Arnold Road and Martinelli Way. A concrete sidewalk is located along the Hacienda Drive frontage. The following utilities are located within or adjacent to the project site: • A 16-inch diameter underground water line is located within Arnold Road, and a 12-inch diameter and 8-inch diameter underground water lines are located within Martinelli Way, with a 6-inch diameter underground service lateral serving the project site. • An 8-inch diameter underground sewer line is located within Martinelli Way, with an 8-inch diameter underground service lateral serving the project site. • A 12-inch diameter Pacific Gas and Electric Company underground natural gas line is located along the project’s I-580 frontage. • An 84-inch diameter underground storm drain is located along the project’s I-580 frontage and a 42-inch diameter underground storm drain is located along the project’s Arnold Road frontage. • A 12-inch diameter Pacific Gas and Electric Company underground natural gas line is located along the project’s I-580 frontage. Several utility boxes and vaults are located within the easements along the I-580 frontage. In addition, a portion of the site has been designated for dedication (to the City) for the future extension to the Bay Area Rapid Transit line along the project’s I-580 frontage. Exhibit 2-3 provides photographs of the project site. 2.1.3 - Surrounding Land Uses West Arnold Road, a four-lane divided roadway with landscaped median, forms the western boundary of the project site. West of Arnold Road is undeveloped land contemplated for office use. Further west is the Dublin/Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station. North Martinelli Way, a six-lane divided roadway with landscaped median, forms the northern boundary of the project site. North of Martinelli Way is Persimmon Place, a 153,378-square-foot retail center that opened in 2015. East Hacienda Drive, an eight-lane divided roadway with landscaped median, forms the eastern boundary of the project site. East of Hacienda Drive is the Hacienda Crossings shopping center, a 262,273- square-foot regional shopping center that opened in 1999. ! ·|}þ4 ·|}þ4 Alameda CountySanta Clara County C o n tra C o s ta C o u n ty A la m e d a C o u n ty !"#$580 ·|}þ92 ·|}þ84 !"#$680 !"#$880 ·|}þ24 !"#$680 ·|}þ237 (/101 !"#$280 ·|}þ238 Mount DiabloState Park Brentwood Ala m e d a C o u nty S a n M ate o C o u nty Pittsburg Martinez Antioch Oakley PleasantHill WalnutCreekLafayette Orinda Moraga Danville SanRamon DublinCastroValleySanLeandro LivermoreSanLorenzoPleasanton Hayward UnionCity FremontNewarkRedwoodCity MenloPark NorthFairOaks EastPaloAlto Milpitas Stanford MountainViewPaloAlto Sunnyvale EastFoothills SanJoaquin RiverCarquinez Strait ShermanLake Big Break SanPabloReservoir BrionesReservoir Upper SanLeandroReservoir Lake Chabot Lake DelValleSan AntonioReservoir CalaverasReservoir CliftonCourtForebayLos VaquerosReservoir Exhibit 2-1Regional Location Map 5 0 52.5 Miles ! Text Project Site Source: Census 2000 Data, T he CaSIL, FCS GIS 2013. I CIT Y OF DUBLIN • IKEA RET AIL CENT ER PROJECTSUPPLEMENT AL ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT 37660005 • 09/2017 | 2-1_regional.m xd Project Site THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 37660005 • 09/2017 | 2-2_vicinity.m xd Exh ibit 2-2Local VicinityAerial Base S ource: Bing Im agery, 2015 CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT S UPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I 850 0 850425 Feet Legend Project Site Persimmon Place HaciendaCrossings Parks ReserveForces Training Area(Camp Parks) Dublin/PleasantonBART Station James DoughertyElementary School THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK View of project site from Arnold Road. View of existing building and driveway from Martinelli Way. 37660005 • 09/2017 | 2-3_sitephoto.cdr CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 2-3 Site Photograph Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2017. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 2-9 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx South I-580, a 10-lane freeway, forms the southern boundary of the project site. BART storage tracks associated with the Dublin/Pleasanton Station are located in the freeway median. (The planned BART extension from the Dublin/Pleasanton Station to Livermore would replace the storage tracks). Further south of I-580 are office uses and undeveloped land located in the City of Pleasanton. 2.1.4 - Land Use Designations The project site is designated “General Commercial” by the City of Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and is zoned Planned Development (Ord. 34-08) . The project site is located within the Hacienda Gateway planning subarea of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 2.2 - Project Background 2.2.1 - Project Site The project site was originally part of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (known locally as “Camp Parks”), a United States Army Reserve installation that opened in 1943. The project site was located in a portion of the base that―at various times―contained a gatehouse, guest reception lounge, an athletic field, and athletic field house, fuel depot, railroad spurs, and a warehouse receiving area. In the late 1960s, a portion of Camp Parks that included the project site was transferred to the County of Alameda for civilian use. In the mid-1990s, the military buildings were demolished and the site was cleared. An underground storage tank (UST) associated with the past military uses was removed in 2008. The project site was graded several times between 2007 and 2009 and a new nonresidential structure near Martinelli Way was constructed. The property owner has been pursuing soil, soil gas, and groundwater remediation efforts under the auspices of the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, which has included removal of contaminated soil and pumping of contaminated groundwater. On October 30, 2014, Alameda County Health Care Services Agency issued a notice of “Potential Case Closure” that noted that the agency would consider closure of the case once the last soil stockpile is removed from the project site. 2.2.2 - Eastern Dublin Specific Plan The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sets forth the planning framework for approximately 4,200 acres in the eastern portion of the City of Dublin. Much of this acreage included former portions of Camp Parks that have been transferred to civilian use, including the project site. The Specific Plan (and associated General Plan Amendment) was adopted in 1993 and has been amended several times, most recently in 2014. The Specific Plan is organized into 10 chapters that set forth policy recommendations, design concepts, and implementation measures. The first three chapters are primarily descriptive, summarizing the Plan, the planning context, and the existing setting. The policies, standards, guidelines, and implementation measures that regulate future development are presented in subsequent chapters. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Project Description Draft Supplemental EIR 2-10 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx The Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin on May 10, 1993 by Resolution Nos. 51-93 and 53-93 and included approximately 6,920 acres of land for the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and 3,328 acres of land for the Specific Plan within the GPA area, generally bounded by the I-580 freeway to the south, the Alameda County/Contra Costa County line to the north, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA) to the west, and the ridgeline between Collier Canyon and Doolan Canyon to the east. This Environmental Impact Report is hereafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The State Clearinghouse Number (SCH) for this EIR is 91103064. 2.2.3 - Prior CEQA Environmental Review for Subject Property Refer to Section 1, Introduction for discussion of the prior EIRs prepared for development on the subject proper and the standards for supplemental environmental review applicable to the DSEIR for the proposed project. 2.3 - Project Characteristics 2.3.1 - Proposed Project The project is proposing the development of up to 432,099 square feet of commercial uses on 27.45 acres. The project would be anchored by an IKEA store of up to 339,099 square feet and feature up to 93,000 square feet of lifestyle retail-restaurant uses. Table 2-1 summarizes the project and Exhibit 2-4 depicts the conceptual site plan. Table 2-1: IKEA Retail Center Project Summary Use Acreage Square Feet Characteristics Major 1 (IKEA) 13.65 339,099 2 stories above two-story parking structure Lifestyle retail-restaurant 13.66 8,000 Freestanding restaurant 34,560 Multiple buildings, retail use 58,440 Multiple buildings, restaurant/food use Subtotal 27.45 — ― Proposed/anticipated dedication for BART1 (0.16) ― ― Total 27.31 432,099 ― Note: 1 Based on Express Buss/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative. Source: GreenbergFarrow, 2017. Major 1—IKEA The IKEA store would consist of a two-story building located over a two-level parking structure with the lower level partially below grade. The building would be set against the Arnold Road frontage and face Hacienda Drive. The building would stand approximately 61 feet above finished grade. The City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 2-11 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx principal loading docks would be located in the rear of the building facing Arnold Road. A recycling and refuse collection area, trash compactor, and emergency diesel generator would also be located at the rear of the store. A two-bay loading dock for home deliveries would be located on the south side of the building facing I-580. The building design reflects a contemporary theme incorporating blue and yellow1. The building facades would be broken up by geometry, and building materials such as composite metal panels, steel elements and clear anodized glass, aluminum, and storefront glazing at the entrance. Operational Characteristics The IKEA store is expected to be open for business 7 days a week from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Longer operational hours may be applicable during holidays or to accommodate future operational needs/market conditions. The project is anticipated to employ 150 employees per shift for a total of approximately 350 employees. The project would be served by approximately five to seven trucks (including 53-foot tractor-trailer combination units) daily. The IKEA store would be powered by a 1,200–1,300-kilowatt rooftop photovoltaic solar array. Lifestyle Retail-Restaurant Center The eastern portion of the site would support a retail center consisting of up to 93,000 square feet of lifestyle retail-restaurant center uses that would be located in multiple buildings, including up to 34,560 square feet for retail and 58,440 square feet for restaurant/food use. A pedestrian plaza is also included that would be located directly opposite the IKEA store entrance. Site Access and Parking Vehicular Access The proposed project would result in modifications to site access points as follows: • Martinelli Way: The signalized full entry along Martinelli Way would remain in-place and the main entry is proposed to be designated as “IKEA Place.” The existing west driveway stub-out would be eliminated. The existing east driveway stub-out would serve as a right-in, right-out access point. • IKEA Place: IKEA Place would serve as a north-south internal street within the project and provide access to the IKEA parking structure and the lifestyle retail-restaurant center surface parking. • Arnold Road: The median in Arnold Road that restricts movements at the driveway located in the approximate center of the site of the site would be modified to provide full access to the IKEA parking structure. Additionally, a right-out ramp from the IKEA parking structure would 1 Blue and yellow are the national colors of Sweden and the corporate colors of IKEA. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Project Description Draft Supplemental EIR 2-12 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx connect to northbound Arnold Road. The existing Arnold Road “T”-intersection near I-580 would be converted to a cul-de-sac. • East-West Internal Road: An east-west internal road would extend from Arnold Road east into the project site along the southern perimeter and connect to both the IKEA parking structure, IKEA Place and the lifestyle retail-restaurant center. • Hacienda Drive: The existing northbound approach lane configuration of Hacienda Drive at Martinelli Way includes three left turn lanes, with the inner most left turn lane “coned off” in order to prevent motorists from using it. (Thus, only two left turn lanes can be used by left- turning motorists under existing conditions.) The proposed project would necessitate removing the cones and making the innermost left turn available for use by motorists. This improvement would not require any new construction. Parking The IKEA store would provide approximately 1,026 parking spaces mostly located in a two-level, below-store structure. Access to the parking structure would be taken from either set of entrances/exits at the north and south ends. The lifestyle retail-restaurant uses would provide approximately 568 surface parking spaces. Pedestrian Facilities The project includes the provision of sidewalks and curb ramps along the Arnold Road and Martinelli Way frontage. A shared pedestrian/bicycle path would also be provided on the eastern and southern project boundaries connecting the intersection of Martinelli Way at Hacienda Driveway to Arnold Road, where an existing sidewalk on the frontage road provides a pedestrian connection to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station. Internal pedestrian paths would also be constructed throughout the site to provide connections between the various buildings. Grading The proposed project’s grading activities would involve 95,000 cubic yards of cut and 73,700 cubic yards of fill. Thus, 21,300 cubic yards would be exported off-site. Utilities Storm Drainage The proposed project would install an on-site storm drainage system consisting of a network of street gutters, inlets, basins, and underground piping that would ultimately convey runoff to the existing 42-inch-diameter or to 84-inch-diameter storm drains adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would result in a net increase of 17.96 acres of impervious surfaces on the project site. In accordance with C.3 requirements, peak runoff flows would be detained within landscaped bioretention areas located through the project site during peak storm events and released at a rate no greater than the pre-development peak runoff flows. Thus, there would be an overall decrease in runoff leaving the project site during peak storm event under existing conditions. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 2-13 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx Potable and Recycled Water DSRSD would serve the proposed project with potable water service. The proposed project would connect to the 16-inch-diameter water line is located within Arnold Road, and a 12-inch-diameter and 8-inch-diameter water lines are located within Martinelli Way. Connections would be looped for redundancy. DSRSD would serve the proposed project with recycled water service. The proposed project would connect to the 8-inch-diameter water line located within Martinelli Way. Connections would be looped for redundancy. Wastewater DSRSD would serve the proposed project with wastewater collection and treatment service. The proposed project would connect to the existing 8-inch-diameter sewer line in Martinelli Way. Electricity and Natural Gas The proposed project would be served with electricity service provided by PG&E. Connections would be made from existing PG&E electrical lines located within Arnold Road or Martinelli Way. The proposed project would be served with natural gas service provided by PG&E. Connections would be made from existing PG&E natural gas lines located within Arnold Road or Martinelli Way. Sustainability Features All IKEA stores are centered around sustainable design principles, but the exact details vary from store to store. All new IKEA stores in the U.S. are designed at a minimum to meet the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standard; similarly, the proposed Dublin store will be designed to LEED-Silver, but possibly meet LEED-Gold. Gold scores are equivalent to the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method “Excellent,” which includes important measures like energy efficiency in lighting and cooling. The proposed store will incorporate below store parking (similar to the Greenwich, United Kingdom store) to reduce its heat island effect, and is located very closely to mass transit hub where it will be part of a sustainable infrastructure system. The store will also have low flow water fixtures, bicycle storage, showers for co-workers, electrical cars chargers, and a thermally efficient building envelope almost identical to the Greenwich, Connecticut location. Additionally, photovoltaic solar will be employed to offset its carbon emissions, and also included significantly more glazing than other stores, thereby allowing for additional natural daylighting. For the lifestyle retail-restaurant center, the project is designed for compliance with the California green Building Code Tier 1 requirements. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Project Description Draft Supplemental EIR 2-14 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx 2.4 - Project Objectives The objectives of the proposed project are to: 1. Positively contribute to the local economy through new capital investment, creation of new employment opportunities, expansion of the tax base, and increased retail offerings. 2. Reinforce Dublin’s status as a regional retail node by increasing commercial retail and service offerings within an established regional and highway-oriented commercial area. 3. Develop a new regional-serving retail use close to Interstate 580, Dublin Boulevard, and public transit options in order to better serve the retail demands of the Trade Area, while also minimizing the need for infrastructure improvements. 4. Promote economic growth in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 5. Facilitate the reuse of a former, underutilized portion of Camp Parks that is zoned for commercial use and is currently in the Dublin city limits. 6. Develop smaller retail and restaurant uses that complement the major anchor and provide consumers with additional competitive and convenient options. 7. Design a site plan to minimize overall access and circulation conflicts, and that is also accessible to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. 8. Complete site remediation efforts in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and prevent future environmental degradation. 9. Improve the overall visual appearance of the area by developing new commercial uses that employ high-quality contemporary architecture and landscaping. I 37660005 • 11/2017 | 2-4_siteplan.cdr Exhibit 2-4 Conceptual Site Plan CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Source: GreenbergFarrow, 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Project Description FirstCarbon Solutions 2-17 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx 2.5 - Intended Uses of this Draft SEIR This Draft SEIR is being prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential environmental impacts that may arise in connection with actions related to implementation of the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Dublin is the lead agency for the proposed project and has discretionary authority over the proposed project and project approvals. The Draft SEIR is intended to address all public infrastructure improvements and all future development that are within the parameters of the proposed project. 2.5.1 - Discretionary and Ministerial Actions Discretionary approvals and permits are required by the City of Dublin for implementation of the proposed project. The project application would require the following discretionary approvals and actions, including: • Supplemental EIR Certification. • Planned Development Rezone (Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD Plan). • Vesting Tentative and Final Map. A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map with multiple Final Maps would shift and eliminate lots lines so that only two parcels remain, one for the IKEA site and second parcel for the lifestyle retail-restaurant center. • Site Development Review. A Site Development Review would describe the specific design color, materials, parking and access, and landscaping for the project. • Master Sign Program/Site Development Review. A Master Sign Program/Site Development Review for the entire project is required to ensure effective and attractive signage throughout the project. Subsequent ministerial actions would be required for the implementation of the proposed project including issuance of building, grading, encroachment, and site improvement permits. 2.5.2 - Responsible and Trustee Agencies A number of other agencies in addition to the City of Dublin will serve as Responsible and Trustee Agencies, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 and Section 15386, respectively. This Draft SEIR will provide environmental information to these agencies and other public agencies, which may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with other agencies, as part of project implementation. These agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following: • California Department of Transportation • California Department of Fish and Wildlife • County of Alameda • Alameda County Health Care Services Agency • Bay Area Rapid Transit District • San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Project Description Draft Supplemental EIR 2-18 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx • Dublin San Ramon Services District • Zone 7 Water Agency Actions that are necessary to implement the project that must be taken by other agencies are: • Issuance of Encroachment Permits (Caltrans, County of Alameda) City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Environmental Impact Analysis      FirstCarbon Solutions 3‐1  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐00 Env Impact Analysis.docx  SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS  Organization of Issue Areas  This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) provides analysis of impacts for  those environmental topics where it was determined in the Notice of Preparation, or through  subsequent analysis, that the proposed project would require further environmental review than  what was provided in the Eastern Dublin EIR under the CEQA supplemental environmental review  standards in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163  (see discussion in Section 1, Introduction).  Consistent with these supplemental review standards,  Sections 3.1 through 3.7 discuss the environmental impacts that may result with approval and  implementation of the proposed project.  Issues Addressed in this SEIR  The City determined that these impact areas required supplemental environmental review to the  Eastern Dublin EIR and are addressed in Section 3:   Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions   Biological Resources   Hazards and Hazardous Materials   Noise   Transportation   Urban Decay   Public Services and Utilities     Level of Significance  Determining the severity of project impacts is fundamental to achieving the objectives of CEQA.   CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that decision‐makers mitigate, as completely as is feasible,  the significant impacts identified in the Final SEIR.  If the SEIR identifies any significant unmitigated  impacts, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires decision‐makers in approving a project to adopt a  statement of overriding considerations that explains why the benefits of the project outweigh the  adverse environmental consequences identified in the SEIR.  The level of significance for each impact examined in this Draft SEIR was determined by considering  the predicted magnitude of the impact against the applicable threshold.  Thresholds were developed  using criteria from the CEQA Guidelines and checklist; state, federal, and local regulatory schemes;  local/regional plans and ordinances; accepted practice; consultation with recognized experts; and  other professional opinions.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Environmental Impact Analysis Draft Supplemental EIR      3‐2 FirstCarbon Solutions  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐00 Env Impact Analysis.docx  Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measure Format  The format adopted in this Draft SEIR to present the evaluation of impacts is described and  illustrated below.  Summary Heading of Impact  Impact AES‐1: An impact summary heading appears immediately preceding the impact  description (Summary Heading of Impact in this example).  The impact  number identifies the section of the report (AES for Aesthetics, Light, and  Glare in this example) and the sequential order of the impact (1 in this  example) within that section.  To  the right of the impact number is the impact  statement, which identifies the potential impact.  Impact Analysis  A narrative analysis follows the impact statement.  Level of Significance Before Mitigation  This section identifies the level of significance of the impact before any mitigation is  proposed.  Mitigation Measures  In some cases, following the impact discussion, reference is made to state and federal  regulations and agency policies that would fully or partially mitigate the impact.  In addition,  policies and programs from applicable local land use plans that partially or fully mitigate the  impact may be cited.  Project‐specific mitigation measures, beyond those contained in other documents, are set  off with a summary heading and described using the format presented below:  MM AES‐1 Project‐specific mitigation is identified that would reduce the impact to the  lowest degree feasible.  The mitigation number links the particular  mitigation to the impact it is associated with (AES‐1 in this example);  mitigation measures are numbered sequentially.  Level of Significance After Mitigation  This section identifies the resulting level of significance of the impact following mitigation.  Abbreviations used in the mitigation measure numbering are:  Code Environmental Issue  AIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions BIO Biological Resources HAZ Hazards NOI Noise City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Environmental Impact Analysis      FirstCarbon Solutions 3‐3  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐00 Env Impact Analysis.docx  Code Environmental Issue  PSU Public Services and Utilities TRANS Transportation UD Urban Decay   THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx 3.1 - Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions This section describes the existing air quality setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on modeling performed by FirstCarbon Solutions. The most recent version of CalEEMod (version 2016.3.2) was used to quantify project-related emissions. The air quality analysis, including model output, is provided in Appendix B. This analysis follows the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommendations for preparing an air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis under CEQA. 3.1.1 - Environmental Setting Air Basin The project site is located in the City of Dublin in Alameda County and is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin). The Air Basin consists of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties; the western portion of Solano County; and the southern portion of Sonoma County. Air quality in the Air Basin is regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The regulatory responsibilities of these agencies are discussed in the Regulatory Framework section. Regional and local air quality is impacted by dominant airflows, topography, atmospheric inversions, location, season, and time of day. These characteristics are discussed in relation to the Air Basin. Local Climate A semi-permanent, high-pressure area centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean dominates the summer climate of the West Coast. Because this high-pressure cell is quite persistent, storms rarely affect the California coast during the summer. Thus, the conditions that persist along the coast of California during summer are a northwest airflow and negligible precipitation. A thermal low- pressure area from the Sonoran-Mojave Desert also causes air to flow onshore over the San Francisco Bay Area much of the summer. The steady northwesterly flow around the eastern edge of the Pacific High (a high-pressure cell) exerts stress on the ocean surface along the west coast. This induces upwelling of cold water from below. Upwelling produces a band of cold water off San Francisco that is approximately 80 miles wide. During July, the surface waters off San Francisco are 3 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than those off Vancouver, British Columbia, more than 900 miles to the north. Air approaching the California coast, already cool and moisture-laden from its long trajectory over the Pacific, is further cooled as it flows across this cold bank of water near the coast, thus accentuating the temperature contrast across the coastline. This cooling is often sufficient to produce condensation—a high incidence of fog and stratus clouds along the Northern California coast in summer. In summer, the northwest winds to the west of the Pacific coastline are drawn into the interior through the gap in the western Coast Ranges, known as the Golden Gate, and over the lower portions of the City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately to the south of Mount Tamalpais, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more nearly from the west as they stream through the Golden Gate. This channeling of the flow through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward but widens downstream, producing southwest winds at Berkeley and northwest winds at San Jose; a branch curves eastward through the Carquinez Straits and into the Central Valley. Wind speeds may be locally strong in regions where air is channeled through a narrow opening such as the Golden Gate, the Carquinez Strait, or San Bruno Gap. For example, the average wind speed at San Francisco International Airport from 3 a.m. to 4 p.m. in July is about 20 miles per hour (mph), compared with only about 8 mph at San Jose and less than 7 mph at the Farallon Islands. The sea breeze between the coast and the Central Valley commences near the surface along the coast in late morning or early afternoon; it may first be observed only through the Golden Gate. Later in the day, the layer deepens and intensifies while spreading inland. As the breeze intensifies and deepens, it flows over the lower hills farther south along the peninsula. This process frequently can be observed as a bank of stratus clouds “rolling over” the coastal hills on the west side of the bay. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part upon the height and strength of the inversion. The generally low elevation of this stable layer of air prevents marine air from flowing over the coastal hills. It is unusual for the summer sea breeze to flow over terrain exceeding 2,000 feet in elevation. In winter, the Air Basin experiences periods of storminess, moderate-to-strong winds, and periods of stagnation with very light winds. Winter stagnation episodes are characterized by outflow from the Central Valley, nighttime drainage flows in coastal valleys, weak onshore flows in the afternoon, and otherwise light and variable winds. A primary factor in air quality is the mixing depth (the vertical air column available for dilution of contaminant sources). Generally, the temperature of air decreases with height, creating a gradient from warmer air near the ground to cooler air at elevation. This is caused by most of the sun’s energy being converted to sensible heat at the ground, which in turn warms the air at the surface. The warm air rises in the atmosphere, where it expands and cools. Sometimes, however, the temperature of air actually increases with height. This condition is known as temperature inversion, because the temperature profile of the atmosphere is “inverted” from its usual state. Over the Air Basin, the frequent occurrence of temperature inversions limits mixing depth and, consequently, limits the availability of air for dilution. Local Air Quality Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographic features. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature inversions interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutant emissions and, consequently, their effect on air quality. The local air quality near the project area can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations within the Basin. The BAAQMD operates several air monitoring stations within the Basin each measuring several different air pollutants. The air quality monitoring station closest to the project site is the Livermore-793 Ricon Avenue monitoring Station (Livermore Station), which is City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-3 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx located approximately 6 miles southeast of the project site at 793 Rincon Avenue, Livermore. Since the Livermore Station does not monitor PM10, the San Jose-Jackson Street monitoring Station (San Jose Station), located approximately 30 miles southwest of the project site at 156B Jackson Street, San Jose, was utilized for PM10 monitoring. Table 3.1-1 summarizes 2014 through 2016 air monitoring data published by the ARB, which is the most recent time-period available. The Livermore monitoring station does not measure PM10 or carbon monoxide. No exceedances of either the state or national standards were recorded for NO2, and PM10. It should be noted that CO measurements have not been provided, since CO is currently in attainment in the Air Basin and monitoring of CO within the Air Basin ended on July 28, 2013. Table 3.1-1: Air Quality Monitoring Summary Air Pollutant Averaging Time Item 2014 2015 2016 Ozone 1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.093 0.105 0.102 Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 0 1 2 8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.080 0.081 0.085 Days > State Standard (0.07 ppm) 6 7 4 Days > National Standard (0.07 ppm) 6 7 4 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppb) 48.5 49.6 41.3 Days > National Standard (100 ppb) 0 0 0 Inhalable coarse particles (PM10) 24 hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 56.4 58.8 41.0 Days > State Standard (50 µg/m3) 1 1 0 Days > National Standard (150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 24 Hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 42.9 31.1 22.3 Days > National Standard (35 µg/m3) 1 0 0 Notes: > = exceed ppm = parts per million μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Ppb = parts per billion ND = no data max = maximum State Standard = California Ambient Air Quality Standard National Standard = National Ambient Air Quality Standard Measurements are from the Livermore and San Jose Stations Source: CARB 2017a. Local Sources of Air Pollution Exhaust gas from motor vehicles that travel along the nearby roadways constitute a major source of ambient air pollutants in the project area. Nearby sources of air pollution include Interstate 580 (I-580) immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. There are also several stationary sources located within and near the project site. The project site is also located near several local sources of air pollutants. Three permitted sources are located within 1,000 feet: (1) A diesel generator for Sybase (Facility Identification No. 18125), located at 1 Sybase Drive and is as City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-4 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx near as 800 feet north of the project site; (2) A diesel generator for Bay Area Transit (Facility Identification No. 18895), located at 5067 Iron Horse Parkway and is as near as 850 feet west of the project site; and (3) A diesel generator for Oracle USA, Inc. (Facility Identification No. 17753), located at 5805 Owens Drive and is as near as 650 feet south of the project site. Receptors in Project Vicinity Sensitive Receptors The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors to include residential dwellings, including apartments, houses, and condominiums; schools, colleges, and universities; daycare centers and hospitals, and senior-care facilities. The following have been identified as the sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of the project site: • Existing multi-family homes located on the west side of Campus Drive and as near as 850 feet northwest of the project site; and • Existing multi-family homes located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard and as near as 820 feet northeast of the project site. Off-site Workers The nearby off-site workers include workers at the nearby office parks and commercial retail centers. The following have been identified as sites with off-site workers located within 1,000 feet of the project site: • Commercial retail uses located on the north side of Martinelli Way and as near as 140 feet north of the project site; • Commercial retail uses located on the east side of Hacienda Drive and as near as 220 feet east of the project site; • Commercial retail uses located on the south side of Interstate 580 and on the east side of Hacienda Drive and as near as 840 feet southeast of the project site; • Office park uses located on the north side of Dublin Boulevard and as near as 800 feet north of the project site; and • Office park uses located on the south side of Interstate 580 and as near as 420 feet south of the project site. Health Effects The health impacts of the various air pollutants of concern can be presented in a number of ways. The clearest in comparison is to the state and federal ozone standards. If concentrations are below the standard, it is safe to say that no health impact would occur to anyone. When concentrations exceed the standard, impacts will vary based on the amount by which the standard is exceeded. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the Air Quality Index (AQI) as an easy-to-understand measure of health impacts compared with concentrations in the air. Table 3.1-2 provides a description of the health impacts of ozone at different concentrations. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-5 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-2: Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone Air Quality Index/ 8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description AQI–100—Moderate Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk. Concentration 75 ppb Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive individuals may experience respiratory symptoms. Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion. AQI–150—Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk. Concentration 95 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma. Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion. AQI–200—Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk. Concentration 115 ppb Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population. Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion. AQI–210—Very Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk. Concentration 139 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population. Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion. Source: Air Now 2015. The highest reading at the Livermore Station was 85 parts per billion (ppb) in 2016 and based on the AQI scale for the 8-hour ozone standard, the Livermore Station had as many as 4 days per year that were moderate (AQI 100) unhealthy over the last 3 years. In addition, the Livermore Station experienced no days in the last 3 years that would be categorized as either very unhealthy (AQI 210), unhealthful (AQI 200), or unhealthful for sensitive groups (AQI 150). City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-6 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx The other nonattainment pollutant of concern is PM2.5. An AQI of 100 or lower is considered moderate and would be triggered by a 24-hour average concentration of 35.4 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), which is considered an exceedance of the federal PM2.5 standard. Over the last three years, the Livermore Station only exceeded this standard for one day in 2014. Attainment Status The EPA and the ARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded “non- attainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National non-attainment areas are further designated marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard. The current attainment designations for the Basin are shown in Table 3.1-3. The Basin is designated non-attainment for the state ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, standards, non-attainment for the national ozone and PM2.5 standards, and unclassified for the national PM10. Table 3.1-3: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant State Status National Status Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide Attainment Attainment PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Lead Attainment Attainment Sulfates Attainment No federal standards Hydrogen sulfide Unclassified Visibility-reducing particles Unclassified Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. Greenhouse Gases Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, ozone, and City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-7 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx aerosols. Natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. The presence of GHGs in the atmosphere affects the earth’s temperature. It is believed that emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. Climate change is driven by forcings and feedbacks. Radiative forcing is the difference between the incoming energy and outgoing energy in the climate system. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. Radiative forcing values are typically expressed in watts per square meter. A feedback is a climate process that can strengthen or weaken a forcing. For example, when ice or snow melts, it reveals darker land underneath which absorbs more radiation and causes more warming. The global warming potential is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. The global warming potential of a gas is essentially a measurement of the radiative forcing of a GHG compared with the reference gas, carbon dioxide. Individual GHG compounds have varying global warming potential and atmospheric lifetimes. Carbon dioxide, the reference gas for global warming potential, has a global warming potential of one. The calculation of the carbon dioxide equivalent is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions since it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent metric. Methane’s warming potential of 21 indicates that methane has a 21 times greater warming affect than carbon dioxide on a molecule per molecule basis. A carbon dioxide equivalent is the mass emissions of an individual GHG multiplied by its global warming potential. GHGs as defined by Assembly Bill (AB) 32 include the following gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. GHGs as defined by AB 32 are summarized in Table 3.1-4. Table 3.1-4: Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources Nitrous oxide Nitrous oxide is also known as laughing gas and is a colorless greenhouse gas. It has a lifetime of 114 years. Its global warming potential is 310. Microbial processes in soil and water, fuel combustion, and industrial processes. Methane Methane is a flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. It has a lifetime of 12 years. Its global warming potential is 21. Methane is extracted from geological deposits (natural gas fields). Other sources are landfills, fermentation of manure, decay of organic matter, and cattle. Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless, colorless, natural greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide’s global warming potential is 1. The concentration in 2005 was 379 parts per million (ppm), which is an increase of about 1.4 ppm per year since 1960. Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-8 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-4 (cont.): Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gas Description and Physical Properties Sources Chlorofluorocarbons These are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). Global warming potentials range from 3,800 to 8,100. Chlorofluorocarbons were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. They destroy stratospheric ozone. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Hydrofluorocarbons Hydrofluorocarbons are a group of GHGs containing carbon, chlorine, and at least one hydrogen atom. Global warming potentials range from 140 to 11,700. Hydrofluorocarbons are synthetic manmade chemicals used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. Perfluorocarbons Perfluorocarbons have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Global warming potentials range from 6,500 to 9,200. Two main sources of perfluorocarbons are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Sulfur hexafluoride Sulfur hexafluoride is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years. It has a high global warming potential, 23,900. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. Source: United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The State has begun the process of addressing pollutants referred to as short-lived climate pollutants. Senate Bill 605, approved by the Governor on September 14, 2014, requires the ARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants and Senate Bill 1383 directed ARB to approve and begin implementation of the plan by January 1, 2018, and set statewide 2030 emission reduction targets for methane, HFCs, and anthropogenic black carbon. The Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy was approved by ARB on March 2017. Senate Bill 1383 also included a number of directives for addressing dairy and livestock methane emissions and landfill methane emissions via diversion of organic material from the waste stream. Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter. Black carbon is formed by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass. Sources of black carbon within a jurisdiction may include exhaust from diesel trucks, vehicles, and equipment, as well as smoke from biogenic combustion. Biogenic combustion sources of black carbon include the burning of biofuels used for transportation, the burning of biomass for electricity generation and heating, prescribed burning of City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-9 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx agricultural residue, and natural and unnatural wildfires. Black carbon is not a gas but an aerosol— particles or liquid droplets suspended in air. Black carbon only remains in the atmosphere for days to weeks, unlike other GHGs that can remain in the atmosphere for years. Black carbon can be deposited on snow, where it absorbs sunlight, reduces sunlight reflectivity, and hastens snowmelt. Direct effects include absorbing incoming and outgoing radiation; indirectly, black carbon can also affect cloud reflectivity, precipitation, and surface dimming (cooling). Global warming potentials for black carbon were not defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Report. The ARB has identified a global warming potential of 3,200 using a 20-year time horizon and 900 using a 100-year time horizon from the IPCC Fifth Assessment. Sources of black carbon are already regulated by ARB, and air district criteria pollutant and toxic regulations that control fine particulate emissions from diesel engines and other combustion sources. Additional controls on the sources of black carbon specifically for their GHG impacts beyond those required for toxic and fine particulates are not likely to be needed. Water vapor is also considered a GHG. Water vapor is an important component of the climate system and is not regulated. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other GHGs such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. Although there could be health effects resulting from changes in the climate and the consequences that these changes can bring about, inhalation of GHGs at levels currently in the atmosphere would not result in adverse health effects, with the exception of ozone and aerosols (particulate matter). The potential health effects of ozone and particulate matter are discussed in criteria pollutant analyses. At very high indoor concentrations (not at levels existing outside), carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur hexafluoride, and some chlorofluorocarbons can cause suffocation, as the gases can displace oxygen. Climate Change Climate change is a change in the average weather of the earth that is measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. These changes are assessed using historical records of temperature changes occurring in the past, such as during previous ice ages. Many of the concerns regarding climate change use this data to extrapolate a level of statistical significance specifically focusing on temperature records from the last 150 years (the Industrial Age) that differ from previous climate changes in rate and magnitude. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change constructed several emission trajectories of GHG needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that global mean temperature change from 1990 to 2100, given six scenarios, could range from 1.1 degrees Celsius (°C) to 6.4°C. Regardless of analytical methodology, global average temperatures and sea levels are expected to rise under all scenarios. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-10 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx In California, climate change may result in consequences such as the following: • A reduction in the quality and supply of water from the Sierra snowpack. If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. This can lead to challenges in securing adequate water supplies. It can also lead to a potential reduction in hydropower. • Increased risk of large wildfires. If rain increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in the grasslands and chaparral ecosystems of southern California are estimated to increase by approximately 30 percent toward the end of the 21st century because more winter rain will stimulate the growth of more plant “fuel” available to burn in the fall. In contrast, a hotter, drier climate could promote up to 90 percent more northern California fires by the end of the century by drying out and increasing the flammability of forest vegetation. • Reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. The crops and products likely to be adversely affected include wine grapes, fruit, nuts, and milk. • Exacerbation of air quality problems. If temperatures rise to the medium warming range, there could be 75 to 85 percent more days with weather conducive to ozone formation in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, relative to today’s conditions. This is more than twice the increase expected if rising temperatures remain in the lower warming range. • A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residences. During the past century, sea levels along California’s coast have risen about seven inches. If heat- trapping emissions continue unabated and temperatures rise into the higher anticipated warming range, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. • Damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment. • An increase in infections, disease, asthma, and other health-related problems. • A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests. 3.1.2 - Regulatory Framework Air pollutants are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level; each agency has a different level of regulatory responsibility. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates at the national level. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulates at the state level and BAAQMD regulates at the air basin level. Air Quality Federal and State The EPA handles global, international, national, and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-11 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Implementation Plans, provides research and guidance for air pollution programs, and sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards, also known as federal standards or national standards. There are national standards for six common air pollutants, called criteria air pollutants, which were identified from provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The criteria pollutants are: • Ozone • Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) • Nitrogen dioxide • Carbon monoxide (CO) • Lead • Sulfur dioxide The national standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the standards continue to change as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary national standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, as discussed in the Ambient Air Quality Standards summary prepared by the ARB. A State Implementation Plan is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain federal standards. The State Implementation Plan for the State of California is administered by the ARB, which has overall responsibility for statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention. California’s State Implementation Plan incorporates individual federal attainment plans for regional air districts—an air district prepares their federal attainment plan, which is sent to ARB to be approved and incorporated into the California State Implementation Plan. Federal attainment plans include the technical foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality monitoring), control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms. The ARB also administers California Ambient Air Quality Standards (state standards) for the 10 air pollutants designated in the California Clean Air Act. The 10 state air pollutants are the six federal standards listed above as well visibility-reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The federal and state ambient air quality standards, potential adverse health effects, properties, and sources of the pollutants are summarized in Table 3.1-5. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-12 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-5: Description of Air Pollutants and Potential Adverse Health Effects Air Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Standarda Most Relevant HealthEffects from Pollutant Exposure Properties Sources Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm — Irritate respiratory system; reduce lung function; breathing pattern changes; reduction of breathing capacity; inflame and damage cells that line the lungs; make lungs more susceptible to infection; aggravate asthma; aggravate other chronic lung diseases; cause permanent lung damage; some immunological changes; increased mortality risk; vegetation and property damage. Ozone is a photochemical pollutant as it is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is formed by a complex series of chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOX, and sunlight. Ozone is a regional pollutant that is generated over a large area and is transported and spread by the wind. Ozone is a secondary pollutant; thus, it is not emitted directly into the lower level of the atmosphere. The primary sources of ozone precursors (VOC and NOX) are mobile sources (on-road and off-road vehicle exhaust). 8 Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppmf Carbon monoxide (CO) 1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Ranges depending on exposure: slight headaches; nausea; aggravation of angina pectoris (chest pain) and other aspects of coronary heart disease; decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; impairment of central nervous system functions; possible increased risk to fetuses; death. CO is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas. CO is somewhat soluble in water; therefore, rainfall and fog can suppress CO conditions. CO enters the body through the lungs, dissolves in the blood, replaces oxygen as an attachment to hemoglobin, and reduces available oxygen in the blood. CO is produced by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, and biomass). Sources include motor vehicle exhaust, industrial processes (metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources. 8 Hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen dioxideb (NO2) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; contribution to atmospheric discoloration; increased visits to hospital for respiratory illnesses. During combustion of fossil fuels, oxygen reacts with nitrogen to produce nitrogen oxides—NOX (NO, NO2, NO3, N2O, N2O3, N2O4, and N2O5). NOX is a precursor to ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 formation. NOX can react with compounds to form nitric acid and related small particles and result in PM related health effects. NOX is produced in motor vehicle internal combustion engines and fossil fuel-fired electric utility and industrial boilers. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) forms quickly from NOX emissions. NO2 concentrations near major roads can be 30 to 100 percent higher than those at monitoring stations. Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-13 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-5 (cont.): Description of Air Pollutants and Potential Adverse Health Effects Air Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Standarda Most Relevant Health Effects from Pollutant Exposure Properties Sources Sulfur dioxidec (SO2) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma. Some population-based studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects associated with fine particles show a similar association with ambient sulfur dioxide levels. It is not clear whether the two pollutants act synergistically or one pollutant alone is the predominant factor. Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent gas. At levels greater than 0.5 ppm, the gas has a strong odor, similar to rotten eggs. Sulfur oxides (SOX) include sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide. Sulfuric acid is formed from sulfur dioxide, which can lead to acid deposition and can harm natural resources and materials. Although sulfur dioxide concentrations have been reduced to levels well below state and federal standards, further reductions are desirable because sulfur dioxide is a precursor to sulfate and PM10. Human caused sources include fossil-fuel combustion, mineral ore processing, and chemical manufacturing. Volcanic emissions are a natural source of sulfur dioxide. The gas can also be produced in the air by dimethylsulfide and hydrogen sulfide. Sulfur dioxide is removed from the air by dissolution in water, chemical reactions, and transfer to soils and ice caps. The sulfur dioxide levels in the State are well below the maximum standards. 3 Hour — 0.5 ppm 24 Hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 (for certain areas) Annual — 0.030 ppm (for certain areas) Particulate matter (PM10) 24 hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 • Short-term exposure (hours/days): irritation of the eyes, nose, throat; coughing; phlegm; chest tightness; shortness of breath; aggravate existing lung disease, causing asthma attacks and acute bronchitis; those with heart disease can suffer heart attacks and arrhythmias. • Long-term exposure: reduced lung function; chronic bronchitis; changes in lung morphology; death. Suspended particulate matter is a mixture of small particles that consist of dry solid fragments, droplets of water, or solid cores with liquid coatings. The particles vary in shape, size, and composition. PM10 refers to particulate matter that is between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter, (1 micron is one-millionth of a meter). PM2.5 refers to particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter, about one-thirtieth the size of the average human hair. Stationary sources include fuel or wood combustion for electrical utilities, residential space heating, and industrial processes; construction and demolition; metals, minerals, and petrochemicals; wood products processing; mills and elevators used in agriculture; erosion from tilled lands; waste disposal, and recycling. Mobile or transportation related sources are from vehicle exhaust and road dust. Secondary particles form from reactions in the atmosphere. Mean 20 µg/m3 — Particulate matter (PM2.5) 24 Hour — 35 µg/m3 Annual 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 Visibility-reducing particles 8 Hour See note belowd Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 — (a) Decrease in ventilatory function; The sulfate ion is a polyatomic anion Sulfates are particulates formed City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-14 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-5 (cont.): Description of Air Pollutants and Potential Adverse Health Effects Air Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Standarda Most Relevant Health Effects from Pollutant Exposure Properties Sources (b) aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c) aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease; (d) vegetation damage; (e) degradation of visibility; (f) property damage. with the empirical formula SO42−. Sulfates occur in combination with metal and/or hydrogen ions. Many sulfates are soluble in water. through the photochemical oxidation of sulfur dioxide. In California, the main source of sulfur compounds is combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel. Leade 30-day 1.5 µg/m3 — Lead accumulates in bones, soft tissue, and blood and can affect the kidneys, liver, and nervous system. It can cause impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction, behavior disorders, mental retardation, neurological impairment, learning deficiencies, and low IQs. Lead is a solid heavy metal that can exist in air pollution as an aerosol particle component. Leaded gasoline was used in motor vehicles until around 1970. Lead concentrations have not exceeded state or federal standards at any monitoring station since 1982. Lead ore crushing, lead-ore smelting, and battery manufacturing are currently the largest sources of lead in the atmosphere in the United States. Other sources include dust from soils contaminated with lead-based paint, solid waste disposal, and crustal physical weathering. Quarter — 1.5 µg/m3 Rolling 3-month average — 0.15 µg/m3 Vinyl chloridee 24 Hour 0.01 ppm — Short-term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in the air causes central nervous system effects, such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches. Epidemiological studies of occupationally exposed workers have linked vinyl chloride exposure to development of a rare cancer, liver angiosarcoma, and have suggested a relationship between exposure and lung and brain cancers. Vinyl chloride, or chloroethene, is a chlorinated hydrocarbon and a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. In 1990, ARB identified vinyl chloride as a TAC and estimated a cancer unit risk factor. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride plastic and vinyl products, including pipes, wire and cable coatings, and packaging materials. It can be formed when plastics containing these substances are left to decompose in solid waste landfills. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-15 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-5 (cont.): Description of Air Pollutants and Potential Adverse Health Effects Air Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Standarda Most Relevant Health Effects from Pollutant Exposure Properties Sources Hydrogen sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm — High levels of hydrogen sulfide can cause immediate respiratory arrest. It can irritate the eyes and respiratory tract and cause headache, nausea, vomiting, and cough. Long exposure can cause pulmonary edema. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a flammable, colorless, poisonous gas that smells like rotten eggs. Manure, storage tanks, ponds, anaerobic lagoons, and land application sites are the primary sources of hydrogen sulfide. Anthropogenic sources include the combustion of sulfur containing fuels (oil and coal). Volatile organic compounds (VOC) There are no State or federal standards for VOCs because they are not classified as criteria pollutants. Although health-based standards have not been established for VOCs, health effects can occur from exposures to high concentrations because of interference with oxygen uptake. In general, concentrations of VOCs are suspected to cause eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches; loss of coordination; nausea; and damage to the liver, the kidneys, and the central nervous system. Many VOCs have been classified as TACs. Reactive organic gases (ROG), or VOCs, are defined as any compound of carbon—excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate—that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. Although there are slight differences in the definition of ROG and VOCs, the two terms are often used interchangeably. Indoor sources of VOCs include paints, solvents, aerosol sprays, cleansers, tobacco smoke, etc. Outdoor sources of VOCs are from combustion and fuel evaporation. A reduction in VOC emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that contribute to the formulation of ozone. VOCs are transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, which contribute to higher PM10 and lower visibility. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) There are no ambient air quality standards for DPM. Some short-term (acute) effects of DPM exposure include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. Studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Human DPM is a source of PM2.5—diesel particles are typically 2.5 microns and smaller. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of thousands of particles and gases that is produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. Organic compounds account for 80 percent of the total particulate matter mass, which consists of compounds such as hydrocarbons and their derivatives, and polycyclic Diesel exhaust is a major source of ambient particulate matter pollution in urban environments. Typically, the main source of DPM is from combustion of diesel fuel in diesel-powered engines. Such engines are in on-road vehicles such as diesel trucks, off-road construction vehicles, diesel electrical generators, and various pieces of stationary construction equipment. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-16 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-5 (cont.): Description of Air Pollutants and Potential Adverse Health Effects Air Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Standarda Most Relevant Health Effects from Pollutant Exposure Properties Sources studies on the carcinogenicity of DPM demonstrate an increased risk of lung cancer, although the increased risk cannot be clearly attributed to diesel exhaust exposure. aromatic hydrocarbons and their derivatives. Fifteen polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are confirmed carcinogens, a number of which are found in diesel exhaust. Notes: ppm=parts per million (concentration) µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter Annual=Annual Arithmetic Mean 30-day=30-day average Quarter=Calendar quarter a Federal standard refers to the primary national ambient air quality standard, or the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. All standards listed are primary standards except for 3 Hour SO2, which is a secondary standard. A secondary standard is the level of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. b To attain the 1-hour NO2 national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (0.100 ppm). c On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. d Visibility-reducing particles: In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. e The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. f On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per million (ppm) through the adoption of a new standard (Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008-0699). The Final Rule went into effect on December 28, 2015. Source of effects, properties, and sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007; California Environmental Protection Agency 2002; California Air Resources Board 2009; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2003, 2009a, 2009b, 2012a, 2012b, and 2013; National Toxicology Program 2014a and 2014b. Source of standards: California Air Resources Board 2013. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-17 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Asbestos Asbestos is listed as a TAC by ARB and as a Hazardous Air Pollutant by the EPA. Asbestos occurs naturally in surface deposits of several types of rock formations. Asbestos most commonly occurs in ultramafic rock that has undergone partial or complete alteration to serpentine rock (serpentinite) and often contains chrysotile asbestos. In addition, another form of asbestos, tremolite, can be found associated with ultramafic rock, particularly near faults. Crushing or breaking these rocks, through construction or other means, can release asbestoform fibers into the air. Asbestos emissions can result from the sale or use of asbestos-containing materials, road surfacing with such materials, grading activities, and surface mining. The risk of disease is dependent upon the intensity and duration of exposure. When inhaled, asbestos fibers may remain in the lungs and with time may be linked to such diseases as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. According to the General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California (California Division of Mines and Geology, 2000), the nearest likely location of naturally occurring asbestos to the project site is located approximately 10 miles to the west near Hayward. Because of the distance to the nearest natural occurrences of asbestos, the project site is not likely to contain asbestos. State of California Low-Emission Vehicle Program The ARB first adopted Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) program standards in 1990. These first LEV standards ran from 1994 through 2003. LEV II regulations, running from 2004 through 2010, represent continuing progress in emission reductions. As the State’s passenger vehicle fleet continues to grow and more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are used as passenger cars rather than work vehicles, the more stringent LEV II standards were adopted to provide reductions necessary for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the 1994 State Implementation Plan. In 2012, ARB adopted the LEV III amendments to California’s Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations. These amendments include more stringent emission standards for both criteria pollutants and GHGs for new passenger vehicles (ARB 2012a). On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program The ARB has adopted standards for emissions from various types of new on-road heavy-duty vehicles. Section 1956.8, Title 13, California Code of Regulations contains California’s emission standards for on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and test procedures. ARB has also adopted programs to reduce emissions from in-use heavy-duty vehicles including the Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program, the Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance Program, the Public Bus Fleet Rule and Engine Standards, and the School Bus Program and others (ARB 2013b). ARB Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles On July 26, 2007, the ARB adopted a regulation to reduce DPM and nitrous oxides (NOX) emissions from in-use (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than five consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale. The ARB is enforcing that part of the rule with fines up to $10,000 per day for each vehicle in violation. Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOX City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-18 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits. The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirements, making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014 for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501-5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less). Diesel Risk Reduction Plan The ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan has led to the adoption of new state regulatory standards for all new on-road, off-road, and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles to reduce DPM emissions by about 90 percent overall from year 2000 levels. The projected emission benefits associated with the full implementation of this plan, including federal measures, are reductions in DPM emissions and associated cancer risks of 75 percent by 2010, and 85 percent by 2020 (ARB 2000). Local Bay Area Air Quality Management District The agency for air pollution control for the Basin is the BAAQMD, which is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources and maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the Basin. BAAQMD, in coordination with Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Bay Area Clean Air Plan for the Basin. A clean air plan is a plan prepared and implemented by an air pollution district for a county or region designated non-attainment of the national and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The term non-attainment area is used to refer to an air basin where one or more ambient air quality standards are exceeded. The clean air plan, once submitted to and approved by the ARB, becomes an integral part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). In addition, the BAAQMD updated its CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) in 2010 to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. These CEQA Guidelines were updated in June 2010 to include reference to thresholds of significance (Thresholds) adopted by the BAAQMD Board on June 2, 2010. The Guidelines were further updated in May 2011. This assessment is based on BAAQMD’s 2017 Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD, 2017), which were originally proposed in the BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Thresholds (BAAQMD, 2010). BAAQMD’s adoption of its 2010 thresholds were challenged in the lawsuit of California Building Industry Association v. BAAQMD, which was decided by the California Supreme Court on December 17, 2015 (Supreme Court Case No. S213478). The Supreme Court granted review on the issue of whether CEQA requires the analysis of the impacts of the environment on the project. The California Supreme Court decision upheld BAAQMD’s adoption of the thresholds. The scientific and evidentiary basis supporting the BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds are set forth in the studies and documents in BAAQMD’s record for adoption of the thresholds, including, but not limited to, the Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009) prepared by BAAQMD. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance), the City exercises its own discretion to use the significance thresholds in the BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA thresholds based on substantial evidence contained in BAAQMD’s record City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-19 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx for adoption of the thresholds (which is relied on and incorporated herein). Accordingly, this assessment uses the 2017 thresholds and methodologies from BAAQMD’s May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to determine the potential impacts of the project on the existing environment. The significance thresholds used in this analysis are based on BAAQMD standards and are listed in Table 3.1-6 below. Current Air Quality Plans An SIP is a federal requirement; each state prepares one to describe existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. In addition, state ozone standards have attainment planning requirements in California. However, state PM10 standards have no attainment planning requirements, but air districts must demonstrate that all measures feasible for the area have been adopted. Ozone Plans Because the Air Basin is non-attainment for the federal and state ozone standards, the BAAQMD prepared an Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan to satisfy the federal 1-hour ozone planning requirement and a Clean Air Plan to satisfy the state 1-hour ozone planning requirement. The EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard and adopted an 8-hour ozone standard. The BAAQMD will address the new federal 8-hour ozone planning requirements once they are established. On April 19, 2017, the BAAQMD adopted the Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, and certified its Final Environmental Impact Report. The 2017 Clean Air Plan was prepared by the BAAQMD in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. The 2017 Clean Air Plan builds from and incorporates components of the BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan in order to fulfill state ozone planning requirements and identifies how the Air Basin will reduce GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2017 Clean Air Plan serves to: • Update the 2010 Clean Air Plan in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone. • Provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter (PM), air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan. • Review progress in improving air quality in recent years. • Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented over the next 3 to five years. Particulate Matter Plans The Air Basin is designated non-attainment for the state PM10 and PM2.5 standards, and is currently unclassified for the federal PM10 standard and non-attainment for federal PM2.5 standards. The EPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 in 2006, and designated the Air Basin non-attainment for the new PM2.5 standard effective December 14, 2009. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-20 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx On December 8, 2011, the ARB submitted a “clean data finding” request to the EPA on behalf of the Bay Area. If the clean data finding request is approved, then EPA guidelines provide that the region can fulfill federal PM2.5 SIP requirements by preparing either a redesignation request and a PM2.5 maintenance plan, or a “clean data” SIP submittal. Because peak PM2.5 levels can vary from year to year based on natural, short-term changes in weather conditions, the BAAQMD believes that it would be premature to submit a redesignation request and PM2.5 maintenance plan at this time. Therefore, the BAAQMD will prepare a “clean data” SIP to address the required elements, including: • An emission inventory for primary PM2.5, as well as precursors to secondary PM formation • Amendments to the BAAQMD’s New Source Review regulation to address PM2.5 Rules The BAAQMD establishes and administers a program of rules and regulations that are air plans, as described above, to attain and maintain state and national air quality standards. The rules and regulations that apply to these projects include but are not limited to the following: • Regulation 8, Rule 3. Architectural Coatings. This rule governs the manufacture, distribution, and sale of architectural coatings and limits the reactive organic gases content in paints and paint solvents. Although this rule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the ROG content of paint available for use during the construction. • Regulation 8, Rule 15. Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts. Although this rule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the reactive organic gases content of asphalt available for use during construction through regulating the sale and use of asphalt, and limits the ROG content in asphalt. Greenhouse Gas Emissions International Climate change is a global issue; therefore, many countries around the world have made an effort to reduce greenhouse gases. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess the scientific, technical and socio economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. United Nations. On March 21, 1994, the United States joined a number of countries around the world in signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Under the Convention, governments gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-21 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing GHG emissions at average of 5 per cent against 1990 levels over the 5-year period 2008–2012. The Convention (as discussed above) encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize emissions; however, the Protocol commits them to do so. Developed countries have contributed more emissions over the last 150 years; therefore, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” In 2001, President George W. Bush indicated that he would not submit the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification, which effectively ended American involvement in the Kyoto Protocol. In December 2009, international leaders met in Copenhagen to address the future of international climate change commitments post-Kyoto. No binding agreement was reached in Copenhagen; however, the Committee identified the long-term goal of limiting the maximum global average temperature increase to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, subject to a review in 2015. The United Nations Climate Change Committee held additional meetings in Durban, South Africa in November 2011; Doha, Qatar in November 2012; and Warsaw, Poland in November 2013. The meetings are gradually gaining consensus among participants on individual climate change issues. On September 23, 2014, more than 100 Heads of State and Government and leaders from the private sector and civil society met at the Climate Summit in New York hosted by the United Nations. At the Summit, heads of government, business, and civil society announced actions in areas that would have the greatest impact on reducing emissions, including climate finance, energy, transport, industry, agriculture, cities, forests, and building resilience. Government leaders also committed to an ambitious and universal climate agreement for adoption at the December 2015 meeting held in Paris. 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference was held in Paris, France, from November 30 to December 12, 2015. It was the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (Wikipedia 2015). The conference negotiated the Paris Agreement, a global agreement on the reduction of climate change, the text of which represented a consensus of the representatives of the 196 parties attending it. The Paris Agreement became legally binding on October 5, 2016 when the first 55 countries ratified it and it has since been ratified by 172 countries, including the United States by President Obama, who ratified it by Executive Order on September 3, 2016. On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, however the Paris Agreement is still legally binding by the other remaining nations. The key result was an agreement to set a goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (°C) compared with pre-industrial levels. The agreement calls for zero net anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to be reached during the second half of the 21st century. In the adopted version of the Paris Agreement, the parties will also “pursue efforts to” limit the temperature City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-22 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx increase to 1.5°C. The 1.5°C goal will require zero emissions sometime between 2030 and 2050, according to some scientists. National Greenhouse Gas Endangerment. Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) was argued before the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2006, in which it was petitioned that the EPA regulate four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. A decision was made on April 2, 2007, in which the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: • Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. These findings do not impose requirements on industry or other entities. However, this was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles, as discussed in the section “Clean Vehicles” below. After a lengthy legal challenge, the United States Supreme Court declined to review an Appeals Court ruling that upheld the EPA Administrator findings. Clean Vehicles. Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May 19, 2009, President Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration announced a joint final rule establishing a national program that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States. The first phase of the national program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016). The EPA and the National Highway Safety Administration issued final rules on a second-phase joint rulemaking establishing City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-23 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx national standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 through 2025 in August 2012. The new standards for model years 2017 through 2025 apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleetwide level of 163 grams/mile of carbon dioxide (CO2) in model year 2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements. The EPA and the United States Department of Transportation issued final rules for the first national standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses on September 15, 2011, effective November 14, 2011. For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20- percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10-percent reduction for gasoline vehicles and a 15-percent reduction for diesel vehicles by the 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10-percent reduction in fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions from the 2014 to 2018 model years. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, passed in December 2007, requires the establishment of mandatory greenhouse gas reporting requirements. On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. The rule requires reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from large sources and suppliers in the United States, and is intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of greenhouse gas emissions are required to submit annual reports to the EPA. New Source Review. The EPA issued a final rule on May 13, 2010 that establishes thresholds for greenhouse gases that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule “tailors” the requirements of these Clean Air Act permitting programs to limit which facilities will be required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permits. In the preamble to the revisions to the federal code of regulations, EPA states: This rulemaking is necessary because without it the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V requirements would apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the 100 or 250 tons per year levels provided under the Clean Air Act, greatly increasing the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impairing the functioning of the programs. EPA is relieving these resource burdens by phasing in the applicability of these programs to greenhouse gas sources, starting with the largest greenhouse gas emitters. This rule establishes two initial steps of the phase-in. The rule also commits the agency to take certain actions on future steps addressing smaller sources, but excludes certain smaller sources from Prevention of Significant City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-24 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Deterioration and Title V permitting for greenhouse gas emissions until at least April 30, 2016. The EPA estimates that facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitters—power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities. Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units. As required by a settlement agreement, the EPA proposed new performance standards for emissions of carbon dioxide for new, affected, fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units on March 27, 2012. New sources greater than 25 megawatt would be required to meet an output based standard of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, based on the performance of widely used natural gas combined cycle technology. Cap and Trade. Cap and trade refers to a policy tool where emissions are limited to a certain amount and can be traded, or provides flexibility on how the emitter can comply. Successful examples in the United States include the Acid Rain Program and the NOX Budget Trading Program and Clean Air Interstate Rule in the northeast. There is no federal GHG cap-and-trade program currently; however, some states have joined to create initiatives to provide a mechanism for cap and trade. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is an effort to reduce GHGs among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Each state caps carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, auctions carbon dioxide emission allowances, and invests the proceeds in strategic energy programs that further reduce emissions, save consumers money, create jobs, and build a clean energy economy. The Initiative began in 2008. The Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions have developed a comprehensive initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The partners were originally California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. However, Manitoba and Ontario are not currently participating. California linked with Quebec’s cap and trade system on January 1, 2014, and joint offset auctions have taken place since 2015. California Legislative Actions to Reduce GHGs The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation such as the landmark AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions that have since been enhanced by SB 32 and AB 197. Other legislation such as Title 24 and Title 20 energy standards were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation. AB 32 The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “Greenhouse City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-25 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx gases” as defined under AB 32 include carbon dioxide, methane, NOX, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, nitrogen trifluoride, has also been added to the list of GHGs. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. AB 32 states the following: Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health- related problems. The ARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 MMTCO2e on December 6, 2007 (ARB 2007). Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario were estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e, which do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations (ARB 2008). At that level, a 28 percent reduction was required to achieve the 427 million MTCO2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, ARB prepared an updated 2020 forecast to account for the recession and slower forecasted growth. The forecasted inventory without the benefits of adopted regulation is now estimated at 545 million MTCO2e. Therefore, under the updated forecast, a 21.7 percent reduction from BAU is required to achieve 1990 levels (ARB 2010). SB 32 and AB 197 Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197) (September 8, 2016) and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) (September 8, 2016) codified into statute the GHG emissions reduction targets of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 as detailed in Executive Order B-30-15. AB 197 also requires additional GHG emissions reporting that is broken down to sub-county levels and requires CARB to consider the social costs of emissions impacting disadvantaged communities. ARB Scoping Plan In 2008, CARB approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan that proposes a “comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon GHG emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health” (CARB 2008). The Climate Change Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations; alternative compliance mechanisms; monetary and non-monetary incentives; voluntary actions; market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. In 2014, CARB approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB, 2014) that identifies additional strategies moving beyond the 2020 targets to the year 2050. On December 14, 2017 CARB adopted the California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 (CARB, 2017) that provides specific statewide policies and measures to achieve the 2030 GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and the aspirational 2050 GHG reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-26 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Cap and Trade Program The Cap and Trade Program is a key element of the Scoping Plan. It sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions, and establishes a price signal needed to drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy. The program is designed to provide covered entities the flexibility to seek out and implement the lowest cost options to reduce emissions. The program conducted its first auction in November 2012. Compliance obligations began for power plants and large industrial sources in January 2013. Other significant milestones include linkage to Quebec’s cap and trade system in January 2014 and starting the compliance obligation for distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas, and other fuels in January 2015 (ARB 2015c). SB 375—the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. Senate Bill (SB) 375 was signed by the Governor on September 30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits over 40 percent of the total GHG emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: it (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies. Concerning CEQA, SB 375, as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21159.28 states that CEQA findings determinations for certain projects are not required to reference, describe, or discuss (1) growth inducing impacts or (2) any project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network if the project: 1. Is in an area with an approved sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy that the ARB accepts as achieving the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. 2. Is consistent with that strategy (in designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies). 3. Incorporates the mitigation measures required by an applicable prior environmental document. AB 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, and adopted by ARB in September 2009, required the ARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. The standards phase in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards will result in about a 22-percent reduction compared with the 2002 fleet, and the mid-term (2013–2016) standards will result in about a 30-percent reduction. Several technologies stand out as providing significant reductions in emissions at favorable costs. These include discrete variable valve lift or camless valve actuation to optimize valve operation rather than relying on fixed valve timing and lift as has historically been done; turbocharging to boost power and allow for engine downsizing; improved multi-speed transmissions; and improved air conditioning systems that operate optimally, leak less, and/or use an alternative refrigerant. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-27 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley bill was incorporated into Amendments to the Low-Emission Vehicle Program referred to as LEV III or the Advanced Clean Cars program. The Advanced Clean Car program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will clean up gasoline and diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The package will also ensure adequate fueling infrastructure is available for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California. SB 1368—Emission Performance Standards In 2006, the State Legislature adopted SB 1368, which was subsequently signed into law by the Governor. SB 1368 directs the California Public Utilities Commission to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. Because of the carbon content of its fuel source, a coal-fired plant cannot meet this standard because such plants emit roughly twice as much carbon as natural gas, combined cycle plants. Accordingly, the new law will effectively prevent California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. Thus, SB 1368 will lead to dramatically lower GHG emissions associated with California’s energy demand, as SB 1368 will effectively prohibit California utilities from purchasing power from out-of-state producers that cannot satisfy the performance standard for GHG emissions required by SB 1368. The California Public Utilities Commission adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007. The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, of 1,100 lbs CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh). SB 350—Renewable Electricity Standards Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) was adopted October 2015 in order to implement the goals of Executive Order B-30-15. SB 350 increases the State’s renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. In addition, SB 350 requires the State to double statewide energy efficiency savings for both electricity and natural gas uses by 2030. SB 350 is being implemented by requiring all large utilities to develop and submit Integrated Resource Plans that detail how they will meet their customers energy needs, reduce GHG emissions and deploy clean energy resources. SB 350 superseded the renewable energy requirements set by SB 1078, SB 107, and SB X1-2. SBX 7-7—The Water Conservation Act of 2009 The legislation directs urban retail water suppliers to set individual 2020 per capita water use targets and begin implementing conservation measures to achieve those goals. Meeting this statewide goal of 20 percent decrease in demand will result in a reduction of almost 2 million acre-feet in urban water use in 2020 and related reduction in energy use for transporting and treating water. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-28 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs through the use of Executive Orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the state and guide the actions of state agencies. Executive Order S-3-05 Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S 3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions: • By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels. • By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. • By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. The 2020 goal was adopted by AB 32. The 2050 goal has not been formally adopted by State legislation and, therefore, is not a legally enforceable requirement. Executive Order S-01-07—Low Carbon Fuel Standard The Governor signed Executive Order S 01-07 on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In particular, the executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, the ARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. This analysis supporting development of the protocols was included in the State Implementation Plan for alternative fuels (State Alternative Fuels Plan adopted by California Energy Commission on December 24, 2007) and was submitted to ARB for consideration as an “early action” item under AB 32. The ARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard on April 23, 2009. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard was challenged in the United States District Court in Fresno in 2011. The court’s ruling issued on December 29, 2011 included a preliminary injunction against ARB’s implementation of the rule. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction on April 23, 2012 pending final ruling on appeal, allowing the ARB to continue to implement and enforce the regulation. The Ninth Circuit’s decision filed September 18, 2013, vacated the preliminary injunction. In essence, the court held that Low Carbon Fuel Standards adopted by ARB were not in conflict with federal law. On August 8, 2013, the Fifth District Court of Appeal (California) ruled ARB failed to comply with CEQA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when adopting regulations for Low Carbon Fuel Standards. In a partially published opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed issuance of a writ of mandate setting aside Resolution 09-31 and two executive orders of ARB approving Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) regulations promulgated to reduce GHG emissions. However, the court tailored its remedy to protect the public interest by allowing the LCFS regulations to remain operative while ARB complies with the procedural requirements it failed to satisfy. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-29 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx To address the Court ruling, ARB was required to bring a new LCFS regulation to the Board for consideration in February 2015. The proposed LCFS regulation was required to contain revisions to the 2010 LCFS as well as new provisions designed to foster investments in the production of the low- CI fuels, offer additional flexibility to regulated parties, update critical technical information, simplify and streamline program operations, and enhance enforcement. The current regulation was adopted in September 2015, and public workshops to develop further amendments are currently ongoing. A modified writ was issued by Superior Court of California, County of Fresno on October 18, 2017, ordering CARB to preserve the status quo relating to conventional diesel fuel and its substitutes by continuing to adhere to the standards in effect during 2017 for those fuels until the corrective action is complete and approved by the Court in an order discharging the writ. The other LCFS fuels are not impacted by this ruling. Executive Order S-13-08 Executive Order S-13-08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources Agency 2009) was adopted, which is the “. . . first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research. Executive Order B-30-15 On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an executive order to establish a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s executive order aligns California’s greenhouse gas reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris late 2015. The executive order sets a new interim statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and directs the ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMCO2e). The executive order also requires the state’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the state to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. SB 32 and AB 197 codified into statute the GHG emissions reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, however the 2050 reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels is not currently legally enforceable for local governments and the private sector. California Regulations and Building Codes California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-30 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Title 20 California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601-1608: Appliance Efficiency Regulations regulates the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the state and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment (CEC 2012). Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The newest 2016 version of Title 24 went into effect on January 1, 2017. Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards (CaLGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect January 1, 2011 and was most recently updated in 2016 with provisions effective in 2017. It does not prevent a local jurisdiction from adopting a more stringent code, as state law provides methods for local enhancements. The CALGreen Code contains requirements for construction site selection; storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems (e.g., heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency. The CALGreen Code provides standards for bicycle parking, carpool/vanpool/electric vehicle spaces, light and glare reduction, grading and paving, energy efficient appliances, renewable energy, graywater systems, water efficient plumbing fixtures, recycling and recycled materials, pollutant controls (including moisture control and indoor air quality), acoustical controls, storm water management, building design, insulation, flooring, and framing, among others. Implementation of the CALGreen Code measures reduces energy consumption and vehicle trips and encourages the use of alternative-fuel vehicles, which reduces pollutant emissions. Some of the notable changes in the 2016 CALGreen Code over the prior 2013 CALGreen Code include: an increase in amount of bicycle parking requirements; an increase in number of EV charging stations and clean air vehicle parking at non-residential buildings; a reduction in water usage in urinals to 0.125 gallons per flush; an increased rate of diversion for construction and City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-31 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx operational waste to 65 percent as well as adding organic waste as waste to be diverted; and a requirement for fireplaces to meet new EPA standards. SB 97 and the CEQA Guidelines Update Passed in August 2007, SB 97 added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code. The code states “(a) On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. (b) On or before January 1, 2010, the Resources Agency shall certify and adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to subdivision (a).” On April 13, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its recommended amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions. On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process for certifying and adopting these amendments pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.05. Following a 55-day public comment period and two public hearings, the Natural Resources Agency proposed revisions to the text of the proposed Guidelines amendments. The Natural Resources Agency transmitted the adopted amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law on December 31, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. The CEQA Amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The CEQA Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framework by amending existing CEQA Guidelines to reference climate change. A new section, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, was added to assist agencies in determining the significance of GHG emissions. The new section allows agencies the discretion to determine whether a quantitative or qualitative analysis is best for a particular project. However, local agencies retain discretion to adopt a significance threshold to determine whether the project’s estimated GHG emissions are significant or cumulatively considerable. Also amended were CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4 and 15130, which address mitigation measures and cumulative impacts respectively. GHG mitigation measures are referenced in general terms, but no specific measures are included. The revision to the cumulative impact discussion requirement (Section 15130) directs agencies to analyze GHG emissions in an EIR when a project’s incremental contribution of emissions may be cumulatively considerable. Section 15183.5 permits programmatic GHG analysis and later project-specific tiering, as well as the preparation of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. Compliance with such plans can support a determination that a project’s cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable, according to Section 15183.5(b). City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-32 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx In addition, the amendments revised Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which focuses on Energy Conservation. The sample environmental checklist in Appendix G was amended to include GHG questions. Regional Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD has established a Climate Action Program in 2005 to integrate climate protection activities into existing BAAQMD programs. As part of this program, the BAAQMD developed the Climate Action Web Portal for local governments to access tools and resources for climate change activities, including best practices, case studies, and news and events from local governments. In addition, the BAAQMD prepared a GHG emissions inventory for the area under its jurisdiction, along with a County-level breakdown of GHG emissions in the basin. In 2008, the BAAQMD approved a fee on stationary air pollution sources in its jurisdiction to help defray the costs associated with the BAAQMD’s climate protection activities and programs, including environmental review, air pollution regulations, and emissions inventory development. Industrial facilities and businesses that are currently required to submit an air quality permit to operate will have a fee of 4.4 cents per metric ton of GHG emissions added to their permit bill. In addition, the BAAQMD updated its CEQA Guidelines in 2010 and most recently in 2017 to include both numeric and qualitative GHG thresholds and recommended assessment methodologies for project- and plan-level analyses. Local City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following goals and policies that are relevant to air quality and GHG emissions: • Air Quality Policy A.1: Request that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District establish an air quality monitoring station in Dublin. • Air Quality Policy A.2: Require an air quality analysis for new development projects that could generate significant air emissions on a project and cumulative level. Air quality analyses shall include specific feasible measures to reduce anticipated air quality emissions to a less-than- significant California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) level. • Guiding Policy 13.3.2.A 1. Encourage the installation of alternative energy technology in new residential and commercial development. 2. Encourage designing for solar access. 3. Encourage energy efficient improvements be made on residential and commercial properties. • Implementing Policies 13.3.2.B 1. New development proposals shall be reviewed to ensure lighting levels needed for a safe and secure environment are provided—utilizing the most energy-efficient fixtures (in most City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-33 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx cases, LED lights)—while avoiding over-lighting of sites. Smart lighting technology (e.g. sensors and/or timers) shall also be employed in interior and exterior lighting applications where appropriate. 2. New development projects shall install LED streetlights in compliance with the City’s LED light standard. 3. In new commercial and residential parking lots, require the installation of conduit to serve electric vehicle parking spaces to enable the easier installation of future charging stations. 4. Encourage the installation of charging stations for commercial projects over a certain size and any new residential project that has open parking (i.e. not individual, enclosed garages). 5. Encourage buildings (and more substantially, whole neighborhoods) to be designed along an east-west axis to maximize solar exposure. Where feasible, require new development projects to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use; and to use regenerative energy heating and cooling source alternatives to fossil fuels. 6. Continue to implement parking lot tree planting standards that would substantially cool parking areas and help cool the surrounding environment. Encourage landscaping conducive to solar panels in areas where appropriate. 7. Promote and encourage photovoltaic demonstration projects in association with new development. 8. Consider creating a recognition program for commercial or residential projects that install large-scale solar or wind energy systems and to publicly commend and acknowledge businesses or individuals that construct or remodel buildings that save more energy than required by Title 24 or by the Cal Green Building Code. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan The City of Dublin prepared a 2010 Climate Action Plan (CAP), which calculated a 2010 baseline emissions inventory of GHGs for the City, as well as adopted an emission reduction goal of 20 percent below a business-as-usual scenario by 2020. The City’s efficiency measure for 2020 is projected to be 4.22 MT CO2e per service population per year, which is significantly below BAAQMD’s GHG efficiency based metric of 6.6 MT CO2e per service population per year. The 2010 CAP includes 34 reduction measures that provide a GHG reduction strategy for transportation/land use, energy, and solid waste and recycling. In 2013, the City of Dublin updated their CAP, which established a new reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 emissions by 2020. The City’s efficiency measure for 2020 under the CAP Update is projected to be 3.2 MT CO2e per service population per year, which at the time of preparation was significantly below BAAQMD’s GHG efficiency based metric of 6.6 MT CO2e per service population per year. (BAAQMD’s GHG efficiency based metric is now 4.6 MT CO2e per service population [BAAQMD 2017].) The CAP also implemented an additional 11 new reduction measures. The City has determined that the reduction target should reduce the impacts from activities under the CAP to a less than significant level under CEQA. If a project is consistent with the measures and policies provided in the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact, due to GHG emissions and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.5, 15064, and 15130. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-34 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx 3.1.3 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether impacts to air quality are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The CEQA Guidelines also includes two checklist questions pertaining to GHG emissions, listed below: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? This analysis will follow the guidance in the CEQA Guidelines. While the final determination of whether or not a project is significant is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District recommends that its quantitative and qualitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. These thresholds are discussed under each impact section below. 3.1.4 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate. This analysis was based on implementation of the following project design features. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-35 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Project Design Feature 1 The site plan shall detail that sidewalks will be constructed along Martinelli Way and Arnold Road that will connect to the existing sidewalks along these roadways. In addition, a shared pedestrian/bicycle path will be provided on the eastern and southern project boundaries connecting the intersection of Martinelli Way at Hacienda Driveway to Arnold Road, where an existing sidewalk on the frontage Road provides a pedestrian connection to the BART station. Internal pedestrian paths will also be constructed throughout the site to provide connections between the various buildings. Project Design Feature 2 The project applicant will design the IKEA store accordingly to be eligible to achieve a rating of LEED Silver or higher and the Lifestyle Retail Center will be designed to meet CalGreen Tier 1 requirements. Project Design Feature 3 The project applicant will install a rooftop photovoltaic (PV) solar panel system on the IKEA store building that is rated at a minimum of 1,200 kilowatts (kW). Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan Impact AIR-1: The project may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impact Analysis The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attainment for ozone (state and federal ambient standards) and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) (state ambient standard). While an air quality plan exists for ozone, none currently exists for particulate matter. A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would result in substantial new regional emissions not foreseen in the air quality planning process. Regional emissions forecasts in the air quality plan are based on population and employment forecasts based on City and County General Plans. As discussed in Section 3.8, Land Use, the proposed project is generally consistent with land use designations and applicable goals and policies of the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in terms of the volume of development that is permitted under the current “General Commercial” land use designation. As such, the proposed project would be considered planned growth. The proposed project would not result in a substantial unplanned increase in population, employment or regional growth in vehicle miles traveled, so it would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the air quality plan. The BAAQMD’s current CAP is provided in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAQQMD, 2017), which accounts for projections of population growth provided by Association of Bay Area Governments and vehicle miles traveled provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and it identifies City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-36 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. The BAAQMD’s Guidance provides two criteria for determining if a plan-level project is consistent with the current Air Quality Plan (AQP) control measures. However, the BAAQMD does not provide a threshold of significance for project-level consistency analysis. Therefore, the following criteria will be used for determining a project’s consistency with the AQP: • Criterion 1: Does the project support the primary goals of the AQP? • Criterion 2: Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQP? • Criterion 3: Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQP control measures? Criterion 1: Support Primary Goals of AQP The primary goals of the 2017 Guidelines, the current AQP to date, are to: • Attain air quality standards; • Reduce population exposure to unhealthy air and protecting public health in the Bay Area; and • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate. The project would comply with the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, and would provide the project area with employment opportunities. As shown in Impact AIR-2, the project would not create a localized violation of state or federal air quality standards for CO. As shown in Impact AIR-3, operation of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s regional thresholds of significance after the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a (Transportation Demand Management Program) and Mitigation Measures AIR-3a, AIR-3b, and AIR-3c. As shown in Impact AIR-4, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As shown in Impact AIR-5, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people after incorporation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact relative to Criterion 1. Criterions 2 and 3: Include Applicable AQP Control Measures or Disrupt or Hinder Implementation of any AQP Control Measures The 2017 Plan contains 85 specific control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Along with the traditional stationary, area, mobile source, and transportation control measures, the 2017 Plan contains a number of new control measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary and mobile sources. The project would not preclude extension of a transit line or bike path, propose excessive parking beyond parking requirements, or otherwise create an impediment or disruption to implementation of any AQP control measures. Table 3.1-6 lists the relevant Clean Air Plan policies to the project and evaluates the project’s consistency with the policies. As shown below, the project would be consistent with applicable measures and would not hinder the implementation of any AQP control measures. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-37 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-6: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures Control Measure Project Consistency Stationary Control Measures SS21: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants Consistent. This EIR has included preparation of a health risk assessment (HRA) (see Appendix B), which found the project’s toxic air contaminant emissions would result in less than significant cancer and non- cancer (acute and chronic) impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors. SS29: Asphaltic Concrete Consistent. Paving activities associated with the proposed project would be required to utilize asphalt that does not exceed BAAQMD emission standards. SS31: General Particulate Matter Emissions Limitation Consistent. The proposed restaurants would be required to utilize particulate emissions reduction equipment associated with their commercial cooking equipment. SS32: Emergency Back-up Generators Consistent. The proposed emergency generator to be installed at IKEA would be required to meet the BAAQMD’s emissions standards for back-up generators. SS33: Commercial Cooking Equipment Consistent. If any of the proposed restaurants install a charbroiler, a catalytic oxidizer system must also be installed pursuant to BAAQMD Rule 6-2. SS36: Particulate Matter from Trackout Consistent. Mud and dirt that may be tracked out onto the nearby public roads during construction activities shall be removed promptly by the contractor based on BAAQMD’s requirements. SS37: Particulate Matter from Asphalt Operations Consistent. Paving and roofing activities associated with the proposed project would be required to utilize best management practices to minimize the particulate matter created from the transport and application of road and roofing asphalt. SS38: Fugitive Dust Consistent. Material stockpiling and track out during grading activities as well as smoke and fumes from paving and roofing asphalt operations shall utilize best management practices to minimize the creation of fugitive dust. Transportation Control Measures TR2: Trip Reduction Programs Consistent. The proposed project would comply with TR2 through implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a that requires the preparation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program that would reduce project generated vehicle trips. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-38 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-6 (cont.): Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures Control Measure Project Consistency TR3: Local and Regional Bus Service Consistent. The proposed project would comply with TR3 through implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-7a that requires the installation of an enhanced bus stop along the Martinelli Way frontage. TR4: Local and Regional Rail Service Improvements Consistent. The development of the proposed project would result in the dedication of 0.16 acre of the project site for the future expansion of the BART rail line. TR6: Freeway and Arterial Operations Consistent. The proposed project would comply with TR6 through implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a through 1f, which require various improvements on the nearby arterials.. TR8: Ridesharing and Last-Mile Connections Consistent. The proposed project would comply with TR8 through implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a, which requires the preparation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program that includes implementation of a ridesharing program. TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Facilities Consistent. The proposed project would comply with TR9 through implementation of an internal bicycle and pedestrian walkway system detailed on the site plan and through implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANS-7b and TRANS-7c, which require pedestrian improvements at the intersection of Hacienda Way and Martinelli Way and the Hacienda Drive and I-580 interchange. TR10: Land Use Strategies Consistent. The proposed project site is located within a half mile of an existing BART rail station and would also comply with TR10 through implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-7a, which requires the installation of an enhanced bus stop along the Martinelli Way frontage TR14: Cars & Light Trucks. Consistent. The proposed project would comply with TR14 through providing plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) charging stations on-site as well as providing preferred parking spaces in accordance with the CalGreen recommended levels. TR22: Construction, Freight and Farming Equipment Consistent. The project would comply with TR22 through implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3b, which requires all construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower to meet the Tier 3 emissions standards. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-39 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-6 (cont.): Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures Control Measure Project Consistency Energy and Climate Control Measures EN1: Decarbonize Electricity Generation Consistent. The project would implement Project Design Feature 3, which requires the installation of a minimum 1,200 kilowatt (kW) photovoltaic (PV) solar panel system on the proposed Ikea store building. EN2: Decrease Energy Use Consistent. The project would implement Project Design Feature 2, which requires the IKEA store to be designed to be eligible to achieve a rating of LEED Silver or higher and the Lifestyle Retail Center to be designed to meet CalGreen Tier 1 requirements. Buildings BL1: Green Buildings Consistent. The project would implement Project Design Feature2, which requires the IKEA store to be designed to achieve a rating of LEED Silver or higher and the Lifestyle Retail Center to be designed to meet CalGreen Tier 1 requirements. BL2: Decarbonize Buildings Consistent. The project would implement Project Design Feature 2, which requires the IKEA store to be designed to be eligible to achieve a rating of LEED Silver or higher and the Lifestyle Retail Center to be designed to meet CalGreen Tier 1 requirements. BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Consistent. The project would reduce urban heat island effects by providing a parking structure underneath the proposed IKEA that would reduce the amount of surface parking as well as provide shade for vehicles. In addition, all roofs would utilize “cool roofing” materials pursuant to CalGreen Tier 1 minimum requirements. Natural and Working Lands NW2: Urban Tree Planting Consistent. The project would implement a landscape plan that has been designed to meet the City’s tree requirements in parking lots in order to reduce the urban heat island phenomenon that occurs in surface parking lots. Waste Management WA3: Green Waste Diversion Consistent: The waste service provider for the project will be required to meet the AB 341 and SB 939 and 1374 requirements that require waste service providers to divert green waste. WA4: Recycling and Waste Reduction Consistent: The waste service provider for the project will be required to meet the AB 341 and SB 939 and 1374 requirements that require waste to be recycled. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-40 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-6 (cont.): Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures Control Measure Project Consistency Waste Management WR1: Limit GHGs from Publicly owned Treatment Works (POTWs) Consistent: The project would implement Project Design Feature 2, which that requires the IKEA store to be designed to be eligible to achieve a rating of LEED Silver or higher and the Lifestyle Retail Center to be designed to meet CalGreen Tier 1 requirements. These design requirements require the use of low- flow fixtures and other water reduction measures. WR2: Support Water Conservation Consistent: The project would implement Project Design Feature 2, which requires the IKEA store to be designed to be eligible to achieve a rating of LEED Silver or higher and the Lifestyle Retail Center to be designed to meet CalGreen Tier 1 requirements. These design requirements require the use of low- flow fixtures and other water reduction measures. Source: BAAQMD, 2017. Conclusion The project would be consistent with Criteria 1, 2, and 3 after the implementation of Project Design Features 1, 2, and 3 and Mitigation Measures AIR-3a, AIR-3b, AIR-3c, TRANS-1a, TRANS-1b, TRANS- 1c, TRANS-1d, TRANS-1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-4a, TRANS-7a, TRANS-7b, and TRANS-7c. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the implementation of the AQP. The impact is less than significant after mitigation. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures AIR-3a, AIR-3b, AIR-3c, TRANS-1a, TRANS-1b, TRANS-1c, TRANS-1d, TRANS-1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-4a, TRANS-7a, TRANS-7b, and TRANS-7c Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Potential for Air Quality Standard Violation Impact AIR-2: The project may violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impact Analysis This impact responds to localized criteria pollutant impacts, also known as “hotspots.” Potential localized impacts would be exceedances of state or federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO). CO City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-41 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx emissions are of concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are related to increases in on-road vehicle congestion. Operational CO Hotspot Localized high levels of CO (CO hotspot) are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow moving vehicles. Local concentrations of CO have decreased dramatically in the Air Basin since the introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975, and no exceedances of either the State or Federal Air Quality Standards have occurred in the Air Basin since 1991. However, the BAAQMD still recommends a screening analysis to determine if a project has the potential to contribute to a CO hotspot. The screening criteria identify when site-specific CO dispersion modeling is not necessary. The project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality for local CO if any of the following screening criteria is met: • The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; or • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; or • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The Transportation Assessment (Fehr & Peers, 2017) analyzed the project impacts to the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Congestion Management Program (CMP), which found that the proposed project, along with other cumulative projects in the project study area would result in a significant cumulative impact to implementation of the CMP. Mitigation Measure TRANS-4 has been provided to reduce the cumulative impacts through implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program; however, impacts would not be reduced to less than significant levels. As such, the CO impacts from the proposed project have been assessed under Screening Criterion 2 and 3. The Transportation Assessment (Fehr & Peers, 2017) identified peak-hour traffic volumes for 29 intersections affected by the project. As identified in the Transportation Assessment, the maximum peak-hour intersection volume would occur at the Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection in the Cumulative Plus Project scenario during the PM peak hour. The estimated cumulative traffic volume at the Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection is 9,922 PM peak-hour trips. This level of peak-hour trips is substantially less than the BAAQMD’s second and third screening criteria of 44,000 vehicles per hour and 24,000 vehicles per hour, respectively. The project would not result in an increase of traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour and would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 where vertical or horizontal mixing is substantially limited, thus satisfying the last two criteria. Impacts would be less than significant. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-42 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Impacts Impact AIR-3: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Impact Analysis This impact is related to regional air quality impacts. Non-attainment pollutants of concern for this impact are ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified regional significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable and result in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Project construction and operational impacts are assessed separately below. Construction Emissions Construction is anticipated to begin in October 2018 and would be completed by 2020. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario since emission factors for construction equipment decrease as the analysis year increases, due to improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements. Therefore, construction emissions would decrease if the construction schedule moves to later years. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by the CEQA Guidelines. The construction emissions modeling parameters and assumptions are provided in Appendix B. Construction activities associated with development activities contemplated by the project would include demolition, grading, building construction, painting, and paving. Generally, the most substantial air pollutant emissions would be dust generated from grading. If uncontrolled, these emissions could lead to both health and nuisance impacts. Construction activities would also temporarily create emissions of equipment exhaust and other air contaminants. Construction Fugitive Dust PM10 is of concern during construction because of the potential to emit fugitive dust during earth- disturbing activities (construction fugitive dust). During construction (grading), fugitive dust (PM10) City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-43 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx would be generated from site grading and other earth-moving activities. The majority of this fugitive dust would remain localized and would be deposited near the project site. The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for fugitive dust. The BAAQMD’s Air Quality Guidelines recommend that projects determine the significance for fugitive dust through application of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project does not currently include any dust control measures, resulting in the potential for a significant impact. Therefore, it is recommended that the fugitive dust control measures identified in the BAAQMD’s Air Quality Guidelines be included to reduce localized dust impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure AIR-3a requires the application of BMPs for fugitive dust control. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3a reduces the project’s construction-generated fugitive dust impact to less than significant. BAAQMD does not recommend a numerical threshold for fugitive, dust-related particulate matter emissions. Instead, BAAQMD bases the determination of significance for fugitive dust on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures recommended by BAAQMD are implemented for a project, then fugitive dust emissions during construction are not considered significant. Therefore, without application of BMPs, this impact is potentially significant. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3a would reduce this impact to less than significant. Off-road construction equipment is a large source of NOX and diesel particulate matter in the Bay Area. NOX is an ozone precursor pollutant that contributes to regional ozone formation. Diesel particulate matter contributes to elevated PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations and is a TAC. Table 3.1-7 summarizes the unmitigated daily construction-generated emissions in pounds per day. The worst-case summer or winter daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed project for each phase of construction activities of the proposed project have been utilized. Since it is possible that building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities may occur concurrently, Table 3.1-5 also shows the combined criteria pollutant emissions from building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of construction. Table 3.1-7: Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Prior to Mitigation Construction Activity Air Pollutants (pounds per day) ROG NOX PM10 1 PM2.5 1 Demolition 3.83 39.78 1.95 1.81 Grading 5.18 59.59 2.63 2.42 Combined Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coatings 146.06 73.35 3.01 2.83 - Building Construction 6.29 57.32 2.16 2.03 - Paving 2.21 14.11 0.75 0.69 - Architectural Coating 137.56 1.92 0.11 0.11 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-44 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-7 (cont.): Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Prior to Mitigation Construction Activity Air Pollutants (pounds per day) ROG NOX PM10 1 PM2.5 1 CEQA Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? Yes Yes No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, Appendix B. The data provided in Table 3.1-7 shows that the proposed project would exceed the ROG emissions threshold during the architectural phase of construction activities and would exceed the NOX emissions threshold during the grading and building construction phases of construction activities. This would result in a potentially significant impact. All other phases would be within the thresholds. Mitigation Measure AIR-3b is provided, which requires that the applicant provide documentation to the City of Dublin that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 interim off-road emissions standards. Mitigation Measure AIR-3c is also provided, which requires all architectural coating products utilized during construction to have a volatile organic compound rating of 45 grams per liter or less. Table 3.1-8 shows that with application of Mitigation Measures AIR-3b and AIR-3c, the proposed project’s ROG and NOX emissions would be reduced to below the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-3b and AIR-3c, the construction-related criteria pollutants emissions would be reduced to less than significant for the proposed project. Table 3.1-8: Mitigated Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Construction Activity Air Pollutants (pounds per day) ROG NOX PM10 1 PM2.5 1 Demolition 0.69 14.98 0.07 0.07 Grading 1.10 19.34 0.11 0.11 Combined Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coatings 51.41 52.44 0.34 0.34 - Building Construction 3.37 41.06 0.30 0.30 - Paving 1.19 10.08 0.04 0.04 - Architectural Coating 46.85 1.30 0.00 0.00 CEQA Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-45 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-8 (cont.): Mitigated Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Construction Activity Air Pollutants (pounds per day) ROG NOX PM10 1 PM2.5 1 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, Appendix B. Operational Emissions Project operational emissions were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. The trip generation rates are from the Traffic Impact Study (Fehr & Peers 2017). The air modeling assumptions and parameters are provided in Appendix B. As shown in Table 3.1-9 and Table 3.1-10, the project would be within all annual and daily operational emissions thresholds. Operational emissions are based on implementation of Project Design Features 1, 2, and 3 and Mitigation Measure TRANS-7a. Table 3.1-9: Annual Operational Air Emissions Source Annual Emissions (tons) ROG NOX PM10* PM2.5* Area 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.07 0.64 0.05 0.05 Mobile 4.48 6.96 11.63 3.16 Stationary Sources1 0.01 .04 0.00 0.00 Total Emissions 6.45 7.64 11.68 3.21 Threshold of Significance 10 10 15 10 Significant Impact? No No No No Notes ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns and less in diameter NOX = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter * PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes emergency generator for the proposed IKEA Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod Output for Opening Year 2020). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2017. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-46 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-10: Daily Operational Air Emissions Source Daily Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOX PM10* PM2.5* Area 10.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.39 3.50 0.27 0.27 Mobile 29.13 40.69 66.37 17.96 Stationary Sources1 1.64 7.35 0.24 0.24 Total Emissions 41.53 51.54 66.88 18.47 Threshold of Significance 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No Notes ROG = reactive organic gases PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns and less in diameter NOX = nitrogen oxides PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns and less in diameter * PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are for exhaust only. 1 Includes emergency generator for the proposed IKEA Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod Output for Opening Year 2020). Source of thresholds: BAAQMD 2017. Conclusion With the incorporation of mitigation, the project would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance during construction. The project would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance during operations. Construction air quality impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-7a, Mitigation Measure AIR-3a, Mitigation Measure AIR-3b, and Mitigation Measure AIR-3c. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-7a and: MM AIR-3a During construction, the following air pollution control measures shall be implemented: • All Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or more as needed. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-47 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact both at the City of Dublin and at the office of the General Contractor regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 2 business days of a complaint or issue notification. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM AIR-3b Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Dublin that demonstrates that all off-road diesel- powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 interim off-road emissions standards. MM AIR-3c The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the architectural coating (paint and primer) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 45 grams per liter or less. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the proposed project, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Sensitive Receptors Impact AIR-4: The project may have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impact Analysis This discussion addresses whether the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of construction fugitive dust, operational CO, DPM, or other TACs of concern. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-48 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx A sensitive receptor is defined by the BAAQMD as the following: “Facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals and residential areas.” The project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to TACs because it includes a new or modified source of TACs and would be located near an existing or proposed sensitive receptor. This section analyzes this potential impact of the project on the environment. The BAAQMD guidance identifies the area within 1,000 feet of the project site as the zone of influence for TACs. The project’s zone of influence was reviewed to identify locations of sensitive receptors. The following have been identified as the sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of the project site: • Existing multi-family homes located on the west side of Campus Drive and as near as 850 feet northwest of the project site; and • Existing multi-family homes located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard and as near as 820 feet northeast of the project site. In order to provide a conservative analysis, the project’s TAC impacts to off-site workers located within 1,000 feet of the project site have also been analyzed. The following have been identified as the sites with off-site workers located within 1,000 feet of the project site: • Commercial retail uses located on the north side of Martinelli Way and as near as 140 feet north of the project site; • Commercial retail uses located on the east side of Hacienda Drive and as near as 220 feet east of the project site; • Commercial retail uses located on the south side of I-580 and on the east side of Hacienda Drive and as near as 840 feet southeast of the project site; • Office park uses located on the north side of Dublin Boulevard and as near as 800 feet north of the project site; and • Office park uses located on the south side of Interstate 580 and as near as 420 feet south of the project site. Construction Fugitive Dust During construction (grading), fugitive dust (PM10) is generated. As detailed in Impact AIR-3, the project would result in a less than significant dust impact after incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3a. Therefore, the project would not expose adjacent receptors to significant amounts of construction dust after incorporation of mitigation. Carbon Monoxide Emission Impacts As noted in the discussion of Impact AIR-2, the project is not expected to generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, the project would not expose receptors to substantial CO concentrations from operational activities. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-49 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Estimation of Health Risks Associated with TAC Emissions A stand-alone health risk assessment (HRA) report was prepared for the project and is provided in Appendix B. The HRA provides detailed methodology and modeling assumptions. The information from the HRA is summarized below. Emissions Assumptions The Age Sensitivity Factors (ASF) that are defined in the BAAQMD Guidance (BAAQMD 2011; BAAQMD 2012; BAAQMD 2016) and OEHHA Guidance (OEHHA 2015) have been utilized in this analysis. The ASF requirements utilize separate emission factors over a person’s life, segmented into three distinct periods: the first period starts at the third trimester of a pregnancy to 2 years of age, the second period is from 2 to 16 years, and the third is from 16 to 30 years old. The TAC emissions from both construction and operation of the proposed project have been calculated and segmented into each of these periods based on the worst-case assumption that a woman who is in her third trimester is living in one of the nearby homes and her baby will live in its parent’s home for 30 years. The construction-related TAC emissions calculated the PM2.5 exhaust emissions created from the off- road equipment that was obtained from the CalEEMod model run utilized for the criteria pollutant analysis and from the haul and material delivery truck running and idling emissions that were obtained from the EMFAC2014 model. The emissions that were modeled represented the mitigated emissions as a result of implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3b, requiring the use of Tier 3 construction equipment. The operations-related TAC emissions calculated the TAC emissions created by the delivery trucks running and idling and transport refrigeration unit emissions, from the backup diesel generator at IKEA, and from restaurant emissions created from the use of charbroilers and flat griddles. Health Risk Standards and Thresholds The BAAQMD Guidelines (BAAQMD 2011) provides quantitative thresholds for both project-only impacts and cumulative impacts, which are used in this analysis. Project Specific Significance Thresholds According to the BAAQMD 2017 Guidelines, any individual project that has the potential to expose the public to TACs in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to result in a significant impact: • Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk: 10 in 1 million at the nearby residential units; • A non-cancer acute and chronic risk of a Hazard Index of 1 or greater; • PM2.5 concentration increase of greater than 0.3 µg/m3 annual average Cumulative Impacts Significance Thresholds According to the BAAQMD 2017 Guidelines, a cumulatively significant impact would occur if the project impacts combined with all sources within 1,000 feet of the project site exposed sensitive receptors to TACs in excess of the following thresholds: • Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk: 100 in 1 million at the nearby residential units; • A non-cancer acute and chronic risk of a Hazard Index of 10 or greater; City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-50 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx • PM2.5 concentration increase of greater than 0.8 µg/m3 annual average. The health risks from TACs are twofold. First, TACs are classified as carcinogens by the State of California. Second, short-term acute and long-term chronic exposure to TACs can cause health effects to the respiratory system and other organs. Each of these health risks is discussed below. Cancer Risks to Nearby Sensitive Receptors According to BAAQMD methodology (BAAQMD 2012) (BAAQMD 2016) and OEHHA methodology (OEHHA 2015), health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk, which is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 30-year period will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. The cancer risk should be calculated using the following formula: Cancer Risk = [Dose-inh (mg/(Kg-day)] * [Cancer Potency Factor (kg-day)/mg]*[1x106] * Age Sensitivity Factor * Fraction of Time at Home Dose-inh = (Cair * DBR * A * EF * ED * 106)/AT Where: Cair [Concentration in air (µg/m3)] (Calculated by AERMOD Model) DBR [Daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight—day)] A [Inhalation absorption factor] EF [Exposure frequency (days/year)] ED [Exposure duration (years)] 106 [Conversion to cancer risk per 1,000,000 persons] AT [Average time period over which exposure is averaged in days] The cancer risk parameters used in this evaluation for the nearby residential uses are shown in Table 3.1-11 and the parameters for nearby off-site workers are shown in Table 3.1-12. Table 3.1-11: Cancer Risk Parameters for Off-site Residents Parameter Construction Operations Year 2020 (0 to 2 years) Operations Years 2021– 2034 (2 to 16 years) Operations Years 2035– 2049 (16 to 30 years) Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day) for DPM 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 1 Fraction of Time at Home 0.85 0.85 0.72 0.73 Daily Breathing Rate1 (L/kg body weight-day) 928 1090 572 233 Inhalation Absorption Factor 1 1 1 1 Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350 350 350 350 Exposure Duration (years) 1.58 0.67 14 13.75 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-51 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-11 (cont.): Cancer Risk Parameters for Off-site Residents Parameter Construction Operations Year 2020 (0 to 2 years) Operations Years 2021– 2034 (2 to 16 years) Operations Years 2035– 2049 (16 to 30 years) Averaging Time2 (days) 25,550 25,550 25,550 25,550 Potential Cancer Risk (per million persons) = Cair * 197.3 Cair * 93.5 Cair * 260.6 Cair * 39.5 Notes: 1 The daily breathing rate for construction was calculated based on 3 months at 361 and 16 months at 1090. 2 Based on a 70 year averaging time (OEHHA, 2015) Sources: BAAQMD, 2012; BAAQMD, 2016. According to the above parameters provided in in Table 3.1-11, the cancer risk for the off-site residential receptors equates to: Potential Cancer Risk = Cair(construction) * 197.3 (3rd trimester to 2) + Cair(2020) * 93.5 (3rd trimester to 2) + Cair(2021–2034) * 260.6 (2 to 16 years) + Cair(2035–2049) * 39.5 (16 to 30 years) Table 3.1-12: Cancer Risk Parameters for Off-site Workers Parameter Construction Operations Year 2020 Operations Years 2021–2034 Operations Years 2035–2049 Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day) for DPM 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Age Sensitivity Factor 1 1 1 1 Fraction of Time at Home (Work)1 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg body weight-day) 230 230 230 230 Inhalation Absorption Factor 1 1 1 1 Exposure Frequency (days/year) 250 250 250 250 Exposure Duration2 (years) 1.58 0.67 14 8.75 Averaging Time3 (days) 25,550 25,550 25,550 25,550 Potential Cancer Risk (per million persons) = Cair * 1.3 Cair * 0.5 Cair * 11.4 Cair * 7.1 Notes: 1 Fraction of Time at home based on an 8-hour workday (8 ÷ 24 = 0.33). 2 The total exposure duration for workers is 25 years (1.58 + 0.67 + 14 + 8.75 = 25) 3 Based on a 70 year averaging time (OEHHA, 2015) Source: BAAQMD, 2012; BAAQMD, 2016. According to the above parameters provided in Table 3.1-12, the cancer risk for the off-site workers receptors equates to the following formula. It should be noted that all workers were modeled as City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-52 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx being 16 years or older; however, in order to provide consistency with the time frames analyzed for the off-site residences, the same time frames were analyzed for the off-site workers. Potential Cancer Risk = Cair(construction) * 1.3 + Cair(2020) * 0.5 + Cair(2021–2034) * 11.4 + Cair(2035–2049) * 7.1 The calculated DPM equivalent emission concentrations and associated cancer risks are provided in Table 3.1-13 for the nearby sensitive receptors and in Table 3.1-14 for the nearby off-site workers. The AERMOD modeling assumptions and AERMOD printouts are provided in the HRA Report (see Appendix B). Table 3.1-13: Nearby Sensitive Receptors Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risk Impacts Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Annual DPM Concentration (µg/m3) Cancer Risk per Million People2 X Y Construction 2020 2021– 2034 2035– 2049 1 MFR Northwest of Project 597,314 4,173,605 0.0020 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.59 125 MFR Northeast of Project 598,058 4,173,839 0.0061 0.0008 0.0007 0.0005 1.47 BAAQMD Cancer Risk Threshold 10.0 Notes: MFR = multi-family resident 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). 2 See Table 3.1-9 for the parameters utilized to calculate the cancer risk at off-site sensitive receptors. Source: AERMOD Version 16216r. Table 3.1-13 indicates that operation of the proposed project would result in a cancer risk increase of up to 1.47 per million at the nearby sensitive receptors at Receptor 125, which consists of the multi- family homes on the northeast side of the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. The calculated project-related cancer risk from TAC emissions would be below the BAAQMD project- specific cancer risk threshold of 10 per million at all nearby sensitive receptors. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 3.1-14: Nearby Off-site Workers Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risk Impacts Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Annual DPM Concentration (µg/m3) Cancer Risk per Million People2 X Y Construction 2020 2021– 2034 2035– 2049 70 OW at Offices North of Project 597,860 4,173,846 0.0053 0.0008 0.0007 0.0006 0.02 94 OW at Retail North of Project 597,949 4,173,647 0.0324 0.0031 0.0024 0.0018 0.08 141 OW at Retail East of Project 598,052 4,173,555 0.0462 0.0036 0.0028 0.0020 0.11 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-53 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-14 (cont.): Nearby Off-site Workers Annual DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risk Impacts Receptor Number Receptor Description Receptor Location1 Annual DPM Concentration (µg/m3) Cancer Risk per Million People2 X Y Construction 2020 2021– 2034 2035– 2049 150 OW at Retail Southeast of Project 598,199 4,173,201 0.0074 0.0009 0.0007 0.0006 0.02 172 OW at Office South of Project 597,726 4,173,206 0.0075 0.0009 0.0008 0.0006 0.02 BAAQMD Cancer Risk Threshold 10.0 Notes: OW = off-site worker 1 Receptor location based on World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). 2 See Table 3.1-12 for the parameters utilized to calculate the cancer risk at off-site workers. Source: AERMOD Version 16216r. Table 3.1-14 indicates that development of the proposed project would result in a cancer risk increase of up to 0.11 per million for workers at the nearby off-site locations consisting of Receptor 141, located at the Hacienda Crossings retail center on the east side of Hacienda Drive. The calculated project-related cancer risk from TAC emissions would be below the BAAQMD project- specific cancer risk threshold of 10 per million for all nearby off-site workers. Impacts would be less than significant. Non-Cancer Risks In addition to the cancer risk from exposure to DPM, there is also the potential that DPM exposure may result in adverse health impacts from acute and chronic illnesses, which are detailed below. Acute and chronic illness may involve eye, skin, or lung irritation, neurological or reproductive disorders. Chronic Health Impacts Chronic health effects are characterized by prolonged or repeated exposure to a TAC over many days, months, or years. Symptoms from chronic health impacts may not be immediately apparent and are often irreversible. The chronic hazard index is based on the most impacted sensitive receptor from the proposed project and is calculated from the annual average concentrations of DPM equivalent emissions. The relationship for non-cancer chronic health effects is given by the equation: HIDPM = CDPM/RELDPM Where: HIDPM = Hazard Index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects CDPM = Annual average diesel particulate matter concentration in µg/m3 RELDPM = Reference Exposure Level (REL) for diesel particulate matter; the diesel particulate matter concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-54 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx The RELDPM is 5 µg/m3, which was the concentration established by OEHHA as protective for the respiratory system. As shown in Table 3.1-13 above, the AERMOD model found that the highest annual concentration at the point of maximum impact (PMI) is 0.0462 µg/m3 for DPM equivalent that would occur during construction at the PMI. The resulting Hazard Index is: HIDPM = 0.0462/5 = 0.0092 The criterion for significance is a Chronic Hazard Index increase of 1.0 or greater. Therefore, ongoing operations of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to the non- cancer chronic health risk from TAC. Acute Health Impacts Acute health effects are characterized by sudden and severe exposure and rapid absorption of a TAC. Normally, a single large exposure is involved. Acute health effects are often treatable and reversible. According to the OEHHA, no acute risk has been found to be directly created from DPM, so there is no Acute Reference Exposure Level (AREL) assigned to DPM, and therefore, it is not possible to utilize a DPM equivalent emission calculation to calculate the acute health impacts from the proposed project. It should also be noted that the TAC pollutants created from operation of the proposed restaurants would be limited to naphthalene and PAH without naphthalene, both of which do not create an acute risk according to the OEHHA. In order to determine the acute health risks from all of the TAC pollutants from diesel emissions, benzene was utilized as the equivalent emission factor, since that is the primary TAC found in both gasoline and diesel emissions. In order to account for the acute health impacts created from diesel emissions, the TAC pollutants that are emitted as part of diesel emissions were converted to a benzene equivalent weighting, through multiplying the diesel weight fraction of each TAC to its corresponding acute REL and then dividing by the benzene Acute REL of 27. All benzene weighted acute RELs from the TAC pollutants created from diesel emissions were then added together, which resulted in a benzene weighted equivalent factor of 73.0 for DPM emissions. The AERMOD model was re-run for the year 2020 scenario based on all diesel source emission rates multiplied by 73.0, and the restaurant emission sources were removed from the AERMOD model. All other parameters were the same as what was utilized for the DPM calculations. The relationship for non-cancer acute health effects is given by the equation: AHIbenzen = Cbenzene/ARELbenzene Where: AHIbenzene = Acute Hazard Index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects Cbenzene = Maximum hourly concentration of benzene equivalent in µg/m3 ARELbenzene = Acute Reference Exposure Level for benzene The ARELbenzene is 27 µg/m3. The OEHHA has established this concentration as protective for the respiratory system. The benzene equivalent maximum one-hour model run is provided in Appendix G, which shows the maximum hourly concentration at 2.623 µg/m3 for benzene equivalent acute non-cancer risk emissions. The resulting Hazard Index is: City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-55 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx AHIbenzene = 2.623/27 = 0.0971 The criterion for significance is an Acute Hazard Index increase of 1.0 or greater. Therefore, the ongoing operations of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to the non-cancer acute health risk from TAC emissions. PM2.5 Concentrations Consistent with BAAQMD methodology, the maximum annual PM2.5 concentrations created from the proposed project have also been analyzed. The maximum annual average DPM concentrations, which is a combination of PM2.5 and other TAC emission concentrations, at the nearest sensitive receptor is 0.0061 µg/m3 (see Table 3.1-13), and at the nearby off-site workers is 0.0462 µg/m3 (see Table 3.1-14). The annual PM2.5 concentration criterion for significance is an increase of 0.3 µg/m3. Therefore, a less than significant impact from project-related PM2.5 concentrations risk is anticipated at the sensitive receptors located near the project site. Cumulative Health Risk Assessment Consistent with the methodology provided by the BAAQMD, this HRA has analyzed the cumulative cancer, non-cancer chronic and acute health impacts, and PM2.5 concentrations to the most impacted off-site sensitive receptor from all sources of TAC emissions located within 1,000 feet of the project site. In the Supreme Court’s decision for California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015), the Court concluded that for CEQA analyses, there is not a “general requirement that an agency analyze existing environmental conditions whenever they pose a risk to the future residents or users of a project.” As such, the cumulative health risks from the existing environment to the proposed on-site workers have not been analyzed. However, the cumulative health risk impacts to the most impacted off-site sensitive receptors have been analyzed below because the proposed project’s impacts may contribute to and exacerbate the conditions in the existing environment. Cumulative Cancer Risk Impacts A summary of the cumulative cancer risk impacts at the location where the project has the highest cancer risk impacts to nearby residential uses is shown in Table 3.1-15. Table 3.1-15: Cumulative Cancer Risk Impacts Receptor Number Receptor Description Cancer Risk Per Million Persons I-580 Dublin Blvd Hacienda Blvd Generators Project Total Cumulative 1 MFR Northwest of Project 31.7 6.0 — 2.0 0.6 40.3 125 MFR Northeast of Project — 6.8 4.6 2.7 1.5 15.5 BAAQMD Cumulative Cancer Risk Threshold 100 Note: MFR = Multi-family resident Source: BAAQMD, 2011; AERMOD Version 16216r. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-56 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-15 shows that the greatest cumulative cancer impact of 40.3 per million persons would occur at Receptor 1, which represents the multi-family homes located northwest of the project site. This would be below the BAAQMD cumulative cancer risk threshold of 100 per million persons. Impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Noncancer Chronic Health Index A summary of the cumulative non-cancer chronic health index to the analyzed off-site sensitive receptors is shown in Table 3.1-16. Table 3.1-16: Cumulative Noncancer Chronic Impacts Receptor Number Receptor Description Chronic Health Index I-580 Dublin Blvd Hacienda Blvd Generators Project Total Cumulative 1 MFR Northwest of Project 0.1 0.04 — 0.00 0.01 0.1 125 MFR Northeast of Project — 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.1 BAAQMD Cumulative Chronic Health Index Threshold 10 Note: MFR = Multi-family resident Source: BAAQMD, 2011; AERMOD Version 16216r. Table 3.1-16 shows that the cumulative chronic health index impact of 0.1 would occur at the multi- family homes located northeast and northwest of the project site. This would be below the BAAQMD cumulative non-cancer chronic health index threshold of 10. Impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Noncancer Acute Health Index A summary of the cumulative non-cancer acute health index to the analyzed off-site sensitive receptors is shown in Table 3.1-17. Table 3.1-17: Cumulative Noncancer Acute Impacts Receptor Number Receptor Description Acute Health Index I-580 Dublin Blvd Hacienda Blvd Generators Project Total Cumulative 1 MFR Northwest of Project 0.02 0.02 — 0.00 0.05 0.10 125 MFR Northeast of Project — 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.06 BAAQMD Cumulative Noncancer Acute Health Index Threshold 10 Note: MFR = Multi-family resident Source: BAAQMD, 2011; AERMOD Version 16216r. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-57 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-17 shows that the greatest cumulative acute health index impact of 0.10 would occur at Receptor 1, which represents the multi-family homes located northwest of the project site. This would be below the BAAQMD cumulative non-cancer acute health index threshold of 10. Impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative PM2.5 Concentrations A summary of the cumulative PM2.5 concentrations to the analyzed off-site sensitive receptors is shown in Table 3.1-18. Table 3.1-18: Cumulative PM2.5 Concentrations Receptor Number Receptor Description PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) I-580 Dublin Blvd Hacienda Blvd Generators Project Total Cumulative 1 MFR Northwest of Project 0.41 0.27 — 0.00 0.00 0.68 125 MFR Northeast of Project — 0.31 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.56 BAAQMD Cumulative PM2.5 Concentration Threshold 0.8 Note: MFR = Multi-family resident Source: BAAQMD, 2011; AERMOD Version 16216r. Table 3.1-18 shows that the greatest cumulative PM2.5 concentration of 0.68 µg/m3 would occur at Receptor 1, which represents the multi-family homes located northwest of the project site. This would be below the BAAQMD cumulative PM2.5 threshold of 0.8 µg/m3. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Objectionable Odors Impact AIR-5: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impact Analysis As stated in the BAAQMD 2017 Air Quality Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard, and the ability to detect odors varies considerably and overall is subjective. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-58 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx The BAAQMD does not have a recommended odor threshold for construction activities. However, BAAQMD recommends operational screening criteria, as shown in Table 3.1-19, that are based on distance between the receptor and types of sources known to generate odor. Projects that would site an odor source or a receptor farther than the applicable screening distance, shown in Table 3.1-19, would not result in a significant odor impact. Table 3.1-19: Odor Screening Distances Land Use/Type of Operation Project Screening Distance Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 miles Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1 mile Sanitary Landfill 2 miles Transfer Station 1 mile Composting Facility 1 mile Petroleum Refinery 2 miles Asphalt Batch Plant 2 miles Chemical Manufacturing 2 miles Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile Rendering Plant 2 miles Coffee Roaster 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile Confined Animal Facility/Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1 mile Metal Smelting Plants 2 mile Source: BAAQMD, 2017. Project Construction Diesel exhaust and reactive organic gases (ROG) would be emitted during construction of the project, the odors of which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and the nearest sensitive receptors are located at 800 feet or more from the project site. Given this distance, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As such, odor impacts would be less than significant during project construction. Project Operation Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste- disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The project does not contain any of these land uses or other land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors, however the proposed City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-59 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx project may contain several restaurants that may emit odors associated with cooking emissions, particularly from charbroilers. The project site is not located within the recommended screening distances (as shown in Table 3.1-19) of any typical sources of objectionable odors, which typically include agricultural operations (dairies, feedlots, etc.), landfills, wastewater treatment plants, refineries, and other types of industrial land uses. Pursuant to BAAQMD Rule 6-2, a catalytic oxidizer is required to be installed if a charbroiler is installed in a restaurant, which would limit cooking odor emissions. Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant during project operations. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact AIR-6: Implementation of the project would generate direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment. Impact Analysis This analysis is restricted to GHGs identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The project would generate a variety of GHGs during construction and operation, including several defined by AB 32 such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The project may also emit GHGs that are not defined by AB 32. For example, the project may generate aerosols. Aerosols are short-lived particles, as they remain in the atmosphere for about 1 week. Black carbon is a component of aerosol. Studies have indicated that black carbon has a high global warming potential; however, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that it has a low level of scientific certainty. Water vapor could be emitted from evaporated water used for landscaping, but this is not a significant impact because water vapor concentrations in the upper atmosphere are primarily due to climate feedbacks rather than emissions from project-related activities. The project would emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which are ozone precursors. Ozone is a GHG; however, unlike the other GHGs, ozone in the troposphere is relatively short-lived and can be reduced in the troposphere on a daily basis. Stratospheric ozone can be reduced through reactions with other pollutants. Certain GHGs defined by AB 32 would not be emitted by the project. Perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride are typically used in industrial applications, none of which would be used by the project. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would emit perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-60 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx An upstream emission source (also known as life cycle emissions) refers to emissions that were generated during the manufacture of products to be used for construction of the project. Upstream emission sources for the project include but are not limited to emissions from the manufacture of cement, emissions from the manufacture of steel, and/or emissions from the transportation of building materials to the seller. The upstream emissions were not estimated because they are not within the control of the project and to do so would be speculative. Additionally, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association White Paper on CEQA and Climate Change supports this conclusion by stating, “The full life-cycle of GHG emissions from construction activities is not accounted for . . . and the information needed to characterize [life-cycle emissions] would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level.” Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15144 and 15145, upstream/life cycle emissions are speculative and no further discussion is necessary. BAAQMD provides multiple options in its 2017 Thresholds for project-level GHG generation from project operation. BAAQMD does not presently provide a construction-related GHG generation threshold, but recommends that construction-generated GHGs be quantified and disclosed. BAAQMD also recommends that lead agencies (in this case, the City of Dublin) make a determination of the level of significance of construction-generated GHG emissions in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals. The lead agency is also encouraged to incorporate BMPs to reduce GHG emissions during project construction, as feasible and applicable. BAAQMD’s project-level significance threshold for operational GHG generation was deemed appropriate to use when determining the project’s potential GHG impacts. The thresholds suggested by BAAQMD for project-level operational GHG generation are as follows: • Compliance with a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, or • 1,100 MT CO2e/year, or • 4.6 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per service population (employees plus residents). BAAQMD’s Air Quality Guidelines state that if annual emissions of GHG exceed the thresholds, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable significant impact to global climate change. Therefore, if the project is less than any one of the thresholds identified above, then the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to global climate change. The City of Dublin adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update in July 2013, which contains a GHG reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020. The CAP constitutes a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and has been utilized in this analysis for determining the level of significance of the project’s GHG emissions for the opening year 2020 conditions. Impact AIR-6 provides a quantitative analysis of the thresholds provided in the CAP, and a consistency analysis of the project with the measures in the CAP is provided in Impact AIR-7. This EIR relies on the analysis of the project’s consistency with the CAP for the significance determination for the project in 2020, which is the expected opening year. Since the CAP was adopted prior to AB 197 and SB 32 being codified into law in September 2016, the CAP currently does not contain adequate reduction measures to reduce California’s GHG emissions to the AB 197 and SB 32 targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The City is expecting to City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-61 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx update its CAP to provide a 2030 target, but the CAP update has not been completed at this time. Therefore, for the purposes of this EIR only, the GHG target for 2030 will be 40 percent below 1990 levels consistent with SB 32. The use of this 2030 reduction target does not establish a precedent that the City is determining must be followed in other EIRs until the CAP Update is adopted. In order to provide a conservative analysis, the proposed project’s GHG emissions have been calculated for the year 2030 conditions and compared to the year 2000 levels, which is the nearest year to 1990 available in CalEEMod, in order to determine if the project would meet the AB 197 and SB 32 reduction of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Construction The project would emit GHG emissions during construction from the off-road equipment, worker vehicles, and any hauling that may occur. As previously indicated, BAAQMD does not presently provide a construction-related GHG generation threshold, but it recommends that construction- generated GHGs be quantified and disclosed. BAAQMD also recommends that lead agencies (in this case, the City of Dublin) make a determination of the level of significance of construction-generated GHG emissions in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Greenhouse gas emissions from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Table 3.1-20. The emissions are from all phases of construction. Construction of the project is estimated to generate approximately 1,902 MT CO2e. The annual emissions from construction were added to the operational emissions to determine the total emissions of the project. These total project emissions were analyzed against the BAAQMD significance threshold standard. Table 3.1-20: Project Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Year Emissions (MT CO2e) 2018 152 2019 1527 2020 224 Total Construction Emissions 1,902 Annualized over 30 years 63 Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents Source: see Appendix B CalEEMod output. Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Operation Long-term, operational GHG emissions would result from project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, operation of any landscaping equipment, off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the project, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the project site, the emissions associated with the hauling and disposal of solid waste from the project site, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. Operational emissions for the years 2000, 2030, and 2050 were modeled using CalEEMod. CalEEMod emission factors incorporate compliance with some, but not all, applicable rules and City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-62 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx regulations regarding energy efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency, and other GHG reduction policies, as described in the CalEEMod User’s Guide (SCAQMD 2013). The reductions obtained from each regulation and the source of the reduction amount used in the analysis are described below. Emissions Accounting for Applicable Regulations The following regulations are incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors: • Pavley I motor vehicle emission standards • Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) • 2016 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards The following regulations have not been incorporated into the CalEEMod emission factors and require alternative methods to account for emission reductions provided by the regulations: • Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program (extends to model year 2025) • Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) • Green Building Code Standards (indoor water use) • California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Outdoor Water) Pavley II/LEV III standards have not been incorporated in the latest version of CalEEMod. Reductions from standards are calculated by adjusting the CalEEMod GHG passenger car and light truck emission factors by ARB’s estimated three percent reduction expected from the vehicle categories subject to the regulation by 2020 (ARB 2010c). RPS is not accounted for in the current version of CalEEMod. Reductions from RPS are addressed by revising the electricity emission intensity factor in CalEEMod to account for the utility complying with the 33 percent renewable mandate by 2020 (ARB 2010 and CPUC 2011). For the year 2020, 2030, and 2050 analyses it was assumed that the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) would achieve the 33 percent renewable energy goal for 2020 and the 50 percent renewable energy goal established by EO B-30-15 and SB 350. Energy savings from water conservation resulting from the Green Building Code Standards for indoor water use and California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance for outdoor water use are not included in CalEEMod. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 mandates a 20 percent reduction in urban water use that is implemented with these regulations (CDWR 2013). Benefits of the water conservation regulations are applied in the CalEEMod mitigation component. Adjustments were also made for project design features that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Year 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The CAP relies on compliance with its measures to determine project significance levels (see Impact AIR-7). The CAP does not require numerical calculations of project emissions to determine compliance with the CAP. As such, the proposed project’s year 2020 emissions calculations have not been provided in this analysis. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-63 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Year 2030 Greenhouse Gas Emissions In order to determine if the proposed project meets the 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions over 1990 levels by 2030 as codified in AB 197 and SB 32, the project’s GHG emissions have been calculated for the year 2030 and compared to the year 2000 emissions, since that is the nearest year available in CalEEMod to the year 1990. Table 3.1-21 shows the combined construction and operational GHG emissions for the years 2000 and 2030. Table 3.1-21: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis—Operational Year 2030 Emission Source MT CO2e per year Percent Reduction 2000 BAU Scenario 2030 Project Scenario Area 0.04 0.04 0% Energy 3,242 1,443 55% Mobile 15,212 8,143 46% Waste 1,101 551 50% Water 152 102 33% Stationary Sources 5 5 0% Construction 63 63 0% Total Emissions 19,776 10,307 48% AB 197 and SB 32 Requirements 40% Does the Project Meet the Reduction Target? Yes Notes: BAU = business as usual MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Adjustments were also made for project design features that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix B). As shown in Table 3.1-21, the proposed project would generate 19,776 MT CO2e per year for the year 2000 conditions and 10,307 MT CO2e per year for the year 2030 conditions, which results in a 48 percent reduction in GHG emissions over what the project would create if it was developed in 2000, which is the nearest year to 1990 available in the CalEEMod model. The proposed project would meet the 40 percent reduction requirement over year 1990 by 2030, as required by AB 197 and SB 32. Impacts would be less than significant. Year 2050 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Executive Order S-3-05 provides an aspirational goal of reducing GHG emissions in California of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The year 2050 analysis has been included in this DSEIR in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (Cleveland v. SANDAG), filed July 13, 2017, which stated “First, the parties agree that the EIR should consider the Plan’s long-range greenhouse gas impacts for the year 2050.” Cleveland v. SANDAG also stated that EIRs “must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.” City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-64 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx The year 2050 analysis is provided differently than the year 2030 analysis, because Executive Order S-3-05 is not an adopted GHG reduction plan within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b)(2), and there are no adopted plans or implementation measures to achieve this reduction goal at this time. As stated in Cleveland v. SANDAG, “the Attorney General . . . [has] advised that the EO 2050 target can inform CEQA analysis, there is no legal requirement to use it as a threshold of significance. Under the CEQA Guidelines and case law, SANDAG [lead agency] retains the discretion to select certain GHG emission reduction thresholds and not select others.” Furthermore, the court in Cleveland v. SANDAG stated: SANDAG did not abuse its discretion in declining to adopt the 2050 goal as a measure of significance in light of the fact that the Executive Order does not specify any plan or implementation measures to achieve its goal. In its response to comments, the EIR said: It is uncertain what role regional land use and transportation strategies can or should play in achieving the EO’s 2050 emissions reduction target. A recent California Energy Commission report concludes, however, that the primary strategies to achieve this target should be major ‘decarbonization’ of electricity supplies and fuels, and major improvements in energy efficiency [citation omitted]. Therefore, the impacts of the project’s GHG emissions in 2050 are provided for information and disclosure purposes only in this document, and no significance determination on the project’s impacts is made. Table 3.1-22 shows the combined construction and operational GHG emissions for the year 2050 and compared to the year 2000 emissions, since that is the nearest year available in CalEEMod to the year 1990. Table 3.1-22: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis—Operational Year 2050 Emission Source MT CO2e per year Percent Reduction 2000 BAU Scenario 2050 Project Scenario Area 0.04 0.04 0% Energy 3,242 1,443 55% Mobile 15,212 6,981 54% Waste 1,101 551 50% Water 152 102 33% Stationary Sources 5 5 0% Construction 63 63 0% Total Emissions 19,776 9,145 54% Notes: BAU = business as usual MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Adjustments were also made for project design features that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix B). City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-65 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx As shown in Table 3.1-22, the proposed project would generate 19,776 MT CO2e per year for the year 2000 conditions and 9,145 MT CO2e per year for the year 2050 conditions, which results in a 54 percent reduction in GHG emissions over what the project would create if it were developed in 2000, which is the nearest year to 1990 available in the CalEEMod model. The year 2050 emission calculations include the anticipated emission reductions associated with implementation of State GHG emission reduction regulations that have gone into effect by 2030. However, emissions reductions from the State’s Cap and Trade program, which applies to GHG emissions from utilities and fuels utilized for vehicles is not accounted for in the CalEEMod model, which would result in lower GHG emissions from energy and mobile sources than what is presented in Table 3.1-22. If emissions reductions from the State’s Cap and Trade program are offset for energy production and fuel consumption, approximately 90 percent of GHG emissions from new projects would be offset. Summary For 2030, the project would be within the AB 197 and SB 32 reduction requirement of a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions over year 1990. Impacts would be less than significant. For 2050, the project emissions would be further reduced from 2030 and the trajectory is towards greater emissions reductions. However, the estimated emissions levels are provided for information and disclosure purposes only. No significance determination for the project’s 2050 GHG emissions is made. 2030 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. 2030 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Consistency Impact AIR-7: Implementation of the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impact Analysis To address this potential impact for 2020, project consistency with the City of Dublin CAP is used for this analysis. The CAP is a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy under CEQA, which can be used to determine the significance of GHG emissions from a project (CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5). BAAQMD also recognizes the use of a CAP as a significance threshold for a project’s GHG emissions. Therefore, if the project is consistent with the CAP, then the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to global climate change in 2020. The City of Dublin adopted its CAP Update in July 2013. The CAP constitutes a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and has been utilized in this analysis for determining the level of significance of the project’s GHG emissions. Impact AIR-6 provides a quantitative analysis of the thresholds City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Supplemental EIR 3.1-66 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx provided in the CAP for 2030. For 2020, the analysis of the project’s cumulative contribution to climate change and GHG emissions is the analysis of the project’s consistency with the applicable CAP measures that is provided in Table 3.1-23. Table 3.1-23: Project Consistency with Applicable CAP Measures CAP Measure Project Consistency A.1 Transportation and Land Use Measures A.1.4 Bicycle Parking Requirements Consistent. Bicycle parking requirements are implemented during the site development review process. Under the City’s Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, parking lots with 20 or more spaces in nonresidential zoning districts are required to provide bicycle parking. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, one bicycle parking space in a bicycle rack is required for every 40 vehicular parking spaces. Bicycle lockers are also required to be provided. Recommendation 9 provided in the TIA requires a total of 80 short-term and 80 long-term bicycle parking spaces at the proposed project. This will be incorporated into the project design and therefore need not be separately included as mitigation. A.1.5 Streetscape Master Plan Consistent. The Zoning Ordinance has requirements for planting trees in parking lots (minimum of one tree for every four parking spaces). The project would comply with this mandatory requirement. A.1.8 General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element Consistent. The Community Design and Sustainability Element established design principles, policies, and implementation measures to enhance the livability of Dublin and encourages a high level of quality design that supports sustainability. The Community Design and Sustainability Element applies to new development and redevelopment throughout the City. The project incorporates a number of features that promote sustainability including energy efficiency design, water efficiency design, and accessibility to alternative modes of transportation, which will be incorporated into the project design or are required by Title 24 and therefore need not be separately included as mitigation. A.1.9 Work with Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) to Improve Transit Consistent. As part of the review process for proposed development projects, the City and project proponents will work with LAVTA on planning future bus stops locations and extending service routes. A.2 Energy Measures A.2.5 LED Streetlight Specification for New Projects Consistent. The City has developed a LED streetlight specification that requires all future development projects to install LED streetlights. The project would comply with this requirement. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-67 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-01 AQ-GHG.docx Table 3.1-23 (cont.): Project Consistency with Applicable CAP Measures CAP Measure Project Consistency A.3 Solid Waste and Recycling Measures A.3.1 Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance Consistent. Since 2005, the City has implemented a Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance, with which the proposed project would be required to comply. A.3.4 Commercial Recycling Program Consistent. In 2005, the City began offering a free commercial recycling program that also includes free indoor recycling containers for businesses. Indoor recycling containers encourage employees to recycle by conveniently locating recycling containers near their work areas. The project would include recycling areas within the Retail Center. A.3.6 Promote Commercial Recycling Consistent. In 2005, the City began promoting commercial recycling in the City. The City has developed commercial recycling guides for businesses, and the City’s franchise waste hauler conducts two business audits per business day to increase diversion efforts in the commercial sector. The proposed project would install on-site recycling facilities and would be served within recycling collection services by a contract hauler. Source of Measures: City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update, July 2013 Source of Project Consistency: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2018. As shown in Table 3.1-23, with implementation of the recommended measures provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Fehr & Peers 2017) and implementation of the City’s zoning and design standards, the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable policies of the CAP. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx 3.2 - Biological Resources This section describes the existing biological setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. This section supplements the 1992 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (City of Dublin 1992) in accordance with current CEQA standards. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based upon a literature review and site reconnaissance as performed by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) biologists in the spring of 2016 and fall of 2017. 3.2.1 - Environmental Setting Overview The project site is part of the Eastern Dublin Planning area in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. The site is bordered by Arnold Drive to the west, Hacienda Drive to the east, Martinelli Way to the north, and Interstate 580 to the south. The project site is situated in an urban area that consists of a patchwork of commercial and residential areas interspersed with undeveloped areas. The project site was previously cleared and graded, and is regularly disked for weed abatement purposes. A fence surrounds the project site. The elevation ranges from approximately 350 feet in the north to approximately 340 feet in the south. An unoccupied, single-story building on an asphalt pad is located in the northern portion of the project site. An asphalt driveway connects the building pad to Martinelli Way. Ornamental landscaping is located around the building. In addition, a single-story masonry block utility building is located in the southeast corner of the site along Arnold Road. This building is owned and operated by Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The site contains areas where soil has been stockpiled. One of the stockpiles (Stockpile No. 2) contains approximately 500 cubic yards of soil with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, diesel and oil range petroleum hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls that must be removed prior to development activities. The other stockpiles were tested for hazardous materials, and any detected hazardous materials were determined to be within acceptable levels for use in commercial development. Biological Communities Table 3.2-1 summarizes the area of each biological community type observed on the project site. One sensitive biological community was found present, a seasonal wetland. A description for each biological community is contained in the following sections. Biological communities within the project site are shown in Exhibit 3.2-1. Table 3.2-1: Biological Community Summary Community Type Acreage Non-native annual grassland 24.30 Ruderal herbaceous stands 1.23 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Biological Resources Draft Supplemental EIR 3.2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx Table 3.2-1 (cont.): Biological Community Summary Community Type Acreage Seasonal wetlands (sensitive biological community) 1.92 Total 27.45 Non-Native Annual Grassland Non-native annual grassland typically occurs in open areas of valleys and foothills throughout California, usually on fine textured clay or loam soils that are somewhat poorly drained (Holland 1986). Non-native grassland is typically dominated by non-native annual grasses and forbs along with scattered native wildflowers. Non-native annual grassland comprises the majority of the project site and is a mix of grasses and other herbaceous species. Observed dominant grasses include upland species such as wild oats (Avena spp.), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), and common mustard (Brassica ssp.). Ruderal Ruderal (weedy) herbaceous vegetation areas are located in areas where there have been recent or repeated disturbance. These communities are dominated by non-native herbaceous species adapted to growing in conditions of disturbance. Ruderal herbaceous stands dominated by common upland plants such as black mustard (Brassica nigra) occur primarily in the southwest portion of the site. Seasonal Wetlands (Sensitive Biological Community) Sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, or riparian habitat. These habitats are protected under federal regulations such as the Clean Water Act; state regulations such as the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Program, and CEQA; or local ordinances or policies such as city or county tree ordinances, Special Habitat Management Areas, and General Plan Elements. The Wetland Delineation (WD) completed on November 5, 2013 identified 1.92 acres of on-site seasonal features that may have been formed by development work in 2008. These areas meet the criteria to be considered a wetland, as shown in Appendix A of the WD. WRA indicated that the seasonal wetlands appear to be isolated and have no possibility of draining into other waterways or “navigable waters of the U.S.,” and therefore may be exempt from jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. FCS agrees that these wetlands appear to be isolated and do not appear to be under federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, these areas may not fully function as wetlands throughout the annual cycle. On the basis of observations made in November of 2017, it is necessary to field verify these conditions in the late winter/early spring of 2018 (see Mitigation Measure MM BIO-3a). 37660005 • 11/2017 | 3.2-1_veg.mxd Exhibit 3.2-1Biologica l Communities Ma p Source: WRA, 2016 CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 200 0 200100 FeetI Legend Pro ject Site No n-native Annual Grassland 24.30 ac Ruderal Herbaceo us Stand 1.23 ac Seaso nal Wetland 1.92 ac THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-5 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx Special-status Species Special-status species include those plant and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These acts afford protection to both listed and proposed species. In addition, CDFW Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern, and CDFW special- status invertebrates are all considered special-status species. Bat species are also evaluated for conservation status by the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), a non-governmental entity. Although CDFW Species of Special Concern and WBWG evaluated bats generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. In addition to regulations for special- status species, most native birds in the United States, including non-status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). Under this legislation, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. Plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory (Inventory) with California Rare Plant Ranks (Rank) of 1 and 2 are also considered special-status plant species and must be considered under CEQA. Rank 3 and Rank 4 species are afforded little or no protection under CEQA, but they are included in this analysis for completeness. The habitat mapping and field survey were reviewed for potential habitat for the special-status species identified from literature and database searches. A species is determined to have the potential to occur on the project site if its documented geographical range from the literature and database searches includes the vicinity of the project site and if suitable habitat for the species was identified within or near the project site. The methodology for database searches is discussed more fully below. Special-status Plant Species Based upon a review of the resources and databases, seven special-status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the project site; refer to Exhibit 3.2-2. The Biological Resources Assessment included in Appendix C summarizes the potential for occurrence for each special-status plant species occurring in the vicinity of the project site. The project site supports one of these species: Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), listed as a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare plant rank of 1B.1. Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) CNPS Rank 1B.1; East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) Focal Species; Present Congdon’s tarplant is an annual forb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that blooms from June to November. It is native to and endemic to California and is considered rare throughout its range. It occurs in terraces, swales, floodplains, grassland, and disturbed sites, sometimes alkaline, at elevations ranging from 0 to 990 feet. Congdon’s tarplant is known from 31 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles in Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, and Solano counties. The project site contains up to 6.81 acres of Congdon's tarplant. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Biological Resources Draft Supplemental EIR 3.2-6 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx Special-Status Wildlife Species Twenty-two special-status wildlife species have been recorded in the vicinity of the project site; refer to Exhibit 3.2-3. The Biological Resources Assessment included in Appendix C summarizes the potential for each of these species to occur on the project site. Four special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur within the project site: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidius), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) CDFW Species of Special Concern; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern; EACCS Focal Species; Moderate Potential Burrowing owl typically favors flat, open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse shrub-land ecosystems. These owls prefer annual or perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub canopies; however, they also colonize debris piles and old pipes. Burrowing owl exhibits high site fidelity and usually nests in abandoned burrows of ground squirrels or pocket gophers. This species typically preys upon insects and small mammals but will also opportunistically take frogs, birds, or other animals it may capture. The site exhibits good qualities for burrowing owl habitat, as it contains disturbed soils from discing and a healthy ground squirrel population. The CNDDB occurrence record also indicates known occurrences within proximity to the site. Because of these factors, there is moderate potential for burrowing owl to occur. Pallid bat CDFW Species of Special Concern Pallid bat is a yearlong resident in most of its range. It occupies a wide variety of habitats, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. This species is most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Pallid bats are primarily a crevice roosting species, and they select daytime roosting sites where they can retreat from view. Common roost sites are rock crevices, old buildings, bridges, caves, mines, and hollow trees. Pallid bat prey includes flightless arthropods, such as scorpions, ground crickets, ground beetles, grasshoppers, and vegetation-dwelling insects, including cicadas, katydids and praying mantids. Pallid bats may use the existing building on the project site to roost, and may forage within the site, giving the species a moderate potential to occur. Townsend’s big-eared bat CDFW Species of Special Concern Townsend’s big-eared bat is found throughout California in all but subalpine and alpine habitats, and it may be found at any season throughout its range. Once considered common, Townsend’s big- eared bat now is considered uncommon in California. It is most abundant in mesic habitats. This species requires caves, mines, tunnels, buildings, or other human-made structures for roosting. Small moths are the principal food of this species. Beetles and a variety of soft-bodied insects also are taken. These bats capture their prey in flight, using echolocation or by gleaning from foliage. Townsend’s big-eared bat may forage over the project site and use the building on the project site to roost; thus, it has a moderate potential to occur. 37660005 • 10/2017 | 3.2-2_cn ddb_plan ts.m xd Exhibit 3.2-25-m ile Special-status Plan t m ap So urce: Bin g Im agery, 2015 CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENV IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I 1.5 0 1.50.75 Miles Legend Project Site 5-mile Buffer Congdon's tarplant Mt. Diablo buckwheat San Joaquin spearscale Caper-fruited tropidocarpum Hairless popcornflower Prostrate vernal pool navarretia Saline clover THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 37660005 • 10/2017 | 3.2-3_cnddb_wildlife.m xd Exhibit 3.2-35-m ile Special-status Wildlife m ap Source: Bing Im agery, 2015 CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENV IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I 1.5 0 1.50.75 Miles Legend Project Site 5-mile Buffer Alameda whipsnake American badger American peregrine falcon California horned lark California linderiella California red-legged frog California tiger salamander Crotch bumble bee Burrowing owl Ferruginous hawk Foothill yellow-legged frog Golden eagle Northern harrier Pallid bat Prairie falcon San Joaquin kit fox Townsend's big-eared bat Tricolored blackbird Western bumble bee Western pond turtle White-tailed kite Yuma myotis THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-11 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx Yuma myotis The Yuma myotis is common and widespread in California. This species roosts in buildings, mines, caves, or crevices, and also has been seen roosting in abandoned swallow nests and under bridges. Separate, often more open night roosts may be used. Yuma myotis feeds on a wide variety of small flying insects found by echolocation. It usually feeds over water sources such as ponds, streams, and stock tanks. Prey includes moths, midges, flies, termites, ants, homopterans, and caddisflies. The marketing building on the project site may provide night roosting habitat, and the bat may use the project site for foraging. Therefore, there is a moderate potential for Yuma myotis to occur. Nesting Raptors and Other Birds Several common avian species have the potential to nest within the project site and its vicinity. Because of the lack of mature trees on-site, the project area is primarily used for foraging, although the low-lying shrubs and grasses could provide cover for ground nesting birds protected under the MBTA and Fish and Game Code (FCG). Mature trees in the surrounding area have the potential to provide nesting habitat and substrate for avian species including raptors. 3.2.2 - Regulatory Framework Federal Endangered Species Act The FESA protects threatened and endangered plants and animals and their critical habitat. Candidate species are those proposed for listing; these species are usually treated by resource agencies as if they were actually listed during the environmental review process. Procedures for addressing impacts to federally listed species follow two principal pathways, both of which require consultation with the USFWS, which administers the Act for all terrestrial species. The first pathway, Section 10(a) incidental take permit, applies to situations where a non-federal government entity must resolve potential adverse impacts to species protected under the Act. The second pathway, Section 7 consultation, applies to projects directly undertaken by a federal agency or private projects requiring a federal permit or approval. Clean Water Act Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “waters of the U.S.” (jurisdictional waters) are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under provisions of Section 404 of the 1972 Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act). These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “waters of the U.S.,” tributaries of waters otherwise defined as “waters of the U. S.,” the territorial seas, and wetlands (termed Special Aquatic Sites) adjacent to “waters of the U.S.” (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3). Wetlands on non-agricultural lands are identified using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Areas typically not considered to be jurisdictional waters include non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land, artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds used for irrigation or City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Biological Resources Draft Supplemental EIR 3.2-12 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx stock watering, small artificial water bodies such as swimming pools, and water-filled depressions (33 CFR, Part 328). Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement of fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are the state agencies charged with implementing water quality certification in California. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The MBTA implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The USFWS administers the MBTA. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5 of the FGC. All raptors and their nests are protected from take or disturbance under the MBTA (16 United States Code [USC], section 703, et seq.) and California statute (FGC section 3503.5). The golden eagle and bald eagle are also afforded additional protection under the Eagle Protection Act, amended in 1973 (16 USC, section 669, et seq.). State California Endangered Species Act The CESA prohibits the take of any species that the California Fish and Game Commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species. The act defines a take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The CDFW enforces the act, which authorizes take of a plant or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under the federal and state acts pursuant to a federal incidental take permit issued in accordance with Section 10 of the FESA, provided that CDFW is notified and certifies that the incidental take statement or incidental take permit is consistent with the CESA (FGC Section 2080.1(a)). The CESA emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species and to develop appropriate mitigation planning to offset project-caused losses of listed species populations and their essential habitats. Sections 2050 through 2098 of the FGC Sections 2050 through 2098 of the FGC outline the protection provided to California’s rare, endangered, and threatened species. Section 2080 of the FGC prohibits the taking of plants and animals listed under the CESA. Section 2081 established an incidental take permit program for state- listed species. In addition, the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (FGC Section 1900, et seq.) gives the CDFW authority to designate state endangered, threatened, and rare plants and provides specific protection measures for designated populations. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-13 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx The CDFW has also identified many “Species of Special Concern.” Species with this status have limited distribution, or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that their populations may be threatened. Thus, their populations are monitored, and they may receive special attention during environmental review. While they do not have statutory protection, they may be considered rare under CEQA and thereby warrant specific protection measures. Sensitive species, which would qualify for listing but are not currently listed, are also afforded protection under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 (“Mandatory Findings of Significance”) identifies a substantial reduction in numbers of a rare or endangered species as a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 (“Rare or Endangered Species”) provides for assessment of unlisted species as rare or endangered under CEQA if the species can be shown to meet the criteria for listing. Unlisted plant species on the California Rare Plant Ranking (CRPR) system lists 1A, 1B, and 2 would typically be considered under CEQA. Sections 1600 through 3503 of the FGC FCG Section 1600 mandates that “it is unlawful for any person to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department, or use any material from the streambeds, without first notifying the department of such activity.” CDFW’s jurisdiction includes ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial watercourses (including dry washes) characterized by (1) the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, (2) the location of definable bed and banks, and (3) the presence of existing fish or wildlife resources. Furthermore, CDFW jurisdiction is often extended to habitats adjacent to watercourses, such as oak woodlands in canyon bottoms or willow woodlands that function as part of the riparian system. Historic court cases have further extended CDFW jurisdiction to include watercourses that seemingly disappear, but re-emerge elsewhere. Under the CDFW definition, a watercourse need not exhibit evidence of an Ordinary High Water Mark to be claimed as jurisdiction. However, CDFW does not regulate isolated wetlands; that is, those that are not associated with a river, stream, or lake. California Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 prohibit the “take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.” Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered a take. Non-Governmental Agency California Native Plant Society The CNPS is a non-governmental agency that classifies native plant species according to current population distribution and threat-level, relative to extinction. The following description of the CNPS classification system, CRPR, is relevant to identifying potential impacts to biological resources that are due to implementation of the project. The CNPS maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This CRPR list is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2015). Potential impacts to populations of City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Biological Resources Draft Supplemental EIR 3.2-14 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx listed plants receive consideration under CEQA review. The following identifies the definitions of the CRPR listings: • CRPR 1A: Plants presumed to be extinct in California • CRPR 1B: Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere • CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere • CRPR 2B: Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere Classifications for plants listed under “CRPR 3: Plants about which we need more information (a review list)” and/or “CRPR 4: Plants of limited distribution (a watch list),” as defined by the CRPR, are not discussed in this report since they are not considered special-status species. Western Bat Working Group Bat species are also evaluated for conservation status by the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), a non-governmental entity. Although CDFW Species of Special Concern and WBWG evaluated bats generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. Local City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies associated with biological resources that are relevant to the proposed project: • Guiding Policy 2.6.4.A.1: Encourage the development of a balanced mixed-use community in the Eastern Extended Planning Area that is well integrated with both natural and urban systems and provides a safe, comfortable and attractive environment for living and working. Any sites under Williamson Act contract are required to be maintained as open space for the term of the contract. • Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems. • Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to ensure site design that minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan • Policy 6-17. Impacts to sensitive wildlife species that occur in the planning area will be avoided wherever possible. Mitigation programs will be required as necessary to reduce or eliminate impacts on special status species. • Policy 6-18. Development in the planning area will be designed to maintain contiguous areas of natural open space interconnected by functional wildlife corridors that permit the free movement of wildlife throughout the open space areas. As a means of preserving wildlife corridors, cluster development is generally preferable to an even low-density sprawl over an entire area. • Policy 6-19. Where roadways divide open space areas, underpasses or other means of access shall be provided to facilitate the movement of wildlife without barriers. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-15 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx • Policy 6-21. Direct disturbance or removal of trees or native vegetation cover should be minimized and should be restricted to those areas actually designated for the construction of improvements. • Policy 6-22. All areas of disturbance should be revegetated as quickly as possible to prevent erosion. Native trees (preferably those species already on site), shrubs, herbs, and grasses should be used for revegetation of areas to remain as natural open space. The introduction of non-native plant species should be avoided. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy The project site is located in Conservation Zone 2 of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS). The EACCS is intended to provide guidance and an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure and development studies. The City of Dublin adopted the EACCS as guidance for public infrastructure/capital improvement projects and uses the document to provide input on managing biological resources and conservation priorities during public project-level planning and environmental permitting. For privately sponsored development projects, proponents are encouraged to consult the EACCS for guidance, but compliance with the document is not mandatory. 3.2.3 - Methodology WRA prepared a Biological Resources Assessment, which is provided in Appendix C. The methodology of the Biological Resources Assessment is described below. In addition, FCS biologists visited the site in spring 2016 and fall 2017 to assess conditions on the site. WRA Biological Resources Assessment On September 22, 2014, the project site was traversed on foot to determine (1) plant communities present within the project site, (2) if existing conditions provided suitable habitat for any special- status plant or wildlife species, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present. All plant and wildlife species encountered were recorded and are summarized in Biological Resources Assessment Appendix C. Plant nomenclature follows Baldwin et al. (2012) and subsequent revisions by the Jepson Flora Project (2014), except where noted. Because of recent changes in classification for many of the taxa treated by Baldwin et al. and the Jepson Flora Study, relevant synonyms are provided in brackets. For cases in which regulatory agencies, CNPS, or other entities base rarity on older taxonomic treatments, precedence was given to the treatment used by those entities. Prior to the initial site visit, the Soil Survey of Alameda County, California (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] web soil surveys), aerial imagery, and previous reports from the site were examined to determine if any aquatic features and unique soil types that could support sensitive plant communities were present on the project site. Biological communities present on the project site were classified based on existing plant community descriptions described in the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). In some cases, it was necessary to identify variants of community types or to describe non-vegetated areas that are not described in the literature. Biological communities were classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Biological Resources Draft Supplemental EIR 3.2-16 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx FCS Review FCS biologists began review of the site in 2015 with a review of the WRA Biological Resources Assessment and subsequently visited the site in spring 2016. In addition, the biologists assessed the site on November 24, 2017 to update the findings. Specifically, FCS reviewed the project site plans and project description provided by the City; aerial photos and topographic maps; a USFWS species list for the Livermore, California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle; the CDFW’s CNDDB; the CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants; the USFWS’s Critical Habitat Data Portal; and other technical databases and resource agency reports. The purpose of the review was to assess the current distribution of special-status species and habitats in the vicinity of the proposed project site (streams, riparian habitat, ponds, etc.). After conducting the site visits in spring 2016 and fall 2017 as well as reviewing the aforementioned resources, FCS biologists verified whether the BRA and WD completed by WRA were thorough in approach, accuracy, and completeness. Additionally, the purpose of this reconnaissance-level field survey was to obtain an overview of the existing habitat conditions within the project site and the site’s potential to support special-status wildlife and plant species, wetlands, critical habitat, wildlife movement, and other potentially jurisdictional features to provide a basis for peer review of the BRA and WD. The peer review found that the BRA and WD findings and recommendations were thorough in terms of approach, accuracy, and completeness, although an increase in the wetland acreage from 1.17 acres to 1.92 acres was noted. 3.2.4 - Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, biological resources impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the project would: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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? 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 wildlife nursery sites? (Refer to Section 7.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Refer to Section 7.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant.) City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-17 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx 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? (Refer to Section 7.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant.) 3.2.5 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate. Special-Status Species Impact BIO-1: The proposed project may have a substantial adverse effect on special-status plant and wildlife species. Impact Analysis One special-status plant species and four special-status wildlife species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the project site. The project site supports Congdon’s tarplant, while burrowing owl, pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and Yuma myotis are considered to have a moderate potential to occur on the project site. It should be noted that significant impacts associated with wildlife species are associated with their potential to nest on-site; avian species can forage almost anywhere, and the loss of foraging habitat by itself does not constitute a significant impact. If any of the species are found on the project site, construction activities would directly affect these species. This would be a potentially significant impact. In addition, while there are no mature trees on-site, low-lying shrubs and grasses could provide cover for ground nesting birds protected under the MBTA and the FGC. The project site also may be used for foraging habitat for other protected bird species, and nearby mature trees could be used as nesting habitat by these bird species, including raptors. Project construction could have direct impacts on these protected bird species, which would be a potentially significant impact. Special Status Plant Impacts For potential impacts related to the special-status plant species Congdon’s tarplant, measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts will be implemented in accordance with the mitigation efforts described in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Section 6-22 (City of Dublin 1994). The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan does not include mitigation measures for any specific plant species, but following the general provisions of Section 6-22 is recommended if special-status species are found on-site. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR identified biological resource impacts related to direct habitat loss and loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat (Impacts 3.7/A and 3.7/C). Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0 and 3.7/16.0 were identified to reduce impacts to less than significant through conditioning of tentative maps and development review approval. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-1a details further measures to be implemented to minimize impacts specific to Congdon’s tarplant. A rare plant survey will be required prior to the start of construction to confirm absence of this species. If Congdon’s tarplant is found on-site during a future survey, and if impacts cannot be avoided, then mitigation will be required. Mitigation would City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Biological Resources Draft Supplemental EIR 3.2-18 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx involve the protection and enhancement of populations or suitable habitat elsewhere, as determined appropriate by the CDFW and USFWS. Special Status Wildlife Impacts Most commonly found native bird species are protected by the MBTA and FGC during the nesting season, and several common avian species have potential to nest within or in the vicinity of the project site. Mitigation Measure BIO-1b would require implementation of pre-construction breeding bird surveys and associated protection measures if nests are observed. The project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owl. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR identified biological resource impacts related to specific species such as burrowing owl (Impact 3.7/M). Mitigation Measure 3.7/27.0 was identified to reduce impacts to less than significant through development review approval. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-1c would require implementation of pre-construction burrowing owl surveys and associated protection measures if active nests are observed. The project site contains suitable roosting and foraging habitat for three special-status bat species (pallid bat, Townsend’s big eared bat and Yuma myotis). Mitigation Measure BIO-1d would require removal of the existing on-site building during September and October, outside of the bat roosting season. A pre-demolition bat survey would be required, and protection measures would be implemented if bats are observed. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR did not identify biological resource impacts specific to bats or their habitat. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to special-status species would be reduced to less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1a Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant with potential to occur in the project site. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If the Congdon’s tarplant are found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required: 1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant is present within or adjacent to the proposed project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-19 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for Congdon’s tarplant shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions. 2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of Congdon’s tarplant shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 shall be developed in consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant. A mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the Congdon’s tarplant, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations of Congdon’s tarplant. MM BIO-1b No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance will vary based on species and conditions at the site, but is usually at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. This mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). MM BIO-1c Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following measures that pertain to burrowing owl, as applicable: 1. Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment. Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Biological Resources Draft Supplemental EIR 3.2-20 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the burrowing owl for the entire site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground- disturbing activities and the second survey shall be conducted within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth in this mitigation shall be followed. 2. Implement Avoidance Measures. If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. • Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1 through 31 August. • Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. • Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. • Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. • Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows. • Do not fumigate or use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). 3. Conduct Burrow Exclusion. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out pursuant to the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report. 4. Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl in a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the Plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities. MM BIO-1d Pre-removal bat surveys of the existing on-site building shall occur no more than 30 days before its removal. If bats are found, then a qualified biologist shall develop an City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Biological Resources FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-21 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx appropriate relocation plan consistent with USFWS, CDFW, and East Alameda County Conservation Strategy standards and policies. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Sensitive Natural Communities/Riparian Habitat Impact BIO-2: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat. Impact Analysis As indicated in Table 3.2-1, the project site contains mostly non-native annual grassland, with small areas of ruderal/herbaceous land. These biological communities are considered neither a sensitive natural community nor riparian habitat. Impacts on these communities are considered less than significant. Impact BIO-3 below discusses potential wetland habitat affected by the project. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Wetlands and Jurisdictional Features Impact BIO-3: The proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands or jurisdictional features. Impact Analysis The proposed project would result in the fill of potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the State, which includes wetlands. As noted in Table 3.2-1, approximately 1.92 acres of seasonal wetlands were originally delineated on the project site, all of which would be affected by project development. Since these seasonal wetlands are waters of the State and potentially subject to USACE Section 404 jurisdiction, impacts on these wetlands would be potentially significant. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR identified biological resource impacts related to loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, including wetlands (Impacts 3.7/A and 3.7/C). Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0, 3.7/7.0, 3.7/11.0, and 3.7/16.0 were identified to reduce impacts to less than significant through conditioning of tentative maps and development review approval. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3a and BIO-3b would require an updated wetland delineation (which is underway) and compliance with Section 404 and Section 401 permit procedures for affected wetlands. Implementation of these measures would reduce impacts on wetlands to less than significant. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Biological Resources Draft Supplemental EIR 3.2-22 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-02 Bio Resources.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM BIO-3a As part of the design, an updated wetland delineation shall be completed for the site consistent with current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) protocol to determine if wetlands are subject to USACE jurisdiction. MM BIO-3b Prior to any ground-disturbing activity on the site, the project applicant shall acquire appropriate permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the USACE if the wetlands are determined to be subject to USACE jurisdiction, and shall obtain Section 401 certification from the RWQCB and approval of a wetlands mitigation plan that meets the following standards. A mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. Specifically, a wetland mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented that includes creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment of an endowment for the long- term management of the site. The mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the applicable regulatory agency (USACE and/or RWQCB) and the City. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3‐1  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  3.3 ‐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials  3.3.1 ‐ Introduction  This section addresses the potential impacts of the proposed project that relate to hazards and  hazardous materials.  The analysis describes the historical and current operations at the project site  and relevant activities in the immediate site vicinity, including adjacent properties.  This section also  addresses the potential impacts of hazards and hazardous materials associated with the proposed  project.  Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on the Phase I Environmental Site  Assessments and Subsurface Investigation Report prepared by Strata Environmental, ENGEO  Incorporated, and Ground Zero Analysis, Inc. between 2007 and 2014.  3.3.2 ‐ Environmental Setting  Hazardous Materials  Hazardous materials, as defined by the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 4.5), are  substances with certain physical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to  human health or the environment when improperly handled, disposed, or otherwise managed.   Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four categories, based on their properties:   Toxic—causes  human health effects   Ignitable—has the ability to burn   Corrosive—causes severe burns or damage to materials   Reactive—causes explosions or generates toxic gases    A hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled.   The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous.  If improperly  handled, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released  into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust.  Soil and  groundwater having concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels  must be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer.   The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, Sections 66261.20‐24 contains technical  descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as  hazardous waste.  Environmental Site Assessments  A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is a research investigation by a qualified  environmental professional into whether a release of hazardous materials has occurred at a  property.  Phase I Assessments are guided by protocol established by the American Society for  Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527‐13, including the standards that an environmental  professional must fulfill to be qualified to conduct the Phase I Site Assessment.  Under the ASTM  standard, a “recognized environmental condition” (REC) means “the presence or likely presence of  any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an  existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Supplemental EIR      3.3‐2 FirstCarbon Solutions   \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface  water of the property.  The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do  not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not  be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate environmental  agencies.”  The research conducted in a Phase I ESA includes a comprehensive review of the project  site’s current and prior uses and those of neighboring properties based on reasonably ascertainable  local, state, and federal regulatory agency environmental databases, historical aerial photographs,  topographic maps, and business directories compiled by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) or  similar database service; a site reconnaissance for visual signs of the use and storage of hazardous  materials or a release of hazardous materials to the environment; a search for aboveground and  underground storage tanks (USTs), sumps or clarifiers; and completion of questionnaires by, and  interviews with, the current landowners.    A Phase II ESA is conducted if the Phase I ESA identifies RECs or other environmental issues and  recommends additional quantitative investigation to confirm and/or delineate the nature and extent  of hazardous materials that may have impacted the project site.  Typically, a Phase II ESA will involve  the collection of soil, soil vapor, or groundwater samples, which are analytically assessed by a  laboratory for the presence and concentration of hazardous materials in the sample.  The results are  used by the environmental professional to draw conclusions regarding whether hazardous materials  are present at the site in levels that exceed applicable regulatory limits.  A total of four Phase I ESAs and subsurface investigations were performed at the project site  between 2007 and 2014.  These assessments were performed to characterize the overall site and  provide detailed evaluation of impaired conditions.  In February 2007, Strata Environmental  conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA).  ENGEO, Inc. also conducted a Phase I ESA  (report dated August 2, 2013).  The objective of these assessments was to provide a professional  opinion as to whether RECs and other issues existed at the project site.  A component of ENGEO  Inc.’s research was to review the prior Phase I reports for the project site prepared by other  environmental consultants and to incorporate the relevant findings of those reports into their own  Phase I ESA.    Ground Zero Analysis, Inc. conducted a Subsurface Investigative Report at the project site in 2013.  The  purpose of the Subsurface Investigative Report was to present results of a shallow soil and soil vapor  investigation conducted at the project site.  In addition, Ground Zero Analysis conducted an Additional  Subsurface Investigation Report for the project site in 2014 (report dated August 18, 2014).  Table  3.3‐1 identifies the Environmental Assessments conducted at the project site.   Table  3.3‐1: Summary of Environmental Assessments  Firm Report Date  Strata Environmental Phase I Environmental Site Assessment February 2007 ENGEO Incorporated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment August 2013 Ground Zero Analysis, Inc. Subsurface Investigation Report October 2013 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3‐3  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  Table  3.3‐1 (cont.): Summary of Environmental Assessments  Firm Report Date  Ground Zero Analysis, Inc. Additional Subsurface Investigation Report August 2014 Source: FCS, 2017.    Findings of the Environmental Assessments  2007 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Strata Environmental)  In February 2007, Strata Environmental (Strata) conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment  (ESA) on the project site, which comprised Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 986‐0033‐002 and 986‐0033‐ 003 at that time.  Strata reported that the project site was formerly part of the larger Parks Reserve  Forces Training Area.  A fuel depot, railroad spur, and warehouses were located on the project site  during the time it was used as a military reservation.  Reserve Forces Training Area facilities were  razed in the 1990s and the land was cleared, including the project site.   Strata’s Phase I ESA included documentation that there had been a concern at the time of the  Reserve Forces Training Area closure that petroleum hydrocarbons had been released in the area of  the former fuel depot.  Strata reported that in February 1998, Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. collected soil  and groundwater samples from the project site and its vicinity.  The laboratory test results indicated  that the project site and its soil and groundwater were not impacted.  The Alameda County Health  Care Services Agency, the local lead oversight agency, issued a case closure letter for the project site  on July 10, 1998; case closure was contingent upon the removal of construction‐related debris  randomly scattered on the western half of the project site.  Based on its assessment, Strata did not identify any RECs for the project site, and did not  recommend any additional environmental investigation.  2013 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ENGEO)  In August 2013, ENGEO conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on the project site,  which comprised Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 986‐033‐004, 986‐033‐005‐002, and 986‐033‐006.   ENEGO reported that the project site was historically occupied by a portion of the Parks Reserve  Forces Training Area.  The portion of the Parks Reserve Training  Area was closed and the project  site’s ownership was transferred to Alameda County during the late 1960s.  The project site  reportedly contained a gatehouse, guest reception lounge, athletic field, athletic field house, fuel  depot, railroad spurs, and a portion of a warehouse receiving area.  The structures on the project  site were demolished during the mid‐1990s.  Several phases of grading have been subsequently  conducted at the project site.  At the time of writing, a small soil stockpile was situated in the central  portion of the project site.   One UST was formerly located at the southwest corner of the project site.  During 2008, the UST was  removed from the project site and the soil in the vicinity of the former UST was excavated.  Two   City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Supplemental EIR      3.3‐4 FirstCarbon Solutions   \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  remedial over‐excavations were conducted at the project site during 2009 and 2010.  Case closure  was granted for the project site for commercial land use on September 3, 2010.  Accordingly, ENGEO  concluded that the former presence of the UST did not represent an REC pursuant to the ASTM E‐ 1527‐05 standard then in effect.   ENGEO indicated that a soil vapor monitoring study and a human health risk assessment should be  considered at the project site to evaluate the presence of potential near‐surface soil, soil vapor, and  groundwater impacts due to an upgradient volatile organic compound (VOC) source (approximately  0.2 mile north of the project site) and potential residual VOCs.  Previous regulatory case closure  pertained to commercial re‐use of the project site, and may not have necessarily contemplated  residential re‐use.  Therefore, ENGEO noted that additional health‐risk assessment could be  prescribed at the discretion of the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health.  ENGEO reported that historical use of herbicides was common on former military sites; as such, it  would be prudent to consider the health risk of near‐surface soils at any contemplated residential  development areas.  ENGEO recommended that any soils that are removed from the project site  should be adequately characterized to determine suitability for the on‐site re‐use or appropriate off‐ site disposal location(s).  ENGEO also noted that a small patch of discolored soil was observed east of  the existing structure and recommended that it be sampled to determine if it served as an internal  drainage receiving area.  2013 Subsurface Investigation (Ground Zero Analysis)  In August 2013, Ground Zero Analysis conducted a Subsurface Investigation on the project site to  follow‐up on the ENGEO recommendations.  Soil and soil vapor samples were collected from five  locations in a grid pattern across the project site in October of 2013.  Soil samples were collected at  one foot below grade and analyzed by the laboratory for herbicides; all of the soil samples were non‐ detect for all constituents of concern.  Soil vapor samples were collected from temporary soil vapor wells constructed at a depth of 5 feet  below grade.  The vapor samples were collected into Summa canisters, under helium shroud, and  were analyzed by the lab for VOCs and helium.  Helium was detected in three of the five vapor  samples but at concentrations lower than the leak threshold established by the Department of Toxic   Substances Control and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.   Various  VOCs were detected in the vapor samples.  Several fuel‐related VOCs were detected at  similar concentrations across the site; several solvent‐related VOCs were detected at similar  concentrations across the site; and acetone was detected at similar concentrations across the site.   The relative uniformity of the chemicals detected and their concentrations suggests that these are  anthropogenic background levels.  The concentrations of VOCs were all well below their respective  residential vapor intrusion ESL and CHHSL values.  The total lifetime excess risk for carcinogenic  constituents was found to be below the threshold level.  The results of ENGEO’s investigation confirmed that the upper foot of soil beneath the site is not  impacted.  Potential cancer and non‐cancer health risks due to vapor intrusion into residential  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3‐5  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  indoor air was calculated and the risks were insignificant.  From the perspective of health risk due to  vapor intrusion, the project site was deemed suitable for development.  2014 Additional Subsurface Investigation (Ground Zero Analysis)  The Additional Subsurface Investigation by Ground Zero focused on characterizing the remaining  areas of potential concern including the former fuel depot, the former rail  spur, random sampling for  metals, and soil stockpiles.  The investigation determined that:   Soil and groundwater in the area of the former fuel depot are impacted with relatively low  levels of diesel‐oil range petroleum hydrocarbons.  Insignificant concentration of MTBE are  present in groundwater and trace levels of acetone and sec‐butylbenzene were detected in  certain soil samples.  Other than those, no VOCs including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene or  xylene (BTEX) compounds were present.  The characteristics of the former fuel depot area  meet the criteria for closure under the SWRCB Low Threat Underground Storage Tank  Closure  Policy.      Shallow soil adjacent to the former rail spur contains low levels of oil and grease and certain  PAHs.  This soil does not contain detectable concentrations of PCBs. Metal concentrations are  at naturally‐occurring background levels.  Previous investigations by others detected only  trace levels of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs).     Random sampling of shallow soil at five locations throughout the site did not detect  herbicides, and metal concentrations were at naturally‐occurring background levels.      Soil Stockpiles No. 1 and No. 2 contain detectable concentrations of diesel‐oil range petroleum  hydrocarbons, certain PAHs  and PCBs.  The soil piles do not contain detectable levels of VOCs,  OCPs or asbestos.  Metals are present at naturally‐occurring background concentrations.  The  levels of PAHs  and PCBs in Soil Pile No. 2 suggest that it is not suitable for re‐use on the  project site.     A screening level human health risk evaluation concluded that the potential health risk to  residential occupants due to the contaminants is insignificant.    Site Reconnaissance  ENGEO described the project site as comprising undeveloped land, except for a paved road and a  structure that is currently in the northern portion of the property.  Historic Uses of the Project Site  As indicated in the aerial photographs, topographical maps, and site reconnaissance, the project site  has historically been used for agricultural purposes for over 50 years.  As noted earlier, the presence  of a UST was previously documented on‐site.  Hazardous Materials Survey  The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by ENGEO Inc. in 2013 included an exterior observation  of hazardous materials present on the project site.  A summary of the findings follows.  Note that  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Supplemental EIR      3.3‐6 FirstCarbon Solutions   \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  land use activities at the project site have not substantially changed since 2013, and, thus, these  findings remain valid.  Asbestos  Asbestos refers to a number of naturally occurring, fibrous silicate minerals mined for their useful  properties, such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength.   Asbestos was commonly used as an acoustic insulator, thermal insulation, fireproofing, and in other  building materials.  Asbestos is made up of microscopic bundles of fibers that may become airborne  when the materials are damaged or disturbed.  When these fibers become airborne, they may be  inhaled into the lungs, where they can cause significant health problems.  Under the Clean Air Act  and its regulations, a material is considered “asbestos containing material” (ACM) if at least one  sample collected from the homogeneous material shows asbestos present in an amount greater  than 1 percent by weight.    ENGEO Inc. noted that an asbestos survey was not conducted as part of their assessment.  Based on  a review of aerial photographs, the structure near Martinelli Way  was built on the project site in  2008.  Given the age of the structure, it is unlikely that asbestos may be present within the structure.    Lead  Lead is a highly toxic metal that was used in a number of products, most notably in paint, until the  late 1970s when lead‐based paint was prohibited by federal law.  Lead may cause a range of health  effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities to seizures and death.  Lead‐containing  materials generally do not pose a health threat unless the material is disturbed or sufficiently  deteriorated to produce dust, which may become airborne and inhaled or ingested.  Primary sources  of lead exposure are deteriorating lead‐based paint on structures, lead‐contaminated dust, and lead‐ contaminated soil.  Both federal law and California law define “lead‐based paint” as paint containing  a minimum of 0.5 percent lead by weight (California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 35033).   Lead‐containing waste materials with a concentration greater than 0.1 percent are treated as  hazardous waste under California law (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section  66261.24(a)(2)).  ENGEO Inc. noted that a lead‐based paint survey was not conducted as part of its assessment.   Based on a review of aerial photographs, the structure near Martinelli Way  was built on the project  site in 2008.  Given the age of the structure, it is unlikely that lead‐based paint may be present  within the structure.    Polychlorinated Biphenyls  Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a family of chlorinated compounds that are non‐flammable,  chemically stable, with a high boiling point and electrical insulating properties.  Their qualities as a  fire retardant and insulator made them effective in high‐temperature applications.  PCBs are strictly  regulated due to their toxicity and persistence in the environment.  Prior to the federal  ban on the  manufacture of PCBs in 1978, PCBs were commonly incorporated in the manufacture of fluorescent  light ballasts.    City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3‐7  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  Based on the reconnaissance by ENGEO Inc. no PCB‐containing materials, including transformers,  were observed on the project site.  Radon  Radon is a carcinogenic, radioactive gas resulting from the natural breakdown of uranium in soil,  rock, and water.  Radon gas enters a building through cracks in foundations and walls.  Once inside  the building, radon decay products may become attached to dust particles and inhaled, or the  decayed radioactive particles alone may be inhaled and cause damage to lung tissue.  The United  States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a safe radon exposure threshold of 4  picocuries per liter of air (pCi/l).  Table  3.3‐2 summarizes indoor radon readings reported by the California Department of Public  Health within three zip codes comprising the City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton, and City of San  Ramon.  As shown in the table, 3 percent of 135 samples taken within the three zip codes exceed 4.0  pCi/l.  The California Department of Public Health classifies zip codes with between 0 and 7 percent  samples exceeding 4.0 pCi/l to be areas of low radon potential.  Table  3.3‐2: Indoor Radon Summary  Zip Code No. of Indoor Radon Tests  Tests  > 4.0 pCi/l  94566 (Pleasanton) 36 2  94568 (Dublin) 27 1  94582 (San Ramon) 72 1  Total 135 4 (3%)  Note:  Project site is located in 94568 zip code.  Source: California Department of Public Health, 2016.    3.3.3 ‐ Regulatory Framework  Federal  United States Environmental Protection Agency  The EPA leads the nation’s environmental science, research, education, and assessment efforts.  The  EPA’s mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment including air,  water, and land.  The EPA works closely with other federal agencies, state and local governments,  and Indian tribes to develop and enforce regulations under existing environmental laws.  The EPA is  primarily responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental  programs, and delegates to states and tribes responsibility for issuing permits and monitoring and  enforcing compliance.  When national standards are not met, the EPA can issue sanctions and take  other steps to assist the states and tribes in reaching the desired levels of environmental quality.   The EPA also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary  pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Supplemental EIR      3.3‐8 FirstCarbon Solutions   \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  EPA Region 9 has jurisdiction over the southwestern United States (Arizona, California, Nevada, and  Hawaii), including the City of Dublin as a city within California.  Federal Toxic  Substances Control Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  The Federal Toxic  Substances Control Act of 1976 and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  of 1976 (RCRA) regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of  hazardous and non‐hazardous waste.  The regulatory program is administered by the EPA.  It  mandates that hazardous wastes be tracked from the point of generation to their ultimate fate in the  environment.  This includes detailed tracking of hazardous materials during transport and permitting  of hazardous material handling facilities.  RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid  Waste  Act (HSWA), which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating  hazardous wastes.  The HSWA also prohibited the use of certain techniques for the disposal of some  hazardous wastes, and provided the framework for a regulatory program designed to prevent  releases from USTs.  The program establishes tank and leak detection standards, including spill and  overflow protection devices for new tanks, and performance standards to ensure that the stored  material will not corrode the tanks.  Toxic  Substances Control Act  In 1976, the Toxic  Substances Control Act was enacted to provide the EPA authority to regulate the  production, importation, use, and disposal of chemicals that pose a risk of adversely impacting  public health and the environment, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos‐containing  materials, and lead‐based paint.  The Toxic  Substances Control Act also gives the EPA authority to  regulate the cleanup of sites contaminated with specific chemicals, such as PCBs.  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act   The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 introduced  active federal involvement to emergency response, site remediation, and spill prevention, most  notably the Superfund program.  The act was intended to be comprehensive in encompassing both  the prevention of, and response to, uncontrolled hazardous substances releases.  The act deals with  environmental response, providing mechanisms for reacting to emergencies and to chronic  hazardous material releases.  In addition to establishing procedures to prevent and remedy  problems, it establishes a system for compensating appropriate individuals and assigning  appropriate liability.  It is designed to plan for and respond to failure in other regulatory programs  and to remedy problems resulting from action taken before the era of comprehensive regulatory  protection.  Transportation of Hazardous Materials  The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, as amended, is the basic statute regulating  hazardous materials transportation in the United States.  Transportation of hazardous materials is  regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHM).   The OHM formulates, issues, and revises hazardous materials regulations under the Federal  Hazardous Materials Transportation Law.  The hazardous materials regulations cover hazardous  materials definitions and classifications, hazard communications, shipper and carrier operations,  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3‐9  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  training and security requirements, and packaging and container specifications.  The hazardous  materials transportation regulations are codified in 49 CFR Parts 100‐185.  The hazardous materials transportation regulations require carriers transporting hazardous materials  to receive training in the handling and transportation of hazardous materials.  Training requirements  include pre‐trip safety inspections, use of vehicle controls and equipment including emergency  equipment, procedures for  safe operation of the transport vehicle, training on the properties of the  hazardous material being transported, and loading and unloading procedures.  All drivers must  possess a commercial driver’s license as required by 49 CFR Part 383.  Vehicles  transporting  hazardous materials must be properly placarded.  In addition, the carrier is responsible for the safe  unloading of hazardous materials at the site, and operators must follow specific procedures during  unloading to minimize the potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials.  United States Department of Transportation  The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, as amended, is the basic statute regulating  hazardous materials transportation in the United States.  This law gives the U.S. Department of  Transportation and other agencies the authority to issue and enforce rules and regulations governing  the safe transportation of hazardous materials.  State agencies are authorized to designate highways for the transport of hazardous materials.   Where highways have not been designated, hazardous materials must be transported on routes that  do not go through or near heavily populated areas.  Other Federal Laws  Other relevant federal laws include the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act regarding  hazardous waste management; the Toxic  Substances Control Act, pertaining to the tracking and  screening of industrial chemicals; and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which  controls pesticide distribution, sale and use.  Applicable federal regulations and guidelines are  contained primarily in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Titles 10, 29, 40, and 49.  State  California Health and Safety Code  The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) has established rules governing the use of  hazardous materials and the management of hazardous wastes.  California Health and Safety Code  Sections 25531, et seq. incorporates the requirements of Superfund Amendments and  Reauthorization Act and the Clean Air Act as they pertain to hazardous materials.  Health and Safety  Code Section 25534 directs facility owners storing or handling acutely hazardous materials in  reportable quantities to develop a Risk Management Plan.  The plan must be submitted to the  appropriate local authorities, the designated local administering agency, and the EPA for review and  approval.  CEQA and the Cortese List  The Cortese List (Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List) is a planning document used by the  State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements to consider Government  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Supplemental EIR      3.3‐10 FirstCarbon Solutions   \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  Code Section 5962.5 in evaluating proposed development projects.  The section requires the  Department of Toxic  Substances Control shall compile and update a list of hazardous waste sites,  handling facilities, disposal facilities, and abandoned sites.  California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)  Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the CalEPA to develop a Cortese List at least annually.   The Department of Toxic  Substances Control is responsible for a portion of the information on the  list, and other local and state government agencies are required to provide additional information.   CalEPA operates the Air Resources Board, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Department  of Toxic  Substances Control, the Integrated Waste Management Board, the Office of Environmental  Health Hazard Assessment, and the State Water  Resources Control Board.  The function of each of  these six offices is discussed below.  California Air Resources Board: To  promote and protect public health, welfare, and ecological  resources through the effective and efficient reduction of air pollutants in recognition and  consideration of the effects on the economy of the State.  Department of Pesticide Regulation: Regulates all aspects of pesticide sales and use to protect the  public health and the environment for the purpose of evaluating and mitigating impacts of pesticide  use, maintaining the safety of the pesticide workplace, ensuring product effectiveness, and  encouraging the development and use of reduced‐risk pest control practices.  Department of Toxic  Substances Control: The Department’s mission is to restore, protect, and  enhance the environment, to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality by  regulating hazardous waste, conducting and overseeing cleanups, and developing and promoting  pollution prevention.  DTSC protects residents from exposures to hazardous wastes.  DTSC operates  programs to:   Deal with the aftermath of improper hazardous waste management by overseeing site cleanups.     Prevent releases of hazardous waste by ensuring that those who generate, handle, transport,  store, and dispose of wastes do so properly.     Take  enforcement actions against those who fail to manage hazardous wastes appropriately.     Explore and promote means of preventing pollution, and encourage reuse and recycling.     Evaluate  soil, water, and air samples taken at sites, and develop new analytical methods.    CalRecycle: Protects the public health and safety and the environment through waste prevention,  waste diversion, and safe waste processing and disposal.  CalRecycle is responsible for managing  California’s solid waste stream.  CalRecycle is helping California divert its waste from landfills by:   Developing waste reduction programs.   Providing public education and outreach.   Assisting local governments and businesses.   Fostering market development for recyclable materials.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3‐11  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx   Encouraging used oil recycling.   Regulating waste management facilities.   Cleaning up abandoned and illegal dumpsites.    Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA): The OEHHA is responsible for  developing and providing risk managers in state and local government agencies with toxicological  and medical information relevant to decisions involving public health.  OEHHA also works with  federal agencies, the scientific community, industry, and the general public on issues of  environmental as well as public health.  Specific examples of OEHHA responsibilities include:   Developing health‐protective exposure standards for air, water, and land to recommend to  regulatory agencies, including ambient air quality standards for the Air Resources Board and  drinking water chemical contaminant standards for the Department of Health Services.     Assessing health risks to the public from air pollution, pesticide and other chemical  contamination of food, seafood, drinking water, and consumer products.     Providing guidance to local health departments, environmental departments, and other  agencies with specific public health problems, including appropriate actions to take in  emergencies that may involve chemicals.    State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): Preserves and enhances the quality of California’s  water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and  future generations.  The SWRCB maintains the Leaking Underground Storage Tank  Information  System (LUTIS) Database, which contains information on registered leaking underground storage  tanks (LUSTs) in the State.  California Occupational Safety and Health Agency (CalOSHA)  CalOSHA sets and enforces standards that ensure safe and healthy working conditions for California’s  workers.  The Division of Occupational Safety & Health is charged with the jurisdiction and  supervision over workplaces in California that are not under federal jurisdiction.  CalOSHA regulates  issues involving unsafe workplace conditions, worker exposure to chemicals, illness due to workplace  exposure, or improper training.  Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program  (Unified Program)  In January 1996, the CalEPA adopted regulations implementing the Unified Program.  The program  has six elements: (1) hazardous waste generators and hazardous waste on‐site treatment; (2)  underground storage tanks; (3) aboveground storage tanks; (4) hazardous materials release response  plans and inventories;( 5) risk management and prevention programs; and (6) Uniform Fire Code  hazardous materials management plans and inventories.  The plan is implemented at the local level.   The local agency that is responsible for the implementation of the Unified Program is the Certified  Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and the Solano County Department of Resource Management,  Environmental Health Services Division, is designated the CUPA.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Supplemental EIR      3.3‐12 FirstCarbon Solutions   \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985  (Business Plan Act)  The Business Plan Act requires that any business that handles hazardous materials prepare a  business plan, which must include the following:   Details, including floor plans, of the facility and business conducted at the site;   An inventory of hazardous materials that are handled or stored on‐site;   An emergency response plan; and   A safety and emergency response training program for new employees with annual refresher  courses.    Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations   The State has also adopted U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for the intrastate  movement of hazardous materials.  State regulations are contained in 26 CCR.  In addition, the State  regulates the transportation of hazardous waste originating in the state and passing through the  state (26 CCR).  Both regulatory programs apply in California.  The two state agencies with primary  responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials  transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of  Transportation.  California Vehicle  Code Section 32000  Common carriers are licensed by the California Highway Patrol, pursuant to California Vehicle  Code  Section 32000.  This section requires the licensing of every motor (common) carrier who transports,  for a fee, in excess of 500 pounds of hazardous materials at one time, and every carrier, if not for  hire, who carries more than 1,000 pounds of hazardous material of the type requiring placards.  California Accidental Release Prevention Program  The California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) regulations became effective January  1, 1997, replacing the California Risk Management and Prevention Program.  CalARP was created to  prevent the accidental release of regulated substances.  It covers businesses that store or handle  certain volumes of regulated substances at their facilities.  A list of regulated substances is found in  Section 2770.5 of the CalARP regulations.  If a business has more than the listed threshold quantity  of a substance, an accidental release prevention program must be implemented and a risk  management plan may be required.  The California OES is responsible for implementing the  provisions of CalARP.  California Department of Transportation and California Highway Patrol  The California Vehicle  Code Section 31303 requires that hazardous materials be transported via  routes with the least overall travel time, and prohibits the transportation of hazardous materials  through residential neighborhoods.  In California, the California Highway Patrol is authorized to  designate and enforce route restrictions for the transportation of hazardous materials.  To  operate in  California, all hazardous waste transporters must be registered with the DTSC.  Unless specifically  exempted, hazardous waste transporters must comply with the California Highway Patrol  Regulations, the California State Fire Marshal Regulations, and the United States Department of  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3‐13  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  Transportation Regulations.  In addition, hazardous waste transporters must comply with Division 20,  Chapter 6.5, Article 6 and 13 of the California Health and Safety Code, and the Title 22, Division 4.5,  Chapter 13 of the California Code of Regulations, both of which are administered by DTSC.  San Francisco Bay Regional Water  Quality Control Board  There are nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) throughout the State.  The San  Francisco Bay RWQCB has jurisdiction over projects in the City of Dublin.  Individual RWQCBs  function as the lead agencies responsible for identifying, monitoring, and cleaning up leaking USTs.   Storage of hazardous materials in USTs is regulated by the SWRCB, which oversees the nine RWQCBs.  Local  City of Dublin  General Plan  The General Plan sets forth the following policies related to hazards and hazardous materials:   8.3.4.1A Guiding Policy 1: Maintain and enhance the ability to regulate the use, transport,  and storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take appropriate  action during emergencies.   8.3.4.1A Guiding Policy 2: Minimize the risk of exposure to hazardous materials from  contaminated site.    8.3.4.1B Implementing Policy 3: Periodically review and enforce the City’s ordinance  regulating the handling, transport, and storage of hazardous materials and hazardous waste.   8.3.4.1B Implementing Policy 4: Require site‐specific hazardous materials studies for new  development projects where there is a potential for the presence of hazardous materials from  previous uses on the site.  If hazardous materials are found, require clean‐up of sites to  acceptable regulatory standards prior to development.    Eastern Dublin Specific Plan  The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sets forth the following policy related to hazards and hazardous  materials:   Policy 11‐1: Prior to issuance of building permits for site‐specific Phase I (and if necessary  Phase II) environmental site assessments shall be made available to the Community  Development Director, with appropriate documentation that all recommended remediation  actions have been completed.    3.3.4 ‐ Methodology  A number of Environmental Site Assessments and Subsurface Investigations were conducted at the  project site, and are described in more detail in Section 3.3.2 (Environmental Setting).  These  assessments utilized historical research into the uses of the site, proximity to other sites, site  observations, regulatory database review, interviews with the property owners and occupants, as well  as sampling of soil, soil gas, and groundwater, to draw conclusions regarding known and suspected  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Supplemental EIR      3.3‐14 FirstCarbon Solutions   \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  hazardous materials impacts at the project site and site vicinity.  The Environmental Site Assessments  and Subsurface Investigations formed the basis for the analysis of impacts in this section.  3.3.5 ‐ Thresholds of Significance  According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, hazards impacts resulting  from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the project  would:  a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,  use, or disposal of hazardous materials?    b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable  upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the  environment?    c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or  waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?  (Refer to Section 7, Effects  Found Not To  Be Significant.)    d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant  to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to  the public or the environment?    e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been  adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in  a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area?  (Refer to Section 7, Effects  Found Not To  Be Significant.)    f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety  hazard for people residing or working in the project area?  (Refer to Section 7, Effects  Found  Not To  Be Significant.)    g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan  or emergency evacuation plan?  (Refer to Section 7, Effects  Found Not To  Be Significant.)    h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland  fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are  intermixed with wildlands?  (Refer to Section 7, Effects  Found Not To  Be Significant.)?    3.3.6 ‐ Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures  This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and  provides mitigation measures where appropriate.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3‐15  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  Routine Handling of Hazardous Materials/Risk of Upset  Impact HAZ‐1:  The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the  environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous  materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions.  Impact Analysis  Project construction activities may involve the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials.   These materials may include chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil,  lubricating grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances used  during construction.  Construction of the project would also require the use of gasoline and diesel‐ powered heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, water pumps, and air compressors.   Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities  would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations.   Compliance would ensure that human health and the environment are not exposed to hazardous  materials.    The proposed project would develop an IKEA store and lifestyle retail‐restaurant uses on the project  site.  The proposed project’s end uses would not involve the routine use of large qualities of  hazardous materials.  Small quantities of hazardous materials would be used as part of daily  operations, including cleaning solvents (e.g., degreasers, diesel, paint thinners, and aerosol  propellants), paints, disinfectants, and fertilizers.  These substances would be stored in secure areas  and would comply with all applicable storage, handling, usage, and disposal requirements.  The  potential risks posed by the use and storage of these hazardous materials are primarily limited to the  immediate vicinity of the materials.  Transport  of these materials would be performed by  commercial vendors who would be required to comply with various federal and state laws regarding  hazardous materials transportation.    The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR did not identify any significant impacts associated with  hazardous materials.  The on‐site unoccupied, prefabricated, single‐story building is not of an age  that lead‐based paint or asbestos would be considered an issue during demolition or removal.   In summary, the proposed project would not potentially create a significant hazard to the public or  the environment from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through  reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions because of the limited use of hazards in  project construction and operations and compliance with regulatory requirements.  Impacts would  be less than significant.   Level of Significance Before Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Mitigation Measures  No mitigation is necessary.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft Supplemental EIR      3.3‐16 FirstCarbon Solutions   \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  Level of Significance After Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Government Code Section 65962.5 Sites  Impact HAZ‐2: The proposed project may create a significant hazard to the public or the  environment through the disturbance of a hazardous materials site listed pursuant  to Government Code Section 65962.5.  Impact Analysis  This impact addresses whether past and present land use activities may create a significant hazard to  the public or the environment or whether these activities have resulted in the subject properties  being included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section  65962.5.  This analysis will largely be guided by the findings of Ground Zero’s Subsurface  Investigation Report, as this was the most recent report and addressed the recommendations of the  prior reports.    The project site is listed on several hazardous materials databases compiled pursuant to Government  Code Section 65962.5.  These listings are associated with the project site’s past military use  associated with Camp Parks.  Several hazardous material investigations have occurred during the  past 20 years and have identified the following issues: former fuel depot, former rail spur, metals  and soil stockpiles.  Former Fuel Depot  As indicated in Ground Zero’s Subsurface Investigation Report and as discussed above, one of the  hazardous materials of concern associated with the project site is the former fuel depot located near  the northeast corner of the project site.  To  evaluate whether remnants of the fuel depot present a  significant environmental concern, a groundwater investigation and a soil investigation were  performed.  Results of these investigations indicated that soil and groundwater in the area of the  former fuel depot were impacted with relatively low levels of diesel‐oil range petroleum  hydrocarbons.  Insignificant concentrations of MTBE are present in groundwater and trace levels of  acetone and sec‐butylbenzene were detected in certain soil samples.  Other than those, no VOCs  including BTEX compounds were present.  The characteristics of the former fuel depot area meet the  criteria for closure under the SWRCP Low Threat Storage Tank  Closure Policy.  Therefore, the  Subsurface Investigation Report determined that the past presence of a fuel depot on the project  site would not pose a significant environmental concern with respect to the proposed project.  Former Rail Spur  As indicated in Ground Zero’s Subsurface Investigation Report and as discussed above, one of the  hazardous materials of concern associated with the project site is the former rail spur located near  the northeast corner.  To  evaluate whether the rail spur presents a significant environmental  concern, a soil investigation was performed.  Results of this investigation indicated that shallow soil  in the area of the former rail spur contains low levels of oil and grease and certain polycyclic  aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)s.  The soil does not contain detectable concentrations of PCBs. Metal  concentrations are at naturally‐occurring background levels.  Previous investigations detected only  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.3‐17  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐03 Hazards.docx  trace levels of OCP’s.  Therefore, it has been determined that the past presence of a rail spur on the  project site would not pose a significant environmental concern with respect to the proposed  project.   Metal Stockpile  As indicated in Ground Zero’s Subsurface Investigation Report and as discussed above, one of the  hazardous materials of concern is the metal stockpile located near the northwest portion of the  project site.  To  evaluate whether the metal stockpile presents a significant environmental concern,  random sampling of shallow soil at five locations throughout the site did not detect herbicides, and  metal concentrations were consistent with naturally‐occurring background levels.  Therefore, it has  been determined that the metal stockpile on the project site would not pose a significant  environmental concern with respect to the proposed project.  Soil Stockpiles  Soil testing of stockpiles on the project site found that diesel‐oil range petroleum hydrocarbons,  certain PAHs  and PCBs were present.  As indicated in Ground Zero’s Subsurface Investigation Report,  one of the hazardous materials of concern is the soil stockpiles located near the northwest corner of  the project site.  To  evaluate whether the soil stockpiles present a significant environmental concern,  a soil investigation was performed.  Soil Piles No. 1 and No.2 contain detectable concentrations of  diesel‐oil range petroleum hydrocarbons, certain PAHs  and certain PCBs.  The soil piles do not  contain detectible levels of VOCs, OCPs or asbestos.  Metals are present at naturally‐occurring  background concentrations.  The levels of PAHs  and PCBs in Soil Pile No.2 suggest that it is not  suitable for re‐use on the project site.  Accordingly, Mitigation Measure HAZ‐2 requires the applicant  to retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to sample and, if necessary, properly remove  and dispose of any contaminated soil.  Level of Significance Before Mitigation  Potentially significant impact.  Mitigation Measures  MM HAZ‐2 Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a  qualified hazardous materials contractor to sample any soil stockpiles that may be  present for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), diesel and oil range petroleum  hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).  If sampling determines that  concentrations of these substances exceed acceptable human health exposure  levels, the applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to  properly remove and dispose of the impacted soils.  If sampling determines that  concentrations of these substances do not exceed acceptable human health  exposure levels, no further action is required.  Level of Significance After Mitigation  Less than significant impact.    THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx 3.4 - Noise 3.4.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing noise setting and potential noise impacts associated with implementation of the project on the site and the surrounding area. The analysis in this section is based on the Noise Impact Analysis prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). Supporting information is provided in Appendix E. 3.4.2 - Environmental Setting Overview The project site is part of the Eastern Dublin Planning area in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. The ambient noise environment is dominated by traffic on surrounding roadways. The site is bordered by Arnold Road to the west, Hacienda Drive to the east, Martinelli Way to the north, and Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south. The project site is situated in an urban area that consists of a patchwork of commercial and residential areas interspersed with undeveloped areas. West of Arnold Road is undeveloped land contemplated for office use. Further west is the Dublin/ Pleasanton Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station. In the freeway median of I-580, south of the project are BART storage tracks associated with the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. However, the planned BART extension from the Dublin/Pleasanton Station to Livermore would eventually replace these storage tracks with in-service tracks. Further south of I-580 are office uses and undeveloped land located in the City of Pleasanton. East of Hacienda Drive is the Hacienda Crossings shopping center, a 262,273-square-foot regional shopping center that opened in 1999. North of Martinelli Way is Persimmon Place, a 153,378-square-foot retail center that opened in 2015. The existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity was documented through an ambient noise monitoring effort and through traffic noise modeling. Ambient noise level measurements were taken on the perimeters of the project site nearest off-site sensitive receptors. The noise measurement locations are shown in Exhibit 3.4-1 and the noise level measurement results are shown in Table 3.4-4. Existing traffic noise levels along roadway segments in the project vicinity were modeled and the results are summarized in Table 3.4-5. The nearest existing residential land uses to the east, north, and west of the project site are identified in Exhibit 3.4-2. The closest residential receptor to the project site are the multi-family residential homes located more than 800 feet to the northeast of the project site located at the northeast intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. The closest residential land uses to the west of the project site are located at Martinelli Way and Campus Drive, more than 860 feet from the project’s nearest boundary. Characteristics of Noise Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, causes physiological harm or interferes with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep. Sound is produced by the vibration of sound pressure waves in the air. Sound City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx pressure levels are used to measure the intensity of sound and are described in terms of decibels. The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit, which expresses the ratio of the sound pressure level being measured to a standard reference level. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10-dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A- weighted sound level (dBA). A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies that are audible to the human ear. Table 3.4-1 shows some representative noise sources and their corresponding noise levels in dBA. Table 3.4-1: Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels Indoor Noise Source Noise Level (dBA) Outdoor Noise Sources (Threshold of Hearing in Laboratory) 0 — Library 30 Quiet Rural Nighttime Refrigerator Humming 40 Quiet Suburban Nighttime Quiet Office 50 Quiet Urban Daytime Normal Conversation at 3 feet 60 Normal Conversation at 3 feet Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet 70 Gas Lawn Mower at 100 feet Hair Dryer at 1 foot 80 Freight Train at 50 feet Food Blender at 3 feet 90 Heavy-duty Truck at 50 feet Inside Subway Train (New York) 100 Jet Takeoff at 2,000 feet Smoke Detector Alarm at 3 feet 110 Unmuffled Motorcycle Rock Band near stage 120 Chainsaw at 3 feet — 130 Military Jet Takeoff at 50 feet — 140 (Threshold of Pain) Source: FCS, 2017. Noise Descriptors There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound, including during sensitive times of the day and night. The predominant rating scales in the State of California are the Leq, the City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-3 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day-night average level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn measurements are typically within one dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable. These additions are made to the sound levels at these times because there is a decrease in the ambient noise levels during the evening and nighttime hours, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds. For this reason, sound is perceived to be louder in the evening and nighttime hours as compared with daytime hours, and is weighted accordingly. Many cities rely on the CNEL noise standard to assess transportation-related impacts on noise-sensitive land uses. Other noise rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax for short-term noise impacts. Lmax reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. Noise standards in terms of percentile exceedance levels, Ln, are often used together with the Lmax for noise enforcement purposes. When specified, the percentile exceedance levels are not to be exceeded by an offending sound over a stated time period. For example, the L10 noise level represents the level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level (which means that the noise level exceeds the L50 noise level half of the time, and is less than this level half of the time). The L90 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the lowest noise level experienced during a monitoring period. The L90 noise level is normally referred to as the background noise level. For a relatively steady noise, the measured Leq and L50 are approximately the same. Noise Propagation From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source, as well as ground absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, and shielding by natural and man-made features. Sound from point sources, such as an air conditioning condenser, a piece of construction equipment, or an idling truck, radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The attenuation or sound drop-off rate is dependent on the conditions of the land between the noise source and receiver. To account for this ground-effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in noise models: soft-site and hard-site conditions. Soft-site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. For point sources, a drop-off rate of 7.5 dBA per each doubling of the distance (dBA/DD) is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 6 dBA/DD drop-off rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth. For line City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-4 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx sources, such as traffic noise on a roadway, a 4.5 dBA/DD is typically observed for soft-site conditions compared to the 3 dBA/DD drop-off rate for hard-site conditions. Traffic Noise The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: (1) the volume of the traffic, (2) the speed of the traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and greater number of trucks. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. Because of the logarithmic nature of noise levels, a doubling of the traffic volume (assuming that the speed and truck mix do not change) results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. Based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) community noise assessment criteria, this change is “barely perceptible”; for reference a doubling of perceived noise levels would require an increase of approximately 10 dBA. The truck mix on a given roadway also has an effect on community noise levels. As the number of heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise levels increase. Stationary Noise A stationary noise producer is any entity in a fixed location that emits noise. Examples of stationary noise sources include machinery, engines, energy production, and other mechanical or powered equipment and activities such as loading and unloading or public assembly that may occur at commercial, industrial, manufacturing, or institutional facilities. Furthermore, while noise generated by the use of motor vehicles over public roads is preempted from local regulation, the County considers the use of these vehicles to be a stationary noise source when operated on private property such as at a truck terminal or warehousing facility. The emitted noise from the producer can be mitigated to acceptable levels either at the source or on the adjacent property through the use of proper planning, setbacks, block walls, acoustic-rated windows, dense landscaping, or by changing the location of the noise producer. The effects of stationary noise depend on factors such as characteristics of the equipment and operations, distance and pathway between the generator and receptor, and weather. Stationary noise sources may be regulated at the point of manufacture (e.g., equipment or engines), with limitations on the hours of operation, or with provision of intervening structures, barriers or topography. Construction activities are a common source of stationary noise. Construction-period noise levels are higher than background ambient noise levels but eventually cease once construction is complete. Construction Noise Fundamentals Construction is performed in discrete steps or phases, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. Typical phases of construction include demolition, excavation, grading, and building construction. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on each construction site and, therefore, would change the noise levels as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. The FHWA has compiled noise measurement data regarding the noise-generating characteristics of various types of construction equipment. 37660005 • 09/2017 | 3.4-1_n oise.m xd Exhibit 3.4-1Noise Mon itorin g Location s Map Source: Bin g Im agery, 2015 CIT Y OF DUBLIN • IKEA RET AIL CENT ER PROJECTSUPPLEMENT AL ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT I 300 0 300150 Feet Legend Project Site !(Noise Monitoring Location THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 37660005 • 10/2017 | 3.4-2_receptors.m xd Exhibit 3.4-2Con struction Noise Modelin gReceptor Location s Source: Bin g Im agery, 2015 CITY OF DU BLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SU PPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I 510 0 510255 Feet Legend !(Receptor Location Project Site THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-9 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx Table 3.4-2 provides a summary of these typical noise levels of construction equipment as measured at a distance of 50 feet from the operating equipment. Table 3.4-2: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax Type of Equipment Specification Maximum Sound Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) Acoustical Usage Factor (%) Pickup Truck 55 40 Pumps 77 50 Air Compressors 80 40 Backhoe 80 40 Front-End Loaders 80 40 Portable Generators 82 50 Dump Truck 84 40 Tractors 84 40 Auger Drill Rig 85 20 Concrete Mixer Truck 85 40 Cranes 85 16 Dozers 85 40 Excavators 85 40 Graders 85 40 Jackhammers 85 20 Man Lift 85 20 Paver 85 50 Pneumatic Tools 85 50 Rollers 85 20 Scrapers 85 40 Concrete/Industrial Saws 90 20 Impact Pile Driver 95 20 Vibratory Pile Driver 95 20 Source: FHWA 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. January. Groundborne Vibration Fundamentals Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-10 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx Although groundborne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. When assessing annoyance from groundborne vibration, vibration is typically expressed as root mean square (rms) velocity in units of decibels of 1 micro-inch per second. To distinguish these vibration levels from noise levels, the unit is written as “VdB.” In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. Common sources of groundborne vibration include construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. However, construction vibration impacts on building structures are generally assessed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). For purposes of this analysis, project-related impacts are expressed in terms of PPV. Typical vibration source levels from construction equipment are shown in Table 3.4-3. The vibration level at a distance from a source can be calculated using the following propagation formula (this formula is based on point sources with normal propagation conditions) (FTA, 2006): PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D) n Where: PPV (equip) is the peak particle velocity in inches per second of the equipment adjusted for distance; PPV (ref) is the reference vibration level in in/sec at 25 feet from Table 3.4-3; D is the distance from the equipment to the receiver; and n is the vibration attenuation rate through ground. According to Chapter 12 of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual (2006), an “n” value of 1.5 is recommended to calculate vibration propagation through typical soil conditions. Because vibration propagates in waves through the soil, multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously would each produce vibration waves in different phases that typically would not increase the magnitude of the vibration; instead, multiple pieces of equipment would just lengthen the duration of the vibration impact. Table 3.4-3: Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment Construction Equipment PPV at 25 Feet (inches/second) RMS Velocity in Decibels (VdB) at 25 Feet Water Trucks 0.001 57 Scraper 0.002 58 Bulldozer—small 0.003 58 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Concrete Mixer 0.046 81 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-11 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx Table 3.4-3 (cont.): Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment Construction Equipment PPV at 25 Feet (inches/second) RMS Velocity in Decibels (VdB) at 25 Feet Concrete Pump 0.046 81 Paver 0.046 81 Pickup Truck 0.046 81 Auger Drill Rig 0.051 82 Backhoe 0.051 82 Crane (Mobile) 0.051 82 Excavator 0.051 82 Grader 0.051 82 Loader 0.051 82 Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 Bulldozer—Large 0.089 87 Caisson drilling 0.089 87 Vibratory Roller (small) 0.101 88 Compactor 0.138 90 Clam shovel drop 0.202 94 Vibratory Roller (large) 0.210 94 Pile Driver (impact-typical) 0.644 104 Pile Driver (impact-upper range) 1.518 112 Source: Compilation of scientific and academic literature, generated by FTA and FHWA. Existing Ambient Noise Levels To understand the current ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, noise measurements were taken at the project site and in the general project vicinity. These measurements provide a baseline for any potential noise impacts that may be created by development of the proposed project. Two short-term and one long-term noise measurements were taken. The results of these measurements are described below. Short-term Noise Measurements Short-term noise monitoring was conducted on Tuesday, October 10, 2017 between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. The noise measurements were taken during the midday hours, as the midday hours typically have the highest daytime noise levels in urban environments. The sound level meter and microphone were mounted on a tripod 5 feet above the ground and equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. At the start of the noise monitoring, the temperature averaged 72.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and the sky was clear with an average wind velocity of 1.0 mile per hour City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-12 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx (mph) and maximum wind velocity of 3.1 mph. The field survey noted that noise within the project area is generally characterized by I-580 traffic, local roadway traffic, and birds. The short-term measurement results are summarized in Table 3.4-4. The noise measurement locations are shown in Exhibit 3.4-1. Table 3.4-4: Noise Monitoring Results Summary Site Location Location Description Leq Lmax ST-1 10 yards from the center of Martinelli Way in the northwest corner of the Project site 57.9 78.4 ST-2 10 yards from the center of Hacienda Drive in the northeast corner of the Project site 68.4 86.3 Source: FCS, 2017. The noise measurement results show that daytime ambient noise levels ranged from 57.9 dBA to 68.4 dBA Leq in the project vicinity. Maximum noise levels on the project site and in the project vicinity ranged from 78.4 dBA to 86.3 dBA Lmax. Long-term Noise Measurement A long-term noise measurement was started on Tuesday October 10, 2017 at 11:42 a.m. and stopped on Wednesday October 11, 2017 at 4:56 p.m. for a total of 29 hours and 14 minutes. The long-term measurement was taken in the southwestern corner of the project near the property line, approximately 1,460 feet south of Dublin Boulevard and 180 feet north of I-580. The noise measurement location is shown in Exhibit 3.4-1; and the long-term noise measurement data results are provided in Appendix E of this EIR. This noise measurement location corresponds to the equivalent distance from I-580 as the nearest proposed façade of the IKEA building, so it was chosen to provide a baseline for the existing highest traffic noise levels to which the proposed development would be exposed. The results show that weekday 24-hour average day/night noise level at this location is 74.4 dBA CNEL. The daytime, evening and nighttime hourly average noise levels were 67.9 dBA, 67.1 dBA, and 67.7 dBA Leq respectively. When the long-term noise measurement was started, the sky was clear and the temperature was 79°F, with average wind speeds of 1.0 mile per hour. Existing Traffic Noise Levels Existing traffic noise levels along selected roadway segments in the project vicinity were modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Site-specific information is entered, such as roadway traffic volumes, roadway active width, source-to-receiver distances, travel speed, noise source and receiver heights, and the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks that the traffic is made up of throughout the day, amongst other variables. The peak- hour traffic volumes were obtained from the study prepared by Fehr & Peers (2017) and then were multiplied by a factor of ten to obtain the average daily traffic volumes for each modeled roadway segment. The model inputs and outputs, including the 60 dBA, 65 dBA, and 70 dBA CNEL traffic City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-13 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx noise contour distances, are provided in Appendix E. A summary of the existing traffic noise modeling results is shown in Table 3.4-5. Table 3.4-5: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment Average Daily Traffic Centerline to 70 CNEL (feet) Centerline to 65 CNEL (feet) Centerline to 60 CNEL (feet) CNEL (dBA) 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane Dublin Boulevard—DeMarcus Boulevard to Iron Horse Parkway 30,300 81 159 336 69.5 Dublin Boulevard—Iron Horse Parkway to Arnold Road 28,500 78 153 323 69.2 Dublin Boulevard—Arnold Road to Persimmon place 23,200 70 135 282 68.3 Dublin Boulevard—Persimmon place to Hacienda Drive 22,000 68 130 272 68.1 Hacienda Drive—Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway 12,800 < 50 65 128 63.4 Hacienda Drive—Central Parkway to Gleason Drive 8,900 < 50 < 50 100 62.6 Arnold Road—Dublin Boulevard to Martinelli Way 2,700 < 50 < 50 < 50 57.0 Martinelli Way—Arnold Road to Persimmon Place 5,600 < 50 < 50 94 61.2 Martinelli Way—Persimmon Place to Hacienda Drive 9,500 < 50 69 132 63.2 Hacienda Drive—Martinelli Way to Dublin Boulevard 22,100 < 50 96 185 64.8 Dublin Boulevard—Hacienda Drive to Hibernia Drive 22,800 70 133 279 68.2 Dublin Boulevard—Hibernia Drive to Myrtle Drive 20,600 66 125 261 67.8 Dublin Boulevard—Myrtle Drive to Glynnis Rose Drive 22,500 69 132 276 68.2 I-580—East of Hopyard Road 219,000 506 1,082 2,326 80.6 Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2017. The modeling results indicate that existing traffic noise levels range up to approximately 68.3 dBA CNEL near the northern boundary of the project site along Dublin Boulevard between Arnold Road and Persimmon place. Near the southern project boundary, existing traffic noise levels range up to approximately 80.6 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from centerline of the outermost lane of I-580. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-14 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx Existing Stationary Noise Levels Commercial and residential land uses in the project vicinity generate noise from truck deliveries, loading/unloading activities, typical parking lot activities, rooftop mechanical ventilation systems, and landscaping and maintenance equipment activities. These activities are point sources of noise that affect the existing noise environment. Delivery truck loading/unloading activities in the project vicinity typically result in maximum noise levels from 75 dBA to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Parking activities, such as engines starting or doors shutting, typically generate approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The ambient noise monitoring effort described above captured noise levels from all noise sources in the project vicinity, including noise from existing stationary noise sources in the project vicinity. 3.4.3 - Regulatory Framework Federal Regulations The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes: • Promulgating noise emission standards for interstate commerce • Assisting state and local abatement efforts • Promoting noise education and research The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) was initially tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, the ONAC has since been eliminated, leaving the development of federal noise policies and programs to other federal agencies and interagency committees. Among the agencies now regulating noise are: the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which limits noise exposure of workers to 90 dB Leq or less for 8 continuous hours or 105 dB Leq or less for 1 continuous hour; the Department of Transportation (DOT), which assumed a significant role in noise control through its various operating agencies; and the Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates noise of aircraft and airports. Surface transportation system noise is regulated by a host of agencies, including the FTA. Transit noise is regulated by the federal Urban Mass Transit Administration, while freeways that are part of the interstate highway system are regulated by the FHWA. Finally, the federal government actively advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being sited adjacent to a highway or, alternately that developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that minimize potential noise impacts. Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation sources, local jurisdictions are limited to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning. The FTA has established industry accepted standards for vibration impact criteria and impact assessment. These guidelines are published in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document (2006). The FTA guidelines include thresholds for construction vibration impacts for various structural categories as shown in Table 3.4-6. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-15 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx Table 3.4-6: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate VdB I. Reinforced-Concrete, Steel or Timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered Concrete and Masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-Engineered Timber and Masonry Buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings Extremely Susceptible to Vibration Damage 0.12 90 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. State The State of California has established regulations that help prevent adverse impacts to occupants of buildings located near noise sources. Referred to as the “State Noise Insulation Standard,” it requires buildings to meet performance standards through design and/or building materials that would offset any noise source in the vicinity of the receptor. State regulations include requirements for the construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings that are intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The State also includes noise requirements in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (known as the Building Standards Administrative Code), Part 11 (known as the California Green Building Standards Code). The noise insulation standards require that the wall and roof-ceiling assemblies of new non-residential developments that are exposed to exterior noise in excess of 65 dBA CNEL shall meet a composite Standard Transmission Class (STC) rating of at least 50, with exterior windows of a minimum STC rating of 40. In addition, the standards require preparation of an acoustical analysis demonstrating the manner in which dwelling units have been designed to meet this standard, where such development is proposed in an area with exterior noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Government Code Section 65302 mandates that the legislative body of each county and city in California adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise and land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable. Local The project site is located within the City of Dublin. The City of Dublin addresses noise in the Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan, in the Municipal Code, and in the policies of the City’s East Dublin Specific Plan. City of Dublin General Plan The Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan establishes residential, commercial, and industrial land use compatibility standards for noise measured at the property line of receiving land uses. The land use compatibility for noise provide the basis for making decisions on location of land uses in relation to noise sources and for determining noise mitigation requirements. Table 3.4-7 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-16 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx shows the City of Dublin’s Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments standards for specific land uses. As indicated, the normally acceptable exterior noise level is 70 dBA CNEL or less for office, retail, and commercial land uses (the types of land uses proposed for development with implementation of the project). Noise levels over 75 dBA CNEL are considered normally unacceptable for new development of these types of land uses. The following policies in the City of Dublin General Plan are applicable to project-related potential noise impacts: • Guiding Policy 1: Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to levels indicated by Table 9.1: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments [here, Table 3.4-7]. • Implementing Policy 4: Noise impacts related to all new development shall be analyzed by a certified acoustic consultant. • Implementing Policy 7: Review all non-residential development proposals within the projected CNEL 65 dBA contour for compliance with exterior noise transmission standards as required by the California Green Building Standards Code. The Noise Element specifies that project designers may use one or more of four available categories of mitigation measures: site planning, architectural layout (bedrooms away from noise source, for example), noise barriers, or construction modifications. Table 3.4-7: City of Dublin Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Community Noise Exposure (dB) Land Use Category Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 61–70 71–75 Over 75 Motels, hotels 60 or less 61–70 71–80 Over 80 Schools, churches, nursing homes 60 or less 61–70 71–80 Over 80 Neighborhood parks 60 or less 61–65 66–70 Over 70 Offices: retail commercial 70 or less 71–75 76–80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 71–75 Over 75 — Note: Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Source: City of Dublin, 2014. Dublin General Plan, Table 9.1. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sets forth the following policy relevant to noise: • Policy 6-44: Require development along the I-580 frontage to provide adequate mitigation to conform to the State Land Use Compatibility Standards for noise and policies and standards in the City of Dublin’s Noise Element. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-17 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx City of Dublin Municipal Code The City of Dublin’s Municipal Code includes standards that address noise control within the City. Section 5.28.020 of the City’s Municipal Code prohibits any person within the City to make any loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. Section 8.36.060(C)(3) of the City’s Municipal Code states that for lots less than 5,000 square feet, mechanical equipment that generates noise (such as swimming pool, spa, and air conditioning equipment) on the property shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time. For lots 5,000 square feet or larger, mechanical equipment that generates noise when located within a required setback, and within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence, or an existing paved patio area on adjoining property, shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time. 3.4.4 - Methodology Noise Monitoring Methodology To ascertain the existing noise at and adjacent to the project site, field monitoring was conducted on Tuesday October 10, 2017 through Wednesday October 11, 2017. The purpose of this noise monitoring was to document the existing noise environment and capture the noise levels associated with traffic and existing activities in the project area. The field survey noted that noise within the project study area is generally characterized by vehicle traffic on the local roadways. The short- and long-term noise measurements were taken using Larson-Davis Model LxT2 Type 2 precision sound level meters programmed in “slow” mode to record noise levels in “A” weighted form. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the monitoring using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. The accuracy of the calibrator is maintained through a program established through the manufacturer and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. All noise level measurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA). For the short-term noise measurements, the sound level meter and microphone were mounted on a tripod 5 feet above the ground and were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. For the long-term measurement the sound level meter was placed in a Pelican lock box with the microphone cord run up through a 5 foot tall PVC pipe which was equipped with a windscreen for the duration of the measurement. All short-term noise measurements were measured according to the standards stated in Section N-3320 of the Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement, which specifies that the measurements be a duration of at least 10 minutes and shall be continued past 10 minutes until the fluctuations in the displayed Leq are less than 0.5 dBA. The short-term noise measurement locations were selected in order to document the existing ambient noise environment at the borders of the project site nearest surrounding noise-sensitive land uses. Nearby existing noise-sensitive land uses include multi-family residential land uses to the City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-18 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx northeast and west of the project site. The closest of these residential receptors are the multi-family residential homes located more than 800 feet to the northeast of the project site at the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. The long-term noise measurement location corresponds to the equivalent distance from I-580 as the nearest proposed façade, and was chosen to provide a baseline for the existing highest traffic noise levels to which the proposed development would be exposed. The noise measurement locations are shown in Exhibit 3.4-1. The noise measurement data sheets are provided in Appendix E of this EIR. Construction Noise Modeling Methodology The FHWA has developed the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which has become the industry accepted standard model for calculating construction noise levels at specific receptor locations. Model inputs include the type and number of pieces of heavy construction equipment, their usage factors, distance to receptor, and estimated shielding reduction (if any). The modeling for this project has analyzed construction noise impacts according to various building phases, as types of equipment used generally change according to various phases of construction. This analysis modeled the worst-case construction noise impacts for the site preparation phase, the building construction phase, and the paving phase of construction. Construction equipment assumptions are based on the default construction equipment list from the air quality impact analysis for this project. A worst-case scenario was modeled assuming each piece of modeled equipment would operate simultaneously at the nearest reasonable locations to each modeled receptor for each construction phase of the project. The modeled receptor locations represent the closest existing receiving land uses to the east, north, west, and south of the project site. The construction noise modeling assumptions and outputs are provided in Appendix E of this EIR. Traffic Noise Modeling Methodology The level of traffic noise depends on the three primary factors: (1) the volume of the traffic, (2) the speed of the traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and greater number of trucks. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. Because of the logarithmic nature of traffic noise levels, a doubling of the traffic volume (assuming that the speed and truck mix do not change) results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. Based on the FHWA community noise assessment criteria, this change is “barely perceptible”; for reference a doubling of perceived noise levels would require an increase of approximately 10 dBA. The truck mix on a given roadway also has an effect on community noise levels. As the number of heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise levels increase. Traffic noise impacts are assessed using the U.S. Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978). Model input data includes without- and with-project average daily traffic volumes on adjacent roadway segments, day/night percentages of autos, medium and heavy trucks, vehicle speeds, ground attenuation factors, and roadway widths. The roadway speeds are based on the posted speed limits observed during site visits. The model analyzed the noise impacts from the nearby roadways onto the project vicinity, which consists of the area that has the potential of being impacted from the on-site noise sources as well as the project-generated traffic on the nearby roadways. The roadway traffic model input assumptions are presented in Appendix E. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-19 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx 3.4.5 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, agency and professional standards, a project impact would be considered significant if the project would: a) Expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; b) Expose persons to, or generate, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; c) Substantially permanently increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; d) Substantially temporarily or periodically increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; 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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; (Refer to Section 7.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant.) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (Refer to Section 7.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant.) Significance of Changes in Noise Levels In community noise considerations, audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. A change of 5 dBA is considered to be the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the proposed project would result in a significant noise impact when a permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dB occurs upon project implementation and the resulting noise level exceeds the conditionally acceptable exterior standard at a noise-sensitive use. Upon project implementation, if the resulting noise levels do not exceed the applicable exterior noise standard at a noise-sensitive use, then an increase of 5 dBA would be considered significant. 3.4.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-20 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Impact NOI-1: The project could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impact Analysis Short-term Construction Noise Impacts A significant impact would occur if the project would result in loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise that annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace, or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during site preparation and project construction. The first type would result from the increase in traffic flow on local streets, associated with the transport of workers, equipment, and materials to and from the project site. The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Because workers and construction equipment would use existing routes, noise from passing trucks would be similar to existing vehicle-generated noise on these local roadways. Based on the CalEEMod default assumptions for this project, as analyzed in the air quality section of this document, the project would generate the highest number of daily trips during the building construction phase. The model estimates that the project would generate up to 435 worker trips and 184 vendor trips daily during this phase of construction. Because of the logarithmic nature of noise levels, a doubling of the traffic volume (assuming that the speed and vehicle mix do not also change) would result in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. As shown in the existing traffic conditions discussion, all roadway segments in the immediate project vicinity have greater than 2,700 daily trips. Therefore, project construction trips would result in an imperceptible increase in traffic noise levels on modeled roadway segments in the project vicinity. As a result, short-term, construction-related noise associated with worker and equipment transport to the proposed project site would result in a less than significant impact on receptors along the access routes leading to site. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during site-preparation, grading, and construction on-site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on-site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the types and sizes of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 3.4-2 lists the maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment, the site preparation (grading) phase is expected to be the loudest phase of construction. The site preparation construction phase is expected to require the use of front-end loaders, compactors, hydraulic backhoes, and haul trucks. Typical operating cycles for these types of City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-21 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. The FHWA’s documented typical usage percentages for various types of heavy construction equipment are shown in Table 3.4-2. Impact equipment such as pile drivers is not expected to be used during construction of this project. As is noted in the methodology discussion of this section, the FHWA’s construction noise model, Roadway Construction Noise Model, was used to calculate the worst-case construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors surrounding the project site during each phase of construction. The modeled receptor locations represent the closest existing receiving land uses to the east, north, west, and south of the project site. The modeled receptor locations are shown in Exhibit 3.4-2. The modeled construction phases included the site preparation and grading phase, the building construction phase, and the paving of the internal roadways phase. A worst-case scenario was modeled assuming each piece of modeled equipment would operate simultaneously at the nearest reasonable locations to each modeled receptor for each construction phase of the project. Overall, average daily project construction noise levels would be much lower than this worst-case scenario since all equipment would not always operate simultaneously and would also produce less noise as the equipment operates toward the center of the project site further from off-site receptors. A summary of the modeling results is shown in Table 3.4-8. The construction noise modeling assumptions and outputs are provided in Appendix E of this report. The site preparation and grading phase of the project is expected to require the use of rubber tired dozers, tractors, front-end loaders, backhoes, excavators, graders, and dump trucks. The building construction phase is expected to require the use of cranes, forklifts, portable generators, tractors, dozers, front-end loaders, backhoes, excavators, graders, and welders. The paving phase of construction is expected to require the use of pavers, paving equipment, rollers, concrete mixer trucks, tractors, front-end loaders, and backhoes. The hourly usage percentages for each piece of equipment for each phase of construction that was modeled for this project are provided in the modeling data in Appendix E. Table 3.4-8: Construction Noise Model Results Summary (dBA) Receptor Location Site Preparation/ Grading Phase Building Construction Phase Paving Phase Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq R1—Multi-family residential 59.8 62.1 58.2 61.3 59.7 60.8 R2—Multi-family residential 56.7 59.0 55.8 58.9 56.8 57.8 R3—Multi-family residential 60.1 62.4 59.9 63.0 57.1 58.2 Note: Lmax is the loudest value of any single piece of equipment as measured at the modeled receptor location. Source: FCS, 2017. The City of Dublin’s Municipal Code Section 5.28.020 prohibits any person within the City from making any loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-22 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace, or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. Furthermore, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR identified noise impacts related to construction noise (Impact 3.10/E). Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0, and 3.10/5.0 were identified to reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring construction noise management programs and compliance with local noise standards for construction projects that could impact existing residential land uses. Documented existing traffic noise levels nearest Receptor-1 and Receptor-2, west of the project site, are 61.2 dBA CNEL; existing traffic noise levels adjacent to Receptor-3 location northeast of the project site are 63.4 dBA CNEL. The loudest calculated noise levels during any construction phase of the project would range up to 62.1 dBA Leq at Receptor-1 and up to 63.0 dBA Leq at Receptor-3 location. Therefore, worst-case construction noise levels would exceed daytime ambient noise levels at the nearest residential land uses by less than 2 dBA over existing background noise levels. Increases of less than 3 dBA are considered less than perceptible in outdoor environments. However, if construction were to occur during the quieter, more sensitive evening or nighttime hours, construction noise levels could result in annoyance or even sleep disturbance of the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) NOI-1 requiring compliance with best management practice construction noise reduction measures and restrictions on permissible hours of construction would ensure that construction noise would not result in annoyance or disturbance or injury or endangerment of the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the project vicinity. In addition, the project must comply with Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0, and 3.10/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. Impact 3.10/E identified noise impacts related to construction noise. These mitigation measures were identified to reduce potential construction noise impacts to less than significant through requiring construction noise management programs and compliance with local noise standards for construction projects that could impact existing residential land uses. Traffic Noise Impacts to On-site Receptors A significant impact would occur for the proposed project if it would be exposed to transportation noise levels in excess of the City’s “normally acceptable” land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA CNEL for new commercial land uses. Environments with ambient noise ranging from 71 dBA CNEL to 75 dBA CNEL are considered “Conditionally Acceptable” for new commercial land uses. In addition, Policy 6-44 of the East Dublin Specific Plan requires development along the I-580 frontage to provide adequate mitigation to conform to the State Land Use Compatibility Standards for noise and policies and standards in the City of Dublin’s Noise Element. Project related traffic noise impacts to off-site sensitive receptors are analyzed in Impact NOI-3. The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate existing and project-related traffic noise conditions along modeled roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site. This model requires parameters—including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry—to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. Traffic modeling was performed using the data obtained from the project-specific traffic study conducted by Fehr & Peers. This traffic study provides data for existing (year 2017), City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-23 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx near-term, and cumulative conditions. The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour period to determine the CNEL values. The projected future traffic noise levels on roadways adjacent to the project site were analyzed to determine compliance with the City’s land use compatibility standards. The traffic noise modeling input and output files—including the 60 dBA, 65 dBA, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contour distances—are included in Appendix E. Table 3.4-9 shows a summary of the traffic noise levels for existing (year 2017) and near-term (as defined in the traffic study) scenarios for with and without project conditions as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. Table 3.4-10 shows a summary of the traffic noise levels for the cumulative scenario (as defined in the traffic study) for with and without project conditions as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. Table 3.4-9: Existing and Near-term Traffic Noise Modeling Results Roadway Segment CNEL (dBA) 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane Existing No Project Existing + Project Increase over Existing No Project (dBA) Near Term No Project Near Term + Project Increase over No Project (dBA) Dublin Boulevard—DeMarcus Boulevard to Iron Horse Parkway 69.5 69.8 0.3 71.2 71.5 0.3 Dublin Boulevard—Iron Horse Parkway to Arnold Road 69.2 69.5 0.3 71.1 71.3 0.2 Dublin Boulevard—Arnold Road to Persimmon place 68.3 68.3 0.0 70.4 70.4 0.0 Dublin Boulevard—Persimmon place to Hacienda Drive 68.1 68.1 0.0 70.5 70.5 0.0 Hacienda Drive—Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway 63.4 63.5 0.1 64.6 64.7 0.1 Hacienda Drive—Central Parkway to Gleason Drive 62.6 62.7 0.1 63.7 63.8 0.1 Arnold Road—Dublin Boulevard to Martinelli Way 57.0 60.4 3.4 59.8 62.0 2.2 Martinelli Way—Arnold Road to Persimmon Place 61.2 63.6 2.4 62.8 64.6 1.8 Martinelli Way—Persimmon Place to Hacienda Drive 63.2 65.9 2.7 63.8 66.2 2.4 Hacienda Drive—Martinelli Way to Dublin Boulevard 64.8 65.1 0.3 65.9 66.1 0.2 Dublin Boulevard—Hacienda Drive to Hibernia Drive 68.2 68.4 0.2 70.6 70.7 0.1 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-24 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx Table 3.4-9 (cont.): Existing and Near-term Traffic Noise Modeling Results Roadway Segment CNEL (dBA) 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane Existing No Project Existing + Project Increase over Existing No Project (dBA) Near Term No Project Near Term + Project Increase over No Project (dBA) Dublin Boulevard—Hibernia Drive to Myrtle Drive 67.8 68.2 0.4 70.4 70.5 0.1 Dublin Boulevard—Myrtle Drive to Glynnis Rose Drive 68.2 68.4 0.2 70.5 70.7 0.2 I-580—East of Hopyard Road 80.6 80.6 0.0 80.6 80.6 0.0 Notes: 1 Modeling results do not take into account mitigating features such as topography, vegetative screening, fencing, building design, or structure screening. Rather it assumes a worst case of having a direct line of site on flat terrain. 2 Interstate 10 year 2040 projections assume same as current modeled traffic volumes since this roadway is already operating above maximum reasonable free-flow vehicles per lane per hour. Traffic data obtained from Caltrans Traffic Census Program 2015 Traffic Volumes data. Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2017. Table 3.4-10: Cumulative Traffic Noise Modeling Results Roadway Segment CNEL (dBA) 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane Cumulative Without Project Cumulative + Project Increase over No Project (dBA) Dublin Boulevard—DeMarcus Boulevard to Iron Horse Parkway 72.2 72.4 0.2 Dublin Boulevard—Iron Horse Parkway to Arnold Road 71.9 72.1 0.2 Dublin Boulevard—Arnold Road to Persimmon place 71.6 71.6 0.0 Dublin Boulevard—Persimmon place to Hacienda Drive 71.8 71.9 0.1 Hacienda Drive—Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway 65.3 65.4 0.1 Hacienda Drive—Central Parkway to Gleason Drive 64.1 64.1 0.0 Arnold Road—Dublin Boulevard to Martinelli Way 63.5 64.6 1.1 Martinelli Way—Arnold Road to Persimmon Place 67.1 67.9 0.8 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-25 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx Table 3.4-10 (cont.): Cumulative Traffic Noise Modeling Results Roadway Segment CNEL (dBA) 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane Cumulative Without Project Cumulative + Project Increase over No Project (dBA) Martinelli Way—Persimmon Place to Hacienda Drive 67.1 68.5 1.4 Hacienda Drive—Martinelli Way to Dublin Boulevard 66.9 67.1 0.2 Dublin Boulevard—Hacienda Drive to Hibernia Drive 71.8 71.9 0.1 Dublin Boulevard—Hibernia Drive to Myrtle Drive 71.7 71.8 0.1 Dublin Boulevard—Myrtle Drive to Glynnis Rose Drive 71.8 71.9 0.1 I-580—East of Hopyard Road 80.6 80.6 0.0 Notes: 1 Modeling results do not take into account mitigating features such as topography, vegetative screening, fencing, building design, or structure screening. Rather it assumes a worst case of having a direct line of site on flat terrain. 2 Interstate 10 year 2040 projections assume same as current modeled traffic volumes since this roadway is already operating above maximum reasonable free-flow vehicles per lane per hour. Traffic data obtained from Caltrans Traffic Census Program 2015 Traffic Volumes data. Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2017. As shown in Table 3.4-9, traffic noise levels along I-580 East of Hopyard Road and adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site would range up to 80.6 dBA CNEL as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the nearest travel lane under existing plus project conditions and near term plus project conditions. The nearest proposed structure to I-580 is the two-story IKEA building located on the western side of the project site. The southern façade of this building would be located approximately 300 feet from the centerline of I-580. At this distance, traffic noise levels from I-580 would range up to approximately 74 dBA CNEL at the nearest façade of the IKEA building. These noise levels are within the City’s “conditionally acceptable” designation which ranges from 70 to 75 dBA CNEL for new commercial land use developments. The project would not include any new noise-sensitive land uses. While the project would include outdoor active use areas in the western, retail portion of the project site, these areas would be more than 300 feet from the centerline of I-580 and would be primarily shielded from adjacent roadway noise by surrounding buildings. Because of shielding and distance attenuation, traffic noise levels are anticipated to range up to 64 dBA CNEL at the nearest proposed outdoor active use areas on the project site. This is well below the City’s “normally acceptable” land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA CNEL for new commercial land uses. Therefore, traffic noise impacts to the proposed project would be less than significant. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-26 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx Stationary Noise Source Impacts to Off-site Receptors The proposed project would include new stationary noise sources such as parking lot activities, delivery truck loading and unloading activities, and rooftop mechanical ventilation systems. The City’s Municipal Code contains a performance standard that addresses noise levels associated with the operation of mechanical equipment; however, this standard does not address noise levels associated with other types of stationary noise sources. The Impact NOI-3 discussion addresses the cumulative impact of the new stationary noise sources at the proposed project site, including parking lot activities and truck loading and unloading activities and whether they would contribute to a substantial increase in existing ambient noise levels at off-site receptors. A significant impact would occur if the proposed rooftop mechanical ventilation systems resulted in noise levels at off-site receptors that would exceed the noise performance standard established by the City’s Municipal Code. According to the City ’s Municipal Code, Section 8.36.060(C)(3), for lots 5,000 square feet or larger, mechanical equipment (such as swimming pool, spa and air conditioning equipment) that generates noise when located within a required setback, and within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence, or an existing paved patio area on an adjoining property, shall be enclosed as necessary to reduce noise at the property line to a maximum of 50 dBA at any time. However, the proposed project would not include any mechanical equipment that generates noise that would be located within the required setback. Nor would the project include any on-site stationary noise sources that would be located within 10 feet of an existing or potential residence, or an existing paved patio area on an adjoining property. Therefore, the project would meet the mechanical equipment noise performance requirements of Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.36.060(C)(3), and no mitigation would be necessary. A significant impact would also occur if the proposed rooftop mechanical ventilation systems resulted in noise levels at off-site receptors that would violate Dublin Municipal Code Section 5.28.020 which prohibits any person within the City from making any loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. At the time of preparation of this analysis, details were not available pertaining to proposed mechanical ventilation systems for the project; therefore, a reference noise level for typical commercial mechanical ventilation systems was used. Noise levels from typical commercial mechanical ventilation equipment are anticipated to range up to approximately 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. Mechanical ventilation systems would be located more than 1,000 feet to the nearest off-site receptors which are the multi-family residential homes northeast of the project site. In addition, the proposed rooftop parapet would be anticipated to provide a minimum of 3 dBA shielding reduction. The size of the proposed IKEA building would require multiple rooftop ventilation units. Assuming that the nearest 10 rooftop units were operating simultaneously and continuously for a full hour, the resulting combined noise level would attenuate to approximately 26 dBA Leq at the nearest off-site residential receptor property line. These modeling calculations and all assumptions are provided in Appendix E. These calculated worst-case noise levels are well below the documented existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of these sensitive receptors shown in City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-27 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx the existing conditions discussion above. Therefore, the project would not result in noise levels from stationary noise sources that would be considered loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual, or which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace, or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. As a result, operation of proposed mechanical ventilation equipment would not violate the City’s noise standards. The impact would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM NOI-1 To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi-part mitigation measure shall be implemented for the proposed project: • The project shall comply with Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR requiring development projects in the project area to submit a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents. • The project shall comply with Mitigation Measures 3.10/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR requiring all construction operations to comply with local noise standards and be limited to normal daylight hours. All stationary equipment shall be adequately muffled and located away from sensitive receptors. • The construction contractor shall limit all on-site noise-producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily. • The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine- driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction- related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-28 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx measures warranted to correct the problem, as deemed acceptable by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. The construction contractor shall conspicuously post the contact name and telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Groundborne Vibration Impact NOI-2: The project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impact Analysis This section analyzes both groundborne vibration and operational vibration. The City of Dublin and the State of California have not adopted criteria or regulations for groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the FTA’s damage criteria are utilized. A significant impact would occur for the proposed land use development if structures in the project vicinity would be exposed to groundborne vibration levels in excess of the FTA’s damage criteria. The FTA has established industry accepted standards for vibration impact criteria and impact assessment. These guidelines are published in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document (2006). The FTA guidelines include thresholds for construction vibration impacts for various structural categories as shown in Table 3.4-6. Short-term Construction Vibration Impacts to Off-site Receptors Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of a construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels. Table 3.4-3 gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities in a wide range of soil conditions. Impact equipment such as pile drivers is not expected to be used during construction of this project. Of the variety of equipment used during construction, the vibratory rollers that would be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Large vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.210 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the operating equipment. The nearest off-site receptor is the commercial buildings located on the north side of the project site, approximately 200 feet from the nearest project boundary where the heaviest construction equipment would potentially operate. At this distance groundborne vibration levels could range up to 0.0093 PPV. This is well below the industry-standard construction vibration damage criterion of 0.2 PPV for this type of structure: buildings of non-engineered timber and masonry construction (see Table 3.4-6). Therefore, the impact of short-term groundborne vibration on off-site receptors would be less than significant. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-29 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx Operational Vibration Impacts Implementation of the project would not include any permanent sources of groundborne vibration that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the project vicinity. In addition, there are no existing significant permanent sources of groundborne vibration in the project vicinity to which the proposed project would be exposed. The project site is located more than 50 feet from the closest lane on I-580 and more than 150 feet from the BART tracks; these distances would be sufficient to attenuate any vibration from these transportation sources to levels that would not be perceptible within the project site. Therefore, project operational groundborne vibration level impacts would be considered less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact NOI-3: The project could result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impact Analysis Significant noise impacts to off-site receptors would occur if the project would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared with noise levels existing without the project. A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments, while a change of 5 dBA is considered the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the proposed project would result in a significant noise impact when a permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 dB occurs upon project implementation and the resulting noise level exceeds the conditionally acceptable exterior standard at a noise-sensitive use. Upon project implementation, if the resulting noise levels do not exceed the applicable exterior noise standard at a noise-sensitive use, then an increase of 5 dBA would be considered significant. The highest traffic noise level increase with implementation of the project would occur along Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and Martinelli Way under existing plus project conditions. Along this roadway segment, the project would result in an increase of 3.4 dBA under existing plus project conditions. The resulting traffic noise level would range up to 60.4 dBA CNEL along this roadway segment as measured at 50 feet from the outermost travel lane under plus project conditions. This resulting noise level is within the General Plan Noise Element’s normally acceptable range of less than 70 dBA CNEL for commercial retail and office land uses (adjacent land uses along this roadway segment are commercial retail land uses). Therefore, the applicable threshold for a substantial City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Noise Draft Supplemental EIR 3.4-30 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx increase would be an increase of 5 dBA or greater over background noise levels existing without the project. This increase is below the 5 dBA increase that would be considered a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels compared with noise levels that would exist without the project. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Delivery truck loading/unloading activities typically result in maximum noise levels from 75 dBA to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. These activities are expected to occur intermittently throughout the day, as trucks arrive and leave the parking lot areas for deliveries. The nearest off-site sensitive receptor would be the multi-family residential homes northwest of the project site. This receptor would be located more than 1,000 feet from the nearest loading dock where loading and unloading activities would take place. At this distance, noise levels generated by truck loading and unloading activities would range up to 59 dBA Lmax. As indicated by the short-term noise monitoring data, ambient noise levels in the area range up to approximately 86.3 dBA Lmax during the day. Therefore, noise levels generated by truck loading and unloading activities would not exceed or increase existing ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. The impact would be less than significant. Typical parking lot activities include people conversing, doors shutting, or vehicles idling generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. These activities are expected to occur intermittently throughout the day, as visitors and employees arrive and leave the parking lot areas. The nearest off-site receptors would be multi-family residential housing located approximately 800 feet to the northeast from the nearest acoustic center of parking lot activity. Assuming that each parking stall nearest this closest receptor were to fill and empty during the peak noise hour (resulting in 22 total parking events), the noise level could range up to 54 dBA Leq during the peak noise hour at the nearest receptor. The short-term measurement found that hourly average noise levels on the northeast corner of the site range up to 68.4 dBA Leq. As a result, parking lot activities would not exceed or increase existing noise levels at the nearest sensitive land use. The impact of noise produced by project-related parking lot activities on sensitive off-site receptors would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Noise FirstCarbon Solutions 3.4-31 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-04 Noise.docx Substantial Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact NOI-4: The project could result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impact Analysis Construction noise impacts were previously analyzed in the Impact NOI-1 discussion. As shown in that discussion, the closest off-site residential structures would be located approximately 830 feet to the northeast from the project property line. At this distance, construction noise levels at the closest residential land use could be exposed to noise levels of up to approximately 60.1 dBA Lmax with a worst case hourly average of 63.0 dBA Leq, intermittently, when multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment operate simultaneously at the nearest construction boundaries. As shown in Impact NOI- 1 discussion, these worst-case construction noise levels would exceed daytime ambient noise levels at the nearest residential land uses by less than 2 dBA over existing background noise levels. Increases of less than 3 dBA are considered less than perceptible in outdoor environments. Therefore, restricting noise-producing construction operations to daytime hours would ensure that construction noise levels would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest sensitive receptor land uses in the project vicinity. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, requiring compliance with best management practice construction noise reduction measures and restrictions on permissible hours of construction would ensure that construction noise would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels, and this impact would be considered less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐1  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  3.5 ‐ Public Services and Utilities  3.5.1 ‐ Introduction  This section describes the existing public services and utilities and potential effects from project  implementation on the site and its surrounding area.  Descriptions and analysis in this section are  based on information provided by the Alameda County Fire Department, the Alameda County  Sheriff’s Office, Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), City of Dublin Public Works  Department  and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.  Supporting information is  provided in Appendix H.  3.5.2 ‐ Environmental Setting  Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services  The Alameda County Fire Department provides fire protection, emergency medical services, and  public assistance to the City of Dublin.  The Fire Department also serves the cities of Emeryville,  Newark, San Leandro, and Union City, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Lawrence  Livermore National Laboratory, and unincorporated areas of Alameda County.  The Fire  Department’s service area is 508 square miles and has a service population of 394,000 persons.  Fire Stations  The Fire Department has four stations in the City of Dublin, three of which are staffed and the other  used for reserve purposes.  The three staffed stations are summarized in Table  3.5‐1.  Table  3.5‐1: Fire Station Summary  Station  No. Address  Distance to  Project Site Apparatus and Staffing  16 7494 Donohue Drive 2.4 miles One engine company with three personnel and  Advanced Life Support Capabilities  17 6200 Madigan Drive 1.5 miles One engine and one tiller truck company.  Each  apparatus has three personnel and Advanced Life  Support Capabilities for a total of six personnel at this  station.  18 4800 Fallon Road 3.2 miles One engine company with three personnel and  Advanced Life Support Capabilities  Source: Alameda County Fire Department, 2017.    Organization and Staffing  The Fire Department is organized into four battalions consisting of 27 engine companies, five tiller  trucks, two Quints, and one heavy rescue vehicle.  The Fire Department has 486 authorized positions  and 100 reserve firefighters.  The Fire Department also staffs specialized response teams for  hazardous materials, urban search and rescue, and water rescue.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐2 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  As shown in Table  3.5‐1, Stations 16 and 18 are staffed with one engine company and three  personnel.  Station 17 is staffed with one engine and one tiller truck with three personnel each for a  total of six personnel at the station.  Calls for Service  In Fiscal Year  2016–2017, the Fire Department responded to a total of 3,108 calls in the City of  Dublin.  Response Time  The Fire Department’s average response times are reported to the City of Dublin on a quarterly  basis.  According to the September 1, 2017 Standards of Cover Review, prepared by Citygate  Associates, the Fire Department responds to 90 percent of all incidences within 7 minutes, 23  seconds.  This is within 23 seconds of a Department‐wide call to arrival goal of 7 minutes, 30  seconds.  According to the Citygate report, it would not be cost‐effective to add stations to gain the  23 seconds.   Aid Agreements  The Fire Department participates in the following aid agreements:   Livermore‐Pleasanton Fire Department (Automatic Aid)   Alameda County Mutual Aid Plan (all other fire agencies within Alameda County)   California Master Mutual Aid Plan    Law Enforcement  The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement to the City of Dublin on a contract  basis (known locally as “Dublin Police Services”).  Criminal investigations, crime prevention, and  some business office functions are performed at the Dublin Civic Center (100 Civic Center), while  dispatch and some data processing functions are handled at Sheriff’s Office facilities in Oakland and  San Leandro.  Organization and Staffing  Dublin Police Services have 55 sworn officers and four Sheriff’s technicians assigned to the duty  station at the Dublin Civic Center.  Four City of Dublin civilian employees provide support services for  the Dublin Police.  Calls for Service  The Dublin Police responded to 37,323 calls for service in 2016.  Response Times  Dublin Police Services average response time to priority calls is just over 5 minutes.  This response  time standard meets the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Standards and the industry average of  5 minutes.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐3  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  Schools  Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) provides K–12 education to school age children within the  Dublin city limits.  As of Academic Year  2016–2017, DUSD had a total enrollment of 10,680 students.   DUSD operates 11 schools, consisting of seven elementary schools (K–5), two middle schools (6–8),  one high school (9–12), and one continuation school (10–12).  The nearest school to the project site  is James Dougherty Elementary School, located 0.30 mile to the northeast.  Parks and Recreational Facilities  The City of Dublin and East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) operate park and recreational  facilities within the Dublin city limits.  The City’s current park system includes 18 parks, including a water park, heritage park, dog park, and  two open space areas.  The City also operates four  Class I trail networks.  A Class I trail on the north  side of Dublin Boulevard is the closest City‐owned recreational facility to the project site.  EBRPD operates regional parks and trails within Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.  Within Dublin,  EBRPD operates the Dublin Hills Regional Park and the Iron Horse Trail.  The Iron Horse Trail  is the  closest facility to the project site, passing through the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.  Potable and Recycled Water   DSRSD was formed in 1953 and provides potable water to a service area that consists of the City of  Dublin and the Dougherty Valley portion of the City of San Ramon.  The population of the water  service area is approximately 84,000.  Water  Distribution System  The DSRSD water system consists of 16 reservoirs (tanks), 319 miles of potable water pipelines, and  66.7 miles of recycled water pipelines.  Water  Supply  DSRSD obtains its water supply from Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,  Zone 7 (Zone 7), a multi‐purpose agency that oversees water‐related issues in the Livermore‐Amador  Valley.  Zone 7 is a State Water Project contractor that wholesales treated water to four retail water  agencies in the Tri ‐Valley area (DSRSD, City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, and California Water  Service Company‐Livermore District), retails non‐potable water supplies for irrigated agricultural use,  retails treated water to several direct costumers, provides and maintains flood control facilities, and  manages groundwater and surface water supplies in its service area.  DSRSD has a groundwater  Basin (Main Basin), which Zone 7 pumps on DSRSD’s behalf as part of its water contract.  DSRSD’s water supply is augmented with recycled water from its Recycled Water Treatment  Facilities.   DSRSD owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant that treats wastewater from Dublin, South  San Ramon, and Pleasanton.  The wastewater treatment plant includes conventional secondary  treatment facilities, as well as tertiary and advanced recycled water treatment facilities.  The  DSRSD—East Bay Municipal Utility Recycled Water Authority (DERWA) operates the San Ramon  Valley Recycled Water Program, a multi‐phased project that distributes recycled water from the  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐4 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  Recycled Water Treatment  Facilities to portions of DSRSD’s and East Bay Municipal Utility (EBMUD)  District service areas.  Zone 7  Zone 7 uses a combination of water supplies and water storage facilities to meet the municipal and  industrial demands of its four retailers (DSRSD, City of Pleasanton, City of Livermore, and California  Water  Service Company).  These include the following:   Imported surface water from the State Water Project;     Imported surface water transferred from the Byron Bethany Irrigation District;     Local surface water runoff captured in Del Valle Reservoir;     Local groundwater extracted from the Livermore Valley Groundwater Main Basin;     Local storage in the Chain‐of‐Lakes; and     Non‐local groundwater storage in the Semitropic Water Storage District and Cawelo Water  District.     Future local storage in the Chain‐of‐Lakes    State Water  Project (SWP)  In November 1961, Zone 7 entered into a 75‐year agreement with the Department of Water   Resources (DWR) to receive water from the State Water Project (SWP).  The SWP is the nation’s  largest publicly built water storage and conveyance system and currently serves over 25 million  people throughout California.  SWP water originates within the Feather River watershed, is captured  in and released from Lake Oroville, and flows through the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta before it is  conveyed by the South Bay Aqueduct to Zone 7 or by the California Aqueduct to other south‐of‐ Delta SWP contractors.  The South Bay Aqueduct also delivers water to other water suppliers, namely Santa Clara Valley   Water  District and Alameda County Water  District.  Lake Del Valle is part of the South Bay Aqueduct  system and is used for storage of SWP water, as well as local runoff.  At Zone 7, SWP water is used to  meet treated water demands from municipal and industrial customers (both wholesale and retail)  and untreated water demands from agricultural customers.  It is also used to artificially recharge the  local groundwater basin or to fill non‐local storage.  Table A Allocation  The primary allocation agreement between DWR and its SWP contractors is recorded in Articles  12(a) and 18(a) of the agreements and is based on each contractor’s annual water delivery request.   Each contractor is limited to an annual contractual amount as specified in Article 6(c) and Table  A.   Zone 7’s current agreement or contract with DWR is for the delivery of up to 80,619 acre‐feet per  year (af/yr).  This contract expires in 2036 with an option to renew for 75 years.  In practice, the  actual amount of SWP water available to Zone 7 under the Table  A allocation process varies from  year to year, due to hydrologic conditions, water demands of other contractors, SWP facility capacity,  and environmental/regulatory requirements.  In December 2014, DWR issued the Final State Water  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐5  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  Project Delivery Reliability Report 2013, which estimates a long‐term average yield of 60 percent of  Table  A amounts, equivalent to 48,400 af/yr for Zone 7.  As an SWP contractor, Zone 7 has the option to carry over unused Table  A water from one year to  the next when there is available storage in San Luis Reservoir.  This “carryover” water is also called  Article 12e and 56c water.  Article 12e water must be taken by March 31 of the following year, but  Article 56c water may be carried over as long as San Luis Reservoir storage is available.    Article 21 Water (Interruptible or Surplus Water)  Under Article 21 of Zone 7’s contract with DWR, Zone 7 also has access to excess water supply from  the SWP that is available only if (1) it does not interfere with SWP operations or Table  A allocations;  (2) excess water is available in the Delta; and (3) it will not be stored in the SWP system.  According  to the State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2015, the projected yield from Article 21 is very  low and does not represent a significant water supply for Zone 7.  Article 56d Water (SWP Multi‐Year  Pool)  Article 56d is a contract provision that allows SWP contractors with unused Table  A water to sell their  water to contractors who have water needs that exceed their allocation for the year.  This water was  previously referred to as the “Turnback Pool” but is now referred to as the “SWP Multi‐Year  Pool.”   Historically, only a few SWP contractors have been in a position to make such water available for  purchase, particularly in normal or dry years.    Yuba  Accord  In 2008, Zone 7 entered into a contract with DWR to purchase additional water under the Lower  Yuba River Accord (Yuba Accord).  The contract expires in 2025.  There are four different types  (“Components”) of water available; Zone 7 has the option to purchase Components 2 and 3 water  during drought conditions, and Component 4 water when the Yuba  County Water Agency has  determined that it has water supply available to sell.  The annual amount of water supply available to Zone 7 during dry years under the Yuba Accord is  relatively small.  Zone 7 estimates a long‐term average yield of supplies under the Yuba Accord to be  250 af/yr.  Zone’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan assumes that Component 4 water will not be  available under any scenario.  Byron Bethany Irrigation District  The Byron Bethany Irrigation District diverts water from the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta pursuant  to a “Notice of Appropriation of Water” dated May 18, 1914.  Zone 7 entered into a 15‐year contract  with Byron Bethany Irrigation District, renewable every 5 years, for a minimum yield of 2,000 af/yr  and up to 5,000 af/yr of water supply under this appropriation.  Water purchased from Byron  Bethany Irrigation District is delivered to Zone 7 via the South Bay Aqueduct.  The current contract  was extended through 2030, with an option to extend through 2039.  Zone’s 2015 Urban Water   Management Plan assumes that 2,000 af/yr will be available in average and multiple dry years;  however, no water would be available in single dry years.    City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐6 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  Local Surface Water  Runoff  Zone 7, along with Alameda County Water District, has water right permits to divert flows from  Arroyo del Valle.  Runoff from the Arroyo del Valle watershed above Lake Del Valle  is stored in the  lake, which is managed by DWR.  As noted above, Lake Del Valle is also used to store imported  surface water deliveries from the SWP.  In late summer/early fall, DWR typically lowers lake levels in  anticipation of runoff from winter storm events, and to provide flood control capacity.  Water  supply  in Lake Del Valle is made available to Zone 7 via the South Bay Aqueduct through operating  agreements with DWR.  Inflows to Lake Del Valle, after accounting for permit conditions, are equally  divided between Alameda County Water District and Zone 7.    Local Storage  Zone 7 has three options for local storage: storage in Lake Del Valle, storage in the local groundwater  basin, and, in the future, surface storage in the Chain of Lakes.  Each of these is described below.  Lake Del Valle   Lake Del Valle is a reservoir used to store runoff from the Arroyo del Valle watershed above the lake  and to store imported surface water deliveries from the SWP.  While the lake has a nominal capacity  of 77,000 acre‐feet, it normally stores from 25,000 to 40,000 acre‐feet, with the remaining capacity  left available for flood control.  The storage capacity available to Zone 7 ranges from 7,000 to 10,000  acre‐feet annually depending on lake drawdown and hydrology.  Livermore Valley  Groundwater Basin  Zone 7 overlies the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (Main Basin).  The Main Basin is the portion  of the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin that contains high‐yielding aquifers and good‐quality  groundwater.  It has an estimated storage capacity of about 254,000 acre‐feet.  DWR has not  identified the Main Basin (DWR Basin No. 2‐10) as either a basin in overdraft or a basin expected to  be in overdraft.  Detailed descriptions of the Main Basin are available in Zone 7’s Groundwater  Management Plan, the Zone 7 2015 UWMP, and the DSRSD 2015 UWMP.  It should be noted that for Zone 7, the Basin is considered a storage facility and not a long‐term  water supply, because Zone 7 does not have a groundwater‐pumping quota and only pumps  groundwater it has previously artificially recharged using its surface water supplies.  Zone 7 administers oversight of the Main Basin as part of its Groundwater Management Program.  As  part of its conjunctive use program, Zone 7’s policy is to maintain groundwater levels above historic  lows in the Main Basin through artificial recharge of SWP water or locally stored runoff from Arroyo  del Valle.  Currently, this is accomplished by releasing water to the arroyos for subsequent  percolation and replenishment of the aquifers.  Zone 7 established historic lows based on the lowest  measured groundwater elevations in various wells in the Main Basin; historic lows correspond to a  groundwater storage volume of about 128,000 acre‐feet.  In general, the difference between water  surface elevations when the Main Basin is full and water surface elevations when the Main Basin is  at historic lows defines Zone 7’s operational storage.  Operational storage is about 126,000 acre‐feet   based on Zone 7’s experience operating the Main Basin.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐7  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  Chain of Lakes—Lake I and Cope Lake  The Chain of Lakes refers to a series of 10 mined‐out or active gravel quarry pits that have been or  will be transferred to Zone 7 for water resources applications.  These might include surface storage  of stormwater or other local runoff, surface storage of water from the SWP, and/or use as  groundwater recharge basins once mining has been completed.  The 10 quarry pits or lakes are  named Cope Lake and Lakes A through I.  Although the Chain of Lakes will ultimately cover  approximately 2,000 acres and store approximately 100,000 acre‐feet of water, Zone 7 currently  owns only Cope Lake and Lake I.  Zone 7 expects to take ownership of Lake H sometime within the  next few years.  The gravel mining companies currently mining Lakes A through G have notified Zone  7 that mining may extend well beyond 2030 and may not be completed until 2060.  Thus, Zone 7’s  water planning assumptions assume that only Cope Lake, Lake A, Lake H, and Lake I will be available  for storage.  Non‐Local Storage  In addition to local storage, Zone 7 also participates in two non‐local groundwater‐banking programs  located in Kern County.  Note that while these banking programs provide a water source during  drought years, they represent water previously stored from Zone 7’s surface water supplies during  wet years.  Therefore, they do not have a net contribution to Zone 7’s water supply over the long  term, and in fact result in some operational losses.  Furthermore, this banked water supply is only  available when the South Bay Aqueduct is operational.  Groundwater Supply  DSRSD Groundwater Pumping Quota  DSRSD, the California Water Service Company‐Livermore, and the cities of Livermore and  Pleasanton, through agreements with Zone 7, have mutually agreed to limit their extraction from the  Main Basin to a combined quantity of approximately 7,200 af/yr, about 54 percent of the long‐term  sustainable yield of the Main Basin.  This agreement along with Zone 7’s other groundwater  management activities keeps the groundwater budget essentially in balance under average  hydrologic conditions.  Each retailer has a groundwater pumping quota (known as GPQ).  DSRSD’s  GPQ is 645 af/yr.  In accordance with its agreement with Zone 7, DSRSD may obtain groundwater in  excess of its GPQ if it pays a recharge fee (per acre‐foot of groundwater extracted above the GPQ) to  Zone 7.  DSRSD does not itself extract groundwater as a water supply.  In accordance with its water supply  agreement with Zone 7, Zone 7 pumps DSRSD’s groundwater supply from a Zone 7 installed well in  the Mocho well field (Mocho No. 4), and this groundwater supply is then blended with water from  Zone 7’s other water supply sources and delivered to DSRSD.  This well was constructed on DSRSD  property (previously Camp Parks property) under a 2002 agreement between DSRSD and Zone 7  whereby DSRSD provided Zone 7 with access; Zone 7 paid all of the costs for the well, pump, and  building; and DSRSD has the annual option of requesting that Zone 7 pump and provide DSRSD’s  GPQ at a cost of only power, chemical, and some other incidental charges.  In addition to groundwater from the Main Basin, DSRSD may extract water above the 645 af/yr Main  Basin GPQ from areas outside the Main Basin (the Fringe Basin).  Water  can be pumped from the  Fringe Basin as long as this groundwater extraction does not have adverse effects on the Main Basin.    City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐8 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  In the past, DSRSD pumped water from the Fringe Basin when it owned wells along Dublin  Boulevard.  However, pumping from the Fringe Basin was abandoned in 1980 because of water  quality issues and pumping costs.  Historical and Projected Future Pumpage  The volume of groundwater pumped by Zone 7 for DSRSD from 2012 to 2016 is shown in Table  3.5‐2.  Table  3.5‐2: Groundwater Pumped by Zone 7 on DSRSD’s Behalf  Basin Name  Acre‐feet/Year  2012 2013 2014 2015 2016  Main Basin, Livermore Valley 645 645 645 645 645 Source: West Yost  Associates, 2016.    The volume of groundwater projected to be pumped by Zone 7 for future DSRSD water supply is  shown in Table  3.5‐3.  Historically, DSRSD’s groundwater supply demand has been constant, and  equal to the GPQ.  Table  3.5‐3: Groundwater Projected to be Pumped by Zone 7 on DSRSD’s Behalf  Basin Name  Acre‐feet/Year  2020 2025 2030 2035 2040  Main Basin, Livermore Valley 645 645 645 645 645 Source: West Yost  Associates, 2016.    Current Sustainable Yield and Groundwater Pumping Quotas  Long‐term natural sustainable yield is contractually defined as the average amount of groundwater  annually replenished by natural recharge in the Main Basin (through percolation of rainfall, natural  stream flow, and irrigation waters, and inflow of subsurface waters) and which can therefore be  pumped without lowering the long‐term average groundwater volume in storage.  In contrast,  “artificial recharge” is the aquifer replenishment that occurs from artificially induced or enhanced  stream flow, as described in the previous section.  With artificial recharge, more groundwater can be  sustainably extracted from the Main Basin each year.  The natural sustainable yield of the Main Basin has been determined to be about 13,400 af/yr, which  is 10 to 11 percent of the total estimated useable groundwater storage.  This long‐term natural  sustainable yield is based on over a century of hydrologic records and projections of future recharge  conditions.  Based on this sustainable yield value, California Water  Service Company, Livermore  District (Cal Water); DSRSD; the City of Livermore; and the City of Pleasanton—collectively referred  to as the Retailers—are permitted to pump 7,245 af/yr.  Each retailer has an established GPQ,  formerly referred to as the “Independent Quota” in the original Municipal and Industrial water  supply contract between Zone 7 and each retailer.  City of Pleasanton and Cal Water pump their own  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐9  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  GPQ; they are also permitted to pump groundwater in excess of their GPQ under a recharge fee paid  to Zone 7.  This fee covers the cost of importing and recharging additional water into the Main Basin.   Zone 7 pumps DSRSD’s GPQ.  The City of Livermore has not had any groundwater pumping capability  for the last 5 to 6 years and therefore has not pumped its GPQ over this time period.  Zone 7’s groundwater extraction for its treated water system does not use the natural sustainable  yield from the Main Basin; instead, Zone 7 pumps only water that has been previously recharged as  part of its artificial recharge program using its surface water supplies.  During high demands,  groundwater is used to supplement surface water supply delivered via the South Bay Aqueduct and  treated at one of the Zone 7’s two surface water treatment facilities.  Groundwater is also used when  the aqueduct is out of service because of maintenance and improvements or when Zone 7’s surface  water treatment plants are operating under reduced capacity caused by construction, repairs, etc.   Finally, Zone 7 uses its stored groundwater (both local and non‐local) under emergency or drought  conditions, when there may be insufficient surface water supply available.  Zone 7 also pumps  groundwater out of the Main Basin during normal water years to help reduce the salt loading in the  Main Basin.  To  achieve additional salt removal, a demineralization facility has been in operation  since 2009.  Zone 7 plans to recharge 9,200 af/yr on average, which means that Zone 7 can pump an  equivalent 9,200 af/yr on average from the Main Basin.  Reliability Intertie with East Bay Municipal Utility District  Zone 7 is currently working with EBMUD to design and construct a new intertie that would connect  Zone 7’s water system to EBMUD’s water system.  Once completed, the intertie will not only provide  a lifeline for Zone 7 during catastrophic events (e.g., record drought, earthquake in the Delta, or loss  of the South Bay Aqueduct), but it also will allow Zone 7 to participate in regional water supply  exchanges or access to another source of supply during planned outages.  Recycled Water  DSRSD currently treats and distributes recycled water to water customers in its service area.   Recycled water is produced from DSRSD’s regional wastewater treatment facilities.  DSRSD began its  recycled water program in the early 1990s by adopting Resolution No. 42‐9 in August 1992.  The  resolution set priorities and policies for the use and promotion of recycled water service within and  outside DSRSD’s water service area.  The policies were intended to assist DSRSD achieve the  following objectives:   Promote, produce, sell and deliver recycled water to retail and wholesale customers;     Manage the San Ramon Valley  Recycled Water Program (SRVRWP) on an equitable and self‐ supporting basis;     Work  with others to develop ordinances and guidelines to encourage the use of recycled water;     Develop local regulations and standards to ensure the safe and beneficial use of recycled  water; and     Conduct public information and customer service programs to ensure that the public has an  appropriate understanding of recycled water, including the benefits of using recycled water.    City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐10 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  DSRSD then adopted the “Water Recycling Business Plan Framework” in 1993 to establish the DSRSD  Recycled Water Enterprise.  Since that time, recycled water has been an integral part of water  planning at DSRSD.  In that same year, the City of Dublin certified an environmental impact report  (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.  The DSRSD service plan for  eastern Dublin is predicated upon the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation as summarized  in the EIR and subsequent annexation documentation.  Potable water supply requests to Zone 7 by  DSRSD for eastern Dublin under the “Contract between Zone 7 and DSRSD for a Municipal &  Industrial Water Supply” are the net of the eastern Dublin total water demands less the recycled  water to be provided by DSRSD.  DSRSD and EBMUD formed a Joint Powers Authority, DERWA, in 1995.  DERWA’s mission is to  provide a safe, reliable, and consistent supply of recycled water, and to maximize the amount of  recycled water delivered for non‐potable use.  DERWA operates the SRVRWP, a multi‐phased project  to supply recycled water from DSRSD’s Recycled Water Treatment  Facilities to portions of DSRSD’s  and EBMUD’s service areas.  In 1995, DSRSD also committed to providing water to Dougherty Valley.  The DSRSD service plan for  Dougherty Valley is also predicated upon the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation.  The  amount of potable water purchased for Dougherty Valley is the net of the Dougherty Valley total  water demands less the recycled water to be provided by DSRSD.  In April 1998, DSRSD adopted Ordinance No. 280, which established a Recycled Water Use Zone  within DSRSD’s service area consisting of all areas then receiving potable water services and those  additional areas designated for such service.  In April 2004, this ordinance was repealed and  replaced by Ordinance No. 301, which formally established the rules and regulations governing the  use of recycled water within DSRSD’s service area.  In November 2010, when DSRSD recodified its  code, DSRSD incorporated Ordinance No. 301 into the DSRSD Code and added DSRSD Code Section  3.20.110, Duty to Connect—Recycled Water, which requires that new development in DSRSD’s water  service area connect to recycled water for appropriate irrigation uses.  DSRSD’s wastewater treatment plant includes conventional secondary treatment facilities as well as  tertiary and advanced recycled water treatment facilities.  DSRSD’s conventional secondary  wastewater treatment facilities include primary sedimentation, activated sludge secondary  treatment, secondary sedimentation, chlorine disinfection, and effluent pumping.  The secondary  treatment facilities currently have an average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of 17.0 million  gallons per day (mgd).  At  projected buildout, the secondary facilities will have an ADWF capacity of  20.7 mgd; 10.4 mgd of this influent is projected to originate from the DSRSD service area.  The  remaining 10.3 mgd of influent is projected to originate from Pleasanton.  DSRSD treats Pleasanton  influent by contract.  In DSRSD’s RWTF (also known as the Jeffrey G. Hansen Water Recycling Plant), a portion of the  secondary effluent from the WWTP is treated further to produce Title 22 disinfected tertiary  recycled water.  During the dry season when recycled water demands are high, recycled water is  produced using sand filtration and ultraviolet disinfection facilities (SFUV).  The SFUV facilities have a  current treatment capacity of 9.7 mgd.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐11  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  Summary of Current and Projected Future Water Supplies  Table  3.5‐4 provides a summary of DSRSD’s current and projected future water supplies as presented  in the DSRSD 2015 UWMP.  As noted above, DSRSD’s future potable water demand will likely be  lower than projected in the 2015 UWMP, and thus potable supplies required from Zone 7 will also  likely be lower.  DSRSD’s future recycled water demand will likely be higher than projected in the  2015 UWMP; however, recycled water supplies are anticipated to increase with the recent  agreement with the City of Pleasanton.  Table  3.5‐4: DSRSD Current and Projected Future Water  Supplies  Water Source  Acre‐Feet/Year  2015 (Actual)2020 2025 2030 2035 2040  Purchased or Imported from Zone 7  Water Agency (includes groundwater)7,445 13,678 14,554 15,223 15,840 15,840  DSRSD Recycled Water 2,575 3,905 4,117 4,203 4,203 4,203 Total 10,024 17,583 18,671 19,426 20,043 20,043 Source: West Yost Associates, 2015.    Project Site Facilities  A 16‐inch‐diameter water line is located within Arnold Road, and 12‐inch and 8‐inch‐diameter water  lines are located within Martinelli Way, with a 6‐inch‐diameter service lateral serving the project site.  A single‐story masonry block utility building is located in the southeast corner of the site along  Arnold Road.  This building is owned and operated by DSRSD and serves as a “turnout” between the  Zone 7 water system and the DSRSD water system.  Wastewater  DSRSD provides wastewater collection and treatment service to the City of Dublin as well as to the  southern portion of the City of San Ramon.1  The wastewater service population is approximately  154,000.  Collection System  DSRSD’s collection system consists of 207 miles of 6‐inch‐ to 42‐inch‐diameter pipe.  The collection  system includes two inverted siphons, two creek crossings that are within the open channel, and one  lift station.  In the project vicinity, an 8‐inch‐diameter sewer line is located within Martinelli Way, with an 8‐inch‐ diameter service lateral serving the project site.                                                               1 The DSRSD wastewater service area within the City of San Ramon is larger than the water service area, which accounts for the  differences in service area population (154,000 vs. 84,000).  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐12 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  Treatment Facility  DSRSD owns and operates the Regional Wastewater  Treatment  Facility in the City of Pleasanton,  which treats wastewater from the cities of Dublin, South San Ramon, and Pleasanton.  (The  wastewater treatment facility treats Pleasanton influent on a contractual basis.)  The wastewater  treatment facility includes conventional secondary treatment facilities, as well as tertiary and  advanced recycled water treatment facilities.  Conventional secondary wastewater treatment facilities include primary sedimentation, activated  sludge secondary treatment, secondary sedimentation, chlorine disinfection, and effluent pumping.   The Regional Wastewater Treatment  Facility has a treatment capacity of 17.0 mgd.  The facility  currently treats an average of 10.74 mgd during dry‐weather and 12.48 mgd during wet‐weather as  of July 2017.  The Livermore Amador Valley  Water Management Agency disposes of treated wastewater for DSRSD  and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore.  The agency’s pipeline transports treated wastewater  from the DSRSD and Livermore treatment plants 16 miles to San Lorenzo, where it is discharged into  a deepwater outfall in San Francisco Bay.  Storm Drainage  Zone 7 oversees municipal storm drainage within the Dublin city limits.  Runoff that leaves the  project site sheet flows enters either the 42‐inch‐diameter line in Arnold Road or the 84‐inch‐ diameter line along I‐580, which empty into a storm drainage structure on the north side of I‐580.   From there, runoff is piped under I‐580 via a triple set of 54‐inch‐diameter storm drains to Chabot  Canal on the south side the freeway.  Chabot Canal conveys stormwater to Arroyo Mocho, which  outlets into South San Ramon Creek, which becomes Arroyo de La Laguna, and ultimately Alameda  Creek, which is tributary to San Francisco Bay.  Solid Waste  Amador Valley Industries provides solid waste and recycling collection services on a contractual basis  to commercial and residential customers in the City of Dublin.  Landfills  Solid waste from the City of Dublin is landfilled at the two facilities summarized in Table  3.5‐5.  As  shown in the table, the two landfills have 45.6 million cubic yards of remaining capacity available.  Table  3.5‐5: Landfill Summary  Facility Location  Permitted Daily  Throughput (tons)  Cubic Yards   Permitted Capacity Remaining Capacity  Altamont Landfill and  Resources Recovery  Facility  Livermore 11,500 62.0 million 40.0 million  Vasco Road Sanitary  Landfill Livermore 2,250 32.9 million 5.6 million  Source: Alameda County Waste  Management Agency, 2013.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐13  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  3.5.3 ‐ Regulatory Framework  Federal  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control  Act, municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Dublin are regulated under the San Francisco Bay  Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)  Permit, Order No. R2‐2009‐0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted October 14, 2009 and  revised November 28, 2011.  The Municipal Regional Permit is overseen by the Regional Water  Board.  The City of Fremont is a member agency of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water  Program,  which assists municipalities and other agencies in Alameda County with implementation of the  Municipal Regional Permit.  Provision C.3 addresses post‐construction stormwater management  requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that add and/or replace 10,000  square feet or more of impervious area.  Provision C.3 requires the incorporation of site design,  source control, and stormwater treatment measures into development projects in order to minimize  the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non‐stormwater discharges and to prevent  increases in runoff flows.  Low Impact Development (LID) methods are to be the primary mechanism  for implementing such controls.  Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management.  This  Municipal Regional Permit provision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase in  the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition.  Increases in runoff flow  and volume must be managed so that the post‐project runoff does not exceed estimated pre‐project  rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential  for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial  uses due to increased erosive force.  The Hydromodification Management Susceptibility Map,  developed by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, indicates that the Community Plan  area drains primarily to earthen channels and therefore projects implemented under the Community  Plan that create and/or replace 1 acre or more of impervious surface and increase impervious  surface over pre‐project conditions are subject to hydromodification management requirements.  State  California Urban Water  Management Planning Act  The Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water  Code Sections 10610–10656) requires  that all urban water suppliers prepare urban water management plans and update them every 5  years.  In preparing an Urban Water Management Plan, an urban water supplier must describe or  identify the following, among other things (as set forth in Water  Code Section 10631):    The service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and  other demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning;     Projected population estimates based on data from the state, regional, or local service agency  population projections within the service area, in five‐year increments to 20 years or as far as  data is available;    City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐14 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx   Past and current water use and projected water use;     Existing and planned sources of water for each five‐year increment of the 20‐year planning  period;     specific detailed information about groundwater where it is identified as an existing or  planned source of water available to the supplier;     All water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken to meet total  projected water use, including specific projects and the increase in water supply expected  from each project;     An estimate of the implementation timeline for each project or program;     Plans to supplement or replace any water source that may not be available at a consistent  level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors with  alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practicable;     The reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the  extent practicable, for (i) an average water year, (ii) a single‐dry water year, and (iii) [m]ultiple‐ dry water years;     Opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short‐term or long‐term basis;     Opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not limited to, ocean  water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long‐term supply; and     Water  demand management measures.     California Integrated Waste Management Act  To  minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of by transformation and land  disposal, the State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 939, the California Integrated Waste  Management Act of 1989, effective January 1990.  The legislation required each local jurisdiction in  the State to set diversion requirements of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000; established a  comprehensive statewide system of permitting, inspections, enforcement, and maintenance for solid  waste facilities; and authorized local jurisdictions to impose fees based on the types or amounts of  solid waste generated.  In 2007, Senate Bill (SB) 1016, Wiggins, Statutes of 2008, Chapter 343,  introduced a new per capita disposal and goal measurement system, which moves the emphasis  from an estimated diversion measurement number to using an actual disposal measurement  number as a per capita disposal rate factor.  As such, the new disposal‐based indicator (pounds per  person per year) uses only two factors: a jurisdiction’s population (or in some cases employment)  and its disposal as reported by disposal facilities.  Regional  Zone 7 Water  Agency  Zone 7 is responsible for providing flood protection to the residents of Eastern Alameda County.   Zone 7 owns and maintains drainage facilities within the Dublin city limits.  Drainage plans for  development projects must be reviewed by Zone 7 to ensure that the project does not propose any  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐15  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  impacts to downstream facilities.  In addition, development projects that involve work within Zone  7’s right‐of‐way or that involve construction, modification, or connection to a Zone 7 facility are  required to obtain an Encroachment Permit and comply with Zone 7 standards and specifications.  Dublin San Ramon Services District  DSRSD adopted Ordinance No. 323 in 2009 that set forth its Emergency Response Plan.  This plan is  implemented when the DSRSD Board of Directors declares a drought emergency.  The plan sets forth  Stages 1 through 4 that consist of incrementally more stringent water reduction measures for  activities such as landscape irrigation, swimming pools and spas, water theme parks, ornamental  water features, and washing of pavement, autos, boats, and buildings.  The plan was most recently  invoked beginning in 2014 and remained in effect until 2017.  Local  City of Dublin  General Plan  The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies  associated with public services and utilities that are relevant to the proposed project:   Guiding Policy 3.4.2.1: Provide active parks and facilities which are adequate to meet citywide  needs for open space, cultural, and sports facilities, as well as the local needs of the Eastern  Extended Planning Area.   Guiding Policy 3.4.2.2: Establish a trail system with connections to planned regional and sub‐ regional systems, including north‐south corridors such as East Bay Regional Park District’s trail  along Tassajara Creek north to Mt. Diablo State Park.   Implementing Policy 3.4.2.B.1: Require land dedication and improvements for the parks  designated in the General Plan for the Eastern Extended Planning Area and based on a  standard of 5 net acres per 1,000 residents.  Collect in‐lieu park fees as required by City  policies.   Guiding Policy 4.4.1.A.1: Ensure that adequate solid waste disposal capacity is available, to  avoid constraining development, consistent with the Dublin General Plan.   Implementing Policy 4.4.1.B.3: Prior to project approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that  capacity will exist in solid waste disposal facilities for their project prior to the issuance of  building permits.   Implementing Policy 4.4.1.B.4: Large scale projects should be required to submit a plan that  demonstrates how they will contribute toward the City’s State mandated diversion  requirement.   Guiding Policy 4.5.1.A.1: Expand sewage treatment and disposal capacity to avoid  constraining development consistent with the Dublin General Plan.   Implementing Policy 4.5.1.B.1: Prior to project approval, developers shall demonstrate that  adequate capacity will exist in sewage treatment and disposal facilities for their projects prior  to the issuance of building permits.   Guiding Policy 4.6.1.A.1: Base General Plan proposals on the assumption that water supplies  will be sufficient and that local wells could be used to supplement imported water if  necessary.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐16 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx   Guiding Policy 7.3.1.A.1: Maintain natural hydrologic systems.   Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.1: Enforce the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit for  stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water  Quality Control Board or any  subsequent permit as well as Chapter 7 (Public Works) and Chapter 9 (Subdivisions) of the  Dublin Municipal Code for maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses.     Implementing Policy 7.3.1.B.2: Review development proposals to ensure site design that  minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.   Guiding Policy 12.3.1.A.1: Work with Zone 7 and DSRSD to secure an adequate water supply  for, and provide water delivery to, existing and future customers in Dublin.   Implementing Policy 12.3.1.B.1: In anticipation of planned future growth, continue working  with DSRSD and Zone 7 to plan and provide for sufficient future water supplies.   Guiding Policy 12.3.2.A.1: Increase water conservation efforts and strive to maximize water  use efficiency in existing residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and grounds.   Guiding Policy 12.3.2.A.2: Support DSRSD in extending recycled water service to established  areas of Dublin.   Guiding Policy 12.3.3.A.1: Promote the conservation of water resources in new development   Implementing Policy 12.3.3.B.1: Continue implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape  Regulations, which requires grouping plants with the same water requirements together  (hydrozoning), the installation of water‐efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil  moisture‐based irrigation controls, and the minimal use of turf.   Implementing Policy 12.3.3.B.2: Support DSRSD’s ongoing efforts to extend recycled water  infrastructure (“purple pipe”) to new locations.   Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.1: Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater  resources that serve the community.   Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.2: Protect water quality by minimizing stormwater runoff and  providing adequate stormwater facilities.   Guiding Policy 12.3.5.A.3: To  minimize flooding in existing and future development, design  stormwater facilities to handle design‐year flows based on buildout of the General Plan.   Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.1: Support Zone 7’s efforts to complete planned regional storm  drainage improvements.   Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.2: With the goal of minimizing impervious surface area,  encourage design and construction of new streets to have the minimum vehicular travel lane  width possible while still meeting circulation, flow, and safety requirements for all modes of  transportation.   Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.3: Discourage additional parking over and above the required  minimum parking standards for any land use unless the developer can demonstrate a need for  additional parking.   Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.5: Review design guidelines and standard details to ensure that  developers can incorporate clean water runoff requirements into their projects.   Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.6: Maximize the runoff directed to permeable areas or to  stormwater storage by appropriate site design and grading, using appropriate detention  and/or retention structures, and orienting runoff toward permeable surfaces designed to  manage water flow.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐17  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx   Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.7: Review development plans to minimize impervious surfaces  and generally maximize infiltration of rainwater in soils, where appropriate.  Strive to  maximize permeable areas to allow more percolation of runoff into the ground through such  means as bioretention areas, green strips, planter strips, decomposed granite, porous pavers,  swales, and other water‐permeable surfaces.  Require planter strips between the street and  the sidewalk within the community, wherever practical and feasible.   Implementing Policy 12.3.5.B.8: Continue conducting construction site field inspections to  ensure proper erosion control and materials/waste management implementation to  effectively prohibit non‐stormwater discharges.    Eastern Dublin Specific Plan    GOAL: To  ensure that fire protection services in eastern Dublin are consistent with standards  maintained in the rest of the city.   Policy 8‐5: Time the construction of new facilities to coincide with new service demand in  order to avoid periods of reduced service efficiency.  The first station will be sited and  construction completed prior to completion of initial development in the planning area.   Program 8F: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms (e.g., Mello Roos District, developer  financing with reimbursement agreements, etc.) to cover upfront costs of capital  improvements (i.e., fire stations and related facilities and equipment).   Program 8H: Based on approval by the City, incorporate applicable Dougherty Regional Fire  Authority (DRFA) recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire  safety and prevention into the requirements for  development approval.  Require that the  following DPFA design standards are incorporated where appropriate:  ‐ Use of non‐combustible roof materials in all new construction.  ‐ Available capacity of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI fire flow from project fire hydrants on public  water mains.  For groupings of one‐family and small two‐family dwellings not exceeding two  stories in height, the fire flow requirements are a minimum of 1,000 GPM.  Fire flow  requirements for  all other buildings will be calculated based on building size, type of  construction, and location.  ‐ Automatic fire alarm systems and sprinklers in all non‐residential structures for human use.  ‐ Compliance with DRFA and City minimum road widths, maximum street slopes, parking  recommendations, and secondary access road requirements.   GOAL: Provide adequate police services to the eastern Dublin planning area to ensure the  health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents, workers, and visitors.   Policy 8‐4: Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise “beats” as needed in order to  establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in eastern Dublin.   Program 8E: Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department  recommendations on project design that affects traffic safety and crime prevention.   GOAL: To  provide an adequate water system for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.   Policy 9‐1: Water  Conservation.  Require the following as conditions of project approval in  eastern Dublin:   ‐ Use of water‐conserving devices such as low‐flow showerheads, faucets, and toilets.  ‐ Support implementation of the DSRSD Water Use Reduction Plan and implementation of  Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water conservation.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐18 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  ‐ Require all developments to meet the BMPs of the Memorandum of Understanding  Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, of which DSRD is a signatory.  ‐ Water  efficient irrigation systems within public rights‐of‐way, median islands, public parks,  recreation areas and golf course areas (see Program 9B on Water  Reclamation).  ‐ Drought resistant plant palettes within public rights‐of‐way, median islands, public parks,  recreation areas and golf course areas.  ‐ Ensure that highly invasive plant species that could out‐compete native species and threaten  wildlife habitat are not used in these areas.  Species which should be prohibited include, but  are not limited to: Acacia, Algerian Ivy, Bamboo, Mattress Vine, Black Locust, Blue Gum  Eucalyptus, Castor Bean, Cotoneaster, English Ivy, French Broom, Fountain Grass, Giant  Reed, German Ivy, Gorse, Ice Plant, Pampas Grass, Periwinkle, Pyracantha, Scotch Broom,  Spanish Broom, Tamarisk, Tree  of Heaven, and Tree  Tobacco.  ‐ Water  efficient irrigation and landscaping systems for residential, commercial, institutional,  and industrial areas in accordance with AB325.  ‐ Adoption of a water efficient landscape ordinance by the City of Dublin that will apply to  eastern Dublin development.  ‐ Encourage the use of recycled water during construction for compaction and dust control.   Program 9B: Water  Reclamation.  Require the following as conditions of project approval in  eastern Dublin:  ‐ Implementation of DSRSD and Zone 7 findings and recommendations on uses of reclaimed  water to augment existing water supplies.  ‐ Construction of a recycled water distribution system in eastern Dublin as well as necessary  offsite facilities to support recycled water use.  Construction of such a recycled water system  will require approval of the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation by DSRSD, Zone 7  and the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water  Quality Control Board.   Program 9E: DSRSD Standards.  Require that design and construction of all water and recycled  water system facility improvements be in accordance with DSRSD policies, standards and  master plans.   Program 9F: Consistency With Resource Management Policies.  Require the siting of water  system infrastructure to be consistent with the Resource Management Policies of this plan.   Program 9G: Implementation Responsibilities.  Require the Developer to obtain proper  approvals; refer to attached Table  9.1, Water Service Matrix of Implementation  responsibilities.   Program 9H: DSRSD Service.  Require a “will‐serve” letter from DSRSD prior to grading permit  approval.   GOAL: To  provide adequate wastewater collection, treatment and disposal for the Eastern  Dublin Specific Plan area.   Program 9K: Recycled Water Distribution System.  Require development within the Project to  fund a recycled water distribution system computer model reflecting the proposed Specific  Plan land uses and verify the conceptual backbone reclaimed water distribution system  presented on Figure 9.3.   Program 9M: Design Level Wastewater  Investigation.  Require eastern Dublin applicants to  prepare (in coordination with DSRSD) a detailed wastewater capacity investigation or  supplement the information in the Specific Plan, which reflects the phased development  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐19  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  approach matched against the allocation of sewer permits.  Such an investigation shall  include, at a minimum, a thorough estimate of planned land uses at the site and estimated  wastewater flows to be generated at the site.  Base the estimation of the wastewater flows for  sewer permits on the DSRSD approved wastewater flow factors.   Program 9N: DSRSD Service.  Require a “will‐serve” letter from DSRSD prior to grading permit  approval.   Program 9O: DSRSD Standards.  Coordination with DSRSD Policies, Standards and Master  Plans.  Require design and construction of all wastewater systems to be in accordance with  DSRSD service policies, procedures, design and construction standards and master plans.   Program 9P: Onsite Wastewater Treatment.  In conjunction with DSRSD, discourage onsite  wastewater treatment systems such as package plants and septic systems in accordance with  the policies of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water  Quality Control Board.   Program 9Q: Connection to Public Sewers.  Require all developments in the Specific Plan be  connected to public sewers.  Exceptions to this requirement, in particular septic tank systems,  will only be allowed upon receipt of written approval from Alameda County Environmental  Health Department and DSRSD.   Program 9R: Implementation Responsibilities.  Require developers obtain proper approvals;  refer to attached Table  9.2, Wastewater  Service Matrix of Implementation Responsibilities.   GOAL: To  provide adequate storm drainage facilities for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area.   Policy 9‐7: Require drainage facilities that will minimize any increased potential for erosion or  flooding.   GOAL: To  reduce the total flow of waste to landfill by promoting waste reduction, source  separation, curbside collection, and other recycling alternatives to landfilling.   Policy 8‐8: Encourage the separation of recyclable materials from the general waste stream by  supporting the development of a recycling collection system and facilities.   Program 8K: Prepare a solid waste management plan for eastern Dublin which includes the  following:  ‐ Specific areas designated for the collection of recyclable materials in multifamily and  commercial areas, with coordination as needed for pick‐up.   GOAL: To  provide a full complement of community services and facilities as needed in eastern  Dublin.   Policy 8‐9: Coordinate with Pacific Gas and Electric and Pacific Bell in planning and scheduling  future facilities which will serve eastern Dublin.   Program 8‐L: Require project applicants to provide documentation that electric, gas, and  telephone service can be provided to all new development.    3.5.4 ‐ Methodology  FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) evaluated impacts on public service providers through review of agency  websites, the City of Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,  and consultation with  service providers.  FCS sent questionnaires to the Alameda County Fire Department and Alameda  County Sheriff’s Office and received written responses, which are summarized herein.  FCS evaluated  utility system impacts using information from DSRSD’s 2015 Urban Water  Management Plan, City of  Dublin General Plan, and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.  Agency  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐20 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  websites were reviewed for relevant information about facilities and services provided.  Supporting  Information is provided in Appendix H.  Because the project does not trigger Water Code requirements for the preparation of a Water  Supply  Assessment, FCS evaluated water supply impacts by using observed water consumption values from  the Emeryville IKEA and comparing them with the demand and supply totals shown in the 2015  Urban Water Management Plan. In addition, DSRSD provided a letter dated December 28, 2017  addressing the potable water supply and wastewater treatment capacity available for the proposed  project. The letter is provided in Appendix H.    3.5.5 ‐ Thresholds of Significance  According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, public services impacts  resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant if the  project would:  . . . result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of  new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered  governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant  environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response  times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:  a) Fire Protection?  b) Police Protection?  c) Schools?    d) Parks?    e) Other public facilities?      According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, utility and service system  impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project would be considered significant  if the project would:  a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water  Quality Control  Board?  (Refer to Section 7, Effects  Found Not To  Be Significant.)    b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or  expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant  environmental effects?    c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of  existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?    d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and  resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?    e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve  the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition  to the provider’s existing commitments?    City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5-21 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-05 Public Services and Utilities.docx f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 3.5.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Impact PSU-1: The proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded fire protection or emergency medical services facilities that may result in physical impacts on the environment. Impact Analysis The Alameda County Fire Department would serve the proposed project with fire protection and emergency medical services. The Fire Department provided a letter dated September 21, 2017 outlining its assessment of the proposed project as it relates to fire protection and emergency medical services. The letter is provided in Appendix H. As previously noted, Alameda County Fire Department also serves the City of Emeryville, which has one of Bay Area’s existing IKEA stores. The Fire Department indicated that the Emeryville IKEA generated 54 calls for service in Fiscal Year 2015–2016 (0.15 call per day) and 44 calls for service in Fiscal Year 2016–2017 (0.12 call per day). Most of the calls were for medical assistance, with false alarms representing the second most common call. Only one fire call was reported in the 2-year period. The Fire Department stated that it can serve the anticipated level of call demand from its existing resources. The Fire Department indicated that its primary concerns with the project were site access and the potential for high-piled fire load within the IKEA building. Each concern is addressed below. Site Access In terms of site access, the Fire Department noted that the characteristics of the project’s internal circulation may increase response times. However, this is largely offset by the project site being 1.5 miles from Station 17, the nearest fire station, which is staffed with a fire engine and tiller truck company (six personnel). The travel time for an emergency vehicle responding to the project site from Station 17 at an average speed of 35 miles per hour would be 2 minutes, 34 seconds. Even if the characteristics of the project’s internal circulation increased travel time by 1 minute (to 3 minutes 34 seconds), this would still be well within the allowable travel time to meet the Fire Department's travel time objective of 5 minutes for single unit and 10 minutes for multiple unit responses to the source. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR 3.5-22 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-05 Public Services and Utilities.docx High-Piled Loads Regarding high-piled fire load, the California Fire Code establishes requirements for mixed-use buildings.2 The Fire Code Chapter 903.2.7 requires a manual fire alarm system and automatic sprinkler systems in mercantile buildings where storage of merchandise is high-piled or rack storage arrays. Compliance with the mandatory Fire Code requirements would reduce the risk associated with high-piled loads to acceptable levels. Finally, the proposed project would be served with four access points to the project site and, thus, would meet California Fire Code requirements for emergency access. For these reasons, the proposed project would not create a need to construct new or expand existing fire protection or emergency medical services facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Law Enforcement Impact PSU-2: The proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded law enforcement facilities that may result in physical impacts on the environment. Impact Analysis The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, acting as Dublin Police Services, would serve the proposed project with law enforcement services. The Sheriff’s Office provided a letter dated September 29, 2017 outlining its assessment of the proposed project as it relates to law enforcement. The letter is provided in Appendix H. The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office indicated that the proposed project would be expected to generate 500 to 600 calls for service annually. The Sheriff’s Office stated that the proposed project has the potential to bring many additional consumers into the City of Dublin and identified traffic hazards within the parking area and on City streets as a concern. The Sheriff’s Office recommended that a thorough traffic study be prepared and advised that the project should be served with significant ingress and egress points to reduce the potential for traffic hazards. The proposed project’s traffic impacts are evaluated in detail in Section 3.6, Transportation, and the project would provide four access points to the project site. The provision of four access points would allow for adequate law enforcement response. 2 The proposed IKEA would be considered a mixed-use building, include a “M” Mercantile component pursuant to the Fire Code City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐23  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  The Sheriff’s Office also recommended that the applicant conduct a Crime Prevention Through  Environmental Design inspection in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Unit within the Sheriff’s  Office.  The purpose would be to identify site design measures that deter crime and allow law  enforcement better opportunities to respond to reports of criminal activity (e.g., high visibility public  spaces).  The City of Dublin will require this as a Condition of Approval.    For these reasons, the proposed project would not create a need to construct new or expand  existing law enforcement facilities.  Impacts would be less than significant.  Level of Significance Before Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Mitigation Measures  No mitigation is necessary.  Level of Significance After Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Schools  Impact PSU‐3: The proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded school  facilities that may result in physical impacts on the environment.  Impact Analysis  The proposed project is non‐residential in nature and would not directly facilitate population growth  within the City of Dublin.  Therefore, it would not directly increase enrollment growth within DUSD.    Furthermore, the applicant would be required to pay development fees to the DUSD to fund capital  improvements to school facilities.  Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, payment of  development fees is “full and complete mitigation” for impacts on schools.  Impacts would be less  than significant.  Level of Significance Before Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Mitigation Measures  No mitigation is necessary.  Level of Significance After Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐24 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  Parks and Recreational Facilities  Impact PSU‐4: The proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded park and  recreational facilities that may result in physical impacts on the environment.  Impact Analysis  The proposed project is non‐residential in nature and would not directly facilitate new demand for  parks and recreational facilities via population growth.  The proposed project’s employees and  customers may use nearby Class I trails for recreation or transportation purposes; however, such use  would be expected to be relatively limited and would not be substantial enough to cause physical  deterioration.  Furthermore, the applicant would be required to pay development fees to the City of Dublin to fund  capital improvements to park and recreational facilities.  Impacts would be less than significant.  Level of Significance Before Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Mitigation Measures  No mitigation is necessary.  Level of Significance After Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Water   Impact PSU‐5: The proposed project would not require new or expanded water treatment  facilities or infrastructure, or additional water supply entitlements.  Impact Analysis  DSRSD would serve the proposed project with potable water service.  The proposed project would  connect to the 16‐inch‐diameter water line is located within Arnold Road, and a 12‐inch‐diameter  and 8‐inch‐diameter water lines are located within Martinelli Way.  Connections would be looped for  redundancy.  Table  3.5‐6 summarizes the proposed project water consumption.  The IKEA water consumption  estimate is based on observed usage at the Emeryville store location,3 while the lifestyle retail and  restaurant consumption was estimated using a generic commercial water consumption rate provided  by DSRSD.  As shown in the table, the proposed project’s annual water demand would be 33.6 acre‐ feet.  Note that all water consumption is assumed to be potable, as this provides for a conservative,  “worst‐case” analysis.                                                               3 IKEA provided water consumption data for the Emeryville store between 2012 and 2017.  The highest consumption year was  selected (2013) and total annual consumption (4.1 million gallons) was divided by the store’s square footage (274,000), then 365  days/year to yield a rate of 0.05 gallon day/square foot.   City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐25  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  Table  3.5‐6: Potable Water  Consumption Estimate  Use Square Feet Consumption Rate  Water Consumption  Daily Annual  IKEA 339,099 0.05 gallon day/ square foot 16,955 gallons 6.20 million gallons (19.0 acre feet)  Lifestyle Retail and  Restaurant 93,000 0.14 gallon day/ square foot 13,020 gallons  4.75 million gallons (14.6 acre feet)  Total 432,099 — 29,975 gallons 10.95 million gallons (33.6 acre‐feet)  Note:  1 acre‐foot = 325,851 gallons  Source: FCS, 2017.    DSRSD provided a letter dated December 28, 2017 (Appendix H) confirming it can provide adequate  potable water.  DSRSD indicated that demand from the future development on the project site was  accounted for in its 2015 UWMP4.  Table  3.5‐7 summarizes those projections.  As Table  3.5‐7 shows,  there is sufficient water supplies available to serve the water demand from the project and existing  and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years in the  near‐term (2020) and long‐term (2040)   Furthermore, DSRSD noted that the water consumption  estimate shown in Table  3.5‐6 (29,975 gallons per day) is less than the amount used for the project  site in the 2015 UWMP.   Table  3.5‐7: 2015 Urban Water  Management Projections  Scenario Category  Year   2020 2025 2030 2035 2040  Normal Year  Supply 17,583 18,671 19,426 20,043 20,043  Demand 17,583 18,671 19,426 20,043 20,043 Single Dry Year  Supply 14,162 15,032 15,620 16,083 16,083 Demand 14,162 15,032 15,620 16,083 16,083 Multiple Dry Year  Supply 15,530 16,488 17,142 17,667 17,667 Demand 15,530 16,488 17,142 17,667 17,667 Source: Dublin‐San Ramon Services District, 2016.   Finally, the proposed project would not alter the DSRSD/Zone 7 “turnout” located in the  southwestern portion of the project site.                                                                 4 DSRSD indicated that the IKEA project site is accounted for in the 2015 UWMP Figure 3‐4 and Appendix A, Potable Water Demand  Assumptions, Table  A‐1, Projected Potable Water  Demands for Planned Development Projects.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐26 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  Impacts would be less than significant.  Level of Significance Before Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Mitigation Measures  No mitigation is necessary.  Level of Significance After Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Wastewater  Impact PSU‐6: The proposed project would not require expansion of existing or construction of  new wastewater treatment facilities.  Impact Analysis  DSRSD would serve the proposed project with wastewater collection and treatment service.  The  proposed project would connect to the existing 8‐inch‐diameter sewer line in Martinelli Way.  Table  3.5‐8 summarizes the proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation.  As shown in the  table, the proposed project is estimated to generate 13,500 gallons of effluent per day and 3.11 mgd  per year.  This estimate is based on a standard industry assumption that wastewater represents 90  percent of potable water use.  Table  3.5‐8: Wastewater Generation Estimate  Total  Water  Use  Domestic Water Use  (50% of Total  Use)  Wastewater as a  Percent of Domestic  Water Use  Wastewater Generation  Daily Annual  10.95 million  gallons/year  5.48 million  gallons/year 90% 13,500 gallons (0.014 mgd)  4.93 million gallons (4.93 mgd)  Source: FCS, 2017.    Project effluent would be conveyed to the Regional Wastewater Treatment  Facility in the City of  Pleasanton, which has a treatment capacity of 17.0 mgd and currently treats an average of 10.74  mgd during dry weather and 12.48 mgd during wet weather.  Thus, 4.52 mgd to 6.26 mgd of  treatment capacity are available for new development.  Furthermore, the Regional Wastewater  Treatment Facility complies with all of the applicable water quality discharge requirements.  DSRSD provided a letter dated December 28, 2017 (Appendix H) confirming it can provide adequate  wastewater treatment capacity.  DSRSD indicated that demand from the future development on the  project site was accounted for in its Wastewater Treatment Plan Master Plan.5                                                                 5 DSRSD indicated that the IKEA project site is accounted for in the Wastewater Treatment Plan Master Plan influent loads shown in  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐27  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  The proposed project’s 0.014 mgd of daily effluent would represent less than 1 percent of the  available treatment capacity at the Regional Wastewater Treatment  Facility.  As such, the Regional  Wastewater  Treatment  Facility would be expected to accept the proposed project’s increase in  effluent without needing to expand existing, or construct new, facilities.  Therefore, impacts to  existing wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.   Level of Significance Before Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Mitigation Measures  No mitigation is necessary.  Level of Significance After Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Storm Drainage   Impact PSU‐7: The proposed project would not require new or expanded downstream storm  drainage facilities.  Impact Analysis  The project site is located in an area served with existing storm drainage infrastructure.  Thus, runoff  from the project site enters the municipal storm drainage system.  The proposed project would install an on‐site storm drainage system consisting of a network of  street gutters, inlets, basins, and underground piping that would ultimately convey runoff to the  existing 42‐inch‐diameter or 84‐inch‐diameter storm drains adjacent to the project site.  These lines  discharge to Chabot Canal and ultimately Alameda Creek, which empties into San Francisco Bay.  The proposed project would result in a net increase of 17.96 acres of impervious surfaces on the  project site.  In accordance with C.3 requirements, peak runoff flows would be detained within  landscaped bioretention areas located through the project site during peak storm events and  released at a rate no greater than the pre‐development peak runoff flows.  Thus, under project  conditions there would be an overall decrease in runoff leaving the project site during peak storm  event compared to existing conditions.  This would ensure that downstream drainage facilities are  not inundated by project‐related runoff, which precludes the need for new or expanded facilities.  Level of Significance Before Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Mitigation Measures  No mitigation is necessary.                                                                                                                                                                                           Table  2‐16, Projected 2035 Influent Conditions versus Stage 4 Design Parameters.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Public Services and Utilities Draft Supplemental EIR      3.5‐28 FirstCarbon Solutions   Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  Level of Significance After Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Solid Waste  Impact PSU‐8: The proposed project would not generate substantial amounts of solid waste that  may result in inadequate landfill capacity with statutes or regulations concerning  solid waste.  Impact Analysis  This impact assesses the potential for the proposed project to generate substantial amounts of solid  waste that result in inadequate landfill capacity or conflict with statutes or regulations concerning  solid waste.  Construction Waste   The proposed project would result in the construction of up to 432,099 square feet of commercial‐ retail.  Using a non‐residential construction waste generation rate published by the United States  Environmental Protection Agency, an estimate of the total construction debris generated by the  proposed project is provided in Table  3.5‐9.  Table  3.5‐9: Construction Solid Waste Generation Estimate  Activity Square Feet Waste  Generation Rate  Waste Generation  Tons  Cubic Feet  Non‐Residential Construction 432,099 3.89 pounds/square foot 840 1,176 Notes:  1 ton= 2,000 pounds; 1 ton = 1.4 cubic yards  Source: FCS, 2017.    Development of the proposed project would generate an estimated 1,176 cubic yards of  construction debris.  This waste volume represents less than 0.01 percent of the available capacity at  the landfills that serve the City of Dublin.  Therefore, short‐term construction impacts on landfill  capacity would be less than significant.  Operational Waste  Table  3.5‐10 summarizes the proposed project’s operational waste generation based on rates   provided by Cal Recycle.  As shown in the table, the proposed project would generate 1,452 cubic  yards of solid waste on an annual basis.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Public Services and Utilities      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.5‐29  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐05 Public Services and Utilities.docx  Table  3.5‐10: Annual Operational Waste  Generation Estimate  Activity Square Feet Waste  Generation Rate  Waste  Generation Rate  tons cubic yards  Operational 432,099 4.8 pounds/square  feet/year 1,037 1,452  Notes:  1 ton= 2,000 pounds; 1 ton = 1.4 cubic yards  Source: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery; FCS, 2015.    The proposed project would generate an estimated 1,452 cubic yards of operational solid waste on  an annual basis.  This waste volume represents less than 1 percent of the available capacity at the  landfills that serve the City of Dublin.  Moreover, the values shown in the table adjust operational  solid waste generation to account for recycling and waste reduction activities that would serve to  divert waste from the landfill.    Therefore, long‐term operational impacts on landfill capacity would be less than significant.  Level of Significance Before Mitigation  Less than significant impact.  Mitigation Measures  No mitigation is necessary.  Level of Significance After Mitigation  Less than significant impact.      THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx 3.6 - Transportation This section describes the existing transportation setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information contained in the Transportation Assessment, prepared by Fehr & Peers and included in this EIR as Appendix F. 3.6.1 - Existing Conditions Roadway Network The project area is located north of Interstate 580 (I-580) between the Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive interchanges. Access to the site would be provided from Martinelli Way and Arnold Road via Dublin Boulevard. Interstate 580 I-580 is part of the interstate freeway system and extends in an east/west direction, from San Rafael in the west to Tracy in the east. In the vicinity of Dublin, I-580 forms the southern city boundary with four to five lanes in each direction. Express Lanes are available in the project vicinity Monday through Friday 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in both the eastbound and westbound directions. There are two eastbound lanes from Hacienda Drive to Greenville Road and one westbound lane from Greenville Road to west of the I-580/I-680 interchange. Carpools are allowed to use the lanes for free while solo-drivers are able to use them by paying a toll. All drivers, even carpools, motorcycles, and clean-air vehicles must use a FasTrak toll tag. I-580 is most directly accessible to the project via the Hacienda Drive interchange. I-580 is a designated route of regional significance in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (Tri-Valley Action Plan). Interstate 680 I-680 is a north/south designated scenic highway that is part of the interstate freeway system connecting San Jose to I-80 near Fairfield. This facility traverses the City of Dublin with an interchange at I-580 in western Dublin, as well as on and off-ramps near Dublin Boulevard. South of I-580 it is a six-lane freeway, and north of I-580 it generally provides eight lanes, including Express Lanes which were completed in October 2017 (prior to Express Lane completion the lanes operated at carpool lanes), which adhere to the same hours and rules as those on I-580. The northbound express lane begins at Alcosta Boulevard and ends at Livorna Road in Walnut Creek. The southbound lane begins at Rudgear Road and ends at Alcosta Boulevard. I-680 is a designated route of regional significance in the Tri-Valley Action Plan. Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard is an east-west principal arterial roadway that extends from west of San Ramon Road to its current terminus at Fallon Road. The City of Dublin General Plan contemplates extending Dublin Boulevard to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore. It is generally a four- to six-lane facility with a landscaped median. No on-street parking is permitted on this facility. Dublin Boulevard is a designated route of regional significance. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided on portions of Dublin Boulevard, including on the blocks north of the project site. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Dougherty Road Dougherty Road is a north-south principal arterial roadway and a designated route of regional significance. The roadway continues south of I-580 into Pleasanton as Hopyard Road and connects to Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon to the north. Dougherty Road is generally a four- to six-lane facility, with additional capacity at intersections to accommodate high volumes of turning vehicles to/from I-580. On-street parking is not generally provided along Dougherty Road. A Class I bicycle path that runs from the Iron Horse Regional Trail at the intersection of Scarlett Drive north to Old Ranch Drive in San Ramon parallels Dougherty Road. Sidewalks are provided along portions of the roadway. Dougherty Road is being expanded from four- to six-travel lanes from Sierra Court north to the City limits. Scarlett Drive Scarlett Drive is a northwest-southeast major oriented collector roadway that will ultimately connect Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard. Currently Scarlett Drive is discontinuous between Dublin Boulevard and Houston Place. It is a designated residential collector roadway with on-street parking generally permitted. Scarlett Drive parallels the Iron Horse Trail regional trail and also provides bicycle lanes along a portion of the roadway in addition to some sidewalk facilities. Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive is a north-south roadway that extends from W. Las Positas Boulevard in Pleasanton to Gleason Drive in Dublin, with a full interchange at I-580. From West Las Positas Road to Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive is a designated principal arterial roadway that generally provides three travel lanes in each direction with additional capacity at intersections to accommodate high volumes of turning vehicles. North of Dublin Boulevard, it is a designated minor arterial with two to four travel lanes in each direction, with a landscaped median. On-street parking is typically not allowed. Sidewalks are provided along Hacienda Drive along with bicycle lanes from north of the I-580 interchange to Gleason Drive. Arnold Road Arnold Road is a north-south collector that forms the western project boundary and continues north to Broder Boulevard. At its southern terminus, the roadway bends around to the west and provides a connection to the BART station and BART parking garage. Arnold Road provides two travel lanes in each direction with a landscaped median between Dublin Boulevard and Martinelli Way, and one travel lane in each direction south of Martinelli Way. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are provided along portions of the roadway that have fronting development. On-street parking is only permitted between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. The section between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway is planned to be expanded to a four-lane roadway. Tassajara Road Tassajara Road is a north-south principal arterial roadway that extends north from I-580 into San Ramon. South of I-580, Tassajara Road continues as Santa Rita Road, a four- to six-lane arterial in Pleasanton that connects I-580 with Downtown Pleasanton. Tassajara Road is a four- to six-lane facility through Dublin with added capacity at intersections. Bicycle lanes are provided from Dublin Boulevard to north of N. Dublin Ranch Drive, where the roadway transitions to provide two travel lanes. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-3 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Sidewalks are provided adjacent to the developed areas along Tassajara Road. On-street parking is not permitted. Both Tassajara Road and Santa Rita Road are routes of regional significance. Owens Drive Owens Drive is an east-west arterial in Pleasanton that extends east from Johnson Drive to W. Las Positas Boulevard. Owens Drive provides access to residential units, office parks, and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and parking lot. It is also the nearest cross-street to the Hacienda Drive I-580 overpass. There are two to four travel lanes in each direction, with a landscaped median. On-street parking is typically not allowed, although the BART parking lot curb provides a generous loading zone for taxis. Sidewalks are provided along Hacienda Drive along with bicycle lanes from north of the I-580 interchange to Gleason Drive. Martinelli Way Martinelli Way is a minor collector roadway that forms the northern boundary and provides the primary access point for the project. Adjacent to the project site there are three travel lanes in each direction, extending east from Iron Horse Parkway to a private road in the Hacienda Crossing Shopping Center. On-street parking is not permitted on any part of the roadway. There are no bicycle lanes, but there are 10-foot-wide sidewalks on the north side of the street to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians. Iron Horse Parkway and DeMarcus Boulevard Iron Horse Parkway and DeMarcus Boulevard are minor collector streets extending south from Dublin Boulevard and connect in a “V” at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and I-580 boundary. Both roadways allow on-street parking and provide bus access to the BART station bus bays. There are no bicycle lanes on-street, but the Class I Iron Horse Regional Trail parallels the southern portion of DeMarcus Boulevard as it leaves the BART loading zone. Sidewalks are provided on both Iron Horse Parkway and DeMarcus Boulevard. Fallon Road Fallon Road is a north-south minor arterial roadway that connects I-580 to Tassajara Road. It currently provides two travel lanes in each direction between I-580 and Central Parkway; this segment is ultimately planned to provide three lanes in each direction. This roadway is being upgraded as development occurs on parcels fronting the roadway, and will ultimately provide sidewalks and bicycle facilities along its length. Fallon Road is a designated route of regional significance. Gleason Drive Gleason Drive is an east-west minor arterial roadway approximately 0.5 mile north of Dublin Boulevard that connects Arnold Road in the west to Fallon Road in the east. It generally provides two travel lanes in each direction with a landscaped median, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks along portions of the roadway that have fronting development. Central Parkway Central Parkway is an east-west minor arterial roadway between Gleason Drive and Dublin Boulevard. West of Hacienda Drive, it is a local street. It generally provides one travel lane in each City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-4 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx direction with a landscaped median, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks along portions of the roadway that have fronting development. On-street parking is allowed on some portions of the roadway. Study Facilities Project impacts on the study area roadway facilities were identified by measuring the effect of project traffic during the weekday morning (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) peak periods when commute traffic is typically the highest, and Saturday afternoon (1 p.m. to 5 p.m.) when the project is expected to generate the most vehicular traffic overall. The weekday mid-day period (12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.), when the project would generate the most vehicular traffic on a weekday, was also evaluated for a select subset of study intersections closest to the project site (noted in bold). The study intersections were selected in consultation with City of Dublin staff, based on a review of the project location, the amount of traffic that could be added to the intersections in the site vicinity, and considered comments received on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the environmental document. The study intersections are listed below and shown on Exhibit 3.6-1, with the responsible jurisdiction shown in parentheses: 1. Dougherty Road & Amador Valley Boulevard (City of Dublin/TVTC) 2. Dougherty Road & Scarlett Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) 3. Dougherty Road & Dublin Boulevard (City of Dublin/TVTC) 4. Dougherty Road & I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp (TVTC/City of Pleasanton/Caltrans) 5. Hopyard Road & I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp (TVTC/City of Pleasanton/Caltrans) 6. Hopyard Road & Owens Drive (TVTC/City of Pleasanton) 7. Dublin Boulevard & Scarlett Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) 8. Dublin Boulevard & Sterling Street/DeMarcus Boulevard (City of Dublin/TVTC) 9. Dublin Boulevard & Iron Horse Parkway (City of Dublin/TVTC) 10. Arnold Road & Central Parkway (City of Dublin) 11. Dublin Boulevard & Arnold Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) 12. Arnold Road & Martinelli Way (City of Dublin) 13. Dublin Boulevard & Sybase Drive/Persimmon Place (City of Dublin/TVTC) 14. Martinelli Way & Persimmon Place/IKEA Place (City of Dublin) 15. Hacienda Drive & Gleason Drive (City of Dublin) 16. Hacienda Drive & Central Parkway (City of Dublin) 17. Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard (City of Dublin/TVTC) 18. Hacienda Drive & Martinelli Way (City of Dublin) 19. Hacienda Drive & I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp (TVTC/City of Pleasanton/Caltrans) 20. Hacienda Drive & I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp (TVTC/City of Pleasanton/Caltrans) 21. Hacienda Drive & Owens Drive (City of Pleasanton) 22. Dublin Boulevard & Hibernia Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) 23. Dublin Boulevard & Myrtle Drive/Toyota Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) 24. Dublin Boulevard & Glynnis Rose Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) 25. Tassajara Road & Central Parkway (City of Dublin/TVTC) 26. Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard (City of Dublin/TVTC) 27. Tassajara Road & I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp (TVTC/City of Pleasanton/Caltrans) 28. Santa Rita Road & I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp (TVTC/City of Pleasanton/Caltrans) 29. Dublin Boulevard & Fallon Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-1_project_site_vicinity.cdr Exhibit 3.6-1 Project Site Vicinity CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Source: Fehr and Peers THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-7 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Freeway mainline and ramp/merge diverge operations were also assessed at the following locations: 1. I-580 from Foothill Road to I-680 2. I-580 from I-680 to Dougherty Road 3. I-580 from Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive 4. I-580 from Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 5. I-580 from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road 6. I-680 from Stoneridge Drive to I-580 7. I-680 from I-580 to Alcosta Boulevard An assessment of vehicle queues at the freeway on-ramps where project traffic is concentrated was conducted, including: 1. Dougherty Road & I-580 Westbound Ramp 2. Hacienda Drive & I-580 Westbound Ramp 3. Hacienda Drive & I-580 Eastbound Ramp Roadway Segment analysis of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) designated facilities was also conducted for the following roadway segments: 1. I-580 from west of Foothill Road/San Ramon Road to Isabel Avenue 2. I-680 from Alcosta Boulevard to south of Sunol Boulevard 3. Foothill Road/San Ramon Road from Amador Valley Parkway to Sunol Boulevard 4. Dublin Boulevard from Amador Plaza Road to Fallon Road 5. Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road from Stanley Boulevard to Fallon Road 6. Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road from Del Valley Parkway to Old Ranch Road 7. Stoneridge Drive from Foothill Road to Fallon Road 8. Las Positas Boulevard from Hopyard Road to Santa Rita Road 9. Bernal Avenue from Foothill Road to Sunol Boulevard 10. Sunol Boulevard/First Street/Stanley Boulevard from I-680 to North Livermore Avenue 11. Isabel Avenue from Vallecitos Road to Airway Boulevard 12. Vallecitos Road from I-680 to Isabel Avenue The analysis of roadway segments was conducted for the weekday evening peak period, per Alameda CTC analysis requirements. Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, September 2017, specifies the use of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (2010 HCM) method for evaluating intersection operations. The City of Dublin has not yet adopted use of the 2010 HCM method. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, the 2000 HCM method is used to assess impacts under the TVTC criteria. Note that intersections are analyzed under standards for jurisdiction in which they are located. Signalized Intersections Operations of signalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 16 of the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, which uses various intersection City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-8 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Table 3.6-1 summarizes the relationship between average control delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections. This method evaluates each intersection in isolation and the effects of vehicle queue spillback are not considered in the analysis results. Table 3.6-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Delay in Seconds A Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. < 10.0 B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. > 10.0 to 20.0 C Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. > 20.0 to 35.0 D The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35.0 to 55.0 E This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 55.0 to 80.0 F This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels. > 80.0 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Unsignalized Intersections Operations at unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 17 of the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each movement that must yield the right-of-way. At two-way or side street-controlled intersections, the control delay (and LOS) is calculated for each controlled movement, the left-turn movement from the major street, and the entire intersection. For controlled approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The delays for the entire intersection and for the movement or approach with the highest delay are reported. Table 3.6-2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-9 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Delay in Seconds A Little or no delays < 10.0 B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Freeway Mainline Analysis For the freeway mainline segments, LOS was calculated using the method described in Chapters 11– 13 of the 2010 HCM. This method takes into consideration peak-hour traffic volumes, free-flow speeds, percentage of heavy vehicles, and number of travel lanes. These factors are used to determine the vehicle density, measured in passenger cars per mile per lane. Table 3.6-3 summarizes the relationship between vehicle density and LOS for mainline freeway segments. Table 3.6-3: Freeway Mainline LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Density1 Basic Density Range (pc/mi/ln)1 Weaving Merge/Diverge A Free-flow operations in which vehicles are relatively unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Effects of incidents are easily absorbed. ≤ 11 ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B Relative free-flow operations in which vehicle maneuvers within the traffic stream are slightly restricted. Effects of minor incidents are easily absorbed. > 11 to 18 > 10 to 20 > 10 to 20 C Travel is still at relative free-flow speeds, but freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted. Minor incidents may be absorbed, but local deterioration in service will be substantial. Queues begin to form behind significant blockages. > 18 to 26 > 20 to 28 > 28 to 35 D Speeds begin to decline slightly and flows and densities begin to increase more quickly. Freedom to maneuver is noticeably limited. Minor incidents can be expected to create queuing as the traffic stream has little space to absorb disruptions. > 26 to 35 > 28 to 35 > 28 to 35 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-10 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-3 (cont.): Freeway Mainline LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Density1 Basic Density Range (pc/mi/ln)1 Weaving Merge/Diverge E Operation at capacity. Vehicles are closely spaced with little room to maneuver. Any disruption in the traffic stream can establish a disruption wave that propagates throughout the upstream traffic flow. Any incident can be expected to produce a serious disruption in traffic flow and extensive queuing. > 35 to 45 > 35 to 43 > 35 F Breakdown in vehicle flow. > 45 > 43 Demand Exceeds Capacity Note: 1 pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Roadway Segment Analysis Assessments of operations of the MTS freeway and surface street segments were based on volume- to-capacity (V/C) ratios. For freeway segments, a per-lane capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour was used. For surface streets, a per-lane capacity of 800 vehicles per hour was used. This methodology is consistent with the approach used for other projects in both Dublin and other communities within Alameda County. These capacities do not reflect additional capacity provided at intersections through turn pockets. Roadway segments with a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 are assigned LOS F. Volume-to-capacity ratios and the corresponding levels of service are shown in Table 3.6-4. Table 3.6-4: Peak-Hour Roadway Segment LOS Thresholds LOS Density A < 0.60 B 0.61 to 0.70 C 0.71 to 0.80 D 0.81 to 0.90 E 0.90 to 1.00 F > 1.00 Note: 1 Density is presented in passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-11 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic Counts Weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.), weekday mid-day (12:00 to 4:00 p.m.), weekday evening (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.), and Saturday afternoon (1:00 to 5:00 p.m.) peak-period intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the study intersections on Exhibit 3.6-1 in June 2016 and May 2017, including separate counts of trucks, pedestrians and bicyclists. For the study intersections, the single hour with the highest traffic volumes during the count periods was identified. The weekday AM, mid-day, and PM peak hours are generally from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m., 12:00 to 1:00 p.m., and 4:45 to 5:45 p.m., respectively. To identify the weekend peak period, a 24-hour traffic count was conducted on Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive to identify the four-hour period with the highest levels of activity in the project vicinity. Intersection turning movement counts were then conducted for that period to identify the peak hour of intersection activity, which generally occurs from 1:15 to 2:15 p.m. The peak-hour volumes are presented on Exhibits 3.6-2a–3.6-2d along with the existing lane configuration and traffic control. Intersection Level of Service Existing operations were evaluated using the method described in Chapter 1 of the HCM for the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the study intersections, based on the volumes and lane configurations shown on Exhibits 3.6-2a–3.6-2d. The results are summarized in Table 3.6-5. Observed peak-hour factors were used at all intersections for the existing analysis. Truck, pedestrian and bicycle activity was factored into the analysis. As shown, study intersections generally operate at overall acceptable service levels in accordance with benchmarks set by the City of Dublin and adjacent communities during both the morning and evening peak hours. There are periodic vehicle queue spillback and delays greater than those shown in Table 3.6-5 for some movements. Additionally, operations of the intersections along Dublin Boulevard are worse than shown when non-recurring congestion occurs on I-580 and some travelers divert from the freeway system to the arterial roadway network. The delay and associated LOS presented in Table 3.6-5 are based on the HCM 2000 method. Table 3.6-5: Existing Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing Conditions Delay2,3 LOS3 1. Amador Valley Boulevard at Dougherty Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 53.7 33.4 27.1 D C C 2. Scarlett Drive at Dougherty Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 11.5 9.3 6.9 B A A 3. Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 43.8 48.9 50.6 D D D City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-12 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-5 (cont.): Existing Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing Conditions Delay2,3 LOS3 4. I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp at Dougherty Road (City of Pleasanton/Caltrans/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 12.6 10.1 8.3 B B A 5. I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp at Hopyard Road (City of Pleasanton/Caltrans/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 17.1 13.6 8.3 B B A 6. Hopyard Road at Owens Drive (City of Pleasanton/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 36.8 48.2 48.2 D D D 7. Dublin Boulevard at Scarlett Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 8.9 10.0 8.3 A A A 8. Dublin Boulevard at Camp Parks Boulevard (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 14.4 5.7 9.8 B A A 9. Dublin Boulevard at Iron Horse Parkway (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 10.1 12.8 6.0 B B A 10. Central Parkway at Arnold Road (City of Dublin) Signal AM PM SAT 6.6 5.8 4.2 A A A 11. Dublin Boulevard at Arnold Road** (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM AFT PM SAT 30.5 22.9 26.6 23.3 C C C C 12. Martinelli Way at Arnold Road** (City of Dublin) Signal AM AFT PM SAT 13.1 18.8 15.5 11.4 B B B B 13. Dublin Boulevard at Sybase Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 7.2 9.2 9.6 A A A 14. Martinelli Way at Project Driveway** (City of Dublin) Signal AM AFT PM SAT 3.9 15.0 12.0 8.9 A B B A 15. Gleason Drive at Hacienda Drive (City of Dublin) Signal AM PM SAT 11.2 10.6 9.0 B B A 16. Central Parkway at Hacienda Drive (City of Dublin) Signal AM PM SAT 19.4 17.0 12.7 B B B City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-13 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-5 (cont.): Existing Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing Conditions Delay2,3 LOS3 17. Dublin Boulevard at Hacienda Drive** (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM AFT PM SAT 37.5 24.1 32.8 29.7 D C C C 18. Martinelli Way at Hacienda Drive** (City of Dublin) Signal AM AFT PM SAT 26.7 26.4 43.9 32.0 C C D C 19. I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp at Hacienda Drive (City of Pleasanton/Caltrans/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 9.0 5.5 7.7 A A A 20. I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp at Hacienda Drive (City of Pleasanton/Caltrans/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 15.5 11.2 12.6 B B B 21. Owens Drive at Hacienda Drive (City of Dublin) Signal AM PM SAT 17.6 32.5 17.1 B C B 22. Dublin Boulevard at Hibernia Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 14.1 15.9 23.9 B B C 23. Dublin Boulevard at Myrtle Drive/Toyota Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 9.4 14.7 14.5 A B B 24. Dublin Boulevard at Glynnis Rose Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 21.1 18.2 14.3 C B B 25. Central Parkway at Tassajara Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 27.6 17.6 15.8 C B B 26. Dublin Boulevard at Tassajara Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 36.9 36.1 36.9 D D D 27. I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp at Tassajara Road (City of Pleasanton/Caltrans/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 7.1 9.4 12.5 A A B 28. I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp at Santa Rita Road (City of Pleasanton/Caltrans/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 24.5 34.9 27.5 C C C 29. Dublin Boulevard at Fallon Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 15.2 14.0 13.0 B B B City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-14 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-5 (cont.): Existing Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing Conditions Delay2,3 LOS3 Notes: 1 SSSC = side-street stop controlled intersection; Signal = signalized intersection. 2 Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Vehicle Queuing Although all intersections currently operate within the standards set by the City of Dublin and adjacent communities, there can be periodic vehicle queue spillback and delays greater than shown for some movements. Table 3.6-6 presents intersection where vehicle queues may occasionally exceed the vehicle storage length. Table 3.6-6: Existing Conditions—95th Percentile Queues Intersection Movement Storage Length (feet)1 AM Peak Period Midday Peak Period PM Peak Period Saturday Peak Period 3. Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road WBR SBL NBL NBL 325 300 250 200 100 250 150 225 — — — — 225 350 200 150 700 300 325 125 11. Dublin Boulevard at Arnold Road EBL 250 375 200 375 225 15. Gleason Drive at Hacienda Drive WBL 200 225 — 100 50 16. Central Parkway at Hacienda Drive WBL 200 225 — 100 100 21. Owens Drive at Hacienda Drive EBL 400 75 — 525 100 22. Dublin Boulevard at Hibernia Drive NBL 75 50 — 150 325 24. Dublin Boulevard at Glynnis Rose Drive NBL 100 50 — 125 75 26. Dublin Boulevard at Tassajara Road NBL 375 125 — 200 575 28. I-580 Eastbound Off- Ramp at Santa Rita Road WBR 200 175 — 225 150 Notes: Bold indicates queue potentially extends beyond available storage. — = intersection was not evaluated for this time period. 1 An additional 60 to 90 feet of storage is typically provided in the taper area outside of the through lane, which is not reflected in the storage length above. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-15 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Freeway Level of Service Existing freeway volumes were obtained from Caltrans as available through the Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS). Table 3.6-7 summarizes existing conditions of freeway facilities. Table 3.6-7: Existing Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Existing Density LOS I-580 Eastbound 1 Under Foothill Road Overpass Basic AM PM 19.6 >45 C F 2 Foothill Road NB On-Ramp/I-680 Off-Ramp Weave AM PM 28.6 — D F 3 Hopyard Road/Dougherty Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 25.1 — C F 4 East of I-680 Basic AM PM 21.8 >45 C F 5 I-680 Southbound On-Ramp Merge AM PM 23.5 >45 C F 6 I-680 Northbound On-Ramp Merge AM PM 20.6 >45 C F 7 I-680 to Dougherty Rd/Hopyard Rd Basic AM PM 20.7 >45 C F 8 SB Dougherty Rd/Hopyard On-Ramp Merge AM PM 19.2 42.8 C E 9 NB Dougherty Rd/Hopyard Rd On-Ramp Merge AM PM 17.2 31.0 B D 10 Dougherty Rd/Hopyard Rd to Hacienda Dr Basic AM PM 19.8 44.8 C E 11 Hacienda Dr Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 19.8 >45 C F 12 Under Hacienda Dr Overpass Basic AM PM 20.5 >45 C F 13 SB Hacienda Dr On-Ramp Merge AM PM 18.2 — B F 14 NB Hacienda Dr On-Ramp Merge AM PM 18.7 — B F 15 Tassajara Rd/Santa Rita Rd Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 22.0 — C F 16 Under Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara Rd Overpass Basic AM PM 20.7 >45 C F City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-16 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-7 (cont.): Existing Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Existing Density LOS 17 SB Tassajara Rd/Santa Rita Rd On-Ramp Merge AM PM 20.1 — C F 18 NB Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara Rd On-Ramp Merge AM PM 18.4 >45 C F 19 Tassajara Rd to El Charro Rd Basic AM PM 18.4 >45 C F I-580 Westbound 1 Tassajara Rd to El Charro Rd Basic AM PM 41.2 18.7 E C 2 Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara Rd Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 41.2 18.7 E C 3 Under Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara Rd Overpass Basic AM PM >45 20.2 F C 4 NB Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara Rd On-Ramp Merge AM PM 38.6 18.2 E C 5 SB Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara Rd On-Ramp Merge AM PM — 17.0 F B 6 Hacienda Dr Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM >45 18.8 F C 7 Under Hacienda Dr Overpass Basic AM PM >45 21.2 F C 8 NB Hacienda Dr On-Ramp Merge AM PM 40.7 19.9 E C 9 SB Hacienda Dr On-Ramp Merge AM PM 32.4 23.0 D C 10 Hacienda Dr to Dougherty Rd/Hopyard Rd Basic AM PM 43.9 22.2 E C 11 Dougherty Rd/Hopyard Rd Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM >45 22.2 F C 12 Under Dougherty Rd/Hopyard Rd Overpass Basic AM PM >45 23.5 F C 13 NB Dougherty Rd/Hopyard Rd On-Ramp Merge AM PM >45 21.8 F C 14 SB Dougherty Rd/Hopyard Rd On-Ramp Basic AM PM 32.0 23.5 D C 15 Dougherty Rd/Hopyard to I-680 Basic AM PM 41.9 24.4 E C City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-17 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-7 (cont.): Existing Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Existing Density LOS 16 I-680 Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM — 27.7 F C 17 Under I-680 Overpass Basic AM PM 41.2 22.7 E C 18 I-680 NB On-Ramp Merge AM PM >45 29.4 F D 19 I-680 SB On-Ramp/Foothill Rd Off-Ramp Weave AM PM — 32.0 F D 20 Under Foothill Rd Overpass Basic AM PM 38.3 19.6 E C I-680 Northbound 1 South of Stoneridge Dr Basic AM PM 22.5 21.4 C C 2 Stoneridge Dr Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 22.5 21.4 C C 3 Under Stoneridge Dr Basic AM PM 15.6 18.3 B C 4 EB Stoneridge Dr On-Ramp Merge AM PM 12.7 16.7 B B 5 WB Stoneridge Dr On-Ramp Merge AM PM 24.1 34.5 C D 6 I-580 EB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 30.6 36.0 D E 7 I-580 WB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 20.2 22.5 C C 8 Over I-580 Basic AM PM 10.2 15.5 A B 9 I-580 EB Off-Ramp Merge AM PM 14.9 24.2 B C 10 I-580 WB Off-Ramp Merge AM PM 18.9 20.7 C C 11 Village Parkway On-Ramp Merge AM PM 34.4 38.1 D E 12 South of Alcosta Blvd Basic AM PM 39.7 >45 E F I-680 Southbound 1 South of Alcosta Blvd Basic AM PM 32.5 32.6 D D City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-18 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-7 (cont.): Existing Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Existing Density LOS 2 I-680 EB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 39.7 — E F 3 I-580 WB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 28.8 22.4 D C 4 Over I-580 Basic AM PM 29.0 32.7 D D 5 Amador Plaza Rd On-Ramp Merge AM PM 30.2 32.9 D D 6 I-580 On-Ramp/Stoneridge Dr Off-Ramp Weave AM PM — — F F 7 Under Stoneridge Dr Basic AM PM 26.5 35.9 D E 8 Stoneridge Dr WB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 28.6 — D F 9 Stoneridge Dr EB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 28.4 — D F 10 South of Stoneridge Dr Basic AM PM 30.9 >45 D F Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Public Transit Transit service in the area is provided by Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA, known most commonly as “Wheels”), The County Connection, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE). Wheels (LAVTA) Wheels provides fixed-route and paratransit service throughout the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, and provides connections to other transit service providers. Wheels buses connect major destinations within the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, including Downtown areas, employment centers, and transit hubs, which include BART and ACE stations. Wheels bus schedules are also coordinated with ACE and BART trains during peak commute hours. Although no bus routes directly serve the site, there are multiple routes which stop a block or two away including Routes 1, 2, 30R, and school routes 501, 502, and 504. Bus stops are provided along Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. Transit amenities are provided at the Dublin Boulevard eastbound and westbound stops, including shelters, seating, and real-time arrival displays. The buses used on these routes have a seating capacity of approximately 40 passengers, with standing room available for an additional 20 passengers. I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-2a_existing_cond_PHTV_intersection_lane_config_traffic_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-2a Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-2b_existing_cond_PHTV_intersection_lane_config_traffic_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-2b Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-2c_existing_cond_PHTV_intersection_lane_config_traffic_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-2c Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-2d_existing_cond_PHTV_intersection_lane_config_traffic_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-2d Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-27 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Route 1 operates as a local connector between East Dublin/Pleasanton BART and Emerald Point, the East County Hall of Justice and the Santa Rita Jail via Hacienda Drive. It operates every 30 minutes during peak periods, and every 60 minutes mid-day, evening, and on weekends. It has designated stops on Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive within a block of the project site. Weekday daily boardings on Route 1 are approximately 50 passengers, based on data provided by LAVTA staff. Weekend ridership is less than weekday ridership. Route 2 is a local connector providing hourly service during peak times on weekdays between the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, the office and commercial districts along Dublin Boulevard, and the residential neighborhoods in northeast Dublin. The route has designated stops on Central Parkway within two blocks of the project site. Daily boardings on Route 2 are approximately 40 passengers. Weekend ridership is less than weekday ridership. Route 30R (Rapid) is a rapid bus route that provides service every 15-minutes all day on weekdays, connecting the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, as well as the Downtown Livermore Transit Center and Lawrence Livermore Labs. Route 30R operates hourly on weekday evenings as well as all-day on weekends. It has a designated stop on Dublin Boulevard at Hacienda Drive. Weekday daily boardings on Route 30R are approximately 1,800 passengers. With 60 weekday daily roundtrips, most buses operate with excess capacity. Weekend ridership is less than weekday ridership. The school routes 501, 502, and 504 make only one run in both morning and late afternoon on weekdays. County Connection Central Contra Costa Transit Authority operates “County Connection” bus service connects destinations in Contra Costa County to the Tri-Valley area, including from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to the San Ramon Transit Center and Bishop Ranch Business Park. There is also a route that connects the Walnut Creek BART station to the Downtown Pleasanton ACE station. Bay Area Rapid Transit Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) provides regional transportation connections to much of the Bay Area and the Dublin/Pleasanton line provides direct access to San Francisco, with several stops in Oakland where connections may be made to other lines. The closest BART station is the East Dublin/Pleasanton Station located approximately a half mile west of the project site. The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is located approximately 2.5 miles from the project site. BART train frequency ranges between 15 and 20 minutes from approximately 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Based on 2015 data from BART, approximately 8,000 passengers per day enter/exit the BART system at the East Dublin/Pleasanton station, and approximately 3,700 passengers enter/exit the BART system at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. BART recently completed conceptual engineering and project-level Draft Environmental Impact Report for a proposed extension of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART line. The project would extend BART by 5.5 miles along I-580 from the existing East Dublin/Pleasanton Station to a new station in the vicinity of the Isabel Avenue interchange. The project would also incorporate improvements to City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-28 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx the local bus system, connections with key activity centers in Livermore and inter-regional rail service. The Draft EIR for the BART extension contemplates a completion date of 2026. Altamont Commuter Express The Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) operates weekday train service between Stockton and San Jose with Tri-Valley stops in Downtown Pleasanton and Livermore. During the morning commute period only westbound service from San Joaquin County to San Jose is provided, while only eastbound service is provided in the afternoon/evening commute period. There are four morning trains through Pleasanton between 5:33 a.m. and 8:18 a.m., and four evening trains between 4:28 p.m. and 7:31 p.m. Travel time from Stockton to Pleasanton is approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes, while travel time from the Tri-Valley to San Jose is approximately 1 hour. Wheels provides shuttle services between the ACE stations and major employment/residential areas in Pleasanton and Livermore. ACE trains carry approximately 4,000 passengers on a typical weekday, with approximately 600 passengers boarding the ACE system at the downtown Pleasanton Station on a typical weekday. Pedestrians A concrete sidewalk exists along the project frontage with Hacienda Drive. Along the project frontage with Martinelli Way and Arnold Road, there are asphalt pedestrian paths as well as curb ramps at previously contemplated driveways to the site. No pedestrian facilities existing on the opposite side of Arnold Road from the project site. A sidewalk exists along the opposite side of Martinelli Way from the project site Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, pathways, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are provided along most roadways in Dublin where land uses have been developed adjacent to the roadway. Sidewalks are not provided on the east side of Arnold Road north of Dublin Boulevard, on the west side of Arnold Road at any point. Along the project frontage, there are asphalt pedestrian paths as well as curb ramps at previously contemplated driveways to the site. As part of the project, these asphalt paths would be reconstructed as sidewalks. Bicycles Bicycle facilities in Dublin include the following general types. • Class I: Shared Use Path—These facilities provide a completely separate right-of-way and are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle cross-flow minimized. • Class II: Bicycle Lane—Bicycle lanes provide a restricted right-of-way and are designated for the use of bicycles for one-way travel with a striped lane on a street or highway. Bicycle lanes are generally a minimum of five feet wide. Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted. • Class III: Bicycle Route with Sharrows—These bikeways provide right-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with motor vehicles. These include sharrows or “shared-lane markings” to highlight the presence of bicyclists. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-29 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx There is currently a Class I multi-use path on the north side of Dublin Boulevard from Iron Horse Regional Trail in the west to Sybase Drive north of the project. There are Class II bike lanes on Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road from Gleason Drive in the north to Martinelli Way. Class II bike lanes are also provided on Dublin Boulevard, Owens Drive, Central Parkway, and Gleason Drive in the project vicinity. Iron Horse Regional Trail and the Tassajara Creek Trails provide regional bicycle connections in the project vicinity. The project proposes to add a multi-use trail along the Hacienda Drive and I-580 sides of the site perimeter. This proposal aligns with the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, October 2014 for a Class I trail in this location. In addition, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies Class II bicycle lanes on Martinelli Way from Iron Horse Parkway to Hacienda Drive, Iron Horse Parkway from Dublin Boulevard to the BART station, DeMarcus Boulevard from Dublin Boulevard to the BART station, and the access road extending west from Arnold Road along I-580. Intersection and bicycle crossing connection improvements are identified for the Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive intersection. Freeway crossing improvements or new crossings for bikes and pedestrians are also being explored for the Tassajara Road interchange, the Tassajara Creek crossing, and the Dougherty Road interchange. On the north side of Martinelli Way between Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road, the adjacent development provided a 10-foot-wide sidewalk to accommodate bicycles in lieu of an on-street facility. 3.6.2 - Regulatory Setting State Regulations California Department of Transportation The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State Highway facilities (Caltrans 2002); however, Caltrans recognizes that achieving LOS C/LOS D may not always be feasible. A standard of LOS E or better on a peak-hour basis was used as the planning objective for the evaluation of potential impacts of this development on Caltrans facilities, as that is the standard set for Caltrans facilities in the study area by the Alameda CTC. Regional Alameda County Transportation Commission The Alameda CTC manages the county’s one-cent transportation sales tax and serves as the county’s congestion management agency. Alameda CTC prepares and administers the Congestion Management Plan (CMP), a plan that describes the strategies to assess and monitor the performance of the county’s multimodal transportation system, address congestion and improve the performance of a multimodal system, and strengthen the integration of transportation and land use planning. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Tri-Valley Transportation Council is a joint powers authority formed pursuant to a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement establishing the Tri-Valley Transportation Council, among the County of Alameda, the County of Contra Costa, the City of Livermore, the City of Pleasanton, the City of San Ramon, the City of Dublin, and the Town of Danville. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-30 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx The TVTC periodically evaluates the impacts of projected land uses on regional transportation infrastructure in the Tri-Valley area. The TVTC oversees the expenditures of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fund. Local City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan establishes the following guiding and implementing policies associated with transportation that are relevant to the proposed project: • Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.1: Design streets to (1) include sufficient capacity for projected traffic, (2) minimize congested conditions during peak hours of operation at intersections, (3) serve a variety of transportation modes including vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, and variety of users including people with disabilities, children, and seniors, (4) provide continuity with existing streets, and (5) allow convenient access to planned land uses. • Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.3: The goals, policies, and implementation measures for street design in Section 10.8 of the Community Design and Sustainability Element should be consulted when new streets are being designed and/or existing streets are being modified. • Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.4: Reserve right-of-way and construct improvements necessary to allow streets to accommodate projected vehicular traffic with the least friction. • Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.6: The City shall strive to phase development and roadway improvements so that the operating Level of Service (LOS) for intersections in Dublin does not exceed LOS D. However, intersections within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area (including the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road and Village Parkway/Interstate 680 on-ramp) are excluded from this requirement and may operate at LOS E or worse as long as the safety for pedestrians and bicyclists is maintained and impacts to transit travel speeds are minimized. • Guiding Policy 5.2.2.A.7: The City will comply with all provisions of the Alameda County Congestion Management Program and will review proposed development projects to ensure compliance with this Program. • Implementing Policy 5.2.2.B.1: Design streets according to the forecasted demand and maximum design speeds listed above, and to the detailed standards set forth in the City of Dublin’s Street Design Standards and Standard Plans which are maintained by the Public Works Department, as well as the listed Additional Policies. • Implementing Policy 5.2.2.B.2: Design and construct all roads in the City’s circulation network as defined in Figure 5-1 [Exhibit 3.6-4a] as well as bicycle and pedestrian networks as defined in the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. • Guiding Policy 5.2.3.A.1: Provide an integrated multi-modal circulation system that provides efficient vehicular circulation while providing a design that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, seniors, children, youth, and families; and encourages pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other non-automobile transportation alternatives. • Implementing Policy 5.2.3.B.1: Provide continuity with existing streets, include sufficient capacity for projected traffic, and allow convenient access to planned land uses. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-31 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx • Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.1: Support improved local transit as essential to a quality urban environment, particularly for residents who do not drive. • Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.2: Support the development of a community that facilitates and encourages the use of local and regional transit systems. • Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.3: Encourage improvements in the Enhanced Pedestrian Areas to improve the walkability of these areas. • Guiding Policy 5.3.1.A.4: Maintain enhanced signal coordination and limit intersection delays on major and RAPID transit routes to minimize delays to transit service. • Implementing Policy 5.3.1.B.2: Require dedication of land and the construction of improvements to support the use of public transit in the community. Improvements could consist of bus turnouts, shelters, benches, realtime arrival information, and other facilities that may be appropriate. • Implementing Policy 5.3.1.B.4: Capitalize on opportunities to connect into and enhance ridership on regional transit systems including BART, LAVTA and any future light rail systems. • Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.1: Plan for all users by creating and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system) through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that meets the requirements of currently adopted transportation plans and serves all categories of users. • Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.2: Be context aware by maintaining sensitivity to local conditions and needs in both residential and business districts as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas, and will work with residents, merchants, and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense of place ensues. • Guiding Policy 5.4.3.A.6: Encourage developers to implement Complete Streets in private transportation infrastructure by providing guidance during the development approval process. • Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.1: Provide safe, continuous, comfortable and convenient bikeways throughout the City. • Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.2: Improve and maintain bikeways and pedestrian facilities and support facilities in conformance with the recommendations in the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. • Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.3: Enhance the multi-modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation. • Guiding Policy 5.5.1.A.4: Provide comfortable, safe, and convenient walking routes throughout the City and, in particular, to key destinations such as Downtown Dublin, the BART Stations, schools, parks, and commercial centers. • Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.2: Improve bikeways, bicycle support facilities, and pedestrian facilities in accordance with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in conjunction with development proposals. • Implementing Policy 5.5.1.B.3: Ensure on-going maintenance of bikeways, bicycle support facilities and pedestrian facilities that are intended for public use and located on private property in conjunction with development proposals. • Guiding Policy 5.6.1.A.1: Designate and accommodate truck routes to minimize noise nuisance on residential arterial streets. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-32 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx • Implementing Policy 5.6.1.B.1: Take advantage of opportunities to provide long-term truck parking facilities. • Guiding Policy 5.9.1.A.1: Continue the city’s program of requiring developers to contribute fees and/or improvements to help fund off-site improvements related to their projects. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sets forth the following policies relevant to transportation: • Policy 4-24: Require all employment-related development to provide convenient and attractive pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-related facilities to encourage alternate modes of commuting to and from work. • Policy 4-31: Establish a convenient, multi-use, all-weather network of trails, including bike lanes, to link planning area parks, recreation facilities, schools, employment centers and major open space areas to each other and to the surrounding community. • Policy 5-3: Plan development in eastern Dublin to maintain Level of Service D or better as the average intersection level of service at all intersections within the Specific Plan area during AM, PM and midday peak periods. The average intersection level of service is defined as the hourly average. • Policy 5-12: BART service to the eastern Dublin/Pleasanton station orients local transit service to provide transit connections between the BART station and all portions of the Specific Plan area. • Policy 5-13: Establish design guidelines for residential and commercial development so that there are clear and safe pedestrian paths between building entrances and transit service stops. • Policy 5-14: Provide transit shelters at major limit stops and bus pullouts on major collector, arterial and major arterial streets. • Policy 5-18: Provide convenient and secure bicycle parking and support facilities at key destinations in eastern Dublin, such as schools, recreation areas, transit stops and commercial centers. • Policy 5-21: Require all non-residential projects with 50 or more employees to participate in a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. City of Pleasanton Impacts to City of Pleasanton intersections could be considered significant if the project would result in any of the following: • For signalized intersections located in Pleasanton, an impact would be assessed if the addition of project traffic results in the deterioration of a signalized intersection from LOS D (or better) to LOS E or LOS F. There are a few exceptions to the LOS standard, which include the City of Pleasanton Gateway intersections. Gateway intersections include all ramp terminal intersections on I-580. For the Gateway intersections, the LOS standard would only be below D when no reasonable mitigation exists or the necessary mitigation is contrary to other goals and policies of the City. Assessment of impacts were based on HCM 2000 method. • For signalized intersections located in Pleasanton, an impact would be assessed at an intersection projected to operate at LOS E or F prior to the addition of project traffic, if the project adds 10 or more trips. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-33 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx 3.6.3 - Methodology for Analysis Fehr & Peers prepared a Transportation Assessment that evaluated impacts on transportation. The complete assessment is provided in Appendix F. Key aspects of the Transportation Assessment are summarized as follows. Trip Generation Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of vehicular traffic a project might add to the local roadway network. In addition to estimates of daily traffic, estimates are also created for the peak 1-hour period during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) commute hours, when traffic volumes on adjacent streets are typically at their highest. For this project, estimates are also created for the weekday mid-day as well as Saturday mid-day when the project has the potential to generate the most traffic. As IKEA is a unique land use, trip generation rates presented in the Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition may not adequately capture the unique IKEA-specific trip generation characteristics. Therefore, trip generation surveys were conducted over multiple weekdays and Saturdays at the existing Emeryville, East Palo Alto, and West Sacramento IKEA stores. The three survey locations are located in close proximity to regional transportation facilities, as well as in close proximity to other retail uses, similar to the proposed Dublin IKEA. All sites are served by transit, although the Emeryville location has the most frequent transit service that provides connections to a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station. Sidewalks are provided in the vicinity of all survey sites, providing connections to adjacent land uses. Roadways in the vicinity of the Emeryville store provide bicycle facilities. The existing Emeryville and East Palo Alto stores are located approximately 40 miles apart. The proposed Dublin IKEA would be located approximately 35-miles from the East Palo Alto location and 30-miles from the Emeryville location. At the existing Emeryville and East Palo Alto locations, counts were collected on two weekdays in March 2016, three weekdays in June 2016, one Saturday in March 2016, one Saturday in April 2016, and three Saturdays in June 2016. At the West Sacramento IKEA, counts were collected on three weekdays and three Saturdays in June 2016. For all locations, a separate count of passenger vehicles, large trucks, bicycles and pedestrians was conducted. For each data collection period, the peak 1 hour of total activity during the weekday morning peak period (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.), weekday mid-day peak period (11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.), weekday evening peak period (4:00 to 7:00 p.m.), and Saturday afternoon peak period (11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) was identified and summarized in Appendix F. For each day of data collection, the level of activity in terms of percent of average sales was provided by IKEA. Key highlights of the data collection effort include variation in the level of trip generation between different days, with the largest variation occurring during the morning peak hour (up to 19 percent difference between the lowest day and the highest day), with the least variation during the weekday PM peak hour (between 3 and 7 percent difference between the lowest day and the highest day, depending on survey location). Additionally, the peak days of trip generation for each location do City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-34 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx not necessarily correspond with the peak days of number of transactions. For example, trip generation at the Emeryville store on a day with sales activity of 102 percent of average was approximately 10 percent lower than on a day with 99 percent of average sales activity. Overall results of the data collection effort indicate that of the three locations surveyed, the Emeryville IKEA generates the most total activity. During a typical morning peak hour (from approximately 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.), the Emeryville IKEA generates approximately 60 total trips, which includes approximately 80 percent passenger vehicle trips, 18 percent truck trips, and 2 percent pedestrian/transit trips. During a typical mid-day peak hour (from approximately 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.), the Emeryville IKEA generates approximately 660 total trips, including 91 percent passenger vehicle trips, less than 1 percent truck trips, 8 percent pedestrian/transit trips, and less than 1 percent bicycling trips. During a typical evening peak hour (from approximately 4:00 to 5:00 p.m.), the Emeryville IKEA generates approximately 530 trips, including 84 percent passenger vehicle trips, 2 percent truck trips, 14 percent pedestrian/transit trips, and 1 percent bicycling trips. Saturdays are the busiest day for IKEA stores. At the Emeryville IKEA, which has the most activity of the three survey locations, approximately 1,230 trips are generated during a Saturday afternoon peak hour (typically from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m.), including 88 percent passenger vehicle trips, 1 percent truck trips, 11 percent pedestrian/transit trips, and less than 1 percent bicycling trips. Based on the data collection effort at the three IKEA stores, the maximum and average overall trip generation rates per square-foot, including sales-floor and warehouse space, were calculated, as summarized in Table 3.6-8, which include bicycle, transit, and pedestrian trips. Table 3.6-8: Maximum and Average Observed IKEA Trip Generation Rates Location Square Feet Weekday Saturday AM Peak Hour Mid-day PM Peak Hour Afternoon Average Max Average Max Average Max Average Max East Palo Alto 333,763 0.16 0.19 1.50 1.72 1.05 1.09 3.25 3.45 Emeryville 292,258 0.17 0.21 2.12 2.26 1.63 1.81 3.92 4.21 West Sacramento 279,428 0.20 0.22 1.66 1.81 1.18 1.21 2.88 3.12 Average 301,816 0.18 0.20 1.76 1.93 1.29 1.37 3.35 3.59 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. There is a high level of variability in the average and maximum overall trip generation rates per square foot, with the largest store (East Palo Alto) generating the lowest trip generation rate on a square-foot basis. Given the lack of correlation between square footage and trip generation, and the high level of variability between locations, trip generation estimates for the proposed Dublin IKEA were based on the maximum observed trip generation from the Emeryville IKEA store. The Emeryville location is most City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-35 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx similar to the proposed Dublin location in terms of the provision of transit service and adjacencies to other regional retail locations, and would present the most conservative estimate of trip generation. The resulting IKEA trip generation by travel mode is presented in Table 3.6-9. The use of the average observed trip generation rate from all survey locations would result in a lower trip generation estimate. Therefore, the actual trip generation from the Emeryville store was used to evaluate the potential impacts of the project to present a conservative assessment of potential project impacts. Table 3.6-9: Trip Generation Estimates for IKEA Only Travel Mode Weekday Saturday AM Peak Hour Mid-day PM Peak Hour Afternoon In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Passenger Vehicles 36 13 49 297 304 601 185 262 447 529 556 1,085 Trucks 5 6 11 3 1 4 5 3 8 4 8 12 Pedestrians/Transit Riders 1 0 1 32 19 51 35 39 74 68 59 127 Bicycles 0 0 0 2 3 5 1 0 1 5 0 5 Total 42 19 61 334 327 661 226 304 530 606 623 1,229 Note: IKEA = 339,099 square feet Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. For the purposes of the Transportation Impact Assessment, all trips to the Dublin IKEA were considered vehicle trips. Additionally, no pass-by or diverted trip reductions are proposed for application to the IKEA trips, as IKEA is considered a primary destination, meaning IKEA is the primary reason for travel. Pass-by and diverted trips are discussed further in the following section for application to the non-IKEA uses. For the non-IKEA uses, the vehicle trip generation of potential future uses that could be constructed on the site was estimated using rates and equations from Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition, assuming the following land uses: • 34,560 square feet of retail • 58,440 square feet of restaurant The resulting trip generation estimates are presented in Table 3.6-10, which also reflect the potential for interaction between the proposed non-IKEA retail and IKEA project components, as well as traffic that may already be on the roadway system. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-36 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-10: Non-IKEA Use Trip Generation Use Size Daily Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour (also use for Midday) Saturday Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total High-turnover Sit Down Restaurant1 58,440 square feet 7,430 348 284 632 346 230 576 436 386 822 Retail2 34,560 square feet 3,400 51 31 82 141 153 294 228 210 438 Subtotal 10,830 399 315 714 487 383 870 664 596 1,260 Less Internal Trip Capture (20%) -2,170 0 0 0 -97 -77 -174 -133 -120 -253 Driveway Volumes 8,660 399 315 714 390 306 696 531 476 1,008 Less Pass-by/Diverted Trips (50% daily/30% peak hour) -4,330 -120 -95 -215 -117 -92 -209 -159 -143 -302 Net Trips 4,330 279 220 499 273 214 487 372 333 705 Notes: 1 ITE Trip Generation 9th Edition land use category 932—High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P): AM Peak Hour: T = 10.81*(X) (55% in, 45% out); assumes breakfast service; if no breakfast service is provided, trip generation would be significantly less. No fitted curve equation available. PM Peak Hour: T = 9.85*(X) (60% in, 40% out) Sat Peak Hour: T = 14.07*(X) (53% in, 47% out) 2 ITE land use category 820—Shopping Center (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P). AM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.61Ln(X) + 2.24; Enter = 62%; Exit = 38%; R2 for fitted curve is 0.56, fitted curve produces slightly higher trip estimates than the average rate for this size project, which is expected for a small retail use. PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.67Ln(X) + 3.31; Enter = 48%; Exit = 52%; R2 for fitted curve is 0.81, fitted curve produces slightly higher trip estimates than the average rate for this size project, which is expected for a small retail use. Sat Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.65Ln(X) + 3.78; Enter = 52%; Exit = 48%; R2 for fitted curve is 0.83, fitted curve produces slightly higher trip estimates than the average rate for this size project, which is expected for a small retail use. Source: Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition), ITE, 2012; Fehr & Peers, 2018. The total trip generation for the project is presented in Table 3.6-11, which shows that the project is expected to generate approximately 9,630 weekday daily trips and 17,880 Saturday daily trips. Table 3.6-11: Total Trip Generation Use Weekday Saturday Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Total Total In Out Total IKEA 5,3001 42 19 61 226 304 530 12,2901 606 623 1,229 High-turn Over Site Down Restaurant 7,430 348 284 632 346 230 576 9,260 436 386 822 Retail 3,400 51 31 82 141 153 294 4,730 228 210 438 Less Internal Trips2 -2,170 — — — -97 -77 -174 -2,800 -133 -120 -252 Driveway Volumes 13,960 441 334 775 616 610 1,226 23,480 1,137 1,099 2,236 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-37 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-11 (cont.): Total Trip Generation Use Weekday Saturday Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Total Total In Out Total Less Pass-by (50% daily/30% peak hour)3 -4,330 -120 -95 -214 -117 -92 -208 -5,600 -159 -143 -302 Net New Trips 9,630 321 239 561 499 518 1,018 17,880 978 956 1,934 Notes: 1 Daily trips assumed to be 10-times weekday PM peak hour and 10-times Saturday peak hour. 2 Internal trip reduction only applied to non-IKEA uses. 3 Pass-by/Diverted trip reduction only applied to non-IKEA uses. Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition, 2012; Fehr & Peers, 2018. Trip Distribution and Assignment Project trip distribution percentages were developed using a variety of data sources, including existing traffic counts, the location of complementary land uses, a select zone analysis from the City of Dublin Travel Demand Model, and prior analyses conducted for the site. This data was used in combination with anonymized and aggregated location data from Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and mobile devices, referred to here as Big Data of the existing Bay Area IKEA stores. Fehr & Peers worked with StreetLight Data to review thousands of anonymous data samples representing trips with an origin within the boundaries of the Emeryville IKEA and East Palo Alto stores. Data is representative of typical weekday conditions (Monday through Thursday) and weekend conditions (Saturday and Sunday) and is based on data from 2015 and 2016. For the purposes of this assessment, the relative origins of trips with a destination at either store were evaluated to establish potential trip capture areas. Review of the data indicates that both the existing Emeryville and East Palo Alto stores have a large catchment area, with a noticeable number of trips originating in Half Moon Bay, south of Gilroy, San Francisco and the Tri-Valley for the East Palo Alto store. For the Emeryville location, noticeable levels of trips originate in San Francisco, Sonoma County, central and eastern Contra Costa County, as well as in the Tri-Valley area. For both locations, 20 to 30 percent of trips originate within a 5-mile radius, with half of trips 10 miles or less. For the Emeryville location, approximately 75 percent of trips are less than 25 miles in length, while for the East Palo Alto location, 85 percent of trips are less than 25 miles in length. Based on the location of the proposed Dublin IKEA and the location of existing IKEA stores, it is expected that many patrons to Dublin IKEA would be drawn from locations east of Dublin, including Livermore, Tracy, Manteca, Modesto, and eastern Contra Costa County. For potential patrons living in Stockton, the Dublin location is slightly closer than the existing West Sacramento location, but travel times to Dublin may be longer than to West Sacramento. The Dublin location is also closer to major population centers in the tri-valley, I-680 corridor, and Central Contra Costa County and a large City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-38 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx number of trips are expected to be drawn from these areas. Not all of these trips are expected to be new IKEA trips, as some existing patrons may change their preferred store location. This nuance will be explored further in the vehicle miles of travel assessment and all trips to the Dublin IKEA will be considered new trips to the immediate study area for the analysis of intersection and freeway operations. Based on these considerations, trip distribution percentages were developed as presented in Exhibit 3.6-3. Project trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the general directions of approach and departure shown on Exhibit 3.6-3 but the route that people take to the site could vary by their destination within area. For example, a driver originating in the west on I-580 could access the site from the Hacienda Drive interchange, or could exit the freeway sooner at Hopyard Road if there was freeway congestion; however, significant route deviation due to non-recurring congestion was not considered in the analysis, as that could dilute the potential project impacts on the primary travel routes to the site. The resulting project trip assignment and project-related intersection volumes are shown on Exhibits 3.6-4a–3.6-4e. 3.6.4 - Thresholds of Significance According to the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, to determine whether transportation and traffic impacts are significant environmental effects, the following questions are analyzed and evaluated. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-3_project_trip_distribution.cdr Exhibit 3.6-3 Project Trip Distribution CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Source: Fehr and Peers THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-4a_project_trip_assignment.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-4a Project Trip Assignment THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-4b_project_trip_assignment.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-4b Project Trip Assignment THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-4c_project_trip_assignment.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-4c Project Trip Assignment THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-4d_project_trip_assignment.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-4d Project Trip Assignment THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-4e_project_trip_assignment.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-4e Project Trip Assignment THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-51 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx City of Dublin Impacts to City of Dublin intersections could be considered significant if the project would result in any of the following: • The project conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. A significant impact could be identified: - -If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within motor vehicle delay ranges associated with LOS D or better (average control delay equal to or less than 55 seconds per vehicle) without the project and the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at a LOS E or F; - -If at a study, signalized intersection where the motor vehicle level of service is E, the project would cause an increase in the average delay for any of the critical movements of six (6) seconds or more. • If at a study, signalized intersection where the motor vehicle level of service is LOS F, the project would cause (a) the overall volume-to-capacity (“V/C”) ratio to increase 0.03 or more or (b) the critical movement V/C ratio to increase 0.05 or more. • A queuing impact would be identified if: - Project traffic causes the 95th percentile queue in a turn pocket to extend beyond the turn pocket by more than 25 feet (i.e., the length of one vehicle) into adjacent traffic lanes that operate (i.e., move) separately from the turn lane; or - If the 95th percentile queue already exceeds that turn pocket length under no project conditions, the project traffic lengthens the queue by more than 25 feet. • If the operations of an unsignalized study intersection is projected to decline with the addition of project traffic, and if the installation of a traffic signal based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Peak-Hour Signal Warrant (Warrant 3) would be warranted. For intersections that meet the above criteria, capacity-enhancing measures that do not degrade other modes of travel will be considered, including upgrading or installing signal equipment, extending left-turn pocket storage, providing non-motorized facilities to reduce vehicular demand, enhancing capacity on a parallel route and/or enhancing transit access to a site. The determination of a significant impact and the appropriate mitigation measure will consider the City’s Complete Streets policy. Impacts to transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities could be identified if the project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities; specifically: • A pedestrian impact is considered significant if it would: - Disrupt existing pedestrian facilities; - Interfere with planned pedestrian facilities; or City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-52 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx - Create inconsistencies with adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. • A bicycle impact is considered significant if it would: - Disrupt existing bicycle facilities; - Interfere with planned bicycle facilities; - Create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards; or - Not provide secure and safe bicycle parking in adequate proportion to anticipated demand. • A transit impact is considered significant if it would result in development that is inaccessible to transit riders or would generate transit demand that cannot be met by existing or planned transit in the area. Transportation-related impacts could also be identified if: • The project substantially increases traffic hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. • The project results in inadequate emergency access. City of Pleasanton Impacts to City of Pleasanton intersections could be considered if the project would result in any of the following: • For signalized intersections located in Pleasanton, an impact would be assessed if the addition of project traffic results in the deterioration of a signalized intersection from LOS D (or better) to LOS E or LOS F. Assessments of impacts were based on HCM 2000 method. There are a few exceptions to the LOS standard, including the City of Pleasanton Gateway intersections. Gateway intersections include all ramp terminal intersections on I-580. For the Gateway intersections, the LOS standard could be below D when no reasonable mitigation exists or the necessary mitigation is contrary to other goals and policies of the City. • For signalized intersections located in Pleasanton, an impact would be assessed at an intersection projected to operate at LOS E or F prior to the addition of project traffic, if the project adds 10 or more peak-hour trips. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Impacts to intersections on Routes of Regional Significance as defined by the TVTC would be considered significant if: • If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within delay ranges associated with less- than-capacity conditions for motor vehicles (i.e., LOS E or better with an average control delay of equal to or less than 80 seconds per vehicle) without the project and the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at [LOS] F; City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-53 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx • If at a study, signalized intersection where the motor vehicle level of service is LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic, the project would cause (a) the overall volume-to-capacity (“V/C”) ratio to increase 0.03 or more or (b) the critical movement V/C ratio to increase 0.05 or more. Intersections in downtown areas and/or specifically exempted by local jurisdictions are exempt from this TVTC standard. Although the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, September 2017, specifies the use of the 2010 HCM method for evaluating intersection operations, the City of Dublin has not yet adopted use of the 2010 HCM method. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, the 2000 HCM method is used to assess impacts under the TVTC criteria. The 2000 HCM method tends to produce more conservative results for motor vehicle operations, and use of the 2000 HCM method would capture potential impacts under the TVTC criteria. Alameda CTC The Alameda CTC does not have adopted thresholds of significance for Congestion Management Plan (CMP) land use analysis purposes. Past analyses within the City of Dublin have used the following criteria to assess roadway segment impacts: • For a roadway segment of the Alameda CTC Congestion Management Program (CMP) Network, the project would cause (a) the LOS to degrade from LOS E or better to LOS F or (b) the V/C ratio to increase 0.02 or more for a roadway segment that would operate at LOS F without the project. Caltrans Facilities Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State Highway facilities (Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Studies, Caltrans, December 2002); however, Caltrans recognizes that achieving LOS C/LOS D may not always be feasible. A standard of LOS E or better on a peak-hour basis was used as the planning objective for the evaluation of potential impacts of this development on Caltrans facilities as that is the standard set for Caltrans facilities in the study area by the Alameda CTC. The following criteria were used to evaluate potential impacts to Caltrans facilities: • If a Caltrans facility (mainline/ramp merge/ramp diverge) is projected to operate at LOS E or better without project and the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at LOS F, the impact may be considered significant. • If a Caltrans facility is projected to operate at LOS F without project and the project is expected to increase density, the impact may be considered significant. • For Caltrans designed ramp-terminal intersections, the criteria of the City jurisdiction in which they reside was used. • A queueing impact at a Caltrans on-ramp would be identified as significant if: City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-54 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx - A project traffic causes the 95th percentile queue to extend beyond the ramp storage by more than 25 feet (i.e., the length of one vehicle) into the adjacent arterial; or - If the 95th percentile queue already exceeds the ramp storage under no project conditions, the project traffic lengthens the queue by more than 25 feet. For Caltrans-designed ramp-terminal intersections, the criteria of the City jurisdiction in which they reside were used. Vehicle Miles of Travel In response to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has updated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines to include new transportation-related evaluation metrics. Draft guidelines were developed in August 2014, with updated draft guidelines prepared January 2016, which incorporated public comments from the August 2014 guidelines. OPR released final proposed Guidelines on November 27, 2017. The final proposed Guidelines include a new Section 15064.3 on VMT analysis and thresholds. OPR also released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. New Guidelines Section 15064.3 states that they do not take effect until January 1, 2020 unless the lead agency adopts them earlier. Neither the City of Dublin nor the Alameda CTC has established any standards or thresholds on VMT. Therefore, the new guidelines have not yet been adopted and are not in effect at this time. The final guidelines may change based on the comments received during the Natural Resources Agency formal administrative rulemaking process for adoption under the Administrative Procedure Act. Since there are no standards in effect on VMT analysis, a preliminary assessment of the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) generated by the proposed project was prepared for information and disclosure purposes only. No determination on the significance of VMT impacts is made in this document since none is legally required. 3.6.5 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where necessary. Existing With Project Conditions Traffic Impact TRANS-1: The proposed project may cause intersections and queues to operate below acceptable levels under Existing Plus Project conditions. The proposed project would generate new trips that would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Impact Analysis Project-only traffic volumes shown on Exhibits 3.6-4a–3.6-4e were added to the existing peak-hour traffic volumes shown on Exhibits 3.6-2a–3.6-2d to estimate the Existing with Project peak-hour intersection turning movement volumes, as shown on Exhibits 3.6-5a–3.6-5d. I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-5a_existing_with_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-5a Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-5b_existing_with_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-5b Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-5c_existing_with_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-5c Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-5d_existing_with_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-5d Existing with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-63 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Traffic signal timings, peak-hour factors, heavy vehicle percentages, and pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions. Intersection improvements considered in the Existing With Project condition include those proposed to be constructed as part of the project, which includes include the opening of the third northbound left-turn lane on Hacienda Drive to Martinelli Way, the opening of the second westbound left-turn lane on Martinelli Way to the Project Driveway, and completion of roadway connections to the project site. Lane configurations that form the basis for the Existing with Project analysis are also presented in Exhibits 3.6-5a–3.6-5d. Intersection Operations Existing with Project conditions were evaluated and the results are presented in Table 3.6-12, based on the traffic volumes and lane configurations presented on Exhibits 3.6-5a–3.6-5d. Table 3.6-12 also includes the operations results for the Existing without Project conditions for comparison purposes. Table 3.6-12: Existing with Project Condition Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing No Project Conditions Existing With Project Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 1. Amador Valley Boulevard at Dougherty Road (City of Dublin/ TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 53.7 33.4 27.1 D C C 55.7 34.0 27.7 E C C 2. Scarlett Drive at Dougherty Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 11.5 9.3 6.9 B A A 11.7 9.3 7.0 B A A 3. Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 43.8 48.9 50.6 D D D 44.2 51.2 53.6 D D D 4. I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp at Dougherty Road (City of Pleasanton/Caltrans/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 12.6 10.1 8.3 B B A 12.9 10.3 8.6 B B A 5. I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp at Hopyard Road (City of Pleasanton/ Caltrans/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 17.1 13.6 8.3 B B A 17.1 14.1 12.1 B B B 6. Hopyard Road at Owens Drive (City of Pleasanton) Signal AM PM SAT 36.8 48.2 48.2 D D D 36.8 48.2 48.8 D D D 7. Dublin Boulevard at Scarlett Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 8.9 10.0 8.3 A A A 7.1 10.1 8.7 A B A 8. Dublin Boulevard at Sterling Street/DeMarcus Boulevard (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 14.4 5.7 9.8 B A A 14.5 5.5 10.4 B A B 9. Dublin Boulevard at Iron Horse Parkway (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 10.1 12.8 6.0 B B A 11.5 12.2 6.2 B B A City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-64 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-12 (cont.): Existing with Project Condition Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing No Project Conditions Existing With Project Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 10. Central Parkway at Arnold Road (City of Dublin) Signal AM PM SAT 6.6 5.8 4.2 A A A 6.7 5.8 4.3 A A A 11. Dublin Boulevard at Arnold Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM AFT PM SAT 30.5 22.9 26.6 23.3 C C C C 33.1 27.1 30.6 30.7 C C C C 12. Martinelli Way at Arnold Road (City of Dublin) Signal AM AFT PM SAT 13.1 18.8 15.5 11.4 B B B B 18.9 21.6 24.4 28.6 B C C C 13. Dublin Boulevard at Sybase Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 7.2 9.2 9.6 A A A 7.6 9.9 9.9 A A A 14. Martinelli Way at Project Driveway** (City of Dublin) Signal AM AFT PM SAT 3.9 15.0 12.0 8.9 A B B A 28.7 39.1 34.7 44.5 C D C D 15. Gleason Drive at Hacienda Drive (City of Dublin) Signal AM PM SAT 11.2 10.6 9.0 B B A 11.3 11.1 9.1 B B A 16. Central Parkway at Hacienda Drive (City of Dublin) Signal AM PM SAT 19.4 17.0 12.7 B B B 20.7 17.4 14.3 B B B 17. Dublin Boulevard at Hacienda Drive** (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM AFT PM SAT 37.5 24.1 32.8 29.7 D C C C 38.1 25.8 34.2 31.0 D C C C 18. Martinelli Way at Hacienda Drive** (City of Dublin) Signal AM AFT PM SAT 26.7 26.4 43.9 32.0 C C D C 32.2 30.8 66.2 47.8 C C E D 19. I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp at Hacienda Drive (City of Pleasanton/ Caltrans/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 9.0 5.5 7.7 A A A 9.2 6.5 10.5 A A B 20. I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp at Hacienda Drive (City of Pleasanton/Caltrans/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 15.5 11.2 12.6 B B B 15.9 13.3 12.7 B B B City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-65 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-12 (cont.): Existing with Project Condition Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing No Project Conditions Existing With Project Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 21. Owens Drive at Hacienda Drive (City of Pleasanton) Signal AM PM SAT 17.6 32.5 17.1 B C B 17.6 32.7 17.3 B C B 22. Dublin Boulevard at Hibernia Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 14.1 15.9 23.9 B B C 14.0 15.4 24.1 B B C 23. Dublin Boulevard at Myrtle Drive/ Toyota Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 9.4 14.7 14.5 A B B 9.1 14.4 14.9 A B B 24. Dublin Boulevard at Glynnis Rose Drive (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 21.1 18.2 14.3 C B B 20.8 17.7 14.5 C B B 25. Central Parkway at Tassajara Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 27.6 17.6 15.8 C B B 27.8 17.7 15.7 C B B 26. Dublin Boulevard at Tassajara Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 36.9 36.1 36.9 D D D 37.1 36.5 39.9 D D D 27. I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp at Tassajara Road (City of Pleasanton/ Caltrans/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 7.1 9.4 12.5 A A B 7.1 9.5 12.7 A A B 28. I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp at Santa Rita Road (City of Pleasanton/ Caltrans/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 24.5 34.9 27.5 C C C 24.5 35.3 27.6 C C C 29. Dublin Boulevard at Fallon Road (City of Dublin/TVTC) Signal AM PM SAT 15.2 14.0 13.0 B B B 15.5 14.2 15.7 B B B 30. Martinelli Way/Project Driveway (City of Dublin)3 SSSC AM AFT PM SAT — — 1.1 (9.8) 0.8 (10.6) 0.8 (11.4) 1.0 (13.3) A (A) A (B) A (B) A (B) 31. Arnold Road/Project Driveway (City of Dublin)3 SSSC AM AFT PM SAT — — 2.0 (8.7) 8.6 (10.5) 7.8 (14.7) 13.9 (16.6) A (A) A (B) A (B) B (C) City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-66 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-12 (cont.): Existing with Project Condition Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Existing No Project Conditions Existing With Project Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Notes: Bold text indicates LOS E/F; Bold Italic text indicates potentially significant impact due to the proposed project. 1 SSSC = side-street stop controlled intersection; Signal = signalized intersection. 2 Average intersection delay calculated for signalized intersections using the 2000 HCM method. 3 For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. The addition of project traffic has the potential to degrade two intersections to an overall LOS E: • Dougherty Road at Amador Valley Boulevard (LOS E, AM peak hour) • Hacienda Drive at Martinelli Way (LOS E, PM peak hour) All other study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of project traffic in the existing condition. Vehicle Queues The addition of project traffic is expected to increase left-turn vehicle queues at some study intersections. Based on detailed information provided in Appendix F, the addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for movements where the queue already exceed the available storage for the following movements: • Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard—southbound left-turn (storage capacity of 300 feet) during weekday evening (increase from 350 without project to 400 feet with project) and Saturday (increase from 300 feet without project to 375 feet with project) peak hours, and westbound right-turn (storage capacity of 325 feet) during the Saturday (increase from 700 feet without project to 825 feet with project) peak hour. • Arnold Road at Martinelli Way—southbound left-turn (capacity of 225 feet) during weekday mid-day (increase from 100 feet without project to 275 feet with project) and Saturday (increase from 100 feet without project to 475 feet with project) peak hours. • Martinelli Way at IKEA Place/Persimmon Place—southbound left-turn (capacity of 150 feet, increase from 75 feet without project to 200 feet with project) and westbound left-turn (capacity of 650 feet, increase from 50 feet without project to 725 feet with project) during Saturday peak hour. • Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard—westbound left-turn (capacity of 250 feet) during weekday morning (increase from 225 feet without project to 275 feet with project) and Saturday (increase from 225 feet without project to 325 feet with project) peak hours. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-67 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx • Hacienda Drive at Martinelli Way—eastbound left-turn (capacity of 175 feet) during weekday PM peak hour (increases from 75 feet to 200 feet), and Saturday peak hour (increase from 25 to 250 feet), and northbound left-turn (capacity of 400 feet) during Saturday peak hour (increase from 275 feet without project to 575 feet with project). Impact and Mitigation Measures This section evaluates the intersection LOS results presented in Table 3.6-12, and compares the results with the criteria for significant impacts, and presents the effectiveness of mitigation measures in Table 3.6-13. Vehicle queue impacts are also assessed. As a condition of approval, the City of Dublin will collect applicable local and regional transportation impact fees (TIF) in addition to fair-share contributions for other improvements needed to mitigate significant impacts. This is consistent with the City policy to collect fees from projects that have a significant impact on local and regional facilities. Local fees include the Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (Eastern Dublin TIF) and the Downtown Dublin TIF. The following intersection impacts would occur with the project in the existing condition. Some intersections are evaluated under multiple significance criteria. Amador Valley Boulevard/Dougherty Road City of Dublin Standard: The addition of project-generated vehicle trips would worsen LOS D conditions, resulting in LOS E operations during the weekday AM peak hour. Based on the City of Dublin level of service standard for this intersection and the impact criteria, this is considered a significant impact. TVTC Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours, and its operations would remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. The project applicant shall fund installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. Adaptive Signal Control Technologies are able to adjust traffic signal cycle lengths and phasing based on actual conditions with the ability to adjust signal timing parameters to best serve actual conditions every few minutes. Additional information about the technology can be found on the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s website.2 With signal timing adjustments to better serve projected traffic flows, the intersection operations would improve to LOS D, reducing the impact to a less than significant level. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1a. Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way City of Dublin Standard: The addition of project-generated vehicle trips in the existing condition would worsen LOS D conditions, resulting in LOS E operations during the weekday PM peak hour. Based on the City of Dublin level of service standard for this intersection and the impact criteria, this is considered a significant impact. 2 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc-1/pdf/asct_brochure.pdf City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-68 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx The project applicant shall fund the install installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection prior to project occupation. With signal timing adjustments to better serve projected traffic flows, the intersection operations would improve to LOS D, reducing the impact to a less than significant level. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b. Table 3.6-13 summarizes the mitigated intersection level of service. Table 3.6-13: Existing with Mitigation Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control Peak Hour Existing without Project Existing with Project Existing with Project With Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Dougherty Road & Amador Valley Boulevard Signal AM PM SAT 53.7 33.4 27.1 D C C 55.7 34.0 27.7 E C C 48.3 36.7 29.6 D D C Hacienda Drive & Martinelli Way Signal AM AFT PM SAT 26.7 26.4 43.9 32.0 C C D C 32.2 30.8 66.2 47.8 C C E D 32.1 29.8 53.7 46.6 C C D D Notes: Bold text indicates LOS E/F; Bold Italic text indicates potential impacts due to the proposed project. 1 Signal = signalized. 2 Average intersection delay calculated using the HCM 2000 methodology for all intersections unless otherwise specified. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Vehicle Queues Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard The addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for movements where the queue already exceeds the available storage. This applies to the southbound left-turn (storage capacity of 300 feet) during weekday evening (increase from 350 without project to 400 feet with project) and Saturday (increase from 300 feet without project to 375 feet with project) peak hours, and westbound right-turn (storage capacity of 325 feet) during the Saturday (increase from 700 feet without project to 825 feet with project) peak hour. Vehicle queues are shown in Table 3.6-15. The project applicant shall fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. As shown in Table 3.6-14, reallocation of green-time within the traffic signal phase would reduce vehicle queue spillback in the Existing with Project with Mitigation condition, compared with the Without Project condition. Implementation of this measure would reduce the vehicle queue impact at this intersection to a less than significant level. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1c. Arnold Road/Martinelli Way The addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for movements where the City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-69 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx queue already exceeds the available storage. This applies to the southbound left-turn (capacity of 225 feet) during weekday mid-day (increase from 100 feet without project to 275 feet with project) and Saturday (increase from 100 feet without project to 475 feet with project) peak hours. To mitigate this impact, the project applicant shall fund the conversion of a southbound through lane to a left-turn-only lane and fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Arnold Road and Martinelli intersection prior to project occupation. Implementation of this measure would reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1d. Martinelli Way/IKEA Place (Persimmon Place) The addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for movements where the queue already exceeds the available storage. This applies to the southbound left-turn (capacity of 150 feet, increase from 75 feet without project to 200 feet with project) and westbound left-turn (capacity of 650 feet, increase from 50 feet without project to 725 feet with project) during Saturday peak hour. As part of the project, modify the northbound intersection approach to provide a left-turn and a through-right shared lane such that north/south protected left-turn signal phasing can be provided (as opposed to split phasing). This measure would allow for more efficient signal operations and would minimize vehicle queue spill back. Additionally, the applicant shall fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Martinelli Way and IKEA Place/Persimmon Place intersection prior to project occupation. Implementation of this measure would reduce the vehicle queue impact at this intersection to a less than significant level. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1e. Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard The addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for movements where the queue already exceeds the available storage. This applies to the westbound left-turn (capacity of 250 feet) during weekday morning (increase from 225 feet without project to 275 feet with project) and Saturday (increase from 225 feet without project to 325 feet with project) peak hours. The Project Applicant shall fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. Although implementation of this measure would improve travel flow through the intersection, vehicle queue spillback is still expected as fully mitigating the impact to the westbound vehicle queues could result in secondary queue impacts to other movements. The City of Dublin will modify the Eastern Dublin TIF improvement to provide a third westbound left- turn lane in lieu of the westbound right-turn-only lane. With this modification, the queue impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The project applicant would pay their fair share to the improvement through the payment of fees. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1f. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-70 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way The addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for movements where the queue already exceeds the available storage. This applies to the eastbound left-turn (capacity of 175 feet) during weekday PM peak hour (increases from 75 feet to 200 feet), and Saturday peak hour (increase from 25 to 250 feet), and northbound left-turn (capacity of 400 feet) during Saturday peak hour (increase from 275 feet without project to 575 feet with project). The implementation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies set forth in Mitigation Measure TRANS- 1b would improve travel flow through the intersection, vehicle queue spillback is still expected to occur as fully mitigating the impact to the eastbound and northbound vehicle queues through signal timing changes alone could result in secondary impacts to other movements. Additionally, extending the length of the northbound left-turn pocket by approximately 100 feet through median modifications and widening along the project frontage in order to provide a second eastbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way would reduce the queue impact to less than significant. Should the widening along the project frontage to provide a second eastbound left-turn pocket not be feasible, the eastbound left turn movement queue impact would remain significant and unavoidable. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1g. Table 3.6-14 summarizes mitigated queueing. Table 3.6-14: Existing With Project With Mitigation Conditions—95th Percentile Queues Intersection Movement Storage Length (feet)1 AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Saturday Peak Period With Out With Proj With Mit2 With Out With Proj With Mit2 With Out With Proj With Mit2 3. Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road WBR SBL 325 300 100 250 125 250 — — 225 350 275 400 — 350 700 300 825 375 525 300 12. Martinelli Way at Arnold Road2 SBL 225 25 100 50 100 275 125 100 475 175 14. IKEA Place/ Persimmon Place at Martinelli Way WBL SBL 650 150 25 25 200 25 — — 50 100 300 100 — — 50 75 725 200 575 150 17. Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard WBL 250 225 275 250 150 175 — 225 325 200 18. Hacienda Drive at Martinelli Way EBL NBL 175 400/5004 25 150 150 225 — — 75 325 200 400 100 — 25 275 250 575 150 475 Notes: Bold indicates queue extends beyond available storage, Bold Italics indicates potential impact. 1 An additional 60 to 90 feet of storage is typically provided in the taper area outside of the through lane, which is not reflected in the storage length above. 2 PM values represent mid-day peak hour for this intersection. 3 — indicates no mitigation required. 4 Potentially queue storage with mitigation Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-71 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Conclusion The proposed project would contribute new vehicle trips to intersections that would experience deficient operations and queueing. Feasible mitigation measures are available for most impacted facilities and would improve operations to acceptable levels. However, the queue impact at the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way may not be feasible resulting in a potential significant and unavoidable impact. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM TRANS-1a The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. MM TRANS-1b The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. MM TRANS-1c The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. MM TRANS-1d The project applicant shall fund the conversion of the southbound through lane on Arnold Road to a left-turn-only lane and install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the intersection of Arnold Road and Martinelli Way prior to project occupancy. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. MM TRANS-1e The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the intersection of IKEA Place and Martinelli Way. The project applicant shall modify the northbound intersection approach to provide a left-turn and a through-right shared lane such that north/south protected left-turn signal phasing can be provided (as opposed to split phasing). The improvements shall be installed prior to project occupancy. MM TRANS-1f The Project Applicant shall fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. The City of Dublin will modify the Eastern Dublin TIF improvement to provide a third westbound left-turn lane in lieu of the westbound right-turn-only lane. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-72 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx MM TRANS-1g The Project Applicant shall fund extending the length of the northbound left-turn pocket by approximately 100 feet through median modifications and widening along the project frontage in order to provide a second eastbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way. The improvements shall be installed prior to project occupancy. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact: • Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way Less than significant impact: All other locations. Near-Term With Project Conditions Traffic Impact TRANS-2: The proposed project may cause intersections and queues to operate below acceptable levels under Near-Term Plus Project conditions. Impact Analysis Traffic volumes for the Near-term condition were developed through the use of the updated Alameda County Travel demand model. Model documentation is provided in Appendix F. The forecasts represent likely traffic conditions in the area over the next ten years. Near-Term without Project traffic volumes are shown on Exhibits 3.6-6a–3.6-6d. The project traffic volumes from Exhibits 3.6-4a–3.6-4d were added to the Near-Term without Project traffic volumes to estimate the Near-Term With Project traffic volumes, as shown on Exhibits 3.6-7a–3.6-7d. Widening of Dougherty Road to provide three travel lanes in each direction between Scarlett Drive and the San Ramon/Dublin city boundary was assumed to be completed in the near-term condition. This improvement is under construction and is expected to be completed in mid-2018. Intersection improvements considered in the With Project condition include the opening of the third northbound left-turn lane on Hacienda Drive to Martinelli Way and completion of roadway connections to the project site. Lane configurations that form the basis for the Near-Term With Project analysis are also presented on Exhibits 3.6-7a–3.6-7d. Heavy vehicle percentages, and pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left unchanged from existing conditions. Intersection Operations Levels of service calculations were conducted to evaluate intersection operations under Near-Term conditions both without and with the project. The LOS results are summarized in Table 3.6-15, and the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix F. The results of the HCM 2000 LOS calculations indicate that with planned development in Dublin and adjacent jurisdictions in the near-term condition, the following intersections would degrade to LOS E or F operations prior to the addition of project traffic: City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-73 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx • Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard (LOS E, PM, and Saturday peak) • Hopyard Road at Owens Drive (LOS E, PM, and Saturday peak) • Tassajara Road at Dublin Boulevard (LOS F, PM peak, LOS E, Saturday peak) • Santa Rita Road at I-580 Eastbound Ramps (LOS F, PM peak) • Dublin Boulevard at Fallon Road (LOS F, AM and PM peak) The addition of project traffic is expected to worsen the operation of the above intersections and result in operations degrading below LOS D at the following intersections: • Hacienda Drive at Martinelli Way (LOS E, PM, and Saturday peak) All other study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better under the HCM 2000 analysis methods. Table 3.6-15: Near Term Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Near Term without Project Near Term with Project Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 1 Dougherty Road & Amador Valley Boulevard Signal AM PM SAT 23.6 31.2 25.7 C C C 23.9 31.5 25.9 C C C 2 Dougherty Road & Scarlett Drive Signal AM PM SAT 9.5 8.2 6.9 A A A 9.6 10.1 6.9 A B A 3 Dougherty Road & Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM SAT 52.4 63.6 (104.6) 61.8 (104.6) D E E 53.3 67.5 (122.6) 67.4 (122.8) D E E 4 Dougherty Road & I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 18.9 12.0 10.3 B B B 19.2 12.6 10.7 B B A 5 Hopyard Road & I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 27.6 19.8 10.2 C B A 27.5 22.5 11.3 C C B 6 Hopyard Road & Owens Drive Signal AM PM SAT 45.7 79.2 57.4 D E E 45.9 81.1 58.8 D F E 7 Dublin Boulevard & Scarlett Drive Signal AM PM SAT 10.3 14.9 11.6 B B B 9.4 16.2 12.3 A B B 8 Dublin Boulevard & Sterling Street/DeMarcus Boulevard Signal AM PM SAT 23.1 14.8 22.8 C B C 22.1 14.5 26.4 C B C 9 Dublin Boulevard & Iron Horse Parkway Signal AM PM SAT 12.4 17.5 6.6 B B A 13.4 16.5 7.0 B B A City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-74 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-15 (cont.): Near Term Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Near Term without Project Near Term with Project Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 10 Arnold Road & Central Parkway Signal AM PM SAT 9.1 6.1 4.7 A A A 9.2 6.2 4.8 A A A 11 Dublin Boulevard & Arnold Road Signal AM AFT PM SAT 32.0 28.6 39.8 27.9 C C D C 37.4 34.3 44.4 41.5 D C D D 12 Arnold Road & Martinelli Way Signal AM AFT PM SAT 14.4 17.2 21.4 14.9 B B C B 20.1 24.2 31.3 54.5 C C C D 13 Dublin Boulevard & Sybase Drive/Persimmon Place Signal AM PM SAT 8.3 9.6 10.7 A A B 8.6 10.1 11.0 A B B 14 Martinelli Way & Persimmon Place/IKEA Place Signal AM AFT PM SAT 4.8 13.9 10.4 9.5 A B B A 30.4 40.2 37.0 47.6 C D D D 15 Hacienda Drive & Gleason Drive Signal AM PM SAT 19.6 19.1 15.6 B B B 20.1 19.3 15.6 C B B 16 Hacienda Drive & Central Parkway Signal AM PM SAT 22.6 23.0 14.2 C C B 24.2 24.7 15.6 C C B 17 Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard Signal AM AFT PM SAT 36.9 27.9 34.0 34.8 D C C C 37.2 29.0 35.1 37.4 D C D D 18 Hacienda Drive & Martinelli Way Signal AM AFT PM SAT 28.2 30.1 51.7 34.8 C C D C 35.3 33.6 72.8 57.8 D C E E 19 Hacienda Drive & I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 9.0 7.5 12.6 A A B 8.9 8.9 26.4 A A C 20 Hacienda Drive & I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 17.1 13.4 12.6 B B B 16.8 18.3 26.2 B B C 21 Hacienda Drive & Owens Drive Signal AM PM SAT 19.7 43.4 18.3 B D B 19.8 43.9 18.5 B D B City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-75 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-15 (cont.): Near Term Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Near Term without Project Near Term with Project Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 22 Dublin Boulevard & Hibernia Drive Signal AM PM SAT 17.6 15.1 25.5 B B C 17.8 15.0 26.6 B B C 23 Dublin Boulevard & Myrtle Drive/Toyota Drive Signal AM PM SAT 8.4 16.3 17.1 A B B 8.2 16.4 19.4 A B B 24 Dublin Boulevard & Glynnis Rose Drive Signal AM PM SAT 18.6 16.8 16.3 B B B 18.6 16.7 16.7 B B B 25 Tassajara Road & Central Parkway Signal AM PM SAT 48.2 22.7 19.0 D C B 49.5 22.7 19.1 D C B 26 Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM SAT 43.6 1.20 (1.33) 68.9 (195.7) D F E 44.0 1.22 (1.33) 77.5 (235.4) D F E 27 Tassajara Road & I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 8.5 48.5 21.1 A D C 8.5 50.5 21.2 A D C 28 Santa Rita Road & I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 26.8 106.3 (1.05/1.38) 35.3 C F D 26.8 108.4 (1.05/1.39) 35.8 C F D 29 Dublin Boulevard & Fallon Road Signal AM PM SAT 1.00 (2.08) 1.32 (2.08) 23.9 F F C 1.01 (2.11) 1.34 (2.12) 27.6 F F C 30 Martinelli Way & Retail Driveway (Right-in/Right-out) SSSC AM AFT PM SAT — — 1.1 (9.9) 0.7 (10.9) 0.7 (11.7) 1.0 (13.7) A (A) A (B) A (B) A (B) 31 Arnold Road & IKEA Exit Driveway SSSC AM AFT PM SAT — — 1.9 (8.8) 8.0 (10.7) 7.7 (15.2) 13.7 (17.5) A (A) A (B) A (C) B (C) Notes: Bold text indicates LOS E/F; Bold Italic text indicates impacts due to the proposed project. 1 SSSC = side-street stop controlled; Signal = signalized. 2 Average intersection delay calculated using the HCM 2000 methodology. 3 For LOS E signalized intersections in the City of Dublin, average delay is followed by critical movement delay for the in parentheses. For LOS F signalized intersections in the City of Dublin, overall intersection volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio is followed by the v/c ratio for the worst movement. For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-76 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Vehicle Queues The addition of project traffic is expected to increase vehicle queues for some movements at the study intersections. Based on detailed information provided in Appendix F, the addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 1 vehicle (25 feet) for left-turn movements where the queue already exceed the available storage for the following movements: • Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard—southbound left-turn during weekday evening and Saturday peak hour • Arnold Road at Martinelli Way—southbound left-turn during weekday mid-day, evening, and Saturday peak hours • Martinelli Way at IKEA Place/Persimmon Place—southbound left-turns during mid-day, evening and Saturday peak hours, and westbound left-turn during the Saturday peak hour • Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard—westbound left-turn during weekday morning and mid- day, and Saturday peak hours • Hacienda Drive at Martinelli Way—eastbound and northbound left-turn during weekday afternoon and evening, and Saturday peak hours, and northbound right-turn movement during the Saturday peak hour • Dublin Boulevard at Tassajara Road—northbound left-turn during Saturday peak hours • Dublin Boulevard at Fallon Road—northbound left-turn during Saturday peak hours Impact and Mitigation Measures As a condition of approval, the City of Dublin will collect applicable local and regional traffic impact fees for those mitigations that are in the Eastern Dublin TIF; if not, the project will pay the fair share in addition to fair-share contributions for other improvements identified in this section needed to mitigate significant impacts. This is consistent with the City policy to collect fees from projects that have a significant impact on local and regional facilities. Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the PM and Saturday peak hours in the near-term condition prior to the addition of project traffic. The project would increase critical movement delay by more than 6-seconds, further degrading LOS E operations. Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin, this impact is considered significant. TVTC Standard: Based on the HCM 2000 results, this intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or better prior to the addition of project traffic during both peak hours, and its operations would remain at LOS E or better with the addition of project traffic. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. The installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the intersection required by Mitigation Measures TRANS-1c would partially mitigate the impact. Although installation of adaptive traffic control would better manage travel flow through the intersection, it would not result in LOS D or better operations or reduce the critical movement delay to within 6 seconds of the without project condition. I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-6a_nearterm_without_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-6a Near-term without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-6b_nearterm_without_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-6b Near-term without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-6c_nearterm_without_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-6c Near-term without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-6d_nearterm_without_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-6d Near-term without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-7a_nearterm_with_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-7a Near-term with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-7b_nearterm_with_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-7b Near-term with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-7c_nearterm_with_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-7c Near-term with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-7d_nearterm_with_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-7d Near-term with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-93 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx The project applicant shall develop a transportation demand management (TDM) plan to reduce the number of vehicle trips to the site, especially from site employees. As employee trips constitute a small proportion of overall site generated vehicle traffic, especially during peak hours, implementation of a transportation demand management program is expected to reduce the severity of this impact, but would not reduce it to a less than significant level. The TDM plan is set forth in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a. To achieve LOS D operations for vehicles, additional intersection widening would be required including providing a fourth northbound left-turn lane (widening from three), and fourth northbound through lane (widening from three), a fourth westbound through lane (widening from three), and a third southbound left-turn lane (widening from two). There is insufficient right-of-way to construct these improvements, and the resulting level of service does not consider the need for added pedestrian crossing time of the intersection, which would then degrade operations to LOS E. Therefore, these improvements are considered infeasible. Although the project applicant would be required to pay local and regional transportation fees that would fund capacity enhancing improvements on other routes, potentially shifting traffic from this intersection, as well as develop a TDM plan that could reduce the vehicle trip generation, the effectiveness of this plan is unknown, therefore, the impact would remain significant-and- unavoidable based on City of Dublin standards. Hopyard Road/Owens Drive City of Pleasanton Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the PM and Saturday peak hour in the near-term condition prior to the addition of project traffic. The project would add more than 10 peak-hour trips and result in LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour. Based on the significance criteria of the City of Pleasanton, this impact is potentially significant. TVTC Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour. The addition of project-generated vehicle trips would worsen LOS F conditions. This is considered a significant impact based on guidance provided in the Tri-Valley Action Plan. The project applicant shall contribute their fair share towards near-term improvements that would result in acceptable near-term operations. Improvements include: • Modify the westbound approach to provide: 1 left turn, 1 through, 2 right-turn-only lanes Implementation of this improvement would result in acceptable operations (LOS D) in the near-term condition, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-2a. The project applicant and City of Dublin shall work with the City of Pleasanton to identify and pay the project’s proportionate share of planned improvements prior to project occupation. Because implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin, its implementation cannot be assured. Therefore, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-94 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way City of Dublin Standard: The addition of project-generated vehicle trips in the near-term cumulative condition would worsen LOS D conditions, resulting in LOS E operations during the weekday PM and Saturday peak hour. Based on the City of Dublin level of service standard for this intersection, this is considered a significant impact. Install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies prior to project occupancy would improve operations to acceptable LOS D. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b. This mitigation would reduce the impact to less than significant. Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour in the near-term condition prior to the addition of project traffic. The project would not increase the volume-to-capacity ratio in the PM peak hour by more than 0.02, but would increase critical movement delay by more than 6-seconds during the Saturday peak hour. Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin, this impact is considered significant. TVTC Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour. The addition of project-generated vehicle trips would worsen LOS F conditions but would not increase the overall volume-to-capacity (“V/C”) ratio by 0.03 or more or increase the critical movement V/C ratio by 0.05 or more. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant under TVTC significance criteria. As part of the Eastern Dublin TIF, the City of Dublin plans to construct two additional northbound through lanes (for a total of four), construct two additional eastbound through lanes on eastbound Dublin Boulevard (for a total of four) to allow for the opening of the third eastbound through lane that has already been constructed, and to convert one of the two eastbound right-turn-only lanes to a fourth eastbound through lane. The project applicant would pay their fair share to this improvement through the payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF. With the construction of planned improvements, intersection operations would improve to LOS D in the Saturday peak hour. Implementation of the Eastern Dublin TIF improvement would result in LOS D operations during the Saturday peak hour where the project impact occurs reducing the impact to a less than significant level. These improvements are reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-2b. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound City of Pleasanton Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour in the near-term condition prior to the addition of project traffic. The project would add more than 10 peak-hour trips and result in LOS F conditions. Based on the significance criteria of the City of Pleasanton, this impact is potentially significant. However, this intersection is also a designated Gateway Intersection and may exempt for the City of Pleasanton’s Level of Service Standard if vehicular capacity improvements would be contrary to other City goals. TVTC Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour. The addition of project-generated vehicle trips would worsen LOS F conditions, but would not increase the overall volume-to-capacity (“V/C”) ratio by 0.03 or more or City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-95 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx increase the critical movement V/C ratio by 0.05 or more. Therefore, this impact is considered less- than-significant under TVTC significance criteria. Caltrans Standard: The intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour peak hours, and its operations would worsen with the addition of project traffic. Based on the Caltrans Standard, this this impact is significant. The project applicant shall contribute their fair share towards near-term improvements that would result in acceptable operation prior to project occupation. Improvements include modifying the southbound approach to construct a second southbound left-turn lane in addition to retiming the traffic signal, which would result in LOS D operations during the weekday PM peak hour, reducing the project impact to a less than less than significant level based on City of Pleasanton and Caltrans criteria. The Project Applicant and the City of Dublin shall work with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to identify and pay the project’s proportionate share towards potential improvements. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-2c. Because implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin, its implementation cannot be assured. Therefore, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Table 3.6-16 summarizes the mitigated level of service. Table 3.6-16: Near-Term with Mitigation Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control Peak Hour Near-Term without Project Near-Term with Project Near-Term with Project With Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Hopyard Road & Owens Drive Signal AM PM SAT 45.7 79.2 57.4 D E E 45.9 81.1 58.8 D F E 36.4 47.3 48.9 D D D Hacienda Drive & Martinelli Way Signal AM AFT PM SAT 28.2 30.1 51.7 34.8 C C D C 35.3 33.6 72.8 57.8 C C E E 32.3 33.4 37.4 46.4 D C D D Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM SAT 43.6 1.20 (1.33) 68.9 (195.7) D F E 44.0 1.22 (1.33) 77.5 (235.4) D F E 39.8 63.6 43.0 D E D Santa Rita Road & I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 26.8 106.3 35.3 C F D 26.8 108.4 35.8 C F D 26.0 45.6 33.2 C D C Notes: Bold text indicates LOS E/F; Bold Italics text indicates impacts due to the proposed project. 1 Signal = signalized. 2 Average intersection delay calculated using the HCM 2000 methodology. For LOS E signalized intersections in the City of Dublin, average delay is followed by the delay for the worst movement in parentheses. For LOS F signalized intersections in the City of Dublin, overall intersection volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio is followed by the v/c ratio for the worst movement. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-96 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Vehicle Queues Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard The addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for the southbound left- turn and westbound right-turn during weekday evening and Saturday peak hour. The project applicant shall work with the City of Dublin to install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies subsequent to the project occupation to minimize the effects of vehicle queue spillback. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1c. Due to limited right-of-way, no additional capacity-enhancing improvements have been identified. Additionally, extending the southbound left-turn lane to provide additional storage capacity is not feasible because of the short block size. Implementation of a TDM plan, as identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a, could reduce the severity of the impact, but it is not expected to reduce vehicle trips by a level sufficient to eliminate this impact. Construction of the Scarlett Drive extension would shift some southbound left-turn vehicle movements to the Scarlett Drive intersection with Dougherty Road. Payment of the TIF would constitute a fair-share payment to this improvement. While implementation of Adaptive Signal Control and a TDM plan may reduce the queue lengths at this intersection, they are not anticipated to fully mitigate the impact. Therefore, the queuing impact at this intersection is expected to remain significant and unavoidable. Arnold Road/Martinelli Way The addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for the southbound left- turn during weekday mid-day and Saturday peak hour. To mitigate this impact, the project applicant shall fund the conversion of a southbound through lane to a left-turn-only lane and install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies prior to project occupancy. These improvements are reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1d. Martinelli Way/Ikea Place (Persimmon Place) The addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for the southbound and westbound left-turns during mid-day, evening and Saturday peak hours. As part of the project, modify the northbound intersection approach to provide a left-turn and a through-right shared lane such that north/south protected signal phasing can be provided (as opposed to split phasing). This measure would allow for more efficient signal operations and would minimize vehicle queue spill back. Additionally, installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies prior to project occupancy would serve to reduce queuing. These improvements are reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1e. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-97 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Although implementation of this measure would reduce the severity and frequency of the southbound vehicle queues at this intersection, there is still the potential for the 95th percentile vehicle queue to extend back to the main east-west drive aisle within Persimmon Place. It is likely that when these conditions occur, vehicle traffic would divert to other exits within the site. However, this impact is expected to remain significant and unavoidable for the southbound movement. The impact for the westbound movement would be reduced to a less than significant level. With the changed signal phasing, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS D or better during all analysis time periods. Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard The addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for the westbound left- turn during weekday morning and mid-day, and Saturday peak hours. The Project Applicant shall fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. Although implementation of this measure would improve travel flow through the intersection, vehicle queue spillback is still expected as fully mitigating the impact to the westbound vehicle queues could result in secondary queue impacts to other movements. These improvements are reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1f. The City of Dublin will modify the Eastern Dublin TIF improvement to provide a third westbound left- turn lane in lieu of the westbound right-turn-only lane. With this modification, the queue impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. The project applicant would pay their fair share to the improvement through the payment of fees. These improvements are reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1f. Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way The addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for the eastbound and northbound left-turn during weekday afternoon and evening, and Saturday peak hours, and northbound right-turn movement during Saturday peak hours. The applicant shall install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies prior to project occupancy as required by Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b. Although implementation of this measure would improve travel flow through the intersection, vehicle queue spillback is still expected to occur as fully mitigating the impact to the eastbound and northbound vehicle queues could result in secondary impacts to other movements. Additionally, extending the length of the northbound left-turn pocket by approximately 100 feet would reduce the northbound left-turn queueing impact in the Saturday peak hour to a less-than- significant level. This improvement is also reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1g. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-98 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx In addition to these improvements, widening along the project frontage to provide a second eastbound left-turn pocket would reduce vehicle queues to within the available or proposed storage for all movements. However, it is noted that this improvement would increase the pedestrian crossing distance. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1g. With widening to provide a second eastbound left-turn pocket and extending the length of the northbound left-turn pocket, the vehicle queue impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Should the widening along the project frontage to provide a second eastbound left-turn pocket not be feasible, the eastbound left-turn movement queue impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard The addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for the northbound left- turn during Saturday peak hours. The applicant would pay its fair share to widen the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard as described in the Eastern Dublin TIF (Mitigation Measure TRANS-2b). This improvement would add additional intersection capacity, in conjunction with signal timing modifications. Implementation of this measure would reduce the vehicle queue to less than the without project condition reducing the project impact to a less than significant level. Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard The addition of project traffic would potentially result in vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for the northbound left- turn during Saturday peak hours. The project applicant should pay into the Eastern Dublin TIF in accordance with Mitigation Measure TRANS-2d, which would constitute a fair-share payment towards the construction a second northbound left-turn lane, in conjunction with signal timing modifications. Implementation of this measure would reduce the vehicle queue impact at this intersection to a less than significant level. Table 3.6-17 summarizes mitigated queuing. Table 3.6-17: Near-Term Plus Project With Mitigation—95th Percentile Queues Intersection Movement Storage Length (feet) AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Saturday Peak Period With Out With Proj With Mit2 With Out With Proj With Mit2 With Out With Proj With Mit2 3. Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road WBR SBL 325 300 250 300 275 300 — — 650 450 700 500 525 425 850 425 975 500 750 400 12. Martinelli Way at Arnold Road SBL 225 50 125 — 225 475 175 175 700 250 14. IKEA Place/ Persimmon Place at Martinelli Way WBL SBL 650 150 25 25 200 50 — — 125 150 425 200 325 175 50 100 725 250 525 200 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-99 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-17 (cont.): Near-Term Plus Project With Mitigation—95th Percentile Queues Intersection Movement Storage Length (feet) AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Saturday Peak Period With Out With Proj With Mit2 With Out With Proj With Mit2 With Out With Proj With Mit2 17. Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard WBL 250 325 375 200 225 275 150 425 550 300 18. Hacienda Drive at Martinelli Way EBL NBL NBR 175 400 425 50 175 50 150 225 50 — — — 100 375 75 250 425 75 125 325 50 503 25 350 250 675 550 150 500 425 26. Dublin Boulevard at Tassajara Road NBL 375 200 200 — 350 375 — 700 750 650 29. I-580 Eastbound Off- Ramp at Santa Rita Road NBL 350 1,200 1,225 325 1,200 1,225 325 550 600 200 Notes: Bold indicates queue extends beyond available storage, Bold Italics indicates potential impact. 1 An additional 60 to 90 feet of storage is typically provided in the taper area outside of the through lane, which is not reflected in the storage length above. 2 PM values represent mid-day peak hour for this intersection 3 — indicates no mitigation required. 4 Represents length of turn pocket after implementation of mitigation. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Conclusion The proposed project would contribute new vehicle trips to intersections that would experience deficient operations and queueing. Feasible mitigation measures are available for each impacted facility; however, at five locations (Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hopyard Road/Owens Drive, Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound, Martinelli Way/IKEA Place, and Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way), they would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. For these locations, the impact is significant and unavoidable. For all other locations, the impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1b, TRANS-1c, TRANS-1d, TRANS-1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-1g, TRANS-4a and: MM TRANS-2a The project applicant shall work with the City of Pleasanton to identify and pay the project’s proportionate share towards near-term improvements at Owens Drive/Hopyard Road consisting of modifying the westbound approach to provide 1 left turn, 1 through, and 2 right-turn only lanes. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-100 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx MM TRANS-2b Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the Eastern Dublin TIF fee as the project’s proportionate share for the improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of constructing two additional northbound through lanes (for a total of four), construct two additional eastbound through lanes on eastbound Dublin Boulevard (for a total of four) to allow for the opening of the third eastbound through lane that has already been constructed, and to convert one of the two eastbound right-turn- only lanes to a fourth eastbound through lane. MM TRANS-2c Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to identify and pay the project’s proportionate share for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of modifying the southbound approach to construct a second southbound left-turn lane in addition to re-timing the traffic signal. MM TRANS-2d Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin the Eastern Dublin TIF for improvements to the intersection of Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard. The improvements would consist of a second northbound left-turn lane at Fallon Road. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and unavoidable impacts: • Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, • Hopyard Road/Owens Drive, • Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound, • Martinelli Way/IKEA Place, and • Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way. Less than significant impact: All other locations. Cumulative With Project Conditions Traffic Impact TRANS-3: The proposed project may cause intersections and queues to operate below acceptable levels under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Impact Analysis Cumulative forecasts were developed using the updated City of Dublin travel demand model (See Appendix F for model documentation), representing existing traffic, plus traffic from approved and pending developments, as well as development that could occur under the current General Plan. The traffic forecasts also reflect traffic shifts that could occur with construction of new regional roadway facilities, including the El Charro Road extension from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard and the extension of Dublin Boulevard east to North Canyons Parkway. Other regional roadway improvements City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation       FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6‐101  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐06 Transportation.docx  include the planned widening of Stanley Boulevard to provide three lanes in each direction from east  of Isabel Avenue and the planned widening of State Route  84 from Pigeon Pass to I‐680.  Improvements at intersections along Dublin Boulevard and Fallon Road were assumed to have been  constructed, as development on parcels adjacent to intersections that have not yet been constructed  to their ultimate configuration is reflected in the forecasts.  The Scarlett Drive extension was also  assumed to have been constructed, providing an alternate connection between Dublin Boulevard  and Tassajara Road.  Intersection improvements were assumed at the following intersections:    Scarlett Drive at Dublin Boulevard; improvements consistent with the Eastern Dublin TIF     Tassajara Road at Fallon Road; improvements consistent with the Eastern Dublin TIF     Tassajara Road at Dublin Boulevard; improvements consistent with the Eastern Dublin TIF     Fallon Road at Dublin Boulevard; improvements consistent with the Eastern Dublin TIF     Fallon Road at Fallon Gateway; improvements consistent with the Eastern Dublin TIF     Airway Boulevard at North Canyons Boulevard; improvements consistent with the Eastern  Dublin TIF     Stanley Boulevard at Isabel Connector Ramp; improvements consistent with the Livermore  General Plan, which includes widening on of Stanley Boulevard to provide three through lanes  in the westbound and eastbound direction.    The resulting forecasts and intersection lane configurations are presented on Exhibits 3.6‐8a–3.6‐8d  for the without project condition.  For the with project condition, improvements were assumed at  the project site access intersections.  The project traffic volumes were added to the Cumulative  without Project traffic volumes to estimate the Cumulative with Project traffic volumes, as shown on  Exhibits 3.6‐9a–3.6‐9d.   Heavy vehicle percentages, and pedestrian and bicycle activity at the study intersections were left  unchanged from existing conditions.  Peak‐hour factors were adjusted to reflect that as traffic  volumes increase, peak‐hour factors increase as traffic arrives more uniformly throughout the peak  hour.  At intersections operating near capacity, existing peak‐hour factors at intersections less than  0.92 were increased to 0.92; peak‐hour factors greater than 0.92 but less than 0.98 were increased  to 0.98; peak‐hour factors greater than 0.98 remained unchanged.  Traffic  signal timing were  optimized at some intersections to reflect shifts in travel patterns as the City of Dublin routinely  adjusts traffic signal timings to ensure optimal flow throughout the City.  Intersection Operations  Levels of Service calculations using HCM 2000 methods were conducted to evaluate intersection  operations under Cumulative conditions both without and with the project.  The LOS results are  summarized in Table  3.6‐18, and the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix F.   The results of the LOS calculations indicate that with planned development in Dublin and adjacent  jurisdictions in the cumulative condition, the following intersection would degrade to LOS E or F  operations:  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-102 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx • Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard (LOS E, AM peak hour) • Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard (LOS E, AM, PM, and Saturday peak hour) • Hopyard Road at Owens Drive (LOS F, PM peak hour, and LOS E Saturday peak hour) • Dublin Boulevard at Arnold Road (LOS E, PM peak hour) • Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard (LOS E, PM peak hour, and LOS E Saturday peak hour) • Hacienda Drive at Martinelli Way (LOS F, PM peak hour) • Hacienda Drive at Owens Drive (LOS F, PM peak hour) • Tassajara Road at Dublin Boulevard (LOS F, PM, and Saturday peak hours) • Santa Rita Road at I-580 Eastbound Ramps (LOS F, Saturday peak hour) • Fallon Road at Dublin Boulevard (LOS F, PM peak hour) The addition of project traffic would worsen the operation of the above intersections. All other study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable service levels using HCM 2000 based on the City of Dublin level of service standard. Table 3.6-18: Cumulative Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 1 Dougherty Road & Amador Valley Boulevard Signal AM PM SAT 68.0 49.7 42.6 E D D 69.6 (105.3) 50.2 50.9 E D D 2 Dougherty Road & Scarlett Drive Signal AM PM SAT 20.1 21.7 19.9 C C B 20.1 25.6 20.1 C C C 3 Dougherty Road & Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM SAT 65.5 (139.5) 69.8 (110.2) 72.7 (174.0) E E E 67.5 (154.6) 73.9 (125.5) 76.4 (185.6) E E E 4 Dougherty Road & I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 13.3 23.9 17.5 B C B 13.4 25.0 18.4 B C B 5 Hopyard Road & I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 15.0 17.6 11.3 B B B 15.0 19.0 12.3 B B B 6 Hopyard Road & Owens Drive Signal AM PM SAT 50.8 95.1 (1.14/1.30) 63.7 D F E 50.9 96.6 (1.15/1.30) 65.6 D F E 7 Dublin Boulevard & Scarlett Drive Signal AM PM SAT 29.2 33.0 39.6 C C D 29.5 43.3 51.9 C D D City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-103 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-18 (cont.): Cumulative Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 8 Dublin Boulevard & Sterling Street/DeMarcus Boulevard Signal AM PM SAT 30.7 37.1 25.4 C D C 30.1 51.0 30.3 C D C 9 Dublin Boulevard & Iron Horse Parkway Signal AM PM SAT 13.7 23.9 11.7 B C B 13.9 24.4 12.6 B C B 10 Arnold Road & Central Parkway Signal AM PM SAT 8.1 7.1 5.4 A A A 8.2 7.1 5.5 A A A 11 Dublin Boulevard & Arnold Road Signal AM AFT PM SAT 35.3 44.3 60.3 (141.5) 47.7 D D E D 38.2 52.4 60.7 (170.8) 47.8 D D E D 12 Arnold Road & Martinelli Way Signal AM AFT PM SAT 22.1 24.5 33.5 20.5 C C C C 28.2 37.4 48.4 52.8 C D D D 13 Dublin Boulevard & Sybase Drive/Persimmon Place Signal AM PM SAT 9.1 23.1 13.2 A C B 9.8 23.4 13.5 A C B 14 Martinelli Way & Persimmon Place/IKEA Place Signal AM AFT PM SAT 4.1 13.4 10.3 9.9 A B B A 30.3 39.8 39.8 50.5 C D D D 15 Hacienda Drive & Gleason Drive Signal AM PM SAT 10.9 12.8 9.8 B B A 11.1 13.0 9.0 B B A 16 Hacienda Drive & Central Parkway Signal AM PM SAT 25.1 25.7 15.0 C C B 27.2 26.4 16.3 C C B 17 Hacienda Drive & Dublin Boulevard Signal AM AFT PM SAT 36.8 45.5 72.2 (275.0) 64.4 (235.0) D D E E 37.9 52.6 80.8 (345.2) 77.0 (318.8) D D F E 18 Hacienda Drive & Martinelli Way Signal AM AFT PM SAT 38.7 37.1 0.82 (1.86) 41.9 D D F D 41.2 49.9 1.01 (2.42) 70.4 D D F E 19 Hacienda Drive & I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 8.1 10.8 20.7 A B C 8.4 17.0 37.9 A B D City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-104 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-18 (cont.): Cumulative Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 20 Hacienda Drive & I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 17.8 24.3 17.9 B C B 19.5 34.9 21.9 B C C 21 Hacienda Drive & Owens Drive Signal AM PM SAT 21.0 99.1 24.0 C F C 21.1 100.9 24.3 C F C 22 Dublin Boulevard & Hibernia Drive Signal AM PM SAT 17.7 20.9 32.1 B C C 17.9 21.4 33.2 B C C 23 Dublin Boulevard & Myrtle Drive/Toyota Drive Signal AM PM SAT 7.3 20.7 20.7 A C C 7.2 21.1 21.8 A C C 24 Dublin Boulevard & Glynnis Rose Drive Signal AM PM SAT 19.9 19.0 20.2 B B C 20.0 19.3 22.0 C B C 25 Tassajara Road & Central Parkway Signal AM PM SAT 31.2 24.0 20.9 C C C 31.3 24.0 21.0 C C C 26 Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard Signal AM PM SAT 49.0 1.53 (1.93) 1.38 (1.98) D F F 49.5 1.54 (1.93) 1.40 (2.06) D F F 27 Tassajara Road & I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 13.9 15.4 50.9 B B D 14.0 15.3 51.3 B B D 28 Santa Rita Road & I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 35.0 53.0 94.5 (1.17/1.52) C D F 35.1 54.0 97.4 (1.18/1.52) D D F 29 Dublin Boulevard & Fallon Road Signal AM PM SAT 51.2 1.22 (1.24) 45.1 D F D 51.3 1.21 (1.24) 45.5 D F D 30 Martinelli Way & Retail Driveway (Right-in/Right-out) SSSC AM AFT PM SAT — — 0.7 (11) 0.5 (12.2) 0.6 (16.6) 0.9 (16.2) A (B) A (B) A (C) A (C) 31 Arnold Road & IKEA Exit Driveway SSSC AM AFT PM SAT — — 1.4 (9.1) 6.6 (11.0) 8.9 (27.2) 13.7 (19.1) A (A) A (B) A (D) B (C) City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-105 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-18 (cont.): Cumulative Conditions Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Delay2,3 LOS3 Delay2,3 LOS3 Notes: Bold text indicates LOS E/F; Bold Italics text indicates impacts due to the proposed project 1 SSSC = side-street stop controlled; Signal = signalized. 2 Average intersection delay calculated using the HCM 2000 methodology. For LOS E signalized intersections in the City of Dublin, average delay is followed by the delay for the worst movement in parentheses. For LOS F signalized intersections in the City of Dublin, overall intersection volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio is followed by the v/c ratio for the worst movement. 3 For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Vehicle Queues The addition of project traffic is expected to increase vehicle queues for some movements at the study intersections. Based on detailed information provided in Appendix F and the significance criteria discussed previously, the addition of project traffic would potentially result in left-turn vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase left-turn vehicle queues by more 25 feet (1 vehicle) for movements where the queue already exceeds the available storage for at least one left-turn movement at the following intersections: • Dougherty Road at Scarlett Drive—southbound left-turn movement in PM peak hour • Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard—westbound right-turn in PM and Saturday peak hour, and southbound left-turn in Saturday peak hour • Arnold Road at Martinelli Way— southbound left-turn in AM, mid-day, PM and Saturday peak hours • Martinelli Way at IKEA Place/Persimmon Place westbound left-turns during mid-day, PM and Saturday peak hour, and southbound left during Saturday peak hour • Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard—westbound left-turn during weekday mid-day, PM, and Saturday peak hours • Hacienda Drive at Martinelli Way—eastbound left during weekday AM, mid-day, PM and Saturday peak hours, eastbound right during PM peak hour, and northbound left-turn during weekday mid-day, PM and Saturday peak hours Impact and Mitigation Measures As a condition of approval, the City of Dublin will collect applicable local and regional traffic impact fees in addition to fair-share contributions for other improvements needed to mitigate significant impacts. This is consistent with the City policy to collect fees from projects that have a significant impact on local and regional facilities. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-106 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic. The project would increase critical movement delay by more than 6-seconds during all the analysis periods. Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin, this impact is considered significant. TVTC Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E prior to the addition of project traffic and would remain at LOS E during the peak hours analyzed. This is considered less than significant, based on guidance provided in the Tri-Valley Action Plan. No vehicle capacity enhancing improvements are feasible since there is no available right-of-way to expand the intersection and such improvements would be contrary to other city policies due to potential degradation in bicycle and pedestrian travel. Additionally, further intersection widening would increase the minimum crossing time required for pedestrians to cross the street, worsening vehicle delay during off-peak periods. The implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANS-1c and TRANS-4a would serve to partially lessen the severity of this impact. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to pay local and regional transportation fees that would fund capacity enhancing improvements on other routes, potentially shifting traffic from this intersection. The effectiveness of the TDM plan and effect capacity enhancing improvements on other routes would have on operations at this intersection cannot be quantified. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable based on City of Dublin standards. The impact is less than significant under TVTC criteria. Hopyard Road/Owens Drive City of Pleasanton Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour and LOS E during the Saturday peak hour in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic. The project would add more than 10 peak-hour trips during both the PM and Saturday peak hours. Based on the significance criteria of the City of Pleasanton, this impact is potentially significant. TVTC Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour. The addition of project-generated vehicle trips would worsen LOS F conditions, but would not increase the overall volume to capacity ratio by more than 0.03 or increase the critical movement volume to capacity ratio by more than 0.05. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant based on guidance provided in the Tri-Valley Action Plan. The City of Pleasanton 2005-2025 General Plan identifies the following improvements for implementation at Hopyard Road at Owens Drive Intersection: • Modify the northbound approach: 2 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn • Modify the southbound approach: 3 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn • Modify the eastbound approach: 2 left turn, 2 through, 1 right turn • Modify the westbound approach 2 left turn, 1 through-right shared, 1 right turn • Un-split eastbound/westbound signal operations I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-8a_cummulative_without_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-8a Cumulative without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-8b_cummulative_without_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-8b Cumulative without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-8c_cummulative_without_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-8c Cumulative without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-8d_cummulative_without_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-8d Cumulative without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-9a_cummulative_with_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-9a Cumulative with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-9b_cummulative_with_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-9b Cumulative with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-9c_cummulative_with_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-9c Cumulative with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-9d_cummulative_with_proj_conditions_PHTV_inter_lane_config_traff_controls.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-9d Cumulative with Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-123 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Implementation of these improvements as reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-3a would result in acceptable operations in the near-term condition, reducing the impact to less than significant. Because implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin, its implementation cannot be assured. Therefore, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic. The project would increase critical movement delay by more than 6 seconds during the PM peak hour. Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin, this impact is considered significant. TVTC Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or better prior to the addition of project traffic and would remain at LOS E or better during the peak hours analyzed. This is considered less than significant based on guidance provided in the Tri-Valley Action Plan. Reconstructing the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound left-turn lane and constructing a second receiving lane on the north side of the intersection would result in LOS D. This measure would reduce the impact to less than significant. This improvement is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-3b. This improvement is included in the Draft Eastern Dublin TIF Update. Should the updated fee program be adopted with this improvement included, payment of the Eastern Dublin TIF would constitute a fair-share payment. Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the PM and Saturday peak hours in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic. The project would result in LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour and would worsen critical movement delay by more than 6-seconds during the Saturday peak hour. Based on the significance criteria of the City of Dublin this impact is considered significant. TVTC Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS E prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak hour and the project would result in LOS F conditions. This is considered a significant impact based on guidance provided in the Tri-Valley Action Plan. The implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1f would mitigate this impact. With this modification, the LOS impact would be reduced to a less than significant level as the intersection would operate at LOS D or better during the PM and Saturday peak hours. Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way City of Dublin Standard: The addition of project-generated vehicle trips in the cumulative condition would worsen LOS F conditions in the weekday PM peak hour, and increase the volume to capacity by more than 0.03. Additionally, the addition of project traffic would result in LOS E operations during the Saturday peak hour. Based on the City of Dublin level of service standard for this intersection, this is considered a significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-124 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx The implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b would improve operations to LOS D during both the PM and Saturday peak hours reducing the project impact to a level of less than significant. Hacienda Drive/Owens Drive City of Pleasanton Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic. The project would add more than 10 peak-hour trips. Based on the significance criteria of the City of Pleasanton, this impact is potentially significant. The City of Pleasanton has identified the potential to convert a southbound through lane to a third southbound left-turn, and convert an eastbound through lane to a third eastbound left-turn lane, in conjunction with signal timing adjustments. These improvements would result in LOS D operations during the PM peak hour, reducing the project impact to a less than significant level based on City of Pleasanton criteria. The project applicant shall pay its fair share towards this improvement. These improvements are reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-3c. However, implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin and its implementation cannot be assured. Therefore, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard City of Dublin Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM and Saturday peak hours in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic. During the Saturday peak hour, the addition of project traffic would increase the critical movement volume-to- capacity ratio by more than 0.05, resulting in a significant impact based on the City of Dublin significance criteria. TVTC Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the PM and Saturday peak hour. During the Saturday peak hour, the addition of project traffic would increase the critical movement volume-to-capacity ratio by more than 0.05, resulting in a significant impact based on TVTC guidance. Implementation of the improvements reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-2b would partially reduce the impact. In addition to Mitigation Measure TRANS-2b, the Eastern Dublin TIF shall be modified (Mitigation Measure TRANS-3d) at this intersection to provide a second northbound right- turn lane in lieu of a fourth northbound through lane with a right-turn overlap phase and retain the two eastbound right-turn-only lanes in lieu of a fourth eastbound through lane. Implementation of these two mitigation measures would result in LOS D operations during the Saturday peak hour, reducing the project impact to less than significant. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps City of Pleasanton Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the Saturday peak hour in the cumulative condition prior to the addition of project traffic. The project would add more than 10 peak-hour trips and result in LOS F conditions. Based on the significance criteria of the City of Pleasanton, this impact is potentially significant. However, this intersection is also a City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-125 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx designated Gateway Intersection and may exempt for the City of Pleasanton’s Level of Service Standard if vehicular capacity improvements would be contrary to other City goals. TVTC Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the Saturday peak hour. The addition of project traffic would not increase the critical movement volume-to-capacity ratio by more than 0.05 or the average volume to capacity ratio by more than 0.02; therefore, the project impact is less than significant based on TVTC guidance. Caltrans Standard: This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project traffic during the Saturday peak hour. As the project would increase traffic through the interchange, this impact is considered significant under Caltrans criteria. Implementation of the improvements reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-2c would result in acceptable LOS D during the Saturday peak hour reducing the project’s impact to less than significant. However, this improvement may not be feasible to construct and could be contrary to other goals, such as improving bicycle and pedestrian access across the interchange. Should the City of Pleasanton in consultation with the City of Dublin, TVTC, and Caltrans identify feasible improvements at the interchange, the Project Applicant should pay their fair share. Because implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin and may be infeasible, its implementation cannot be assured. Therefore, the impact will be considered significant and unavoidable. Table 3.6-19 summarizes the mitigated levels of service. Table 3.6-19: Cumulative with Mitigation Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Cumulative with Project With Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 6. Hopyard Road & Owens Drive Signal AM PM SAT 50.8 95.1 63.7 D F E 50.9 96.6 65.6 D F E 35.9 54.2 53.8 C D D 11. Dublin Boulevard & Arnold Road Signal AM AFT PM SAT 35.3 44.3 60.3 (141.5) 47.7 D D E D 38.2 52.4 60.7 (170.8) 47.8 D D E D 35.4 48.8 43.6 42.3 D D D D 17. Dublin Boulevard & Hacienda Drive Signal AM AFT PM SAT 36.8 45.5 72.2 (275.0) 64.4 (235.0) D D E E 37.9 52.6 80.8 (345.2) 77.0 (318.8) D D F E 36.7 36.0 52.2 47.0 D D D D 18. Hacienda Drive & Martinelli Way Signal AM AFT PM SAT 38.7 37.1 0.82 (1.86) 41.9 D D F D 41.2 49.9 1.01 (2.42) 70.4 D D F E 50.0 41.0 47.6 53.9 D D D D City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-126 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-19 (cont.): Cumulative with Mitigation Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Cumulative with Project With Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 21. Owens Drive & Hacienda Drive Signal AM PM SAT 21.0 99.1 24.0 C F C 21.1 100.9 24.3 C F C 20.4 54.5 21.0 C D C 26. Dublin Boulevard & Tassajara Road Signal AM PM SAT 49.0 1.53 (1.93) 1.38 (1.98) D F F 49.5 1.54 (1.93) 1.40 (2.06) D F F 49.1 70.3 54.9 D E D 28. Santa Rita Road & I-580 Eastbound Off- Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 35.0 53.0 94.5 C D F 35.1 54.0 97.4 D D F 47.8 47.4 63.6 D D E Notes: Bold text indicates LOS E/F; Bold Italics text indicates impacts due to the proposed project. 1 Signal = signalized. 2 Average intersection delay calculated using the HCM 2000 methodology. For LOS E signalized intersections in the City of Dublin, average delay is followed by the delay for the worst movement in parentheses. For LOS F signalized intersections in the City of Dublin, overall intersection volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio is followed by the v/c ratio for the worst movement. Source: Fehr and Peers, 2018. Vehicle Queues Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive The project would potentially result in left-turn vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase left-turn vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for at least one movement where the left-turn vehicle queue is projected to already exceed the available storage at this intersection for the southbound left-turn movement in PM peak hour. The project applicant shall fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive (Mitigation Measure TRANS-3e). No additional capacity enhancing improvements have been identified at this intersection. Additionally, extending the southbound left-turn lane to provide additional storage capacity is not considered feasible due to the short block size. Implementation of this measure would not improve the intersection level of service and is not expected to reduce the extent of potential vehicle queue spillback. Implementation of a TDM plan as required by Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a could reduce the severity of this impact, but it is not expected to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the queuing impact at this intersection is expected to remain significant and unavoidable. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-127 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard The project would potentially result in left-turn vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase left-turn vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for at least one movement where the left-turn vehicle queue is projected to already exceed the available storage at this intersection for the westbound right-turn in PM and Saturday peak hour, and southbound left-turn in Saturday peak hour. Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1c (fund installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies) and TRANS-4a (TDM Plan); fund the installation of ASCT at the Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard intersection. No additional capacity enhancing improvements have been identified at this intersection due to limited right-of-way. Additionally, extending the southbound left-turn lane to provide additional storage capacity is not considered feasible because of the short block size. Implementation of TRANS-1c would not improve the intersection level of service to a less than significant level and is not expected to significantly reduce the extent of potential vehicle queue spillback. Implementation of a TDM plan as required by Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a could reduce the severity of this impact, but it is not expected to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the queuing impact at this intersection is expected to remain significant and unavoidable. Arnold Road/Martinelli Way The project would potentially result in left-turn vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase left-turn vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for at least one movement where the left-turn vehicle queue is projected to already exceed the available storage at this intersection for the southbound left-turn in AM, mid-day, PM and Saturday peak hours. Implement the improvements identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1d. Implementation of this measure would reduce the queuing impact to a less than significant level during the weekday periods. During the Saturday peak hour, the 95th percentile vehicle queue would spill into the taper area (the transition between the through lane and the turn pocket) but would not extend beyond the taper area. Therefore, the Saturday impact is also reduced to a less than significant level. Martinelli Way/IKEA Way (Persimmon Place) The project would potentially result in left-turn vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase left-turn vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for at least one movement where the left-turn vehicle queue is projected to already exceed the available storage at this intersection for westbound left-turns during mid-day, PM and Saturday peak hour, and southbound left during Saturday peak hour. Implement the improvements identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1e. Although implementation of this measure would reduce the severity and frequency of the southbound vehicle queues at this intersection, there is still the potential for the 95th percentile vehicle queue to extend back the main east-west drive aisle within Persimmon Place. It is likely that when these conditions occur, vehicle traffic would divert to other exits within the site. However, this impact is expected to remain significant and unavoidable for the southbound movement. The impact for the westbound movement would be reduced to a less than significant level. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-128 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx With the changed signal phasing, the intersection would continue to operate at LOS D or better during all analysis time periods. Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard The project would potentially result in left-turn vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase left-turn vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for at least one movement where the left-turn vehicle queue is projected to already exceed the available storage at this intersection for the westbound left-turn during weekday mid-day, PM, and Saturday peak hours. Implement the improvements identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1f (install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies and modify the Eastern Dublin TIF). Although implementation of this measure would improve travel flow through the intersection, vehicle queue spillback is still expected to occur as fully mitigating the impact to the westbound vehicle queues could result in secondary queue impacts to other movements. The City of Dublin will modify the Eastern Dublin TIF improvement to provide a third westbound left- turn lane in lieu of the westbound right-turn-only lane. With this modification, the LOS impact would be reduced to a less than significant as the intersection would operate at a better LOS than the without project condition, although it would continue to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The LOS would improve to D during the Saturday peak hour. The project applicant would pay their fair share to the improvement through the payment of fees. Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way The project would potentially result in left-turn vehicle queues exceeding the available storage, or would increase left-turn vehicle queues by more than 25 feet (1 vehicle) for at least one movement where the left-turn vehicle queue is projected to already exceed the available storage at this intersection for the eastbound left during weekday AM, mid-day, PM and Saturday peak hours, eastbound right during PM peak hour, and northbound left-turn during weekday mid-day, PM and Saturday peak hours. Implement the improvements identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1b. Although implementation of this measure would improve travel flow through the intersection, vehicle queue spillback is still expected to occur, as fully mitigating the impact to the eastbound and northbound vehicle queues could result in secondary impacts to other movements. Additionally, implement the improvements identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1g. Extending the length of the northbound left-turn pocket by approximately 100 feet would reduce the northbound left-turn queueing impact in the Saturday peak hour to a less than significant level. Widening the project frontage to provide a second eastbound left-turn pocket would reduce vehicle queues to within the available or proposed storage for all movements; this improvement would also increase the pedestrian crossing distance. With installation of the aforementioned improvements, the vehicle queue impact would be reduced to a less than significant level for all movements. Should widening along the project frontage to provide a second eastbound left-turn lane not be feasible, the eastbound left-turn queue impact would remain significant and unavoidable. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation       FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6‐129  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐06 Transportation.docx  Table  3.6‐20 summarizes mitigated queuing.  Exhibits 3.6‐10(a–f) show the changes in lane geometry  at each study intersection.  Table  3.6‐20: Cumulative With Project With Mitigation—95th Percentile Queues  Intersection Movement  Storage  Length  (feet)  AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Saturday Peak Period  With  Out  With  Proj  With  Mit  With  Out  With  Proj  With  Mit2  With  Out  With  Proj  With  Mit2  2. Dougherty  Road at  Scarlett  Drive  SBL 100 625 625 —500 550 525 575 575 — 3. Dublin  Boulevard at  Dougherty  Road  WBR  SBL  325  300  50 600  50 625  — —  650 375  700 400  600  400  775  325  975 375  700 275  12. Martinelli  Way at  Arnold  Road2  SBL 225 175 275 150 275 575 225 200 875 250 14. IKEA  Place/Per‐ simmon  Place at  Martinelli  Way  WBL  SBL  650  150  25 25  225 50  — —  125 175  425 200  325  175  75  125  725 250  525 200  17. Hacienda  Drive at  Dublin  Boulevard  WBL 250 350 375 —800 875 300 750 850 450 18. Hacienda  Drive at  Martinelli  Way  EBL  EBR  NBL  175  300  400/5004 50 50  250  225 50  350  100 —  —  175 200  575  425 350  775  150  150  500  75  50  325  375 75  650  100 75  475  Notes:  Bold indicates queue extends beyond available storage, Bold Italics indicates potential impact.    1 An additional 60 to 90 feet of storage is typically provided in the taper area outside of the through lane, which is not  reflected in the storage length above.    2 PM values represent mid‐day peak hour for this intersection only.    3 — indicates no mitigation required.    4 Reflects available storage with mitigation    Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018.    Conclusion  The proposed project would contribute new vehicle trips to intersections that would experience  deficient operations and queueing.  Feasible mitigation measures are available for proposed for each  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-130 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx impacted facility. However, eight of the intersections would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. These intersections include: • Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, • Hopyard Road/Owens Drive, • Hacienda Drive/Owens Drive, • Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps, • Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive, • Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, • Martinelli Way/IKEA Way (Persimmon Place), and • Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way) Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1b, TRANS-1c, TRANS-1d, TRANS-1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-1g, TRANS-2b, TRANS-2c, TRANS-4a and: MM TRANS-3a Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have paid the City of Pleasanton the proportionate share fees for improvements to the intersection of Hopyard Road/Owens Drive in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of the following: • Modify the northbound approach: 2 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn, • Modify the southbound approach: 3 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn, • Modify the eastbound approach: 2 left turn, 2 through, 1 right turn, • Modify the westbound approach 2 left turn, 1 through-right shared, 1 right turn, and • Un-split eastbound/westbound signal operations. MM TRANS-3b Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with proportionate share fees for improvements to the intersection of Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard. The improvement shall consist of reconstructing the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound left-turn lane and constructing a second receiving lane on the north side of the intersection. MM TRANS-3c Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have paid the City of Pleasanton the proportionate share fees for improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive/Owens Drive in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of converting a southbound through lane to a third southbound left-turn, and convert an eastbound through lane to a third eastbound left-turn lane, in conjunction with signal timing adjustments. I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-10a_intersection_lane_config_traf_control_changes_exist_cond.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-10a Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control Changes from Existing Conditions THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-10b_intersection_lane_config_traf_control_changes_exist_cond.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-10b Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control Changes from Existing Conditions THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-10c_intersection_lane_config_traf_control_changes_exist_cond.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-10c Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control Changes from Existing Conditions THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-10d_intersection_lane_config_traf_control_changes_exist_cond.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-10d Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control Changes from Existing Conditions THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-10e_intersection_lane_config_traf_control_changes_exist_cond.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-10e Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control Changes from Existing Conditions THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I 37660005 • 01/2018 | 3.6-10f_intersection_lane_config_traf_control_changes_exist_cond.cdr Source: Fehr and Peers CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.6-10f Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control Changes from Existing Conditions THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-143 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx MM TRANS-3d Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the City of Dublin shall modify the Eastern Dublin TIF at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard to provide a second northbound right-turn lane in lieu of a fourth northbound through lane with a right-turn overlap phase and retain the two eastbound right-turn-only lanes in lieu of a fourth eastbound through lane. The project applicant shall then pay the Eastern Dublin TIF fee as the project’s proportionate share for the improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. MM TRANS-3e Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact: • Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard • Hopyard Road/Owens Drive • Hacienda Drive/Owens Drive • Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps • Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive • Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard • Martinelli Way/IKEA Way (Persimmon Place) • Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way Less than significant impact: All other facilities. Freeways Impact TRANS-4: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of freeway facilities. Impact Analysis Fehr & Peers conducted freeway analyses and ramp metering analyses under Existing Plus Project, Near-Term, and Cumulative Conditions. Each scenario is discussed separately. Freeway Forecasts and Freeway System Improvements Existing freeway volumes were obtained from Caltrans as available through the Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS). Ramp volumes were used to determine existing volumes for the other segments of I-580 and I-680. Project traffic was then added to the existing freeway volumes to develop the forecasts for the existing with project conditions. The City of Dublin Travel Demand Model was used to forecast near-term and cumulative freeway volumes. No freeway improvements above those recently completed were assumed. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-144 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Freeway Operations Mainline Freeway segment levels of service were calculated based on existing, near-term, and cumulative scenarios for the same scenarios as the intersection analysis using the analysis methods outlined previously for freeway mainline, merge/diverge, and weave segments. Results are presented in Table 3.6-21, Table 3.6-22 and Table 3.6-23 for the existing, near-term, and cumulative scenarios. In the existing condition, congested conditions are generally experienced in the westbound direction during the morning peak hour and the eastbound direction in the evening peak hour. The addition of project traffic would increase congestion through already congested areas. The addition of project traffic would also worsen the operation of several segments from LOS E to LOS F, as shown in Table 3.6-20. In the near-term condition, vehicle density and delay would increase with local and regional growth and freeway operations are expected to further degrade. The addition of project traffic in the near- term would worsen freeway operations and could result in new deficiencies, as shown in Table 3.6-22. In the cumulative condition, vehicle density and delay would further increase compared with the near-term condition. The addition of project traffic could also result in new deficiencies, as shown Table 3.6-23. Ramp Meters An assessment of vehicle queues at the freeway on-ramps where project traffic is concentrated was conducted, as presented in Table 3.6-24 for the existing condition, Table 3.6-25 for the near-term condition, and Table 3.6-26 for the cumulative condition. The on-ramps evaluated include: • Dougherty Road & I-580 Westbound Ramp • Hacienda Drive & I-580 Westbound Ramp • Hacienda Drive & I-580 Eastbound Ramp The project does not add traffic to other on-ramps in the immediate project vicinity. The ramp metering assessment was conducted based on ramp metering rates provided from Caltrans, which allow 540 vehicles per hour to enter the freeway from both the westbound Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive on-ramps, and 300 vehicles per hour from the eastbound Hacienda Drive on-ramp. Results of the assessment and field observations indicate that in the existing condition, vehicle queues extend from the westbound I-580 ramp southbound Dougherty Road in both the morning and evening peak hour, and vehicle queues extend from both the westbound and eastbound ramps to I-580 from southbound Hacienda Drive during the evening peak hour. The addition of project traffic would exacerbate the level of vehicle queue spillback. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-145 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx In the near-term and cumulative conditions, vehicle queues are projected to worsen at the locations noted above if the metering rates are maintained at the same level, and the addition of project traffic would further exacerbate queue spillback. Table 3.6-21: Existing Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Existing without Project Existing with Project Density LOS Density LOS I-580 Eastbound 1 Under Foothill Road Overpass Basic AM PM 19.6 >45 C F 19.8 >45 C F 2 Foothill Road NB On-Ramp/I-680 Off-Ramp Weave AM PM 28.6 — D F 28.8 — D F 3 Hopyard Road/Dougherty Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 25.1 — C F 25.3 — C F 4 East of I-680 Basic AM PM 21.8 >45 C F 21.9 >45 C F 5 I-680 SB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 23.5 >45 C F 23.7 >45 C F 6 I-680 NB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 20.6 >45 C F 20.9 >45 C F 7 I-680 to Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road Basic AM PM 20.7 >45 C F 21.0 >45 C F 8 SB Dougherty Road/Hopyard On-Ramp Merge AM PM 19.2 42.8 C E 19.5 43.7 C E 9 NB Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 17.2 31.0 B D 17.4 31.4 B D 10 Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road to Hacienda Drive Basic AM PM 19.8 44.8 C E 20.1 >45 C F 11 Hacienda Drive Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 19.8 >45 C F 20.1 >45 C F 12 Under Hacienda Drive Overpass Basic AM PM 20.5 >45 C F 20.5 >45 C F 13 SB Hacienda Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 18.2 — B F 18.6 — B F 14 NB Hacienda Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 18.7 — B F 18.8 — B F 15 Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 22.0 — C F 22.1 — C F 16 Under Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road Overpass Basic AM PM 20.7 >45 C F 21.0 >45 C F City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-146 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-21 (cont.): Existing Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Existing without Project Existing with Project Density LOS Density LOS 17 SB Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 20.1 — C F 20.3 — C F 18 NB Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 18.4 >45 C F 18.5 >45 C F 19 Tassajara Road to El Charro Road Basic AM PM 18.4 >45 C F 18.6 >45 C F I-580 Westbound 1 Tassajara Road to El Charro Road Basic AM PM 41.2 18.7 E C 41.7 19.1 E C 2 Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 41.2 18.7 E C 41.7 19.1 E C 3 Under Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road Overpass Basic AM PM >45 20.2 F C >45 20.7 F C 4 NB Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 38.6 18.2 E C 39.1 18.6 E C 5 SB Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM — 17.0 F B — 17.3 F B 6 Hacienda Drive Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM >45 18.8 F C >45 19.1 F C 7 Under Hacienda Drive Overpass Basic AM PM >45 21.2 F C >45 21.2 F C 8 NB Hacienda Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 40.7 19.9 E C 40.8 19.9 E C 9 SB Hacienda Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 32.4 23.0 D C 33.0 24.2 D C 10 Hacienda Drive to Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road Basic AM PM 43.9 22.2 E C 44.5 22.7 E C 11 Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM >45 22.2 F C >45 22.7 F C 12 Under Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road Overpass Basic AM PM >45 23.5 F C >45 24.1 F C 13 NB Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM >45 21.8 F C >45 22.3 F C 14 SB Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 32 23.5 D C 32.3 24.1 D C 15 Dougherty Road/Hopyard to I-680 Basic AM PM 41.9 24.4 E C 42.5 25.1 E C City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-147 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-21 (cont.): Existing Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Existing without Project Existing with Project Density LOS Density LOS 16 I-680 Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM — 27.7 F C — 28.6 F D 17 Under I-680 Overpass Basic AM PM 41.2 22.7 E C 41.5 23.2 E C 18 I-680 NB On-Ramp Merge AM PM >45 29.4 F D >45 30.1 F D 19 I-680 SB On-Ramp/Foothill Road Off-Ramp Weave AM PM — 31.5 F D — 32.0 F D 20 Under Foothill Road Overpass Basic AM PM 38.3 19.6 E C 38.4 19.9 E C I-680 Northbound 1 South of Stoneridge Drive Basic AM PM 22.5 21.4 C C 22.8 21.8 C C 2 Stoneridge Drive Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 22.5 21.4 C C 22.8 21.8 C C 3 Under Stoneridge Drive Basic AM PM 15.6 18.3 B C 15.8 18.7 B C 4 EB Stoneridge Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 12.7 16.7 B B 12.9 17.0 B B 5 WB Stoneridge Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 24.1 34.5 C D 24.6 35.5 C E 6 I-580 EB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 30.6 36.0 D E 31.0 36.7 D E 7 I-580 WB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 20.2 22.5 C C 20.2 22.5 C C 8 Over I-580 Basic AM PM 10.2 15.5 A B 10.3 15.5 A B 9 I-580 EB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 14.9 24.2 B C 14.9 24.2 B C 10 I-580 WB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 18.9 20.7 C C 19.0 21.0 C C 11 Village Parkway On-Ramp Merge AM PM 34.4 38.1 D E 34.8 — D F 12 South of Alcosta Boulevard Basic AM PM 39.7 >45 E F 40.5 >45 E F City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-148 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-21 (cont.): Existing Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Existing without Project Existing with Project Density LOS Density LOS I-680 Southbound 1 South of Alcosta Boulevard Basic AM PM 32.5 32.6 D D 32.8 33.0 D D 2 I-580 EB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 39.7 — E F — — F F 3 I-580 WB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 28.8 22.4 D C 28.9 22.4 D C 4 Over I-580 Basic AM PM 29.0 32.7 D D 29.0 32.8 D D 5 Amador Plaza Rd On-Ramp Merge AM PM 30.2 32.9 D D 30.3 33.1 D D 6 I-580 On-Ramp/Stoneridge Off-Ramp Weave AM PM — — F F — — F F 7 Under Stoneridge Drive Basic AM PM 26.5 35.9 D E 26.8 37.0 D E 8 Stoneridge Drive WB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 28.6 — D F 28.8 — D F 9 Stoneridge Drive EB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 28.4 — D F 28.6 — D F 10 South of Stoneridge Drive Basic AM PM 30.9 >45 D F 31.2 >45 D F Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Table 3.6-22: Near-Term Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Near Term without Project Near Term with Project Density LOS Density LOS I-580 Eastbound 1 Under Foothill Road Overpass Basic AM PM 33.7 >45 D F 38.2 >45 C F 2 Foothill Road NB On-Ramp/I-680 Off-Ramp Weave AM PM — — F F — — F F 3 Hopyard Road/Dougherty Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 36.5 — E F — — F F City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-149 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-22 (cont.): Near-Term Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Near Term without Project Near Term with Project Density LOS Density LOS 4 East of I-680 Basic AM PM >45 >45 F F >45 >45 F F 5 I-680 SB On-Ramp Merge AM PM >45 >45 F F >45 >45 F F 6 I-680 NB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 30.8 >45 D F 31.3 >45 D F 7 I-680 to Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road Basic AM PM 30.9 >45 D F 31.4 >45 D F 8 SB Dougherty Road/Hopyard On-Ramp Merge AM PM 27.5 44.0 D E 27.9 44.9 D E 9 NB Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 19.1 31.8 B D 20.4 32.6 C D 10 Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road to Hacienda Drive Basic AM PM 28.4 >45 D F 28.7 >45 D F 11 Hacienda Drive Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 28.4 >45 D F 28.7 >45 D F 12 Under Hacienda Drive Overpass Basic AM PM 27.2 >45 D F 27.2 >45 D F 13 SB Hacienda Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 22.5 — C F 22.9 — C F 14 NB Hacienda Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 23.2 — C F 23.4 — C F 15 Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 26.8 — C F 26.9 — C F 16 Under Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road Overpass Basic AM PM 29.0 >45 D F 29.3 >45 D F 17 SB Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 26.2 — C F 26.4 — C F 18 NB Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 24.6 >45 C F 24.8 >45 C F 19 Tassajara Road to El Charro Road Basic AM PM 24.7 >45 C F 24.9 >45 C F I-580 Westbound 1 Tassajara Road to El Charro Road Basic AM PM 40.8 19.1 E C 41.3 19.5 E C 2 Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 40.8 19.1 E C 41.3 19.5 E C City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-150 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-22 (cont.): Near-Term Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Near Term without Project Near Term with Project Density LOS Density LOS 3 Under Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road Overpass Basic AM PM >45 19.3 F C >45 19.8 F C 4 NB Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 36.8 17.5 E B 37.3 17.9 E B 5 SB Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM — 21.0 F C — 21.3 F C 6 Hacienda Drive Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM >45 20.0 F C >45 20.3 F C 7 Under Hacienda Drive Overpass Basic AM PM >45 21.8 F C >45 21.8 F C 8 NB Hacienda Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 40.3 20.8 E C 40.3 20.8 E C 9 SB Hacienda Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 32.6 23.9 D C 33.2 25.1 D C 10 Hacienda Drive to Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road Basic AM PM 43.8 23.5 E C 44.5 24.0 E C 11 Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM >45 23.5 F C >45 24.0 F C 12 Under Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road Overpass Basic AM PM >45 24.6 F C >45 25.3 F C 13 NB Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM >45 23.6 F C >45 24.1 F C 14 SB Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 33.0 25.5 D C 33.3 26.1 D C 15 Dougherty Road/Hopyard to I-680 Basic AM PM 43.0 27.0 E D 43.7 27.8 E D 16 I-680 Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM — 29.1 F D — 29.9 F D 17 Under I-680 Overpass Basic AM PM >45 33.5 F D >45 34.3 F D 18 I-680 NB On-Ramp Merge AM PM >45 >45 F F >45 >45 F F 19 I-680 SB On-Ramp/Foothill Road Off-Ramp Weave AM PM — — F F — — F F 20 Under Foothill Road Overpass Basic AM PM 44.8 23.6 E C 45.0 24.0 E C City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-151 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-22 (cont.): Near-Term Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Near Term without Project Near Term with Project Density LOS Density LOS I-680 Northbound 1 South of Stoneridge Drive Basic AM PM 24.8 23.5 C C 25.1 23.9 C C 2 Stoneridge Drive Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 24.8 23.5 C C 25.1 23.9 C C 3 Under Stoneridge Drive Basic AM PM 16.3 20.2 B C 16.6 20.6 B C 4 EB Stoneridge Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 13.2 18.7 B C 13.4 19.0 B C 5 WB Stoneridge Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 26.1 — C F 26.7 — C F 6 I-580 EB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 32.6 — D F 33.0 — D F 7 I-580 WB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 21.3 22.6 C C 21.3 22.6 C C 8 Over I-580 Basic AM PM 11.1 15.6 B B 11.1 15.6 B B 9 I-580 EB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 15.7 26.9 B D 15.7 26.9 B D 10 I-580 WB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 20.4 22.1 C C 20.6 22.4 C C 11 Village Parkway On-Ramp Merge AM PM 37.0 — E F 37.7 — E F 12 South of Alcosta Boulevard Basic AM PM >45 >45 F F >45 >45 F F I-680 Southbound 1 South of Alcosta Boulevard Basic AM PM 35.0 32.6 E D 35.3 33.0 E D 2 I-580 EB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM — — F F — — F F 3 I-580 WB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 29.3 21.6 D C 29.3 22.4 D C 4 Over I-580 Basic AM PM 29.9 30.5 D D 30.0 32.8 D D 5 Amador Plaza Rd On-Ramp Merge AM PM — 32.0 F D — 33.1 F D City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-152 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-22 (cont.): Near-Term Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Near Term without Project Near Term with Project Density LOS Density LOS 6 I-580 On-Ramp/Stoneridge Off-Ramp Weave AM PM — — F F — — F F 7 Under Stoneridge Drive Basic AM PM 37.3 32.2 E D 37.5 37.0 E E 8 Stoneridge Drive WB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 34.8 36.7 D E 34.9 — D F 9 Stoneridge Drive EB On-Ramp Merge AM PM — — F F — — F F 10 South of Stoneridge Drive Basic AM PM >45 >45 F F >45 >45 F F Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Table 3.6-23: Cumulative Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Density LOS Density LOS I-580 Eastbound 1 Under Foothill Road Overpass Basic AM PM 37.9 >45 E F 38.2 >45 E F 2 Foothill Road NB On-Ramp/I-680 Off-Ramp Weave AM PM — — F F — — F F 3 Hopyard Road/Dougherty Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM — — F F — — F F 4 East of I-680 Basic AM PM >45 >45 F F >45 >45 F F 5 I-680 SB On-Ramp Merge AM PM >45 >45 F F >45 >45 F F 6 I-680 NB On-Ramp Merge AM PM >45 >45 F F >45 >45 F F 7 I-680 to Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road Basic AM PM 38.5 >45 E F 39.2 >45 E F 8 SB Dougherty Road/Hopyard On-Ramp Merge AM PM 33.3 39.8 D E 33.8 40.6 D E 9 NB Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 25.4 29.6 C D 25.7 30.1 C D City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-153 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-23 (cont.): Cumulative Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Density LOS Density LOS 10 Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road to Hacienda Drive Basic AM PM 34.8 41.7 D E 35.3 42.5 E E 11 Hacienda Drive Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 34.8 41.7 D E 35.3 42.5 E E 12 Under Hacienda Drive Overpass Basic AM PM 33.7 >45 D F 33.7 >45 D F 13 SB Hacienda Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 27.4 — C F 27.8 — C F 14 NB Hacienda Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 28.1 — D F 28.3 — D F 15 Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 32.5 — D F 32.6 — D F 16 Under Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road Overpass Basic AM PM 35.4 >45 E F 35.9 >45 E F 17 SB Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 29.2 — D F 29.4 — D F 18 NB Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 28.5 >45 D F 29.3 >45 D F 19 Tassajara Road to El Charro Road Basic AM PM 28.5 >45 D F 29.4 >45 D F I-580 Westbound 1 Tassajara Road to El Charro Road Basic AM PM 39.6 23.3 E C 40.1 23.7 E C 2 Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 39.6 23.3 E C 40.1 23.7 E C 3 Under Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road Overpass Basic AM PM >45 24.5 F C >45 25.0 F C 4 NB Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 34.8 21.5 D C 35.2 21.8 E C 5 SB Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 36.1 24.1 E C 36.4 24.4 E C 6 Hacienda Drive Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 44.5 24.4 E C >45 24.8 F C 7 Under Hacienda Drive Overpass Basic AM PM >45 27.6 F D >45 27.6 F D 8 NB Hacienda Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 39.6 25.3 E C 39.6 25.3 E C City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-154 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-23 (cont.): Cumulative Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Density LOS Density LOS 9 SB Hacienda Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 32.6 32.5 D D 33.1 33.7 D D 10 Hacienda Drive to Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road Basic AM PM 43.3 32.3 E D 43.9 33.1 E D 11 Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM >45 32.3 F D >45 33.1 F D 12 Under Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road Overpass Basic AM PM >45 32.3 F D >45 33.7 F D 13 NB Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM >45 30.6 F D >45 31.3 F D 14 SB Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road On-Ramp Merge AM PM 34.2 29.8 D D — 30.5 F D 15 Dougherty Road/Hopyard to I-680 Basic AM PM 44.6 35.2 E E >45 36.3 F E 16 I-680 Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM — — F F — — F F 17 Under I-680 Overpass Basic AM PM >45 44.0 F E >45 >45 F F 18 I-680 NB On-Ramp Merge AM PM >45 >45 F F >45 >45 F F 19 I-680 SB On-Ramp/Foothill Rd Off-Ramp Weave AM PM — — F F — — F F 20 Under Foothill Rd Overpass Basic AM PM >45 26.7 F D >45 27.1 F D I-680 Northbound 1 South of Stoneridge Drive Basic AM PM 27.1 22.8 D C 27.4 23.2 D C 2 Stoneridge Drive Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 27.1 22.8 D C 27.4 23.2 D C 3 Under Stoneridge Drive Basic AM PM 17.4 18.4 B C 17.7 18.8 B C 4 EB Stoneridge Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 14.0 17.4 B B 14.3 17.8 B B 5 WB Stoneridge Drive On-Ramp Merge AM PM 26.5 28.7 C D 27.0 29.6 C D 6 I-580 EB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 33.6 30.0 D D 34.0 30.5 D D City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-155 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-23 (cont.): Cumulative Conditions Freeway Analysis Segment Type Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Density LOS Density LOS 7 I-580 WB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 21.3 21.5 C C 21.3 21.5 C C 8 Over I-580 Basic AM PM 10.5 18.9 A C 10.5 18.9 A C 9 I-580 EB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 15.3 >45 B F 15.3 >45 B F 10 I-580 WB On-Ramp Merge AM PM 20.2 26.0 C D 20.4 26.3 C D 11 Village Parkway On-Ramp Merge AM PM 34.7 — D F 35.5 — E F 12 South of Alcosta Boulevard Basic AM PM 42.1 >45 E F 43.4 >45 E F I-680 Southbound 1 South of Alcosta Boulevard Basic AM PM 39.1 39.0 E E 39.5 39.6 E E 2 I-580 EB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM — — F F — — F F 3 I-580 WB Off-Ramp Diverge AM PM 28.5 24.8 D C 28.5 24.8 D C 4 Over I-580 Basic AM PM 32.5 39.4 D E 32.6 39.6 D E 5 Amador Plaza Rd On-Ramp Merge AM PM — — F F — — F F 6 I-580 On-Ramp/Stoneridge Off-Ramp Weave AM PM — — F F — — F F 7 Under Stoneridge Drive Basic AM PM 44.9 >45 E F >45 >45 F F 8 Stoneridge Drive WB On-Ramp Merge AM PM — — F F — — F F 9 Stoneridge Drive EB On-Ramp Merge AM PM — — F F — — F F 10 South of Stoneridge Drive Basic AM PM >45 >45 F F >45 >45 F F Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-156 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-24: Ramp Meter Analysis—Existing Conditions On-Ramp Peak Hour Storage Length (feet) Meter Rate Existing Without Project Existing With Project Volume Max Queue (feet) Volume Max Queue (feet) SB Dougherty Road to WB I-580 AM 680 540 621 1,100 627 1,300 PM 689 >1,500 717 >1,500 SB Hacienda Drive to WB I-580 AM 700 540 385 0 457 0 PM 660 >1,500 804 >1,500 SB Hacienda Drive to EB I-580 AM 490 300 160 0 210 0 PM 318 725 429 >1,500 Note: Bold indicates vehicle queue spillback to roadway. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Table 3.6-25: Ramp Meter Analysis—Near-Term Conditions On-Ramp Peak Hour Storage Length (feet) Meter Rate Near-Term Without Project Near-Term With Project Volume Max Queue (feet) Volume Max Queue (feet) SB Dougherty Road to WB I-580 AM 680 540 740 >1,500 746 >1,500 PM 830 >1,500 858 >1,500 SB Hacienda Drive to WB I-580 AM 700 540 430 0 502 0 PM 760 >1,500 904 >1,500 SB Hacienda Drive to EB I-580 AM 490 300 200 0 250 0 PM 430 >1,500 541 >1,500 Note: Bold indicates vehicle queue spillback to roadway. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Table 3.6-26: Ramp Meter Analysis—Cumulative Conditions On-Ramp Peak Hour Storage Length (feet) Meter Rate Cumulative Without Project Cumulative With Project Volume Max Queue (feet) Volume Max Queue (feet) SB Dougherty Road to WB I-580 AM 680 540 890 >4,000 896 >1,500 PM 790 >4,000 818 >1,500 SB Hacienda Drive to WB I-580 AM 700 540 470 0 542 0 PM 1,480 >1,500 1,624 >1,500 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-157 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-26 (cont.): Ramp Meter Analysis—Cumulative Conditions On-Ramp Peak Hour Storage Length (feet) Meter Rate Cumulative Without Project Cumulative With Project Volume Max Queue (feet) Volume Max Queue (feet) SB Hacienda Drive to EB I-580 AM 490 300 260 0 310 0 PM 480 >1,500 591 >1,500 Note: Bold indicates vehicle queue spillback to roadway. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. Freeway Impacts and Mitigation Measures I-580, I-680, and I-580/I-680 Interchange The addition of project traffic would worsen LOS F conditions in the existing, near-term and cumulative conditions on I-580 between Foothill Road and El Charro Road, and on I-680 between Stoneridge Drive and Alcosta Road, during the AM and PM peak hours, as well as result in new deficiencies, as detailed in Table 3.6-21, Table 3.6-22 and Table 3.6-23. This is a significant impact. To mitigate this impact, the applicant shall develop and implement a transportation demand management plan (TRANS-4a). Additionally, the project applicant will pay applicable regional and local transportation impact fee that would be used to construct freeway improvements, such as the second phase of I-680/I-580 interchange improvements, widening of State Route 84 through Pigeon Pass, and other planned roadway system modifications that would relieve freeway congestion in the study area. However, as the construction timing of these improvements is unknown as full funding has not been identified and the effectiveness of the transportation demand management plan is unknown, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Ramp Meter Impact—Dougherty Road & I-580 Westbound Ramp Based on the ramp metering rate of 540 vehicles per hour, vehicle queues during both the morning and evening peak hours spillback from beyond the on-ramp to Dougherty Road. The addition of project traffic in the existing, near-term, and cumulative conditions would further increase the extent and duration of vehicle queues spillback from the ramp meter to southbound Dougherty Road. As the addition of project traffic would increase a queue already exceeding the ramp storage by 25 feet or more, the impact is considered significant. Increasing the metering rate at this location from 540 vehicles per hour to between 600 and 900 vehicles per hour (depending on time period and analysis scenario) would reduce the duration and severity of vehicle queue spillback to Dougherty Road at this location such that queues could be contained within the available ramp storage. The City of Dublin shall work with Caltrans to evaluate ramp-metering rates along the I-580 corridor to minimize the potential for vehicle queue spillback to city streets. As the City of Dublin does not have control over ramp meter rates in the project vicinity, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. This recommendation is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4b. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-158 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Ramp Meter Impact—Hacienda Drive & I-580 Westbound Ramp Based on the ramp metering rate of 540 vehicles per hour, vehicles queues during the evening peak hour spillback from beyond the on-ramp to Hacienda Drive. The addition of project traffic in the existing, near-term and cumulative conditions would further increase the extent and duration of vehicle queues spillback from the ramp meter to southbound Hacienda Drive. As the addition of project traffic would increase a queue already exceeding the ramp storage by 25 feet or more, the impact is considered significant. In the existing and near-term conditions, increasing the metering rate at this location from 540 vehicles per hour to between 600 and 900 vehicles per hour (depending on time period and analysis scenario) would reduce the duration and severity of vehicle queue spillback to Hacienda Drive at this location such that queues could be contained within the available ramp storage. The City of Dublin shall work with Caltrans to evaluate ramp-metering rates along the I-580 corridor to minimize the potential for vehicle queue spillback to city streets. As the City of Dublin does not have control over ramp meter rates in the project vicinity, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. This recommendation is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4b. Additionally, in the cumulative condition, an additional mixed-flow on-ramp lane needs to be provided in addition to increasing the per-lane meter rate to 800 vehicles per lane during the PM peak period, in addition to the HOV lane. This would require widening of the on-ramp to accommodate an additional lane at the ramp meter, as well as widening to provide additional merge space on the freeway mainline. The widening of the freeway on-ramp could result in secondary impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists by increasing pedestrian crossing distances through the interchange, and bicycle/vehicle conflicts, and should be implemented in conjunction with Mitigation Measure TRANS-8c. The project applicant should pay their fair share towards this improvement. This recommendation is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4c. As this improvement is within the Caltrans right-of-way and the City of Dublin does not have control over the on-ramp, there are no assurances that this improvement could be implemented. Therefore, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Ramp Meter Impact—Hacienda Drive & I-580 Eastbound Ramp Based on the ramp metering rate of 300 vehicles per hour, vehicles queues during the evening peak hour spillback from beyond the on-ramp to Hacienda Drive. The addition of project traffic in the existing, near-term, and cumulative conditions would further increase the extent and duration of vehicle queue spillback from the ramp meter to southbound Hacienda Drive. As the addition of project traffic would increase a queue already exceeding the ramp storage by 25 feet or more, the impact is considered significant. Increasing the metering rate at this location from 300 vehicles per hour to between 325 and 600 vehicles per hour (depending on analysis scenario) would reduce the duration and severity of vehicle queue spillback to Hacienda Drive at this location such that queues could be contained within the available ramp storage. The City of Dublin shall work with Caltrans to evaluate ramp-metering rates along the I-580 corridor to minimize the potential for vehicle queue spillback to city streets. As the City City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-159 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx of Dublin does not have control over ramp meter rates in the project vicinity, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. This recommendation is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4b. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM TRANS-4a Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the proposed project, the applicant shall retain a qualified transportation consultant to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The TDM set forth strategies to achieve the reduction target, which may include: • Ridesharing/Carpooling matching program • Posting transit information in employee-only areas • Provision of employee lockers • Provision of secure bicycle storage areas • Flex scheduling/Compressed scheduling • Staggered shifts to avoid shift changes during peak commute hours MM TRANS-4b As an ongoing effort, the City of Dublin shall coordinate with Caltrans to optimize ramp metering rates at I-580 on-ramps within the Dublin city limits. MM TRANS-4c Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share for the installation of an additional mixed-flow on-ramp lane for southbound Hacienda Drive to westbound I-580. This mitigation measure shall be coordinated with Mitigation Measure TRANS-8d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact: • I-580 between Foothill Road and El Charro Road • I-680 between Stoneridge Drive and Alcosta Road • Dougherty Road & I-580 Westbound Ramp • Hacienda Drive & I-580 Westbound Ramp • Hacienda Drive & I-580 Eastbound Ramp. Less than significant impact: All other facilities. Congestion Management Program Impact TRANS-5: The project may conflict with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads, highways, or freeways. A separate analysis of regional roadways is required to comply with requirements of the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). The Alameda CTC requires the analysis of project impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadways identified in the congestion City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-160 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx management plan (CMP) for development projects that would generate more than 100 PM peak- hour trips. The proposed project would generate more than 100 PM peak hour trips. This analysis considers the impact of the Project on freeways, major arterials, and other major roadways as designated by Alameda CTC. Main items of discussion include the geographic scope of the Alameda CTC roadway analysis, the analysis method, and the results for 2020 and 2040. Alameda CTC Roadway Analysis Study Area Freeway and surface street segments in Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore were included in this analysis: 1. I-580 from west of Foothill Road/San Ramon Road to Isabel Avenue (8 segments) 2. I-680 from Alcosta Boulevard to south of Sunol Boulevard (5 segments) 3. Foothill Road/San Ramon Road from Amador Valley Parkway to Sunol Boulevard (10 segments) 4. Dublin Boulevard from Amador Plaza Road to Fallon Road (10 segments) 5. Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road from Stanley Boulevard to Fallon Road (10 segments) 6. Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road from Del Valley Parkway to Old Ranch Road (10 segments) 7. Stoneridge Drive from Foothill Road to Fallon Road (5 segments) 8. Las Positas Boulevard from Hopyard Road to Santa Rita Road (3 segments) 9. Bernal Avenue from Foothill Road to Sunol Boulevard (3 segments) 10. Sunol Boulevard/First Street/Stanley Boulevard from I-680 to North Livermore Avenue (6 segments) 11. Isabel Avenue from Vallecitos Road to Airway Boulevard (5 segments) 12. Vallecitos Road from I-680 to Isabel Avenue (1 segment) Traffic Forecasts Fehr & Peers used the Alameda Countywide Travel Demand Model to forecast 2025 and 2040 traffic volumes on the MTS roadway system. The forecasts for the MTS system differ from the intersection forecasts previously discussed in the following aspects: • The land use data sets used for the intersection forecasts and the MTS forecasts are consistent with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) population and employment projections but may differ from the City of Dublin model within Dublin. • Regional model may not include some minor streets through the Tri-Valley, potentially overstating traffic volumes on the roadways included in the model. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-161 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx • The MTS roadway analysis reports the outputs of the Alameda CTC model directly on a roadway segment level and the analysis does not consider the added capacity from turn pockets at intersections. The results of the Alameda CTC model were used to forecast the No Project condition for 2020 and 2040. Project trips were distributed to the MTS roadway segments (including both freeways and surface streets) identified above using the project trip distribution presented previously. The distribution of project trips onto the MTS segments results in the with Project volumes for 2020 and 2040. Analysis Method Operations of the MTS freeway and surface street segments were assessed based on volume-to- capacity (V/C) ratios. For freeway segments, a per-lane capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour was used. For surface streets, a per-lane capacity of 800 vehicles per hour was used. These capacities do not reflect additional capacity provided at intersections through turn pockets. Roadway segments with a V/C ratio greater than 1.0 are assigned LOS F. See additional analysis method details in Chapter 1. Significance Criteria According to the significance criteria presented previously, the addition of project traffic causes a significant impact on an MTS roadway segment if: • The addition of project traffic causes a segment’s operation to degrade to LOS F. • The addition of project trips causes the V/C ratio to increase by more than 0.02 on a segment that already operates at LOS F without the project traffic. Analysis Results The MTS PM Peak Hour roadway segment analysis under 2020 and 2040 conditions are provided in Appendix F. Results of the 2020 analysis indicate that the proposed project would not degrade roadway segments to unacceptable levels, but it would increase the volume-to-capacity ratio by 0.02 or more on roadways projected to operate at a deficient level of service: • Eastbound Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road • Northbound Hopyard Road between I-580 eastbound Ramps and Dublin Boulevard In 2040, the addition of project trips would increase the V/C ratio of segments already operating at LOS F by more than 0.02 or would result in LOS F conditions: • Southbound Foothill Road between Stoneridge Drive and Las Positas Boulevard • Eastbound Dublin Boulevard between Demarcus Boulevard and Arnold Road, and Hacienda Drive to Keegan Street • Westbound Dublin Boulevard from Dougherty Road to Demarcus Boulevard City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-162 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx • Northbound Hopyard Road/Dougherty Road between Owens Drive and Dublin Boulevard • Isabel Avenue between Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard Dublin Boulevard (2020) Results of the MTS analysis indicate that the proposed project would worsen already deficient operations on Dublin Boulevard eastbound between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road by increasing the volume-to-capacity ratio by more than 0.02 in 2020. This is considered a significant impact. Widening Dublin Boulevard to provide more than three travel lanes in each direction would mitigate the impact. However, widening would be contrary to City of Dublin policies on CompleteStreets and the acquisition of right-of-way to widen the roadway may be infeasible. While widening of Dublin Boulevard may be infeasible, the project applicant would help fund improvements to the surrounding transportation system through payment of the City of Dublin and Tri-Valley Regional traffic impact fees. These improvements along the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan (as identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a) would reduce the severity of this impact, but it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Additionally, as implementation of parallel capacity cannot be assured, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Hopyard Road (2020) Results of the MTS analysis indicate that the proposed project would worsen already deficient operations on northbound Hopyard Road between I-580 eastbound Ramps and Dublin Boulevard by increasing the volume-to-capacity ratio by between 0.02 and 0.03 (depending on the segment) in 2020. This is considered a significant impact. Widening Hopyard Road to provide more than three travel lanes in the northbound direction would result in acceptable operations on this roadway segment. However, widening would be contrary to City of Dublin policies on CompleteStreets and the acquisition of right-of-way to widen the roadway may be infeasible. While widening of Hopyard Road may be infeasible, the project applicant would help fund improvements to the surrounding transportation system through payment of the City of Dublin and Tri-Valley Regional traffic impact fees. These improvements along the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan (as identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a) would reduce the severity of this impact, but it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Additionally, as implementation of parallel capacity cannot be assured, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Foothill Road (2040) Results of the MTS analysis indicate that the proposed project would worsen already deficient operations on southbound Foothill Road between Stoneridge Drive and Las Positas Boulevard by increasing the volume-to-capacity ratio by 0.02 in 2040. This is considered a significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-163 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Widening Foothill Road to provide two travel lanes in the southbound direction between Stoneridge Drive and Las Positas Road would result in acceptable operations on this roadway segment. However, the City of Pleasanton plans to modify this roadway to provide bicycle facilities and widening to accommodate additional vehicle traffic could preclude the provision of bicycle facilities. While widening of Foothill Road may be infeasible, the project applicant would help fund improvements to the surrounding transportation system through payment of the City of Dublin and Tri-Valley Regional traffic impact fees. These improvements along the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan (as identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a) would reduce the severity of this impact, but it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Additionally, as implementation of parallel capacity cannot be assured, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Dublin Boulevard (2040) Results of the MTS analysis indicate that the proposed project would worsen already deficient operations on eastbound Dublin Boulevard between Demarcus Boulevard and Arnold Road, and Hacienda Drive to Keegan Street, and westbound Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and DeMarcus Boulevard by increasing the volume-to-capacity ratio by 0.02 or more in 2040. This is considered a significant impact. Widening Dublin Boulevard to provide more than three travel lanes in each direction would result in acceptable operations on this roadway segment. However, widening would be contrary to City of Dublin policies on CompleteStreets and the acquisition of right-of-way to widen the roadway may be infeasible. While widening of Dublin Boulevard may be infeasible, the project applicant would help fund improvements to the surrounding transportation system through payment of the City of Dublin and Tri-Valley Regional traffic impact fees. These improvements along the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan (as identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a) would reduce the severity of this impact, but it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Additionally, as implementation of parallel capacity cannot be assured, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Hopyard Road (2040) Results of the MTS analysis indicate that the proposed project would worsen already deficient operations on northbound Hopyard Road between Owens Drive and Dublin Boulevard by increasing the volume-to-capacity ratio by 0.03 in 2040. This is considered a significant impact. Widening Hopyard Road to provide more than three travel lanes in each direction would result in acceptable operations on this roadway segment. However, widening would be contrary to City of Dublin policies on CompleteStreets and the acquisition of right-of-way to widen the roadway may be infeasible. While widening of Hopyard Road may be infeasible, the project applicant would help fund improvements to the surrounding transportation system through payment of the City of Dublin and City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-164 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Tri-Valley Regional traffic impact fees. These improvements along the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan (as identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a) would reduce the severity of this impact, but it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Additionally, as implementation of parallel capacity cannot be assured, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Isabel Avenue (2040) Results of the MTS analysis indicate that the proposed project would result in deficient operations on Isabel Avenue between Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard in 2040. This is considered a significant impact. Widening of Isabel Avenue to provide additional vehicular capacity would result in acceptable vehicular operations; however, this segment of Isabel Avenue has been widened to its ultimate configuration and further widening would be contrary to City of Dublin policies on CompleteStreets and the acquisition of right-of-way to widen the roadway may be infeasible. While widening of Isabel Avenue may be infeasible, the project applicant would help fund improvements to the surrounding transportation system through payment of the City of Dublin and Tri-Valley Regional traffic impact fees. These improvements along the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan (as identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a) would reduce the severity of this impact, but it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Additionally, as implementation of parallel capacity cannot be assured, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact: • Dublin Boulevard • Hopyard Road • Foothill Road • Isabel Avenue Less than significant impact: All other facilities. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-165 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Roadway Hazards Impact TRANS-6: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Impact Analysis Fehr & Peers evaluated vehicular access and on-site circulation for adequacy in terms of safety and operational efficiency. Vehicular Access Primary vehicular access to the project site would be provided by a signalized intersection on Martinelli Way at Persimmon Place. The entry is aligned with the Persimmon Place commercial center to the north. Once inside the project site, the driveway splits in three directions taking vehicles to either the IKEA parking garage, the northern half of the new retail/restaurant area east of IKEA, or the IKEA loading zone and the southern half of the retail/restaurant area. Three non-signalized driveways are proposed to serve the project site. A right-in/right-out driveway on Martinelli Way east of the main driveway would provide direct access to the retail/restaurant area. Two driveways are proposed on Arnold Road; the northernmost driveway would provide right- out only access for emergency and delivery vehicles. The southernmost driveway would provide secondary access to the IKEA parking garage, and access to the truck loading area, furniture loading area, and the southern half of the retail/restaurant area. One existing curb cut on Martinelli Way and one existing curb cut on Arnold Road would be eliminated with the project. As presented in the prior chapters, site access intersections would operate at acceptable service levels. A review of internal intersection operations indicates that the proposed circulation system is adequate to generally accommodate the projected traffic flows, as presented in Table 3.6-27. Table 3.6-27: Internal Intersections Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control1 Peak Hour Project Buildout Delay2,3 LOS 32. IKEA Place & IKEA Parking Garage/Retail Driveway (North) SSSC AM PM SAT 7.9 (17.5) 7.7 (16.9) 7.7 (17.0) 13.7 (36.8)4 A (C) A (C) A (C) B (E) 33. IKEA Place & Retail Driveway (Central) SSSC AM AFT PM SAT 0.8 (9.0) 1.4 (8.9) 1.1 (8.9) 0.8 (9.3) A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) 34. IKEA Place & IKEA Exit Driveway (South) SSSC AM AFT PM SAT 9.0 (10.4) 9.0 (10.7) 9.0 (10.7) 10.3 (13.1) A (B) A (B) A (B) B (B) City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-166 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Table 3.6-27 (cont.): Internal Intersections Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control Peak Hour Project Buildout Delay LOS 35. IKEA Garage/Retail Driveway & Retail Driveway SSSC AM PM SAT 9.5 (10.5) 9.4 (10.4) 9.4 (10.4) 10.1 (11.2) A (B) A (B) A (B) B (B) Notes: 1 SSSC = side-street stop controlled intersection 2 Average and worst movement delay calculated using the 2000 HCM method. 3 For SSSC intersections, average delay or LOS is listed first followed by the delay or LOS for the worst approach in parentheses. 4 Reflects delay for northbound movement. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. However, site access and circulation may be confusing for infrequent site visitors. For example, patrons traveling westbound on the northern roadway in the restaurant/retail area approaching the IKEA Place intersection may not be aware that only right-turn movements are allowed, restricting their direct access to the IKEA parking area or the remainder of the site. Accordingly, as required under a City standard condition of approval, the site plan will be reviewed as part of the plan check process to ensure that appropriate traffic control devices such as raised islands, signage, and pavement markings are in place to guide motorists. Impacts would be less than significant. On-Site Circulation Fehr & Peers conducted a turning analysis for the primary site access locations, circulation roadways, and internal truck routes. For the turning assessment, AutoTurn software, developed by Transoft Solutions, was used. AutoTurn is computer aided design (CAD)-based vehicle turn and path analysis software that is used to help evaluate vehicle maneuvers for all types of roadway, highway, and site design projects. For this analysis, several vehicle types were used from the 2011 AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) library, including large passenger vehicles that are representative of most vehicles that would access the site, a 30-foot single unit truck representative of typical small delivery vehicles that might pick-up merchandise at the store for customer delivery, a large semi-truck (with a 67-foot wheelbase) representative of the large delivery trucks that serve the site (typically 5 or fewer per 24-hour period with off-peak deliveries), and a garbage truck. Vehicle turning templates are shown for the following movements and vehicle types in Appendix F: • Passenger cars turning into site from Martinelli Way to IKEA garage and northern retail/restaurant area • Passenger car turning from north-south drive aisle to northern retail/restaurant area City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-167 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx • Large semi-truck turning into site from Martinelli Way and exiting site to Arnold Road • Large semi-truck turning from north-south drive aisle to east-west drive aisle, turning to truck loading docks and backing into loading dock • Small delivery truck entering/exiting drive-through loading spaces and entering/exiting to Arnold Road • Passenger vehicle entering/exiting drive-through loading spaces • Garbage truck turning into site from Martinelli Way to northern retail/restaurant area • Garbage truck navigating to/from trash enclosures on eastern edge of site. Results of the AutoTurn assessment show that vehicles will generally be able to navigate through the site, however, a few areas where the curb may need to be modified were identified. Accordingly, as required under a City standard condition of approval, the final site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer to ensure all City design standards are met. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Emergency Access Impact TRANS-7: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impact Analysis Vehicular access to the proposed project would be provided from two locations on Martinelli Way and two locations on Arnold Road. Primary vehicular access to the project site would be provided by a signalized intersection on Martinelli Way at Persimmon Place. Three non-signalized driveways are proposed to serve the project site. A right-in/right-out driveway on Martinelli Way east of the main driveway would provide direct access to the retail/restaurant area. Two driveways are proposed on Arnold Road; the northernmost driveway would provide right-out only access for emergency and delivery vehicles. The southernmost driveway would provide secondary access to the IKEA parking garage, and access to the truck loading area, furniture loading area, and the southern half of the retail/restaurant area. The California Fire Code requires a minimum of two access points to a project of this size. The provision of these access points would satisfy this requirement and ensure that adequate emergency access would be provided. Additionally, the final site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-168 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Public Transit, Bicycles, and Pedestrian Impact TRANS-8: The project may conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Impact Analysis Public Transit Wheels bus service provides local access to the area via bus routes 1, 2, and 30R. The nearest LAVTA bus stop to the project site is located on Dublin Boulevard at Hacienda Drive, 600 feet north of the project site. Based on the existing LAVTA ridership data, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate potential transit demand from the project. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is located approximately 0.25 mile west of the project site. There are existing pedestrian facilities that provide connectivity between the BART Station and the project site. The project site has also reserved right-of-way along the southern project frontage for a potential BART Express Bus connection. Bicycles Bicycle Facilities The project would provide a shared pedestrian/bicycle path along the eastern and southern frontage of the project site connecting to planned bicycle facilities in the area. Class II bicycle lanes are identified in the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2014 on Arnold Road south of Martinelli Way and Martinelli Way between Hacienda Drive and Iron Horse Way, providing connections to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, the Iron Horse Trail, and existing bicycle facilities north of the project site. Existing Class II bicycle facilities are provided in the immediate vicinity of the project site on Dublin Boulevard located approximately 600 feet north of the project site, Arnold Road between Gleason Drive and Martinelli Way, and Hacienda Drive. Additionally, Fehr & Peers recommended modifying the site plan to include Class II bicycle lanes along the Arnold Road and Martinelli Way project frontages to connect with existing and other planned facilities. In lieu of an eastbound Class II facility on Martinelli Way, the applicant should provide 10-foot sidewalks, similar to what was provided along the Persimmon Place project frontage on the north side of Martinelli Way. This recommendation is reflected in Mitigation Measure City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Transportation FirstCarbon Solutions 3.6-169 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx TRANS-8a. Implementation of this measure would reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. Fehr & Peers also recommended installing bicycle detection as part of the signal modifications to the intersections of Martinelli Way with Arnold Road, IKEA Place and Hacienda Drive. This recommendation is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-8b. Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The City of Dublin Municipal Code conforms to the California Green Building Standards (CGBS) for short term and long term bicycle parking requirements. CGBS requires the number of short-term bicycle parking spaces to equal 5 percent of the number of provided motorized vehicle parking spaces to be placed within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance. Long-term bicycle spaces are required at the same rate. This results in a requirement of 80 short-term—51 bicycle parking spaces near IKEA entrance and 29 bicycle spaces distributed throughout the retail/restaurant area—and 80 long- term bicycle parking spaces with the same distribution. The long-term bicycle location should consider the needs of site employees and be placed in close proximity to locker facilities. Fehr & Peers recommended identifying the location of planned bicycle parking on the site plan. This recommendation is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-8c. Implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Pedestrians Along the project frontage, there are asphalt pedestrian paths as well as curb ramps at previously contemplated driveways to the site. As part of the project, these asphalt paths would be reconstructed as Americans With Disability Act-compliant sidewalks. The site plan indicates the provision of sidewalks and curb ramps along the Arnold Road and Martinelli Way frontage. A shared pedestrian/bicycle path would also be provided on the eastern and southern project boundaries connecting the intersection of Martinelli Way at Hacienda Driveway to Arnold Road, where an existing sidewalk on the frontage Road provides a pedestrian connection to the BART station. Internal pedestrian paths would also be constructed throughout the site to provide connections between the various buildings. The project applicant shall provide construction staging plans for review to ensure that pedestrian access along the site is maintained or detours are provided. This recommendation is reflected in Mitigation Measure TRANS-8d. Implementation of this measure would reduce the project impact to a less than significant level. Additionally, the City of Dublin and City of Pleasanton are developing pedestrian improvement plans for the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange. The proposed project would be a beneficiary of improved pedestrian mobility, and, therefore, Mitigation Measure TRANS- 8e requires the applicant to contribute fair share that would fund these improvements. As improvements have not yet been identified, and implementation of potential improvements is beyond the control of the City of Dublin, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Potentially significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Transportation Draft Supplemental EIR 3.6-170 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-06 Transportation.docx Mitigation Measures MM TRANS-8a Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that depict a Class II bike lane on Arnold Road and a 10-foot sidewalk on Martinelli Way. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. MM TRANS-8b Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that include bicycle detection as part of the signal modifications to the intersections of Martinelli Way with Arnold Road, IKEA Place and Hacienda Drive. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. MM TRANS-8c Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that identify bicycle storage facilities in appropriate locations throughout the project site. The following minimum amounts of bicycle parking shall be provided: 80 short-term—51 bicycle parking spaces near the IKEA entrance and 29 bicycle spaces distributed throughout the retail/restaurant area—and 80 long-term bicycle parking spaces with the same distribution. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. MM TRANS-8d During construction, the applicant shall maintain safe and convenient pedestrian access in the project vicinity. In cases where pedestrian facilities are temporarily closed, detours shall be established. MM TRANS-8e Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with fair share fees for pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange. This mitigation measure shall be coordinated with Mitigation Measure TRANS-4c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant unavoidable impact: • Hacienda Drive pedestrian mobility. Less than significant impact: All other topics. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Urban Decay FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx 3.7 - Urban Decay 3.7.1 - Introduction This section describes the existing market area conditions and potential effects of urban decay from project implementation on the site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided by the Urban Decay Analysis prepared by BAE Urban Economics. The study is provided in Appendix G. 3.7.2 - Existing Conditions Overview of Urban Decay This analysis focuses strictly on the types of physical changes to the environment that are defined as significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A project’s economic effects on market area competitors are not an environmental impact under CEQA unless they can be traced to direct physical changes in the market area (i.e., physical deterioration of existing retail centers/facilities). As Section 15131(a) of the CEQA Guidelines explains: a) Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic or social changes. The intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on the physical changes. For the purpose of this analysis, urban decay is defined as, among other characteristics, visible symptoms of physical deterioration that invite vandalism, loitering, and graffiti that is caused by a downward spiral of business closures and long-term vacancies. This physical deterioration to properties or structures is so prevalent, substantial, and lasting for a significant period of time that it impairs the proper utilization of the properties and structures, and the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Market Area Definition A market area is the geographic region that encompasses most of a retail outlet’s customers. Because IKEA is a destination retailer with potentially strong attraction from both nearby shoppers as well as a broader area, BAE has defined both a Primary Market Area (PMA) and a Secondary Market Area (SMA) for the proposed project. BAE defined these Market Areas, based on: • A tour of the City of Dublin and other communities within the PMA and SMA. • BAE’s understanding of the retail mix for the proposed project. The IKEA store will be the primary attraction for shoppers for the center, and thus will largely dictate the market areas. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Urban Decay Draft Supplemental EIR 3.7-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx • Mapping of existing competitive outlets and in the region. In particular, the existing IKEA stores in Emeryville, East Palo Alto, and West Sacramento will serve to limit attraction from shoppers closer to those stores. • A review of the traffic analysis for the proposed project. The proposed project is located in the Tri-Valley region of the San Francisco Bay Area adjacent to Interstate 580 (I-580), just east of the interchange with I-680. These two routes are the major routes accessing the project site, providing strong connection to much of the Bay Area, as well as parts of the San Joaquin Valley via the Altamont Pass. The proposed project, as envisioned, will provide for a large destination retailer as well as retail and restaurant uses, and is likely to attract shoppers from a broad region, not just local shoppers from the City of Dublin and the Tri-Valley. To take into account this region-serving concept, BAE defined a PMA partly on an approximately 15-mile distance, with the SMA and PMA areas delimited in part using the drive time or distance to the nearest IKEA, and designated a set of Census Tracts that approximated this area as the PMA. The Fehr & Peers traffic analysis for the proposed project also provided information used in defining the PMA and SMA. These areas are shown on Exhibit 3.7-1. The PMA includes the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, as well as the unincorporated areas of Alamo, Blackhawk, and Castro Valley. The SMA extends out to the north along the I-680 corridor in Contra Costa County to include the cities of Concord, Lafayette, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek; other areas to the north extending as far as Benicia–Vallejo are closer to the Emeryville IKEA and areas north of Benicia are closer to the West Sacramento store. To the east, the SMA extends to include all of Eastern Contra Costa County, Stanislaus County and most of San Joaquin County from Stockton southward. The remainder of San Joaquin County is closer to the West Sacramento store. While the majority of shoppers are likely to originate from within these areas, given IKEA’s regional drawing power, additional shoppers will come from throughout the Bay Area and beyond. The following demographic overview provides data for the City of Dublin and the two Market Areas; for comparison and context, the overview also presents statewide data. Population Trends Understanding population and household growth trends is crucial in assessing the future performance of retail outlets in any market area. Areas with strong growth can easily absorb additional retail development, since the increasing population will generate additional demand for goods and services. However, other factors being equal, even areas with slower growth will show increasing consumer expenditures as per capita buying power increases gradually along with population. As shown in Table 3.7-1, among the areas shown, the most rapid rate of growth is in the City of Dublin, followed in order by the PMA, the SMA, and California overall. The City’s population in 2010 was 46,036, and is projected by ESRI to grow to 66,250 by 2020. The PMA is slated to grow by over 80,000 between 2010 and 2022, with a population of approximately 422,000 in 2010 and 504,000 by City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Urban Decay      FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7‐3  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03‐07 Urban Decay.docx  2022.  The SMA population is projected to increase by nearly 270,000 over the same period, from  2.0 million to over 2.3 million.  Table  3.7‐1: Population Trends (2010–2022)  Area 2010 2017  Average Annual  % Change  2010–2017 2022  Average Annual  % Change  2017–2022  City of Dublin 46,036 59,868 3.8%66,520 2.1% Primary Market Areaa 422,309 471,865 1.6%503,622 1.3% Secondary Market Areaa 2,031,948 2,191,044 1.1%2,301,687 1.0% California 37,253,956 39,611,295 0.9%41,298,900 0.8% Note:  a PMA and SMA are as shown in Exhibit 3.7‐1.  Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017.    Over the long term, projections indicate continued growth in Dublin, the PMA, and the SMA; refer to  Table  3.7‐2.  Dublin is slated to grow more rapidly than the region, as is the SMA.  All of these areas  are projected to grow at a faster rate than statewide. 1  Table  3.7‐2: Long‐Term  Population Projections  Area 2015 2040  Average Annual  % Change  2015–2040  City of Dublin 50,100 73,900 1.6% Primary Market Areaa 447,600 543,100 0.8% Secondary Market Areab 2,047,687 2,743,157 1.2% California 39,059,809 46,884,801 0.7% Notes:  Estimates here are from a different source than previous table, and thus may vary from those estimates.  a Population projections for the Primary Market Area are based on 2013 ABAG estimates for subregional study areas  most closely corresponding to the defined Primary Market Area.  b Population projections for the Secondary Market Area are based on two sources: 2013 ABAG estimates for  subregional study areas most closely corresponding to the defined SMA within Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,  and estimates for San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties as completed by the Eberhardt School of Business Center for  Business & Policy Research at University of the Pacific.  Since San Joaquin County is only partially within this market  area, available estimates for the cities and Census Designated Places within the SMA for San Joaquin County are  summed.  As a result, some population in unincorporated San Joaquin County may be excluded.  Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017.                                                                 1 Data for interim years from ABAG projections are below those from Esri and from the State Department of Finance; given the  estimated rate of growth to date, these longer‐term estimates are likely conservative.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Urban Decay Draft Supplemental EIR 3.7-4 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx Household Trends As shown in Table 3.7-3, household growth trends mirror population trends, with more rapid growth in the City of Dublin, PMA, and SMA than for California. At 2.79 persons in 2017, average household size in the PMA is slightly below the statewide average; at 3.01 persons, the SMA’s average household size is above the statewide average. Average household size is not projected to change substantially over the next 5 years for any of these geographies. Table 3.7-3: Housing Trends (2010–2022) Area 2010 2017 Average Annual % Change 2010–2017 2022 Average Annual % Change 2017–2022 City of Dublin Number of Households 14,913 19,364 3.8% 21,548 2.2% Average Household Size 2.70 2.81 — 2.83 — Primary Market Area Number of Households 150,325 166,126 1.4% 176,583 1.2% Average Household Size 2.75 2.79 — 2.80 — Secondary Market Area Number of Households 673,155 717,669 0.9% 750,443 0.9% Average Household Size 2.98 3.01 — 3.03 — California Number of Households 12,577,498 13,264,119 0.8% 13,784,283 0.8% Average Household Size 2.90 2.92 — 2.94 — Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017. Resident Income Consumer buying power is a critical factor in assessing the potential for retail development, and household income provides a measure of the strength of this disposable income. As shown in Table 3.7-4, the City of Dublin and the PMA have very high income levels in comparison to the SMA and California. The median household income for the City of Dublin is estimated at $126,625 and for the PMA in 2017 is estimated at $122,108, which are approximately 90 percent higher than both the SMA and California. While the relationship between income and local consumer expenditures is not necessarily linear, these income levels are likely to drive higher consumer expenditures and lead to stronger local retail sales. The SMA, which includes a substantial population from the two San Joaquin Valley counties, shows lower median incomes than statewide, indicating lower per household purchasing power than the PMA, but there are over four times as many households in the SMA as in the PMA. I 37660005 • 11/2017 | 3.7-1_marketarea.cdr Exhibit 3.7-1 Dublin IKEA Market Area CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Urban Decay FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-7 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx Table 3.7-4: Household Income Area Median Household Area Income City of Dublin $126,625 Primary Market Area $122,108 Secondary Market Area $63,583 California $65,223 Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017. Tenure Tenure (owner vs. renter occupancy) can be another indicator of the nature of retail demand, as well as overall potential sales volumes, with homeowners more likely to spend money on home improvements, appliances, and furniture; since renters tend to be younger, they may be more likely to spend money on meals away from home, entertainment, or other similar items and services. The City of Dublin, the PMA, and the SMA all have high homeownership rates relative to California overall (see Table 3.7-5). The PMA in particular has a very high rate, with nearly three-quarters of all households owning their home, in contrast to only 54 percent statewide. In the City of Dublin, 61 percent of households own their homes, and for the SMA, 59 percent of households are homeowners. This indicates that the City of Dublin, the PMA, and the SMA may have strong demand for home furnishings and related goods. Table 3.7-5: Household Tenure (2017) Category Number of Households Percent of Household Owners Renters Owners Renters City of Dublin 12,418 6,946 64% 36% Primary Market Area 118,561 47,565 71% 29% Secondary Market Area 425,479 292,190 59% 41% California 7,216,767 6,047,352 54% 46% Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017. Retail Real Estate Market Conditions This chapter profiles existing retail real estate conditions in the City of Dublin and nearby communities in the Tri-Valley area. The profile is based on published retail real estate data sources and additional research including an area tour and online searches. The primary quantitative data source is CoStar, a commercial real estate research firm with a wide-reaching, comprehensive national database of real estate information. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Urban Decay Draft Supplemental EIR 3.7-8 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx Overview of Existing Retail Real Estate Market In any retail market, existing retail space is vacated on a regular basis due to functional obsolescence or the general cycle of retail closures and openings over time. For instance, until recently there has been a long-term trend in the supermarket industry toward larger stores and consolidation, with older stores reused by “second generation” tenants such as dollar stores, furniture outlets, and even non-retail uses such as fitness centers. In some cases, existing obsolete space is replaced by newer retail space or by other land uses. Any retail market is likely to have a certain amount of vacant space due to normal turnover and changes in retailing, and vacancies alone do not necessarily indicate urban decay or physical deterioration. Following is an analysis of overall retail real estate conditions in the Tri-Valley region,2 based on data from CoStar and on an area tour to assess conditions “on the ground.” Current Conditions CoStar shows a total retail inventory of approximately 3.9 million square feet in the City of Dublin, and 18.6 million square feet in the Tri-Valley overall (see Table 3.7-6). The vacancy rate stands at 7.0 percent in the City of Dublin but only 3.6 percent for the Tri-Valley, indicating a strong regional market; even the City of Dublin’s higher rate is not out of the range of vacancies for a stabilized market.3 Average asking rents have been stable over the past year, at $2.02 triple net in the City of Dublin and $2.35 for the Tri-Valley as of the third quarter of 2017. The City of Dublin has shown negative net absorption of approximately 50,000 square feet in 2017, due in large part to the closure of Sports Authority on Dublin Boulevard and the relocation of Orchard Supply Hardware to the City of Pleasanton.4 Net absorption for the Tri-Valley is nearly flat, indicating that the increased vacancy in the City of Dublin was countered by positive absorption elsewhere in the Tri-Valley. According to CoStar, there have been no additions of new retail space in the City of Dublin so far this year, and a negligible amount of space added in the Tri-Valley overall. Table 3.7-6: Retail Overview (Quarter 3 2017) Summary, Q3 2017 City of Dublin Tri-Valley a Inventory 3,935,214 18,617,910 Occupied Stock 3,660,476 17,938,650 Vacant Stock 274,738 679,260 Vacancy Rate 7.0% 3.6% Asking Rentsb Average Asking Rent, NNN (psf), Q3 2016 $2.00 $2.34 Average Asking Rent, NNN (psf), Q3 2017 $2.02 $2.35 % Change 1.0% 0.4% 2 For the purposes of the analysis here, the Tri-Valley is defined as the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, along with unincorporated Alamo. 3 Typical vacancy rates in a stabilized market for shopping centers range from five to ten percent. This level of vacancy allows for normal turnover as stores close and new retailers enter the market. 4 While these properties are currently vacant, they are still well-maintained and do not show signs of physical deterioration. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Urban Decay FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-9 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx Table 3.7-6 (cont.): Retail Overview (Quarter 3 2017) Summary, Q3 2017 City of Dublin Tri-Valley a Net Absorption Net Absorption, 2016 10,320 102,981 Net Absorption, YTD 2017c -49,465 -814 New Activity New Construction Deliveries, 2016 15,916 111,735 New Construction Deliveries, YTD 2017c 0 5,399 Under Construction, Q3 2017 74,170 729,194 Notes: NNN = Triple Net. A triple net lease (triple-net or NNN) is a lease agreement on a property where the tenant or lessee agrees to pay all real estate taxes, building insurance, and maintenance (the three “nets”) on the property in addition to any normal fees that are expected under the agreement (rent, utilities, etc.). a Includes Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon, Danville, and Alamo. b Asking rents reflect NNN leases. c Year to date includes the first three quarters of 2017. Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017. Trends According to CoStar, the retail real estate market in the Tri-Valley has shown a strong recovery since the recession. As of the end of third quarter of 2017, the retail vacancy rate is 7.0 percent for the City of Dublin, down from 10.9 percent in 2010, and only 3.6 percent for the Tri-Valley, down from 7.6 percent in 2010 (see Exhibit 3.7-2). For the Tri-Valley, vacancy rates have remained below 4 percent since 2014. In 2012, net absorption was extremely high (approximately 1.2 million square feet), due to the opening of the outlet mall in the City of Livermore along with ongoing recovery from the recession. The relative stability of the area’s retail market in the face of the opening of the outlet mall shows that a strong destination retail use attracting shoppers from beyond the Tri-Valley can be absorbed without substantial impacts on the area’s overall retail market. Even with the addition of this inventory, Tri-Valley vacancy rates continued to decline, although rents also decreased slightly over the next couple of years; refer to Exhibit 3.7-3. In summary, the retail real estate market in the City of Dublin and the Tri-Valley shows strength, with very low vacancies overall in the Tri-Valley, rent levels that have largely recovered from recession lows, and several years of positive net absorption, including the absorption of the outlet mall, a major regional draw. Key Competitive Retail Nodes in the Primary Market Area IKEA, the proposed project’s anchor store accounting for the majority of the project’s retail space, occupies a unique niche in the retail market with its combination of large size and mix of goods, its emphasis on selling furniture to be assembled by the customer, store design encouraging shoppers to travel through the entire store, the presence of an in-store restaurant and child care, and the large inventory of goods available for immediate purchase. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Urban Decay Draft Supplemental EIR 3.7-10 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx As noted previously, the proposed project would become part of a large retail area at the I-580/ Hacienda Drive interchange. The City of Dublin has several large retail centers, contributing to strong per capita sales as discussed in the next section of this report. Much of this retail is located along Dublin Boulevard to the west, especially west of I-680, including the Dublin Place Shopping Center, anchored by Target and Hobby Lobby. Elsewhere in the City of Dublin, located of Dublin Boulevard to the east, is the Grafton Station shopping center, anchored by Lowe’s Home Improvement and Fallon Gateway, anchored by a second Target store, along with PetSmart, Guitar Center, and a future Lucky’s grocery store at the Fallon Gateway shopping center. The City of Pleasanton is home to the Tri-Valley’s regional mall, the Stoneridge Shopping Center, the Metro 580 center, and other retail nodes including the Downtown. The City of Livermore has the very successful San Francisco Premium Outlets; the Vintage Square Shopping Center anchored by Walmart, Home Depot, and Kohl’s; Plaza 580 anchored by Target; and a Downtown area with shops, restaurants, and entertainment. Elsewhere in the PMA are additional shopping centers and districts in San Ramon, Danville, Alamo, Blackhawk, and Castro Valley. There are a number of much smaller furniture stores in the area; two larger stores are the Macy’s Furniture Gallery in the City of Pleasanton and the JC Penney Home Store next to the Stoneridge Shopping Center. IKEA would be the largest home furnishings store in the PMA, by a wide margin. Other direct competitors in the PMA include, but are not limited to, Thomasville Home Furnishings, Bassett Home Furnishings, and Ethan Allen in the City of Dublin, La-Z-Boy and Homelife Furniture and Accessories in the City of Pleasanton, and American Living Furniture, Home Furnishings, and Z Gallerie in the City of Livermore. Along with these stores that primarily or exclusively sell furniture, are stores such as Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Sears, which sell appliances and other related services and goods; stores such as Bed Bath and Beyond and Home Goods, which focus on household goods but carry limited lines of furniture; and big-box general merchandisers such as Target and Walmart, which also carry some home furnishings. The above should not be considered an exhaustive list of retail centers in the PMA. There are a number of other centers, stores, and restaurants that could compete with the proposed project, depending in large part on the retail mix of the proposed project as it responds to market conditions as they change over the development period. Retail Sales Analysis This section examines retail sales trends in the City of Dublin and nearby cities in the PMA, the area where existing retail development faces the strongest competition from the proposed project. The primary source of information on general retail expenditures in California is the taxable retail sales data published by the State Board of Equalization (SBOE). SBOE publishes Taxable Sales in California, a quarterly and annual publication that reports taxable sales by major store categories by city and county. With adjustments made to take into account nontaxable sales such as food for home consumption and prescriptions, this source is the best baseline data for jurisdictions for which it is available. The most recent published annual data available at the time of this analysis were from 2015, with additional data from the first three quarters of 2016 also available. For the purposes of the analysis here, the most recently reported four quarters (4Q 2015 through 3Q 2016) are used as a proxy for 2016 annual sales. Source: CoStar; BAE 2017. 89,552 414,524 1,165,376 232,865 211,323 234,441 102,981 -814 7.6% 6.4% 5.8%5.0% 3.7%3.6%3.6%3.6% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% -200,000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Q3 2017 YTD Vacancy RateNet Absorption (sf)Net Absorption Vacancy Rate 37660005 • 11/2017 | 3.7-2_retail_absorb.cdr Exhibit 3.7-2 Retail Absorption and Vacancy Trends in Tri-Valley Area, 2010-2017 CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 14 Source: CoStar; BAE 2017. $1.96 $1.95 $1.93 $1.88 $2.11 $2.25 $2.45 $2.35 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Q3 2017Avg. Asking Rent ($/sf/month)Average Annual Asking Rent (psf) 37660005 • 11/2017 | 3.7-3_avg_rent.cdr Exhibit 3.7-3 Average Asking Rent in the Tri-Valley Area, 2010-2017 CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Urban Decay FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-15 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx Reported taxable sales data do not include nontaxable sales, which consist largely of food items for consumption at home and prescription drugs. To complete the leakage and demand analysis, a factor is applied to the taxable sales to generate an estimate of overall sales that includes non-taxable items. This adjustment factor is based on a comparison by major retail category of 2012 Economic Census data on total sales with SBOE data on taxable sales for the State of California. It is also important to note that SBOE data is provided by type of retail store, not by type of good. For example, apparel is sold in clothing stores but is also sold in general merchandise stores such as department stores. As noted above, the published SBOE data are for cities, counties, and the State. The PMA consists of both incorporated places and unincorporated areas. However, since sales data are not available for the unincorporated areas, the leakage analysis has been completed for only the population and sales in incorporated places. These unincorporated areas tend to have more limited retail, with retail focused on local-serving goods. For the cities in the PMA, as well as for the Bay Area counties and the State, taxable sales data are available for nine retail/food service categories and one category for all other outlets. In some cases, where sales by category have not been disclosed because of confidentiality issues, BAE has estimated sales by category, based on the retail mix of the area or on data from the 2012 Economic Census. It is important to note, though, that the large majority of the sales by category for the jurisdictions in the PMA are noted in SBOE’s published data. The analysis here excludes the motor vehicle-related sectors, motor vehicle dealers and parts stores and gasoline stations. For the most part, these sectors have significantly different land use patterns than those of other retail and thus do not constitute part of general retail land demand. Simply put, a space vacated by a typical store (e.g., a supermarket) will not be re-tenanted by a car dealer. The remaining categories in total are henceforth referred to as the “key categories” or as “non- automotive” retail sales. Retail Sales Trends To provide information on retail sales trends in the market areas, the following section presents SBOE-derived retail sales data for the City of Dublin and the PMA. For comparative purposes, sales data from the nine-county Bay Area and California are also presented. All data are shown in constant 2016 dollars, adjusted via the California and Bay Area Consumer Price Indexes. Data are presented for the period from 2010 through 3rd quarter 2016, which was the most recently published data at the time of this analysis. Overall Retail Sales in Key Categories Regional Context: California As shown in Exhibit 3.7-4, inflation-adjusted taxable retail sales levels for the key categories in California gradually increased from 2010 through 2016 as the State’s economy gradually recovered from the Great Recession, with year-over-year sales increases across the whole period. For the 4th quarter 2015 through 3rd quarter 2016 period (most recent data available), California’s total non- automotive annual taxable retail sales were approximately $313 billion. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Urban Decay Draft Supplemental EIR 3.7-16 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx Regional Context: Bay Area Taxable retail sales in the key categories for the Bay Area generally track with those for the State over the 2010 through 2016 period, and are gradually increasing with the exception of the most recently reported year, where sales were essentially flat from 2015. For the most recent annual period, total non-automotive taxable retail sales were $70.1 billion. Subregional Context: Primary Market Area The PMA accounts for approximately five percent of all key category taxable retail sales in the Bay Area, a proportion that has increased over the 2010 to 2016 period. As with the statewide trend, Inflation-adjusted taxable sales in the selected categories for the PMA have been increasing gradually year-over year; refer to Exhibit 3.7-5. Inflation-adjusted taxable retail sales in the key categories for the 4th quarter 2015 through 3rd quarter 2016 period were $3.6 billion, compared with $2.9 billion in 2010. Local Context: City of Dublin Trends in the City of Dublin mirror the regional trends, albeit at a lower level; the City’s taxable retail sales consistently made up approximately 20 percent of the PMA’s over the 7-year period. For the latest four quarters available, taxable retail sales in the City of Dublin are reported at $756 million; refer to Exhibit 3.7-6. Per Capita Taxable Retail Sales Total Per Capita Retail Sales Per capita retail sales are an indicator of the relative strength of a locale as a retail destination; other factors being equal, higher per capita sales relative to a larger benchmark area point toward attraction of shoppers from outside the area, and lower per capita sales indicate that local shoppers are going elsewhere to make their purchases. As shown in Exhibit 3.7-7, inflation-adjusted annual per capita taxable retail sales for the key categories in the City of Dublin are higher than for the PMA, the Bay Area, or California. In the most recent annual period, for the City of Dublin the figure was $13,178, compared to $10,586 for the entire PMA, $9,270 for the Bay Area, and $7,996 statewide. Given that average household incomes in Dublin are in the same range as the PMA, this is an indicator that the City of Dublin is a net attractor of retail shoppers. The lower levels for the Bay Area and California reflect the lower household incomes for those geographies. While current inflation-adjusted per capita sales in the City of Dublin and the PMA were higher in 2016 than in 2010, they peaked at higher levels between 2010 and 2016. For the City of Dublin, the peak level was $14,608 in 2012, and for the PMA, the peak was $11,044 in 2013. Bay Area per capita sales also declined slightly between 2015 and 2016. However, despite the decline in the City’s per capita taxable retail sales, the City still has per capita sales well above California, the Bay Area, or the PMA. Per Capita Taxable Retail Sales by Major Store Category The comparison of per capita retail sales by category indicates that the City of Dublin has relatively high per capita sales across most of the key retail categories; refer to Table 3.7-7. Sales are particularly high for the sector including IKEA, home furnishings and appliance stores, with per capita sales at 275 percent of Bay Area levels. This is a strong indicator that the City of Dublin is already a destination for furniture and appliance shoppers. In contrast, the PMA overall has per City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Urban Decay FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-17 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx capita sales below the Bay Area in this category. For the PMA, per capita sales are comparatively highest for the clothing and clothing accessories category; refer to Exhibit 3.7-8. This is linked to the presence of the San Francisco Premium Outlets in the City of Livermore. The PMA, with its broad array of large general merchandise outlets including club warehouses, discount big-box stores, and mall anchors, has sales in general merchandise stores at nearly 150 percent of the Bay Area level. Table 3.7-7: Comparative Per Capita Taxable Retail Sales for Key Categories (Quarter 4 2015–Quarter 3 2016) Sales per Capita in 2016($)a,b,c City of Dublin PMAd Bay Area California Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $2,570 $843 $933 $757 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. & Supplies $1,544 $1,253 $1,026 $893 Food and Beverage Stores $686 $809 $810 $724 Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores $1,513 $2,203 $1,221 $1,003 General Merchandise Stores $1,250 $1,738 $1,164 $1,233 Food Services and Drinking Places $3,293 $2,306 $2,451 $1,977 Other Retail Group $2,320 $1,432 $1,666 $1,410 Key Categories Total $13,178 $10,586 $9,270 $7,996 Notes: a Retail sales have been adjusted to 2016 dollars based on the Bay Area Consumer Price Index, from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) or the California Consumer Price Index, derived by the State Department of Industrial Relations based on data from BLS. Totals may not sum from components due to independent rounding. b Analysis excludes all non-retail outlets (business and personal services) reporting taxable sales. Also excludes motor- vehicle related sectors. c Per capita sales calculated based on sales divided by population. Population from CA State Dept. of Finance. d Due to data availability issues, PMA sales include only sales for incorporated places within the Market Area, and population estimate is only for incorporated places. Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017. Leakage Analysis Overview of Methodology Retail leakage analysis compares actual retail sales in an area with a selected benchmark that provides a measure of the potential sales generated by that area’s residents. If sales levels are below the predicted level, the area may be able to support increased sales, either through the opening of new outlets targeting those leakages or a repositioning of existing outlets such that they could capture that leakage. A lower-than-predicted sales volume is a strong indicator that consumers are traveling outside the area to shop; thus, the sales are “leaking” out of the study area. Conversely, if the area shows more sales than would be expected from the area’s characteristics, there are sales “injections” into the study area. Often, an injection of sales indicates that the study area is serving as the regional shopping destination for a broader area. On the other hand, if an area shows substantial leakage, it may be due to the presence of a region-serving retail node outside but near the study area capturing those “leaked” City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Urban Decay Draft Supplemental EIR 3.7-18 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx sales. In such a case, the study area itself may not have sufficient population to support the region- serving retail, so those sales cannot necessarily expect to be captured within the study area. There are a number of factors that can be used to predict sales levels, with the two most important factors being the number of persons or households in the area and the disposable income available to that population. Additional factors influencing retail spending in an area include household type, age of population, number of workers in the area (i.e., daytime population), tourism expenditures, tenure patterns (owner vs. renter), and cultural factors. For the purposes of this analysis, Bay Area per capita sales by major SBOE categories of retail stores and food service outlets are used as benchmarks in assessing whether the PMA has injections or leakages of retail sales (see Table 3.7-8). Even though the proposed project may not include all of the major retail outlet types, it is important to consider the entire retail market, as a measure of the general robustness of the market, since any vacancy potentially linked to the project could be re- tenanted by a different type of outlet. For the most part, Bay Area consumers are likely to spend their retail dollars within the region, so for the purpose of retail analysis the region is relatively self-contained. This benchmark is conservative in that the PMA has higher income levels than the Bay Area overall, so market potential will be more conservatively estimated. Estimates of taxable sales as discussed above have been adjusted to estimate additional non-taxable sales (e.g., groceries for home consumption). Additionally, sales have been estimated for the non-incorporated portions of the PMA (including Castro Valley, Alamo, and Blackhawk) based on 2012 Economic Census data to provide a total for the entire PMA. For comparison purposes, overall California sales per capita are also shown. Table 3.7-8: Benchmarks for Leakage Analysis Sales per Capita in 2016($)a,b,c PMAd Benchmark (Bay Area) California Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $651 $933 $757 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. & Supplies $976 $1,026 $893 Food and Beverage Stores $2,453 $2,700 $2,412 Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores $1,666 $1,221 $1,003 General Merchandise Stores $1,713 $1,552 $1,644 Food Services and Drinking Places $2,088 $2,723 $2,196 Other Retail Group $1,607 $2,221 $1,880 Key Retail Categories Total $11,154 $12,375 $10,785 a Retail sales have been adjusted to 2016 dollars based on the Bay Area Consumer Price Index, from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) or the California Consumer Price Index, derived by the State Department of Industrial Relations based on data from BLS. Adjustments have been made to account for nontaxable sales. Totals may not sum from components due to independent rounding. b Analysis excludes all non-retail outlets (business and personal services) reporting taxable sales. c Per capita sales calculated based on sales divided by population. Population from CA State Dept. of Finance, except for PMA, which is from ESRI. Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017. Note: All sales shown in thousands of 2016 dollars. For details, see Appendix A. Source: BAE 2017, based on sources as noted in Appendix A. $0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 $80,000,000 $90,000,000 $100,000,000 $0 $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 $350,000,000 $400,000,000 $450,000,000 $500,000,000 Bay Area ($000)State of California ($000)California Bay Area 37660005 • 11/2017 | 3.7-4_retail_trends.cdr Exhibit 3.7-4 Taxable Retail Sales Trends for Key Categories in California and the Bay Area CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 20 Figure 6: City of Dublin and PMA Taxable Retail Sales Trends in Key Categories Notes: All sales shown in thousands of 2016 dollars. For details, see Appendix A. Source: BAE 2017, based on sources as noted in Appendix A. Notes: All sales shown in thousands of 2016 dollars. For details, see Appendix A. Source: BAE 2017, based on sources as noted in Appendix A. $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 $80,000,000 Primary Market Area ($000)Bay Area ($000)Bay Area Primary Market Area $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 Primary Market Area ($000)Primary Market Area ($000)Primary Market AreaDublin 37660005 • 11/2017 | 3.7-5_retail_trends_PMA.cdr Exhibit 3.7-5 Taxable Retail Sales Trends for Key Categories in the Bay Area and PMA CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 20 Notes: All sales shown in thousands of 2016 dollars. For details, see Appendix A. Source: BAE 2017, based on sources as noted in Appendix A. $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 Primary Market Area ($000)Primary Market Area ($000)Primary Market Area Dublin 37660005 • 11/2017 | 3.7-6_dublin_pma_trends.cdr Exhibit 3.7-6 City of Dublin and PMA Taxable Retail Sales Trends in Key Categories CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Notes: All sales shown in thousands of 2016 dollars. For details, see Appendix A. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 4Q15- 3Q16 Dublin $12,909 $13,424 $14,608 $14,217 $13,517 $13,323 $13,178 PMA $9,449 $9,633 $10,250 $11,044 $10,886 $10,701 $10,586 Bay Area $8,424 $8,647 $8,923 $9,231 $9,345 $9,387 $9,270 California $7,073 $7,212 $7,409 $7,671 $7,824 $7,986 $7,996 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 Per Capita Taxable Sales (2016$)Dublin PMA Bay Area California 37660005 • 11/2017 | 3.7-7_percapita_sales.cdr Exhibit 3.7-7 Per Capita Taxable Retail Sales Trends for Key Categories, 2010-2016 CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Notes: Chart shows 4Q 2015- 3Q 2016 per capita sales by category relative to the Bay Area; e.g., per capita general merchandise store sales in the Market Area are 49 percent above Bay Area benchmark. Includes only taxable sales. For additional detail, see Appendix A. Sources: State Dept. of Finance; State Board of Equalization; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; BAE, 2017. ‐10% 22% ‐0.1% 80% 49% ‐6% ‐14%‐20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 37660005 • 11/2017 | 3.7-8_percapita_sales_PMA.cdr Exhibit 3.7-8 Per Capita Sales in the PMA as Percent of Bay Area Per Capita Sales CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Urban Decay FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-29 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx The results of the leakage analysis are summarized in Exhibit 3.7-9 and Table 3.7-9. Table 3.7-9: Summary of Leakage Analysis Store Category 2017 Total Annual Retail Sales in $000 2017 Total Injection/ (Leakage) $000 2017 Per Capita Injection/ (Leakage) Injection/ Leakage as % of Potential Sales Estimated Sales in Area Estimated Resident Expenditures Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $307,254 $440,401 ($133,147) ($282) -30% Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. & Supplies $460,328 $483,933 ($23,605) ($50) -5% Food and Beverage Stores $1,157,607 $1,273,828 ($116,220) ($246) -9% Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores $785,989 $575,956 $210,033 $445 36% General Merchandise Stores $808,303 $732,250 $76,053 $161 10% Food Services and Drinking Places $985,442 $1,285,034 ($299,592) ($635) -23% Other Retail Group $758,480 $1,047,902 ($289,422) ($613) -28% Total $5,263,404 $5,839,304 ($575,901) ($1,220) -5% Note: All sales and leakages estimates are in 2016 dollars. For detail on methodology and sources, see Appendix G. Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017. Primary Market Area Leakage Analysis The PMA shows estimated leakages of retail sales in several of the key categories, including home furnishings and appliance stores, the category for the IKEA store, and food services and drinking places, which includes restaurants as assumed for much of the lifestyle portion of the project. There are also leakages for building materials and garden equipment and supplies, food and beverage stores, and the other retail group, which includes a range of store types including pharmacies, sporting goods, books, pet supplies, and other specialty retail. On a per capita percentage basis, the home furnishings and appliance category shows the greatest leakage at 30 percent, while food services and drinking places and the other retail group show leakages of greater than 20 percent of resident expenditures. For the general merchandise store and clothing and clothing accessories store categories, the PMA is outperforming the Bay Area. The extremely strong apparel-related sales are linked to the outlet mall in the City of Livermore; prior to its opening, the PMA lagged behind the Bay Area for clothing and clothing accessories. The PMA has a broad array of general merchandise stores that attract shoppers, ranging from club warehouses to big-box discounters to the traditional department stores at the Stoneridge Shopping Center. Overall for the key categories, estimated leakages for the PMA total approximately $862 million annually and injections total $286 million. Secondary Market Area The leakage analysis has been limited to the PMA, since it provides the majority of the shoppers coming from a less populous area. The current population of the PMA is estimated at 471,865, while City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Urban Decay Draft Supplemental EIR 3.7-30 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx the SMA population is over four times larger, at 2,191,044. Additionally, the SMA has estimated overall retail sales in the key categories at about 3.75 times those for the PMA, such that the proportion of demand that might be captured by the proposed project would not be substantial even if it were capturing from existing outlets rather than capturing leakage. 3.7.3 - Regulatory Framework State California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires that significant effects on the environment be analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated, if feasible, prior to the approval of discretionary land use approvals. The CEQA Guidelines require that both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes be evaluated during the environmental review process. A direct physical change is caused by—and is immediately related to—the project. Examples of direct physical changes are construction-related dust, noise, and traffic. An indirect physical change is not immediately related to the project but is caused indirectly by the project. An example of an indirect physical change would be the construction of a new sewage treatment plant that provides additional wastewater treatment capacity, which facilitates population growth that could lead to increased air pollution. In the context of CEQA, urban decay is considered an indirect physical impact. The development of new commercial retail space in a retail market has the potential to result in economic or social impacts that may lead to the closure of competing business, which may, in turn, result in vacant storefronts that meet the California Health and Safety Code definition of blight. Local City of Dublin General Plan The City of Dublin General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies relevant to urban decay: • Goal I Economic Vibrancy: Economic vibrancy is central to the City’s economic development objective to enhance the competitiveness of the City and to maintain a strong and diverse economic base. Goal I: Economic Vibrancy includes policies to maintain and enhance the City’s economic development programs, including through more robust marketing and branding, highly-targeted outreach, and increased regional coordination. • Policy: Retaining high-growth companies is a priority for the City of Dublin, given the potential these companies hold for job creation within the City. Targeting high-growth companies, the City should maintain a Business Visitation Program that seeks to identify and solve local economic development constraints. • Goal III Development of Strategic Employment Supporting Sites: Economic development and job growth will require additional workspaces in the future. Goal III: Development of Strategic Employment-Supporting Sites seeks to maximize the potential for development of workplace uses in the City of Dublin. • Policy: The Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) controls land with land use and zoning in place for over two million square feet of office development at the Eastern Dublin Transit Center, development potential that could support significant future job growth in the City. The City shall seek to strengthen its ongoing working relationship and partner with ACSPA to position County-owned Eastern Dublin sites as a jobs center for the region. Annual Per Capita Retail Sales Injections and Leakages Annual Total Retail Sales Injections and Leakages in $000 Source: BAE Urban Economics, based on sources as noted in Appendices. ($635) ($613) ($282) ($246) ($50) $161 $445 Food Services and Drinking Places Other Retail Group Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores Food and Beverage Stores Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. & Supplies General Merchandise Stores Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores Annual Per Capita Leakages/Injections ←Leakages Injections→ ($299,592) ($289,422) ($133,147) ($116,220) ($23,605) $76,053 $210,033 Food Services and Drinking Places Other Retail Group Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores Food and Beverage Stores Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. & Supplies General Merchandise Stores Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores Annual Total Leakages/Injections in $000 ←Leakages Injections→ 37660005 • 11/2017 | 3.7-9_PMA_key_cats.cdr CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Exhibit 3.7-9 PMA Retail Sales Leakage for Key Categories Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Urban Decay FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-33 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx Eastern Dublin Specific Plan The City of Dublin Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sets forth the following goals and policies relevant to urban decay: • Policy 4-20: Encourage employment-generating uses, which provide a broad range of job types and wage/salary scales. • Policy 4-22: Encourage high-intensity office and other employment-generating uses near the future BART station, and at freeway interchanges where the development can take advantage of convenient access, and the high visibility will make a distinctive, high quality statement at these important entry points into eastern Dublin. 3.7.4 - Methodology BAE Urban Economics prepared an Urban Decay Analysis that evaluated the proposed project’s potential to result in urban decay. The complete study is provided in Appendix G. The methodology is summarized as follows. The Urban Decay Analysis evaluates the impacts on sales at existing retail outlets with the proposed project in place. The impacts of the proposed project alone are considered first, followed by a discussion of cumulative impacts, which takes into consideration other under-construction and reasonably foreseeable proposed retail projects in the PMA. Economic impacts resulting in the closure of large retail outlets have greater potential to lead to urban decay than closures of smaller stores, especially for large stores that anchor centers with other smaller retailers present. Vacancies in scattered smaller stores alone are less likely to result in a “downward spiral” to urban decay than the loss of the major anchor of a shopping center or district. Where closure occurs in a diffuse manner, the likelihood of a cumulative effect leading to urban decay is unlikely. Moreover, the retail market responds regularly to scattered small vacancies as part of the normal business cycle, so vacancy of any smaller retail space is far less likely to lead to urban decay. The Urban Decay Analysis considers two points in time: first in 2021, immediately following the planned opening date of the proposed project, and 5 years later in 2026, to assess cumulative impacts, including reasonably foreseeable proposed retail projects and the potential for changing demographics (i.e., increased population/customer base) to lessen any potential impacts from the project. As noted previously, the PMA is slated for long-term population growth through at least 2040. Thresholds of Significance The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist does not establish any specific thresholds for urban decay. However, CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(b) establishes that a project’s economic impacts on a community are considered significant only if they can be tied to direct physical changes in the market area (i.e., physical deterioration of existing retail centers). In the absence of specific thresholds set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, “urban decay” is defined in the context of this EIR as the causal chain of events described as follows: City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Urban Decay Draft Supplemental EIR 3.7-34 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx 1. The project results in an economic impact so severe that stores might close as a result; 2. Buildings or properties, rather than being reused within a reasonable time, would remain vacant; 3. Such vacancies would be significant enough in duration to cause the buildings or properties to physically deteriorate; and 4. Physical deterioration to properties or structures is so prevalent, substantial, and lasting for a significant period of time that it impairs the proper utilization of the properties and structures, and the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Physical deterioration includes, but is not limited to, abandoned buildings and commercial sites, boarded doors and windows, long-term unauthorized use of properties and parking lots, extensive gang or offensive graffiti painted on buildings, dumping of refuse or overturned dumpsters on properties, dead trees or shrubbery, extensive litter, uncontrolled weed growth, and homeless encampments. 3.7.5 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate. Project-Level Urban Decay Impact UD-1: The proposed project would not result in project-level urban decay. Impact Analysis This impact evaluates whether the proposed project, in isolation from other planned retail projects, would cause urban decay. Impact UD-2 evaluates whether the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned retail projects, would cause urban decay. Home Location of Proposed Project Shoppers The traffic analysis for the proposed project analyzed the distribution of shoppers for the existing IKEA stores in Emeryville and East Palo Alto, and found that these stores have extensive market areas, capturing shoppers from as far away as Gilroy (for East Palo Alto) and Sonoma County and eastern Contra Costa County for the Emeryville store. Only approximately half the trips to these stores were from 10 miles away or less, while 75 percent of the trips were 25 miles or less for the Emeryville store and 85 percent were 25 miles or less for the East Palo Alto store. The PMA and SMA definitions here were based in part on this information, taking into account also the location of the three existing stores in northern California. The PMA as defined here extends out beyond 10 miles and thus likely captures somewhat more than half its shoppers from within the PMA, but does not extend out to 25 miles. Based on the existing IKEA store data, then, the PMA would be likely to account for 50 to 75 percent of the shoppers at the proposed project. The analysis here assumes approximately the midpoint of these percentages, at 60 percent of shoppers coming from within the PMA. In order to simplify the analysis, it is assumed that the remaining 40 percent come from the SMA. To the extent that projected sales would come from outside the two areas, the analysis may show greater PMA and SMA impacts than may actually occur. As an additional simplifying assumption for the urban decay analysis, it is assumed that there is no link between distance travelled to the proposed project and expenditure per shopper. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Urban Decay FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-35 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx In other words, all shoppers are assumed on average to spend the same dollar amount regardless of how far they travelled to get there. Estimated Sales at Project Opening BAE has made an estimate of the sales performance of the proposed project, as shown in Table 3.7-10. This estimate is derived from the fiscal impact analysis conducted for the project sponsor, with very limited adjustments due to minor differences in the assumed square footage of the lifestyle component. The proposed project is estimated to achieve total annual sales of approximately $166.5 million at full occupancy. This table also shows the estimated breakdown of sales by PMA and SMA. Approximately $100 million in sales are assumed to come from PMA residents. Table 3.7-10: Proposed Project’s Estimated Retail Sales Project Phase Completion Datea Square Feetb Annual Sales per Square Foot Estimated Sales in Proposed Project IKEA 2021 339,100 $354 $120,000,000 Lifestyle Retail 2021 — — — Retail — 34,560 $500 $17,280,000 Restaurant — 58,440 $500 $29,220,000 Subtotal Lifestyle Retail — 93,000 — $46,500,000 Total — 432,100 — $166,500,000 Sales to PMA Residents 60% of total IKEA $72,000,000 Lifestyle Retail Retail $10,368,000 Restaurant $17,532,000 Subtotal Lifestyle Retail $27,900,000 Total $99,900,000 Sales to SMA Residents 40% of total IKEA $48,000,000 Lifestyle Retail Retail $6,912,000 Restaurant $11,688,000 Subtotal Lifestyle Retail $18,600,000 Total $66,600,000 Notes: All sales estimates in 2016 dollars. a Estimated opening in December 2020 for IKEA. Lifestyle retail is anticipated to begin opening at the same time. For the purposes of the urban decay analysis, it is assumed that the project will be fully occupied at stabilized sales in 2020. b Per site plan. Actual built size may vary slightly. Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Urban Decay Draft Supplemental EIR 3.7-36 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx These sales estimates are conservatively based on stabilized operations at full performance levels; it is possible that early years would see lower levels of sales as the project reached stabilized benchmark performance levels; thus, impacts in early years of operation could be less than estimated here. Potential Capture of Leakage by Proposed Project As discussed previously, the PMA shows leakages of retail sales across multiple retail categories (see Table 3.7-10 above). Based on sales generated from the PMA, the proportion of leakage for home furnishings and appliance stores, food services and drinking places, and a combination of other key categories showing leakage in the PMA, the proportion of leakage captured is then calculated for 2021 and 2026 (see Table 3.7-11). Using the expected sales levels, this will indicate whether there is sufficient leakage to capture sales without cannibalizing from existing outlets. Table 3.7-11: Estimates of Sales Leakage Capture Store Category Injection/(Leakage)a Leakage Capture, Proposed Project Additional Captured Salesa 2021 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores ($140,300,000) 51.3% $72,000,000 Food Services and Drinking Places ($315,600,000) 5.5% $17,500,000 All Other Key Categories with Leakage ($452,200,000) 2.3% $10,400,000 Total, 2021 ($908,100,000) — $99,900,000 2026 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores ($149,700,000) 48.1% $72,000,000 Food Services and Drinking Places ($336,900,000) 5.2% $17,500,000 All Other Key Categories with Leakage ($482,600,000) 2.2% $10,400,000 Total, 2026 ($969,200,000) — $99,900,000 Note: a Leakages and captures have been rounded to nearest $100,000. Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017. As shown in Table 3.7-11, the IKEA store itself would capture approximately half of the PMA’s leakage of sales for the home furnishings and appliance store category. Some of this would likely be captured from the existing IKEA stores. For the other two categories of retail/food service outlets, the capture of leakage is six percent or less. Since full sales at stabilized rates were assumed, the leakage capture decreases slightly as the area’s population grows between 2021 and 2026. Capture of Sales from the Secondary Market Area As discussed above, a complete leakage analysis was not completed for the SMA. This area has a much larger population base and retail sales base. Given the small capture for IKEA and the extremely small capture for the other key retail sectors as shown in Table 3.7-12, the impacts in the City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Urban Decay FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-37 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx SMA are likely to be minimal and diffused throughout the area. As with the PMA, the IKEA will also likely capture sales currently going to other IKEA stores in the region. Table 3.7-12: Estimates of Capture of Sales from Secondary Market Area Store Category Estimated Sales Capture, Proposed Project Sales in Projecta 2021 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $1,247,400,000 3.8% $48,000,000 Food Services and Drinking Places $3,104,200,000 0.4% $11,700,000 All Other Key Categories $10,692,100,000 0.1% $6,900,000 Total, 2021 $15,043,700,000 — $66,600,000 2026 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $1,310,400,000 3.7% $48,000,000 Food Services and Drinking Places $3,261,000,000 0.4% $11,700,000 All Other Key Categories $11,232,000,000 0.1% $6,900,000 Total, 2026 $15,803,400,000 — $66,600,000 Notes: All sales in 2016 dollars. Estimated sales based on per capita sales from most recently available data, multiplied by population in 2021 and 2026. See Appendix C of the Urban Decay Analysis (Appendix G). a Sales estimates have been rounded to nearest $100,000. Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017. Capture of Sales from Outside the Market Area While the PMA and SMA will likely account for the majority of shoppers for the proposed project, market area boundaries are not absolute, and additional shoppers could be attracted from outside these defined market areas. However, for ease of analysis here, it is assumed that all sales at the proposed project are generated by residents of the PMA and SMA. In any case, customers living beyond the PMA and SMA would be very dispersed geographically, along with any possible impacts on retail sales at existing outlets. This provides for a conservative, “worst case” analysis and may overstate actual project impacts. Summary of Impacts of Project Alone In summary, the combination of the potential for the proposed project to recapture local consumer expenditures leaking from the PMA and the limited capture of sales from the PMA relative to the total size of that area, along with the overall increase in retail demand as the population grows, indicates that the proposed project alone would not lead to long-term closure of existing retail outlets or significant urban decay. The analysis here finds that that even with the proposed project in place, the ability to capture substantial leakage and the growth in population in the PMA and SMA should result in increased retail demand such that existing retailers would still have sales above baseline 2017 levels with the City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Urban Decay Draft Supplemental EIR 3.7-38 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx proposed project in place (see discussion above). While adjustments in sales patterns could occur that could lead to closure of some retail outlets directly competitive with the proposed project, low retail vacancy rates in the PMA indicate that overall demand for space is strong enough that vacant space could be re-tenanted in the short-term, or redeveloped in a newer retail format or in other uses. Furthermore, the two larger vacant spaces in the City of Dublin, while vacant, do not show signs of physical deterioration, indicating that property owners continue to maintain vacant properties with the assumption that they will be re-tenanted. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in urban decay. Even if a project initially causes retail vacancies due to increased competition, recovery and growth over time would provide strong incentives for owners to maintain vacated properties in good condition such that they are suitable for re-tenanting, even if there is some amount of lag time in the reuse process. Thus, if sales in existing outlets return to current or near-current levels within a few years, the likelihood is that a vacant space would be kept in good order by the owner through the recovery period, or re-tenanted within a reasonable amount of time such that property owners would maintain their properties and not allow them to fall into disrepair. At the same time, any store closures would not necessarily result immediately upon the opening of the proposed project, but if they occur at all, would occur over a period of several years as competing businesses determine whether they can survive in a more competitive economic climate, taking into account long-term growth that could overcome any short-term losses. In the event an existing retail store is already operating at or near its margins or is otherwise struggling to stay open, the addition of a competitor to the marketplace could lead the store to close sooner than it would otherwise have done so. Beyond 2026, the potential entry of other retailers, changes in consumer shopping patterns, general economic conditions, and other factors would make any attempt at urban decay analysis highly speculative. Therefore, the overall market is strong enough such that any vacant space could be re-tenanted in the short term or redeveloped, and physical deterioration would be avoided. Impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. Cumulative Urban Decay Impact UD-2: The proposed project would not result in cumulative urban decay. Impact Analysis While the analysis indicates that the economic impacts of the project alone would not result in significant urban decay impacts under CEQA, the cumulative analysis for the proposed project must take into account other reasonably foreseeable projects in the PMA or elsewhere that might, in combination with the proposed project, result in cumulatively significant economic and urban decay City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Urban Decay FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-39 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx impacts. Considered in the cumulative analysis are projects that have been approved but not yet completed and projects for which development applications have been filed, and the analysis may also include other potential projects that may have been announced but not yet formally proposed to the approving agency. Given the size of the PMA, any planned projects beyond its boundaries would have diffused impacts relative to the size of the PMA’s current inventory, and thus would be unlikely to have substantial cumulative impacts linked to the proposed project. As with the project analysis, the cumulative analysis for urban decay assesses impacts as of the assumed first full year of operations in 2021, and 5 years later in 2026. Since population is projected to increase after that date along with retail spending power, and it is assumed that all the reasonably foreseeable projects will be open by 2026, any impacts on sales that could result in urban decay will decline in later years. As a result, it is not necessary to assess cumulative urban decay impacts at a point in time past 2026. Planned and Proposed Developments Appendix D of the Urban Decay Analysis provides information gathered from PMA jurisdictions regarding other reasonably foreseeable retail development projects. Within the PMA but excluding the proposed project, BAE found approximately 1.8 million square feet of reasonably foreseeable non-motor-vehicle related retail proposed for development. With one exception, it is conservatively assumed here that these projects are all completed prior to the opening of the proposed project in December 2020, even when it is possible they may not be completed until after that date, so that the analysis assumes the PMA would have to absorb this additional square footage as well as the proposed project by that time. To the extent these projects are delayed beyond that time, or the proposed project is delayed, impacts will be less because of population-generated growth in retail demand in the meantime. The exception to the assumption of project completion by 2021 is the 250,000-square-foot commercial component of the Kaiser project in the City of Dublin. Because at this point a developer for this project is not known, it is unlikely that it will be complete by 2021. Furthermore, this project may not even be competitive retail, and there are other projects listed that may have non-retail tenants; for instance, some of the square footage shown for the under-development City Place project in the City of San Ramon will likely be occupied by a luxury movie theater rather than retail in the key categories. As a result, the actual square footage of additional competitive retail in the PMA may be lower than the 1.8 million square feet used in the analysis here. Analysis As noted above, some of the space considered is still somewhat speculative (e.g., the Kaiser commercial component), or may be delayed past 2021, or never built, depending on market conditions and other factors, thus potentially lessening the project’s contribution to a cumulative impact. Table 3.7-13 shows the assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of the reasonably foreseeable planned and proposed competitive retail space in the PMA, as specified above. Under this assumed scenario, the total new space including the proposed project would capture an estimated 7.9 percent of baseline retail sales in the PMA in 2021; this would decline to only 3.0 percent in 2026, with population and resulting demand growth more than making up for the additional 250,000 square feet of reasonably foreseeable development. Beyond 2026, demand would be able to support existing retail in the key categories along with the new development. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Urban Decay Draft Supplemental EIR 3.7-40 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx Table 3.7-13: Cumulative Sales Impacts in the Primary Market Area All dollar amounts in thousands Sales per SF Estimated 2021 Estimated 2026 Line# Proposed Project Salesa — $166,500 $166,500 1 Sales to Residents of PMAb — $99,900 $99,900 2 $ Capture from Existing Outletsc — $0 $0 3 Capture from Leakaged — $99,900 $99,900 4 Sales in Additional Projects Total New Retail SF in 000se — 1,574 1,824 5 Total New Retail Sales in Additional Proposed Projectsf $500 $786,778 $911,778 6 Baseline Leakagesg — ($908,100) ($969,200) 7 Capture of Leakage by Additional Projectsh 10% ($90,810) ($96,920) 8 Capture of Sales from Outside PMA by Additional Projectsi 0% $0 $0 9 Capture for Additional proposed projects from PMA Totalj — ($695,968) ($814,858) 10 Net Change for Existing PMA Area Outlets in Given Yeark — ($695,968) ($814,858) 11 Sales in Existing Outlets w/o Pipeline Projectsl — $5,544,931 $5,918,115 12 Estimated Baseline 2017 Sales Existing Outletsm — $5,263,404 $5,263,404 13 Change from Baseline Year 2017 w/o Additional Retail or Proposed Projectn — $281,528 $654,712 14 Net Change from Baseline Saleso — ($414,440) ($160,146) 15 % Loss of Sales in Existing PMA Outlets due to Proposed Projects — -7.9% -3.0% 16 Notes: All sales estimates in 2016 thousands of dollars. Consists of key categories as describe in text, excluding motor-vehicle related retail. a From Table 3.7-10. b From Table 3.7-10. c Sales capture assumed from leakage. d See Table 3.7-11. e Square footages from Appendix D of the Urban Decay Analysis (Appendix G). Assumes Kaiser commercial component occurs after 2021. f Sales per square foot based on assuming a broad mix of retail types. Total sales equals square footage (line 5) times sales per square foot. g From Table 3.7-10. h Line 7 times the capture rate in line 8. Assumes additional retail may also capture some of the leakage from the PMA. Even from a substantially larger total square footage, the total capture is assumed at only 10% of leakage, less than estimated for the proposed project. i Line 6 times capture rate in line 9. While some of the additional projects are located near the PMA boundary and are likely to draw some of their customer base from outside the PMA, the analysis here conservatively assumes no capture from outside the PMA. j Amount captured from existing store sales after taking into account leakage and sales capture from outside the area. Negative sum of Lines 6, 8, and 9. k Lines 3 plus line 11. l From Appendix B of the Urban Decay Analysis (Appendix G). m From Appendix B of the Urban Decay Analysis (Appendix G). n Line 12 less line 13. o Lines 11 and 14. l Line 15 divided by line 13. Source: BAE Urban Economics, 2017. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Urban Decay FirstCarbon Solutions 3.7-41 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx One key assumption in this analysis is that the proposed project is open and fully operational at stabilized sales levels in the first full year of operations. To the extent that lease up is gradual, and sales take more time to reach stabilized levels, the analysis here may overstate impacts in early years. The cumulative analysis indicates that the potential for long-term declines in sales in existing retail outlets overall is limited. Overall, increasing retail demand in the PMA should be strong enough over the long-term to absorb most of the reasonably foreseeable planned and proposed projects without significant impacts. Furthermore, both the proposed project and the other planned projects may delay construction or cut back on the amount of retail space if market conditions indicate an oversupply of space. For instance, even if it is not delayed outright, the Kaiser project commercial component could be developed in part as office space rather than solely retail if market conditions indicate that it would lead to higher developer returns. In addition, older and functionally obsolete retail spaces may be developed in different land uses that would reduce the area’s total retail inventory. Conclusion Based on the above analysis, BAE finds that there are no significant urban decay impacts attributable to the proposed project along with other reasonably foreseeable projects. There is the potential for a temporary reduction in sales at existing retail businesses within the PMA when the project first opens, but impacts will decrease over time as the area continues to grow, and by 2026, sales will have recovered to only 3 percent below baseline levels. It is not possible to state with certainty that particular retail locations are going to be impacted by store closures, because the existing retailers can adjust their marketing strategies in response to new competition in such a way as to lessen losses; furthermore, the specific retail tenants and retail mix of the non-IKEA portion of the proposed project, and thus the particular retail locations that might be impacted, are not yet known. Since losses would dissipate over time, viable existing retail businesses should survive without closure. Furthermore, properties that become vacant may see conversion to other land uses. Beyond the Primary Market Area, impacts are likely to be diffused across a wide area such that impacts will not be significant. BAE’s own observations show that commercial and retail properties in the PMA, including vacant properties, are generally well maintained. BAE found little evidence of blighted retail buildings marred by broken windows, graffiti, rubbish, overgrown vegetation, or other indicators of urban decay. This suggests that both property owners and local governments are vigilant about preventing physical deterioration of the community. As noted above, the potential for urban decay is also lessened by the probability of market corrections as future conditions evolve. Retail spaces, including those in the proposed project, are often planned for development speculatively without commitment from potential tenants. Even if approvals have been obtained, developers may either cancel or delay projects because of the inability to obtain financing without tenant commitments. In the absence of those commitments, projects may not move forward on the schedule assumed here, and projects may be delayed until market conditions improve. Failure to construct a retail property on the original schedule does not constitute urban decay. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Urban Decay Draft Supplemental EIR 3.7-42 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec03-07 Urban Decay.docx In the event of closures due to short-term (or long-term) declines, in any market there are often retailers and other “second generation” tenants such as fitness centers trying to enter the market; these prospective tenants see vacant spaces, even large ones, as an opportunity. As the leakage analysis indicates, there are “gaps” in the PMA’s retail mix, including home furnishings and appliances, restaurants and other food services, and specialty retail, which are the main store type categories of the proposed project. As long as there are opportunities for reuse of properties through re-tenanting of spaces or redevelopment in other uses, property owners are likely to continue to maintain vacated buildings to keep them available in the market, or otherwise redevelop the properties (in either retail or other uses) to meet changing market conditions, and the area will avoid significant urban decay. Therefore, since the overall market is strong enough such that any vacant space could be re-tenanted in the short term or redeveloped, and physical deterioration would be avoided, impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is necessary. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Cumulative Effects FirstCarbon Solutions 4-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx SECTION 4: CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 4.1 - Introduction CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires the consideration of cumulative impacts within an EIR when a project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that “. . . the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” In identifying projects that may contribute to cumulative impacts, the CEQA Guidelines allow the use of a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, producing related or cumulative impacts, including those which are outside of the control of the lead agency. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), “. . . the discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, the discussion need not provide as great [a level of] detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone.” The discussion should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness, and it should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than on the attributes of other projects that do not contribute to the cumulative impact. The proposed project’s cumulative impacts were considered in conjunction with other proposed and approved projects in the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon. Table 4-1 provides a list of the other projects considered in the cumulative analysis. Table 4-1: Cumulative Projects Jurisdiction Project Characteristics Location Status City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center 950,000 square feet Kaiser Medical Campus; 250,000 square feet commercial Dublin Boulevard/ Keegan Street Approved; under construction Dublin Crossing/ Boulevard Up to 1,995 dwelling units; 200,000 square feet commercial; 35 acres parks; 12-acre elementary school Dublin Boulevard/ DeMarcus Approved; under construction Grafton Plaza Mixed Use 115 dwelling units, 50,000 square feet retail commercial, and 130 room hotel Dublin Boulevard/ Grafton Drive Proposed; not yet approved or built Grafton Station Phase III 133,446 square feet commercial Dublin Boulevard/ Tassajara Road Approved; unbuilt City of Pleasanton Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan 800 dwelling units (senior); 120,000–200,000 square feet commercial; 331,000 square feet auto mall El Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive Approved; under construction City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Cumulative Effects Draft Supplemental EIR 4-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx Table 4-1 (cont.): Cumulative Projects Jurisdiction Project Characteristics Location Status Johnson Drive Economic Zone 40-acre area envisioned to support up to 535,490 square feet of warehouse club retail (Costco), hotel, general retail, and recreational facilities 7106–7315 Johnson Drive Proposed City of Livermore El Charro Specific Plan 1.5 million square feet retail; 250 acres El Charro Road/Jack London Boulevard Adopted; under construction Isabel Neighborhood Plan 1,132-acre area envisioned to support up to 4,300 dwelling units and up to 9,000 jobs I-580/Isabel Avenue (north side of freeway) Proposed Sage Residential Project 476 dwelling units Portola Drive/ Isabel Avenue Approved; under construction City of San Ramon San Ramon City Center Phase 1: 279159 square feet retail; 46,086 square feet cinema Phase 2: 65,679 square feet retail; 169-room hotel; 487 dwelling units Bollinger Canyon Road/Camino Ramon Approved; under construction Multiple Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Livermore Extension 4.8-mile BART extension from Dublin/Pleasanton Station to I-580/Isabel Avenue I-580 Median (Dublin to Livermore) Planned Source: City of Dublin, 2017; City of Pleasanton, 2017; City of Livermore, 2017. 4.2 - Cumulative Impact Analysis The cumulative impact analysis below is guided by the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. Key principles established by this section include: • A cumulative impact only occurs from impacts caused by the proposed project and other projects. An EIR should not discuss impacts that do not result from the proposed project. • When the combined cumulative impact from the increment associated with the proposed project and other projects is not significant, an EIR need only briefly explain why the impact is not significant; detailed explanation is not required. • An EIR may determine that a project’s contribution to a cumulative effect impact would be rendered less than cumulatively considerable if a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of mitigation intended to alleviate the cumulative impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Cumulative Effects FirstCarbon Solutions 4-3 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx The cumulative impact analysis that follows relies on these principles as the basis for determining the significance of the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to various impacts. 4.2.1 - Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions The geographic scope of the cumulative air quality emissions analysis is the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), which covers all or portions of the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma, and Solano. Air quality is impacted by topography, dominant air flows, atmospheric inversions, location, and season; therefore, using the Air Basin represents the area most likely to be impacted by air emissions. All of the projects listed in Table 4-1 would result in new air emissions, during construction, operations, or both. The Air Basin is currently in non-attainment of the federal standards for ozone and PM2.5, and is in non-attainment of the state standards for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, there is an existing cumulatively significant air quality impact with respect to these pollutants. The proposed project was assessed for consistency with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Clean Air Plan in Impact AIR-1 in Section 3.1, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Refer to that section for further discussion. The proposed project was found to be consistent with all applicable provisions of the clean air plan with implementation of mitigation. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact to less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed project’s cumulative criteria pollutant emissions were evaluated in Impact AIR-3 in Section 3.1, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Refer to that section for further discussion. The proposed project’s criteria pollutant emissions were found to be less than significant after mitigation. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact to less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed project’s toxic air contaminant emissions were evaluated in Impact AIR-4 in Section 3.1, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Refer to that section for further discussion. The proposed project’s cumulative impact due to toxic air contaminant emissions were found to be less than significant and did not require mitigation. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact. The proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions were evaluated in Impact AIR-6 in Section 3.1, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Refer to that section for further discussion. The proposed project’s cumulative impact due to greenhouse gas emissions were found to be less than significant and did not require mitigation. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact. 4.2.2 - Biological Resources The geographic scope of the cumulative biological resources analysis is the region surrounding the project site. The project site is located in an area characterized by urban development and infrastructure; accordingly, habitats in these areas tend to be characterized as highly disturbed, and impacts would be localized. Recent development patterns and growth in the area have resulted in City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Cumulative Effects Draft Supplemental EIR 4-4 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx an existing cumulatively significant impact to biological resources due to the loss of potential habitat for rare, endangered, and threatened species. The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts on Congdon’s tarplant. Mitigation Measure BIO-1a is proposed, requiring rare plant surveys for this species and implementation of relocation measures if they are found to be present. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on special-status plant species to less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts on the following special-status wildlife species: nesting birds, western burrowing owl, and bats. Mitigation Measures BIO-1b, BIO-1c, and BIO-1d are proposed requiring pre-construction surveys for these species and implementation of protection measures if they are found to be present. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on special-status wildlife species to less than cumulatively considerable. The project site contains approximately 1.92 acres of seasonal wetlands that would be considered jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or waters of the State. Mitigation Measures BIO-3a and BIO-3b are proposed requiring the applicant to perform an updated wetland delineation and obtain the requisite permits from the resource agencies. The required mitigation would reduce the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on wetlands to less than cumulatively considerable. 4.2.3 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials The geographic scope of the cumulative hazards and hazardous materials analysis is the project area. Adverse effects of hazards and hazardous materials tend to be localized; therefore, the area near the project area would be most affected by project activities. Hazards and hazardous materials are extensively regulated at the federal, state, and local levels. There are no land uses in the project vicinity that are known to utilize large quantities of hazardous materials or involve hazardous activities, and there is no existing, related cumulatively significant impact. The project site previously supported military uses associated with Parks Reserve Training Forces Area (Camp Parks), including a fuel depot. Residual concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls were detected in soil and groundwater. Remediation has occurred for most of these materials, but several soil stockpiles remain on-site that may contain detectable levels of these substances. Mitigation is proposed requiring testing and, if necessary, proper disposal of soils, which would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. All project-related impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials were found to be less than significant and did not require mitigation. Because hazards and hazardous materials exposure is generally localized and development activities associated with the other projects listed in Table 4-1 may not coincide with the proposed project, this effectively precludes the possibility of cumulative exposure. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Cumulative Effects FirstCarbon Solutions 4-5 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx Because the proposed project’s impact due to hazards and hazardous materials is less than significant or would be mitigated to less than significant with required mitigation, it would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact. 4.2.4 - Noise The geographic scope of the cumulative noise analysis is the project vicinity, including surrounding sensitive receptors. Noise impacts tend to be localized; therefore, the area near the project site (approximately 0.25 mile) would be the area most affected by project activities. Furthermore, given the properties and the distance between other projects (more than 0.5 mile away), project-related noise would not combine with other sources further away. Outdoor noise measurements taken at the project site indicate that the average ambient noise levels are within the “normally acceptable” or “conditionally acceptable” range for all land uses. Therefore, there is no existing cumulatively significant noise impact in the project vicinity. The proposed project’s construction noise levels may cause a temporary substantial increase in noise levels at nearby receptors. Mitigation is proposed that would require implementation of construction noise attenuation measures to reduce noise levels. It is highly unlikely that a substantial number of the cumulative projects would be constructed simultaneously, since the projects are at widely varying stages of approval and development. Even if some of the construction schedules were to overlap with the project, all of the cumulative project sites are located a sufficient distance from the project that distance would diminish any additive effects. Construction noise would generally be limited to daytime hours and would be short-term in duration. Therefore, construction noise from the proposed project would not combine with noise from other development projects to cause cumulatively significant noise impacts. The proposed project’s construction and operational vibration levels would not exceed annoyance thresholds and would be less than significant. Because vibration is a highly localized phenomenon, there would be no possibility for vibration associated with the project to combine with vibration from other projects because of their distances from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant vibration impact. The proposed project’s cumulative roadway noise impacts were evaluated in Impact NOI-1 and Impact NOI-3 in Section 3.4, Noise. Refer to that section for further discussion. The proposed project’s roadway noise impacts were found to be less than significant. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned and approved projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to noise. 4.2.5 - Public Services and Utilities The geographic scope of the cumulative public services analysis is the service area of each of the providers serving the proposed project. Because of differences in the nature of the public service and utility topical areas, they are discussed separately. Section 3.5, Public Services and Utilities City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Cumulative Effects Draft Supplemental EIR 4-6 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx discusses certain cumulative impact areas and others are addressed below. Overall, no existing cumulatively significant impacts have been identified for any of these areas, as all service providers are able to achieve the requisite level of service, capacity, or response times. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services The geographic scope of the cumulative fire protection and emergency medical services analysis is the Alameda County Fire Department’s local service area, which consists of the Dublin city limits and adjoining unincorporated areas. The proposed project would result in the development of 432,099 square feet of commercial uses on 27.45 acres. The project site is located within 1.5 miles of the nearest fire station and is within an acceptable response time for fire protection. As such, the proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded fire protection facilities and would not result in a physical impact on the environment. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with all applicable requirements of the California Fire Code, including provision of adequate emergency access points, and it would be accessible to fire apparatus. Other development projects in the Fire Department service area would be reviewed for impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. Based on a written response provided by the Fire Department (Appendix F), existing facilities are sufficient to serve the proposed project in conjunction with existing and cumulative projects. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other future projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to fire protection and emergency medical services. Police Protection The geographic scope of the cumulative police protection analysis is the local service areas of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, which consist of the Dublin city limits and adjoining unincorporated areas. The proposed project would result in the development of 432,099 square feet of commercial uses on 27.45 acres. The Sheriff’s Office indicated that the proposed project would be expected to generate 500 to 600 calls for service annually and indicated that its primary concern was traffic hazards within parking areas and City streets. The Sheriff’s Office provided recommendations that adequate ingress and egress be provided. The proposed project would provide six points of access, which would be adequate for law enforcement response. As such, the proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded police protection facilities and therefore would not result in a physical impact on the environment. Based on a written response provided by the Sheriff’s Office (Appendix F), existing facilities are sufficient to serve the proposed project in conjunction with existing and cumulative projects. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other future projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to police protection. Schools The geographic scope of the cumulative schools analysis is the Dublin Unified School District boundaries. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Cumulative Effects FirstCarbon Solutions 4-7 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx The proposed project is non-residential and would not create demands for new or expanded school facilities as a result of population growth within Dublin. The applicant would be required to pay development fees to DUSD to fund capital improvements to school facilities. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, payment of development fees is “full and complete mitigation” for impacts on schools. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other future projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to schools. Parks and Recreational Facilities The geographic scope of the cumulative parks analysis is the City of Dublin. The proposed project is non-residential and would not create demands for new or expanded park and recreational facilities as a result of population growth within Dublin. Project employees may use facilities such as the Iron Horse Trail for recreation or transportation purposes; however, the amount of additional use would not be substantial enough to result in physical deterioration. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other future projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to parks or recreational facilities. Water The geographic scope of the cumulative potable water analysis is the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) service area, which encompasses the Dublin city limits as well as the southern portion of the San Ramon city limits. Water supply impacts are analyzed in Section 3.5, Public Services and Utilities of this EIR and in the Water Supply Assessment (Appendix I) prepared for the project, which concluded that DSRSD has adequate potable and recycled water supplies to serve the proposed project as well as other existing and future users. Therefore, there is no existing cumulatively significant impact related to potable water supply. The proposed project is estimated to demand 33.6 acre-feet per year of potable water. The DSRSD’s 2015 Urban Water Master Plan estimates that sufficient water is available to meet the needs of the service area through the year 2040, which accounts for planned growth within the Dublin city limits (including the proposed project). DSRSD provided a letter dated December 28, 2017 confirming that it could serve the proposed project, as well as the balance of its service area, with adequate long- term water supply (Appendix H). It should be noted that not all of the projects listed in Table 4-1 are located within the DSRSD service area. However, for those projects that are located with the DSRSD’s water service area, the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan anticipates adequate water supplies for all water year scenarios through 2040. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned and approved projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to water supply. Wastewater The geographic scope of the cumulative wastewater analysis is the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility service area, which treats effluent from the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and the southern portion of San Ramon. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Cumulative Effects Draft Supplemental EIR 4-8 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx All future projects would be required to demonstrate that sewer service is available to ensure that adequate sanitation can be provided. The proposed project is estimated to generate 13,500 gallons of wastewater on a daily basis (0.014 million gallons per day [mgd]). The project site is served by the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility in Pleasanton, which has a treatment capacity of 17.0 mgd and currently treats an average of 10.74 mgd during dry weather and 12.48 mgd during wet weather. Thus, 4.52 mgd to 6.26 mgd of treatment capacity is available for new development. The proposed project’s 0.014 mgd of daily effluent would represent less than 1 percent of the available treatment capacity at the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. DSRSD provided a letter dated December 28, 2017 confirming that it could serve the proposed project, as well as the balance of its service area, with adequate wastewater treatment (Appendix H). As such, the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility would be expected to accept the proposed project’s increase in effluent without needing to expand existing or construct new facilities, as the treatment capacity is sufficient to serve both the project and planned future development in the area. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned and approved projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to wastewater. Storm Drainage The geographic scope of the cumulative storm drainage analysis is municipal storm drainage in the project vicinity, as these are the facilities that would receive the project’s runoff. These facilities ultimately discharge to Alameda Creek, which outlets into San Francisco Bay. All future development projects in the project vicinity would be required under existing regulations to provide drainage facilities that collect and detain runoff such that off-site releases are controlled and do not create flooding. The proposed project would install an on-site storm drainage system consisting of street gutters, inlets, basins, and underground piping that would ultimately convey runoff to the municipal storm drainage system. The proposed project would result in a net increase of 17.96 acres of impervious surfaces on the project site. In accordance with C.3 requirements, peak runoff flows would be detained within landscaped bioretention areas located through the project site during peak storm events and released at a rate no greater than the pre-development peak runoff flows. This would ensure that the proposed project would not contribute to downstream flooding conditions during peak storm events. As such, the proposed project would ensure that no net increase in stormwater would leave the project site during a peak storm event, and would avoid cumulatively significant stormwater impacts to downstream waterways at times when capacity is most constrained. The proposed project would implement standard pollution prevention measures during construction to ensure that downstream water quality impacts are minimized to the greatest extent possible. In addition, the proposed project would provide water quality measures to prevent pollution during project operations. Stormwater facilities in the project vicinity either have or will be required to have capacity to serve both the project and planned future development in the service area. Increases in runoff flow and volume from future development must be managed so that the post-project runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, in accordance with Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.g. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other planned and approved projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to storm drainage. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Cumulative Effects FirstCarbon Solutions 4-9 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx Solid Waste The geographic scope of the cumulative solid waste analysis is the Amador Valley Industries service area. Amador Valley Industries provides solid waste and recycling collection services to commercial customers in the City of Dublin. Future development projects would generate construction and operational solid waste and, depending on the volumes and end uses, would be required to implement recycling and waste reduction measures. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 1,176 cubic yards of solid waste during construction and 1,452 cubic yards annually during operations. For comparison purposes, the Alameda County Waste Management Agency indicates that the Altamont Landfill and Resources Recovery Facility and Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill have a combined 45.6 million cubic yards of remaining capacity available. The project’s construction and operational solid waste generation would represent less than 1 percent of the remaining capacity at these facilities. As such, sufficient capacity is available to serve the proposed project as well as existing and planned land uses in the City of Dublin for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the proposed project, in conjunction with other future projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to solid waste. 4.2.6 - Transportation Section 3.6, Transportation analyzes project traffic impacts on intersection operations and roadway segments under a cumulative scenario, which accounts for ambient growth and forecasted traffic generated by other development projects in combination with traffic generated by the project. The proposed project would contribute new trips to facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels under Near-Term With Project Conditions and Cumulative With Project Conditions, and it would contribute new trips to Congestion Management Program facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels (freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, it would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Certain feasible mitigation measures require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the project will result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impact. Please refer to Section 3.6 for a comprehensive discussion of cumulative traffic impacts. Refer to Section 3.6, Transportation for further discussion. The City of Dublin and City of Pleasanton are developing pedestrian improvement plans for the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange. The proposed project would be a beneficiary of improved pedestrian mobility, and, therefore, Mitigation Measure TRANS-8e requires the applicant to contribute fees to fund these improvements. As improvements have not yet been identified, and implementation of potential improvements is beyond the control of the City of Dublin, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the proposed project would have a cumulative considerable contribution to this impact. For other transportation-related areas (air traffic patterns, emergency access and roadway safety hazards), the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts related to roadway hazards and alternative transportation, but after the implementation of mitigation measures, these impacts City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Cumulative Effects Draft Supplemental EIR 4-10 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Cumulative Effects.docx would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Other projects that result in similar impacts would be required to mitigate for their impacts. Because the proposed project can mitigate all other transportation impacts to a level of less than significant, it would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact relative to these other topics. 4.2.7 - Urban Decay The geographic scope of the cumulative urban decay analysis is the boundaries of the Primary Market Area and Secondary Market area, as shown on Exhibit 3.7-1. The Primary Market Area encompasses the cities and towns of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon, and Danville, as well as the unincorporated communities of Alamo, Blackhawk, and Castro Valley. The Secondary Market Area extends out to the north along the I-680 corridor in Contra Costa County to include Concord, Lafayette, and other areas to the north extending as far as Benicia. The Primary Market Area’s population was estimated to be 471,865 and the Secondary Market Area’s population was estimated to be 2,191,044 as of 2017. The combined population of the two market areas is 2,250,912. The proposed project’s cumulative urban decay impacts were evaluated in Impact UD-2 in Section 3.7, Urban Decay. Refer to that section for further discussion. The proposed project’s urban decay were found to be less than significant. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx SECTION 5: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 - Introduction In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, this Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) contains a comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the proposed project. The primary purpose of this section is to provide decision-makers and the general public with a reasonable number of feasible project alternatives that could attain most of the basic project objectives, while avoiding or reducing any of the project’s significant adverse environmental effects. Important considerations for these alternatives analyses are noted below (as stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). • An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; • An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process; • Reasons for rejecting an alternative include: - Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; - Infeasibility as defined under CEQA; or - Inability to avoid significant environmental effects. 5.1.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts The proposed project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts: • Existing With Project Conditions Traffic: The proposed project would contribute new trips to the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way causing a queue impact under Existing With Project Conditions. While mitigation measures are proposed to fully mitigate the impact, the proposed mitigations may not be feasible. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Near-Term With Project Conditions Traffic: The proposed project would contribute new trips to facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels under Near-Term With Project Conditions. All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Lastly, certain feasible mitigation measures require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Cumulative With Project Conditions Traffic: The proposed project would contribute new trips to facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels under Cumulative With Project Conditions. All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Lastly, certain feasible mitigation measures City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft Supplemental EIR 5-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Freeways: The proposed project would contribute new trips to freeway facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels (freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Lastly, certain feasible mitigation measures require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Congestion Management Program: The proposed project would contribute new trips to Congestion Management Program facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels (freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Lastly, certain feasible mitigation measures require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Public Transit, Bicycles, and Pedestrians: The proposed project may increase pedestrian crossings across the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange. Although the City of Dublin and City of Pleasanton are developing plans for pedestrian improvements, implementation of the improvements requires the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. 5.1.2 - Alternatives to the Proposed Project The three alternatives to the proposed project analyzed in this section are as follows: • No Project Alternative: The proposed project would not be pursued and the project site would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. • Existing Planned Development Alternative: The existing Planned Development approvals for 327,400 square feet of commercial retail (non-IKEA) and restaurant uses would be developed on the project site. • Reduced Density Alternative: The proposed IKEA and lifestyle retail/restaurant uses would be developed with 25 percent less square footage than the proposed project. In total, 324,074 square feet of commercial uses would be developed. Three alternatives to the proposed project are analyzed below. These analyses compare the proposed project and each individual project alternative. In several cases, the description of the impact may be the same under each alternative when compared with the CEQA Thresholds of Significance (i.e., both the project and the alternative would result in a less than significant impact). The actual degree of impact may be slightly different between the proposed project and each alternative, and this relative difference is the basis for a conclusion of greater or lesser impacts. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-3 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx 5.2 - Project Objectives As stated in Section 2, Project Description, the objectives of the proposed project are to: 1. Positively contribute to the local economy through new capital investment, creation of new employment opportunities, expansion of the tax base, and increased retail offerings. 2. Reinforce Dublin’s status as a regional retail node by increasing commercial retail and service offerings within an established regional and highway-oriented commercial area. 3. Develop a new regional-serving retail use close to Interstate 580, Dublin Boulevard, and public transit options in order to better serve the retail demands of the Trade Area, while also minimizing the need for infrastructure improvements. 4. Promote economic growth in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 5. Facilitate the reuse of a former, underutilized portion of Camp Parks that is zoned for commercial use and is currently in the Dublin city limits. 6. Develop smaller retail and restaurant uses that complement a major anchor and provide consumers with additional competitive and convenient options. 7. Design a site plan to minimize overall access and circulation conflicts, and that is also accessible to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. 8. Complete site remediation efforts in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and prevent future environmental degradation. 9. Improve the overall visual appearance of the area by developing new commercial uses that employ high-quality contemporary architecture and landscaping. 5.3 - Alternative 1—No Project Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires EIRs to evaluate a “No Project Alternative,” which is defined as the “circumstance under which the project does not proceed.” The project site currently has a land use designation under the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project site is zoned Planned Development (PD Ordinance 34-08). There are no other approved entitlements for the project site, so at this moment, there is no project that could be constructed without first obtaining a discretionary approval. Because the project site currently has no site development approvals, the No Project Alternative consists of the project site remaining undeveloped for the foreseeable future. Please note that Alternative 2—Existing Planned Development Alternative evaluates a commercial development concept that would be developed pursuant to the existing Planned Development 34- 08. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft Supplemental EIR 5-4 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx 5.3.1 - Impact Analysis The No Project Alternative would not advance any of the project objectives and the project site would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. No disturbance or new development would occur on the project site, thereby eliminating the potential for impacts associated with aesthetics, light, and glare; air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use; noise; public services and utilities; and transportation. Accordingly, this alternative would avoid all of the proposed project’s significant impacts (including significant and unavoidable impacts), as well as the need to implement any mitigation measures. 5.3.2 - Conclusion The No Project Alternative would avoid the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts and would have less impact on all environmental topical areas. However, this alternative would not advance any of the project objectives. 5.4 - Alternative 2—Existing Planned Development Alternative The Existing Planned Development Alternative consists of developing the project site consistent with the existing Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development for the project site (PD Ord. 34-08). In total, this alternative would consist of 327,400 square feet of commercial uses. The existing Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development (PD Ord. 34-08) allow up to 327,400 square feet of retail (with ancillary office use) and restaurant uses on the project site. The existing Planned Development identifies 305,000 square feet as the base square footage and allows up to 327,400 square feet if retail uses are maximized. Buildings would range from 8,600 square feet to 50,000 square feet and would be organized around a pedestrian mall in the center of the project site. An anchor would be located at the east end of the mall, with six buildings located on the north and south sides of the mall. Five freestanding buildings would be located along the northern and southern perimeters of the project site. Vehicular access would be taken from driveways on Martinelli Way and Arnold Road. A total of 1,513 off-street parking spaces would be provided. Table 5-1 summarizes the Existing Planned Development Alternative. The purpose of this alternative is to evaluate a previous development concept for the project site that could be logically developed on the basis of the existing entitlements. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-5 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx Table 5-1: Existing Planned Development Alternative Scenario Use Square Feet Existing Planned Development Alternative Retail 282,400 to 312,400 Restaurant 15,000 (minimum) 45,000 (maximum) Total (Maximum) 327,400 Proposed Project IKEA 339,099 Lifestyle retail-restaurant 93,000 Total 432,099 Difference Total (104,699) Source: FCS, 2017. 5.4.1 - Impact Analysis Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Existing Planned Development Alternative consists of developing up to 327,400 square feet of retail and restaurant uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 104,699 square feet relative to the proposed project. The buildout potential of this alternative would be less than the proposed project and, therefore, would result in fewer construction emissions. Although the project’s construction emissions impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, the reduction in emissions from the Existing Planned Development Alternative would be considered more beneficial. The Existing Planned Development Alternative would generate 580 fewer daily vehicle trips than the proposed project and, therefore, would reduce operational emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gas emissions. Although the project’s operational emissions impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, the reduction in emissions would be considered more beneficial. Therefore, the Existing Planned Development Alternative would have less impact on air quality/greenhouse gas emissions than the proposed project. Biological Resources The Existing Planned Development Alternative consists of developing up to 327,400 square feet of retail and restaurant uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 104,699 square feet relative to the proposed project. Similar ground-disturbing activities would occur and, therefore, mitigation identical to the proposed project for special-status species would be implemented. Therefore, the Existing Planned Development Alternative would have biological resources impacts similar to the proposed project. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft Supplemental EIR 5-6 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Existing Planned Development Alternative consists of developing up to 327,400 square feet of retail and restaurant uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 104,699 square feet relative to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, this alternative would be required to conduct soil testing on stockpiles and, if appropriate, properly abate and dispose of contaminated soils to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Existing Planned Development Alternative would have hazards and hazardous materials impacts similar to the proposed project. Noise The Existing Planned Development Alternative consists of developing up to 327,400 square feet of retail and restaurant uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 104,699 square feet relative to the proposed project. The buildout potential of this alternative would be less than the proposed project and, therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than the proposed project, although these impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The Existing Planned Development Alternative would generate 580 fewer daily vehicle trips than the proposed project. Although the proposed project was found to have less than significant roadway noise impacts, the reduction in daily trip generation would be considered more beneficial from a noise perspective. Therefore, the Existing Planned Development Alternative would have less impact on noise than the proposed project. Public Services and Utilities The Existing Planned Development Alternative consists of developing up to 327,400 square feet of retail and restaurant uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 104,699 square feet relative to the proposed project. End uses would be similar to the proposed project, and, therefore, have similar types of demands on public service and utility providers. This alternative would result in a 104,699-square-foot reduction in development potential and is considered more beneficial from a public services and utilities perspective because there would be less demand for fire protection, police protection, and water, and less generation of wastewater and solid waste. Additionally, this alternative would demand less electricity and natural gas, and consume less transportation fuel because of the reduction in buildout potential. Therefore, the Existing Planned Development Alternative would have less impact on public services and utilities than the proposed project. Transportation The Existing Planned Development Alternative consists of developing up to 327,400 square feet of retail and restaurant uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 104,699 square feet relative to the proposed project. Table 5-2 summarizes the trip generation of the Reduced Density Alternative, and shows that the Reduced Density Alternative would result in a net reduction of 580 daily trips, 448 weekday AM peak-hour trips, 166 weekday PM peak-hour trips, and net increase of 137 Saturday PM trips. The reduction in peak-hour trips would avoid or lessen the severity of significant impacts at several intersections and roadway segments; however, most impacted facilities would operate at deficient levels under pre-project conditions. Therefore, this alternative would contribute to unacceptable operations and would require the implementation of similar mitigation measures. For the reasons described in Section 3.6, Transportation, this alternative would yield a City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-7 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx similar significant and unavoidable conclusion, although the severity of impacts would be less because of the reduction in peak-hour trip generation. Table 5-2: Existing Planned Development Alternative Trip Generation Comparison Scenario Trip Generation Daily Weekday AM Weekday PM Saturday PM Existing Planned Development Alternative 9,050 266 803 1,145 Proposed Project 9,630 714 969 1,008 Difference (580) (448) (166) 137 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017. Urban Decay The Existing Planned Development Alternative consists of developing up to 327,400 square feet of retail and restaurant uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 104,699 square feet relative to the proposed project. The proposed project’s urban decay impacts were found to be less than significant and did not require mitigation. A key distinction between this alternative and the proposed project is the absence of IKEA, a major anchor for the development, which would result in less capture of sales in the home furnishings category. However, because less commercial square footage would be developed under this alternative, a similar finding would occur. Therefore, the Existing Planned Development Alternative would have urban decay impacts similar to the proposed project. 5.4.2 - Conclusion The Existing Planned Development Alternative would lessen the severity of, but would not avoid, the proposed project’s significant unavoidable transportation impacts. Additionally, this alternative would lessen the severity of impacts associated with air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and public services and utilities, which were found to be less than significant after mitigation. This alternative would similar impacts on biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and urban decay. The Existing Planned Development Alternative would advance most of the proposed project’s objectives, although some would be advanced to a lesser degree. For example, project objective #6 is to develop smaller retail and restaurant uses that complement the major anchor, and the Existing Planned Development Alternative (PD Ord. 34-08) allows for a mix of commercial uses without an identified major anchor. In addition, the reduction in square footage would result in less positive contribution to the local economy. Most others would be advanced to an equivalent degree as the proposed project, including developing a new regional-serving retail use close to Interstate 580, Dublin Boulevard and public transit options, and completing site remediation efforts. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft Supplemental EIR 5-8 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx 5.5 - Alternative 3—Reduced Density Alternative The Reduced Density Alternative consists of reducing the proposed project’s square footage by 108,025 square feet or 25 percent, to a total of 324,074 square feet. The 25 percent reduction in square footage would be applied to both the IKEA and lifestyle retail/restaurant uses. The key difference between this alternative and the Existing Planned Development Alternative is that IKEA would be part of this alternative. All uses would be identical to those proposed by the project; however, 25 percent less square footage would be assigned to each use. All vehicular access points and parking facilities would be similar to the proposed project. Additional landscaping, pedestrian facilities, and outdoor seating areas would be developed in place of the eliminated building square footage. This alternative would require the same discretionary approvals as the proposed project. Table 5-3 summarizes the Reduced Density Alternative. The purpose of the Reduced Density Alternative is to evaluate a project alternative that develops the same end uses but with less square footage in order to lessen the severity of impacts associated with air quality/greenhouse gases, noise, public services and utilities, and transportation. Table 5-3: Reduced Density Alternative Scenario Use Square Feet Reduced Density Alternative IKEA 254,324 Lifestyle retail-restaurant 69,750 Total 324,074 Proposed Project IKEA 339,099 Lifestyle retail-restaurant 93,000 Total 432,099 Difference Total (108,025) Source: FCS, 2017. 5.5.1 - Impact Analysis Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing 324,074 square feet of commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 108,025 square feet relative to the proposed project. The buildout potential of this alternative would be less than the proposed project and, therefore, would result in fewer construction emissions. Although the project’s construction emissions impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, the reduction in emissions would be considered more beneficial. The Reduced Density Alternative would generate 30 fewer daily vehicle trips than the proposed project and, therefore, would reduce operational emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gas emissions. Although the project’s City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-9 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx operational emissions impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, the reduction in emissions would be considered more beneficial. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would less impact on air quality/greenhouse gas emissions than the proposed project. Biological Resources The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing 324,074 square feet of commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 108,025 square feet relative to the proposed project. Similar ground-disturbing activities would occur, and, therefore, mitigation identical to the proposed project for special-status species would be implemented. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have biological resources impacts similar to the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing 324,074 square feet of commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 108,025 square feet relative to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, this alternative would be required to conduct soil testing on stockpiles and, if appropriate, properly abate and dispose of contaminated soils to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have hazards and hazardous materials impacts similar to the proposed project. Noise The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing 324,074 square feet of commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 108,025 square feet relative to the proposed project. The buildout potential of this alternative would be less than the proposed project, and, therefore, construction noise impacts would be less severe to the proposed project, although these impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The Reduced Density Alternative would generate 30 fewer daily vehicle trips than the proposed project. Although the proposed project was found to have less than significant roadway noise impacts, the slight reduction in daily trip generation would be considered more beneficial from a noise perspective. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have less impact on noise than the proposed project. Public Services and Utilities The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing 324,074 square feet of commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 108,025 square feet relative to the proposed project. End uses would be similar to the proposed project and therefore would exert similar types of demands on public service and utility providers. This alternative would result in a 108,025-square- foot reduction in development potential and is considered more beneficial from a public services and utilities perspective, because there would be less demand for fire protection, police protection, and water, and less generation of wastewater and solid waste. Additionally, this alternative would demand less electricity and natural gas, and consume less transportation fuel, due to the reduction in buildout potential. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would have less impact on public services and utilities than the proposed project. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft Supplemental EIR 5-10 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx Transportation The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing 324,074 square feet of commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 108,025 square feet relative to the proposed project. Table 5-4 summarizes the trip generation of the Reduced Density Alternative. As shown in the table, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in a net reduction of 30 daily trips, 294 weekday AM peak-hour trips, 99 weekday PM peak-hour trips, and a net increase of 460 Saturday PM trips. The substantial reduction in peak-hour trips would avoid or lessen the severity of significant impacts at several intersections and roadway segments; however, most impacted facilities would operate at deficient levels under pre-project conditions. Therefore, this alternative would contribute to unacceptable operations and would require the implementation of similar mitigation measures. For the reasons described in Section 3.6, Transportation, this alternative would yield a similar significant and unavoidable conclusion, although the severity of impacts would be less because of the reduction in peak-hour trip generation. Table 5-4: Reduced Density Alternative Trip Generation Comparison Scenario Trip Generation Daily Weekday AM Weekday PM Saturday PM Reduced Density Alternative 9,600 420 870 1,468 Proposed Project 9,630 714 969 1,008 Difference (30) (294) (99) 460 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017. Urban Decay The Reduced Density Alternative consists of developing 324,074 square feet of commercial uses on the project site, which represents a reduction of 108,025 square feet relative to the proposed project. The proposed project’s urban decay impacts were found to be less than significant and did not require mitigation. Because less commercial square footage would be developed under this alternative, a similar finding would occur. Therefore, the Existing Planned Development Alternative would have urban decay impacts similar to the proposed project. 5.5.2 - Conclusion The Reduced Density Alternative would lessen the severity of, but would not avoid, the proposed project’s significant unavoidable transportation impacts. Additionally, this alternative would lessen the severity of impacts associated with air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and public services and utilities, which were found to be less than significant after mitigation. This alternative would have similar impacts on biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and urban decay. The Reduced Density Alternative would advance all of the proposed project’s objectives, although some would be advanced to a lesser degree. For example, the reduction in square footage would result in less positive contribution to the local economy. Most others would be advanced to the same degree as the proposed project, including developing a new regional-serving retail use close to Interstate 580, Dublin Boulevard and public transit options, and completing site remediation efforts. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-11 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx 5.6 - Environmentally Superior Alternative The qualitative environmental effects of each alternative in relation to the proposed project are summarized in Table 5-5. Table 5-5: Comparison of Alternatives Topic No Project Alternative Existing Planned Development Alternative Reduced Density Alternative Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less impact Less impact Less impact Biological Resources Less impact Similar impact Similar impact Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less impact Similar impact Similar impact Noise Less impact Less impact Less impact Public Services and Utilities Less impact Less impact Less impact Transportation Less impact Less impact Less impact Urban Decay Less impact Similar impact Similar impact Source: FCS, 2017. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. In this case, the No Project Alternative has less impact on all topical subjects. Therefore, of the two remaining alternatives, the Existing Planned Development Alternative would be environmentally superior because it achieves the greatest reduction in daily, weekday AM peak-hour, and weekday PM peak-hour trip generation. This would result in the greatest reductions in the severity of the significant unavoidable transportation impacts. Therefore, the Existing Planned Development Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 5.7 - Alternatives Rejected From Further Consideration The following alternatives were initially considered but rejected from further consideration for the reasons described as follows. 5.7.1 - 50-Percent Reduction Alternative A variation of the Reduced Density Alternative that was initially considered involved reducing the size of the project by 50 percent (approximately 216,000 square feet). Such an alternative would be expected to reduce daily and peak-hour trip generation, which would lessen the severity of the significant unavoidable impacts associated with transportation. Additionally, this alternative would reduce criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, demand for public services, consumption of water and energy, and generation of wastewater and solid waste. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft Supplemental EIR 5-12 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx However, a 50-Percent Reduction Alternative would not avoid the proposed project’s significant unavoidable transportation impacts because it would still generate a substantial number of net new trips.1 In this sense, it would yield no better conclusions than either the Existing Planned Development Alternative or Reduced Density Alternative. Additionally, a 50-Percent Reduction Alternative would yield a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.18, which is below the minimum FAR of 0.25 established by the City of General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the “General Commercial” land use designation. Furthermore, developing a freeway- adjacent site that is within walking distance of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station at such a low density would be both uneconomical and contrary to the planning objectives of the General Plan and Specific Plan, which promote higher-density development near freeways and public transit. For these reasons, a 50-Percent Reduction Alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 5.7.2 - Alternative Location CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) sets forth considerations to be used in evaluating an alternative location. The section states that the “key question” is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by relocating the project. The CEQA Guidelines identify the following factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of an alternative location: 1) Site suitability 2) Economic viability 3) Availability of infrastructure 4) General Plan consistency 5) Other plans or regulatory limitations 6) Jurisdictional boundaries 7) Whether the project applicant can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site The CEQA Guidelines establish that only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project’s environmental effects are feasible, and would meet most of the project objectives should be considered as alternative locations for the proposed project. To preface the discussion of potential alternative sites, it should be acknowledged that only sites located within the current Dublin city limits are considered feasible because of the provisions of Alameda County Measure D. (Measure D effectively prohibits new urban development outside of city limits in eastern Alameda County.) Table 5-6 summarizes the feasibility of alternative locations within the Dublin city limits, and Exhibit 5-1 depicts the locations of the sites. As shown in the table, none of the sites are considered feasible. For these reasons, an alternative location is rejected from further consideration. 1 This alternative would be expected to yield approximately 4,815 net new daily trips, based on the trip generation values shown in Table 3.6-11. 37660005 • 01/2018 | 5-1_alts.mxd Exhibit 5-1Po ten tial Altern ative Lo catio n s So urce: Bin g Imagery CITY OF DUBLIN • IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENV IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Legend Project Site 3,000 0 3,0001,500 FeetI THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Alternatives to the Proposed Project FirstCarbon Solutions 5-15 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx Table 5-6: Potential Alternative Locations Site Description Analysis Camp Parks/ Dublin Crossing (Boulevard) Approximately 189 acres located within the southern portion Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area bounded by Scarlett Drive (west), military training uses (north), Arnold Road (east), and Dublin Boulevard (south). This site contains unused, dilapidated military buildings and undeveloped land. The United States Department of Defense transferred ownership of this land to the City of Dublin. This site is designated “Dublin Crossing Specific Plan” by the City of Dublin General Plan, with various zoning designations established by the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. Not Feasible: This site is entitled for mixed- use development established under the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan that contemplates up to 1,995 dwelling units, 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, 35 acres of parks, and a 12-acre elementary school site. The first three phases of this project (“Boulevard”) are currently under construction. As such, this site is considered committed to another use. Additionally, this site is not owned, controlled, or otherwise accessible to the project applicant and, because the Boulevard project is under construction, it would be doubtful that the project applicant would consider this site for the proposed project. These factors preclude developing the proposed project at this location. Tassajara Road/ Dublin Boulevard Approximately 76 acres located on both sides of Dublin Boulevard and east of Tassajara Road. The site contains undeveloped land located within the Dublin city limits. This site is designated with a mix of commercial and residential land use designations by the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin General Plan and zoned “Planned Development.” Not Feasible: The site is not owned, controlled, or otherwise accessible to the project applicant. The property owner has a pending development application on file with the City of Dublin. The proposed project supports up to 680 residential units (mix of single-family homes, townhomes, and apartments) and 450,000 square feet of commercial retail uses, signifying its intent to pursue future development on the site. These factors preclude developing the proposed project at this location. Kaiser— Commercial site Approximately 15.85 acres bounded by commercial uses (west), Dublin Boulevard (north), the under construction Kaiser Dublin Medical Center (east), and I-580 (south). The site contains undeveloped land located within the Dublin city limits. This site is designated “Campus Medical— Commercial” by the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and zoned is Planned Development (Ord. 7–16). Not Feasible: This site is not owned, controlled, or otherwise accessible to the project applicant. The existing entitlements allow up to 250,000 square feet of commercial uses on this site. Thus, it is committed to another use. Finally, 15.85 acres represents 58 percent of the acreage of the project site and thus would not be large enough to support the proposed project’s 432,099 square feet. These factors preclude developing the proposed project at this location. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Alternatives to the Proposed Project Draft Supplemental EIR 5-16 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec05-00 Alternatives.docx Table 5-6 (cont.): Potential Alternative Locations Site Description Analysis Anderson/Chen Property Approximately 190.4 acres east of Fallon Road, north of I-580, and south of Jordan Ranch residential development. The site contains undeveloped grazing land (including rural residences and agricultural buildings) within the Dublin city limits. This site is designated with a mix of residential and commercial land use designations by the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and is part of the Fallon Village Stage 1 Planned Development (Ord. 32-05). Not Feasible: This site is not owned, controlled, or otherwise accessible to the project applicant. Additionally, development on this site requires the extension of Dublin Boulevard and associated infrastructure (water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, etc.). Although the City of Dublin is leading a multi-agency planning effort to facilitate this extension, it is several years away from completion. In contrast, the project site is currently served with roads and infrastructure Source: FCS, 2017. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Other CEQA Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 6-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec06-00 Other CEQA.docx SECTION 6: OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a)(b) requires an EIR to identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project, including effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project were implemented. This section describes significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of less than significant. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing a project alternative, their implications, and the reason why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, is described. With implementation of the proposed project, the following significant impacts that cannot be avoided would occur. Each significant unavoidable impact is discussed below. • Existing With Project Conditions Traffic: The proposed project would contribute new trips to the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way causing a queue impact under Existing With Project Conditions. While mitigation measures are proposed to fully mitigate the impact, the proposed mitigations may not be feasible. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Near-Term With Project Conditions Traffic: The proposed project would contribute new trips to facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels under Near-Term With Project Conditions. All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, it would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Lastly, certain feasible mitigation measures require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Cumulative With Project Conditions Traffic: The proposed project would contribute new trips to facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels under Cumulative With Project Conditions. All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, it would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Lastly, certain feasible mitigation measures require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Freeways: The proposed project would contribute new trips to freeway facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels (freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Lastly, certain feasible mitigation measures require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Other CEQA Considerations Draft Supplemental EIR 6-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec06-00 Other CEQA.docx • Congestion Management Program: The proposed project would contribute new trips to Congestion Management Program facilities that would operate at unacceptable levels (freeways and major arterials). All feasible mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate impacts; however, in certain cases, they would not fully mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. In other cases, no feasible mitigation is available. Lastly, certain feasible mitigation measures require the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Public Transit, Bicycles, and Pedestrians: The proposed project may increase pedestrian crossings across the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange. Although the City of Dublin and City of Pleasanton are developing plans for pedestrian improvements, implementation of the improvements requires the cooperation of third-party agencies, which is not assured. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. 6.2 - Growth-Inducing Impacts There are two types of growth-inducing impacts that a project may have: direct and indirect. To assess the potential for growth-inducing impacts, the project’s characteristics that may encourage and facilitate activities that individually or cumulatively may affect the environment must be evaluated (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). Direct growth-inducing impacts occur when the development of a project imposes new burdens on a community by directly inducing population growth, or by leading to the construction of additional developments in the same area. Also included in this category are projects that remove physical obstacles to population growth (such as a new road into an undeveloped area or a wastewater treatment plant with excess capacity that could allow additional development in the service area). Construction of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be considered isolated from the development they facilitate and serve. Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly induce growth may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in an area such as a new residential community that requires additional commercial uses to support residents. The proposed project would develop up to 432,099 square feet of new commercial uses on the project site. The IKEA store would employ up to 350 workers. Using a standard employment estimate of 1 job/500 square feet, the 93,000 square feet of lifestyle retail and restaurant uses would employ an estimated 186 workers. In total, the proposed project would employ as many as 536 workers. This number of jobs is not large enough to induce significant population growth in the area. In addition, the California Employment Development Department indicates that the Alameda County labor force totaled 847,800 persons as of December 2017. Of this figure, 25,200 persons were unemployed. This indicates that there is a large enough pool of labor in Alameda County to fill the proposed project’s employment opportunities such that it would be unlikely that substantial numbers of people would relocate to the East Bay. Additionally, the proposed project would not develop residential uses and, therefore, would not directly facilitate population growth. Lastly, the project site is located within an area served with urban infrastructure and services and surrounded by urban development. Thus, no infrastructure or services would need to be extended to the site in City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Other CEQA Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 6-3 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec06-00 Other CEQA.docx a manner that would remove a physical barrier to growth. Based on the foregoing analysis, growth- inducing impacts would be less than significant. 6.3 - Energy Conservation Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 require EIRs to describe, where relevant, the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project. In 1975, largely in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s, the State Legislature adopted AB 1575, which created the California Energy Commission (CEC). The statutory mission of the CEC is to forecast future energy needs, license thermal power plants of 50 megawatts or larger, develop energy technologies and renewable energy resources, plan for and direct State responses to energy emergencies, and—perhaps most importantly—promote energy efficiency through the adoption and enforcement of appliance and building energy efficiency standards. AB 1575 also amended Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) to require EIRs to consider the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy caused by a project. Thereafter, the State Resources Agency created Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix F is an advisory document that assists EIR preparers in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. For the reasons set forth below, this SEIR concludes that the proposed project will not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, will not cause the need for additional natural gas or electrical energy-producing facilities, and, therefore, will not create a significant impact on energy resources. 6.3.1 - Regulatory Setting Federal and state agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. At the federal level, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), the United States Department of Energy, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are three federal agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. Generally, federal agencies influence and regulate transportation energy consumption through establishment and enforcement of fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks, through funding of energy-related research and development projects, and through funding for transportation infrastructure improvements. At the state level, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the CEC are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy. The CPUC regulates privately owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water fields. The CEC collects and analyzes energy-related data, prepares statewide energy policy recommendations and plans, promotes and funds energy efficiency programs, and adopts and enforces appliance and building energy efficiency standards. California is exempt under federal law from setting state fuel economy standards for new on-road motor vehicles. Some of the more relevant federal and state energy- related laws and plans are discussed below. Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act The Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 sought to ensure that all vehicles sold in the U.S. would meet certain fuel economy goals. Through this Act, Congress established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the U.S. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, which is part of the DOT, is responsible for establishing additional City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Other CEQA Considerations Draft Supplemental EIR 6-4 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec06-00 Other CEQA.docx vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 miles per gallon. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 miles per gallon. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model; rather, compliance is determined on the basis of each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which is administered by the EPA, was created to determine vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with the fuel economy standards. The EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer, based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. On the basis of the information generated under the CAFE program, the DOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance. In the course of its over 30-year history, this regulatory program has resulted in vastly improved fuel economy throughout the nation’s vehicle fleet. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) promoted the development of inter-modal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contained factors that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) such as ABAG were required to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy-related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, MPOs adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values that were to guide transportation decisions in that metropolitan area. The planning process for specific projects would then address these policies. Another requirement was to consider the consistency of transportation planning with federal, State, and local energy goals. Through this requirement, energy consumption was expected to become a decision criterion, along with cost and other values that determine the best transportation solution. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was signed into law in 1998 and builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation discussed above. TEA-21 authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs. TEA-21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of good transportation decisions. TEA-21 also provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through, for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety. State of California Energy Plan The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Other CEQA Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 6-5 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec06-00 Other CEQA.docx environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including providing assistance to public agencies and fleet operators, encouraging urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled, and accommodating pedestrian and bicycle access. Title 24, Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, which was promulgated by the CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption, provides energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. According to the CEC, since the energy efficiency standards went into effect in 1978, it is estimated that California residential and nonresidential consumers have reduced their utility bills by at least $15.8 billion. The CEC further estimated that by 2011, residential and nonresidential consumers will have saved an additional $43 billon in energy costs. For each year of construction, in both newly constructed buildings and alterations to existing buildings, the 2013 Standards (for residential and nonresidential buildings) were expected to reduce the growth in electricity use by 555.5 gigawatt-hours per year (GWh/y) and to reduce the growth in peak electrical demand by 148.4 MW. The 2013 Standards were also expected to reduce the growth in natural gas use by 7.04 million therms per year (therms/y) beyond the prior 2008 Standards. Overall, the 2013 Standards used 25 percent less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating than the 2008 Standards. For purposes of reference, single-family homes built to the newly adopted 2016 standards (which went into effect on January 1, 2017) will use about 28 percent less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating than those built to the 2013 standards. In 30 years, California will have saved enough energy to power 2.2 million homes, reducing the need to build 12 additional power plants. Because the adoption of Title 24 post-dates the adoption of AB 1575, it has generally been the presumption throughout the State that compliance with Title 24 (as well as compliance with the federal and State regulations discussed above) ensures that projects will not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. As is the case with other uniform building codes, Title 24 is designed to provide certainty and uniformity throughout the State while ensuring that the efficient and non-wasteful consumption of energy is carried out through design features. Large infrastructure transportation projects that cannot adhere to Title 24 design-build performance standards may, depending on the circumstances, undertake a more involved assessment of energy conservation measures in accordance with some of the factors set forth in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. As an example, pursuant to the California Department of Transportation CEQA implementation procedures and FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8A, a detailed energy study is generally only required for large-scale infrastructure projects. However, for the vast majority of residential and nonresidential projects, adherence to Title 24 is deemed necessary to ensure that no significant impacts occur from the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. As a further example, the adoption of federal vehicle fuel standards, which have been continually improved since their original adoption in 1975, have also protected against the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Other CEQA Considerations Draft Supplemental EIR 6-6 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec06-00 Other CEQA.docx Pursuant to the California Building Standards Code and the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, the City will review the design and construction components of the project’s Title 24 compliance when specific building plans are submitted. 6.3.2 - Energy Requirements of the Proposed Project Short-term construction and long-term operational energy consumption are discussed below. Short-term Construction The EPA regulates nonroad diesel engines that power both mobile equipment (bulldozers, scrapers, front-end loaders, etc.) and stationary equipment (generators, pumps, compressors, etc.). The EPA has no formal fuel economy standards for nonroad (e.g., construction) diesel engines but does regulate diesel emissions, which indirectly affects fuel economy. In 1994, EPA adopted the first set of emission standards (“Tier 1”) for all new nonroad diesel engines greater than 37 kilowatts (kW [50 horsepower]). The Tier 1 standards were phased in for different engine sizes between 1996 and 2000, reducing nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from these engines by 30 percent. Subsequently, the EPA adopted more stringent emission standards for NOx, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter from new nonroad diesel engines. This program included the first set of standards for nonroad diesel engines less than 37 kW. It also phased in more stringent “Tier 2” emission standards from 2001 to 2006 for all engine sizes and added yet more stringent “Tier 3” standards for engines between 37 and 560 kW (50 and 750 horsepower) from 2006 to 2008. These standards further reduced nonroad diesel engine emissions by 60 percent for NOx and 40 percent for particulate matter (PM) from Tier 1 emission levels. In 2004, the EPA issued the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule. This rule cut emissions from nonroad diesel engines by more than 90 percent, and was phased in between 2008 and 2014. These emission standards are intended to promote advanced clean technologies for nonroad diesel engines that improve fuel combustion, but they also result in slight decreases in fuel economy. The proposed project would entail short-term construction activities that would consume energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools). Mitigation Measure AIR-3a requires that engine idling for construction equipment is to be limited and that all equipment is properly tuned and maintained to the manufacturer’s specifications. Additionally, the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance requires that 100 percent of asphalt and concrete be recycled and a minimum of 50 percent of all other materials be recycled. Recycling construction and demolition waste not only keeps it from being transported to the landfill, but also reduces the “upstream” energy consumption from the manufacturing of virgin material in the first place. The proposed project would be required to comply with this ordinance. Construction activities would be required to monitor air quality emissions using applicable regulatory guidance such as the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced as a result of monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, this results in reduced energy consumption. There are no aspects of the proposed project that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction activities. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Other CEQA Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 6-7 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec06-00 Other CEQA.docx Long-term Operations Long-term operations would consume energy from transportation activities (employee and customer travel, deliveries, etc.) and from electricity and natural gas use associated with building operations. Each is discussed separately. Transportation Energy Demand Vehicle fuel efficiency is regulated at the federal level. Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. As of December 2014, the NHTSA indicated that the fuel economy of passenger vehicles averaged 34.2 miles per gallon and light trucks averaged 26.2 miles per gallon. The proposed project would generate vehicle trips that would consume energy in the form of transportation fuel (gasoline and diesel). Vehicle fuel efficiency standards are set at the federal level and vehicles serving the proposed project would be subject to these standards. Table 6-1 summarizes transportation energy demand. As shown in the table, motor vehicle trips associated with the proposed project are estimated to consume 1,664,943 gallons of diesel or gasoline annually. Table 6-1: Transportation Energy Demand Vehicle Classification Fleet Percentage Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled Average Fuel Economy Annual Fuel Consumption (gallons) Passenger 61.6% 21,974,767 34.2 642,537 Light Duty Truck/Sport Utility Vehicle 25.6% 9,132,371 26.2 348,564 Medium Duty Truck/Heavy Duty Truck/Bus/Other 12.2% 4,352,145 6.5 669,561 Motorcycle 0.6% 214,040 50.0 4,281 Total 100.0% 35,673,323 — 1,664,943 Source: FCS, 2017. As discussed in Section 3.7, Urban Decay, most of the customers for the proposed project would reside within the Primary Market Area, which encompasses the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon; the Town of Danville; and the unincorporated areas of Alamo, Blackhawk, Castro Valley, and Tassajara. Because the IKEA store would be closest outlet to these customers, it would be expected to capture existing sales currently “leaking” to IKEA stores in East Palo Alto and Emeryville, or competing stores. Thus, there may be a reduction in vehicle trip length for certain customers who reside within the Primary Market Area, but who shop at other IKEA outlets (or competitors) in the region. In addition, the proposed project would be within walking distance of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. This would afford project employees the option of taking BART to work, which would avoid City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Other CEQA Considerations Draft Supplemental EIR 6-8 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec06-00 Other CEQA.docx or reduce single-occupant vehicle travel. It would be unlikely that most IKEA customers would take BART since they may be hauling bulky items home. In summary, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy during operational activities. Building Energy Demand Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is the primary electricity and natural gas provider to the northern and central parts of California including the City of Dublin. Electricity PG&E provides electricity service to 5.3 million customers in northern and central California. PG&E produces 43 percent of electricity at its owned facilities (including nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas, and solar) and purchases the remaining 57 percent from third-party producers (irrigation districts, water agencies, renewable energy providers, etc.) PG&E’s electrical system consists of 142,000 circuit miles of distribution lines and 59 transmission switching substations. PG&E delivered 83,017 gigawatts of electricity to its customers in 2016. The proposed project would be served with electricity service provided by PG&E. Connections would be made from existing PG&E electrical lines located within Arnold Road or Martinelli Way. The proposed project’s estimated building electricity and natural gas consumption is estimated in Table 6-2. Table 6-2: Electricity Consumption Estimate Project Square Footage Consumption Rate Annual Consumption 432,099 20 kWH/square foot 8.64 million kWh Note: kWH = kilowatt-hours Source: FCS, 2017. As shown in the table, the proposed project would demand approximately 8.64 million kWh of electricity. The amount of electricity would represent less than 0.001 percent of the amount of electricity PG&E delivered to its customers in 2016. All buildings would be subject to the latest adopted edition of the Title 24 energy efficiency standards, which are among the most stringent in the United States. Additionally, the IKEA store would employ a 1,200 to 1,300 KW photovoltaic rooftop solar array that would allow for renewable electricity to be generated on-site. Typically, rooftop arrays provide 30 percent of a commercial building’s electrical needs. This would represent 2.59 million kilowatt-hours of electricity annually. The project includes other Project Design Features that would reduce electricity consumption such as design of the IKEA store to be eligible to achieve a rating of LEED City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Other CEQA Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 6-9 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec06-00 Other CEQA.docx Silver or higher and the Lifestyle Retail Center will be designed to meet CALGreen Tier 1 requirements. All these Project Design Features would reduce project electricity consumption. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Impacts would be less than significant. Natural Gas PG&E provides natural gas service to 4.4 million natural gas customers in northern and central California. PG&E obtains natural gas from producers in California, Canada, the Rocky Mountains, and the American Southwest. PG&E’s natural gas system consists of 42,800 miles of distribution pipelines and 6,700 miles of backbone and local transmission pipelines. PG&E owns and operates three underground storage facilities, and has an ownership interest in a fourth. PG&E delivered 208,260 million cubic-feet of natural gas to its customers in 2016. The proposed project would be served with natural gas service provided by PG&E. Connections would be made from existing PG&E natural gas lines located within Arnold Road or Martinelli Way. The proposed project’s estimated building natural gas consumption is estimated in Table 6-3. Table 6-3: Natural Gas Consumption Estimate Project Square Footage Consumption Rate Annual Consumption 432,099 25 BTU/square foot 10.8 million BTU Note: BTU = British Thermal Unit Source: FCS, 2017. As shown in the table, the proposed project would demand approximately 10.8 million BTU of natural gas at buildout. The amount of natural gas would represent less than 0.001 percent of the amount of natural gas PG&E delivered to its customers in 2016. All buildings would be subject to the latest adopted edition of the Title 24 energy efficiency standards, which are among the most stringent in the United States. In addition, the IKEA store will be designed to be eligible to achieve a rating of LEED Silver or higher and the Lifestyle Retail Center will be designed to meet CALGreen Tier 1 requirements. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Impacts would be less than significant. Analysis All project buildings would be subject to the latest adopted provisions of the Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Title 24 is widely recognized as one of the most stringent energy efficiency codes in the United States. Furthermore, the IKEA store would have a 1,200-1,300 KW solar photovoltaic rooftop solar array. This would allow for on-site renewable electricity generation and City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Other CEQA Considerations Draft Supplemental EIR 6-10 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec06-00 Other CEQA.docx lessen the demand for power provided by PG&E. In addition, the IKEA store will be designed to be eligible to achieve a rating of LEED Silver or high er and the Lifestyle Retail Center will be designed to meet CALGreen Tier 1 requirements. The combination of highly energy-efficient building construction and on-site renewable electricity generation are consistent with State-adopted strategies intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing energy consumption. In summary, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building-related energy during operational activities. 6.4 - Vehicle Miles Traveled In response to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has updated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines to include new transportation-related evaluation metrics. Draft guidelines were developed in August 2014, with updated draft guidelines prepared January 2016, which incorporated public comments from the August 2014 guidelines. OPR released final proposed Guidelines on November 27, 2017. The final proposed Guidelines include a new Section 15064.3 on vehicle miles of travel (VMT) analysis and thresholds. OPR also released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. New Guidelines Section 15064.3 states that they do not take effect until January 1, 2020 unless the lead agency adopts them earlier. Neither the City of Dublin nor the Alameda CTC has established any standards or thresholds on VMT. Therefore, the new guidelines have not yet been adopted and are not in effect at this time. The final guidelines may change based on the comments received during the Natural Resources Agency formal administrative rulemaking process for adoption under the Administrative Procedure Act. Since there are no standards in effect on VMT analysis, a preliminary assessment of the VMT generated by the proposed project was prepared for information and disclosure purposes only. No determination on the significance of VMT impacts is made in this document since none is legally required. 6.4.1 - Analysis Methods To estimate VMT within the City of Dublin, both without and with the project, Fehr & Peers used the updated City of Dublin travel demand model as well as StreetLight data. StreetLight data was used to establish average trip lengths to existing IKEA stores in the region, as well as existing retail uses in the immediate project vicinity, including Persimmon Place, Stoneridge Mall, and Hacienda Crossings Center. This data was used to estimate the total VMT for the proposed project components, and was also used to refine the VMT estimates from the City of Dublin travel demand model. A summary of observed trip lengths to existing Bay Area IKEAs and other Tri-Valley retail centers is provided in Table 6-4. Trips to IKEAs from customers tend to average 14 miles on a weekday, with slightly longer average trips on weekends. Average trip lengths to retail centers in the area are about 9 miles on both weekdays and weekends. A comparison between the IKEA and other retail trips indicates that the average trip length for an IKEA trip is at least 50 percent longer than trips to general retail centers. Commercial vehicle trips tended to be longer, but these trips comprise a lower percentage of the overall vehicle traffic to the site. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Other CEQA Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 6-11 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec06-00 Other CEQA.docx Table 6-4: StreetLight Data Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary Category Weekday Weekend Avg. Trip Duration (min) Avg. Trip Length (miles) Avg. Trip Duration (min) Avg. Trip Length (miles) Commercial Vehicles IKEA 46 29 51 35 Retail 41 23 42 27 Personal Vehicles IKEA 27 14 28 16 Retail 17 9 18 9 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017. The StreetLight data was used to estimate average VMT for the project, which was then used to calibrate the initial VMT from the model to assess the project’s effect on citywide VMT. Using the travel behavior model, all vehicular trips generated by City of Dublin land uses were tracked across the entire regional network. Four types of trips are isolated: • Internal-Internal (II) trips: Include all trips that begin and end within the City of Dublin. • Internal-External (IX) trips: Include all trips that begin in within city limits and end outside city limits. • External-Internal (XI) trips: Include all trips that begin outside city limits and end inside city limits. • External-External (XX) trips: Trips that begin and end outside the City of Dublin are not included. The City of Dublin assumes no responsibility for External-External trip type VMTs. The resulting metric is the total VMT and a summary of the average VMT per household and service population (residents and workers) for without and with Project conditions. This allows for a calculation of the net change in VMT with the project. 6.4.2 - Analysis Results Using the StreetLight Data and the trip generation estimates presented previously, the absolute level of VMT from the site was estimated, as presented in Table 6-5. Table 6-5: Project Generated VMT Summary Zone Type Annual VMT Daily VMT IKEA 35,253,400 96,585 Retail 16,127,085 44,184 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Other CEQA Considerations Draft Supplemental EIR 6-12 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec06-00 Other CEQA.docx Table 6-5 (cont.): Project Generated VMT Summary Zone Type Annual VMT Daily VMT Total 51,380,485 140,768 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017. The project has the potential to generate approximately 140,000 VMT on an average daily basis, accounting for longer trip lengths and greater levels of trip generation on weekends compared with weekdays, and accounting for patrons, employees, and deliveries. However, as noted in the Technical Advisory, “lead agencies should analyze the effects of a retail project by assessing the change in total VMT because retail projects typically re-route travel from other retail destinations. A retail project might lead to increases or decreases in VMT, depending on previously existing retail travel patterns”. To assess the project’s effect on VMT, the Dublin Model was executed for the without and with project scenarios. Results are shown in Table 6-6 for the existing and cumulative scenarios, which shows that existing land uses in Dublin generate approximately 2,700,235 VMT per day, and future pending and planned development increase citywide VMT to 4,500,000 VMT per day by 2040. The addition of project land uses is expected to increase total VMT generated by City of Dublin land uses by approximately 65,000 miles in the existing condition and 51,000 miles in the cumulative condition, less than shown in Table 6-6, considering the project interaction with the surrounding land uses and roadway network, and because of the potential for trip substitution and changing shopping habits. Table 6-6: Citywide VMT Scenario Households Population Employment Daily VMT VMT/HH VMT per Capita (Pop + Emp) Existing 16,670 50,970 27,398 2,700,235 161.98 34.46 Existing with Project 16,670 50,970 28,673 2,764,364 165.83 34.71 Net Change — — 1,275 64,129 — — Year 2040 no Project 24,508 73,578 57,802 4,519,941 184.43 34.40 Year 2040 with Project 24,508 73,578 59,077 4,571,343 186.52 34.46 Net Change — — 1,275 51,403 — — Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. 6.4.3 - Conclusion Results of the VMT analysis indicate that the project would contribute to an increase in VMT as the project adds a regional retail use that is expected to attract customers from a catchment area larger than other retail centers in Dublin, even considering the redistribution of some existing IKEA trips to the Emeryville and East Palo Alto stores. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Draft Supplemental EIR Effects Found Not To  Be Significant      FirstCarbon Solutions 7‐1  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec07‐00 EFNTBS.DOCX  SECTION 7: EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT  7.1 ‐ Introduction  This section is based on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS), dated August 17,  2017, and contained in Appendix A of this Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR).  The  NOP and IS were prepared to identify the potentially significant effects of the proposed project and  were circulated for public review between August 17, 2017 and September 19, 2017.  In the course  of this evaluation, certain impacts were found to be less than significant because the proposed  project’s characteristics would not create such impacts.  This section provides a brief description of  effects found not to be significant or less than significant, based on the NOP/IS comments or more  detailed analysis conducted as part of the SEIR preparation process.  Note that a number of impacts  that are found to be less than significant are addressed in the various SEIR topical sections (Sections  3.1 through 3.7) to provide more comprehensive discussion of why impacts are less than significant,  in order to better inform decision makers and the general public.  7.2 ‐ Effects  Found Not To  Be Significant  7.2.1 ‐ Agricultural and Forest Resources  Important Farmland  The project site is mapped as “Other Land” by the California Department of Conservation Farmland   Mapping and Monitoring Program, which is a non‐agricultural land use designation.  Thus, the  development of the proposed project would not convert Important Farmland to non‐agricultural  use.  No impact would occur and no further analysis is required.  Agricultural Zoning and Williamson Act Contracts  The project site is zoned  “General Commercial,” which is a non‐agricultural zoning designation.   Additionally, the project site is not in agricultural use, which precludes the possibility of a Williamson  Act contract.  These conditions preclude the possibility of conflicts with agricultural zoning or a  Williamson Act contract.  No impact would occur and no further analysis is required.  Forest Zoning  The project is zoned “General Commercial,” which is a non‐forest zoning designation.  Additionally,  the project site does not contain forest or timberland.  These conditions preclude the possibility of  conflicts with forest or timberland zoning.  No impact would occur and no further analysis is  required.  Forest Land  The project site does not contain any forest land.  This precludes the possibility of the loss of forest  land.  No impact would occur and no further analysis is required.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Effects Found Not To  Be Significant Draft Supplemental EIR      7‐2 FirstCarbon Solutions  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec07‐00 EFNTBS.DOCX  Pressures to Convert Agricultural or Forest Land  The project site and surroundings are mapped as “Other Land” or “Urban and Built‐Up Land” by the  California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.  Thus, the  development of the proposed project would not convert Important Farmland or forest land to non‐ agricultural or non‐forest use.  No impact would occur and no further analysis is required.  7.2.2 ‐ Biological Resources  Wildlife Movement, Corridors, Nursery Sites  The project site does not contain any waterways, which precludes the possibility of migratory fish  movement occurring on‐site.  The project site is surrounded by urban development or infrastructure  on four sides and is enclosed with a fence.  These conditions preclude the possibility of wildlife  movement occurring on‐site.  No impact would occur.  Local Policies  There are no trees within the project site, which precludes the possibility of conflicts with a tree  protection ordinance or similar regulations.  No impact would occur.  Conservation Plans  The project site is within the boundaries of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS).   The City of Dublin uses the EACCS as guidance for mitigating impacts associated with public projects,  but compliance is not mandated for private projects.  Thus, the EACCS is not considered an  “adopted” or “approved” plan that requires a consistency determination under CEQA.  No impact  would occur.  7.2.3 ‐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Exposure of Schools to Hazardous Materials or Emissions  The project site is 0.33 mile southwest of James Dougherty Elementary School, the closest school to  the project site.  Additionally, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle  large quantities of hazardous materials.  These characteristics preclude the possibility of the project  exposing schools located within 0.25 mile of the project site to hazardous emissions or hazardous  materials.  No impact would occur.  Airports  The project site is 3.8 miles from Livermore Municipal Airport and is located outside of the Airport  Influence Area as shown in Figure 3‐1 of the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility  Plan.  This condition precludes the possibility of exposing persons residing or working in the project  vicinity to aviation hazards.  No impact would occur.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR Effects Found Not To Be Significant FirstCarbon Solutions 7-3 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec07-00 EFNTBS.docx Private Airstrips There are no private airstrips in the project vicinity. This condition precludes the possibility of exposing persons residing or working in the project vicinity to aviation hazards. No impact would occur. Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan The proposed project would be accessible from four vehicular access points on Martinelli Way and Arnold Road. This would comply with California Fire Code requirements that mandate a minimum of two vehicular access points for a project with these characteristics. In addition, Arnold Road would be converted to a cul-de-sac and the connection to Campus Drive would be eliminated; however, this roadway is not essential for circulation in the project vicinity and would not impair emergency access or evacuation. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. Wildland Fires The project site is surrounded by urban development or infrastructure on all four sides. This condition precludes the possibility of exposing persons or structures to wildland fire hazards. No impact would occur. 7.2.4 - Noise Aviation Noise The project site is 3.8 miles from Livermore Municipal Airport and is located outside of the Airport Influence Area as shown in Figure 3-1 of the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Additionally, there are no private airstrips in the project vicinity. This condition precludes the possibility of exposing persons residing or working in the project vicinity to excessive aviation noise. No impact would occur. 7.2.5 - Transportation and Traffic Air Traffic Patterns The project site is located 3.8 miles from Livermore Municipal Airport and is outside of the Airport Influence Area, as shown in Figure 3-1 of the Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. This condition precludes the possibility of the project from altering air traffic patterns at the airport. No impact would occur. 7.2.6 - Tribal Cultural Resources Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource The project site previously supported military uses associated with Camp Parks; however, all buildings were removed in the mid-1990s. The project site has been graded several times since 2007 in preparation for reuse. The project site is not listed on a state or local historical register, and tribal cultural resources have not been previously encountered on the project site. Thus, the likelihood of undiscovered tribal cultural resources being present within the project site is very low. Nonetheless, implementation of standard inadvertent discovery procedures set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  Effects Found Not To  Be Significant Draft Supplemental EIR      7‐4 FirstCarbon Solutions  \\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec07‐00 EFNTBS.DOCX  Plan EIR in the event cultural resources are encountered during earthwork activities (Mitigation  Measures 3.8/B and 3.9/D) would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant.  Additionally, the City of Dublin complied with the provisions of Assembly Bill 52 which require the  lead agency provide formal  notification to California Native American tribes that are traditionally and  culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.  Concurrent with the release of  the Notice of Preparation in August 2017, the City of Dublin notified the Ione Band of Miwok Indians  about the project.  No request for consultation was received within 30 days of receipt of the formal  notification.  Thus, the tribal consultation process was completed.  City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Persons and Organizations Consulted/  Draft Supplemental EIR List of Preparers      FirstCarbon Solutions 8‐1  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec08‐00 Persons‐Orgs List of Preparers.docx  SECTION 8: PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED/LIST OF  PREPARERS  8.1 ‐ Persons and Organizations Consulted  8.1.1 ‐ Lead Agency  City of Dublin  City Attorney’s Office  Assistant City Attorney ................................................................................................... Timothy Cremin  Community Development Department  Community Development Director .......................................................................................... Luke Sims  Assistant Community Development Director ............................................................................Jeff  Baker  Principal Planner .................................................................................................................... Amy Million  Public Works  Department  Transportation and Operations Manager .............................................................................. Obaid Khan  8.1.2 ‐ Public Agencies  State Agencies  California Department of Transportation, District 4  District Branch Chief, Local Development—Intergovernmental Review ........................ Patricia Maurice  Native American Heritage Commission  Associate Governmental Program Analyst .......................................................................... Frank Lienert  Local Agencies  Alameda County Flood Control and Water  Conservation District, Zone 7  Water  Resources Planner .......................................................................................................... Elke Rank  Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (Dublin Police Services)  Chief (Former) .......................................................................................................... Dennis Houghtelling  Alameda County Fire Department  Division Chief/Fire Marshal .................................................................................................. Bonnie Terra   City of Livermore  Planning Manager............................................................................................................... Steve Stewart  City of Pleasanton  Community Development Director .......................................................................... Gerry Beaudin, AICP  Persons and Organizations Consulted/ City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project  List of Preparers Draft Supplemental EIR      8‐2 FirstCarbon Solutions  Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 ‐ Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec08‐00 Persons‐Orgs List of Preparers.docx  Traffic  Engineer ................................................................................................................... Mike Tassano  Dublin San Ramon Services District  Associate Engineer .............................................................................................................. Stan Kolodzie  Private Individuals   Brian Aguirre  Rick Camacho   David DiVecchio  Danielle Cooper   Tammy  Ficarra  Marie‐Anne Poudret   Jerry SooHoo  Minh Thai   Richard Schechter  Kerrie Chabot   Perrin Guess  William Kuo   Kris Balaram  John Koltz   Jojo Clay  Nora SooHoo   Lianne Marshall  Dennis Berger   Jegadheesa Murugesan  Katie Marini   Wellman Ho  Jasmine Vasa    Vick Tran   Jai Jayaraj   Ingemar Gaedeke  John Heyer   Gabrielle Blackman  Jennifer Butler   Catherine Kuo  Rowena Morgan   Gabrielle Marshall  Jennifer Situ   Y. Satar  Tim Adelin   Russell Duley  Marlene Massetti   Hilary Nindorf  Mukesh (no last name provided)   Manish Raman  Tomek  (no last name provided)   Wendy Jemo  Angie (no last name provided)   Nathan Janken      City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Persons and Organizations Consulted/ Draft Supplemental EIR List of Preparers FirstCarbon Solutions 8-3 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR\37660005 Sec08-00 Persons-Orgs List of Preparers.docx 8.2 - List of Preparers 8.2.1 - Lead Agency City of Dublin Community Development Department Community Development Director .......................................................................................... Luke Sims Assistant Community Development Director ............................................................................Jeff Baker Principal Planner .................................................................................................................... Amy Million 8.2.2 - Lead Consultant FirstCarbon Solutions Project Director ....................................................................................................................... Mary Bean Project Manager .................................................................................................................. Grant Gruber Project Manager ............................................................................................................ Ja nna Waligorski Air Quality Analyst ............................................................................................................Greg Tonkovich Noise Analyst ............................................................................................................................... Phil Ault Project Archaeologist ............................................................................................... Dana DePi etro, PhD Senior Biologist ................................................................................................................... Brian Mayerle Analyst ................................................................................................................................... Yael Marcus Analyst ............................................................................................................................. Chinmay Damle Technical Editor ................................................................................................................... Ed Livingston Word Processor .............................................................................................................. E ricka Rodriguez Graphics/GIS .................................................................................................................. John De Martino Reprographics ..................................................................................................................... Octavio Perez 8.2.3 - Technical Subconsultants Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants Senior Associate .................................................................................................................. Kathrin Tellez BAE Urban Economics Raymond Kennedy ................................................................................................... Director of Research THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR References FirstCarbon Solutions 9-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766 \37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR \37660005 Sec09 -00 References.docx SECTION 9: REFERENCES 1. Alameda County Clean Water Program. 2013. C3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Manual, May 14. Website: https://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/index.php/c3-guidance-table.html . 2. Alameda County Fire Department. 2017. Standards of Coverage Review Documents. Website: https://www.acgov.org/fire/. 3. Alameda County Transportation Commission. 2015. Alameda County Conge stion Management Program. Website: http://www.alamedactc.org/app_pages/view/5224. 4. Alameda County Waste Management Agency. 2013. Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan. Website: http://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/documents/Alameda %20Co unty%20CA%20Integrated%20Waste%20Management%20Program.pdf. 5. BAE Urban Economics. 2017. Urban Decay Analysis. November. 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. 2010 Clean Air Plan. Website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air -Plans.aspx. 7. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and -data/air-quality -standards-and- attainment-status. 8. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. Rules and Regulations. Website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Rules -and-Regulations.aspx. 9. Bay Area Rapid Transit District. 2017. Livermore Extension. Website: http://www.bart.gov/about/projects/liv. 10. California Air Resources Board. 2017. In -Use Off -Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/ordiesel.htm. 11. California Air Resources Board. 2017. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality— 2013. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac2013all.pdf. 12. California Air Resources Board. 2017. Top 4 Summary. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php. 13. California Building Standards Code. 2017. California Building Standards Code. January 1. Website: http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx. 14. California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 15. California Department of Public Health. 2016. California Indoor Radon Test Results. February. Website: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DRSEM/CDPH%20Document% 20Library/EMB/Radon/Radon%20Test%20Results.pdf. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Cen ter Project References Draft Supplemental EIR 9-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766 \37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR \37660005 Sec09 -00 References.docx 16. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2015. Solid Waste Information System. Website: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/ Default.htm. Accessed October 16, 2017. 17. California Department of Transportation. 1998. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. October. 18. California Department of Transportation. 2004. Transportation- and Construction -Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. June 2010. 19. California Fire Code. 2017. California Building Standards Code. January 1. Website: http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx. 20. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2015. Rare Plant Program. Website: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. 21. City of Dublin General Plan. 2016. City of Dublin General Plan. Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us /index.aspx?NID=171#. 22. City of Dublin. 1992. Environmental Impact Report. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. 23. City of Dublin. 1994. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 24. City of Dublin. 2013. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update. Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us /DocumentCenter/View/5799. Accessed October 16, 2017. 25. City of Dublin. 2014. The Green Mixed-Use Project. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. 26. City of Dublin. 2017. Recreation Areas, Facilities, Schools, and Art in Dublin. Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7062. Accessed December 19. 27. City of Dublin. 2017. Dublin Municipal Code. Website: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Dublin/. Accessed September 15, 2017. 28. County of Alameda. 2012. Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. August. 29. Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June. Website: http://www.dsrsd.com/home/showdocument?id=2890. 30. Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2017. Fact Sheet. Website: http://www.dsrsd.com/ home/showdocument?id=811. July 27. 31. Dublin San Ramon Services District. 2017. Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Capacity for IKEA Retail Center, Dublin. Letter dated December 28, 2017. 32. EdData. 2017. “Dublin Unified School District Profile.” Website: https://www.ed- data.org/district/Alameda/Dublin-Unified. Accessed December 19, 2017. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental EIR References FirstCarbon Solutions 9-3 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766 \37660005\SEIR\3 - Draft SEIR \37660005 Sec09 -00 References.docx 33. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631. 34. Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. August. 35. Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. 36. Fehr & Peers, 2017. Dublin IKEA Transportation Impact Assessment. November. Updated January 2018. 37. FirstCarbon Solutions. 2016. Project Clover Retail Center—Biological Resource Assessment and Wetland Delineation Peer Reviews. 38. Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California, Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 39. ICF International. 2010. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. 40. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2017. 10-K Annual Report. February 23. 41. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Characterization of Building Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. June. 42. United States Geological Survey. 1981. Dublin, California 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. 43. WRA. 2013. Biological Resources Assessment. The Green Mixed Use Project. Dublin, Alameda County, California. 44. WRA. 2013. Delineation of Waters of the U.S. The Green Mixed Use Project. Dublin, Alameda County, California. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM FINAL Supplemental Environmental Impact Report IKEA Retail Center Project City of Dublin, Alameda County, California State Clearinghouse Number 2017082047 Prepared for: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 925.833.6610 Contact: Amy Million, Principal Planner Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.357.2562 Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director Grant Gruber, Project Manager Janna Waligorski, Project Manager Date: September 14, 2018 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Table of Contents FirstCarbon Solutions iii Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2: Master Responses ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 - Master Response ............................................................................................................ 2-1 Section 3: Responses to Written Comments ................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 - List of Authors ................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 - Responses to Comments ................................................................................................ 3-2 Section 4: Errata.......................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 - Changes to Draft EIR Text ............................................................................................... 4-1 Appendix I: Supplemental Air Quality Supporting Information THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Introduction FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Dublin has evaluated the comments received on the IKEA Retail Center Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The responses to the comments and errata, which are included in this document, together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, form the Final SEIR for use by the City of Dublin in its review. This document is organized into four sections: • Section 1—Introduction. • Section 2—Master Responses. Provides a single, comprehensive response to similar comments about a particular topic. • Section 3—Responses to Written Comments. Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft SEIR. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Draft SEIR and responses thereto are included in this section. • Section 4—Errata. Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Draft SEIR, which have been incorporated. The Final SEIR includes the following contents: • Draft SEIR (provided under separate cover) • Draft SEIR appendices (provided under separate cover) • Master Responses, Responses to Written Comments on the Draft SEIR, and Errata (Sections 2, 3, and 4 of this document) • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Master Responses FirstCarbon Solutions 2-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx SECTION 2: MASTER RESPONSES Master responses address similar comments made by multiple public agencies, businesses, organizations, or individuals through written comments submitted to the City of Dublin. 2.1 - Master Response Master Response 1—Project Merits Summary of Relevant Comments The City of Dublin received numerous written comments about the merits of the IKEA Retail Center Project. The majority of these comments expressed opposition citing traffic congestion, sub-optimal use of the site, public safety, and community image. None of the comments raise questions about the sufficiency of the Draft SEIR’s analysis of environmental impacts. Response The comments primarily express a position on the merits of the proposed project—whether or not the City should approve the project. Several letters make reference to environmental impacts of the Project identified in the EIR as a reason for not approving the Project. Some of the environmental impacts of the project referenced in the comments include traffic and aesthetics. However, the comments recite the conclusions from the SEIR, and do not offer any comments on the adequacy of the analysis itself. With regard to comments referring to the EIR’s conclusions on traffic impacts, traffic is evaluated in detail in Section 3.6, Transportation. The evaluation assessed 31 intersections, 39 segments of I-580, 22 segments of I-680, 12 roadways, and three I-580 freeway ramps. The analysis found that the project would have a significant impact on certain intersection, freeway segment, and roadway segment operations. Mitigation was proposed for significant impacts; however, for certain intersections and roadways, the Draft SEIR concluded that traffic impacts would be significant and unavoidable because the mitigation measure is infeasible or its implementation is in the control of another agency. None of the comments challenge or dispute the analysis or conclusions in the SEIR on traffic impacts and mitigation. Because the letters do not specifically question the adequacy of the analysis of environmental impacts in the SEIR and only address the merits of the project, no responses to these comments are required under CEQA. These comments are provided at the end of Section 3, Responses to Written Comments. They will be part of the project record and presented to the City of Dublin decision- makers for consideration prior to acting on the proposed project. Master Response 2—Comments Raising Similar Issues Summary of Relevant Comments The City of Dublin received five letters that contained verbatim or near verbatim comments summarizing the SEIR’s conclusions regarding transportation and other environmental issues and expressing objection to the proposed project. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Master Responses Administrative Final SEIR 2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Response To the extent these letters do not specifically address environmental issues and the adequacy of the SEIR’s analysis, no responses to these comments are required under CEQA. To the extent environmental issues are referenced in the comments, these issues are addressed in the response to individual comment letters. Also, see Master Response 1 for comments addressing the transportation analysis. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS 3.1 - List of Authors A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft SEIR is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response. Additionally, the City of Dublin received 105 comments that commented on the project but did not provide comments on any aspect of the Draft SEIR’s analysis. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15003(g), which provides “The purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind”, copies of these letters are provided at the end of this section; however, because these letters do not contain comments specific to the analysis contained within the SEIR or any environmental issue, individual responses to these comments are not provided, but instead are addressed in Section 2, Master Responses. Author Author Code State Agencies California Department of Transportation ................................................................................. CALTR ANS Local Agencies Alameda County Transportation Commission .................................................................................. ACTC City of Pleasanton ............................................................................................................... PLEASANTON Dublin San Ramon Services District ............................................................................................... DSRSD Organizations/Multiple Parties Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo .................................................................................................... AB California Native Plant Society ......................................................................................................... CNPS Lozeau Drury ......................................................................................................................................... LD Individuals Tom Cignarella ...................................................................................................................... CIGNARELLA Liana deWit-Smith ............................................................................................................. DEWIT-SMITH Tammy Ficarra ............................................................................................................................ FICARRA Jeff Gebel ........................................................................................................................................ GEBEL Chenin Gonzales ...................................................................................................................... GONZALES John Heyer ...................................................................................................................................... HEYER Mike Kaube .................................................................................................................................... KAUBE Lianne Marshall ...................................................................................................................... MARSHALL City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Jegadheesa Murugesa ........................................................................................................... MURUGESA Chris Page ......................................................................................................................................... PAGE Feroza Solaiman ...................................................................................................................... SOLAIMAN Rupert Young ................................................................................................................................. YOUNG 3.2 - Responses to Comments 3.2.1 - Introduction In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Dublin, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the Draft SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2017082047) for the IKEA Retail Center Project, and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final SEIR for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. 3.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors. CALTRANS Page 1 of 3 1 2 2 CONT 3 4 5 CALTRANS Page 2 of 3 6 CALTRANS Page 3 of 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-7 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx State Agencies California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) Response to CALTRANS-1 The agency provided introductory remarks to open the letter. No response is necessary. Response to CALTRANS-2 The agency summarized the project. No response is necessary. Response to CALTRANS-3 Mitigation measures were identified to mitigate the project’s impacts to the freeway system, including preparation and implementation of a transportation demand management program (MM TRANS-4a) to reduce the overall vehicle trip generation from the levels considered in the analysis, and payment of all local and regional transportation impact fees. Local fees include improvements to City of Dublin streets and intersections, and regional fees include regional roadway facilities as well as a number of Caltrans facilities. (Please see Response to ACTC Comment 7 for additional details related to the fee programs that apply to this project.) Many of the improvements noted in the SHOPP program, which is referenced in Caltrans letter, are upgrades of existing facilities that do not meet current design standards, or roadway rehabilitation, which would not mitigate the project’s impacts to the freeway system. Caltrans should coordinate with the Tri-Valley Transportation Council to identify additional regional projects that could be included in the regional fee program, as well as develop an Integrated Corridor Management Plan for Interstate 580 (I-580) in the Tri-Valley area such that corridor improvements can be identified and programmed into the regional fee program. Caltrans prepared the Interstate 580 East Corridor System Management Plan in May 2010, which identifies a number of corridor improvements from I-880 to I-205. In the study area, none of the identified improvements would mitigate project impacts, with the exception of some interchange improvements, which have been incorporated into the regional fee program and already considered in the Draft SEIR findings. Response to CALTRANS-4 Please refer to Response to ACTC-3 and Response to ACTC-10. Response to CALTRANS-5 The agency noted that the City of Dublin is responsible for all project mitigation. Implementation and monitoring of mitigations will be identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted as part of the any Project approval. Response to CALTRANS-6 The agency provided closing remarks to conclude the letter. No response is necessary. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ACTC Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 ACTC Page 2 of 3 3 CONT 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ACTC Page 3 of 3 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-13 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Local Agencies Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) Response to ACTC-1 The agency provided introductory remarks to open the letter. No response is necessary. Response to ACTC-2 The City of Dublin has updated ACTC’s contact information to its project notification list and the agency received the notice of the availability of the Final SEIR and public meetings. Note that the Draft SEIR evaluated ACTC regional roadways in Section 3.6 (Transportation) in Impact TRANS-5, and, therefore, the City’s intent from the outset was to ensure that ACTC’s area of jurisdiction was addressed in the document. Response to ACTC-3 As part of Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a, the project applicant is required to prepare and implement a transportation demand management (TDM) plan with measures targeted to site employees as well as patrons. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin, and the project applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with developing, implementing and monitoring the plan. The plan will identify TDM goals and strategies for employees as well as patrons, with provisions for monitoring. Response to ACTC-4 An evaluation of the operations of the I-580 Express Lanes were not conducted as these lanes are dynamically priced to maintain free-flow operations. Any increase in the demand for this facility by the Project would be counterbalanced by an increase in pricing to maintain the same demand before and after the Project is built. Since the demand for the Express Lanes would remain the same before and after the Project due to dynamic pricing, demand changes from the Project only affect the general purpose lanes and these impacts and mitigations are covered in the SEIR. The SEIR assesses potential project impacts on State Route 84 (SR-84) between Airway Boulevard and I-680. SR-84 is referred to as Isabel Avenue between Airway Boulevard and Vallecitos Road, and as Vallecitos Road between Isabel Avenue and I-680. A significant impact was identified on Isabel Avenue (SR-84) between Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard in the year 2040, as presented on Draft SEIR page 3.6-164, and mitigation measures were identified. No additional analysis is required. Response to ACTC-5 The comment accurately describes Table ES-2. No additional response necessary. Response to ACTC-6 The agency is referring to the freeway analysis, which correlates freeway density to LOS. The Highway Capacity Manual (2010) states on page 11-7 that “LOS F is identified when demand exceeds capacity because the analytic methodology does not allow the determination of density when demand exceeds capacity.” Therefore, the actual density numbers are not provided. For freeway locations that are projected to operate at LOS F, significant impacts were identified where the project added trips to the location. Since the impact is not directly tied to the increase in density, the density calculations would not change the overall findings presented in the Draft SEIR. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-14 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to ACTC-7 The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (local) is calculated on a per average weekday vehicle trip basis. Funds deposited into the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee would be applied to improvements on local roads owned and maintained by the City of Dublin, including projects such as the Scarlett Drive Extension between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard. Detailed information about the program can be found on the City’s website: http://www.dublin.ca.gov/1330/Fee-Schedule. The Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fund (regional) is calculated from average peak-hour vehicle trips. Funds deposited into the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fund would be applied to planned improvements on the regional transportation system, such as improvements to SR-84, auxiliary lanes on I-680, and safety improvements on Vasco Road. Details regarding the program are provided on the Tri-Valley Transportation Council website: http://www.tvtc- jpa.com/getattachment/f2a953a0-7122-49de-8e69-d729654a5840/TVTC-Fee-Schedule.aspx. Mitigation Measure TRANS-4c is the fair share contribution towards the installation of an additional mixed-flow on-ramp lane from southbound Hacienda Drive to westbound I-580. The fair-share contribution will be calculated based on an estimate of the total project cost, the level of existing traffic (as the location is currently deficient), the projections of non-project added traffic, and the amount of project-added traffic. This improvement is not included in either the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee or the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fund. Should the project be added to either fee program, payment of fees would constitute a fair share contribution. Response to ACTC-8 Trip generation estimates for the IKEA portion of the project were developed based on surveys of three existing IKEA stores over multiple days. Trip generation estimates for the other retail uses were developed using trip generation rates in the Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, (9th Edition). Information contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook and surveys of similar uses were used to estimate pass-by and diverted-link trips for the general retail portion of the project only. For general retail, the average pass-by rate is 34 percent, and the average diverted linked trip rate is 16 percent during PM peak hour (limited data is available for the AM peak hour). In other words, at a typical shopping center, approximately 50 percent of the traffic entering and exiting the site is already on the surrounding roadway system. Studies have also shown shopping centers with more than 50 percent pass-by/diverted trips. For this assessment, it was assumed that pass-by/diverted trips for the retail/restaurant portion of the project would comprise 50 percent of the trip generation on a daily basis and 30 percent on a peak-hour basis. Pass-by/diverted trips are fully captured in the analysis of project site access locations, as well as on the deviated route. IKEA is not a typical retail store, as it attracts trips as their primary destination from a larger catchment area than typical retail centers. This creates the potential that some patrons who come to the site primarily for IKEA would also patronize the other retail/restaurant establishments. Internal capture rates from ITE for general retail land-uses (information is not available specifically for restaurant land-uses, but they are considered similar to the retail uses) estimate that at least 20 percent of retail patrons would already be at the site. For the purpose of the trip generation City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-15 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx estimate, it is expected that up to 20 percent of the restaurant/retail patrons would be at the site already patronizing the IKEA store, or other retail/restaurant use. This reduction was based on data and procedures contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, which yielded a higher than 20 percent internal reduction. To present a conservative assessment of potential project impacts, the internal reduction was capped at 20 percent. Since IKEA does not open until after the AM peak hour, internal capture reductions were not applied to the AM peak hour. As there is limited mid-day peak- hour trip generation information available, the weekday PM peak-hour trip generation was assumed for the midday time period. Response to ACTC-9 The City of Dublin has installed transit signal priority on Dublin Boulevard and plans to install transit signal priority at additional intersections along transit corridors to address bus delays for routes serving the project area. The City has constructed queue jump lanes on westbound Dublin Boulevard at Village Parkway, westbound Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road, eastbound Dublin Boulevard at Arnold Road, and on westbound Dublin Boulevard at Tassajara Road, providing an advantage to transit vehicles traveling through the corridor. The potential to construct queue jump lanes at other locations is also being evaluated by the City of Dublin along the corridor. All intersections along Dublin Boulevard (the Rapid Bus Route) are projected to operate at LOS E (the ACTC standard) or better with the incorporation of mitigation measures in the cumulative condition with the project, and most intersections are projected to operate at LOD D or better (the City of Dublin standard). With the availability of existing and planned queue jump lanes and existing transit signal priority, coupled with project mitigation measures which include installation of adaptive traffic signal control to provide better signal coordination along key corridors and intersection improvements, the project is not expected to add a significant amount of delay to transit vehicles on City streets. Express buses that use the freeway system are allowed to use the Express Lane that is dynamically priced to maintain free-flow travel. Although the mainline operation of express buses on I-580 would not be affected by the project, Route 580X does enter/exit the freeway at Hacienda Drive. There is a carpool bypass lane for bus vehicles entering the freeway, and the freeway ramp terminal intersections are projected to operate at acceptable service levels. Bus operations could be slowed in the freeway merge/diverge areas of I-580 westbound at Hacienda Drive during the morning peak hour (diverge area) and I-580 eastbound at the Hacienda Drive interchange in the weekday PM peak hour (merge area). These impacts were identified in the Draft SEIR and no additional analysis is required. The project impact on this segment of Hacienda Drive was identified as less than significant in the weekday AM peak hour. The 70X operates on I-680, north of I-580 where express lanes are provided. Similar to I-580, buses are permitted to use the Express Lanes where dynamic pricing maintains free-flow travel. Response to ACTC-10 The Draft SEIR addresses safety impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists on pages 3.6-168 to 3.6-170, which include mitigation measures that require the applicant to provide bicycle facilities connecting City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-16 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx to the project site, bicycle detection at intersections that provide primary access to the project site, safe and convenient pedestrian access to the project vicinity, even during construction, and contribute to pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the I-580/Hacienda Drive interchange. Additionally, mitigation measures that identified the need for roadway widening beyond the levels already contemplated and approved by the City of Dublin were reviewed for their secondary impact to pedestrians and cyclists. For example, potential secondary impacts to bicycles and pedestrians were identified with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-4c, which would widen the Hacienda Drive on-ramp to provide additional mixed-flow vehicle storage for vehicles could result in secondary impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists by increasing pedestrian crossing distances through the interchange, and bicycle/vehicle conflicts. Mitigation Measure TRANS-8e was then identified to mitigate the secondary impact. Response to ACTC-11 The agency provided closing remarks to conclude the letter. No response is necessary. PLEASANTON Page 1 of 3 1 2 PLEASANTON Page 2 of 3 3 4 PLEASANTON Page 3 of 3 4 CONT 5 6 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-21 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx City of Pleasanton (PLEASANTON) Response to PLEASANTON-1 The agency provided introductory remarks to open the letter. No response is necessary. Response to PLEASANTON-2 The agency listed six roadway facilities within the Pleasanton city limits and identified deterioration of level of service and lengthy queues as its primary concerns with these facilities. The City’s specific concerns are addressed in Response to PLEASANTON-3 through Response to PLEASANTON-5. Response to PLEASANTON-3 The I-580 at Santa Rita Road intersection is projected to operate at a deficient LOS F during the PM peak hour in the near-term condition prior to the addition of project traffic. Based on the significance criteria identified in the Draft SEIR, a significant impact was identified. In instances where the addition of project traffic exacerbates an existing or projected deficiency, it is City of Dublin policy to require a fair-share contribution to the improvement rather than construction of said improvement. In the cumulative condition, the project worsens Saturday peak hour LOS F conditions. The text of the Draft SEIR correctly identifies that the intersection would operate at LOS D with implementation of the improvements; Table 3.6-19 of the SEIR incorrectly indicates that the improvement would result in LOS E operations during the Saturday peak hour. This correction is noted in Section 4, Errata. However, the range of mitigation required to return the intersection to LOS D should have also included the following: either modifying the northbound approach to construct a third eastbound left-turn lane or modifying the southbound approach to provide a third southbound through lane, in addition to re-timing the traffic signal. Section 4 Errata shows the proposed edits to Mitigation Measure TRANS-2c. The effectiveness of modifying Mitigation Measure TRANS-2c to include constructing a third eastbound left-turn lane and associated receiving lane, or a third southbound through lane, is presented in Table 3-1 for the cumulative Saturday peak hour. As shown, the addition of this broader range of improvements would ensure that the project and cumulative impact is reduced to a less than significant level. As indicated in the Draft SEIR, the City of Dublin and the project applicant shall work with the City of Pleasanton, Caltrans, and ACTC to identify feasible improvements at this interchange and contribute their fair share. Table 3-1: Cumulative With Mitigation—Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control Peak Hour Cumulative Without Project Cumulative With Project Cumulative With Project With Draft SEIR Mitigation Cumulative With Project With Final SEIR Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp Signal Saturday 94.5 F 97.4 F 63.6 E 39.5 D Notes: Bold indicates LOS E/F; Bold italics indicates impacts due to the proposed project Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-22 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to PLEASANTON-4 Mitigation measures for freeway ramp meter impacts considered a tiered approach. The first tier determined whether increasing the ramp metering rates within the allowable range by Caltrans (180 to 900 vehicles per hour) would mitigate the impact. This mitigation is identified as Mitigation Measure TRANS-4b in the Draft SEIR and was found to mitigate the impact at the southbound Dougherty Road to I-580 westbound ramp and southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 eastbound ramp. Mitigation Measure TRANS-4b would also mitigate the impact at the southbound Hacienda Drive to westbound I-580 in the existing and near-term condition. Caltrans has agreed to work with the City of Dublin to evaluate ramp meter rates along the I-580 corridor. To accommodate cumulative growth, an additional mitigation measure, Mitigation Measure TRANS- 4c, that identifies the provision of a second mixed-flow on-ramp lane was required in the Cumulative condition for the southbound Hacienda Drive to westbound I-580 ramp. Mitigation Measure TRANS-4c in the Draft SEIR identifies the fair-share contribution to the construction of a second mixed-flow on-ramp lane from southbound Hacienda Drive to westbound 580. As this is an existing deficiency, fair-share payment towards improvements will be required in accordance with City of Dublin policy. Response to PLEASANTON-5 As part of the conditions of approval, the project applicant shall be required to prepare a transportation demand management plan that also identifies parking management strategies (refer to Response to ACTC-3 for additional detail). As part of the parking management program, strategies to accommodate special events and peak holiday-season parking demand will be developed and are expected to include provision for off-site employee parking at near-by office campuses on weekends, or valet parking. The project applicant shall be responsible for developing, financing, and implementing the plan, and for securing overflow parking agreements with adjacent property owners, if needed. Although parking is not a CEQA issue, the City recognizes that periods of peak parking demand can create excess vehicle circulation, congestion and driver frustration. The requirement to prepare a parking management plan as part of the conditions of approval, as well as provisions for plan monitoring, allows the City and project applicant to better peak travel flow to and around the project site. Response to PLEASANTON-6 The agency provided closing remarks to conclude the letter. No response is necessary. DSRSD Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 DSRSD Page 2 of 2 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-25 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Response to DSRSD-1 The agency provided introductory remarks to open the letter. No response is necessary. Response to DSRSD-2 The agency noted that Draft SEIR’s page ES-4 identified “Utilities (water and wastewater)” as an Area of Controversy. The agency indicated that the proposed project is within the DSRSD service area and noted that the Draft SEIR concluded that impacts on water and wastewater would be less than significant. The agency concurred with this conclusion. The “Areas of Controversy” portion of the Executive Summary is required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(2) and is intended to identify issues raised by agencies and the public. In this case, the City received numerous comments during the scoping process about the adequacy of infrastructure, which is the basis for identifying “Utilities (water and wastewater)” in this context. However, the Draft SEIR’s analysis found that impacts on water and wastewater were less than significant and DSRSD agrees with that conclusion. Response to DSRSD-3 The agency referenced the Impact PSU-5 conclusion that water supply impacts would be less than significant and clarified that even if it does not have adequate recycled water supplies or infrastructure to serve the proposed project’s irrigation needs, these needs can still be met with potable water. No response is necessary. Response to DSRSD-4 The agency referenced a statement on Draft SEIR page 3.5-11 about an important potable water facility being present in the corner of the project site along Arnold Road. The agency noted that this facility serves as a turnout (or connection point) between Zone 7 and DSRSD and that the operation of this facility cannot be restricted or hindered by construction or operation of the proposed project. DSRSD staff advised Dublin city staff and the applicant team of the significance of this facility during the September 7, 2017 scoping meeting and it was noted in the Draft SEIR on pages 2-1, 3.5-11, and 3.5- 25. As stated on page 3.5-25, implementation of the proposed project would not alter this facility. Response to DSRSD-5 The agency provided closing remarks to conclude the letter. No response is necessary. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK AB Page 1 of 96 1 March 16, 2018 Page 2 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper each of these reasons, the City of Dublin (“City”) may not approve the Project until a revised document is prepared and recirculated for public review and comment. These comments were prepared with the assistance of biological resources expert Scott Cashen and air quality experts Matt Hagemann and Hadley Nolan of Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”). Mr. Cashen’s comments are attached to this letter as Exhibit A and his curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit B. SWAPE’s comments are attached to this letter as Exhibit C, and Mr. Hagemann’s and Ms. Nolan’s curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit D. Mr. Cashen’s and SWAPE’s are submitted to the City in addition to the comments contained herein. The City must respond to these comments separately and individually. I. Statement of Interest Dublin Residents for Responsible Development (“Dublin Residents”) is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor unions that may be adversely affected by the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The association includes: City of Dublin residents Kris Gallegos, Art Mayberry, Joe Steiner, and Francisco Rosa; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 342, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and their members and their families; and other individuals that live and/or work in the City of Dublin and Alameda County. Individual members of Dublin Residents and the affiliated unions live, work, recreate and raise their families in Alameda County, including in the City of Dublin. These members would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Members of Dublin Residents may also work on the Project itself. Accordingly, these individuals will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards created by the Project. Dublin Residents has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live there. AB Page 2 of 96 1 CONT 2 March 16, 2018 Page 3 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper II. CEQA REQUIRES THE DISCLOSURE OF ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS AND THE INCORPORATION OF ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES NECESSARY TO REDUCE SUCH IMPACTS TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project.1 Except in certain limited circumstances, CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report (“EIR”).2 An EIR’s purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. In this respect, an EIR “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.”3 To fulfill this function, the discussion of impacts in an EIR must be detailed, complete, and “reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure.”4 CEQA requires an EIR to disclose all potential direct and indirect, significant environmental impacts of a project.5 In addition, an adequate EIR must contain the facts and analysis necessary to support its conclusions.6 The second purpose of CEQA is to require public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring appropriate mitigation measures and through the consideration of environmentally superior alternatives.7 If an EIR identifies potentially significant impacts, it must then propose and evaluate mitigation measures to minimize these impacts.8 CEQA imposes an affirmative obligation on agencies to avoid or reduce environmental harm by adopting feasible 1 CEQA Guidelines § 15002, subd. (a)(1). 2 See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code § 21100. 3 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. 4 CEQA Guidelines § 15151; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 721-722. 5 Pub. Resources Code § 21100, subd. (b)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2, subd. (a). 6 See Citizens of Goleta Valley 52 Cal.3d at 568. 7 CEQA Guidelines § 15002, subds. (a)(2)-(3); see also, Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, 400. 8 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21002.1, subd. (a), 21100, subd. (b)(3). AB Page 3 of 96 3 March 16, 2018 Page 4 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper project alternatives or mitigation measures.9 Without an adequate analysis and description of feasible mitigation measures, it would be impossible for agencies relying upon the EIR to meet this obligation. As discussed in detail below, the DSEIR fails to meet either of these two key goals of CEQA. The DSEIR fails to adequately and completely describe the Project and the Project setting and fails to disclose and evaluate all potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project. In addition, it proposes mitigation measures that are unenforceable, vague or so undefined that it is impossible to evaluate their effectiveness. A revised DSEIR must be prepared and recirculated to comply with CEQA’s most fundamental requirements. III. THE DSEIR FAILLS TO ESTABLISH THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE, EVALUATE, AND MITIGATE ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNFICANT IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A. The DSEIR Fails to Establish the Environmental Setting Resulting in an Inadequate Assessment of Potentially Significant Impacts to Biological Resources The DSEIR is legally inadequate because it fails to establish the environmental setting of the Project, resulting in inadequate disclosure and assessment of the Project’s potentially significant impacts on biological resources. The environmental setting, or baseline, refers to the conditions on the ground and is a starting point to measure whether a proposed project may cause a significant environmental impact.10 Describing the environmental setting is a prerequisite to an accurate and meaningful evaluation of the Project’s environmental impacts. Without this information, an appropriate analysis cannot be performed, effective mitigation cannot be designed, and alternatives cannot be developed. Furthermore, the failure to provide a proper baseline precludes the public from evaluating the scope of potential biological impacts that may result from Project-related activities. 9 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21002-21002.1. 10 Save Our Peninsula Com. v. Monterey Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 125. AB Page 4 of 96 3 CONT 4 March 16, 2018 Page 5 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper Here, the City’s biological resource analysis is based upon three “non- protocol” reconnaissance surveys of the project site. FirstCarbonSolution (“FCS”) biologists visited the Project site two times: once in spring 2016 and once and 2017.11 Additionally, the Biological Resources Assessment (“BRA”) attached to DSEIR was prepared by WRA, Inc. following a single site visit in August 2013.12 Neither the FCS nor the WRA visits included protocol-level surveys.13 As discussed in the attached expert comments of biologist Scott Cashen, these not protocol reconnaissance surveys were not adequate to establish the biological resources that may reside on or rely upon the habitat present on the Project site.14 As a result, the City lacks substantial evidence to support a determination that the proposed mitigation will be sufficient to reduce impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level. CEQA requires that the City collect sufficient facts to enable a complete and accurate description of the Project and its impacts.15 While a City has discretion to determine what surveys may be necessary to provide a complete and accurate description of the project setting, it must exercise that discretion such that its analysis and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. In the case at hand, additional surveys are necessary to determine if the DSEIR’s findings regarding the Project’s biological impacts and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation are supported by substantial evidence. 1. The DSEIR Fails to Disclose the Potential Presence of Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp The Project site lies within the Livermore Vernal Pool Region.16 Ephemeral pools in the Livermore Vernal Pool Region provide habitat for special-status branchiopods, including the vernal pool fairy shrimp and the California 11 DSEIR at p. 3.2-15. 12 DSEIR at Appendix C.1, p. iii (WRA, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment). 13 See DSEIR at pp. 3.2-15 – 3.2-16; Exhibit A, Scott Cashen, Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the “IKEA Retail Center Project”(March 15,2018 ) (“S. Cashen Comments”), p. 2. 14 S. Cashen Comments at p. 2. 15 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 22 Cal.App.3d 296, 311; see also Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404-05. 16 S. Cashen Comments at p. 5. AB Page 5 of 96 4 CONT 5 March 16, 2018 Page 6 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper linderiella.17 The DSEIR notes that the Project site contains seasonal wetlands or vernal pools.18 Based upon the information provided in the Wetland Delineation data sheets provided, biologist Scott Cashen was able to determine that the wetlands at the project site hold water long enough to provide habitat for the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp.19 The DSEIR does not evaluate, or even disclose, the potential presence of vernal pool fairy shrimp at the Project site. However, the Biological Resource Assessment notes that invertebrate shells from Ostracoda were detected in two of the wetlands in 2013.20 As Mr. Cashen explains, the presence of these ‘seed shrimp’ at the Project site provides substantial evidence that vernal pool fairy shrimp also may occur at the Project site.21 The failure to disclose the potential presence of vernal pool fairy shrimp thus amounts to a failure to establish the complete environmental setting for the Project, and prevents an evaluation of potential impacts to this special status species. Pursuant to mitigation incorporated into the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, species-specific surveys for special-status invertebrates in appropriate wetland habitats are required prior to approval of certain projects in the Reduced Planning Area.22 Here, the Project site is within the Reduced Planning Area subject to the survey requirements. However, the required surveys have not been performed. Instead, the BRA simply concluded that vernal pool fairy shrimp are “unlikely to occur in the Project Area due to the lack of vernal pool habitat and the area’s history of repeated discing, grading and leveling.”23 As a result, the DSEIR contains no discussion of vernal pool fairy shrimp. As Mr. Cashen explains, the BRA’s conclusion is not supported by evidence, and it is contradicted by scientific information on vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat.24 First, vernal pool fairy shrimp are not limited to “vernal pool” habitat; they also 17 Id. 18 DSEIR at p. 3.2-1. 19 S. Cashen Comments at p. 5. 20 DSEIR, Appendix C.1, Appendix B (Wetland Delineation Data Form for sampling date 11/5/2013). 21 S. Cashen Comments at p. 5. 22 City of Dublin. 1993. Addendum to Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. p. 22. 23 DSEIR, Appendix C.1 at p. 12. 24 S. Cashen Comments at pp. 5-6. AB Page 6 of 96 5 CONT March 16, 2018 Page 7 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper occur in vernal pool-like habitats.25 Indeed, vernal pool fairy shrimp occur in a wide range of habitats, including degraded or otherwise poor-quality habitats such as pools created by tire tracks and roadside ditches. In this case, the seasonal wetlands at the Project site provide potential habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp.26 Second, according to the Wetland Delineation, the wetlands at the Project site have experienced “little disturbance” since 2008.27 This contradicts the statement in the BRA that the wetlands are unlikely to provide habitat because they have been subject to repeated disking, grading, and leveling.28 Moreover, even disking, grading, and leveling do not preclude the potential presence of vernal pool fairy shrimp.29 For example, in Contra Costa County, over 100 vernal pool fairy shrimp were documented occurring in a “non-vegetated depression in dirt road along tracks—partially scraped by bulldozer,” and that had “routine vehicle traffic through [the] area.”30 In sum, because substantial evidence shows that potential habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp occurs on the Project site and no protocol-level surveys have been conducted to confirm or refute their presence, the DSEIR’s failure to include vernal pool fairy shrimp as among the special-status species at the Project site is not supported. This omission amounts to a failure to establish an accurate environmental setting in violation of CEQA, and prevents evaluation of a potentially significant impact to vernal pool fairy shrimp resulting from Project- related fill activities. 2. The DSEIR Fails to Disclose the Potential Presence of California Linderiella Like vernal pool fairy shrimp, the DSEIR fails to disclose the potential presence of California linderiella at the Project site, despite substantial evidence of their potential to occur. California linderiella occupy the same type of habitat as the vernal pool fairy shrimp.31 They have also been detected in seasonal wetlands 25 Id. at p. 6. 26 Id. at p. 6. 27 Id. 28 See also DSEIR at p. 3.2-1; S. Cashen Comments at p. 6. 29 S. Cashen Comments at p. 6. 30 Id. 31 Id. at p. 7. AB Page 7 of 96 5 CONT 6 March 16, 2018 Page 8 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper similar to those at the Project site.32 Mr. Cashen’s comments explain that California linderiella have the potential to occur on the Project site and that their potential presence should be disclosed in DSEIR.33 The DSEIR’s failure to disclose the potential presence of California linderiella violates CEQA by failing to establish an accurate and complete environmental setting. The failure to disclose the potential presence of California linderiella also results in a failure to evaluate potentially significant impacts to this species resulting from Project-related fill activities. 3. The DSEIR Fails to Provide Critical Information Regarding Burrowing Owls at the Project Site The DSEIR states that there is moderate potential for burrowing owls to occur at the Project site.34 However, the DSEIR fails to establish the scope of the burrowing owl population on the Project site, and fails to disclose the status and demography of the local and regional burrowing owl populations that may be affected by loss of this potential breeding and foraging habitat. The DSEIR also fails to accurately disclose the amount of burrowing owl habitat on the Project site, preventing a contextual assessment of impacts due to potential habitat loss. CEQA requires a sufficient description of the Project setting to adequately inform the public and decisionmakers of the potential impacts of the Project. An accurate project setting is also necessary to permit meaningful assessment of the sufficiency of proposed mitigation measures. Here, the DSEIR acknowledges that the site provides potential burrowing owl habitat, but the surveys necessary to establish the scope of burrowing owl use of the site were never conducted.35 Instead, the DSEIR’s discussion is based on reconnaissance-level surveys by FCS and WRA.36 As Mr. Cashen’s comments explain, burrowing owls are difficult to detect due to their cryptic coloration, extensive use of burrows, and tendency to flush (i.e., fly 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 DSEIR at p. 3.2-6. 35 S. Cashen Comments at p. 8. 36 Id. AB Page 8 of 96 6 CONT 7a March 16, 2018 Page 9 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper away) when approached.37 Because of these characteristics, researchers and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) have concluded that four independent surveys are necessary to provide reliable information on the presence of burrowing owls, and that data from the four surveys is essential to avoiding, minimizing, and properly mitigating the impacts of a project.38 For the Project here, Mitigation Measure BIO-1c requires the Applicant to retain a biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls prior to the first ground disturbing activities.39 Although CDFW guidelines do recommend “take avoidance” (i.e., pre-construction) surveys, the guidelines make it clear that such surveys are no substitute for the four “detection surveys” that are required to fully assess a project’s impacts and formulate appropriate mitigation.40 Because both FCS and WRA failed to implement the CDFW survey protocol during their site visits, the City lacks the information needed to fully disclose and evaluate the Project’s impacts to burrowing owls and to ensure effective mitigation. The need to establish the baseline population of burrowing owls on a site prior to assessing impacts and mitigation measures is emphasized in CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation: Adequate information about burrowing owls present in and adjacent to an area that will be disturbed by a project or activity will enable the Department, reviewing agencies and the public to effectively assess potential impacts and will guide the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. In short, it is not possible to fully and effectively assess the extent of the Project’s impacts on burrowing owls until surveys that adhere to CDFW guidelines have been conducted.41 Accordingly, the City must require the Applicant to conduct the protocol surveys described in CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report. The results of those surveys need to be released in a revised DSEIR so that they can be thoroughly 37 Id. 38 Id. 39 DSEIR at pp. 3.2-19 – 3.2-20. 40 S. Cashen Comments at p. 8 (citing California Department of Fish and Game (2012) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation). 41 Id. AB Page 9 of 96 7a CONT March 16, 2018 Page 10 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper vetted by the public, resource agencies, and decisionmakers as a part of the CEQA review process. Furthermore, the DSEIR’s description of the environmental setting is inadequate because it fails to disclose the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the Project site, as well as the amount of habitat that would be eliminated by the Project.42 Significantly, the DSEIR also fails to disclose the Project’s proximity to the important Camp Parks burrowing owl population and its importance to the continuing viability of burrowing owls in the region.43 This information is an essential component for the DSEIR because it, along with the scope of the population on the Project site, will enable the public and decisionmakers to evaluate the relative significance of the Project’s impacts to the overall burrowing owl population and to evaluate the sufficiency of the proposed mitigation. As Mr. Cashen’s comments explain, burrowing owl populations have declined dramatically in the San Francisco Bay Area since the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR was prepared.44 The species has been extirpated, or nearly extirpated, from six Bay Area counties (Napa, Marin, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and San Mateo).45 Although burrowing owls were once abundant throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties, they are now primarily limited to the eastern portions of those counties.46 Indeed, only two “large” breeding colonies of burrowing owls remain in Alameda County: one in the Altamont Hills, and the second in the Camp Parks area.47 The Project site is located at the periphery of the Camp Parks burrowing owl population, which is the last remaining large population of burrowing owls in the Livermore-Amador Valley.48 Because the Project would contribute to the further decline of burrowing owl habitat in the Camp Parks area – one of the few remaining core population areas in the region – the Project may have a significant effect on the overall persistence of burrowing owls in the region.49 42 See Id. at p. 9. 43 Id. at pp. 7, 9. 44 Id. at p. 7. 45 Id. 46 Id. 47 Id. 48 Id. 49 Id. at pp. 7-8. AB Page 10 of 96 7a CONT 7b March 16, 2018 Page 11 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper The City is required to disclose sufficient information to enable a complete assessment of whether additional mitigation is necessary due to the severity of impacts to a core population area. The DSEIR must be revised to establish and disclose the proximity and importance of the Camp Parks burrowing owl population so that the Project’s potential impacts to this core population area may be evaluated and appropriate mitigation identified. 4. The DSEIR Fails to Provide Information Regarding Special Status Plant Species That is Necessary to Assess Potential Impacts and the Effectiveness of Mitigation While the DSEIR acknowledges that Congdon’s Tarplant is known to occur on approximately 6.81 acres of the Project site,50 the document fails to disclose that other special status plant species may also occur. Because no protocol-level surveys were performed sufficient to determine whether other potentially-present special status plant species actually occur on the Project site, there is no basis to conclude that these other special status plants are not present.51 The failure to disclose the potential presence of these other species and the failure to perform surveys adequate to confirm the presence or non-presence of these species is a violation of CEQA. The DSEIR failures to inform the public and decisionmakers which plants may be impacted by the Project, the scope and significance of the plant population that may be impacted, and whether effective mitigation may be designed or alternatives should be considered. The DSEIR must be revised to adequately identify what special-status plant species may occur on the site, incorporate the results of protocol-level surveys for these plants, and identify appropriate mitigation requirements. In Mr. Cashen’s comments, he explains that at least two other special-status plant species are known occur at the Project site and neither are addressed in the DSEIR: (1) western dodder (Cuscuta occidentalis) and (2) Douglas' fiddleneck (Amsinckia douglasiana).52 These two plants are listed as plants observed at the Project site at the time of the WRA wetland delineation.53 Both of these species are locally rare (i.e., rank “A1” and “*A1x ” by the East Bay Chapter of the California 50 DSEIR at p. 2-1. 51 S. Cashen Comments at p. 3. 52 Id. at pp. 3-4. 53 DSEIR, Appendix C.1, Appendix A (BRA List of Observed Plant and Wildlife Species). AB Page 11 of 96 7b CONT 8a March 16, 2018 Page 12 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper Native Plant Society).54 Locally rare plant species with an “A” designation are considered special-status species under Sections 15380 and 15125(c) of the CEQA Guidelines. The presence of Douglas' fiddleneck at the Project site is especially significant because—until now—it was believed to be extirpated from Alameda and Contra Costa counties.55 Furthermore, the BRA dismissed the potential for saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum) and hairless popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys glaber) to occur at the Project site, though its conclusions are unsupported.56 According to the BRA, saline clover is unlikely to occur at the site because “[t]he existing grassland and seasonally wet depression habitat in the Project Area is heavily disturbed and of low quality.”57 Additionally, the BRA states that hairless popcorn flower is unlikely to occur at the Project site because “[t]his species is presumed extinct and has not been found since 1954.”58 Contrary to the statements in the BRA, however, Mr. Cashen explains that Saline clover has been detected in disturbed areas and “low quality” habitats.59 Saline clover is also known to occur in the Tassajara Area.60 Additionally, the BRA’s statement that hairless popcorn flower has not been found since 1954 is simply incorrect, as the species was rediscovered near Tassajara Road in Dublin during surveys conducted in 2002 and 2006.61 Accordingly, the DSEIR’s assumption that these plant species have no potential to be present on the Project site is not supported by substantial evidence. Data from focused surveys is necessary to fully disclose the existing conditions at the Project site, analyze the Project’s impacts, formulate appropriate mitigation, and develop possible alternatives. Deferring the surveys until after completion of the CEQA review process fails to fully disclose potential Project impacts on special status plants and precludes the public, resource agencies, and 54 S. Cashen Comments at p. 3. 55 Id. at p. 4. 56 DSEIR, Appendix C.1, Appendix B at pp. B-15, B-16 (Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Area); see also S. Cashen Comments at p. 4. 57 Id. at p. B-15. 58 Id. at p. B-16. 59 S. Cashen Comments at p. 4. 60 Id. at p. 5. 61 Id. at pp. 4-5. AB Page 12 of 96 8a 8b March 16, 2018 Page 13 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper scientific community from meaningful comment on these potential impacts, and precludes meaningful review of the Project’s impacts by decisionmakers exercising their discretion in approving entitlements and permits. 5. The DSEIR Fails to Establish Baseline Conditions for Special Status Bats at the Project Site The DSEIR identified three special-status bat species (pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and Yuma myotis) that have a moderate potential of roosting in the existing building at the Project site.62 As with the other special-status species, the Applicant did not conduct the necessary surveys to determine whether any bat species were in fact using the building as a roost site.63 The failure to establish baseline conditions precludes the public, resource agencies, and scientific community from being able to review and submit informed comments pertaining to the Project’s impacts and the sufficiency of proposed mitigation. B. The DSEIR Fails to Disclose, Evaluate, and Mitigate All Potentially Significant Impacts to Biological Resources 1. The DSEIR Fails to Evaluate and Mitigate Potential Impacts to Special Status Branchiopods As discussed in subsection (a)(1) above, the DSEIR fails to disclose that special status branchiopods including vernal pool fairy shrimp and California linderiella may be present in the seasonal wetlands at the Project site.64 As a result, the DSEIR also fails to evaluate the potential impacts that the Project may have on these special-status species and fails to identify any measures to mitigate potentially significant impacts. Because substantial evidence shows that potential habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp and California linderiella exists on the Project site, the DSEIR must be revised to disclose this information and evaluate potential impacts to these special status species.65 62 DSEIR at pp. 3.2-6, 3.2-11. 63 S. Cashen Comments at p. 8. 64 Id. at p. 9. 65 Id. AB Page 13 of 96 8b CONT 9 10 March 16, 2018 Page 14 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper 2. The DSEIR Fails to Evaluate and Mitigate All Potential Impacts to Burrowing Owls As discussed above, the DSEIR fails to adequately disclose the scope of burrowing owls and their habitat on the Project site. The DSEIR also fails to disclose the Project’s proximity to the critical Camp Parks burrowing owl population. As a result of these critical omissions, the DSEIR has failed to meaningfully evaluate and disclose the scope of potential impacts to burrowing owls from Project construction. Without such evaluation, it is impossible to fully assess the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. Furthermore, as Mr. Cashen’s comments demonstrate, the mitigation measures that are proposed are inadequate and do not support a finding that they would reduce Project impacts below a level of significance.66 i. The DSEIR Fails to Evaluate Impacts from Eviction The DSEIR fails to evaluate the potential impacts to burrowing owls from the proposed eviction of burrowing owls from their burrows. Additionally, the DSEIR fails to identify mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts of eviction to a less than significant level. Under CDFW guidelines, passive relocation or eviction is a potentially significant impact under CEQA that must be analyzed.67 The temporary or permanent closure of burrows may result in a variety of impacts to the species, including: (1) significant loss of burrows and habitat for reproduction and other life history requirements; (2) increased stress and reduced reproductive rates; (3) increased depredation; (4) increased energetic costs; and (5) risks posed by having to find and compete for available burrows.68 Moreover, because the DSEIR fails to provide a burrowing owl exclusion plan, or fundamental details contained in such plans (e.g., location of replacement burrows and compensation habitat, whether exclusion permitted during breeding season), it is not possible for the public, resource agencies, and decisionmakers to 66 Id. at pp. 9-10. 67 Id. at p. 10. 68 Id. AB Page 14 of 96 11 12 March 16, 2018 Page 15 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper evaluate the potential impacts to owls evicted from the Project site and the adequacy of the mitigation.69 The DSEIR must be revised to provide sufficient detail on proposed eviction activities to enable meaningful evaluation of impacts from these activities. ii. Protective Buffer Requirements Are Vague and Unenforceable In order for mitigation measures to be effective, they must be specific, enforceable, and feasible actions that will improve environmental conditions. In this case, the DSEIR’s direction to avoid disturbing or otherwise impacting occupied burrows to mitigate impacts to burrowing owls is vague and unenforceable.70 As result, the requirement does not provide substantial evidence that impacts will be mitigated below a level of significance. The DSEIR does not establish the minimum buffers that need to be implemented around burrows. Nor does the DSEIR establish monitoring that should be implemented to ensure burrowing owls are not disturbed by construction activities. The DSEIR’s direction to avoid burrowing owls should be revised to reflect CDFW guidelines, which indicate buffers may need to be up to 500 meters, depending on the time of year and level of disturbance.71 In the absence of greater specificity, it is purely speculative to assume that the proposed mitigation will reduce impacts below a level of significance. iii. The DSEIR Improperly Defers Mitigation The DSEIR violates CEQA by deferring specification of critical elements of the mitigation measures needed to reduce the Project’s potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls below a level of significance. Specifically, the DSEIR defers identifying: (1) a compensatory mitigation ratio; (2) the acceptable mitigation location and mechanism (e.g., habitat acquisition, purchase of credits at a mitigation bank, in-lieu fee, etc.);(3) site protection methods;(4) financial 69 Id. 70 DSEIR at p. 3.2-20. 71 S. Cashen Comments at p. 17. AB Page 15 of 96 12 CONT 13 14 March 16, 2018 Page 16 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper assurances;(5) performance standards; and (6) monitoring requirements.72 Instead, the DSEIR relies on the establishment of mitigation requirements in a future Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan, which is to be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities.73 Deferring formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies is generally impermissible.74 Mitigation measures adopted after Project approval deny the public the opportunity to comment on the Project as modified to mitigate impacts.75 Deferral of the specifics of mitigation is permissible only where the lead agency “commits itself to mitigation” and “lists the alternatives to be considered, analyzed and possibly incorporated in the mitigation plan.”76 If identification of specific mitigation measures is impractical until a later stage in the project, specific performance criteria must be articulated and further approvals must be made contingent upon meeting these performance criteria.77 The courts have held that simply requiring a project applicant to obtain a future report and then comply with any recommendations that may be based upon the report is insufficient to meet the standard for properly deferred mitigation.78 Here, the DSEIR’s proposed approach deprives the public of an opportunity to review and submit comments on fundamental aspects of the Project’s mitigation strategy prior to Project approval. Furthermore, neither the CDFW nor the City has an oversight approach to ensure compensatory mitigation is occurring.79 As Mr. Cashen’s comments explain, a 1:1 ratio is not likely to be sufficient to mitigate impacts below a level of significance in this case.80 This is due to the rapid decline of the Camp Parks population and the limited availability of compensation habitat to support that population.81 A project and region specific ratio is required 72 Id. 73 DSEIR at p. 3.2-20. 74 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309; Pub. Resources Code § 21061. 75 Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1393; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1604, n. 5 76 Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 793. 77 Id. 78 Id. 79 S. Cashen Comments at p. 17. 80 Id. at pp. 17-18. 81 Id. AB Page 16 of 96 14 CONT March 16, 2018 Page 17 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper in this case to support a finding that the mitigation ratio will reduce impacts below a significant level. In this case, a regional specific mitigation ratio for loss of burrowing owl habitat has already been established, yet was never disclosed or applied in the DSEIR. The Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (“EACCS”) establishes the standard for mitigation needed to conserve species and habitat in Eastern Alameda County. The EACCS requires compensatory mitigation for impacts to burrowing owl habitat to be within one-half mile of a burrowing owl nest used within the previous three years.82 Additionally, the EACCS establishes a standardized mitigation ratio of 3:1 (3.5:1 if the mitigation site is in a different core area).83 Anything lower cannot be assumed to reduce regional impacts to a less than significant level.84 The EIR should be revised to include a provision that compensatory mitigation shall be required for Project impacts to burrowing owls and their habitat at a minimum of the EACCS compensatory mitigation ratio standard for burrowing owls of 3:1 (3.5:1 if the mitigation site is in a different core area). By failing to identify the applicability of the EACCS mitigation requirements and failing to establish a performance standard based on regional mitigation needs, the DSEIR’s deferral of the specific mitigation ratio requirement violates CEQA and is not support by substantial evidence. 3. The DSEIR Fails to Adequately Evaluate and Mitigate Potential Impacts to Special Status Plants The DSEIR requires the Applicant to conduct a focused survey to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant prior to construction.85 If no special-status plant species are found during this pre-construction survey, then no additional mitigation measures for special status plants will be implemented. If Congdon’s tarplant is detected during the survey, additional mitigation requirements are triggered. 82 Id. at p. 18. 83 Id. 84 Id. 85 DSEIR at p. 3.2-18. AB Page 17 of 96 14 15 March 16, 2018 Page 18 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper The DSEIR’s proposed mitigation strategy is not sufficient to ensure impacts to special status plants species will be less than significant.86 First, the DSEIR does not require focused surveys or specify mitigation for any other special-status plant species that occur, or could occur, at the Project site. As a result, potentially significant impacts to all special-status plants besides Congdon’s tarplant remain unmitigated.87 Second, Congdon’s tarplant is already known to occur at the Project site, thus compensatory mitigation should not be contingent on future surveys. This is especially true for annual plants such as Congdon’s tarplant because the presence and abundance of annual plants can fluctuate dramatically from year to year due to climatic conditions.88 The absence of Congdon’s tarplant from the Project site during a preconstruction survey may be the result of adverse survey conditions rather than actual absence of the species, which may in turn cause potentially significant impacts to go unmitigated. Third, the DSEIR indicates that compensatory mitigation would not be required if activity exclusion zones can be installed around habitat occupied by Congdon’s tarplant during construction of the Project.89 However, based on the site plan, Mr. Cashen states that all existing plants will be directly or indirectly affected by the Project.90 Therefore, even if activity exclusion zones are feasible, the plant populations have no chance for long-term persistence at the site once the Project is operational. The DSEIR must be revised to address these deficiencies in the proposed mitigation strategy and ensure all potentially significant impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible. i. The DSEIR Defers Mitigation for Congdon’s Tarplant Impacts The DSEIR requires that the Applicant prepare a mitigation plan if impacts to Congdon’s tarplant cannot be avoided. The DSEIR states: 86 See S. Cashen Comments at p. 14. 87 Id. 88 Id. 89 DSEIR at pp. 3.2-18 – 3.2-19. 90 S. Cashen Comments at p. 14. AB Page 18 of 96 15 CONT 16 March 16, 2018 Page 19 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper A mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the Congdon’s tarplant, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations of Congdon’s tarplant.91 As proposed, the DSEIR improperly defers formulation of the mitigation plan without establishing fundamental aspects needed to ensure effectiveness and enforceability. Such fundamental aspects include: (1) the performance standards (or success criteria) for the proposed mitigation, (2) a definitive enforcement mechanism that ensures performance standards are met; (3) the contingency or remedial action measures that would be triggered if success standards are not achieved; (4) the measures that would be implemented to ensure the long-term protection and management of sensitive biological resources at mitigation sites; and (5) the required monitoring program, including the monitoring techniques, effort, and frequency.92 Because the DSEIR lacks these fundamental details, the City has failed to ensure that Project impacts to sensitive botanical resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.93 Furthermore, the DSEIR’s deferral of the mitigation plan is exacerbated by its failure to provide evidence that the proposed mitigation is feasible. As Mr. Cashen’s comments note, there do not appear to be any mitigation banks that sell credits for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant.94 Additionally, there do not appear to be any in-lieu fee programs that cover impacts to Congdon’s tarplant, and the DSEIR fails to provide evidence that sites suitable for acquisition exist.95 The City must produce a revised DSEIR to establish that the proposed mitigation is feasible. Specifically, the DSEIR should identify: (1) the potential mitigation sites, and status of Congdon’s tarplant at those sites; (2) the actual mitigation ratio proposed; (3) performance standards for the mitigation sites; (4) the required monitoring program; and, (5) measures that will be implemented to ensure 91 DSEIR at p. 3.2-19. 92 S. Cashen Comments at pp. 14-15. 93 Id. 94 Id. at p. 15. 95 Id. AB Page 19 of 96 16 March 16, 2018 Page 20 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper the long-term protection and management of Congdon’s tarplant populations at the mitigation site(s).96 Without such details, the DSEIR lacks substantial evidence to support a finding that the proposed mitigation will reduce impacts below a level of significance. ii. The Proposed Compensatory Mitigation is Vague and Inconsistent with the EACCS According to the DSEIR, the Congdon’s tarplant mitigation plan should incorporate a compensatory mitigation ratio of at least 1:1.97 However, the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (“EACCS”) establishes the standard for mitigation needed to conserve species and habitat in Eastern Alameda County, and the proposed mitigation ratio does not adhere to EACCS standards.98 The EACCS establishes a standardized mitigation ratio of 5:1 for impacts to focal plant species (e.g., Congdon’s tarplant).99 Notably, the 1:1 ratio proposed in the DSEIR is not even consistent with other projects in the City of Dublin. For example, the City is requiring a 5:1 ratio for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant at the nearby Zeiss Innovation Center Project site.100 The DSEIR offers no explanation as to why a 5:1 ratio was needed to mitigate impacts at the Zeiss project site but the Project site here only requires a 1:1 ratio. Because the DSEIR fails to include a sufficiently detailed mitigation strategy, and because the measures listed in the DSEIR do not comply with the EACCS, the City has failed to provide substantial evidence that the Project’s impact to Congdon’s tarplant and other special-status plant species would be reduced to a less than significant level. 4. The DSEIR Fails to Adequately Evaluate and Mitigation Potential Impacts to Special Status Bats The DSEIR’s proposed mitigation measures fail to ensure that the Project’s impacts to special status bats are mitigated to a less than significant level. The 96 Id. 97 DSEIR at p. 3.2-19. 98 S. Cashen Comments at p. 15. 99 Id. 100 Id. AB Page 20 of 96 16 CONT 17 18 March 16, 2018 Page 21 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper DSEIR proposes the following mitigation for potentially significant impacts to special-status bat species: Pre-removal bat surveys of the existing on-site building shall occur no more than 30 days before its removal. If bats are found, then a qualified biologist shall develop an appropriate relocation plan consistent with USFWS, CDFW, and East Alameda County Conservation Strategy standards and policies.101 However, the DSEIR fails to identify the survey techniques that should be implemented for the pre-removal surveys, and it is unclear that the listed standards and policies even exist.102 As Mr. Cashen explains, establishing the required survey techniques for special status bat species is a necessary prerequisite to ensuring that potential impacts to bat species are identified and mitigated.103 First, bat detection often requires specialized techniques, and a technique that is effective for one species may be completely ineffective for other species.104 Second, pallid bats and Townsend’s big-eared bats are extremely sensitive to human disturbance, and human disturbance may cause the colony to abandon the roost (which contributes to population declines).105 Third, the establishment of minimum qualifications for the biologist conducting the pre-removal surveys fails is necessary to ensure the surveys will be effective and avoid additional impacts to the species.106 Because the DSEIR fails to establish critical performance standards for ensuring future surveys will be effective, the DSEIR’s conclusion that such surveys will reduce impacts below a level of significance is not supported by substantial evidence. Suitable roost sites are the limiting factor for most bat populations.107 The DSEIR does not require the Applicant to provide replacement roosts as compensation for impacts to potential roosts at the Project site. Therefore, even if the bats are properly excluded from the existing on-site building, they may not have a suitable alternate roost in the vicinity, and the local population may be 101 DSEIR at p. 3.2-20 – 3.2-21. 102 See S. Cashen Comments at p. 19. 103 Id. at pp. 18-19. 104 Id. at p. 18. 105 Id. 106 Id. 107 Id. at p. 19. AB Page 21 of 96 18 CONT March 16, 2018 Page 22 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper extinguished.108 This constitutes a potentially significant impact that remains unmitigated. Without ensuring that suitable replacement roosts will be available, the DSEIR lacks substantial evidence to support its finding that the proposed mitigation strategy will reduce impacts below a level of significance. 5. The DSEIR Fails to Adequately Evaluate Cumulative Impacts of the Project The DSEIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources fails to satisfy the requirements of CEQA for several reasons. First, the DSEIR fails to define the geographic scope of the City’s cumulative impacts analysis beyond that it includes “the region surrounding the project site.” This description is too vague to understand the geographic scope of the analysis and prevents the public from assessing the conclusions presented in the DSEIR. Second, the list of cumulative projects provided in the DSEIR omits the Zeiss Innovation Center Project, which is located approximately 700 feet north of the Project site. The Zeiss Innovation Center Project would impact many of the same biological resources as the proposed Project, including Congdon’s tarplant, seasonal wetlands, burrowing owl (and other raptor) habitat, and potential habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp and California linderiella. Third, the DSEIR concludes the Project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on special-status plant species would be less than cumulatively considerable because Congdon’s tarplant would be relocated if it is found on the Project site during preconstruction surveys. However, there is no basis for this conclusion because the DSEIR does not require (or propose) relocation of Congdon’s tarplant as mitigation. Further, the DSEIR’s conclusion is not justified because the DSEIR fails to incorporate mitigation for the numerous other special-status plant species that occur, or could occur, at the Project site. Fourth, the DSEIR acknowledges the Project would (or could) impact wetlands, special-status plants (Congdon’s tarplant), and special-status animals (nesting birds, burrowing owl, bats). However, the DSEIR fails to provide any actual 108 Id. AB Page 22 of 96 18 CONT 19 March 16, 2018 Page 23 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper analysis of cumulative impacts to these resources, including whether cumulative impacts to these specific resources would be significant. As Mr. Cashen points out: 1. None of the biological resource mitigation measures are designed to alleviate the cumulative impact; all three mitigation measures are specific to the Project site and to Project activities and do not address the cumulative impact posed by other projects. 2. Habitat loss, including the incremental loss of habitat from numerous small projects, is the greatest threat to most special-status species. The DSEIR does not require habitat compensation for all of the special-status species that would (or could) be affected by the Project. As a result, the Project’s contribution to the cumulatively significant loss of habitat would not be mitigated.109 Mr. Cashen concludes that the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to the burrowing owl and Congdon’s tarplant would be cumulatively considerable.110 Furthermore, the Project may have cumulatively considerable impacts to other species as well (e.g., vernal pool fairy shrimp, special- status bats), but DSEIR’s omission of baseline data pertaining to the presence of such species on the Project site prevents such a determination.111 C. The DSEIR Fails to Adequately Mitigate Potential Impacts to Wetlands and Improperly Defers Mitigation The DSEIR includes two measures to mitigate potential impacts to wetlands. First, Mitigation Measure BIO-3a requires the Applicant to complete an updated wetland delineation to determine if the wetlands at the Project are subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Second, Mitigation Measure BIO-3b requires the Applicant to acquire appropriate permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the USACE if the wetlands are determined to be subject to USACE jurisdiction, and to obtain Section 401 certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board 109 Id. at p. 13. 110 Id. at pp. 13-14. 111 Id. AB Page 23 of 96 19 CONT 20 March 16, 2018 Page 24 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper (“RWQCB”). BIO-3b further requires the Applicant to prepare a wetland mitigation plan to be approved by the USACE and RWQCB. Specifically: A mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. Specifically, a wetland mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented that includes creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment of an endowment for the long-term management of the site.83 On the basis of these two mitigation measures, the DSEIR concludes the Project’s impacts to wetlands would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The DSEIR’s conclusion that impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance is not supported by substantial evidence for two reasons: First, the DSEIR impermissibly defers analysis and critical aspects of the wetlands mitigation strategy. Under CEQA, the City is obligated to identify the specific mitigation needed to mitigate Project impacts to less-than-significant levels. This includes the specific mitigation strategy, mitigation ratio, monitoring program, and performance standards and that will be implemented to ensure the Project would have less-than-significant impacts on the environment. Contrary to what the DSEIR suggests, the City cannot rely on deferred mitigation and the permitting requirements of other agencies to conclude impacts to wetlands would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Second, compliance with regulatory permits provides no assurances that Project impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would be less-than-significant.112 To the contrary, numerous studies have demonstrated that many compensatory mitigation projects permitted under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act are not achieving the goal of “no overall net loss” of wetland acres and functions.113 112 Id. at pp. 20-21. 113 Id. AB Page 24 of 96 20 CONT March 16, 2018 Page 25 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper IV. THE DSEIR’S CONCLUSION THAT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE The DSEIR explains that Project emissions were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (“CalEEMod”).114 When modeling a project’s emissions, CalEEMod provides the user with recommended default values based on information such as land use type, meteorological data, project type, and typical equipment associated with the project type.115 The user may replace default values when more site-specific information is available. However, CEQA requires that any changes to CalEEMod defaults must be supported by substantial evidence.116 CalEEMod generates “output files” for each model that reveal to the viewer the parameters used when creating a given model. We retained SWAPE to review the CalEEMod output files generated for the Project. In reviewing the CalEEMod output files, SWAPE found several of the input parameters used to be inconsistent with information disclosed in the DSEIR.117 As further explained in the attached SWAPE letter, these changes resulted in an underestimation of the Project’s construction and operational emissions.118 Because the DSEIR fails to accurately disclose and analyze the Project’s air quality impacts, the DSEIR’s conclusions that air quality impacts from Nitrogen Oxides (“NOx”) emissions during Project construction and operations will be less than significant are not supported by substantial evidence. A revised DSEIR must be prepared to include an air quality analysis that accurately discloses and evaluates the air quality impacts of the Project. 114 DSEIR at p. 3.1-1. 115 SWAPE Comments at p. 2 116 See CalEEMod 2012.2.2 User’s Guide, p. 9 (July 2013), available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6; SWAPE Comments at p. 2. 117 SWAPE Comments at p. 2. 118 Id. AB Page 25 of 96 21 March 16, 2018 Page 26 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper A. The DSEIR Emission Estimates Fail to Account for Materials Export Hauling Trips In reviewing the CalEEMod output files, SWAPE first found that the DSEIR’s emissions estimates do not account for emissions from materials hauling trips that the DSEIR states will occur during the grading phase.119 According to the DSEIR, the proposed project’s grading activities would involve 95,000 cubic yards of cut and 73,700 cubic yards of fill. Thus, 21,300 cubic yards would be exported off- site.” However, SWAPE’s review of the CalEEMod output files found that the Project’s construction-related emissions assume zero hauling truck trips will occur during the grading phase.120 In CalEEMod modeling, hauling truck trips are estimated based on the total amount of material that will be imported or exported and assuming that a single hauling truck can transport 16 cubic yards of material per trip.121 CalEEMod calculates the number of hauling truck trips assuming that each hauling truck will have 2 one-way trips (e.g., a hauling truck importing material will have a loaded arrival trip and an empty return trip, while a hauling truck exporting material will have an empty arrival trip but a loaded departure trip).122 Accordingly, the DSEIR should have modeled the Project’s emissions assuming that there would be a total of 2,662 (2 x 1,331 hauling trips) trips in order to account for the 2 one-way truck trips.123 As noted above, SWAPE’s review of the output files found that zero hauling truck trips are accounted for in the DSEIR’s CalEEMod model, and no explanation is provided as to why hauling trips would not occur for the off-site soil exports.124 Because the Project’s CalEEMod model assumes no hauling truck trips would occur during the grading phase of construction, SWAPE explains that that the DSEIR’s CalEEMod model underestimates the actual emissions that will be generated during construction activities.125 NOx and fugitive dust emissions are generated as a result of haul truck trips.126 In this case, the DSEIR’s air quality 119 Id. at pp. 2-3. 120 Id. at p. 2. 121 Id. at p. 3. 122 Id. 123 Id. 124 Id. at p. 2. 125 Id. at pp. 3-4. 126 Id. at p. 3. AB Page 26 of 96 22 March 16, 2018 Page 27 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper analysis shows that the Project’s construction NOx emissions are just below the BAAQMD threshold of significance (52.44 lbs/day compared to 54 lbs/day) after mitigation.127 SWAPE concludes that the inclusion of the omitted haul truck trips would very likely result in Project construction emissions exceeding the BAAQMD threshold of significance for NOx based on the total number of truck trips excluded.128 Because the DSEIR’s emission model fails to account for the haul truck trips disclosed in the DSEIR, the Project’s construction emissions are underestimated and the City’s conclusion that impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance is not supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, substantial evidence supports a finding that the Project’s construction emissions will exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance. A revised DSEIR should be prepared to accurately disclose, evaluate, and mitigate the Project’s construction emission impacts. B. The DSEIR Emission Estimates Fail to Account for All Daily Vehicle Trips In reviewing the CalEEMod output files, SWAPE found that the DSEIR’s emissions calculations underestimate the number of daily vehicle trips during Project operations.129 As a result of this miscalculation, the Project’s operational emissions are underestimated and not supported by substantial evidence, and therefore cannot be relied on to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts.130 According to DSEIR Appendix B, the Project would generate a total of 16, 898 vehicle trips per day.131 However, Appendix B Table 10 erroneously represents that the total number of project vehicle trips would be 16,840 per day.132 The latter figure was used in the CalEEMod model to estimate emissions from Project operations.133 As a result of this miscalculation, SWAPE found that the emissions 127 DSEIR at pp. 3.1-44 – 3.1-45. 128 SWAPE Comments at p. 4. 129 Id. at pp. 6-7. 130 SWAPE Comments at p. 8. 131 DSEIR, Appendix B, p. 29, Table 10; see also SWAPE Comments at pp. 6-7. 132 Id. 133 SWAPE Comments at p. 7. AB Page 27 of 96 22 CONT 23 March 16, 2018 Page 28 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper model underestimates the number of daily trips by approximately 60 trips per day, or 21,900 vehicle trips per year.134 As SWAPE explains by underestimating the total number of vehicle trips expected to occur during Project operations, the DSEIR underestimates the Project’s operational mobile-source emissions.135 Moreover, this underestimation is important because the CalEEMod files demonstrate that the Project’s mitigated emissions are close to the BAAQMD’s significance threshold for operational NOx emissions.136 The DSEIR shows that the Project’s mitigated operational emissions would result in a maximum daily emission of approximately 51.54 lbs/day of NOx, or approximately 2.5 pounds below the BAAQMD’s NOx significance threshold of 54 lbs/day.137 However, because the DSEIR’s CalEEMod model underestimates the number of operational daily vehicle trips by 60 trips per day or 21,900 trips per year, SWAPE concludes it is possible that the Project’s NOx emissions would in fact exceed this threshold.138 By failing to include total number of vehicle trips expected to occur during Project operations, the DSEIR underestimates the Project’s operational mobile source emissions.139 For this reason, the DSEIR’s emissions estimates are inaccurate and not supported by substantial evidence. New modeling must be performed to accurately disclose and evaluate the Project’s operational emissions, and to evaluate compliance with the applicable thresholds of significance. V. THE DSEIR’S DETERMINATION THAT GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE In an attempt to analyze the potential impacts of the Project’s operational greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, the DSEIR employs two thresholds of significance – one for operational emissions in the year 2020, and another for operational emissions after the year 2020.140 For the Project’s anticipated opening 134 Id. 135 Id. 136 Id. 137 DSEIR at p. 3.1-46. 138 SWAPE Comments at p. 8. 139 Id. at p. 6. 140 DSEIR, pp. 3.1-59 – 3.1-67. AB Page 28 of 96 23 CONT 24 March 16, 2018 Page 29 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper year, 2020, the DSEIR relies on an assessment of the Project’s consistency with the City of Dublin’s 2013 Climate Action Plan Update (“CAP”). Under this threshold, the DSEIR concludes that GHG emissions from operation of the project in the year 2020 will be less than significant because the Project complies with the applicable CAP measures for meeting 2020 GHG reduction goals. It is estimated that the Project will not commence operations until at least December 2020, however, meaning that the DSEIR’s CAP analysis only supports a determination for one month of operations and does not address operational emissions for the whole of the Project’s expected lifespan.141 Because the CAP does not provide a plan for meeting GHG reduction goals beyond 2020, the DSEIR uses a separate “business as usual” (“BAU”) GHG threshold for Project emissions after 2020 that is based on the Senate Bill (“SB”) 32 2030 statewide GHG reduction goal. This secondary threshold, however, is identical to the threshold of significance that was struck down by the California Supreme Court struck down in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“Newhall”) and is not supported by substantial evidence.142 The DSEIR’s BAU threshold assumes that operational emissions after 2020 would not be significant if the Project’s 2030 emissions would be “40 percent below 1990 levels consistent with SB 32.”143 The DSEIR concludes that the Project’s 2030 operational GHG emissions would be more than 40 percent below 1990 business as usual emissions and thus operational emissions after 2020 would have a less than significant impact on global climate change.144 The DSEIR, however, offers no evidence to support its conclusion that impacts would be less than significant solely because the Project will reduce emissions from a business-as-usual scenario by a percentage that exceeds the statewide emissions targets in SB 32. Because the DSEIR’s use of the SB 32 2030 statewide GHG BAU reduction goal as a threshold of significance for project-level impacts is not supported by substantial evidence, its finding that the Project’s post 2020 operational emissions would be less than significant also is not supported by substantial evidence. 141 See CEQA Guidelines §15378(a) (requiring evaluation of all impacts that make up the “whole” of the project); see also Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles (“NRDC v. LA”) (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 268. (CEQA requires examination of the environmental impacts of “the entire project, from start to finish”). 142 Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204. 143 DSEIR, p. 3.1-61. 144 DSEIR, p. 3.1-63. AB Page 29 of 96 24 CONT March 16, 2018 Page 30 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper Rather than using inapplicable and disapproved thresholds of significance, the DSEIR should have applied the GHG thresholds set by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”). As discussed below, the project’s operational emissions greatly exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for operational GHG emissions. Accordingly, the DSEIR must be revised to disclose this impact and to impose all feasible mitigation. A. The Determination that GHG Impacts Are Less Than Significant Because the Project Will Comply with the City of Dublin CAP Is Not Applicable to the Whole of the Project In Impact Air-7, the DSEIR considers whether the Project is consistent with the City of Dublin CAP to assess the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions for its opening year, 2020.145 This plan consistency approach is based on CEQA Guidelines sections 15064, 15130, and 15183.5, which together provide that public agencies may analyze and mitigate significant GHG emissions in a qualified reduction plan and later tier from that analysis when considering individual projects. Lead agencies may determine that an individual project’s contribution to global climate change is not cumulatively significant if the project complies with an adopted GHG reduction plan under specified circumstances.146 Guidelines section 15183.5 subdivision (b)(1) sets forth the recommended steps for agencies preparing such plans: (A)Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; (B)Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; (C)Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; 145 DSEIR, pp. 3.1-65-3.1-67. 146 Guidelines §15183.5(b) AB Page 30 of 96 24 CONT 25 March 16, 2018 Page 31 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper (D)Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; (E)Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; (F) Be adopted in a public process following environmental review. BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines also endorse the use of a GHG reduction plan consistency analysis where appropriate and “recommend[] the Plan Elements in the state CEQA Guidelines as the minimum standards to meet the GHG Reduction Strategy Thresholds of Significance option.”147 Finally, Guidelines section 15064 subdivision (h)(3) specifies that such GHG reduction plans “must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process . . . .” As explained in the DSEIR, the City’s CAP satisfies the above requirements and constitutes a qualified GHG reduction plan for purposes of CEQA for activities through 2020.148 However, activities and GHG emissions after 2020 are not covered by the City’s CAP. Guidelines section 15183.5 subdivision (b)(1)(B) provides that consistency with GHG reduction plans may only be used as a threshold for “activities covered by the plan.” Because the plan does not establish GHG reduction goals for emissions after 2020, it does not cover activities or emissions after 2020 and is not applicable to the Project’s post-2020 operational emissions. The current CAP includes a total of 45 measures that the City determined would achieve its 2020 target of “15% below 2010 emissions levels by 2020.”149 The CAP explains that implementation of the plan’s measures and the reduction target will reduce the impact from covered activities to a less than significant level.150 147 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (May 2017) p. 4-8. 148 DSEIR at p. 3.1-65. 149 City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update (July 2013), p. 24 (“CAP”). 150 CAP at p. 6. AB Page 31 of 96 25 CONT March 16, 2018 Page 32 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper However, because the current CAP was prepared to achieve the City’s 2020 reduction target only, it does not address activities, emission levels or reductions required beyond that year. More importantly, the CAP does not provide any evidence that compliance with the plan’s measures will reduce the impact from covered activities to a less than significant level beyond 2020. For that reason, the DSEIR correctly finds that the current CAP “does not contain adequate reduction measures to reduce California’s GHG emissions to the AB197 and SB32 targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.”151 Reliance on a CAP consistency threshold for post-2020 emissions would also be flawed because the CAP no longer reflects prevailing scientific knowledge on climate change. CEQA requires a lead agency to evaluate effects based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data.152 As stated above, the DSEIR acknowledges that the current CAP does not include sufficient measures to ensure reductions consistent with SB 32.153 The targets of SB 32 were adopted in accordance with current scientific understanding of human contributions to climate change. , “They represent benchmarks, consistent with prevailing climate science, charting an appropriate trajectory forward that is in line with California’s role in stabilizing global warming below dangerous thresholds.”154 The “2030 target reflects the same science that informs the agreement reached in Paris by the 2015 Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aimed at keeping the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius (°C).”155 These targets are set to avoid California’s activities “contributing to an escalation of serious problems, including raging wildfires, coastal erosion, disruption of water supply, threats to agriculture, spread of insect-borne diseases, and continuing health threats from air pollution” that rising temperatures create. 156 151 DSEIR at p. 3.1-60. 152 See 14 C.C.R. § 15064.4; see also Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assoc. of Govts. (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 497, 518-519. 153 DSEIR, p. 3.1-60. 154 California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, California Air Resources Board (Nov. 2017) p. ES3. 155 Id. at 2. 156 Id. at p. ES2. AB Page 32 of 96 25 CONT March 16, 2018 Page 33 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper Because the CAP is based on meeting pre-AB 32 2020 GHG reduction targets, the CAP fails to incorporate sufficient measures to ensure covered projects do not contribute to the significant effects the targets of SB 32 were adopted to prevent.157 For the above reasons, consistency with the CAP was not relied upon (and could not be relied upon) by the DSEIR to support a finding that the Project’s post- 2020 GHG operational emissions would be less than significant. The DSEIR states that the Project is scheduled to open in December 2020 – but this assumes no unexpected delays. Accordingly, the Project will only have one month of 2020 operational emissions at the most, and potentially no 2020 emissions at all. Practically all of the Projects emissions will, instead, occur from 2021 to 205 (assuming a 30 year lifespan).158 The Project will continue to operate and contribute to GHG emissions for decades to come. As a result, the determination that the Project’s operational GHG emissions in 2020 would be less than significant has no relevance to the significance of impacts from GHG emissions during the overwhelming majority of the Project’s operational life. CEQA requires that lead agencies consider long term impacts for projects with long term operations, particularly in the context of GHG emissions.159 Relying on a project’s emissions at one point in time does not meet CEQA’s requirement to assess all foreseeable impacts. Indeed, the California Supreme Court addressed this point in Newhall, noting that “over time consistency with the year 2020 goals will become a less definitive guide, especially for long term projects that will not begin operations for several years.” Here, the DSEIR’s conclusion that the Project will not result in significant impacts for the year 2020 on the grounds it is consistent with the City’s CAP does not support a determination that the Project will not result in significant greenhouse gas impacts over its operational lifespan. 157 Cleveland National Forest Foundation, 3 Cal. 5th at 519 (“CEQA requires public agencies . . . to ensure that [greenhouse gas impact] analysis stay in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.”) 158 The IKEA store in Emeryville, California, for example, is already in its 19th year of operation with no announced plans for closure anytime soon. Emeryville Today – 1990s to 2000s, City of Emeryville, https://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/663/Emeryville-Today-1990s-to-2000s (Noting Emeryville IKEA opened in April 2000). 159 See CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2 (discussing impacts both during the “initial and continued phases of the project”); see also Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles (“NRDC v. LA”) (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 268 (CEQA requires examination of the environmental impacts of “the entire project, from start to finish”). AB Page 33 of 96 25 CONT March 16, 2018 Page 34 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper B. The Determination that Long-Term GHG Emissions Are Less Than Significant Is Not Supported By Substantial Evidence In recognition of the limits of a CAP consistency analysis is this case, the DSEIR uses a second threshold of significance for operational GHG emissions after 2020. While the DSEIR’s characterizes the analysis for 2030 as a “City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis,” the threshold it applies is a SB 32 2030 statewide GHG BAU reduction goal consistency threshold. The DSEIR bases this analysis on a direct comparison of the Project’s estimated reductions from a 2000 BAU scenario to the 2030 statewide emission reduction target set in SB 32.160 In this respect, the DSEIR employs the exact same methodology the California Supreme Court struck down in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“Newhall”). Furthermore, like in that case, the DSEIR’s assumption that impacts would be less than significant based on consistency with a statewide (rather than a project-specific) goal is not supported by substantial evidence. In Newhall, the California Supreme Court squarely addressed the issue of using statewide GHG emission reduction targets as a threshold of significance for purposes of CEQA.161 In that case, the project at issue, Newhall Ranch, was a large development that included residential, community, and commercial uses to be developed on nearly 12,000 acres near the City of Santa Clarita. To assess the project’s GHG emissions the Newhall EIR considered whether the proposed Project’s emissions .would impede the State of California’s compliance with the statutory 2020 emissions reduction mandate established by AB 32.162 Relying on a similar “business-as-usual” or “BAU” methodology as the DSEIR uses here, the Newhall EIR concluded that: Because the EIR’s estimate of actual annual project emissions . . . is 31 percent below its business-as-usual estimate . . . , exceeding the Air Board’s determination of a 29 percent reduction from business as usual needed statewide, the . . . project’s likely greenhouse gas emissions will not impede 160 DSEIR, p. 3.1-63, Table 3.1-21: City of Dublin CAP Consistency Analysis – Operational Year 2030. The statewide targets of AB 197 and SB32 are not a climate action plan or a qualified greenhouse reduction plan and a direct comparison between anticipated project emissions and the reduction targets is not a “CAP Consistency Analysis.” See Guidelines § 15183.5. Furthermore, the City of Dublin CAP only addresses a 2020 reduction target. 161 Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204. 162 Id. at p. 218. AB Page 34 of 96 26 March 16, 2018 Page 35 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper achievement of A.B. 32’s goals and are therefore less than significant for CEQA purposes.163 In Newhall, the California Supreme Court concluded that assessing a project’s consistency with statewide GHG reduction goals is not per se prohibited under CEQA, but that such an assessment required substantial evidence and analysis demonstrating that such a consistency comparison was applicable. The Newhall decision held that, in that case, the EIR failed to provide substantial evidence “that Newhall Ranch’s project-level reduction of 31 percent in comparison to business as usual is consistent with achieving A.B. 32’s statewide goal of a 29 percent reduction from business as usual . . . .”164 The EIR provided no evidence to support finding that the “required percentage reduction from business as usual is the same for an individual project as for the entire state population and economy.”165 The Court held that a straight-line comparison between statewide reduction goals and project-specific reductions from BAU, without more, does not support a conclusion that project emission will result in a less than significant impact. Here, the DSEIR employs the exact same unsubstantiated methodology that the Court struck down in Newhall. The DSEIR states that “[t]he proposed project would meet the 40 percent reduction requirement over year 1990 by 2030, as required by AB 197 and SB 32.”166 Because of the Project’s estimated reduction over the BAU scenario, the DSEIR concludes that impacts from GHG emissions would be less than significant for the year 2030. The DSEIR’s analysis thus completely ignores the Supreme Court’s guidance in Newhall and employs the same flawed approach of directly comparing the Project’s anticipated reduction from BAU to the percentage of statewide reductions required under SB32. Furthermore, the DSEIR makes no attempt to determine the level of reduction an individual project must achieve to stay consistent with achieving statewide goals, as the Supreme 163 Id. The 2020 emission reduction target established by AB 32 has been superseded by the target in SB 32, which requires that statewide greenhouse gas emission are reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. 164 Id. at 225. 165 Id. at 225-226. 166 DSEIR, p. 3.1-63. AB Page 35 of 96 26 CONT March 16, 2018 Page 36 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper Court instructed would be required.167 The DSEIR simply assumes, without any evidence, that the Project must meet the same level of reduction set forth in statewide targets to avoid a significant impact. Both the California Air Resources Board and the California Supreme Court have recognized that the percent reduction required to be made by specific projects in order for the state to achieve statewide GHG reduction goal is not the same as the statewide GHG reduction goal. In Newhall, the Supreme Court noted that a greater degree of reduction is likely to be needed from new land use projects as compared to the economy as a whole because it is impractical and infeasible to require or obtain uniform reductions from all sources of GHG emissions, regardless of size or type. The Court also cited California Attorney General’s Office comments that “new development must be more GHG-efficient than [the statewide ‘business as usual’ reduction goals], given that past and current sources of emissions, which are substantially less efficient than this average, will continue to exist and emit.”168 New development, in particular, needs to be one of the primary sources of these greater reductions. This is because designing new buildings and infrastructure for maximum energy efficiency and renewable energy use is more feasible and more likely to occur than achieving the same savings by retrofitting older structures and systems. In sum, the DSEIR’s determination that impacts from the Project’s GHG emissions will be less than significant for operational emissions after 2020 is not supported by substantial evidence. The DSEIR employs the same approach and reasoning the Supreme Court considered in Newhall, yet it ignores the Court’s clear direction regarding the use of statewide targets as a threshold for project level analysis. The City cannot use statewide GHG emission goals in the absence of an analysis of how those targets translate to an individual project, and no such analysis is included in the DSEIR here. 167 See Newhall 62 Cal. 4th at 229 (explaining that a BAU comparison may be appropriate where the lead agency determines what level of reduction a particular project at the proposed location must contribute in order to comply with statewide goals.). 168 Id. at p. 226. AB Page 36 of 96 26 CONT March 16, 2018 Page 37 4174-003acp printed on recycled paper C. Substantial Evidence Shows That GHG Emissions from the Project Would Be Significant In order to properly evaluate the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions, SWAPE performed an analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions using BAAQMD’s threshold of 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MTCO2e”).169 Relying on the City’s CalEEMod model, SWAPE explains that Project construction would generate 63 MTCO2e per year (amortized over 30 years).170 Additionally, Project operations would generate 13,634 MTCO23 per year after mitigation.171 Combined, the Project’s annual GHG emissions amount to 13,697 MTCO2e per year, which exceeds BAAQMD’s threshold of significance by approximately 12,597 MTCO2e per year.172 SWAPE’s analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions demonstrates that when using a legally valid threshold of significance, established by BAAQMD, substantial evidence shows that the Project would result in a cumulatively significant contribute to global climate change.173 Until an updated GHG analysis is prepared in a revised DSEIR that adequately evaluates the Project’s total GHG impact consistent with a legally valid threshold of significance, the DSEIR determination that the Project would not result in a significant GHG impact is not supported by substantial evidence. For each of these reasons, the City of Dublin (“City”) may not approve the Project until a revised document is prepared and recirculated for public review and comment. Sincerely, Collin S. McCarthy CSM:acp 169 SWAPE Comments at pp. 12-13. 170 Id. at p. 13. 171 Id. 172 Id. 173 Id. AB Page 37 of 96 27 28 EXHIBIT A AB Page 38 of 96 Scott Cashen, M.S.—Independent Biological Resources Consultant 3264 Hudson Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94597 1 March 15, 2018 Mr. Collin S. McCarthy Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 520 Capitol Mall, Suite 350 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Ikea Retail Center Project Dear Mr. McCarthy: This letter contains my comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“DSEIR”) prepared by the City of Dublin (“City”) for the Ikea Retail Center Project (“Project”). Ikea Property, Inc. (“Applicant”) proposes the development of up to 432,099 square feet of commercial uses on 27.45 acres of mostly undeveloped land in Dublin, California. I am an environmental biologist with 25 years of professional experience in wildlife ecology and natural resources management. I have served as a biological resources expert for over 100 projects in California. My experience and scope of work in this regard has included assisting various clients with evaluations of biological resource issues, reviewing environmental compliance documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and submitting written comments in response to CEQA and NEPA documents. My work has included the preparation of written and oral testimony for the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and Federal courts. My educational background includes a B.S. in Resource Management from the University of California at Berkeley, and a M.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries Science from the Pennsylvania State University. A true and correct copy of my current curriculum vitae is attached hereto. The comments herein are based on my review of the environmental documents prepared for the Project and other projects in the region, a review of scientific literature pertaining to biological resources known to occur in the Project area, consultations with other biological resource experts, and the knowledge and experience I have acquired during my 25-year career in the field of natural resources management. AB Page 39 of 96 A1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING FirstCarbon Solutions (“FCS”) biologists visited the Project site two times: once in the spring of 2016, and again on November 24, 2017.1 FCS did not conduct any focused (protocol-level) surveys for special-status plants or animals during these site visits. Instead, the primary purpose of the site visits was to obtain an overview of the existing habitat conditions within the Project site and the site’s potential to support sensitive biological resources so FCS could conduct a peer review of the Biological Resources Assessment (“BRA”) and Wetland Delineation (“WD”) conducted by WRA, Inc. in 2013.2 The BRA prepared by WRA was based on a single site visit (August 1, 2013) and did not include any protocol-level surveys.3 As a result, protocol-level surveys have never been conducted at the Project site. Data from protocol-level surveys are required to fully assess existing conditions, analyze Project impacts, and formulate appropriate mitigation. Deferring the surveys until after completion of the CEQA review process—as proposed in the DSEIR—prevents full disclosure of Project impacts. It also precludes the public, resource agencies, and scientific community from being able to submit informed comments pertaining to Project impacts, and from having those comments vetted during the environmental review process. These sentiments are reflected in the survey protocols prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), California Burrowing Owl Consortium, and California Native Plant Society.4 Protocol-level survey data provide essential information on the presence, distribution, and abundance of sensitive biological resources at a project site. These data in turn facilitate proper understanding of the magnitude and severity of the project’s impacts to specific resources (e.g., various species), and thus, the feasibility of various mitigation options. Without protocol-level survey data, the City can only speculate on the presence of sensitive biological resources at the Project site. Similarly, without protocol-level data the City has no ability to assess the magnitude and severity of Project impacts to various resources, and subsequently, the ability of the proposed mitigation to reduce Project impacts to less-than-significant levels. As a result, the City has no basis for its conclusion that all potentially significant Project impacts would be mitigated to less-than- significant levels by the measures proposed in the DSEIR. 1 DSEIR, pp. 3.2-1 and -16. 2 DSEIR, p. 3.2-16. 3 BRA, p. 1. 4 California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Available at: <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline>. See also California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Available at: <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843>. See also California Native Plant Society. 2001 (Revised). CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. Available at: <http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/pdf/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf>. See also California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Available at: <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83842>. AB Page 40 of 96 A1 CONT 3 For example, the City has concluded that development of a mitigation plan, which would incorporate off-site habitat compensation, would effectively mitigate significant impacts to any special-status plant species that might be discovered on the Project site during preconstruction surveys.5 A conclusion of this nature relies on the presumption that all impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Such a presumption is unrealistic. To illustrate this point, Douglas' fiddleneck (Amsinckia douglasiana) was detected at the Project site (although its presence was not disclosed in the DSEIR).6 The presence of Douglas' fiddleneck on the Project site represents the only known occurrence in Alameda and Contra Costa counties (it was previously believed to be extirpated from both counties). As a result, Project impacts to this locally rare species would be unmitigable because there are no off-site mitigation options (i.e., properties available for acquisition as replacement habitat). Due to the issues described above, the City needs to prepare a revised DSEIR once protocol-level surveys have been completed for the Project. Special-Status Plant Species Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) is known to occur on approximately 6.81 acres of the Project site.7 However, the Applicant has not conducted protocol-level surveys to determine whether other special-status plant species occur on the Project site. Furthermore, because WRA did not conduct protocol-level surveys, and because its site visits were conducted after a period of below average rainfall (and during months that are generally not conducive to finding rare plants),8 it had no basis for concluding other special-status plants have “no potential” or are “unlikely” to occur at the Project site simply because those plants were not observed during its survey(s).9 Similarly, the City has no basis for its conclusion that Congdon’s tarplant is the only special-status plant species with a moderate to high potential of occurring at the Project site.10 Indeed, at least two other special-status plant species occur at the Project site: western dodder (Cuscuta occidentalis) and Douglas' fiddleneck (Amsinckia douglasiana).11 Both of these species are locally rare (i.e., rank “A1” and “*A1x ” by the East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society).12 Locally rare plant species with an “A” 5 Although the DSEIR subsequently suggests the proposed mitigation would only be applied if Congdon’s tarplant is impacted by the Project. 6 BRA, Appendix D (Plant Species Observed on 5 Nov 2013) to Appendix C.2 (Wetland Delineation). 7 DSEIR, p. 3.2-5. 8 BRA, Appendix C.2 (Wetland Delineation), p. 9 and Appendix B (Wetland Delineation Data Sheets). 9 BRA, Appendix B. 10 DSEIR, p. 3.2-17. 11 BRA, Appendix A.1 (Plant Species Observed on 1 Aug 2013) and Appendix D (Plant Species Observed on 5 Nov 2013) to Appendix C.2 (Wetland Delineation). 12 Lake D. 2018. Rare, Unusual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties [web application]. Berkeley, California: East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. Available at: < https://ebcnps.fatcow.com/cgi-bin/ebrare/ebrare.cgi>. (Accessed 2018 Mar 13). AB Page 41 of 96 A1 CONT 4 designations are considered special-status species under Sections 15380 and 15125(c) of CEQA.13 The presence of Douglas' fiddleneck at the Project site is especially significant because—until now—it was believed to have been extirpated from Alameda and Contra Costa counties.14 The DSEIR fails to disclose the presence of these two species at the Project site. The BRA dismissed the potential for saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum) and hairless popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys glaber) to occur at the Project site.15 Saline clover has a Rare Plant Rank of 1B.2 and hairless popcorn flower is ranked 1A.16 Both species are associated with alkaline soils and vernal pools (and other mesic habitats),17 which are present at the Project site.18,19 According to the BRA, saline clover is unlikely to occur at the site because: “[t]he existing grassland and seasonally wet depression habitat in the Project Area is heavily disturbed and of low quality,” and hairless popcorn flower is unlikely to occur at the Project site because: “[t]his species is presumed extinct and has not been found since 1954.”20 Consequently, the BRA recommended no further actions (e.g., protocol-level surveys) for either species.21 Saline clover has been detected in disturbed areas and “low quality” habitats.22 In addition, the BRA’s statement that hairless popcorn flower has not been found since 1954 is incorrect; this species was rediscovered near Tassajara Road in Dublin during surveys 13 California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. Available at: <https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline>. See also California Native Plant Society. 2001 (Revised). CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. Available at: <http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/pdf/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf>. 14 Lake D. 2018. Rare, Unusual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties [web application]. Berkeley, California: East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. Available at: <https://ebcnps.fatcow.com/cgi-bin/ebrare/ebrare.cgi>. (Accessed 2018 Mar 13). 15 BRA, Appendix B. 16 Rank 1B plants are Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. Rank 1A plants are presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere. Although hairless popcorn flower was believed to be extirpated, its presence in the Dublin area was verified in 2006. See Lake D. 2018. Rare, Unusual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties [web application]. Berkeley, California: East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. Available at: <https://ebcnps.fatcow.com/cgi-bin/ebrare/ebrare.cgi>. 17 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Mar 6. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. See also Lake D. 2018. Rare, Unusual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties [web application]. Berkeley, California: East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. Available at: <https://ebcnps.fatcow.com/cgi-bin/ebrare/ebrare.cgi>. (Accessed 2018 Mar 13). 18 BRA, Appendix C.2 (Wetland Delineation). 19 The presence of alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa) at the Project site indicates there is at least some alkaline soil. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Mar 6. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. See also Lake D. 2018. Rare, Unusual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties [web application]. Berkeley, California: East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. Available at: <https://ebcnps.fatcow.com/cgi-bin/ebrare/ebrare.cgi>. (Accessed 2018 Mar 13). AB Page 42 of 96 A1 CONT 5 conducted in 2002 and 2006.23 Saline clover is also known to occur in the Tassajara Area. As a result, saline clover and hairless popcorn flower have the potential to occur at the Project site. Locally rare (i.e., A-rank) species that are known to occur in the East Dublin area (i.e., east of I-680 and north of I-580) and that have the potential to occur at the Project site include: Amaranthus palmeri, Cuscuta indecora var. indecora, Limosella acaulis, Stachys ajugoides, Trifolium barbigerum, Trifolium flavulum, Trifolium gambelii, and Triphysaria versicolor subsp. faucibarbata.24 Special-Status Branchiopods The Project site lies within the “Livermore Vernal Pool Region.”25 Ephemeral pools in the Livermore Vernal Pool Region provide habitat for special-status branchiopods, including the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp, and the California linderiella, which has a NatureServe Rank of G2G3 S2S3.26 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp The Project site contains seasonal wetlands (vernal pools). Based on the information provided on the Wetland Delineation data sheets, the wetlands hold water longer enough to provide potential habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp.27 Indeed, aquatic invertebrate shells from Ostracoda were detected in two of the wetlands in 2013.28 The presence of these “seed shrimp” at the Project site provides substantial evidence that vernal pool fairy shrimp also may occur at the Project site. Mitigation incorporated into the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan requires species-specific surveys for special-status invertebrates in appropriate wetland habitats prior to approval of specific projects in the Reduced Planning Area (which encompasses the Project site).29 Those surveys have not been conducted at the Project site.30 Instead, the BRA simply concluded: “[t]his species is unlikely to occur in the Project Area due to the lack of vernal pool habitat and the area’s history of repeated 23 Lake D. 2018. Rare, Unusual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties [web application]. Berkeley, California: East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. Available at: <https://ebcnps.fatcow.com/cgi-bin/ebrare/ebrare.cgi>. (Accessed 2018 Mar 13). 24 Personal communication with D. Lake, Unusual Plant Chair, East Bay California Native Plant Society, on 2018 Mar 14. 25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Figure III-6. 26 G2G3 = high to moderate risk of global extinction. S2S3 = high to moderate risk of statewide extinction. 27 BRA, Appendix C.2 (Wetland Delineation), Appendix B (Wetland Delineation Data Sheets). 28 Ibid. 29 City of Dublin. 1993. Addendum to Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. p. 22. 30 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Interim survey guidelines to permittees for recovery permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the listed vernal pool Branchiopods [internet]. Sacramento (CA): United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Available at: <http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols- Guidelines/Documents/Interim_VP_Survey_Guidelines_to_Permittees_4-96.pdf>. AB Page 43 of 96 A1 CONT 6 discing, grading and leveling.”31 The BRA’s conclusion is not supported by evidence and it contradicts scientific information on vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. Despite the moniker, vernal pool fairy shrimp are not limited to “vernal pools;” they also occur in vernal pool-like habitats such as seasonal wetlands and pools.32 Indeed, vernal pool fairy shrimp occur in a wide range of habitats, including degraded or otherwise poor-quality habitats such as pools created by tire tracks and roadside ditches.33 As a result, the seasonal wetlands at the Project site provide potential habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. According to the Wetland Delineation, the wetlands have experienced “little disturbance” since 2008.34 This contradicts the BRA’s argument that the wetlands are unlikely to provide habitat because they have been subject to repeated disking, grading, and leveling. Nevertheless, disking, grading and leveling at the Project site do not preclude the potential for vernal pool fairy shrimp. For example, in Contra Costa County, over 100 vernal pool fairy shrimp were documented in a “non-vegetated depression in dirt road along tracks—partially scraped by bulldozer,” and that had “routine vehicle traffic through [the] area.”35 At a minimum, the wetlands at the Project site have remained undisturbed long enough to become dominated by wetland plants.36 This indicates they have also remained undisturbed long enough for vernal pool fairy shrimp colonization (or recolonization).37 Ultimately, the DSEIR provides no mention of the vernal pool fairy shrimp, and consequently, no analysis of potentially significant impacts to the species. Until protocol-level surveys have been conducted, filling of the site’s wetlands represents an unexamined, potentially significant impact to the vernal pool fairy shrimp. 31 BRA, p. 12. 32 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jan 2. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 33 Ibid. See also U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. p. II-197. 34 BRA, Appendix C.2 (Wetland Delineation), Appendix B (Wetland Delineation Data Sheets). See also p. 8. 35 California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Jan 2. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Occurrence No. 212. 36 BRA, Appendix C.2 (Wetland Delineation). 37 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), 5-year review: summary and evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA, p. 5. Available at: <http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/images/Graphics/VPFS_5- yr%20review%20CNO%20FINAL%2027Sept07.pdf>. See also Incagnone G, F Marrone, R Barone, L Robba, L Naselli-Flores. 2015. How do freshwater organisms cross the ‘‘dry ocean’’?͒A review on passive dispersal and colonization processes with a special focus on temporary ponds. Hydrobiologia 750:103–123. See also Maquire B Jr. 1963. The Passive Dispersal of Small Aquatic Organisms and Their Colonization of Isolated Bodies of Water. Ecological Monographs 33(2):161-185. AB Page 44 of 96 A1 CONT 7 California Linderiella (formerly California fairy shrimp) Neither the DSEIR nor BRA mentions the California linderiella. California linderiella occupy the same types of habitat as the vernal pool fairy shrimp,38 and they have been detected in seasonal wetlands comparable to those found on the Project site.39 As a result, the California linderiella has the potential to occur at the Project site. Until protocol-level surveys have been conducted, filling of the site’s wetlands represents an unexamined, potentially significant impact to the California linderiella. Burrowing Owl The DSEIR fails to disclose the status and demography of the local and regional burrowing owl populations. This information is an essential component of the DSEIR because it enables the public and decision makers to evaluate the relative significance of Project impacts to the overall burrowing owl population. Burrowing owl populations have declined dramatically in the San Francisco Bay Area (“SFBA”) since the 1992 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR was prepared.40 The species has been extirpated, or nearly extirpated, from six SFBA counties (Napa, Marin, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, and San Mateo).41 Although burrowing owls were once abundant throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties, they are now primarily limited to the eastern portions of those counties.42 Two “large” breeding colonies of burrowing owls remain in Alameda County: one is in the Altamont Hills, and the second is in the Camp Parks area. The Project site is located at the periphery of the “Camp Parks” burrowing owl population. The Camp Parks population is the only “large” population of burrowing owls remaining in the Livermore- Amador Valley.43 Although the Project site provides good habitat for burrowing owls, neither WRA nor FCS conducted the surveys needed to determine presence of burrowing owls at the site.44 38 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. pp. II-214 through II-220. 39 E.g., See EOndx #94421 in California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Mar 6. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 40 Wilkerson RL and RB Siegel. 2010. Assessing changes in the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in California, 1993-2007. Bird Populations 10:1-36. See also Townsend SE, C Lenihan. 2003. Burrowing Owl Status in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Syposium. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1:60-70. Available at: <http://www.calenv.com/California_Environmental_Services/Publications_files/Townsend%20and%20Len ihan_Burrowing%20Owl.pdf>. See also Alameda Creek Alliance. 2014 Mar 21. Lawsuit Challenges Dublin Development That Will Evict Burrowing Owls [Press Release]. Available at: <http://www.alamedacreek.org/newsroom/pdf/press%20releases/2014/Camp%20Parks%20PR%203-21- 14.pdf>. 41 Townsend SE, C Lenihan. 2003. Burrowing Owl Status in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Syposium. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1:60-70. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 BRA, p. 10. AB Page 45 of 96 A1 CONT 8 Burrowing owls can be difficult to detect due to their cryptic coloration, extensive use of burrows, and tendency to flush (fly away) when approached.45 As a result, burrowing owl researchers and the CDFW have concluded that four independent surveys are necessary to provide reliable information on the presence of burrowing owls.46 Data from the four surveys (termed “detection surveys” in CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation) are essential to avoiding, minimizing, and properly mitigating the direct and indirect effects of the Project on burrowing owls. The DSEIR requires the Applicant to conduct two pre-construction surveys prior to ground-disturbing activities at the Project site. Although CDFW guidelines recommend “take avoidance” (i.e., pre-construction) surveys, the guidelines make it clear that those surveys are not a substitute for the four “detection surveys” required to assess Project impacts and formulate appropriate mitigation.47 Because FCS and WRA failed to implement the CDFW survey protocol, the City lacks the information needed to fully disclose and evaluate Project impacts to burrowing owls, and perhaps more importantly, to ensure effective mitigation. The need to establish the baseline population of burrowing owls on a site prior to assessing impacts and mitigation measures is emphasized in CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (“Staff Report”), which states: Adequate information about burrowing owls present in and adjacent to an area that will be disturbed by a project or activity will enable the Department, reviewing agencies and the public to effectively assess potential impacts and will guide the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.48 It is not possible to effectively assess the extent of Project impacts on burrowing owls until surveys that adhere to CDFW guidelines have been conducted. As a result, the City must require the Applicant to conduct the protocol surveys described in CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report, and the results of those surveys need to be released in a revised CEQA document so that they can be thoroughly vetted by the public, resource agencies, and decision makers during the CEQA review process. Special-Status Bats The DSEIR identified three special-status bat species (pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and Yuma myotis) that have a “moderate” potential of roosting in the building on the Project site. As with the other special-status species, the Applicant did not conduct the 45 Klute DS, LW Ayers, MT Green, WH Howe, SL Jones, JA Shaffer, SR Sheffield, TS Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western Burrowing Owl in the United States. Bio Tech Pub FWS/BTP-R6001-2003. Washington: US Fish and Wildlife. Available at: <https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/migbirds/species/birds/wbo/Western%20Burrowing%20Owlrev73003a.pdf>. 46 See Appendix D In: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 47 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 48 Ibid, p. 6. AB Page 46 of 96 A1 CONT 9 survey(s) necessary to determine whether any bat species were indeed using the building as a roost site. The City’s failure to establish baseline conditions precludes the public, resource agencies, and scientific community from being able to submit informed comments pertaining to Project impacts, and from having those comments vetted during the environmental review process. PROJECT IMPACT ISSUES Special-Status Plants The DSEIR provides no analysis of direct impacts to special-status plants other than the statement that construction activities would directly impact Congdon’s tarplant if it is found on the Project site, and that this would be a potentially significant impact.49 The DSEIR fails to provide any analysis of impacts to other special-status plant species that occur, or could occur, at the Project site. Indirect impacts associated with the Project include trampling, pollution, altered hydrology, shading, invasive plants, and pesticide drift. The DSEIR fails to provide any analysis of, or mitigation for, these potentially significant indirect impacts to special- status plants. As a result, the DSEIR lacks substantial evidence supporting its finding that Project impacts on special-status plants would be less than significant. Special-Status Branchiopods The DSEIR fails to provide any analysis of, or mitigation for, potentially significant impacts to special-status branchiopods (i.e., vernal pool fairy shrimp and California linderiella). Burrowing Owl Habitat Loss By 2003, only two “large” breeding colonies of burrowing owls remained in Alameda County: one in the Altamont Hills, and one in the Camp Parks area. The Project site provides habitat for burrowing owls in the “Camp Parks” population, which is the only breeding population remaining in the Livermore-Amador Valley.50 The DSEIR fails to disclose this information. It also fails to analyze how the loss of burrowing owl habitat from the Project site may affect the Camp Parks burrowing owl population. Instead, it jumps to the conclusion that Mitigation Measure BIO-1c would mitigate impacts to burrowing owls to a less than significant level—even though Mitigation Measure BIO-1c does not provide any specific information on how the mitigation measure would, or could, mitigate significant impacts to the Camp Parks burrowing owl population. 49 DSEIR, p. 3.2-17. 50 Townsend SE, C Lenihan. 2003. Burrowing Owl Status in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Syposium. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1:60-70. AB Page 47 of 96 A1 CONT 10 Habitat loss caused by development is the most immediate threat to burrowing owls that reside in high growth areas of the San Francisco Bay Area.51 The further decline of burrowing owls in the few remaining core population areas—such as the Camp Parks area—will have a significant effect on the overall persistence of burrowing owls in the region. This is exemplified by the extirpation of almost all burrowing owl colonies from western Alameda and Contra Costa counties following build out in the 1980s and 1990s.52 The City is required to disclose this information, and provide robust mitigation that reflects the severity of impacts to a core population area. Eviction of Owls from Occupied Burrows The Project may involve the eviction of burrowing owls from their burrows. The DSEIR, however, fails to adequately evaluate potential impacts to burrowing owls from the temporary or permanent closure of burrows, or to identify mitigation measures sufficient to reduce such impacts below a level of significance. Consistent with CDFW guidelines, passive relocation is a potentially significant impact under CEQA that must be analyzed.53 Specifically, the temporary or permanent closure of burrows may result in: (a) significant loss of burrows and habitat for reproduction and other life history requirements; (b) increased stress on burrowing owls and reduced reproductive rates; (c) increased depredation; (d) increased energetic costs; and (e) risks posed by having to find and compete for available burrows.54 The City must disclose and thoroughly analyze the impacts associated with evicting burrowing owls from the Project site. The need for full analysis of potential impacts from passive relocation (i.e., eviction) is further supported by research that indicates most translocation projects have resulted in fewer breeding pairs of burrowing owls at the mitigation site than at the original site, and that translocation projects generally have failed to produce self-sustaining populations.55 Investigators attribute the limited success of translocation to: (a) strong site tenacity exhibited by burrowing owls, and (b) potential risks associated with forcing owls to move into unfamiliar and perhaps less preferable habitats.56 The DSEIR fails to provide a burrowing owl exclusion plan, or fundamental details associated with that plan (e.g., location of replacement burrows and compensation habitat). This makes it impossible for the public, resource agencies, and decision makers to evaluate the probability that there will be significant impacts to owls evicted from the Project site. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. See also California Natural Diversity Database. 2018 Mar 6. RareFind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. See also Glover SG. 2009. Breeding bird atlas of Contra Costa County. Mount Diablo Audubon Society, Walnut Creek (CA). 260pp. 53 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, p. 10. 54 Ibid. 55 Smith BW, JR Belthoff. 2001. Burrowing owls and development: short-distance nest burrow relocation to minimize construction impacts. J. Raptor Research 35:385-391. 56 Ibid. AB Page 48 of 96 A1 CONT 11 Impacts to Foraging Habitat The Project site provides suitable foraging habitat for special-status bats, the burrowing owl, and other protected bird species.57 The DSEIR’s analysis of impacts to foraging habitat for these species is limited to the statement that: “[i]t should be noted that significant impacts associated with wildlife species are associated with their potential to nest on-site; avian species can forage almost anywhere, and the loss of foraging habitat by itself does not constitute a significant impact.”58 This statement is absurd and indicates the author has minimal knowledge of the ecology associated with the special- status species that occur in the Project region. It is well established in scientific literature and mitigation guidance issued by the CDFW that the loss or degradation of foraging habitat can have a significant impact on special- status species. For example, burrowing owls depend on foraging habitat in close proximity to burrows (nest sites).59 Indeed, CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation reports: “burrows and the associated surrounding habitat are essential ecological requisites for burrowing owls throughout the year and especially during the breeding season.”60 As a result, burrowing owls will be eliminated from the Project site even if their burrows are protected. The loss of foraging habitat can also have a significant impact on bats. According to the Western Bat Working Group: “[i]n general, the long term persistence of North American bat species is threatened by the loss of clean, open water; modification or destruction of roosting and foraging habitat; and, for hibernating species, disturbance or destruction of hibernacula.”61 A considerable amount of foraging habitat in the region has already been lost to urban development and other habitat conversion activities (e.g., agricultural expansion and wind energy production). Much of the foraging habitat that remains in the region is threatened by additional development. For these reasons, the loss of bat foraging habitat at the Project site constitutes a potentially significant impact that must be scientifically analyzed in a revised DSEIR. The DSEIR’s assertion that “avian species can forage almost anywhere” contradicts scientific facts. For example, burrowing owls only forage in areas that support a suitable prey base and that have conditions that allow for effective hunting.62 As a result, foraging is limited to areas with sufficient prey, and where vegetation is relatively short and open.63 In addition, because burrowing owls exhibit high site fidelity, they do not 57 DSEIR, pp. 3.2-17 and -18. 58 DSEIR, p. 3.2-17. 59 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 60 Ibid, p. 21. [emphasis added]. 61 Western Bat Working Group. 2005 (update). Species Accounts. p. 11. [emphasis added]. 62 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. p. 24. 63 Klute DS, LW Ayers, MT Green, WH Howe, SL Jones, JA Shaffer, SR Sheffield, TS Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western Burrowing Owl in the United States. Bio Tech Pub FWS/BTP-R6001-2003. Washington: US Fish and Wildlife. See also Shuford WD, T Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct AB Page 49 of 96 A2 12 readily colonize new habitats (including foraging habitats) if they are displaced from a project site.64 The Project, in conjunction with other projects in the area (i.e., Boulevard and Zeiss Innovation Center), would eliminate nearly all of the raptor foraging habitat remaining in the region (Figure 1). As a result, raptor territories associated with that habitat will be eliminated, even if the actual nest sites are not destroyed. This constitutes a significant impact that must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in a revised DSEIR. Figure 1. Cumulative impacts to raptor foraging habitat in the Project area. Virtually all remaining habitat would be eliminated by the proposed Project (yellow rectangle), Zeiss Innovation Center Project (orange rectangle), and Boulevard Project (red polygon). Cumulative Impacts The DSEIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources fails to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. First, the DSEIR fails to define the geographic scope of the City’s cumulative impacts analysis other than it was “the region surrounding the project site.”65 This description is populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 64 Rosenburg DK, KL Haley. 2004. The Ecology of Burrowing Owls in the Agroecosystem of the Imperial Valley, California. Studies in Avian Biology 27:120-135. See also Wilkerson RL and RB Siegel. 2010. Assessing changes in the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in California, 1993-2007. Bird Populations 10:1-36. 65 DSEIR, p. 4-3. AB Page 50 of 96 A2 CONT A3 13 too vague to understand the geographic scope of the City’s analysis, and consequently, any ability to validate the conclusions presented in the DSEIR. Second, the list of cumulative projects provided in the DSEIR omits the Zeiss Innovation Center Project, which is located approximately 700 feet north of the Project site. The Zeiss Innovation Center Project would impact many of the same biological resources as the proposed Project, including Congdon’s tarplant, seasonal wetlands, burrowing owl (and other raptor) habitat, and potential habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp and California linderiella. Third, the DSEIR acknowledges the Project would (or could) impact wetlands, special- status plants (Congdon’s tarplant), and special-status animals (nesting birds, burrowing owl, bats).66 However, the DSEIR fails to provide any actual analysis of cumulative impacts to these resources, nor does it provide the City’s conclusion on whether cumulative impacts to these specific resources would be significant. Instead, the DSEIR simply jumps to the conclusion that the proposed mitigation would make the Project’s contribution to “any significant cumulative impact” less than cumulatively considerable.67 There are two problems with the City’s rationale: 1. None of the biological resource mitigation measures are designed to alleviate the cumulative impact; all three mitigation measures are specific to the Project site and to Project activities. Therefore, they do not address the cumulative impact posed by other projects in conjunction with the proposed Project. 2. Habitat loss, including the incremental loss of habitat from numerous small projects, is the greatest threat to most special-status species. The DSEIR does not require habitat compensation for all of the special-status species that would (or could) be affected by the Project. As a result, the Project’s contribution to the cumulatively significant loss of habitat would not be mitigated. Fourth, the DSEIR concludes the Project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impact on special-status plant species would be less than cumulatively considerable because Congdon’s tarplant would be relocated if it is found on the Project site during preconstruction surveys. The basis for this conclusion is confusing because the DSEIR does not require (or propose) relocation of Congdon’s tarplant as mitigation. Nevertheless, the DSEIR’s conclusion is not justified because the DSEIR fails to incorporate mitigation for the numerous other special-status plant species that occur, or could occur, at the Project site. Based on my review of the scientific literature, and the City’s failure to demonstrate the proposed mitigation would offset significant impacts, it is my professional opinion that the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to the burrowing owl and Congdon’s tarplant would be cumulatively considerable. The Project may have cumulatively considerable impacts to other species as well (e.g., vernal pool fairy shrimp, special-status bats); however, I am unable to formulate a definitive opinion in this regard 66 DSEIR, p. 4-4. 67 DSEIR, p. 4-4. AB Page 51 of 96 A3 CONT 14 due to the DSEIR’s omission of baseline data pertaining to the presence of those species on the Project site. MITIGATION ISSUES Special-Status Plants The DSEIR requires the Applicant to conduct a focused survey to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant prior to construction. If no special-status plant species are found during the survey, then no additional mitigation measures will be implemented. However, if Congdon’s tarplant is detected, additional mitigation measures shall be required.68 There are several problems with the proposed mitigation: First, the DSEIR does not require focused surveys or mitigation for the other special- status plant species that occur, or could occur, at the Project site. As a result, potentially significant impacts to all special-status plants besides Congdon’s tarplant remain unmitigated. Second, Congdon’s tarplant is known to occur at the Project site. Therefore, there is no basis for making compensatory mitigation contingent on the results of a future survey of unknown quality, and conducted by a biologist with uncertain qualifications. This is especially true for annual plants such as Congdon’s tarplant because the presence and abundance of annual plants can fluctuate dramatically from year to year due to climatic conditions. Thus, the absence of Congdon’s tarplant from the Project site during a preconstruction survey may be the result of adverse survey conditions rather than actual absence of the species. Third, the DSEIR indicates that compensatory mitigation would not be required if activity exclusion zones can be installed around habitat occupied by Congdon’s tarplant during construction of the Project. Based on the site plan, all existing plants will be directly or indirectly affected by the Project.69 Therefore, even if activity exclusion zones are feasible, the “protected” plant populations have no chance for long-term persistence at the site once the Project is operational. Compensatory Mitigation Strategy The DSEIR requires the Applicant to prepare a mitigation plan if impacts to Congdon’s tarplant cannot be avoided. According to the DSEIR: “[a] mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the Congdon’s tarplant, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and 68 DSEIR, p. 3.2-18. 69 Indirect impacts associated with the Project include trampling, pollution, altered hydrology, shading, invasive plants, and pesticide drift. AB Page 52 of 96 A3 CONT 15 management of existing populations of Congdon’s tarplant.”70 The DSEIR cannot defer formulation of the mitigation plan unless it establishes fundamental aspects of the plan in the DSEIR. These include: (a) the performance standards (or success criteria) for the proposed mitigation, (b) a definitive enforcement mechanism that ensures performance standards are met; (c) the contingency or remedial action measures that would be triggered if success standards are not achieved; (d) the measures that would be implemented to ensure the long-term protection and management of sensitive biological resources at mitigation sites; and (e) the required monitoring program, including the monitoring techniques, effort, and frequency. Because the DSEIR lacks these fundamental details, the City has not ensured Project impacts to sensitive botanical resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. The DSEIR’s deferral of the mitigation plan is exacerbated by its failure to provide evidence that the proposed mitigation is feasible. There do not appear to be any mitigation banks that sell credits for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant.71 In addition, there do not appear to be any in-lieu fee programs that cover impacts to Congdon’s tarplant. Whereas the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas supporting Congdon’s tarplant is an acceptable option, the DSEIR fails to provide evidence that sites suitable for acquisition exist—especially given the demand generated by other projects requiring compensatory mitigation for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant. As a result, the City needs to produce a revised DSEIR that identifies the: (a) potential mitigation sites, and status of Congdon’s tarplant at those sites; (b) actual mitigation ratio being proposed; (c) performance standards for the mitigation sites; (d) required monitoring program; and, (e) measures that will be implemented to ensure the long-term protection and management of Congdon’s tarplant populations at the mitigation sites. Compensatory Mitigation Ratio According to the DSEIR, the mitigation plan should incorporate a compensatory mitigation ratio of at least 1:1. The Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (“EACCS”) establishes the standard for mitigation needed to conserve species and habitat in Eastern Alameda County. The mitigation proposed in the DSEIR does not adhere to EACCS. Specifically, the EACCS establishes a standardized mitigation ratio of 5:1 for impacts to focal plant species (e.g., Congdon’s tarplant).72 In addition, the 1:1 ratio proposed in the DSEIR is not consistent with other projects in Dublin. For example, the City is requiring a 5:1 ratio for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant at the Zeiss Innovation 70 DSEIR, p. 3.2-19. 71 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Conservation and Mitigation Banks Established in California by CDFW [website]. Available at: <https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/Banking/Approved-Banks#r3>. 72 ICF International. 2010. Final Draft East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Prepared for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee. October 2010. Table 3-12. AB Page 53 of 96 A3 CONT 16 Center Project site.73 The DSEIR fails to explain why a 5:1 ratio was needed to mitigate impacts at the Zeiss project site, while the proposed Project only requires a 1:1 ratio— even though the City analyzed both projects at approximately the same time. Because the DSEIR lacks a detailed mitigation strategy, and because the measures listed in the DSEIR do not comply with the EACCS, the City has not ensured Project impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and other special-status plant species would be reduced to a less than significant level. Burrowing Owl The DSEIR incorporates the following mitigation measures for Project impacts to burrowing owls: (1) a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment that would be conducted immediately before ground-disturbing activities; (2) avoidance measures; (3) burrow exclusion if avoidance is not possible; and, (4) preparation and implementation of a Mitigation Plan if avoidance is not possible. I discuss each of these measures in the subsections below. Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment The DSEIR requires a preconstruction survey no more than 14 days prior to ground- disturbing activities, and a second survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. Two preconstruction surveys during an undetermined time of year do not provide reliable information on burrowing owls that may be impacted by a project. As discussed above, the two “take avoidance” (preconstruction) surveys described in CDFW’s Staff Report are not intended to serve as a substitute for the four “detection” surveys needed to identify presence, assess impacts, and formulate appropriate mitigation. Rather, the “take avoidance” surveys are intended to confirm no new owls have colonized the site since completion of the “detection” surveys. According to CDFW’s Staff Report: “[a]ny new burrowing owl colonizing the project site after the CEQA document has been adopted may constitute changed circumstances that should be addressed in a re-circulated CEQA document.”74 Because the Applicant never made an attempt to establish burrowing owl occupancy at the Project site, any burrowing owls occupying the site when the preconstruction surveys are conducted would constitute changed circumstances that will need to be addressed in a re-circulated CEQA document. An additional problem with the City’s approach to obtaining the data needed to assess occupancy and implement mitigation is that it is based on the Applicant’s timing, rather than the timing needed to establish the ecological value of the site to burrowing owls. Many burrowing owls migrate seasonally, at least at a local scale. As a result, preconstruction surveys that are conducted during the non-breeding season would fail to detect individuals that breed at the site. This would lead to the false conclusion that the Project would have no impact on the species, and thus, compensatory mitigation is not 73 City of Dublin. 2017 Dec 8. Zeiss Innovation Center: Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. p. 29. 74 Ibid, p. 10. [emphasis added]. AB Page 54 of 96 A3 CONT 17 required (per the conditions established in the DSEIR). Avoidance Measures - Buffers The DSEIR directs the Applicant to avoid disturbing or otherwise impacting burrows occupied by burrowing owls. The DSEIR, however, fails to establish any standards for the mitigation measure. For example, the DSEIR does not establish the minimum buffers that need to be implemented around burrows, or the monitoring activities that should be implemented to ensure burrowing owls are not being disturbed by construction activities. The mitigation measure should be revised to reflect CDFW guidelines, which indicate the need for buffers 50 to 500 meters, depending on the time of year and level of disturbance.75 Exclusion and Relocation Plan The DSEIR requires the Applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, to prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan if avoidance of burrowing owls or their burrows is not possible. This condition is appropriate if the final mitigation measure adopted by the City clarifies that the Applicant’s Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan must be approved by the CDFW prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Mitigation Plan The DSEIR defers critical analysis of the mitigation needed to mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls. Specifically, it defers identifying the compensatory mitigation ratio; acceptable mitigation location and mechanism (e.g., habitat acquisition, purchase of credits at a mitigation bank, in-lieu fee, etc.); site protection methods; financial assurances; performance standards; and monitoring requirements. Instead, the DSEIR proposes to allow these critical mitigation components to be established in a subsequent Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan, which would be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, but would not be presented to the public prior to Project approval. This effectively robs the public from being able to submit comments on fundamental aspects of the mitigation strategy. This is extremely important because neither the CDFW nor the City has an effective oversight approach that ensures compensatory mitigation is occurring.76 The DSEIR fails to identify a mitigation ratio, and instead proposes to allow CDFW to approve a habitat compensation ratio following Project approval. CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation indicates that a ratio of at least 1:1 is required to mitigate impacts to burrowing owl habitat. However, a 1:1 ratio is not likely to be sufficient to mitigate impacts below a level of significance in this case due to the rapid decline of the Camp Parks population and the limited availability of compensation habitat to support that population. Accordingly, mitigation imposed by the City should require adherence 75 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012 Mar 7. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. p. 9. 76 Burrowing Owl Preservation Society. 2017. Burrowing Owl Mitigation in California. 43 pp. AB Page 55 of 96 A3 CONT 18 to the regional-specific Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (“EACCS”). The EACCS requires compensatory mitigation for impacts to burrowing owl habitat that is within 0.5 mile of a burrowing owl nest used within the previous three years. In addition, the EACCS establishes a standardized mitigation ratio of 3:1 (3.5:1 if the mitigation site is in a different core area).77 As a result, the City needs to establish the mitigation ratio required for the Project, and it cannot assume that a ratio less than 3:1 would mitigate impacts to a less-than-significant level unless it provides scientific analysis justifying that determination. Because the DSEIR does not contain mitigation that adheres to the standards in the EACCS, and because the DSEIR fails to ensure that mitigation would have any benefit to the Camp Parks burrowing owl population, the Project’s impacts to the burrowing owl remain potentially significant. Special-Status Bats The DSEIR proposes the following mitigation for potentially significant impacts to special-status bat species: Pre-removal bat surveys of the existing on-site building shall occur no more than 30 days before its removal. If bats are found, then a qualified biologist shall develop an appropriate relocation plan consistent with USFWS, CDFW, and East Alameda County Conservation Strategy standards and policies. These measures do not ensure Project impacts are mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The DSEIR fails to identify the survey techniques that should be implemented for the pre-removal surveys. This is important for three reasons. First, bat detection often requires specialized techniques, and a technique that is effective for one species may be completely ineffective for other species.78 Second, pallid bats and Townsend’s big-eared bats are known to be extremely sensitive to human disturbance.79 For example, Townsend’s big-eared bats are so sensitive to human disturbance that simple entry into a maternity roost can cause the colony to abandon the roost (which contributes to population declines).80 As a result, pre-removal surveys may have a significant impact on bats if appropriate techniques are not used. Third, the DSEIR fails to establish minimum qualifications for the biologist conducting the pre-removal surveys. As a result, the City has no basis for assuming the surveys would be effective and would avoid disturbance to roost sites. 77 ICF International. 2010. Final Draft East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Prepared for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee. October 2010. p. 3-65 and Table 3-10. 78 Western Bat Working Group. 2005 (Update). Species Accounts. Available at: <http://wbwg.org/western- bat-species/>. 79 Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Final environmental impact report and statement for the West Mojave Plan: a habitat conservation plan and California desert conservation area plan amendment. Moreno Valley (CA): U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Appendix S: Species Accounts, Pallid Bat, p. 4 and Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat, p. 4. 80 Western Bat Working Group. 2005 (Update). Species Accounts. Available at: <http://wbwg.org/western- bat-species/>. AB Page 56 of 96 A3 CONT 19 The mitigation measure requires a qualified biologist to develop an appropriate relocation plan consistent with USFWS, CDFW, and East Alameda County Conservation Strategy standards and policies. However, the DSEIR does not cite or otherwise identify those standards and policies, nor am I aware that such standards and policies exist (the EACCS does not include any for bat relocation). Suitable roost sites are the limiting factor for most bat populations.81 The DSEIR does not require the Applicant to provide replacement roosts as compensation for impacts to potential roosts at the Project site. Therefore, even if the bats are properly excluded from the existing on-site building, they may not have a suitable alternate roost in the vicinity, and the local population may be extinguished.82 This constitutes a potentially significant impact that remains unmitigated. Wetlands Mitigation Measure BIO-3a requires the Applicant to complete an updated wetland delineation to determine if the wetlands at the Project are subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The DSEIR does not identify whether the Applicant’s subsequent conclusions pertaining to the jurisdictional status of the wetlands would be verified by the Army Corp of Engineers (“USACE”). Mitigation Measure BIO-3b requires the Applicant to acquire appropriate permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the USACE if the wetlands are determined to be subject to USACE jurisdiction, and to obtain Section 401 certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (“RWQCB”). It further requires the Applicant to prepare a wetland mitigation plan that is approved by the USACE and RWQCB. According to the DSEIR, the wetland mitigation plan shall meet the following “standards”: A mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. Specifically, a wetland mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented that includes creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment of an endowment for the long-term management of the site.83 81 Ibid. 82 Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Final environmental impact report and statement for the West Mojave Plan: a habitat conservation plan and California desert conservation area plan amendment. Moreno Valley (CA): U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Appendix S: Species Accounts, Pallid Bat, p. 4. 83 DSEIR, p. 3.2-22. AB Page 57 of 96 A3 CONT 20 The DSEIR concludes these actions would reduce Project impacts to wetlands to a less- than-significant level. There are two crucial reasons why the City does not have the basis for this conclusion. First, the DSEIR impermissibly defers analysis and critical aspects of the wetlands mitigation strategy. Under CEQA, the City is obligated to identify the specific mitigation needed to mitigate Project impacts to less-than-significant levels. This includes the specific mitigation strategy (e.g., creation, restoration, or enhancement), mitigation ratio, monitoring program, and performance standards and that will be implemented to ensure the Project would have less-than-significant impacts on the environment (i.e., independent of analysis conducted by the USACE and RWQCB designed to ensure compliance with state and federal wetland regulations). Contrary to what the DSEIR suggests, the City cannot rely on deferred mitigation and the permitting requirements of other agencies to conclude impacts to wetlands would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. For example, in its comment letter to the lead agency for another project, the RWQCB recently stated: It is inappropriate to rely upon agency regulations for determining that impacts will be at insignificant levels…Water Board staff strongly discourages the County [of Kern] from attempting to defer to the later preparation of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permits to address the above issues. Such an approach would constitute deferment of mitigation. In the event that this occurs, the Water Board may require substantial modifications to the Project during the course of permitting review to ensure all water quality impacts [are] adequately mitigated. Water Board staff encourages the Project proponents to initiate detailed plans early in the process to allow for full and adequate review of the Project to address the above issues. This planning should be concurrent with the CEQA process as opposed to a sequential permitting approach.84 Second, compliance with regulatory permits provides no assurances that Project impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would be less-than-significant. To the contrary, numerous studies have demonstrated that many compensatory mitigation projects permitted under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act are not achieving the goal of “no overall net loss” of wetland acres and functions.85 For example, Ambrose and Lee (2004) concluded: “the Section 401 program has failed to achieve the goal of no net loss of 84 Kern County. 2011 Oct. Final Environmental Impact Report: RE Distributed Solar Projects, Chapter 7-4 (part 1), comment letter 8. 85 National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Research Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA. Available at: <https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10134/compensating-for-wetland-losses-under-the-clean- water-act>. See also Society of Wetland Scientists (and references therein). 2000. Position Paper on Performance Standards for Wetland Restoration and Creation. 4 pp. See also Environmental Law Institute. 2004. Measuring Mitigation: A Review of the Science for Compensatory Mitigation Performance Standards. Report prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency. 271 pp. Available at: <http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_609.pdf>. See also Kihslinger RL. 2008. Success of Wetland Mitigation Projects. 2008. National Wetlands Newsletter 30(2):14-16. Available at: <http://www.tetonwyo.org/DocumentCenter/View/3309>. AB Page 58 of 96 A3 CONT 21 habitat functions, values and services.”86 The National Academy of Sciences (2001) conducted a comprehensive review of compensatory wetland mitigation projects in the U.S. and found that the national “no net loss” goal is not being met because: (a) there is little monitoring of permit compliance, and (b) the permit conditions commonly used to establish mitigation success do not assure the establishment of wetland functions.87 Ambrose et al. (2007) derived similar results after examining 143 projects permitted by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Specifically, they concluded: (a) only 46% of the projects fully complied with all permit conditions, and (b) very few wetland mitigation projects were successful, especially from the ecological perspective.88 Several other studies have shown that the regulatory agencies are not ensuring the success of wetland mitigation projects.89 Most notably, a 2005 report issued by the United States Government Accountability Office concluded that: “the Corps of Engineers does not have an effective oversight approach to ensure that compensatory mitigation is occurring.”90 In summary, the DSEIR improperly defers analysis and concludes future permits issued by other agencies would ensure Project impacts to wetlands would be less-than- significant. However, substantial evidence shows that those permits have been ineffective in mitigating impacts to wetlands. Thus, the sole basis for the City’s conclusion of insignificance is not supported by evidence. 86 Ambrose RF, SF Lee. 2004. Guidance Document for Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board. p. 8. Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237587967_Guidance_Document_for_Compensatory_Mitigatio n_Projects_Permitted_Under_Clean_Water_Act_Section_401_by_the_Los_Angeles_Regional_Quality_Co ntrol_Board>. 87 National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Research Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA. 88 Ambrose RF, JL Callaway, SF Lee. 2007. An Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under Clean Water Act Section 401 by the California State Water Resources Control Board, 1991-2002. xxiv + 396 pp. Available at: <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/mitigation_finalreport_full081307. pdf>. 89 Kihslinger RL. 2008. Success of Wetland Mitigation Projects. 2008. National Wetlands Newsletter 30(2):14-16. See also Environmental Law Institute. 2004. Measuring Mitigation: A Review of the Science for Compensatory Mitigation Performance Standards. Report prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency. 271 pp. 90 United States Government Accountability Office. 2005. Corps of Engineers Does Not Have an Effective Oversight Approach to Ensure That Compensatory Mitigation Is Occurring. Report to the Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives. GAO-05- 898 Wetlands Protection. Available at: <http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/247675.pdf>. AB Page 59 of 96 A3 CONT 22 This concludes my comments on the DSEIR. Please contact me if you would like to discuss any issues raised by these comments. Sincerely, Scott Cashen, M.S. Senior Biologist AB Page 60 of 96 A3 CONT EXHIBIT B AB Page 61 of 96 Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 1 Scott Cashen, M.S. Senior Wildlife Ecologist Scott Cashen has 25 years of professional experience in natural resources management. During that time he has worked as a field biologist, forester, environmental consultant, and instructor of Wildlife Management. Mr. Cashen focuses on CEQA/NEPA compliance issues, endangered species, scientific field studies, and other topics that require a high level of scientific expertise. Mr. Cashen has knowledge and experience with numerous taxa, ecoregions, biological resource issues, and environmental regulations. As a biological resources expert, Mr. Cashen is knowledgeable of the various agency-promulgated guidelines for field surveys, impact assessments, and mitigation. Mr. Cashen has led field investigations on several special-status species, including ones focusing on the yellow-legged frog, red-legged frog, desert tortoise, steelhead, burrowing owl, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn sheep, red panda, and various forest carnivores. Mr. Cashen is a recognized expert on the environmental impacts of renewable energy development. He has been involved in the environmental review process of over 80 solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy projects. Mr. Cashen’s role in this capacity has encompassed all stages of the environmental review process, from initial document review through litigation support. Mr. Cashen has provided expert witness testimony on several of the Department of the Interior’s “fast-tracked” renewable energy projects. His testimony on those projects helped lead agencies develop project alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts associated with the projects. Mr. Cashen was a member of the independent scientific review panel for the Quincy Library Group project, the largest community forestry project in the United States. As a member of the panel, Mr. Cashen was responsible for advising the U.S. Forest Service on its scientific monitoring program, and for preparing a final report to Congress describing the effectiveness of the Herger-Feinstein Forest Recovery Act of 1998. AREAS OF EXPERTISE •CEQA, NEPA, and Endangered Species Act compliance issues •Comprehensive biological resource assessments •Endangered species management •Renewable energy development •Scientific field studies, grant writing and technical editing EDUCATION M.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Science - The Pennsylvania State University (1998) Thesis: Avain Use of Restored Wetlands in Pennsylvania B.S. Resource Management - The University of California, Berkeley (1992) AB Page 62 of 96 B1 Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 2 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Litigation Support / Expert Witness Mr. Cashen has served as a biological resources expert for over 100 projects subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and/or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As a biological resources expert, Mr. Cashen reviews CEQA/NEPA documents and provides his clients with an assessment of biological resource issues. He then submits formal comments on the scientific and legal adequacy of the project’s environmental documents (e.g., Environmental Impact Statement). If needed, Mr. Cashen conducts field studies to generate evidence for legal testimony, or he can obtain supplemental testimony from his deep network of species- specific experts. Mr. Cashen has provided written and oral testimony to the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and U.S. district courts. His clients have included law firms, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Solar Energy Geothermal Energy •Abengoa Mojave Solar Project •Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Project •Avenal Energy Power Plant •East Brawley Geothermal •Beacon Solar Energy Project •Mammoth Pacific 1 Replacement •Blythe Solar Power Project •Orni 21 Geothermal Project •Calico Solar Project •Western GeoPower Plant •California Flats Solar Project Wind Energy •Calipatria Solar Farm II •Catalina Renewable Energy Project •Carrizo Energy Solar Farm •Ocotillo Wind Energy Project •Catalina Renewable Energy Project •SD County Wind Energy Ordinance •Fink Road Solar Farm •Searchlight Wind Project •Genesis Solar Energy Project •Shu’luuk Wind Project •Heber Solar Energy Facility •Tres Vaqueros Repowering Project •Imperial Valley Solar Project •Tule Wind Project •Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating •Vasco Winds Relicensing Project •Maricopa Sun Solar Complex Biomass Facilities •McCoy Solar Project •CA Ethanol Project •Mt. Signal and Calexico Solar •Colusa Biomass Project •Panoche Valley Solar •Tracy Green Energy Project •San Joaquin Solar I & II Other •San Luis Solar Project •DRECP •Stateline Solar Project •Carnegie SVRA Expansion Project •Solar Gen II Projects •Lakeview Substation Project •SR Solis Oro Loma •Monterey Bay Shores Ecoresort •Vestal Solar Facilities •Phillips 66 Rail Spur •Victorville 2 Power Project •Valero Benecia Crude By Rail •Willow Springs Solar •World Logistics Center AB Page 63 of 96 B1 CONT Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 3 Project Management Mr. Cashen has managed several large-scale wildlife, forestry, and natural resource management projects. Many of the projects have required hiring and training field crews, coordinating with other professionals, and communicating with project stakeholders. Mr. Cashen’s experience in study design, data collection, and scientific writing make him an effective project manager, and his background in several different natural resource disciplines enable him to address the many facets of contemporary land management in a cost-effective manner. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Wildlife Studies •Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Resource Use and Behavior Study: (CA State Parks) •“KV” Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Inventory: (USFS, Plumas NF) •Amphibian Inventory Project: (USFS, Plumas NF) •San Mateo Creek Steelhead Restoration Project: (Trout Unlimited and CA Coastal Conservancy, Orange County) •Delta Meadows State Park Special-Status Species Inventory: (CA State Parks, Locke) Natural Resources Management •Mather Lake Resource Management Study and Plan – (Sacramento County) •Placer County Vernal Pool Study – (Placer County) •Weidemann Ranch Mitigation Project – (Toll Brothers, Inc., San Ramon) •Ion Communities Biological Resource Assessments – (Ion Communities, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) •Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment – (The Wyro Company, Rio Vista) Forestry •Forest Health Improvement Projects – (CalFire, SD and Riverside Counties) •San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (SDG&E, San Diego Co.) •San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (San Diego County/NRCS) •Hillslope Monitoring Project – (CalFire, throughout California) AB Page 64 of 96 B1 CONT Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 4 Biological Resources Mr. Cashen has a diverse background with biological resources. He has conducted comprehensive biological resource assessments, habitat evaluations, species inventories, and scientific peer review. Mr. Cashen has led investigations on several special-status species, including ones focusing on the foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow- legged frog, desert tortoise, steelhead, burrowing owl, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn sheep, red panda, and forest carnivores. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Biological Assessments/Biological Evaluations (“BA/BE”) •Aquatic Species BA/BE – Reliable Power Project (SF Public Utilities Commission) •Terrestrial Species BA/BE – Reliable Power Project (SF Public Utilities Commission) •Management Indicator Species Report – Reliable Power Project (SF Public Utilities Commission) •Migratory Bird Report – Reliable Power Project (SF Public Utilities Commission) •Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BA – Lower Cherry Aqueduct (SF Public Utilities Commission) •Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BE – Lower Cherry Aqueduct (SF Public Utilities Commission) •Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BA/BE – Public Lands Lease Application (Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep) •Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BA/BE – Simon Newman Ranch (The Nature Conservancy) Avian •Study design and Lead Investigator - Delta Meadows State Park Special-Status Species Inventory (CA State Parks: Locke) •Study design and lead bird surveyor - Placer County Vernal Pool Study (Placer County: throughout Placer County) •Surveyor - Willow flycatcher habitat mapping (USFS: Plumas NF) •Independent surveyor - Tolay Creek, Cullinan Ranch, and Guadacanal Village restoration projects (Ducks Unlimited/USGS: San Pablo Bay) •Study design and Lead Investigator - Bird use of restored wetlands research (Pennsylvania Game Commission: throughout Pennsylvania) •Study design and surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird species at a 400-acre site in Napa County (HCV Associates: Napa) AB Page 65 of 96 B1 CONT Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 5 •Surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird abundance following diesel spill (LFR Levine-Fricke: Suisun Bay) •Study design and lead bird surveyor - Green Valley Creek Riparian Restoration Site (City of Fairfield: Fairfield, CA) •Surveyor - Burrowing owl relocation and monitoring (US Navy: Dixon, CA) •Surveyor - Pre-construction burrowing owl surveys (various clients: Livermore, San Ramon, Rio Vista, Napa, Victorville, Imperial County, San Diego County) •Surveyor - Backcountry bird inventory (National Park Service: Eagle, Alaska) •Lead surveyor - Tidal salt marsh bird surveys (Point Reyes Bird Observatory: throughout Bay Area) •Surveyor – Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds (various clients and locations) Amphibian •Crew Leader - Red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and mountain yellow-legged frog surveys (USFS: Plumas NF) •Surveyor - Foothill yellow-legged frog surveys (PG&E: North Fork Feather River) •Surveyor - Mountain yellow-legged frog surveys (El Dorado Irrigation District: Desolation Wilderness) •Crew Leader - Bullfrog eradication (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) Fish and Aquatic Resources •Surveyor - Hardhead minnow and other fish surveys (USFS: Plumas NF) •Surveyor - Weber Creek aquatic habitat mapping (El Dorado Irrigation District: Placerville, CA) •Surveyor - Green Valley Creek aquatic habitat mapping (City of Fairfield: Fairfield, CA) •GPS Specialist - Salmonid spawning habitat mapping (CDFG: Sacramento River) •Surveyor - Fish composition and abundance study (PG&E: Upper North Fork Feather River and Lake Almanor) •Crew Leader - Surveys of steelhead abundance and habitat use (CA Coastal Conservancy: Gualala River estuary) •Crew Leader - Exotic species identification and eradication (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) AB Page 66 of 96 B1 CONT Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 6 Mammals •Principal Investigator – Peninsular bighorn sheep resource use and behavior study (California State Parks: Freeman Properties) •Scientific Advisor –Study on red panda occupancy and abundance in eastern Nepal (The Red Panda Network: CA and Nepal) •Surveyor - Forest carnivore surveys (University of CA: Tahoe NF) •Surveyor - Relocation and monitoring of salt marsh harvest mice and other small mammals (US Navy: Skagg’s Island, CA) •Surveyor – Surveys for Monterey dusky-footed woodrat. Relocation of woodrat houses (Touré Associates: Prunedale) Natural Resource Investigations / Multiple Species Studies •Scientific Review Team Member – Member of the scientific review team assessing the effectiveness of the US Forest Service’s implementation of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act. •Lead Consultant - Baseline biological resource assessments and habitat mapping for CDF management units (CDF: San Diego, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties) •Biological Resources Expert – Peer review of CEQA/NEPA documents (various law firms, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups) •Lead Consultant - Pre- and post-harvest biological resource assessments of tree removal sites (SDG&E: San Diego County) •Crew Leader - T&E species habitat evaluations for Biological Assessment in support of a steelhead restoration plan (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) •Lead Investigator - Resource Management Study and Plan for Mather Lake Regional Park (County of Sacramento: Sacramento, CA) •Lead Investigator - Biological Resources Assessment for 1,070-acre Alfaro Ranch property (Yuba County, CA) •Lead Investigator - Wildlife Strike Hazard Management Plan (HCV Associates: Napa) •Lead Investigator - Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment (The Wyro Company: Rio Vista, CA) •Lead Investigator – Ion Communities project sites (Ion Communities: Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) •Surveyor – Tahoe Pilot Project: Validation of California’s Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Model (University of California: Tahoe NF) AB Page 67 of 96 B1 CONT Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 7 Forestry Mr. Cashen has five years of experience working as a consulting forester on projects throughout California. Mr. Cashen has consulted with landowners and timber operators on forest management practices; and he has worked on a variety of forestry tasks including selective tree marking, forest inventory, harvest layout, erosion control, and supervision of logging operations. Mr. Cashen’s experience with many different natural resources enable him to provide a holistic approach to forest management, rather than just management of timber resources. REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE •Lead Consultant - CalFire fuels treatment projects (SD and Riverside Counties) •Lead Consultant and supervisor of harvest activities – San Diego Gas and Electric Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project (San Diego) •Crew Leader - Hillslope Monitoring Program (CalFire: throughout California) •Consulting Forester – Forest inventories and timber harvest projects (various clients throughout California) Grant Writing and Technical Editing Mr. Cashen has prepared and submitted over 50 proposals and grant applications. Many of the projects listed herein were acquired through proposals he wrote. Mr. Cashen’s clients and colleagues have recognized his strong scientific writing skills and ability to generate technically superior proposal packages. Consequently, he routinely prepares funding applications and conducts technical editing for various clients. PERMITS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit for the Peninsular bighorn sheep PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS / ASSOCIATIONS The Wildlife Society Cal Alumni Foresters Mt. Diablo Audubon Society OTHER AFFILIATIONS Scientific Advisor and Grant Writer – The Red Panda Network Scientific Advisor – Mt. Diablo Audubon Society Grant Writer – American Conservation Experience AB Page 68 of 96 B1 CONT Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 8 TEACHING EXPERIENCE Instructor: Wildlife Management - The Pennsylvania State University, 1998 Teaching Assistant: Ornithology - The Pennsylvania State University, 1996-1997 PUBLICATIONS Gutiérrez RJ, AS Cheng, DR Becker, S Cashen, et al. 2015. Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: a case study of the Quincy Library group in California, USA. Chapter 19 in: Redpath SR, et al. (eds). Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. Cheng AS, RJ Gutiérrez RJ, S Cashen, et al. 2016. Is There a Place for Legislating Place- Based Collaborative Forestry Proposals?: Examining the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project. Journal of Forestry. AB Page 69 of 96 B1 CONT EXHIBIT C AB Page 70 of 96 1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com March 15, 2018 Collin McCarthy Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Comments on the IKEA Retail Center Project Dear Mr. McCarthy, We have reviewed the January 2018 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the IKEA Retail Center Project (“Project”) located in the City of Dublin (“City”). The Project proposes to develop up to 432,099 square feet of commercial uses on 27.45 acres. The Project would be anchored by an IKEA store of up to 339,099 square feet and would feature up to 93,000 square feet of lifestyle retail-restaurant uses. The IKEA store would consist of a two-story building located over a two-level parking structure with the lower level partially below grade. The building would stand approximately 61 feet above finished grade. A recycling and refuse collection area, trash compactor, and emergency diesel generator would also be located at the rear of the store. A two-bay loading dock for home deliveries would be located on the south side of the building facing I-580. Our review concludes that DSEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impacts. As a result, emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project are inadequately addressed. An updated DSEIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and GHG impacts the Project may have on the surrounding environment. AB Page 71 of 96 C1 2 Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The DEIR relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2016.3.2 ("CalEEMod").1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.2 Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters were utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions, and make known which default values were changed as well as provide a justification for the values selected.3 When we reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files, we found that several of the values inputted into the model were not consistent with information disclosed in the DSEIR. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are greatly underestimated. An updated DSEIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality. Failure to Account for Material Export During Grading Phase The Project’s CalEEMod model fails to include the total amount of material anticipated to be exported during the Grading phase of construction, and as a result, the Project’s construction emissions are underestimated. According to the DSEIR, “the proposed project’s grading activities would involve 95,000 cubic yards of cut and 73,700 cubic yards of fill. Thus, 21,300 cubic yards would be exported off-site” (p. 2-12). These proposed material export activities will likely produce substantial pollutant emissions, and as a result, these activities should be included in the Project’s CalEEMod model. However, review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that none of the material to be exported during grading was inputted into the model. Review of the Trips and VMT table within the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model estimates the Project’s construction-related emissions assuming zero hauling truck trips will 1 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 Website Archive, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model- 2013 2 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, pp. 2, 9, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6 3 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, pp. 7, 13, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6 (A key feature of the CalEEMod program is the “remarks” feature, where the user explains why a default setting was replaced by a “user defined” value. These remarks are included in the report.) AB Page 72 of 96 C1 CONT C2 3 occur during the grading phase of construction (Appendix B, pp. 63, pp. 96, pp. 130). Hauling truck trips within CalEEMod are estimated based on the total amount of material that will be imported or exported and assumes a single hauling truck can transport 16 cubic yards of material per trip.4 Therefore, assuming the Project will use 16-cubic-yard hauling trucks, approximately 1,331 hauling truck trips would be required to haul the soil off site. However, according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, CalEEMod calculates the number of hauling truck trips assuming that one hauling truck will have 2 one-way trips (e.g., a hauling truck importing material will have a loaded arrival trip and an empty return trip, while a hauling truck exporting material will have an empty arrival trip but a loaded departure trip). 5 Using this logic, the DSEIR should have modeled the Project’s emissions assuming that there would be a total of 2,662 (2 x 1,331 hauling trips) in order to account for the 2 one-way truck trips. Thus, because the Project’s CalEEMod model estimated emissions assuming no hauling truck trips would occur during the grading phase of construction, it is extremely likely that the DSEIR’s CalEEMod model significantly underestimates the actual emissions that will be generated during construction activities. This underestimation presents a significant issue, as the inclusion of material export within the model is necessary to calculate emissions produced from material movement, including truck loading and unloading, and hauling truck trips.6 Specifically, NOx and fugitive dust emissions are generated as a result of hauling truck trips. NOx emissions are caused by fuel combustion in mobile heavy-duty diesel and gasoline-powered equipment and vehicles, while fugitive dust emissions are generated from loading and unloading material into hauling trucks.7,8 The DSEIR’s failure to include these hauling trips, therefore, underestimates the NOx and fugitive dust emissions that will be generated by the 2,662 hauling truck trips that will occur during Project construction. It is critical that the Project’s construction- related emissions are remodeled and estimated with the inclusion of the 2,662 hauling truck trips, as review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the Project’s mitigated emissions, without inclusion of any hauling truck trips, are close to the Bay Area Air Quality Management’s (BAAQMD) significance threshold for NOx. Review of the DSEIR’s air quality analysis demonstrates that the Project’s emissions, with implementation of mitigation, will emit a maximum of approximately 52.44 pounds per day (lbs/day) of NOx emissions during construction (see excerpt below) (p. 3.4-44 – 3.1-45). 4 “Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CalEEMod User’s Guide, BREEZE Soft ware and SCAQMD. October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 17 5 “CalEEMod’s User’s Guide.” SCAQMD, September 2016, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p.34 6 CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 3, 26. 7 “Construction-Generated Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions.” Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, May 2016, available at: http://airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch3Construction%20FINAL5-2016.pdf, p. 3-1 8 CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01_user-39-s- guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4 , p. 33 AB Page 73 of 96 C2 CONT 4 As shown above, the Project’s mitigated emissions would result in a maximum daily emission of approximately 52 lbs/day of NOx, which is approximately 2 pounds below the BAAQMD’s NOx significance threshold of 54 lbs/day. Given the quantity of hauling truck trips that are needed to export the 21,300 cubic yards of material from the Project site, it is highly likely that the Project’s NOx emissions would exceed this threshold if emissions were modeled correctly. As such, we conclude that the emissions generated during Project construction are underestimated, and as a result, the DSEIR’s air pollution model should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Failure to Assess the Feasibility of Obtaining Tier 4 Interim Equipment The DSEIR fails to assess the feasibility of obtaining an entire fleet of Tier 4I equipment during Project construction. The DSEIR’s CalEEMod model proposes to equip all 30 pieces construction equipment with Tier 4I engines (Appendix B, pp. 53, pp. 86, pp. 119). Due to the limited number of Tier 4I construction equipment available, the Project should have assessed the feasibility in obtaining engines equipped with Tier 4I engines for the entire construction fleet. By failing to demonstrate how the Project will actually comply with this mitigation measure, this measure is unenforceable and thus, the DSEIR cannot claim the emissions reductions from this measure. The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 1998 nonroad engine emission standards were structured as a three-tiered progression. Tier 1 standards were phased-in from 1996 to 2000 and Tier 2 emission standards were phased in from 2001 to 2006. Tier 3 standards, which applied to engines from 37-560 kilowatts (kW) only, were phased in from 2006 to 2008. The Tier 4 emission standards were introduced in 2004, and were phased in from 2008 to 2015. 9 These tiered emission standards, however, are only applicable to newly manufactured nonroad equipment. According to the USEPA, “if products were built before EPA emission standards started to apply, they are generally not affected by 9 Emission Standards, Nonroad Diesel Engines, available at: https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php#tier3 AB Page 74 of 96 C2 CONT C3 5 the standards or other regulatory requirements.”10 Therefore, pieces of equipment manufactured prior to 2000 are not required to adhere to Tier 2 emission standards, and pieces of equipment manufactured prior to 2006 are not required to adhere to Tier 3 emission standards. Construction equipment often lasts more than 30 years; as a result, Tier 1 equipment and non-certified equipment are currently still in use.11 It is estimated that of the two million diesel engines currently used in construction, 31 percent were manufactured before the introduction of emissions regulations.12 Although Tier 4I engines are currently being produced and installed in new off-road construction equipment, the vast majority of existing diesel off-road construction equipment in California is not equipped with either Tier 3 or Tier 4 Final engines.13 In a 2010 white paper, the California Industry Air Quality Coalition estimated that approximately 7% and less than 1% of all off-road heavy duty diesel equipment in California was equipped with Tier 2 and Tier 3 engines, respectively.14 Similarly, based on information and data provided in the San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San Francisco Public Projects, the availability of Tier 3 equipment is extremely limited. In 2014, 25% of all off-road equipment in the state of California were equipped with Tier 2 engines, approximately 12% were equipped with Tier 3 engines, approximately 18% were equipped with Tier 4 Interim engines, and only 4% were equipped with Tier 4 Final engines (see excerpt below).15 10 “Frequently Asked Questions from Owners and Operators of Nonroad Engines, Vehicles, and Equipment Certified to EPA Standards.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, August 2012. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/highway-diesel/regs/420f12053.pdf 11 “Best Practices for Clean Diesel Construction.” Northeast Diesel Collaborative, August 2012. Available at: http://northeastdiesel.org/pdf/BestPractices4CleanDieselConstructionAug2012.pdf 12 Northeast Diesel Collaborative Clean Construction Workgroup, available at: http://northeastdiesel.org/construction.html 13 California Industry Air Quality Coalition White Paper, p. 3, available at: http://www.agc- ca.org/uploadedFiles/Member_Services/Regulatory-Advocacy-Page-PDFs/White_Paper_CARB_OffRoad.pdf 14 "White Paper: An Industry Perspective on the California Air Resources Board Proposed Off-Road Diesel Regulations." Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, available at: http://www.agc- ca.org/uploadedFiles/Member_Services/Regulatory-Advocacy-Page-PDFs/White_Paper_CARB_OffRoad.pdf 15 “San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San Francisco Public Projects.” August 2015, available at: https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/EHSdocs/AirQuality/San_Francisco_Clean_Construction_Ordinance_2015.pdf , p. 6 AB Page 75 of 96 C3 CONT 6 As demonstrated in the figure above, Tier 4I equipment only accounts for 18% of all off-road equipment currently available in the state of California. Thus, by stating that the Project proposes to use Tier 4I equipment during construction, the DSEIR is relying on obtaining an entire fleet of construction equipment that only accounts for 18% of all off-road equipment currently available in the state of California. Therefore, by failing to evaluate the feasibility of implementing Tier 4I mitigation into the Project’s construction phases, the Project’s construction emissions are underestimated. Thus, we find the conclusions made within the DSEIR to be incorrect and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Failure to Include All Daily Vehicle Trips Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model underestimated the number of vehicle trips expected to occur during operation of the proposed Project. When we compare the total number of vehicle trips estimated in the Project’s CalEEMod output files to the vehicle estimates found in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Supporting Document, we find that the model underestimated the number of operational vehicle trips per day. As a result, the Project’s operational emissions are underestimated and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. According to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Supporting Document, which can be found in Appendix B, the Project would generate a total of 16,898 vehicle trips per day (see excerpt below) (Table 10, Appendix B, p. 29). As you can see in the table above, Table 10 claims that the Project would have a total of 16,840 trips per day. This, however, this is incorrect. When the Total IKEA Trips, Retail Center Passenger Cars, Retail Center Light-heavy Duty Trucks, and Retail Center Heavy-heavy Duty Trucks are added together, the Project would actually generate a total of 16,898 trips per day (6,010 + 10,830 + 50 + 8 = 16,898). Table AB Page 76 of 96 C3 CONT C4 7 10 fails to include the 58 truck trips generated by the retail center when calculating the total number of vehicle trips. Therefore, to remain consistent with the daily vehicle trip estimates provided by the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Supporting Document, the CalEEMod model should have estimated emissions assuming that the IKEA building would generate a total of 6,010 trips per day and that the proposed retail/restaurant land use would generate a total of 10,888 trips per day, for a total of 16,898 daily trips. Review of the DSEIR’s CalEEMod model, however, demonstrates that this was not the case (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 77, pp. 110, pp. 144). As you can see in the excerpt above, the DSEIR’s CalEEMod model underestimates the number of daily trips the Project will generate by approximately 60 trips per day, or approximately 21,900 vehicle trips per year. By underestimating the total number of vehicle trips expected to occur during Project operation, the DSEIR underestimates the Project’s operational mobile-source emissions. According to Appendix A of the CalEEMod User’s Guide, CalEEMod uses the average daily trip rate when estimating a proposed project’s annual air pollutant emissions.16 Therefore, if the DSEIR underestimates the number of daily vehicle trips expected to occur throughout operation, then the proposed Project’s operational mobile- source emissions are also underestimated. It is critical that the Project’s operational emissions are modeled assuming a total of 16,898 daily trips, rather than a total of 16,840 daily trips will occur, as review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the Project’s mitigated emissions are close to the BAAQMD’s significance threshold for operational NOx emissions (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 61). 16 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, September 2016, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/02_appendix-a2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 19 AB Page 77 of 96 C4 CONT 8 As shown above, the Project’s mitigated emissions would result in a maximum daily emission of approximately 46 lbs/day of NOx, which is approximately 8 pounds below the BAAQMD’s NOx significance threshold of 54 lbs/day. Seeing as the DSEIR’s CalEEMod model underestimates the number of operational daily vehicle trips by 60 trips per day or 21,900 trips per year, it is possible that the Project’s NOx emissions would exceed this threshold if emissions were modeled correctly. As a result, we find the DSEIR’s CalEEMod model to be unreliable and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An updated air quality analysis must be prepared in an updated DSEIR that adequately evaluates the Project’s air quality impact, and additional mitigation measures should be implemented, if necessary. Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Determine Significance of Greenhouse Gas Impacts The DSEIR determines the significance of the Project’s GHG impact for the Project’s opening year in 2020 by demonstrating compliance with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), which has a GHG reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 (p. 3.1-60). Additionally, the DSEIR states that because the CAP was adopted prior to Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197) and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) being codified into law, the Project’s GHG impact was also evaluated by calculating the Project’s emissions in the year 2030 and comparing the emissions to year 2000 levels, in order to determine if the Project would achieve a GHG reduction of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as mandated in AB 197 and SB 32 (p. 3.1-60 – 3.1-61). Review of the DSEIR’s GHG analysis demonstrates that: (1) the Project fails to demonstrate compliance with the City’s CAP and; (2) the DSEIR’s method of using a statewide GHG reduction goal as a CEQA threshold to determine whether the proposed Project has significant GHG emissions is incorrect. As a result, we find the DSEIR’s conclusion that the Project would result in a less than significant GHG impact to be unsubstantiated and incorrect. AB Page 78 of 96 C4 CONT C5 9 Failure to Demonstrate Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan As previously stated, the DSEIR determines the significance of the Project’s GHG impact in 2020 by evaluating the Project’s consistency with the City’s CAP. The DSEIR states, “To address this potential impact for 2020, project consistency with the City of Dublin CAP is used for this analysis. The CAP is a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy under CEQA, which can be used to determine the significance of GHG emissions from a project (CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5). BAAQMD also recognizes the use of a CAP as a significance threshold for a project’s GHG emissions. Therefore, if the project is consistent with the CAP, then the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to global climate change in 2020” (p. 3.1-65). Therefore, in order to determine Project compliance, the DSEIR provides a consistency checklist, Table 3.1-23, which includes a list of proposed measures that the Project will implement at Project build out (see table below) (Table 3.1-23, DSEIR, p. 3.1-66 – 3. 1-67). AB Page 79 of 96 C5 CONT 10 AB Page 80 of 96 C5 CONT 11 According to the CAP, however, although a CEQA review for a proposed project must identify the specific CAP measures applicable to the project, “if the measures are not otherwise binding and enforceable, they must be incorporated as conditions of approval or as mitigation measures applicable to the project”.17 Review of the Project Design Features (PDFs) and mitigation measures listed in the DSEIR’s Executive Summary Matrix, however, demonstrates that the reduction measures outlined in Table 3.1-23 were not included as PDFs, mitigation measures, or as mandatory conditions of approval (Table ES-2, p. ES-7 – ES-8; p. 3.1-35). As a result, it is unclear what measures will actually be implemented once the Project is approved, and it is unclear whether implementation of these measures would satisfy requirements set forth by the CAP. Additionally, the City’s CAP states, “identification of implementation steps and parties responsible for ensuring implementation of each action shall be included in approval documents for each project”.18 Review of the DSEIR and associated appendices demonstrates that this information has not been provided. By failing to include the measures proposed in the checklist above as mitigation or mandatory conditions of approval, these measures are not enforceable. Until the Project includes the checklist items as mitigation or mandatory conditions of approval, the Project is not consistent with the CAP and cannot claim that it is. Additionally, by failing to identify who will be responsible for implementing these measures, the Project fails to comply with the requirements set forth in the CAP. An updated DSEIR should be prepared to adequately demonstrate compliance with the CAP, must identify specific measures the Project will implement within the CAP and who will implement these measures, and must include these measures as conditions of Project approval or as mitigation. 17 “City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update.” July 2013, available at: http://dublinca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5799, p. 53. 18 Ibid, p. 50 AB Page 81 of 96 C5 CONT 12 Failure to Demonstrate Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan As stated above, in an effort to comply with CEQA, AB 197, and SB 32 the DSEIR compares the Project’s construction and operational GHG emissions to the emissions that would be generated by the Project in the absence of any GHG reduction measures, also known as a Business As Usual scenario (BAU). Using this method, the DSEIR concludes that if the Project achieves a minimum of a 40 percent reduction in GHGs between the BAU and As Proposed scenarios for 2030, which is consistent with the AB 197 and SB 32 statewide reduction goals, then the Project would have a less than significant GHG impact (p. 3.1-63). The use of this threshold to determine whether or not the Project would result in a significant GHG impact, however, is flawed and should not be relied upon to determine impact significance, as a recent law made by the California Supreme Court case Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Newhall Land and Farming Company 2015 Cal. LEXIS 9478 (Newhall Case),19makes clear that this approach utilized in the DSEIR to achieve compliance with AB 197 and SB 32 is improper. The Newhall Case concludes that lead agencies cannot use the statewide GHG emission reduction percentage as the CEQA threshold to determine whether a specific project-level proposed Project has significant GHG emissions.20 As a result, this method of determining Project significance is incorrect and should not be relied upon. The DSEIR incorrectly relies on the BAU method to determine the Project’s GHG impacts. According to the DSEIR, the Project would have to achieve a 40 percent reduction from BAU that is consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan to result in a less than significant GHG impact. By modeling the Project’s emissions within CalEEMod for the year 2000, the DSEIR takes the statewide reduction goal for 2030 and calculates the percent reduction from BAU compared to the proposed Project, and subsequently compares the total percent reduction to the statewide GHG reduction goal (p. 4.0-40). Using a straight- line comparison between Project-specific and statewide GHG emission reductions, the Ikea Retail Center Project would reduce its GHG emissions by 48 percent, which, according to the DSEIR, is consistent with the statewide reduction goal (p. 3.1-63). As a result, the DSEIR concludes that the Project would have a less than significant GHG impact (p. 3.1-63). The use of a “straight-line” comparison between Project- specific and statewide GHG emissions, both by the Newhall Ranch EIR and the Ikea Retail Center Project DSEIR, however, is flawed, because the percent reduction required by the proposed Project at the project-level is not directly comparable to the percent reduction required to meet the statewide goal. Since the Newhall Case prohibits this approach, the City cannot rely on this method for its GHG assessment. The City must identify an acceptable method of compliance with CEQA, AB 197, and SB 32 for the Project’s GHG emissions, and must determine a Newhall-compliant alternative threshold for the Project-specific GHG emissions. Updated Greenhouse Gas Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impact As previously discussed, the use of a BAU comparison method to determine the Project’s GHG impacts is entirely flawed. Furthermore, the DSEIR fails to demonstrate compliance with the City’s CAP. In order to evaluate the Project’s GHG impact, we prepared a simple analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions using 19http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S217763.PDF 20http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm AB Page 82 of 96 C6 C7 13 the BAAQMD’s threshold of 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MTCO2e/year). When we utilized this threshold, rather than the incorrect BAU method used in the DSEIR, we find that the Project’s GHG emissions would result in a significant impact. As such, additional feasible mitigation should be applied to the Project in an effort to mitigate the Project’s GHG emissions to the maximum extent possible. When the emissions estimated in the DSEIR’s model are compared to this threshold, we find that the Project’s GHG emissions would exceed the BAAQMD’s 1,100 MTCO2e/year threshold. The DSEIR’s model’s annual emissions demonstrate that construction of the Project would generate 63 MTCO2e per year (when amortized over 30 years) with mitigation and operation of the Project would generate 13,634 MTCO2e per year with mitigation. When the Project’s amortized construction emissions and operational emissions are combined, we find that the Project’s GHG emissions would exceed the BAAQMD’s screening threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e per year (see table below).21 DSEIR's Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase MT CO2e/year Construction 63 Operation 13,634 Total 13,697 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 1,100 Threshold Exceeded? Yes As you can see in the table above, when the proposed Project’s GHG emissions are compared to the BAAQMD’s project-level threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year, we find that the Project would exceed this threshold by approximately 12,597 CO2e/year, resulting in a significant impact. Until an updated GHG analysis is prepared in a revised DSEIR that adequately evaluates the Project’s total GHG impact, the conclusions made within the DSEIR’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Mitigation Available to Reduce Operational Emissions The results of our GHG analysis demonstrates that operation of the Project would result in significant GHG emissions. Therefore, in an effort to reduce the Project’s operational emissions, we identified several additional mitigation measures that are applicable to the Project, which can be found in CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.22 Mitigation for criteria pollutant emissions should include consideration of the following mobile mitigation measures in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions to below thresholds. Reduce VMT by Increasing Transit Accessibility 21http://www.aguacaliente.org/downloads/Draft%20EIS/e5_6_GHG_110314.pdf, p. 5.6-14 22 http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf AB Page 83 of 96 C7 CONT C8 14 Making transit more accessible encourages the use of other modes of transportation and therefore reduces VMT. According to CAPCOA, implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce mobile source emissions by 0.5 to 24.6 percent. The Project would need to include, at a minimum, the following design features: x A transit station/stop with high-quality, high-frequency bus service located within a five to ten- minute walk, or roughly a quarter of a mile from stop to edge of development x Or a rail station located within a 20-minute walk or roughly half a mile from station edge to development x Fast, frequent, and reliable transit service connecting to a high percentage of regional destinations x Neighborhood designed for walking and bicycling Provide Electric Vehicle Parking This mitigation measure implements accessible electric vehicle parking to reduce tailpipe emissions. Design features include conductive/inductive electric vehicle charging stations and signage prohibiting parking of non-electric vehicles. Limit Parking Supply This mitigation measure will change parking requirements and types of supply within the Project site to encourage “smart growth” development and alternative transportation choices by Project residents and employees, resulting in less VMTs. This will be accomplished in a multi-faceted strategy: x Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements x Creation of maximum parking requirements x Provision of shared parking Implement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program The Project could implement a voluntary Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program with employers to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The main difference between a voluntary and a required program is: x Monitoring and reporting is not required x No established performance standards (i.e. no trip reduction requirements) The CTR program will provide workers with assistance in using alternative modes of travel. The CTR program should include all of the following to apply the effectiveness reported by the literature: x Carpooling encouragement x Ride-matching assistance x Preferential carpool parking AB Page 84 of 96 C8 CONT 15 x Flexible work schedules for carpools x Half time transportation coordinator x Vanpool assistance x Bicycle end-trip facilities Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program This Project could provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes. The Project may also provide free transfers between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the employer or development. Many entities use revenue from parking to offset the cost of such a Project. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing The Project can implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may include: x New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options x Event promotions x Publications Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program The Project can provide preferential parking in convenient locations (such as near public transportation or building front doors) in terms of free or reduced parking fees, priority parking, or reserved parking for commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride-share or use alternatively fueled vehicles. The Project should provide wide parking spaces to accommodate vanpool vehicles. Price Workplace Parking The Project can implement workplace parking pricing at its employment centers. This may include: explicitly charging for parking for its employees, implementing above market rate pricing, validating parking only for invited guests, not providing employee parking and transportation allowances, and educating employees about available alternatives. Implement Employee Parking “Cash -Out” The Project may require employers to offer employee parking “cash-out.” The term “cashout” is used to describe the employer providing employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost of the parking space to the employer. Implement Transit Access Improvements AB Page 85 of 96 C8 CONT 16 This Project can improve access to transit facilities through sidewalk/ crosswalk safety enhancements and bus shelter improvements. When combined, these measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduces emissions released during Project operation. A revised DSEIR must be prepared to include additional mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce Project emissions to below thresholds. Furthermore, the Project Applicant needs to demonstrate commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Hadley Nolan AB Page 86 of 96 C8 CONT EXHIBIT D AB Page 87 of 96 Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert Industrial Stormwater Compliance CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A.Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Positions Matt has held include: x Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); x Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; x Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); AB Page 88 of 96 D1 2 x Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); x Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); x Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); x Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); x Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); x Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and x Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: x Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. x Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities. x Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. x Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. x Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. x Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. x Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. x Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: x Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. x Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. x Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. x Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. x Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. AB Page 89 of 96 D1 CONT 3 x Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. x Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. x Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: x Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. x Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. x Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: x Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. x Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted AB Page 90 of 96 D1 CONT 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. x Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: x Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. x Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. x Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. x Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: x Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. x Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. x Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. x Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. x Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. x Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. x Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: x Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. x Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. x Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. x Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific AB Page 91 of 96 D1 CONT 5 principles into the policy-making process. x Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: x Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. x Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. x Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: x Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. x Conducted aquifer tests. x Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: x At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. x Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. x Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). AB Page 92 of 96 D1 CONT 6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. AB Page 93 of 96 D1 CONT 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. AB Page 94 of 96 D1 CONT 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011. AB Page 95 of 96 D1 CONT HADLEY KATHRYN NOLAN SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE ʹ͸ͷ͸ʹͻ–Š–”‡‡–ǡ—‹–‡ʹͲͳ ƒ–ƒ‘‹…ƒǡƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒͻͲͶͲͷ ‘„‹Ž‡ǣȋ͸͹ͺȌͷͷͳǦͲͺ͵͸ ˆˆ‹…‡ǣȋ͵ͳͲȌͶͷʹǦͷͷͷͷ  ƒšǣȋ͵ͳͲȌͶͷʹǦͷͷͷͲ ƒ‹ŽǣŠƒ†Ž‡›̷•™ƒ’‡Ǥ…‘ EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES B.S. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES & ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS AND SOCIETYJUNE 2016 PROJECT EXPERIENCE SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE SANTA MONICA, CA           SENIOR PROJECT ANALYST: CEQA ANALYSIS & MODELING x ‘†‡Ž‡†…‘•–”—…–‹‘ƒ†‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡•ˆ‘”’”‘’‘•‡†Žƒ†—•‡’”‘Œ‡…–•—•‹‰ƒŽ‘†–‘“—ƒ–‹ˆ›…”‹–‡”‹ƒƒ‹”’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ– ƒ†‰”‡‡Š‘—•‡‰ƒ•ȋ Ȍ‡‹••‹‘•Ǥ x ”‰ƒ‹œ‡†’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘•…‘–ƒ‹‹‰ˆ‹‰—”‡•ƒ†–ƒ„Ž‡•–Šƒ–…‘’ƒ”‡”‡•—Ž–•‘ˆ…”‹–‡”‹ƒƒ‹”’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–ƒƒŽ›•‡•–‘–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•Ǥ x —ƒ–‹ˆ‹‡†ƒ„‹‡–ƒ‹”…‘…‡–”ƒ–‹‘•ƒ–•‡•‹–‹˜‡”‡…‡’–‘”Ž‘…ƒ–‹‘•—•‹‰ǡƒǤǤ”‡…‘‡†‡†•…”‡‡‹‰Ž‡˜‡Ž †‹•’‡”•‹‘‘†‡ŽǤ x ‘†—…–‡†…‘•–”—…–‹‘ƒ†‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽŠ‡ƒŽ–Š”‹•ƒ••‡••‡–•ˆ‘””‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽǡ™‘”‡”ǡƒ†•…Š‘‘Ž…Š‹Ž†”‡•‡•‹–‹˜‡”‡…‡’–‘”•Ǥ x ”‡’ƒ”‡†”‡’‘”–•–Šƒ–†‹•…—••ƒ†‡“—ƒ…›‘ˆƒ‹”“—ƒŽ‹–›ƒ†Š‡ƒŽ–Š”‹•ƒƒŽ›•‡•…‘†—…–‡†ˆ‘”’”‘’‘•‡†Žƒ†—•‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–• •—„Œ‡…––‘”‡˜‹‡™„›˜‡”‹ˆ›‹‰…‘’Ž‹ƒ…‡™‹–ŠŽ‘…ƒŽǡ•–ƒ–‡ǡƒ†”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ”‡‰—Žƒ–‹‘•Ǥ SENIOR PROJECT ANALYST: GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE x ˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡†‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‹’ƒ…–”‡’‘”–•ˆ‘”’”‘’‘•‡†’”‘Œ‡…–•–‘‹†‡–‹ˆ›†‹•…”‡’ƒ…‹‡•™‹–Š–Š‡‡–Š‘†•—•‡†–‘“—ƒ–‹ˆ›ƒ† ƒ••‡•• ‹’ƒ…–•Ǥ x —ƒ–‹ˆ‹‡† ‡‹••‹‘•ˆ‘”’”‘’‘•‡†’”‘Œ‡…–•—•‹‰ƒŽ‘†–‘’”‘†—…‡”‡’‘”–•ǡ–ƒ„Ž‡•ǡƒ†ˆ‹‰—”‡•–Šƒ–…‘’ƒ”‡‡‹••‹‘• –‘ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ„Ž‡–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•ƒ†”‡†—…–‹‘–ƒ”‰‡–•Ǥ x ‡–‡”‹‡†…‘’Ž‹ƒ…‡‘ˆ’”‘’‘•‡†Žƒ†—•‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–•™‹–Š͵ʹ ”‡†—…–‹‘–ƒ”‰‡–•ǡ™‹–Š •‹‰‹ˆ‹…ƒ…‡–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†• ”‡…‘‡†‡†„›‹”—ƒŽ‹–›ƒƒ‰‡‡–‹•–”‹…–•‹ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒǡƒ†™‹–Š‰—‹†‡Ž‹‡••‡–ˆ‘”–Š„›Ǥ PROJECT ANALYST: ASSESSMENT OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED DIRECT TRANSFER FACILITY x ••‡••‡†ƒ‹”“—ƒŽ‹–›‹’ƒ…–•”‡•—Ž–‹‰ˆ”‘‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆƒ’”‘’‘•‡†‘ŽŽ‡…–‹‘‡”˜‹…‡‰”‡‡‡–ˆ‘”š…Ž—•‹˜‡‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ ƒ†‘‡”…‹ƒŽ ƒ”„ƒ‰‡ǡ‡…›…Žƒ„Ž‡ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ•ǡƒ†”‰ƒ‹…ƒ•–‡‘ŽŽ‡…–‹‘‡”˜‹…‡•ˆ‘”ƒ…‘—‹–›Ǥ x ”‰ƒ‹œ‡†–ƒ„Ž‡•ƒ†ƒ’•–‘†‡‘•–”ƒ–‡’‘–‡–‹ƒŽƒ‹”“—ƒŽ‹–›‹’ƒ…–•”‡•—Ž–‹‰ˆ”‘’”‘’‘•‡†Šƒ—Ž‹‰–”‹’”‘—–‡•Ǥ x ‘†—…–‡†ƒ‹”“—ƒŽ‹–›ƒƒŽ›•‡•–Šƒ–…‘’ƒ”‡†“—ƒ–‹ˆ‹‡†…”‹–‡”‹ƒƒ‹”’‘ŽŽ—–ƒ–‡‹••‹‘•”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡††—”‹‰…‘•–”—…–‹‘‘ˆ†‹”‡…– –”ƒ•ˆ‡”ˆƒ…‹Ž‹–›–‘–Š‡ƒ›”‡ƒ‹”—ƒŽ‹–›ƒƒ‰‡‡–‹•–”‹…–ǯ•ȋȌ•‹‰‹ˆ‹…ƒ…‡–Š”‡•Š‘Ž†•Ǥ x ”‡’ƒ”‡†ˆ‹ƒŽƒƒŽ›–‹…ƒŽ”‡’‘”––‘†‡‘•–”ƒ–‡Ž‘…ƒŽƒ†”‡‰‹‘ƒŽƒ‹”“—ƒŽ‹–›‹’ƒ…–•ǡƒ•™‡ŽŽƒ• ‹’ƒ…–•Ǥ PROJECT ANALYST: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF LEAD PRODUCTS FOR PROPOSITION 65 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION x ƒŽ…—Žƒ–‡†Š—ƒ‡š’‘•—”‡ƒ†Ž‹ˆ‡–‹‡Š‡ƒŽ–Š”‹•ˆ‘”‘˜‡”͵ͲͲŽ‡ƒ†’”‘†—…–•—†‡”‰‘‹‰”‘’‘•‹–‹‘͸ͷ…‘’Ž‹ƒ…‡”‡˜‹‡™Ǥ x ‘’‹Ž‡†ƒ†ƒƒŽ›œ‡†Žƒ„‘”ƒ–‘”›–‡•–‹‰†ƒ–ƒƒ†’”‘†—…‡†–ƒ„Ž‡•ǡ…Šƒ”–•ǡƒ†‰”ƒ’Š•–‘‡šŠ‹„‹–‡‹••‹‘Ž‡˜‡Ž•Ǥ x ‘’ƒ”‡†ˆ‹ƒŽ‹œ‡†–‡•–‹‰†ƒ–ƒ–‘”‘’‘•‹–‹‘͸ͷƒš‹—ŽŽ‘™ƒ„Ž‡‘•‡‡˜‡Ž•ȋ•Ȍ–‘†‡–‡”‹‡Ž‡˜‡Ž‘ˆ…‘’Ž‹ƒ…‡Ǥ x ”‡’ƒ”‡†ˆ‹ƒŽƒƒŽ›–‹…ƒŽŽ‡ƒ†‡š’‘•—”‡‡”–‹ˆ‹…ƒ–‡‘ˆ‡”‹–ȋȌ”‡’‘”–•ƒ†‘”‰ƒ‹œ‡†•—’’‘”–‹‰†ƒ–ƒˆ‘”—•‡‹‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ ‡ˆ‘”…‡‡–•–ƒ–—–‡”‘’‘•‹–‹‘͸ͷ…ƒ•‡•Ǥ ACCOMPLISHMENTS x Academic Honoree, ‡ƒǯ•‹•–ǡ‹˜‡”•‹–›‘ˆƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒǡ‘•‰‡Ž‡• MAR 2013, MAR 2014, JAN 2015, JAN 2016 AB Page 96 of 96 D1 CONT City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-123 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Organizations Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (AB) Note to reader: This law firm is representing Dublin Residents for Responsible Development, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 342, and Sheet Metal Workers Local 104. Response to AB-1 The organization provided introductory remarks and provided a summary of its comments. The organization’s specific comments are addressed in detail in Response to AB-4 through Response to AB-27. Response to AB-2 The organization provided a statement of interest. No response is necessary. Response to AB-3 The organization provided standard language about CEQA requirements and asserted that the Draft SEIR fails to meet CEQA standards. The organization’s specific comments are addressed in detail in Response to AB-4 through Response to AB-27. Response to AB-4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15384(b) indicates: “Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” The Draft SEIR’s biological analysis is based on multiple separate biological surveys of the project site performed by two separate firms between 2013 and 2017. The first survey was conducted by WRA on August 1, 2013 and the findings were summarized in the Biological Resources Assessment (Draft SEIR Appendix C). The second survey was conducted in spring 2016 by FCS and served to confirm the findings of the WRA assessment. The third survey was conducted by FCS on November 24, 2017—approximately 2 months prior to the release of the Draft SEIR—and also served to confirm the findings of the WRA assessment. These surveys were the basis for the Draft SEIR’s description of the baseline biological conditions of the project site and thus constitute substantial evidence. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15384(b) is silent regarding specific requirements for any technical analyses that constitute substantial evidence; as such, there is no legal basis for the claims that reconnaissance-level biological surveys are inadequate to constitute substantial evidence. The Draft SEIR discloses that the project site is largely disturbed and lacks a diversity of native species. The site is mostly composed of weedy plant species that are common and typically occur in developed areas, and the site is extensively disturbed (including regular weed abatement). Thus, the project site’s biological attributes could be fully characterized with a reconnaissance level survey. Protocol surveys are neither required nor necessary to provide further insight into the baseline biological conditions. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-124 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to AB-5 The WRA Biological Resources Assessment (Draft SEIR Appendix C) indicated that vernal pool fairy shrimp are unlikely to occur on the project site because of the lack of vernal pool habitat and the site’s history of repeated discing, grading, and leveling. FCS reconfirmed this finding during the 2016 and 2017 surveys. As such, the Draft SEIR appropriately did not identify the potential presence of vernal pool fairy shrimp as a significant impact. Furthermore, the WRA Biological Resources Assessment (Draft SEIR Appendix C) noted that all seasonal depressions were man-made and formed by construction activities on the project site in 2008 and generally have limited biological value. The 12 Wetland Delineation Data Sheets provided in Appendix B of the WRA Biological Resources Assessment document the conditions of the sampling point with photographs. The photographs demonstrate that the project site has been disced and graded and certain features may have been substantially disturbed by these activities. Furthermore, the photographs show no evidence of vernal pools or vernal pool fairy shrimp. Finally, an FCS biologist conducted an additional field survey on March 28, 2018 after several recent rain events, and noted that there was no prolonged inundation present on the project site. Given that prolonged inundation is an element necessary for vernal pool habitat, this reconfirms the Draft SEIR’s findings. In sum, substantial evidence supports the Draft SEIR’s conclusion that vernal pool fairy shrimp is unlikely to occur on the project site. Response to AB-6 California linderiella (or California fairy shrimp) occurs in the same habitat as vernal pool fairy shrimp (refer to Response to AB-5, above). Thus, because vernal pool fairy shrimp is unlikely to occur, California linderiella is also unlikely to occur. See Response to AB-5 above. As previously noted, an FCS biologist conducted an additional field survey on March 28, 2018 after several recent rain events, and noted that there was no prolonged inundation present on the project site. Given that prolonged inundation is an element necessary for vernal pool habitat, this reconfirms the Draft SEIR’s findings. Response to AB-7a The WRA Biological Resources Assessment (Draft SEIR Appendix C) indicated that burrowing owl had moderate potential to occur, although no indications of the species were observed. FCS reconfirmed this finding during the 2016 and 2017 surveys. The Draft SEIR stated on page 3.2-6 that, “The site exhibits good qualities for burrowing owl habitat, as it contains disturbed soils from discing and a healthy ground squirrel population.” Because burrowing owl were determined to have the potential to occur, Mitigation Measure BIO-1c was proposed, requiring a burrowing owl survey prior to ground disturbing activities. Specifically, the mitigation measure requires compliance with CDFW-accepted protocols and reduces this impact to less than significant if burrowing owls are found on-site. Thus, the Draft EIR concluded that this species could occur on-site, which is a conservative finding. Protocol-level surveys would not yield better information that could potentially change this finding. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-125 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Finally, as a practical matter, FCS’s biological surveys indicate that the project site is covered with weedy plant species and disturbed by regular weed abatement activities. The combination of extensive groundcover and routine disturbance make the project site poorly suited to constitute burrowing owl habitat. For these reasons, there is no basis to require protocol-level surveys. Response to AB-7b Camp Parks is located approximately 760 feet northwest of the IKEA project site, with Martinelli Way (a four-lane divided roadway), Arnold Road (a four-lane divided roadway), Persimmon Place (a retail center), and Dublin Boulevard (a six-lane divided roadway) located in between. The project site is more than 700 feet away from the boundary of Camp Parks and is not contiguous to the property. Additionally, the proposed project does not propose any development or land use activities within Camp Parks. Given the urban character of the project vicinity, the project site is not part of the burrowing owl breeding colony associated with Camp Parks. Thus, no project-related impacts would occur to burrowing owl habitat within Camp Parks and there is no basis for the biological scope of the Draft SEIR to encompass this area. Refer to Response to AB-7a for discussion of the project site’s environmental setting. Response to AB-8a The WRA Biological Resources Assessment (Draft SEIR Appendix C) indicated that the Congdon’s tar plant was present on-site. FCS reconfirmed this finding during the 2016 and 2017 surveys. The Draft SEIR concluded that the potential for occurrences of the Congdon’s tar plant was significant and set forth Mitigation Measure BIO-1a, which requires a focused survey for this species and measures to reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. Thus, the Draft EIR concluded that this species occurs on-site, which is a conservative finding. Protocol-level surveys would not yield better information that could potentially change this finding. The field survey for the WRA Wetland Delineation was performed on November 5, 2013. Douglas’ fiddleneck was a plant species reported to be observed during the field survey. However, this species blooms between March and May; it would be highly unlikely to observe this individual in November. Moreover, FCS’s biologist observed the more common, non-native Rancher’s fiddleneck throughout the project site during their biological surveys. These two plant species resemble each other and can be mistaken for one another. Thus, FCS concluded that the reported occurrence of the Douglas’ fiddleneck in November 2013 was in error. Thus, Draft SEIR did not identify this as a special-status species that was present on the project site. Finally, the WRA Wetland Delineation did not identify the western dodder as being present on the project site. Thus, there are no statements in the Wetland Delineation or Draft SEIR that support the organization’s claims. Response to AB-8b The WRA Biological Resources Assessment (Draft SEIR Appendix C) indicated that saline clover is unlikely to occur on the project site because the grassland and seasonally wet depression habitat is heavily disturbed and of low quality. The WRA Biological Resources Assessment indicated that hairless popcorn flower is unlikely to occur on the project site due to the lack of meadows and seeps and the lack of coastal salt marshes and swamps. FCS reconfirmed these findings during the 2016 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-126 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx and 2017 surveys. As such, the Draft SEIR appropriately did not identify the potential presence of saline clover and hairless popcorn flower as significant impacts. Moreover, both saline clover and hairless popcorn flower occur on alkali soils. The project site lacks these soils, which further supports the finding that these species are unlikely to occur on the project site. Finally, the statement about hairless popcorn flower having not been found in Dublin since 1954 was based on a California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) query. The CNDDB is a screening tool used by biologists to determine what special-status species have been previously recorded to be present within a defined geographical area. Thus, it is entirely possible that amending the CNDDB query parameters to encompass a broader area would yield different results, including more recent occurrences of the hairless popcorn flower. However, a CNDDB query is not a substitute for a field survey, and any findings from the field survey would take precedence over the database search. As previously noted, the project site was surveyed on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2017 and hairless popcorn flower was not observed. Thus, the findings of the field surveys are the basis for the Draft SEIR’s conclusions about the hairless popcorn flower. Response to AB-9 The Draft SEIR’s biological resources section discloses the potential presence of bats and assigns appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The Draft SEIR states on page 3.2-11 that, “The marketing building on the project site may provide night roosting habitat, and the bat may use the project site for foraging habitat.” This observation was based on multiple surveys of the project site that occurred between 2013 and 2017. Because special-status bats were determined to have the potential to occur, Mitigation Measure BIO-1d was proposed requiring pre-removal bat surveys prior to demolition of the building. Mitigation Measures BIO-1d indicates that if bats are found to be present, a relocation plan shall be developed in accordance with USFWS, CDFW, and EACCS standards and policies. Referencing agency standards and policies are clear and unequivocal performance standards. Thus, Mitigation Measure BIO-1d is adequate as written and does not need to be revised. As such, the Draft SEIR did in fact disclose the baseline conditions for special-status bats at the project site and provided appropriate mitigation. Response to AB-10 Refer to Response to AB-5 and Response to AB-6. Response to AB-11 Refer to Response to AB-7a and Response to 7b. Response to AB-12 Mitigation Measure BIO-1c sets forth avoidance as the first option for burrowing owl impacts. Under this scenario, burrowing owl nests would be protected with a buffer until the individuals have departed. If avoidance is not possible, Mitigation Measure BIO-1c requires the applicant to develop a detailed mitigation plan in consultation with CDFW. The mitigation plan must be developed in accordance with the methodology set forth in CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation Appendix A and must be reviewed and approved by CDFW. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-127 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx In summary, Mitigation Measure BIO-1c includes performance standards that would reduce any adverse impacts associated with burrowing owl eviction to less than significant. Response to AB-13 Refer to Response to AB-14. Response to AB-14 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 sets forth considerations for mitigation measures. The section states that mitigation measures “may specify performance standards,” “must be fully enforceable,” and “must be ‘roughly proportional’ to the impacts of the project.” In this case, Mitigation Measure 1c requires the applicant to retain a qualified biologist to conduct a burrowing owl survey and impact assessment. There are clear and unequivocal performance standards within this mitigation measure that are fully enforceable and roughly proportional to project impacts; for example: “Prior to the first ground disturbing activities . . .” “The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” “. . . the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures . . .” “The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation Appendix A and the Plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW . . .” For these reasons, the Mitigation Measure BIO-1c meets the applicable requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Regarding the claims that the mitigation measure is deferred because it does not include a compensatory mitigation ratio, acceptable mitigation location and mechanism, site protection mechanisms, financial assurances, or monitoring requirements, all of these items (to the extent that they are applicable) would be determined as part of the consultation with CDFW required by the mitigation measure. The performance standards are contained in CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Because of the uncertainty associated with the outcome of the burrowing owl survey, it would be premature to make any commitments regarding these items. Requiring focused or pre-construction surveys prior to release of the Draft SEIR is contrary to sound biological practice, as the purpose of these surveys is to identify impacted individuals immediately prior to development and ensure that impacts are avoided, relocated, or otherwise mitigated. Conducting these surveys months or years before development activities would occur would not serve any meaningful purpose, particularly since these species have already been determined to have the potential to occur on the project site. Thus, identifying focused or pre-construction surveys as mitigation measures is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 Mitigation Measure BIO- 1c appropriately cites the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation as the basis for any mitigation that may be necessary. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-128 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Additionally, Page 9 the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation sets forth buffer setback distances based on the time of year and level of disturbance of the project site. Because the exact timing of ground disturbance is not known, referencing the CDFW Staff Report is sufficient and affords the qualified biologist discretion in determining the appropriate distance. As for the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS), this applies only to public projects, not private projects in the City of Dublin. Thus, City of Dublin has the discretion to apply different mitigation ratios on a project-by-project basis. The City has modified Mitigation Measure BIO-1c to include a minimum 1:1 ratio. Response to AB-15 This project site has been surveyed for special-status plants multiple times between 2013 and 2017. Only Congdon’s tar plant was found to be present; no other special-status plants have been documented to occur. Thus, the Draft SEIR appropriately set forth Mitigation Measure BIO-1a, requiring focused surveys for the Congdon’s tarplant. If found to be present, Mitigation Measure BIO-1a outlines multiple options for mitigating impacts including exclusion/avoidance and purchase of credits at a mitigation bank. It is appropriate to identify multiple options for mitigation, particularly when none have been officially eliminated. Furthermore, if in fact the project characteristics preclude exclusion/avoidance, purchasing credits at a mitigation bank is feasible. For these reasons, the analysis and mitigation in the Draft SEIR complies with CEQA standards and there is no legal basis to revise the Draft SEIR. Response to AB-16 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 sets forth considerations for mitigation measures. The section states that mitigation measures “may specify performance standards,” “must be fully enforceable,” and “must be ‘roughly proportional’ to the impacts of the project.” In this case, Mitigation Measure BIO-1a requires the applicant to retain a qualified biologist to conduct a focused survey for the Congdon’s tarplant and, if found to be present, implement one of two mitigation options (avoidance/exclusion or purchase of credits at a mitigation bank). There are clear and unequivocal performance standards within this mitigation measure that are fully enforceable and roughly proportional to project impacts. For these reasons, Mitigation Measure BIO-1a meets the applicable requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Regarding the claims that there are no existing mitigation banks that sell credits for the Congdon’s tarplant, the Kaiser Dublin Medical Center entered into an agreement to purchase credits for this species at a mitigation bank. Thus, if the Congdon’s tarplant is found on the project site, it would be expected that the applicant could also purchase credits at this mitigation bank. Regardless of this specific mitigation bank’s availability, the mitigation measure includes other mitigation options and requires consultation with, and approval by, the CDFW and the City of the mitigation plan prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tar plant. Response to AB-17 Mitigation Measure BIO-1a employs a standard of “a minimum ratio of 1:1,” which does not preclude a higher ratio and as stated, the mitigation ratio shall be development in consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and the City. Moreover, as previously noted, EACCS is advisory for private City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-129 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx development projects, and the City of Dublin has the discretion to apply different mitigation ratios on a project-by-project basis. Response to AB-18 Refer to Response to AB-9. Response to AB-19 There are several species that have been determined to potentially occur and have appropriate corresponding mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant. Furthermore, the site mostly represents an island of ruderal vegetation in the midst of extensive commercial development. For these reasons with the implementation of required mitigation, cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. The Zeiss Innovation Center Project has been added to the list of cumulative projects in Table 4-1. This change is noted in Section 5, Errata. However, it should be noted that the Draft SEIR is a supplement to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, which encompassed both the IKEA and Zeiss project sites. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR contemplated development on both sites, and, thus, development at the Zeiss site was contemplated in a prior round of environmental review. This renders the omission of the Zeiss Innovation Center Project immaterial. Response to AB-20 The site has 1.92 acres of wetlands under State law subject to RWCQB jurisdiction. Since the site design will impact these areas, the impacts and mitigation measures identify a detailed permitting process under Section 401 that identifies mitigation to ensure no net loss of wetland resources. If delineation finds that wetlands are subject to federal jurisdiction, the mitigation measure also requires that the project obtain a 404 permit. Response to AB-21 The organization’s specific comments will be addressed in Response to AB-22 through Response to AB-27. Response to AB-22 The preliminary information provided by the applicant and utilized in the CalEEMod model runs was that the project site would be balanced with no export or import of dirt during grading of the proposed project. However, during development of the Draft SEIR, more refined grading assumptions were developed, which found that 21,300 cubic yards of dirt would need to be exported during grading of the project. The required export of 21,300 cubic yards during grading was included in Section 2.3, Project Characteristics of the Draft SEIR but was not included in the Air Quality modeling assumptions provided in Appendix B or in the CalEEMod model runs performed for the proposed project. For the air modeling in the Final SEIR to be consistent with the most current version of the project description that includes the export of 21,300 cubic yards of dirt during grading of the project, the CalEEMod Model was re-run and the CalEEMod output files are included as Appendix I to the Final SEIR. In addition, the revised Table 3.1-7 and revised Table 3.1-8 are provided in Section 4, Errata. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-130 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx As shown the revised Tables 3.1-7 and 3.1-8, the addition of the export of 21,300 cubic yards to the grading phase in the CalEEMod model does not result in any new impacts not previously discussed in the Draft SEIR and no new mitigation measures are required. The entire project site is proposed to be graded in one phase. Although building construction activities may be staggered, the SEIR’s air quality analysis assumed a worst-case scenario of all buildings being constructed simultaneously. Thus, staggered building construction would result in a lower amount of emissions being spread over a longer period, which would be less severe than what was modeled in the SEIR. The claim that the additional emissions created from the export of dirt during grading activities may result in an exceedance of the BAAQMD thresholds does not have factual basis since grading (and soil export) would not overlap with building construction, paving and architectural coating activities, which are well below the BAAQMD thresholds for the mitigated conditions. Response to AB-23 Table 10 from Appendix B included a typo for the Retail Center Passenger Cars of 10,830 daily trips. The 10,830 daily trips came from Table 3.6-10 of the DSEIR and represents the total gross daily trips generated from the Non-IKEA land uses. The 10,830 daily trips should have been entered on the row for Total Retail Center Trips and the Passenger Cars should have been 10,772 daily trips, which is calculated by subtracting the truck trips from the total daily trips. The Total Project Trips shown in Table 10 of 16,840 daily trips is the correct amount for the project and is what was analyzed in the CalEEMod model runs. The corrected version of Table 10 is provided in Section 4, Errata. This does not change any impact conclusion or result in any new impacts not previously discussed in the Draft SEIR. Response to AB-24 The organization claimed that the Draft SEIR’s determination that global warming impacts would be less than significant is not supported by substantial evidence. Although the DSEIR does not reference the California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan), prepared by the California Air Resource Board (CARB) in November 2017 (which was prepared two months before publication of the DSEIR), the 2017 Scoping Plan was prepared by CARB in order to provide a pathway for the State to meet the GHG emission reduction goals provided in AB 197 and SB 32, and provides substantial evidence for the threshold utilized in the DSEIR for the year 2030 GHG emissions analysis. The 2017 Scoping Plan provides guidance for local agencies in California to meet the AB 197 and SB 32 climate goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by year 2030, and provides the following text of how local agency climate action plans should be updated to meet the new 2030 and 2050 climate goals: Numerous local governments in California have already adopted GHG emissions reduction goals for year 2020 consistent with AB 32. CARB advises that local governments also develop community-wide GHG emissions reduction goals necessary to reach 2030 and 2050 climate goals. Emissions inventories and reduction goals should be expressed in mass emissions, per capita emissions, and service population emissions. To do this, local governments can start by developing a community-wide GHG emissions target consistent with the accepted protocols as City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-131 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx outlined in OPR’s General Plan Guidelines Chapter 8: Climate Change. They can then calculate GHG emissions thresholds by applying the percent reductions necessary to reach 2030 and 2050 climate goals (i.e., 40 percent and 80 percent, respectively) to their community-wide GHG emissions target. Since the statewide per capita targets are based on the statewide GHG emissions inventory that includes all emissions sectors in the State, it is appropriate for local jurisdictions to derive evidence-based local per capita goals based on local emissions sectors and population projections that are consistent with the framework used to develop the statewide per capita targets. The resulting GHG emissions trajectory should show a downward trend consistent with the statewide objectives. The recommendation for a community- wide goal expands upon the reduction of 15 percent from “current” (2005–2008) levels by 2020 as recommended in the 2008 Scoping Plan. (Emphasis added). As stated above in the 2017 Scoping Plan, local agencies can “calculate GHG emissions thresholds by applying the percent reductions necessary to reach 2030 and 2050 climate goals (i.e., 40 percent and 80 percent, respectively to their community-wide GHG emissions target.” As such, the year 2030 GHG emissions threshold of 40 percent below 1990 levels by year 2030 that was utilized in the DSEIR is substantiated by evidence provided in the 2017 Scoping Plan. In addition, the project contains many differences from the “Newhall” project that consisted of a mostly residential project located in an undeveloped area and would be considered a “leapfrog” development. First, the project consists of an infill commercial retail project with residential uses located within walking distance and existing transit (both bus and light rail stations) within walking distance to the project site. The proposed project has also committed to implementation of: • Project Design Feature 1, which requires development of an on-site walkway/bikeway system to promote non-vehicular transportation; • Project Design Feature 2, which requires the IKEA store to be designed to achieve a LEED Silver or higher rating; and • Project Design Feature 3, which requires the installation of a minimum 1,200-kilowatt PV solar panel system on the IKEA store building. With implementation of Project Design Features 1, 2, and 3 and consideration of the placement of the proposed project as an in-fill development that is transit accessible, the proposed project currently complies with the City’s CAP and meets the GHG emissions reduction targets provided in 2017 Scoping Plan implementing SB 32. Response to AB-25 The commenter claims that a typical project should be analyzed for a 30-year lifespan (2020 to 2050). However, as explained above in Response to AB-24, the project’s 2020 emissions were analyzed in accordance with the CAP. The Project’s post-2020 emissions were analyzed in accordance with standards under SB 32 and the 2017 Scoping Plan. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-132 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to AB-26 Refer to Responses to AB-24 and AB-25. Response to AB-27 The organization asserted that substantial evidence exists demonstrating that greenhouse gas emissions from the project would be significant. The organization referenced modeling performed by it consultant indicating that the project would generate 63 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) during construction and 13,634 MTCO2e during operation annually, which exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e annually. The organization stated that the greenhouse gas emissions analysis must be revised and recirculated with a legally valid threshold of significance. The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, prepared May 2017, details a few different thresholds that may be utilized in the analysis of a project’s GHG emissions. The BAAQMD’s thresholds are detailed on page 3.1-60 of the DSEIR. It is important to note that in the CEQQ Air Quality Guidelines, the BAAQMD utilizes the word “or” in detailing the different thresholds, which means that a project only needs to be found less than significant for one of the thresholds in order to provide a determination of less than significant in the DSEIR. Since the City has adopted a CAP, the DSEIR determined that compliance with the CAP is the most applicable threshold for the proposed project, and it is the threshold that was utilized in the DSEIR. See Responses to AB-24 and AB-25 for the discussion of post-2020 thresholds of significance for GHG emissions used in the DSEIR. Response to AB-28 For the reasons provided in Response to AB-1 through Response to AB-27, there is no legal basis to revise and recirculate the Draft SEIR. Response to AB-A-1 The following comment consists of a letter prepared by Scott Cashen, an independent biological resources consultant, that is referenced by the preceding comments. Topics addressed include baseline biological setting, Congdon’s tarplant, saline clover, hairless popcorn flower, vernal pool fairy shrimp, California Linderiella, the burrowing owl, and special-status bats. Refer to Response to AB-4 through Response to AB-20. Response to AB-A-2 The author disputed a statement in the Draft SEIR that the loss of foraging habitat does not constitute a significant impact, and asserted that the development of the proposed project would result in significant impacts on the burrowing owl and bats. The Draft SEIR’s statement regarding the wide availability of foraging habitat on page 3.2-17 was provided in the context of raptors such as the white-tailed kite. The purpose was to illustrate the difference between nesting and foraging habitat, and note that mitigation for loss of foraging habitat is typically not required because of its ubiquity and, therefore, is less than significant under CEQA. Refer to Response to AB-11 through Response to AB-7a, AB-7b, and AB-9 for discussion of the burrowing owl and bats. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-133 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to AB-A-3 The following comments were referenced in the preceding comments. Topics addressed include cumulative impacts, special-status plants, compensatory mitigation, the burrowing owl, special- status bats, and wetlands. Refer to Response to AB-4 through Response to AB-20. Response to AB-B-1 This comment consists of Scott Cashen’s resume. No response is necessary. Response to AB-C-1 This comment consists of general statements describing what the remainder of the letter will analyze without providing any specific claims. The commenter’s specific comments are addressed in detail in Response to AB-C-2 through Response to AB-C-8. Response to AB-C-2 Refer to Response to AB-22. Response to AB-C-3 Refer to Response to LD-3 Response to AB-C-4 Refer to Response to AB-23. Response to AB-C-5 This commenter incorrectly claims that in order for the project to be consistent with the CAP that the DSEIR needs to include mitigation measures or mandatory conditions of approval; however, the DSEIR was able to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through Project compliance with city and state regulations. Response to AB-C-6 This comment was addressed above in Response to AB-24. Response to AB-C-7 This comment was addressed above in Response to AB-27. Response to AB-C-8 The Draft SEIR found through implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-3a, AIR-3b, AIR-3c, TRANS-1a, TRANS-1b, TRANS-1c, TRANS-1d, TRANS-1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-4a, TRANS-7a, TRANS-7b, and TRANS-7c, and implementation of Project Design Features 1, 2 and 3, that the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced to less than significant levels. As such, no additional mitigation is required for the proposed project. Response to AB-D-1 This comment consists of Matthew Hagemann’s and Hadley Nolan’s resumes. No response is necessary. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CNPS Page 1 of 4 1 2 CNPS Page 2 of 4 3 4 5 6 CNPS Page 3 of 4 7 8 CNPS Page 4 of 4 8 CONT 9 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-139 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Response to CNPS-1 The organization provided introductory remarks to open the letter. No response is necessary. Response to CNPS-2 The organization summarized its comments regarding the Draft SEIR’s evaluation of special-status plant species impacts. The agency’s specific comments are addressed in Response to CNPS-3 through Response to CNPS-8. Response to CNPS-3 Refer to Response to AB-4 and AB-5. A detailed plant inventory was prepared as part of the WRA Wetland Delineation (Draft SEIR Appendix C). The only special-status plant species observed was Congdon’s tarplant. FCS confirmed the findings of WRA’s 2013 surveys in 2016 and 2017. Given that the project site is isolated and in a highly disturbed state, additional protocol-level surveys would not yield any further insights into the potential presence of plants on the project site. Response to CNPS-4 The EIR and supporting documentation does include identification of species to the taxonomic level. Regarding the one unidentified species of Amsinckia, reported in the WRA August and November 2013 reports, FCS biologists conducted a field survey in Spring 2016, which is the appropriate blooming period for the species. FCS biologists observed Rancher’s fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), a common non-native weedy species, throughout the project site during our biological survey. FCS biologists did not observe any Douglas’ fiddleneck (Amsinckia douglasiana). The commenter is correct that WRA reported that Douglas’ fiddleneck (Amsinckia douglasiana) was reported during the field survey performed by WRA on November 5, 2013. However, this species blooms between March and May; it would be highly unlikely to observe this individual in November. Moreover, these two plant species resemble each other and can be mistaken for one another. Thus, FCS concluded that the reported occurrence of the Douglas’ fiddleneck in November 2013 was in error, and therefore the Draft SEIR did not identify this as a special-status species that was present on the project site. Response to CNPS-5 Refer to Response to AB-4. A detailed plant inventory was prepared as part of the WRA Wetland Delineation and is provided in Appendix C of the Draft SEIR. The project site was surveyed on multiple occasions by qualified biologists between 2013 and 2017. The only special-status plant species observed during the surveys was Congdon’s tarplant. The other species cited by the organization (California dodder, Palmer’s amaranth, large-seeded dodder, broad leaved mudwort, hedge nettle, bearded clover, and yellow owl’s clover) were not observed during any of the biological surveys. Thus, it is not necessary to perform another survey for these species. Refer to Response to AB-8b. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-140 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to CNPS-6 All CNPS rankings were considered under the combined habitat assessment and wetland delineation efforts that constitute an exhaustive assessment for special-status plants. Response to CNPS-7 As discussed in Responses to AB-4 and AB-5, the project site was surveyed on multiple occasions by qualified biologists between 2013 and 2017. The Draft SEIR disclosed the potential impact of up to 6.81 acres of Congdon’s tarplant and requires protocol-level surveys to determine the current extent of this species on the site prior to disturbance. The project site is isolated, disturbed, and currently supports a large monoculture of field mustard, a weedy species. Given these site characteristics, the avoidance or compensatory mitigation requirements set forth in Mitigation Measure BIO-1a would fully mitigate all direct and indirect impacts on the Congdon’s tarplant associated with the proposed project. Thus, there are assurances that all potential impacts on Congdon’s tarplant would be fully mitigated. Response to CNPS-8 Mitigation Measure BIO-1a requires either avoidance or compensatory mitigation for this species in accordance with CDFW-guidance. In the outlined mitigation strategy, the measures clearly require preservation of the species on the site if found in their original, less than, or greater than states. Furthermore, EACCS guidance is advisory for private-sector projects and the City of Dublin has the discretion to determine the appropriate mitigation ratio. In this case, Mitigation Measure BIO-1a establishes a floor of minimum 1:1, which for a disturbed, infill site, is appropriate. Response to CNPS-9 The organization provided closing remarks to conclude the letter. No response is necessary. LD Page 1 of 23 1 2 LD Page 2 of 23 3 4 LD Page 3 of 23 4 CONT 5 LD Page 4 of 23 5 CONT 6 LD Page 5 of 23 6 CONT LD Page 6 of 23 7 LD Page 7 of 23 7 CONT 8 9 LD Page 8 of 23 9 CONT LD Page 9 of 23 10 LD Page 10 of 23 10 CONT 11 12 LD Page 11 of 23 12 CONT 13 LD Page 12 of 23 LD Page 13 of 23 14 LD Page 14 of 23 14 CONT LD Page 15 of 23 14 CONT LD Page 16 of 23 14 CONT LD Page 17 of 23 14 CONT LD Page 18 of 23 14 CONT LD Page 19 of 23 14 CONT LD Page 20 of 23 14 CONT LD Page 21 of 23 14 CONT LD Page 22 of 23 14 CONT LD Page 23 of 23 14 CONT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-165 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Lozeau Drury (LD) Note to reader: This law firm is representing Laborer’s International Union of North America Local Union No. 304. Response to LD-1 The organization provided introductory remarks and stated that the Draft SEIR fails CEQA requirements and should be revised and recirculated. The organization’s specific comments are addressed in Response LD-7 through Response to LD-14. Response to LD-2 The organization summarized the Draft SEIR’s project description. No response is necessary. Response to LD-3 Regarding impacts to construction workers, the Draft SEIR Mitigation Measure AIR-3a limits idling to no more than 5 minutes and requires that construction equipment be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AIR-3b requires that all construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meet United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 interim off-road emissions standards. These mitigation measures would protect the health of construction workers and others from air pollution. Thus, there is no basis for the claim that construction workers would suffer adverse health effects from poorly maintained or controlled construction equipment. As for hazardous materials, the Draft SEIR disclosed that the project site contains two soil stockpiles with detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Draft SEIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 requires the applicant to retain a qualified hazardous materials contactor to sample these soil stockpiles for these substances prior to grading activities and properly remove them if detectable concentrations of these hazardous materials are found to be present. Thus, any hazardous materials in soil would be abated prior to grading; thus, there is no basis for the claim that construction workers would suffer adverse health effects from hazardous materials on the project site. Response to LD-4 The organization provided standard language about CEQA requirements. The Draft SEIR complies with the requirements of CEQA in every respect. No response is necessary. Response to LD-5 The organization provided standard language about CEQA requirements for Supplemental EIRs and asserted that the Draft SEIR fails to analyze significant environmental impacts pertaining to the project and fully consider available mitigation measures. The organization reiterated its previous comments that the Draft SEIR should be revised and recirculated. The organization’s specific comments about the Draft SEIR’s alleged deficiencies are addressed in Response LD-7 through Response to LD-14. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-166 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to LD-6 The organization provided standard language about CEQA requirements for analyzing and disclosing all potentially significant impacts. No response is necessary. Response to LD-7 The Draft SEIR identifies impacts to intersections, local and regional roadway segments, and freeway facilities. Mitigation measures were identified for all impacts. Implementation of many mitigation measures can be assured as the improvements are already planned by the City of Dublin, or would be constructed as part of the project. For other impacts, feasible improvements have been identified but coordination with and approval from other agencies is required and neither the City of Dublin nor the project applicant can ensure their implementation. For other impacts, such as to the regional freeway system, other parallel improvements would provide other travel routes, and alternative travel modes for travel through the corridor. However, the effectiveness of these measures cannot be fully quantified. For some impacts, such as at the Dougherty Road at Dublin Boulevard Intersection, insufficient right-of-way is available to construct identified improvements. Therefore, the Draft SEIR concludes that some impacts could be significant and unavoidable as there are no assurances regarding the timing of implementation, nor the effectiveness of such measures. As part of the project approval process, a Statement of Overriding considerations must be prepared when there are significant and unavoidable impacts. This statement acknowledges the balancing of competing public objectives (including environmental, legal, technical, social, and economic factors), and allows for a project that could have significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to be approved. Response to LD-8 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 sets forth considerations for mitigation measures. The section states that mitigation measures “may specify performance standards,” “must be fully enforceable,” and “must be ‘roughly proportional’ to the impacts of the project.” In this case, Mitigation Measure AIR-3b requires that all construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meet United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 interim off-road emissions standards and obligates the applicant to provide the City of Dublin with documentation verifying this at the time of issuance of grading permits. The mitigation measure identifies a clear and unequivocal performance standard that is fully enforceable and roughly proportional to project impacts. As such, Mitigation Measure AIR-3b meets the applicable requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Regarding cumulative construction criteria pollutant emissions from the simultaneous construction of the IKEA Retail Center, Boulevard, and the Zeiss Innovation Center projects, this is unlikely to occur. As of June 2018, the Boulevard Project site is 1,500 feet northwest of the IKEA Retail Center project site and is currently under construction; the Zeiss Innovation Center Project site is approximately 760 feet north of the IKEA site and is approved and expected to commence construction in the second half of 2018. Since the IKEA Retail Center project has not yet been considered for approval and cannot begun any construction until after approval and issuance of permits, the IKEA construction is unlikely to overlap with these other projects. In addition, none of the three sites are contiguous to each other. Criteria pollutant air emissions constitute a very short- term, localized phenomenon and are heavily influenced by factors such as weather. Moreover, City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-167 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx construction activities are temporary and cease when the project is completed. Thus, for a worst- case cumulative criteria pollutant impact to occur in the context of construction, all three projects would have to be under construction simultaneously on a hot, sunny day with little to no wind. Given the staggered schedules of the three projects and the distance between each one, this is remote and unlikely to occur. Therefore, it is too speculative to evaluate. Response to LD-9 As discussed in Response to LD-8, there is no basis for assuming that Mitigation Measure AIR-3b will not be effective at mitigating impacts from the IKEA construction or assuming that the IKEA Retail Center, Boulevard, and Zeiss Innovation Center projects will be implemented on similar constriction schedules. The mitigation measure will ensure that the construction impacts from the IKEA project will be less than cumulatively considerable. Response to LD-10 Draft SEIR page 3.2-2 indicated that the on-site seasonal features may be exempt from jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act because they appear to be isolated and do not drain to a navigable waterway. Moreover, the Draft SEIR consistently indicates that the seasonal features are 1.92 acres in area; the statement on page 3.2-16 about the seasonal wetland acreage increasing from 1.17 to 1.92 reflected the values contained in the WRA Biological Resources Assessment dated August 2013 (1.17 acres) and the WRA Delineation of Waters of the U.S. dated November 2013 (1.92 acres); they do not reflect 2016 versus 2017 values. In all cases, the Draft SEIR referenced the higher value of 1.92 acres when discussing existing conditions and impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 sets forth considerations for mitigation measures. The section states that mitigation measures “may specify performance standards,” “must be fully enforceable,” and “must be ‘roughly proportional’ to the impacts of the project.” In this case, the mitigation measures for Congdon’s tarplant (Mitigation Measure BIO-1a), nesting birds (Mitigation Measure BIO-1b), burrowing owl (Mitigation Measure BIO-1c), bats (Mitigation Measure BIO-1d), and wetlands (Mitigation Measures BIO-3a and BIO-3b) all identify clear and unequivocal performance standards that are fully enforceable and roughly proportional to project impacts. As an example, Mitigation Measure BIO-1a indicates that (1) a focused survey for the Congdon’s tar plant must be completed prior to vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities; (2) must be conducted in accordance with the CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities; and (3) specific avoidance or compensatory mitigation must be implemented if individuals are found to be present. In regard to requiring focused or pre-construction surveys prior approval of a project, please refer to Response AB-14. Response to LD-11 The Smallwood inspection is addressed in Response to LD-14. Response to LD-12 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 sets forth considerations for mitigation measures. The section states that mitigation measures “may specify performance standards,” “must be fully enforceable,” and “must be ‘roughly proportional’ to the impacts of the project.” In this case, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-168 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx requires the applicant to retain a qualified hazardous materials contactor to sample these soil stockpiles for these substances prior to grading activities and properly remove them if detectable concentrations of these hazardous materials are found to be present. There are clear and unequivocal performance standards within this mitigation measure that are fully enforceable and roughly proportional to project impacts, such as: “Prior to issuance of the first grading permit . . .” “If sampling determines that concentrations of these substances exceed acceptable human health exposure levels . . .” “. . . the applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to properly remove and dispose if impacted soil . . .” For these reasons, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 meets the applicable requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 and the claims that construction workers would be exposed to hazardous materials are not supported by substantial evidence. Response to LD-13 As discussed in these responses, the Draft SEIR meets all applicable CEQA requirements and there is no legal basis to revise and recirculate the Draft SEIR. Response to LD-14 This comment consists of a letter authored by Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., dated March 5, 2018 regarding the Zeiss Innovation Center Project site located east of Arnold Road and north of Dublin Boulevard. Dr. Smallwood indicated that he performed a 15-minute site visit on February 8, 2018 and a 94-minute visit on March 2, 2018. He indicated that both visits were restricted to the outer perimeter of the Zeiss Innovation Center Project site and that he did not actually walk the site. He reported observing a red-tailed hawk and a white-tailed kite and suggested that their behavior was indicative of nesting. He also inferred burrowing owls may be present because of the presence of ground squirrels. His letter then delves into topics specific to the Zeiss Innovation Center Project that have no relevance to the IKEA Retail Center project. As should be clear, Dr. Smallwood did not survey the IKEA Retail Center project site. The Zeiss Innovation Center Project site is located approximately 760 feet north of the IKEA Retail Center project site, with Martinelli Way (a four-lane divided roadway), Persimmon Place (a retail center), and Dublin Boulevard (a six-lane divided roadway) located in between. The two sites are non- contiguous. Unlike the Zeiss Innovation Center Project site, the IKEA Retail Center project site supports paved areas and buildings. Moreover, Dr. Smallwood’s methods would not be consistent with those for a reconnaissance level biological survey, or for that matter, CEQA-level evaluation of biological resources. Moreover, his initial February 8, 2018 survey of the approximately 10-acre site Zeiss Innovation Center Project site consisted of a 15-minute visit, which seems to be a bit abbreviated for a site of this size. His suggestion that that red-tailed hawks, white-tailed kites, or burrowing owls are nesting on-site are completely unsupported by any actual direct evidence that such nests are present. Lastly, using a City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-169 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx biologist’s observations for one project site as a proxy for a completely separate site would not meet any widely accepted standard for biological assessments. Overall, Dr. Smallwood’s letter provides limited biological insight into the Zeiss Innovation Center Project site and absolutely no biological insight into the IKEA Retail Center site. Regardless, the IKEA Retail Center project site was surveyed on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2017 by several biologists from separate firms and was determined to provide suitable habitat for nesting birds (including raptors such as the red-tailed hawks and white-tailed kites) and the burrowing owl. Accordingly, the Draft SEIR set forth Mitigation Measures BIO-1b and BIO-1c to address impacts to these species. As such, there is no basis to revise and recirculate the Draft SEIR based on Dr. Smallwood’s letter. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CIGNARELLA Page 1 of 2 1 2 CIGNARELLA Page 2 of 2 2 CONT City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-173 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Individuals Tom Cignarella (CIGNARELLA) Response to CIGNARELLA-1 The author expressed objection to the project because of traffic congestion. Refer to Master Response 1. Response to CIGNARELLA-2 The author provided a summary of the SEIR’s conclusions regarding traffic. Refer to Master Response 2. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK DE WIT-SMITH Page 1 of 2 1 DE WIT-SMITH Page 2 of 2 1 CONT City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-177 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Liana deWit-Smith (DEWIT-SMITH) Response to DEWIT-SMITH-1 The author provided a summary of the SEIR’s conclusions regarding traffic and expressed objection to the project. Refer to Master Responses 1 and 2. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FICARRA Page 1 of 1 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-181 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Tammy Ficarra (FICARRA) Response to FICARRA-1 The author expressed objection to the project because of traffic congestion. Refer to Master Response 1. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK GEBEL Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-185 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Jeff Gebel (GEBEL) Response to GEBEL-1 The author does not provide any evidence in support of his claim that traffic impacts on I-580, I-680, Hacienda Drive, and Dublin Boulevard have not been properly mitigated. Refer to CALTRANS-3 for further discussion of traffic analysis and mitigation, particularly with regard to freeway impacts. Response to GEBEL-2 Both Livermore and Pleasanton have established retail nodes1 that are within close driving distance of Dublin and, thus, Dublin residents are making existing trips to these outlets. As such, these traffic patterns are captured in the Draft SEIR’s existing and Existing Plus Project traffic analyses (Impacts TRANS-1) in Section 3.6, Transportation. To the extent that these residents would continue to make these shopping trips in the future, this would represent the continuation of an existing condition. IKEA primarily retails furniture and housewares and, thus, only competes with outlets in these categories. Thus, the development of an IKEA would not eliminate the need for Dublin residents to shop at outlets that serve other retail categories. Although the Draft SEIR indicates that traffic conditions would deteriorate on local and regional roadways under Near-Term with Project and Cumulative with Project conditions, attempting to predict how this would influence non-IKEA retail traffic pattern trips is too speculative to predict because it would require information that is not currently available (the types of outlets that would exist in the future, shopping preferences of residents in the future, etc.). CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 indicates that if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. Response to GEBEL-3 Impacts on the existing visual character of the project site were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no further analysis is required. Thus, the project would not represent a substantial visual impact under CEQA standards. However, the design and coloring of the building is subject to City zoning regulations, including site development review standards, which will be considered by decision-makers. Response to GEBEL-4 The Draft SEIR’s noise analysis in Section 3.4 Noise specifically accounted for truck noise in terms of roadway noise and delivery loading and unloading noise; refer to pages 3.4-18; 3.4-20 through 3.4-27; and 3.4-29 through 3.4-30. As discussed on those pages, all operational noise impacts (including truck noise) were found to be less than significant. Response to GEBEL-5 Project-related greenhouse gas emissions impacts were evaluated in Section 3.1, Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas Emissions on pages 3.1-59 through 3.1-67. Although the proposed project would result in a net increase in daily vehicle trips, the State’s adopted greenhouse gas reduction policies (e.g., Pavley I motor vehicle emission standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Pavley II Advanced Clear 1 Livermore nodes include the San Francisco Premium Outlets and Costco. Pleasanton nodes include Pacific Pearl, CarMax/Stoneridge Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge, Rose Pavilion, Metro 580, etc. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-186 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Cars Program) would apply to the vehicle fleet and serve to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over time. The proposed project also includes features that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions such as being designed to meet the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Silver standard, being accessible to bicycles and transit, and the use of a photovoltaic solar system for electricity production. The Draft SEIR found that the proposed project would achieve the State’s 40 percent emissions reduction target set forth in SB 32 and, thus, impacts would be less than significant. Because the proposed project would be consistent with the State’s greenhouse gas reduction objectives, it would not be considered to increase Dublin’s carbon footprint. GONZALES Page 1 of 1 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-189 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Chenin Gonzales (GONZALES) Response to GONZALES-1 The Draft SEIR referenced the applicable federal and state statutes that pertain to avian species on pages 3.2-11 through 3.2-14, including the white-tailed hawk and western burrowing owl. Section 3.2, Biological Resources Impact BIO-1 evaluated impacts on special-status bird species and noted that the project site provides suitable habitat for nesting birds, the western burrowing owl, and bat species; as such, Mitigation Measures BIO-1b, BIO-1c, and BIO-1d were set forth to mitigate impacts on these species. In summary, the Draft SEIR did evaluate the potential presence of special-status aviation species and set forth mitigation to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HEYER Page 1 of 2 1 HEYER Page 2 of 2 1 CONT City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-193 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx John Heyer (HEYER) Response to HEYER-1 The author provided a summary of the SEIR’s conclusions regarding traffic and expressed objection to the project. Refer to Master Responses 1 and 2. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK KAUBE Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 KAUBE Page 2 of 25 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-197 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Michael Kaube (KAUBE) Response to KAUBE-1 The Initial Study in Appendix A served as a preliminary assessment of impacts on public transit, bicycles and pedestrians. A more detailed assessment of bicycle circulation is provided in Draft SEIR Section 3.6, Transportation, Impact TRANS-8, and identified several improvements to enhance the convenience and safety of cycling in the project vicinity (Mitigation Measures TRANS-8a, TRANS-8b, and TRANS-8c). After implementation of these mitigation measures, the Draft SEIR concluded that impacts on bicycles were less than significant. The author did not provide any specific comments on the Draft SEIR’s analysis or mitigation measures. Response to KAUBE-2 As noted in Response to KAUBE-1, the Draft SEIR provided a detailed assessment of bicycle and pedestrian circulation and set forth improvements as mitigation measures. Regarding the poor condition of the Class I bicycle/pedestrian path along the north side of Dublin Boulevard, this is a result of the development of the Boulevard Project that restricted access to portions of this facility. That project will be required to restore the Class I bicycle/pedestrian path to satisfactory condition. Note that the IKEA Retail Center project does not propose any changes to this facility. Response to KAUBE-3 Refer to Response to KAUBE-1 and -2. Response to KAUBE-4 The author stated that he will be opposed to any further development in the project vicinity until the traffic situation is improved. This comment is noted and will be provided to City decision-makers. No response is necessary. Response to KAUBE-5 This comment consists of a diagram referenced by the author in his comments. No response is necessary. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MARSHALL Page 1 of 1 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-201 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Lianne Marshall (MARSHALL) Response to MARSHALL-1 The author provided a summary of the SEIR’s conclusions regarding traffic and expressed objection to the project. Refer to Master Response 1. The author also expressed objection to the design and appearance of the proposed project. Impacts on the existing visual character of the project site were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no further analysis is required. Thus, the project would not represent a substantial visual impact under CEQA standards. However, the design and coloring of the building is subject to City zoning regulations, including site development review standards, which will be considered by decision-makers. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MURUGESAN Page 1 of 1 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-205 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Jegadheesa Murugesan (MURUGESAN) Response to MURUGESAN-1 The author provided a summary of the SEIR’s conclusions regarding vehicle miles traveled and expressed objection to the project. Refer to Master Response 1. The author stated that the SEIR in Table Page 6-6 underreported the City’s population as 50,000 and asserted that this should be corrected in order to get an accurate picture of traffic impacts. Table 6-6 indicates that the City’s “existing population” is 50,970. That number represents a calculation of residential population based on the number of households in the base year model with different housing types having different household sizes. The model base year is 2015, so this numbers reflects the population for that year. It should be noted that the population for the City of Dublin for modeling purposes does not include the Santa Rita Jail facility, which has a capacity of 4,000 people or Federal Correctional Institution Dublin, which has a capacity of 990. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PAGE Page 1 of 1 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-209 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Chris Page (PAGE) Response to PAGE-1 The author provided a summary of the SEIR’s conclusions regarding traffic and expressed objection to the project. Refer to Master Responses 1 and 2. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SOLAIMAN Page 1 of 2 1 SOLAIMAN Page 2 of 2 1 CONT City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-213 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Feroza Solaiman (SOLAIMAN) Response to SOLAIMAN-1 The author provided a summary of the SEIR’s conclusions regarding traffic and expressed objection to the project. Refer to Master Responses 1 and 2. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK YOUNG Page 1 of 1 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-217 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Rupert Young (YOUNG) Response to YOUNG-1 The author expressed objection to the project because of traffic congestion and land use compatibility. Refer to Master Response 1. Impacts on land use were addressed in the initial study, which was included as Appendix A of the EIR. As discussed, the proposed project consists of the development of commercial-retail center. The City of Dublin General Plan designates the project site as “General Commercial,” while the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan zones the site as “General Commercial,” which permits the construction of retail-commercial uses. Development on-site would be required to comply with all applicable General Plan policies and Specific Plan regulations, and would be reviewed by the City prior to approval of the necessary permits. As such, impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. Thus, the project would not result in a significant impact in terms of land use. The design and coloring of the building is subject to City zoning regulations, including site development review standards, which will be considered by decision-makers. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 3-219 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Non-Draft SEIR Comments Table 3-2 summarizes the individuals that submitted comments that pertained to the proposed project, but did not specifically address any aspect of the Draft SEIR’s analysis. The letters are reproduced following the table. Please refer to Section 2, Master Responses for a response to these comments. Table 3-2: Non-Draft SEIR Comments Signatory Signatory Signatory J. Alexander Melissa Alexander Angie [Full Name Not provided] Sandi Arajs and Tom Rogers Joe Banchero Dean Barnes Lisa Burks Maijargal Burrows Catherine Byron Brian Cardella Marlon Cardenas Kerrie Chabot Jenny Chang Daniel Chen Young Cho Tom Cignarella Sean Cohen Danielle Cooper Ewa David Lianna de Wit-Smith Vanessa Dellon Diana DeMeo Mindy Destro Satpal Dhillon Susan Dunnegan Ernesto Eugenio Jennifer Farber and John Hanson Tammy Ficarra (3 letters) Susanne Frey Vasantha Ganesan Michelle Gebel Jay Gill Sumeet Gore Patrick Graham Perrin Guess Roger Gupta Akansha Gupta Rajesh Gupta Roger and Nancy Haddad (2 letters) Patty Hansen Sunil Hariani Pam Harvey Heidi [Full Name Not Provided] Gretchen Hellmann Jennet Herdman John Heyer Wendy Jemo Jim R. and Elena G. (Full Names Not Provided) Teresa Johnson Gerry Judd Nina Kamatani Kamlesh Kamdar Alex Kao Sepi Katz Stefani Katz Pearl Ko Vaidy Krishnamurthy Pawan Kumar William and Katherine Kuo Eric Lam Linda Leonard Cheryl LeValley James Lin Gina Lindauer Weifeng Liu John Lumm Mahesh [Full Name Not Provided] Ravinder Mangat Lianne Marshall Kiran Maskey Marlene Massetti Leonie Meima Rowena Morgan Kazuko and Masahiro Morimoto Gargi Mukherjee Jegadheesa Murugesan Hilary Nindorf Chris Page City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final SEIR 3-220 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Table 3-2(cont.): Non-Draft SEIR Comments Signatory Signatory Signatory Katie Palomares Carmen Pappas Ashish Paralkar Annissa Park Ivan Pysarevskyy Ramya Ramakrishnan Brian Roudabush Johan Rydell Nithya Sakthirajan Edlyn Sammanasu (2 letters) Lucretia Samuels Satar [Full Name Not Provided] (2 letters) Jenny Scheinpflug Thomas Schindler Allen Shaw Monica Silva Jennifer Situ and Vick Tran (2 letters) Feroza Solaiman Vanessa Sotelo Suico [Full Name Not Provided] (2 letters) Diane Tarin Nhuly Tran Debbie Wagner (2 letters) Janeen Wheeler Heather Whiting Barbara Wilson Rupert Young Source: City of Dublin, 2018. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Errata FirstCarbon Solutions 4-1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Errata.docx SECTION 4: ERRATA The following are revisions to the Draft SEIR for the IKEA Retail Center Project. These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the document, and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft SEIR. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are stricken (stricken). 4.1 - Changes to Draft EIR Text Section ES, Executive Summary Page ES-1, Project Location The project address has been corrected. The project site is located at 5344 and 5144 5411 Martinelli Way in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. Page ES-2, Table ES-1 Table ES-1 has been revised to eliminate a redundant entry for 8,000 square feet of restaurant uses. These uses are captured in the 58,440 square-foot value. Table ES-1: IKEA Retail Center Project Summary Use Acreage Square Feet Characteristics Major 1 (IKEA) 13.65 339,099 2 stories above two-story parking structure Lifestyle retail-restaurant 13.66 8,000 Freestanding restaurant 34,560 Multiple buildings, retail use 58,440 Multiple buildings, restaurant/food use Subtotal 27.45 — ― Proposed/anticipated dedication for BART1 (0.16) ― ― Total 27.31 432,099 ― Note: 1 Based on Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative. Source: GreenbergFarrow, 2017. Section 2, Project Description Page 2-1, Project Location The project address has been corrected. The project site is located at 5344 and 5144 5411 Martinelli Way in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Errata Final SEIR 4-2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Page 2-10, Table 2-1 Table 2-1 has been revised to eliminate a redundant entry for 8,000 square feet of restaurant uses. These uses are captured in the 58,440 square-foot value. Table 2-1: IKEA Retail Center Project Summary Use Acreage Square Feet Characteristics Major 1 (IKEA) 13.65 339,099 2 stories above two-story parking structure Lifestyle retail-restaurant 13.66 8,000 Freestanding restaurant 34,560 Multiple buildings, retail use 58,440 Multiple buildings, restaurant/food use Subtotal 27.45 — ― Proposed/anticipated dedication for BART1 (0.16) ― ― Total 27.31 432,099 ― Note: 1 Based on Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative. Source: GreenbergFarrow, 2017. Page 2-10 Text is added to clarify the proposed building height of the structure Major 1—IKEA The IKEA store would consist of a two-story building located over a two-level parking structure with the lower level partially below grade. The building would be set against the Arnold Road frontage and face Hacienda Drive. The building would stand approximately 61 feet above finished grade. The majority of the building would be at 58 feet 6 inches, while the yellow Ikea Panels would project up to 65 feet in height. The principal loading docks would be located in the rear of the building facing Arnold Road. A recycling and refuse collection area, trash compactor, and emergency diesel generator would also be located at the rear of the store. A two-bay loading dock for home deliveries would be located on the south side of the building facing I-580. Section 3.1, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pages 3.1-43 and 3.1-44, Table 3.1-7 Table 3.1-7 has been revised to include emissions from export haul trips, which would only occur during the grading phase of construction. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Errata FirstCarbon Solutions 4-3 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Table 3.1 —7: Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Prior to Mitigation Construction Activity Air Pollutants (pounds per day) ROG NOX PM10 1 PM2.5 1 Demolition 3.83 39.78 1.95 1.81 Grading 5.185.76 59.5979.00 2.633.90 2.422.82 Combined Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coatings 146.06 73.35 3.01 2.83 - Building Construction 6.29 57.32 2.16 2.03 - Paving 2.21 14.11 0.75 0.69 - Architectural Coating 137.56 1.92 0.11 0.11 CEQA Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? Yes Yes No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, Appendix B. Pages 3.1-44 and 3.1-45, Table 3.1-8 Table 3.1-8 has been revised to include emissions from export haul trips. Table 3.1-8: Mitigated Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Construction Activity Air Pollutants (pounds per day) ROG NOX PM10 1 PM2.5 1 Demolition 0.69 14.98 0.07 0.07 Grading 1.101.68 19.3438.75 0.111.38 0.110.51 Combined Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coatings 51.41 52.44 0.34 0.34 - Building Construction 3.37 41.06 0.30 0.30 - Paving 1.19 10.08 0.04 0.04 - Architectural Coating 46.85 1.30 0.00 0.00 CEQA Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Exhaust only ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, Appendix B. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Errata Final SEIR 4-4 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Section 3.3, Biological Resources Pages 3.2-19 and 3.2-20, Mitigation Measure BIO-1c Mitigation Measure BIO-1c has been modified to include a requirement for minimum 1:1 replacement. MM BIO-1c Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following measures that pertain to burrowing owl, as applicable: 1. Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment. Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the burrowing owl for the entire site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground- disturbing activities and the second survey shall be conducted within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth in this mitigation shall be followed. 2. Implement Avoidance Measures. If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. • Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1 through 31 August. • Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. • Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. • Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. • Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows. • Do not fumigate or use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). 3. Conduct Burrow Exclusion. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out pursuant to the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report. 4. Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Errata FirstCarbon Solutions 4-5 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Errata.docx occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat at no less than a 1:1 ratio, number of burrows, and burrowing owl in a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the Plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities. Section 3.6, Transportation Page 3.6-70, After Third Paragraph The discussion of Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way improvements has been amended to acknowledge that Caltrans has jurisdictional control. Note that the 100-foot extension of the turn pocket would encroach into the Caltrans jurisdiction. The City of Dublin has no control over Caltrans facilities and therefore, the residual significance of this impact is significant and unavoidable. Page 3.6-125, Table 3.6-19 A typographical error associated with the identification of LOS following the implementation of mitigation is corrected, as shown in Table 3.6-19. Table 3.6-19: Cumulative with Mitigation Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Cumulative with Project With Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 6. Hopyard Road & Owens Drive Signal AM PM SAT 50.8 95.1 63.7 D F E 50.9 96.6 65.6 D F E 35.9 54.2 53.8 C D D 11. Dublin Boulevard & Arnold Road Signal AM AFT PM SAT 35.3 44.3 60.3 (141.5) 47.7 D D E D 38.2 52.4 60.7 (170.8) 47.8 D D E D 35.4 48.8 43.6 42.3 D D D D 17. Dublin Boulevard & Hacienda Drive Signal AM AFT PM SAT 36.8 45.5 72.2 (275.0) 64.4 (235.0) D D E E 37.9 52.6 80.8 (345.2) 77.0 (318.8) D D F E 36.7 36.0 52.2 47.0 D D D D 18. Hacienda Drive & Martinelli Way Signal AM AFT PM SAT 38.7 37.1 0.82 (1.86) 41.9 D D F D 41.2 49.9 1.01 (2.42) 70.4 D D F E 50.0 41.0 47.6 53.9 D D D D 21. Owens Drive & Hacienda Drive Signal AM PM SAT 21.0 99.1 24.0 C F C 21.1 100.9 24.3 C F C 20.4 54.5 21.0 C D C City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Errata Final SEIR 4-6 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Table 3.6-19 (cont.): Cumulative with Mitigation Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Control Peak Hour Cumulative without Project Cumulative with Project Cumulative with Project With Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 26. Dublin Boulevard & Tassajara Road Signal AM PM SAT 49.0 1.53 (1.93) 1.38 (1.98) D F F 49.5 1.54 (1.93) 1.40 (2.06) D F F 49.1 70.3 54.9 D E D 28. Santa Rita Road & I-580 Eastbound Off- Ramp Signal AM PM SAT 35.0 53.0 94.5 C D F 35.1 54.0 97.4 D D F 29.4 47.8 36.6 47.4 39.5 63.6 CD D DE Notes: Bold text indicates LOS E/F; Bold Italics text indicates impacts due to the proposed project. 1 Signal = signalized. 2 Average intersection delay calculated using the HCM 2000 methodology. For LOS E signalized intersections in the City of Dublin, average delay is followed by the delay for the worst movement in parentheses. For LOS F signalized intersections in the City of Dublin, overall intersection volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio is followed by the v/c ratio for the worst movement. Source: Fehr and Peers, 2018. Page 3.6-100, Mitigation Measure TRANS-2c The improvements listed in Mitigation Measure TRANS-2c are amended to include an additional eastbound left turn or through lane. MM TRANS-2c Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to identify and pay the project’s proportionate share for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of modifying the southbound approach to construct a second southbound left-turn lane, and either modifying the northbound approach to construct a third eastbound left-turn lane or modifying the southbound approach to provide a third southbound through lane, in addition to re-timing the traffic signal. Section 4, Cumulative Effects Table 4-1 An entry has been added to Table 4-1 for the Zeiss Innovation Center Project. The addition of this project to Table 4-1 does not materially change any conclusions in Section 4, Cumulative Effects. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR Errata FirstCarbon Solutions 4-7 Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Table 4-1: Cumulative Projects Jurisdiction Project Characteristics Location Status City of Dublin Kaiser Dublin Medical Center 950,000 square feet Kaiser Medical Campus; 250,000 square feet commercial Dublin Boulevard/ Keegan Street Approved; under construction Dublin Crossing/ Boulevard Up to 1,995 dwelling units; 200,000 square feet commercial; 35 acres parks; 12-acre elementary school Dublin Boulevard/ DeMarcus Approved; under construction Zeiss Innovation Center Phase 1: 208,650 square feet research and development Phase 2: 224,440 square feet research and development Dublin Boulevard/ Arnold Road Proposed Grafton Plaza Mixed Use 115 dwelling units, 50,000 square feet retail commercial, and 130 room hotel Dublin Boulevard/ Grafton Drive Proposed; not yet approved or built Grafton Station Phase III 133,446 square feet commercial Dublin Boulevard/ Tassajara Road Approved; unbuilt City of Pleasanton Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan 800 dwelling units (senior); 120,000–200,000 square feet commercial; 331,000 square feet auto mall El Charro Road/Stoneridge Drive Approved; under construction Johnson Drive Economic Zone 40-acre area envisioned to support up to 535,490 square feet of warehouse club retail (Costco), hotel, general retail, and recreational facilities 7106–7315 Johnson Drive Proposed City of Livermore El Charro Specific Plan 1.5 million square feet retail; 250 acres El Charro Road/Jack London Boulevard Adopted; under construction Isabel Neighborhood Plan 1,132-acre area envisioned to support up to 4,300 dwelling units and up to 9,000 jobs I-580/Isabel Avenue (north side of freeway) Proposed Sage Residential Project 476 dwelling units Portola Drive/ Isabel Avenue Approved; under construction City of San Ramon San Ramon City Center Phase 1: 279159 square feet retail; 46,086 square feet cinema Phase 2: 65,679 square feet retail; 169-room hotel; 487 dwelling units Bollinger Canyon Road/Camino Ramon Approved; under construction Multiple Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Livermore Extension 4.8-mile BART extension from Dublin/Pleasanton Station to I-580/Isabel Avenue I-580 Median (Dublin to Livermore) Planned Source: City of Dublin, 2017; City of Pleasanton, 2017; City of Livermore, 2017. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Errata Final SEIR 4-8 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\6 - Draft Final SEIR\37660005 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Information Table 10 The fleet mix in Table 10 has been revised to correct an erroneous entry. Table 10: Project Vehicle Fleet Mix Building Vehicle Type Number of Vehicle Trips IKEA Passenger Cars 5,980 Light-heavy Duty Trucks (2-axles) 20 Heavy-heavy Duty Trucks (4+axles) 10 Total IKEA Trips 6010 Retail Center Passenger Cars(2) 10,83010,772 Light-heavy Duty Trucks (2-axles) 50 Heavy-heavy Duty Trucks (4+axles) 8 Total Retail Center Trips 10,80110,830 Total Project Trips 16,840 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Final SEIR FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\3766\37660005\SEIR\5 - Screencheck Final SEIR\37660005 Sec99-00 App div pg.docx Appendix I: Supplemental Air Quality Supporting Information THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,026.00 Space 4.00 464,212.00 0 Parking Lot 568.00 Space 10.57 227,200.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)58.44 1000sqft 1.55 58,440.00 0 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 339.10 1000sqft 9.65 339,099.00 0 Strip Mall 34.56 1000sqft 1.55 34,560.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 63 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2020Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 519.21 0.023CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.005N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated Alameda County, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 1 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter Project Characteristics - PG&E Intensity Factors reduced by 19%. Land Use - Land uses provided by applicant. Construction Phase - 10 days Demo, 45 days Grading, 290 days Building Construction, 35 days Paving, and 45 days Painting. Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Building Construction equipment hours = 1.5 x default hours to account for the shortened Building Construction period. Off-road Equipment - Demolition - 147 tons builidng material + 290 tons of paving debris = 437.20 total tons of demolition debris Architectural Coating - Non-Residential Interior and Exterior VOC set to 45 g/L. Vehicle Trips - Trip Rates and Trip Length adjusted to match TIA. Energy Use - Electricty usage for IKEA reduced by 29%. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - All equipment Tier 4 Interim. Water exposed area. Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Mit TRANS-7A - Busstop 0.05 miles (Martinelli Wy); Project Design Feature 1 - Improve pedestrian network on project site and connecting off-site; Area Mitigation - Use low VOC Paint on non-res interior, 45 g/L. Energy Mitigation - 42 percent renewable energy generated Water Mitigation - Install low-flow fixtures and water-efficient irrigation systems. Waste Mitigation - 50 percent waste diverted. Operational Off-Road Equipment - . Fleet Mix - Fleet mix updated to account for 70 2-axle trucks and 18 4-axle. Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - 1 backup generator at IKEA, run 0.5 hours, 6 hour/year, 2,923 HP; load factor 0.5. Grading - 95,000 cy cut and 73,700 cy fill = 21,300 cy exported offsite Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 45.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 45.00 tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialInteriorV alue 100 45 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 2 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 10.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 3 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter tblConstructionPhase NumDays 440.00 290.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 35.00 45.00 tblEnergyUse LightingElect 1.75 1.24 tblEnergyUse LightingElect 5.25 3.72 tblEnergyUse NT24E 0.19 0.13 tblEnergyUse NT24E 2.68 1.91 tblEnergyUse T24E 3.92 2.78 tblEnergyUse T24E 2.76 1.96 tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 0.33 tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 0.33 tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix LDA 0.56 0.00 tblFleetMix LDA 0.56 0.62 tblFleetMix LDA 0.56 0.62 tblFleetMix LDA 0.56 0.00 tblFleetMix LDA 0.56 0.62 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.05 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.05 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.05 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.21 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.21 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 4 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.21 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.67 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.67 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 5.2280e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 5.2280e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 5.2280e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 5.2280e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 5.2280e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MCY 5.5690e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MCY 5.5690e-003 6.0000e-003 tblFleetMix MCY 5.5690e-003 6.0000e-003 tblFleetMix MCY 5.5690e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MCY 5.5690e-003 6.0000e-003 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.12 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.12 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.12 tblFleetMix MH 7.5900e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 7.5900e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 7.5900e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 7.5900e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 7.5900e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 5 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1180e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1180e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1180e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1180e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1180e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 3.0800e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 3.0800e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 3.0800e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 3.0800e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 3.0800e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8050e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8050e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8050e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8050e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8050e-003 0.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 21,300.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 410,400.00 464,212.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 339,100.00 339,099.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 9.23 4.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.11 10.57 tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.34 1.55 tblLandUse LotAcreage 7.78 9.65 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.79 1.55 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 6 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 11.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 12.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 12.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 11.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 12.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.023 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 519.21 tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.005 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 7.30 31.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 7.30 15.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 7.30 9.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 7.30 24.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 7.30 9.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 0.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 0.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 7.30 31.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 7.30 15.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 7.30 9.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 7.30 24.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 7.30 9.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 9.50 31.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 9.50 15.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 9.50 9.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 9.50 24.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 9.50 9.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 7 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.03 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 64.07 17.63 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 126.64 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.10 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 97.54 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.03 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 56.12 17.63 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 126.64 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.10 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 97.54 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.03 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 50.75 17.63 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 126.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 97.54 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 8 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2018 5.7553 79.0019 39.1489 0.1112 9.9267 2.7087 12.6354 3.9322 2.4947 6.4268 0.0000 11,450.847 1 11,450.847 1 2.2295 0.0000 11,506.584 1 2019 6.2866 57.3195 45.0115 0.1264 4.8201 2.1561 6.9763 1.3068 2.0283 3.3351 0.0000 12,748.12 86 12,748.12 86 1.4275 0.0000 12,783.81 55 2020 47.0392 52.3209 42.5768 0.1249 4.8201 1.8395 6.6597 1.3068 1.7301 3.0369 0.0000 12,543.25 21 12,543.25 21 1.3765 0.0000 12,577.66 55 Maximum 47.0392 79.0019 45.0115 0.1264 9.9267 2.7087 12.6354 3.9322 2.4947 6.4268 0.0000 12,748.12 86 12,748.12 86 2.2295 0.0000 12,783.81 55 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2018 1.6762 38.7508 40.7821 0.1112 4.6034 0.1765 4.7798 1.7333 0.1732 1.9065 0.0000 11,450.847 1 11,450.847 1 2.2295 0.0000 11,506.584 1 2019 3.4889 41.6052 46.1326 0.1264 4.8201 0.3046 5.1247 1.3068 0.2961 1.6029 0.0000 12,748.12 86 12,748.12 86 1.4275 0.0000 12,783.81 55 2020 46.8515 39.5277 44.1862 0.1249 4.8201 0.2535 5.0737 1.3068 0.2473 1.5541 0.0000 12,543.25 21 12,543.25 21 1.3765 0.0000 12,577.66 55 Maximum 46.8515 41.6052 46.1326 0.1264 4.8201 0.3046 5.1247 1.7333 0.2961 1.9065 0.0000 12,748.12 86 12,748.12 86 2.2295 0.0000 12,783.81 55 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 9 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 10.8250 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Energy 0.3851 3.5010 2.9408 0.0210 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 4,201.153 6 4,201.153 6 0.0805 0.0770 4,226.1190 Mobile 25.1668 44.8840 304.9522 0.7693 74.6479 0.5878 75.2357 19.8113 0.5451 20.3564 76,794.61 41 76,794.61 41 2.7574 76,863.54 78 Stationary 1.6428 7.3463 4.1887 7.8900e- 003 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 840.3766 840.3766 0.1178 843.3222 Total 38.0197 55.7332 312.2899 0.7983 74.6479 1.0962 75.7441 19.8113 1.0535 20.8649 81,836.58 78 81,836.58 78 2.9569 0.0770 81,933.46 21 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 11.96 36.45 -3.44 0.00 27.21 89.04 42.99 33.59 88.54 60.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 10 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 10.3723 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Energy 0.3851 3.5010 2.9408 0.0210 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 4,201.153 6 4,201.153 6 0.0805 0.0770 4,226.1190 Mobile 24.2612 40.6929 280.3369 0.6823 65.8395 0.5293 66.3687 17.4736 0.4908 17.9643 68,090.22 29 68,090.22 29 2.5011 68,152.75 07 Stationary 1.6428 7.3463 4.1887 7.8900e- 003 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 840.3766 840.3766 0.1178 843.3222 Total 36.6614 51.5420 287.6746 0.7112 65.8395 1.0377 66.8772 17.4736 0.9992 18.4728 73,132.19 66 73,132.19 66 2.7006 0.0770 73,222.66 50 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 3.57 7.52 7.88 10.90 11.80 5.34 11.71 11.80 5.16 11.46 0.00 10.64 10.64 8.67 0.00 10.63 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 11 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 10/15/2018 10/26/2018 5 10 2 Grading Grading 10/27/2018 12/30/2018 5 45 3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2019 2/10/2020 5 290 4 Paving Paving 2/11/2020 3/30/2020 5 35 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/1/2020 6/2/2020 5 45 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 648,149; Non-Residential Outdoor: 216,050; Striped Parking Area: 41,485 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 14.57 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 12 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 11.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 12.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 12.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 11.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 12.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 43.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 2,662.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 435.00 184.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 87.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 13 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.9356 0.0000 0.9356 0.1417 0.0000 0.1417 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.7190 38.3225 22.3040 0.0388 1.9386 1.9386 1.8048 1.8048 3,871.766 5 3,871.766 5 1.0667 3,898.434 4 Total 3.7190 38.3225 22.3040 0.0388 0.9356 1.9386 2.8741 0.1417 1.8048 1.9465 3,871.766 5 3,871.766 5 1.0667 3,898.434 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Water Exposed Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 14 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0416 1.4108 0.2458 3.4600e- 003 0.0753 5.3600e- 003 0.0806 0.0206 5.1300e- 003 0.0258 366.5733 366.5733 0.0204 367.0827 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0694 0.0541 0.5090 1.2300e- 003 0.1232 8.7000e- 004 0.1241 0.0327 8.0000e- 004 0.0335 122.5729 122.5729 3.9000e- 003 122.6704 Total 0.1111 1.4649 0.7547 4.6900e- 003 0.1985 6.2300e- 003 0.2047 0.0533 5.9300e- 003 0.0593 489.1462 489.1462 0.0243 489.7531 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.3649 0.0000 0.3649 0.0552 0.0000 0.0552 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5841 13.5576 24.6739 0.0388 0.0616 0.0616 0.0616 0.0616 0.0000 3,871.766 5 3,871.766 5 1.0667 3,898.434 4 Total 0.5841 13.5576 24.6739 0.0388 0.3649 0.0616 0.4265 0.0552 0.0616 0.1169 0.0000 3,871.766 5 3,871.766 5 1.0667 3,898.434 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 15 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0416 1.4108 0.2458 3.4600e- 003 0.0753 5.3600e- 003 0.0806 0.0206 5.1300e- 003 0.0258 366.5733 366.5733 0.0204 367.0827 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0694 0.0541 0.5090 1.2300e- 003 0.1232 8.7000e- 004 0.1241 0.0327 8.0000e- 004 0.0335 122.5729 122.5729 3.9000e- 003 122.6704 Total 0.1111 1.4649 0.7547 4.6900e- 003 0.1985 6.2300e- 003 0.2047 0.0533 5.9300e- 003 0.0593 489.1462 489.1462 0.0243 489.7531 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.7269 0.0000 8.7269 3.6046 0.0000 3.6046 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.0901 59.5218 35.0894 0.0620 2.6337 2.6337 2.4230 2.4230 6,244.428 4 6,244.428 4 1.9440 6,293.027 8 Total 5.0901 59.5218 35.0894 0.0620 8.7269 2.6337 11.3606 3.6046 2.4230 6.0277 6,244.428 4 6,244.428 4 1.9440 6,293.027 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 16 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 3.3 Grading - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.5726 19.4079 3.3809 0.0475 1.0356 0.0738 1.1093 0.2840 0.0706 0.3545 5,042.988 2 5,042.988 2 0.2803 5,049.995 7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0926 0.0722 0.6786 1.6400e- 003 0.1643 1.1500e- 003 0.1655 0.0436 1.0600e- 003 0.0446 163.4305 163.4305 5.2000e- 003 163.5606 Total 0.6652 19.4801 4.0595 0.0492 1.1999 0.0749 1.2748 0.3275 0.0716 0.3992 5,206.418 7 5,206.418 7 0.2855 5,213.556 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.4035 0.0000 3.4035 1.4058 0.0000 1.4058 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0110 19.2707 36.7226 0.0620 0.1015 0.1015 0.1015 0.1015 0.0000 6,244.428 4 6,244.428 4 1.9440 6,293.027 8 Total 1.0110 19.2707 36.7226 0.0620 3.4035 0.1015 3.5050 1.4058 0.1015 1.5073 0.0000 6,244.428 4 6,244.428 4 1.9440 6,293.027 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 17 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 3.3 Grading - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.5726 19.4079 3.3809 0.0475 1.0356 0.0738 1.1093 0.2840 0.0706 0.3545 5,042.988 2 5,042.988 2 0.2803 5,049.995 7 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0926 0.0722 0.6786 1.6400e- 003 0.1643 1.1500e- 003 0.1655 0.0436 1.0600e- 003 0.0446 163.4305 163.4305 5.2000e- 003 163.5606 Total 0.6652 19.4801 4.0595 0.0492 1.1999 0.0749 1.2748 0.3275 0.0716 0.3992 5,206.418 7 5,206.418 7 0.2855 5,213.556 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.6169 32.4319 26.3207 0.0413 1.9800 1.9800 1.8606 1.8606 3,980.735 0 3,980.735 0 0.9765 4,005.148 5 Total 3.6169 32.4319 26.3207 0.0413 1.9800 1.9800 1.8606 1.8606 3,980.735 0 3,980.735 0 0.9765 4,005.148 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 18 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.8522 23.5096 5.6090 0.0504 1.2467 0.1517 1.3984 0.3590 0.1451 0.5041 5,316.751 3 5,316.751 3 0.3512 5,325.531 2 Worker 1.8176 1.3780 13.0818 0.0347 3.5734 0.0245 3.5979 0.9478 0.0226 0.9704 3,450.642 3 3,450.642 3 0.0997 3,453.135 8 Total 2.6697 24.8876 18.6908 0.0851 4.8201 0.1762 4.9963 1.3068 0.1677 1.4745 8,767.393 6 8,767.393 6 0.4509 8,778.667 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.8192 16.7175 27.4418 0.0413 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.0000 3,980.735 0 3,980.735 0 0.9765 4,005.148 5 Total 0.8192 16.7175 27.4418 0.0413 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.0000 3,980.735 0 3,980.735 0 0.9765 4,005.148 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 19 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.8522 23.5096 5.6090 0.0504 1.2467 0.1517 1.3984 0.3590 0.1451 0.5041 5,316.751 3 5,316.751 3 0.3512 5,325.531 2 Worker 1.8176 1.3780 13.0818 0.0347 3.5734 0.0245 3.5979 0.9478 0.0226 0.9704 3,450.642 3 3,450.642 3 0.0997 3,453.135 8 Total 2.6697 24.8876 18.6908 0.0851 4.8201 0.1762 4.9963 1.3068 0.1677 1.4745 8,767.393 6 8,767.393 6 0.4509 8,778.667 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.2474 29.5107 25.8324 0.0413 1.7144 1.7144 1.6113 1.6113 3,920.913 0 3,920.913 0 0.9638 3,945.008 5 Total 3.2474 29.5107 25.8324 0.0413 1.7144 1.7144 1.6113 1.6113 3,920.913 0 3,920.913 0 0.9638 3,945.008 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 20 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.7115 21.5923 5.0273 0.0500 1.2467 0.1012 1.3480 0.3590 0.0968 0.4558 5,278.457 2 5,278.457 2 0.3254 5,286.593 1 Worker 1.6600 1.2179 11.7171 0.0336 3.5734 0.0239 3.5973 0.9478 0.0220 0.9698 3,343.881 9 3,343.881 9 0.0873 3,346.063 9 Total 2.3715 22.8101 16.7444 0.0836 4.8201 0.1251 4.9452 1.3068 0.1188 1.4256 8,622.339 1 8,622.339 1 0.4127 8,632.657 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.8192 16.7175 27.4418 0.0413 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.0000 3,920.913 0 3,920.913 0 0.9638 3,945.008 5 Total 0.8192 16.7175 27.4418 0.0413 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.0000 3,920.913 0 3,920.913 0 0.9638 3,945.008 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 21 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.7115 21.5923 5.0273 0.0500 1.2467 0.1012 1.3480 0.3590 0.0968 0.4558 5,278.457 2 5,278.457 2 0.3254 5,286.593 1 Worker 1.6600 1.2179 11.7171 0.0336 3.5734 0.0239 3.5973 0.9478 0.0220 0.9698 3,343.881 9 3,343.881 9 0.0873 3,346.063 9 Total 2.3715 22.8101 16.7444 0.0836 4.8201 0.1251 4.9452 1.3068 0.1188 1.4256 8,622.339 1 8,622.339 1 0.4127 8,632.657 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Paving - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.3566 14.0656 14.6521 0.0228 0.7528 0.7528 0.6926 0.6926 2,207.733 4 2,207.733 4 0.7140 2,225.584 1 Paving 0.7912 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.1478 14.0656 14.6521 0.0228 0.7528 0.7528 0.6926 0.6926 2,207.733 4 2,207.733 4 0.7140 2,225.584 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 22 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 3.5 Paving - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e- 003 0.1232 8.2000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 004 0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e- 003 115.3815 Total 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e- 003 0.1232 8.2000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 004 0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e- 003 115.3815 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.3341 10.0395 17.2957 0.0228 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0000 2,207.733 4 2,207.733 4 0.7140 2,225.584 1 Paving 0.7912 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1253 10.0395 17.2957 0.0228 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0000 2,207.733 4 2,207.733 4 0.7140 2,225.584 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 23 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 3.5 Paving - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e- 003 0.1232 8.2000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 004 0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e- 003 115.3815 Total 0.0572 0.0420 0.4040 1.1600e- 003 0.1232 8.2000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 004 0.0334 115.3063 115.3063 3.0100e- 003 115.3815 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 46.4651 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2422 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e- 003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Total 46.7072 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e- 003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 24 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.3320 0.2436 2.3434 6.7100e- 003 0.7147 4.7700e- 003 0.7195 0.1896 4.4000e- 003 0.1940 668.7764 668.7764 0.0175 669.2128 Total 0.3320 0.2436 2.3434 6.7100e- 003 0.7147 4.7700e- 003 0.7195 0.1896 4.4000e- 003 0.1940 668.7764 668.7764 0.0175 669.2128 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 46.4651 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0545 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Total 46.5195 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 25 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Increase Transit Accessibility Improve Pedestrian Network 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.3320 0.2436 2.3434 6.7100e- 003 0.7147 4.7700e- 003 0.7195 0.1896 4.4000e- 003 0.1940 668.7764 668.7764 0.0175 669.2128 Total 0.3320 0.2436 2.3434 6.7100e- 003 0.7147 4.7700e- 003 0.7195 0.1896 4.4000e- 003 0.1940 668.7764 668.7764 0.0175 669.2128 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 26 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 24.2612 40.6929 280.3369 0.6823 65.8395 0.5293 66.3687 17.4736 0.4908 17.9643 68,090.22 29 68,090.22 29 2.5011 68,152.75 07 Unmitigated 25.1668 44.8840 304.9522 0.7693 74.6479 0.5878 75.2357 19.8113 0.5451 20.3564 76,794.61 41 76,794.61 41 2.7574 76,863.54 78 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Enclosed Parking with Elevator 30.78 30.78 30.78 347,322 306,338 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 5,978.33 5,978.33 5978.33 18,438,751 16,262,979 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)7,400.84 7,400.84 7400.84 10,298,804 9,083,545 Parking Lot 56.80 56.80 56.80 496,205 437,653 Strip Mall 3,370.98 3,370.98 3370.98 6,092,242 5,373,357 Total 16,837.74 16,837.74 16,837.74 35,673,323 31,463,871 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Enclosed Parking with Elevator 31.00 31.00 31.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100 0 0 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 15.00 15.00 15.00 13.20 67.80 19.00 47.5 35.5 17 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Parking Lot 24.00 24.00 24.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100 0 0 Strip Mall 9.00 9.00 9.00 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 27 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.3851 3.5010 2.9408 0.0210 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 4,201.153 6 4,201.153 6 0.0805 0.0770 4,226.1190 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.3851 3.5010 2.9408 0.0210 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 4,201.153 6 4,201.153 6 0.0805 0.0770 4,226.1190 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Percent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.667000 0.000000 0.000000 0.333000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 0.616000 0.045000 0.211000 0.122000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.006000 0.000000 0.000000 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.616000 0.045000 0.211000 0.122000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.006000 0.000000 0.000000 Parking Lot 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.667000 0.000000 0.000000 0.333000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Strip Mall 0.616000 0.045000 0.211000 0.122000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.006000 0.000000 0.000000 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 28 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 2201.82 0.0238 0.2159 0.1813 1.3000e- 003 0.0164 0.0164 0.0164 0.0164 259.0378 259.0378 4.9600e- 003 4.7500e- 003 260.5771 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 33283.6 0.3589 3.2631 2.7410 0.0196 0.2480 0.2480 0.2480 0.2480 3,915.715 5 3,915.715 5 0.0751 0.0718 3,938.984 6 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Strip Mall 224.403 2.4200e- 003 0.0220 0.0185 1.3000e- 004 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 26.4004 26.4004 5.1000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 26.5573 Total 0.3851 3.5010 2.9408 0.0210 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 4,201.153 6 4,201.153 6 0.0805 0.0770 4,226.119 0 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 29 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 2.20182 0.0238 0.2159 0.1813 1.3000e- 003 0.0164 0.0164 0.0164 0.0164 259.0378 259.0378 4.9600e- 003 4.7500e- 003 260.5771 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 33.2836 0.3589 3.2631 2.7410 0.0196 0.2480 0.2480 0.2480 0.2480 3,915.715 5 3,915.715 5 0.0751 0.0718 3,938.984 6 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Strip Mall 0.224403 2.4200e- 003 0.0220 0.0185 1.3000e- 004 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 26.4004 26.4004 5.1000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 26.5573 Total 0.3851 3.5010 2.9408 0.0210 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 4,201.153 6 4,201.153 6 0.0805 0.0770 4,226.119 0 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 30 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 10.3723 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Unmitigated 10.8250 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 1.3136 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 9.4918 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0196 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Total 10.8250 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 31 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.8609 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 9.4918 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0196 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Total 10.3723 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 32 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 11.0 Vegetation Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Emergency Generator 1 0.5 6 2923 0.5 Diesel Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 10.1 Stationary Sources ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Equipment Type lb/day lb/day Emergency Generator - Diesel (750 - 9999 HP) 1.6428 7.3463 4.1887 7.8900e- 003 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 840.3766 840.3766 0.1178 843.3222 Total 1.6428 7.3463 4.1887 7.8900e- 003 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 840.3766 840.3766 0.1178 843.3222 Unmitigated/Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:19 AMPage 33 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Winter 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,026.00 Space 4.00 464,212.00 0 Parking Lot 568.00 Space 10.57 227,200.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)58.44 1000sqft 1.55 58,440.00 0 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 339.10 1000sqft 9.65 339,099.00 0 Strip Mall 34.56 1000sqft 1.55 34,560.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 63 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2020Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 519.21 0.023CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.005N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated Alameda County, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 1 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer Project Characteristics - PG&E Intensity Factors reduced by 19%. Land Use - Land uses provided by applicant. Construction Phase - 10 days Demo, 45 days Grading, 290 days Building Construction, 35 days Paving, and 45 days Painting. Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Building Construction equipment hours = 1.5 x default hours to account for the shortened Building Construction period. Off-road Equipment - Demolition - 147 tons builidng material + 290 tons of paving debris = 437.20 total tons of demolition debris Architectural Coating - Non-Residential Interior and Exterior VOC set to 45 g/L. Vehicle Trips - Trip Rates and Trip Length adjusted to match TIA. Energy Use - Electricty usage for IKEA reduced by 29%. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - All equipment Tier 4 Interim. Water exposed area. Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Mit TRANS-7A - Busstop 0.05 miles (Martinelli Wy); Project Design Feature 1 - Improve pedestrian network on project site and connecting off-site; Area Mitigation - Use low VOC Paint on non-res interior, 45 g/L. Energy Mitigation - 42 percent renewable energy generated Water Mitigation - Install low-flow fixtures and water-efficient irrigation systems. Waste Mitigation - 50 percent waste diverted. Operational Off-Road Equipment - . Fleet Mix - Fleet mix updated to account for 70 2-axle trucks and 18 4-axle. Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - 1 backup generator at IKEA, run 0.5 hours, 6 hour/year, 2,923 HP; load factor 0.5. Grading - 95,000 cy cut and 73,700 cy fill = 21,300 cy exported offsite Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 45.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 45.00 tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialInteriorV alue 100 45 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 2 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 10.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 3 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer tblConstructionPhase NumDays 440.00 290.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 35.00 45.00 tblEnergyUse LightingElect 1.75 1.24 tblEnergyUse LightingElect 5.25 3.72 tblEnergyUse NT24E 0.19 0.13 tblEnergyUse NT24E 2.68 1.91 tblEnergyUse T24E 3.92 2.78 tblEnergyUse T24E 2.76 1.96 tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 0.33 tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 0.33 tblFleetMix HHD 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix LDA 0.56 0.00 tblFleetMix LDA 0.56 0.62 tblFleetMix LDA 0.56 0.62 tblFleetMix LDA 0.56 0.00 tblFleetMix LDA 0.56 0.62 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.05 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.05 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT1 0.04 0.05 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.00 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.21 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.21 tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 4 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer tblFleetMix LDT2 0.19 0.21 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.67 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.67 tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 5.2280e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 5.2280e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 5.2280e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 5.2280e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix LHD2 5.2280e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MCY 5.5690e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MCY 5.5690e-003 6.0000e-003 tblFleetMix MCY 5.5690e-003 6.0000e-003 tblFleetMix MCY 5.5690e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix MCY 5.5690e-003 6.0000e-003 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.12 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.12 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.00 tblFleetMix MDV 0.11 0.12 tblFleetMix MH 7.5900e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 7.5900e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 7.5900e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 7.5900e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix MH 7.5900e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 5 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix MHD 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1180e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1180e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1180e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1180e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix OBUS 2.1180e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 3.0800e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 3.0800e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 3.0800e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 3.0800e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix SBUS 3.0800e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8050e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8050e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8050e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8050e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix UBUS 2.8050e-003 0.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 21,300.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 410,400.00 464,212.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 339,100.00 339,099.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 9.23 4.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.11 10.57 tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.34 1.55 tblLandUse LotAcreage 7.78 9.65 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.79 1.55 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 6 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 11.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 12.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 12.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 11.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 12.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.023 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 519.21 tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.005 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 7.30 31.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 7.30 15.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 7.30 9.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 7.30 24.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 7.30 9.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 0.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TTP 0.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 7.30 31.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 7.30 15.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 7.30 9.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 7.30 24.00 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 7.30 9.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 9.50 31.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 9.50 15.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 9.50 9.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 9.50 24.00 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 9.50 9.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00 tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 0.00 100.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 7 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 2.0 Emissions Summary tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.03 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 64.07 17.63 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 126.64 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 0.00 0.10 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 97.54 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.03 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 56.12 17.63 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 126.64 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.00 0.10 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 97.54 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.03 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 50.75 17.63 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 126.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.00 0.10 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 97.54 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 8 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2018 5.7349 78.5213 38.8747 0.1122 9.9267 2.7074 12.6341 3.9322 2.4934 6.4256 0.0000 11,556.913 9 11,556.913 9 2.2092 0.0000 11,612.143 3 2019 6.1714 56.7724 44.9687 0.1308 4.8201 2.1539 6.9740 1.3068 2.0262 3.3330 0.0000 13,195.46 96 13,195.46 96 1.4009 0.0000 13,230.49 31 2020 47.0255 51.8731 42.5837 0.1292 4.8201 1.8380 6.6581 1.3068 1.7286 3.0354 0.0000 12,982.34 33 12,982.34 33 1.3522 0.0000 13,016.14 86 Maximum 47.0255 78.5213 44.9687 0.1308 9.9267 2.7074 12.6341 3.9322 2.4934 6.4256 0.0000 13,195.46 96 13,195.46 96 2.2092 0.0000 13,230.49 31 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2018 1.6558 38.2703 40.5079 0.1122 4.6034 0.1752 4.7785 1.7333 0.1719 1.9053 0.0000 11,556.913 9 11,556.913 9 2.2092 0.0000 11,612.143 3 2019 3.3737 41.0580 46.0898 0.1308 4.8201 0.3024 5.1225 1.3068 0.2940 1.6008 0.0000 13,195.46 96 13,195.46 96 1.4009 0.0000 13,230.49 31 2020 46.8378 39.0799 44.1931 0.1292 4.8201 0.2520 5.0721 1.3068 0.2458 1.5526 0.0000 12,982.34 33 12,982.34 33 1.3522 0.0000 13,016.14 86 Maximum 46.8378 41.0580 46.0898 0.1308 4.8201 0.3024 5.1225 1.7333 0.2940 1.9053 0.0000 13,195.46 96 13,195.46 96 2.2092 0.0000 13,230.49 31 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 9 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 10.8250 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Energy 0.3851 3.5010 2.9408 0.0210 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 4,201.153 6 4,201.153 6 0.0805 0.0770 4,226.119 0 Mobile 30.0564 38.6111 298.8805 0.8301 74.6479 0.5873 75.2352 19.8113 0.5447 20.3560 82,895.07 31 82,895.07 31 2.7478 82,963.76 79 Stationary 1.6428 7.3463 4.1887 7.8900e- 003 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 840.3766 840.3766 0.1178 843.3222 Total 42.9093 49.4603 306.2182 0.8590 74.6479 1.0958 75.7437 19.8113 1.0531 20.8645 87,937.04 68 87,937.04 68 2.9473 0.0770 88,033.68 22 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 11.99 36.74 -3.45 0.00 27.21 89.11 42.99 33.59 88.61 60.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 10 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 10.3723 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Energy 0.3851 3.5010 2.9408 0.0210 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 4,201.153 6 4,201.153 6 0.0805 0.0770 4,226.1190 Mobile 29.1340 35.0229 271.1314 0.7359 65.8395 0.5288 66.3683 17.4736 0.4904 17.9639 73,476.22 62 73,476.22 62 2.4745 73,538.08 78 Stationary 1.6428 7.3463 4.1887 7.8900e- 003 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 840.3766 840.3766 0.1178 843.3222 Total 41.5341 45.8721 278.4691 0.7648 65.8395 1.0373 66.8768 17.4736 0.9988 18.4724 78,518.19 99 78,518.19 99 2.6740 0.0770 78,608.00 21 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 3.20 7.25 9.06 10.97 11.80 5.34 11.71 11.80 5.16 11.46 0.00 10.71 10.71 9.27 0.00 10.71 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 11 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 10/15/2018 10/26/2018 5 10 2 Grading Grading 10/27/2018 12/30/2018 5 45 3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2019 2/10/2020 5 290 4 Paving Paving 2/11/2020 3/30/2020 5 35 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/1/2020 6/2/2020 5 45 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 648,149; Non-Residential Outdoor: 216,050; Striped Parking Area: 41,485 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5 Acres of Paving: 14.57 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 12 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 11.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 12.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 12.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 11.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 12.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 43.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 2,662.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 435.00 184.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 87.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 13 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.9356 0.0000 0.9356 0.1417 0.0000 0.1417 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.7190 38.3225 22.3040 0.0388 1.9386 1.9386 1.8048 1.8048 3,871.766 5 3,871.766 5 1.0667 3,898.434 4 Total 3.7190 38.3225 22.3040 0.0388 0.9356 1.9386 2.8741 0.1417 1.8048 1.9465 3,871.766 5 3,871.766 5 1.0667 3,898.434 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Water Exposed Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 14 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0404 1.3769 0.2235 3.5200e- 003 0.0753 5.2700e- 003 0.0805 0.0206 5.0400e- 003 0.0257 373.2552 373.2552 0.0189 373.7271 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0664 0.0435 0.5334 1.3400e- 003 0.1232 8.7000e- 004 0.1241 0.0327 8.0000e- 004 0.0335 133.1811 133.1811 4.1200e- 003 133.2842 Total 0.1068 1.4204 0.7568 4.8600e- 003 0.1985 6.1400e- 003 0.2046 0.0533 5.8400e- 003 0.0592 506.4362 506.4362 0.0230 507.0113 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.3649 0.0000 0.3649 0.0552 0.0000 0.0552 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5841 13.5576 24.6739 0.0388 0.0616 0.0616 0.0616 0.0616 0.0000 3,871.766 5 3,871.766 5 1.0667 3,898.434 4 Total 0.5841 13.5576 24.6739 0.0388 0.3649 0.0616 0.4265 0.0552 0.0616 0.1169 0.0000 3,871.766 5 3,871.766 5 1.0667 3,898.434 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 15 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0404 1.3769 0.2235 3.5200e- 003 0.0753 5.2700e- 003 0.0805 0.0206 5.0400e- 003 0.0257 373.2552 373.2552 0.0189 373.7271 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0664 0.0435 0.5334 1.3400e- 003 0.1232 8.7000e- 004 0.1241 0.0327 8.0000e- 004 0.0335 133.1811 133.1811 4.1200e- 003 133.2842 Total 0.1068 1.4204 0.7568 4.8600e- 003 0.1985 6.1400e- 003 0.2046 0.0533 5.8400e- 003 0.0592 506.4362 506.4362 0.0230 507.0113 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 8.7269 0.0000 8.7269 3.6046 0.0000 3.6046 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.0901 59.5218 35.0894 0.0620 2.6337 2.6337 2.4230 2.4230 6,244.428 4 6,244.428 4 1.9440 6,293.027 8 Total 5.0901 59.5218 35.0894 0.0620 8.7269 2.6337 11.3606 3.6046 2.4230 6.0277 6,244.428 4 6,244.428 4 1.9440 6,293.027 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 16 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.5563 18.9415 3.0741 0.0484 1.0356 0.0725 1.1080 0.2840 0.0693 0.3533 5,134.910 7 5,134.910 7 0.2597 5,141.403 3 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0885 0.0580 0.7112 1.7800e- 003 0.1643 1.1500e- 003 0.1655 0.0436 1.0600e- 003 0.0446 177.5748 177.5748 5.5000e- 003 177.7122 Total 0.6448 18.9996 3.7853 0.0502 1.1999 0.0736 1.2735 0.3275 0.0704 0.3979 5,312.485 5 5,312.485 5 0.2652 5,319.115 5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.4035 0.0000 3.4035 1.4058 0.0000 1.4058 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0110 19.2707 36.7226 0.0620 0.1015 0.1015 0.1015 0.1015 0.0000 6,244.428 4 6,244.428 4 1.9440 6,293.027 8 Total 1.0110 19.2707 36.7226 0.0620 3.4035 0.1015 3.5050 1.4058 0.1015 1.5073 0.0000 6,244.428 4 6,244.428 4 1.9440 6,293.027 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 17 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.5563 18.9415 3.0741 0.0484 1.0356 0.0725 1.1080 0.2840 0.0693 0.3533 5,134.910 7 5,134.910 7 0.2597 5,141.403 3 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0885 0.0580 0.7112 1.7800e- 003 0.1643 1.1500e- 003 0.1655 0.0436 1.0600e- 003 0.0446 177.5748 177.5748 5.5000e- 003 177.7122 Total 0.6448 18.9996 3.7853 0.0502 1.1999 0.0736 1.2735 0.3275 0.0704 0.3979 5,312.485 5 5,312.485 5 0.2652 5,319.115 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.6169 32.4319 26.3207 0.0413 1.9800 1.9800 1.8606 1.8606 3,980.735 0 3,980.735 0 0.9765 4,005.148 5 Total 3.6169 32.4319 26.3207 0.0413 1.9800 1.9800 1.8606 1.8606 3,980.735 0 3,980.735 0 0.9765 4,005.148 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 18 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.8138 23.2328 4.8588 0.0518 1.2467 0.1494 1.3962 0.3590 0.1430 0.5019 5,465.082 2 5,465.082 2 0.3186 5,473.046 9 Worker 1.7407 1.1077 13.7892 0.0377 3.5734 0.0245 3.5979 0.9478 0.0226 0.9704 3,749.652 4 3,749.652 4 0.1058 3,752.297 7 Total 2.5545 24.3405 18.6480 0.0895 4.8201 0.1739 4.9941 1.3068 0.1656 1.4724 9,214.734 6 9,214.734 6 0.4244 9,225.344 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.8192 16.7175 27.4418 0.0413 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.0000 3,980.735 0 3,980.735 0 0.9765 4,005.148 5 Total 0.8192 16.7175 27.4418 0.0413 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.0000 3,980.735 0 3,980.735 0 0.9765 4,005.148 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 19 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.8138 23.2328 4.8588 0.0518 1.2467 0.1494 1.3962 0.3590 0.1430 0.5019 5,465.082 2 5,465.082 2 0.3186 5,473.046 9 Worker 1.7407 1.1077 13.7892 0.0377 3.5734 0.0245 3.5979 0.9478 0.0226 0.9704 3,749.652 4 3,749.652 4 0.1058 3,752.297 7 Total 2.5545 24.3405 18.6480 0.0895 4.8201 0.1739 4.9941 1.3068 0.1656 1.4724 9,214.734 6 9,214.734 6 0.4244 9,225.344 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Building Construction - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 3.2474 29.5107 25.8324 0.0413 1.7144 1.7144 1.6113 1.6113 3,920.913 0 3,920.913 0 0.9638 3,945.008 5 Total 3.2474 29.5107 25.8324 0.0413 1.7144 1.7144 1.6113 1.6113 3,920.913 0 3,920.913 0 0.9638 3,945.008 5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 20 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.6769 21.3830 4.3424 0.0514 1.2467 0.0997 1.3464 0.3590 0.0954 0.4543 5,427.606 9 5,427.606 9 0.2953 5,434.988 6 Worker 1.5914 0.9793 12.4089 0.0365 3.5734 0.0239 3.5973 0.9478 0.0220 0.9698 3,633.823 4 3,633.823 4 0.0931 3,636.151 5 Total 2.2683 22.3623 16.7513 0.0879 4.8201 0.1235 4.9437 1.3068 0.1173 1.4241 9,061.430 3 9,061.430 3 0.3884 9,071.140 1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.8192 16.7175 27.4418 0.0413 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.0000 3,920.913 0 3,920.913 0 0.9638 3,945.008 5 Total 0.8192 16.7175 27.4418 0.0413 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.1284 0.0000 3,920.913 0 3,920.913 0 0.9638 3,945.008 5 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 21 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.6769 21.3830 4.3424 0.0514 1.2467 0.0997 1.3464 0.3590 0.0954 0.4543 5,427.606 9 5,427.606 9 0.2953 5,434.988 6 Worker 1.5914 0.9793 12.4089 0.0365 3.5734 0.0239 3.5973 0.9478 0.0220 0.9698 3,633.823 4 3,633.823 4 0.0931 3,636.151 5 Total 2.2683 22.3623 16.7513 0.0879 4.8201 0.1235 4.9437 1.3068 0.1173 1.4241 9,061.430 3 9,061.430 3 0.3884 9,071.140 1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Paving - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.3566 14.0656 14.6521 0.0228 0.7528 0.7528 0.6926 0.6926 2,207.733 4 2,207.733 4 0.7140 2,225.584 1 Paving 0.7912 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.1478 14.0656 14.6521 0.0228 0.7528 0.7528 0.6926 0.6926 2,207.733 4 2,207.733 4 0.7140 2,225.584 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 22 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 3.5 Paving - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e- 003 0.1232 8.2000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 004 0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e- 003 125.3845 Total 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e- 003 0.1232 8.2000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 004 0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e- 003 125.3845 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.3341 10.0395 17.2957 0.0228 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0000 2,207.733 4 2,207.733 4 0.7140 2,225.584 1 Paving 0.7912 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1253 10.0395 17.2957 0.0228 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0000 2,207.733 4 2,207.733 4 0.7140 2,225.584 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 23 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 3.5 Paving - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e- 003 0.1232 8.2000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 004 0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e- 003 125.3845 Total 0.0549 0.0338 0.4279 1.2600e- 003 0.1232 8.2000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.6000e- 004 0.0334 125.3043 125.3043 3.2100e- 003 125.3845 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 46.4651 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2422 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e- 003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Total 46.7072 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e- 003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 24 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.3183 0.1959 2.4818 7.2900e- 003 0.7147 4.7700e- 003 0.7195 0.1896 4.4000e- 003 0.1940 726.7647 726.7647 0.0186 727.2303 Total 0.3183 0.1959 2.4818 7.2900e- 003 0.7147 4.7700e- 003 0.7195 0.1896 4.4000e- 003 0.1940 726.7647 726.7647 0.0186 727.2303 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 46.4651 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0545 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Total 46.5195 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 25 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Increase Transit Accessibility Improve Pedestrian Network 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.3183 0.1959 2.4818 7.2900e- 003 0.7147 4.7700e- 003 0.7195 0.1896 4.4000e- 003 0.1940 726.7647 726.7647 0.0186 727.2303 Total 0.3183 0.1959 2.4818 7.2900e- 003 0.7147 4.7700e- 003 0.7195 0.1896 4.4000e- 003 0.1940 726.7647 726.7647 0.0186 727.2303 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 26 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 29.1340 35.0229 271.1314 0.7359 65.8395 0.5288 66.3683 17.4736 0.4904 17.9639 73,476.22 62 73,476.22 62 2.4745 73,538.08 78 Unmitigated 30.0564 38.6111 298.8805 0.8301 74.6479 0.5873 75.2352 19.8113 0.5447 20.3560 82,895.07 31 82,895.07 31 2.7478 82,963.76 79 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Enclosed Parking with Elevator 30.78 30.78 30.78 347,322 306,338 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 5,978.33 5,978.33 5978.33 18,438,751 16,262,979 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)7,400.84 7,400.84 7400.84 10,298,804 9,083,545 Parking Lot 56.80 56.80 56.80 496,205 437,653 Strip Mall 3,370.98 3,370.98 3370.98 6,092,242 5,373,357 Total 16,837.74 16,837.74 16,837.74 35,673,323 31,463,871 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Enclosed Parking with Elevator 31.00 31.00 31.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100 0 0 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 15.00 15.00 15.00 13.20 67.80 19.00 47.5 35.5 17 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43 Parking Lot 24.00 24.00 24.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100 0 0 Strip Mall 9.00 9.00 9.00 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 27 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.3851 3.5010 2.9408 0.0210 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 4,201.153 6 4,201.153 6 0.0805 0.0770 4,226.119 0 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.3851 3.5010 2.9408 0.0210 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 4,201.153 6 4,201.153 6 0.0805 0.0770 4,226.1190 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Percent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.667000 0.000000 0.000000 0.333000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 0.616000 0.045000 0.211000 0.122000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.006000 0.000000 0.000000 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 0.616000 0.045000 0.211000 0.122000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.006000 0.000000 0.000000 Parking Lot 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.667000 0.000000 0.000000 0.333000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Strip Mall 0.616000 0.045000 0.211000 0.122000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.006000 0.000000 0.000000 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 28 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 2201.82 0.0238 0.2159 0.1813 1.3000e- 003 0.0164 0.0164 0.0164 0.0164 259.0378 259.0378 4.9600e- 003 4.7500e- 003 260.5771 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 33283.6 0.3589 3.2631 2.7410 0.0196 0.2480 0.2480 0.2480 0.2480 3,915.715 5 3,915.715 5 0.0751 0.0718 3,938.984 6 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Strip Mall 224.403 2.4200e- 003 0.0220 0.0185 1.3000e- 004 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 26.4004 26.4004 5.1000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 26.5573 Total 0.3851 3.5010 2.9408 0.0210 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 4,201.153 6 4,201.153 6 0.0805 0.0770 4,226.119 0 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 29 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 2.20182 0.0238 0.2159 0.1813 1.3000e- 003 0.0164 0.0164 0.0164 0.0164 259.0378 259.0378 4.9600e- 003 4.7500e- 003 260.5771 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 33.2836 0.3589 3.2631 2.7410 0.0196 0.2480 0.2480 0.2480 0.2480 3,915.715 5 3,915.715 5 0.0751 0.0718 3,938.984 6 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Strip Mall 0.224403 2.4200e- 003 0.0220 0.0185 1.3000e- 004 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 26.4004 26.4004 5.1000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 26.5573 Total 0.3851 3.5010 2.9408 0.0210 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 0.2661 4,201.153 6 4,201.153 6 0.0805 0.0770 4,226.119 0 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 30 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 10.3723 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Unmitigated 10.8250 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 1.3136 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 9.4918 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0196 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Total 10.8250 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 31 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.8609 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 9.4918 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0196 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Total 10.3723 1.9200e- 003 0.2082 2.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 7.5000e- 004 0.4434 0.4434 1.1900e- 003 0.4731 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 32 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 11.0 Vegetation Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Emergency Generator 1 0.5 6 2923 0.5 Diesel Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 10.1 Stationary Sources ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Equipment Type lb/day lb/day Emergency Generator - Diesel (750 - 9999 HP) 1.6428 7.3463 4.1887 7.8900e- 003 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 840.3766 840.3766 0.1178 843.3222 Total 1.6428 7.3463 4.1887 7.8900e- 003 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 0.2417 840.3766 840.3766 0.1178 843.3222 Unmitigated/Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/6/2018 10:18 AMPage 33 of 33 Dublin IKEA Retail Center Mitigated - Alameda County, Summer 1 EXHIBIT C FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15163(e), the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potential for significant supplemental environmental impacts from the IKEA Retail Center project (“Project”) and means for mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather than set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs (SEIRs) should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Findings pursuant to section 21081(c) relating to Project Alternatives are made in Exhibit E. These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the SEIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the SEIR and adopted by the City, and state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the SEIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in those documents supporting the SEIR’s determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The facts supporting these findings are f ound in the record as a whole for the Project. In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and explanation in the SEIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the SEIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. SECTION 3.1 – AIR QUALITY Impact AIR – 1: The project may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM AIR-3a, AIR-3b, AIR-3c, TRANS-1a, TRANS- 1b, TRANS-1c, TRANS-1d, TRANS-1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-4a, TRANS-7a, TRANS-7b, and TRANS-7c. (see below for text of mitigation measures) Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant supplemental eff ect identified in the SEIR. 2 Rationale for Finding: The additional construction controls will ensure that dust and silt blowing or running offsite and emissions from construction equipment and coatings will be reduced to less than significant through dust control and measures to reduce emissions from construction equipment and coating. Transportation measures will reduce vehicle trips and congestion which will result in decreased emissions from project- related vehicle trips.. Impact AIR – 3: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Mitigation Measures: Implement MM TRANS – 7a and: MM AIR – 3a During construction, the following air pollution control measures shall be implemented: • All Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or more as needed. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact both at the City of Dublin and at the office of the General Contractor regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 2 business days of a complaint or issue notification. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 3 MM AIR – 3b: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Dublin that demonstrates that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 interim off-road emissions standards. MM AIR -3c: The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the architectural coating (paint and primer) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 45 grams per liter or less. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the proposed project, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact.. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the SEIR. Rationale for Finding: The Project would not exceed the BAAQMDs regional thresholds of significance after implementation of mitigation measures and is consistent with the current Air Quality Plan control measures. SECTION 3.2 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO – 1: The proposed project may have a substantial adverse effect on special-status plant and wildlife species. Mitigation Measures: MM BIO – 1a: Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant with potential to occur in the project site. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If the Congdon’s tarplant are found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required: 1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant is present within or adjacent to the proposed project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for Congdon’s tarplant shall be established prior to 4 construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions. 2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon’s tarplant are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of Congdon’s tarplant shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Befo re the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 shall be developed in consultation with, a nd approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant. A mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off -site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the Congdon’s tarplant, or payment of in -lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations of Congdon’s tarplant. MM BIO-1b: No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform preconstruction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance will vary based on species and conditions at the site, but is usually at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. This mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). MM BIO-1c: Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following measures that pertain to burrowing owl, as applicable: 1. Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment. Prior to the first ground- disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to cond uct two pre-construction surveys for the burrowing owl for the entire site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities and the second survey shall be conducted within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys determine owls are present, then the measures set forth in this mitigation shall be followed. 5 2. Implement Avoidance Measures. If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. • Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1 through 31 August. • Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. • Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. • Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. • Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows. • Do not fumigate or use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). 3. Conduct Burrow Exclusion. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out pursuant to the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report. 4. Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl ha bitat, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat, number of burrows, and burrowing owl in a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the Plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground-disturbing activities. MM BIO-1d: Pre-removal bat surveys of the existing on-site building shall occur no more than 30 days before its removal. If bats are found, then a qualified biologist shall develop an appropriate relocation plan consistent with USFWS, CDFW, and East Alameda County Conservation Strategy standards and policies. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. 6 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact BIO - 3: The proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands or jurisdictional features. Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-3a: As part of the design, an updated wetland delineation shall be completed for the site consistent with current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) protocol to determine if wetlands are subject to USACE jurisdiction. MM BIO-3b: Prior to any ground-disturbing activity on the site, the project applicant hall acquire appropriate permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the USACE if the wetlands are determined to be subject to USACE jurisdiction, and shall obtain Section 401 certification from the RWQCB and approval of a wetlands mitigation plan that meets the following standards. A mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. Specifically, a wetland mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented that includes creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off -site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment of an endowment for the long-term management of the site. The mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the applicable regulatory agency (USACE and/or RWQCB) and the City. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 3.3 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 7 Impact HAZ – 2: The proposed project may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the disturbance of a hazardous materials site listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Mitigation Measures: MM HAZ – 2: Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to sample any soil stockpiles that may be present for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), diesel and oil range petroleum hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If sampling determines that concentrations of these substances exceed acceptable human health exposure levels, the applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to properly remove and dispose of the impacted soils. If sampling determines that concentrations of these substances do not exceed acceptable human health exposure levels, no further action is required. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 3.4 – NOISE Impact NOI – 1: The project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Mitigation Measures: MM NOI – 1: To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi-part mitigation measure shall be implemented for the proposed project: • The project shall comply with Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR requiring development projects in the project area to submit a Construction Noise Management Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents. • The project shall comply with Mitigation Measures 3.10/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR requiring all construction operations to comply with local noise standards and be limited to normal daylight hours. All stationary equipment shall be adequately muffled and located away from sensitive receptors. 8 • The construction contractor shall limit all on-site noise-producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily. • The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine-driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise -generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on -site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction - related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about const ruction noise. When a complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem, as deemed acceptable by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. The construction contractor shall conspicuously post the contact name and telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. Impact NOI – 4: The project may result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Mitigation Measures: Implement MM NOI – 1. Resulting Significance: Less than significant impact. 9 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR. Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be less than significant. SECTION 3.6 – TRANSPORTATION Impact TRANS – 1: The proposed project may cause intersections and queues to operate below acceptable levels under Existing Plus Project conditions. Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS – 1a: The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. MM TRANS-1b: The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. MM TRANS-1c: The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. MM TRANS-1d: The project applicant shall fund the conversion of the southbound through lane on Arnold Road to a left -turn-only lane and install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the intersection of Arnold Road and Martinelli Way prior to project occupancy. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. MM TRANS-1e: The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the intersection of IKEA Place and Martinelli Way. The project applicant shall modify the northbound intersection approach to provide a left-turn and a through-right shared lane such that north/south protected left- turn signal phasing can be provided (as opposed to split phasing). The improvements shall be installed prior to project occupancy. MM TRANS-1f: The Project Applicant shall fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. The City of Dublin will modify the Eastern Dublin TIF improvement to provide a third westbound left-turn lane in lieu of the westbound right-turn-only lane. 10 MM TRANS-1g: The Project Applicant shall fund extending the length of the northbound left-turn pocket by approximately 100 feet through median modifications and widening along the project frontage in order to provide a second eastbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way. The improvements shall be installed prior to project occupancy. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact to Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way; Less than significant impact to all other locations. Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to less than significant except for the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection will remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: The less than significant impact to some intersections is achieved through Adaptive Signal Control Technologies which would provide for additional capacity of area traffic; the addition of the left-turn lane and through-right shared lane at IKEA Place and Martinelli Way; the conversion of a southbound through lane at Martinelli Way and Arnold Road into a left turn only lane and; a fair share payment of fees for the project’s contribution to the need for the additional roadway capacity. For those impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, widening of the project frontage along Martinelli Way would cause secondary pedestrian impacts by increasing the crossing distance and reducing pedestrian safety in the crossing. This is counter to Goal 6 in the pedestrian and bicycle master plan which calls for improving bicycle and pedestrian safety citywide. Impact TRANS – 2: The proposed project may cause intersections and queues to operate below acceptable levels under Near-Term Plus Project conditions. Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1b, TRANS-1c, TRANS-1d, TRANS- 1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-1g, TRANS-4a and: MM TRANS-2a: The project applicant shall work with the City of Pleasanton to identify and pay the project’s proportionate share towards near -term improvements at Owens Drive/Hopyard Road consisting of modifying the westbound approach to provide 1 left turn, 1 through, and 2 right-turn only lanes. MM TRANS-2b: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the Eastern Dublin TIF fee as the project’s proportionate share for the improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of constructing two additional northbound through lanes (for total of four), construct two additional eastbound through lanes on eastbound Dublin Boulevard (for a total of four) to 11 allow for the opening of the third eastbound through lane that has already been constructed, and to convert one of the two eastbound right turn- only lanes to a fourth eastbound through lane. MM TRANS-2c: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to identify and pay the project’s proportionate share for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of modifying the southbound approach to construct a second southbound left-turn lane in addition to re-timing the traffic signal. MM TRANS-2d: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin the Eastern Dublin TIF for improvements to the intersection of Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard. The improvements would consist of a second northbound left-turn lane at Fallon Road. Resulting Significance: Significant and unavoidable impacts to Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hopyard Road/Owens Drive, Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound, Martinelli Way/IKEA Place, and Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way; Less than significant impact to all other locations. Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced to less than significant except for Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hopyard Road/Owens Drive, Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound, Martinelli Way/IKEA Place, and Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way where the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. For those impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: A fair share payment of fees reflects the project’s contribution to the need for the additional capacity resulting in a less than significant impact at some intersections. For those impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, the following rationale applies: • Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard - Due to limited right-of-way and the potential for secondary impacts on other modes, no additional capacity-enhancing improvements could be identified to mitigate the impact on intersection LOS. Additionally, extending the southbound left -turn lane to provide additional storage capacity to mitigate the queue impact is not feasible because of the short block size. Implementation of a TDM plan, as identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS - 4a, could reduce the severity of the impact, but it is not expected to reduce vehicle trips by a level sufficient to eliminate the impact on both intersection operations and queue length. Therefore, the intersection impact remains significant and unavoidable. 12 • Hopyard Road/Owens Drive – while the proposed mitigation of modifying the westbound approach to provide: 1 left turn, 1 through, 2 right-turn-only lanes is feasible, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of the City of Pleasanton and complete implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin. Therefore, the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. • Santa Rita Road/I-580 EB Ramps – Proposed mitigation for this intersection includes modifying the southbound approach to construct a second southbound left-turn lane in addition to retiming the traffic signal. However, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and complete implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin. Therefore, the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. • Martinelli Way/IKEA Place – Modifying the northbound intersection approach to provide a left-turn and a through-right shared lane such that north/south protected signal phasing can be provided (as opposed to split phasing) would allow for more efficient signal operations and would minimize vehicle queue spill back. However, there is still the potential for the 95th percentile queue on the southbound approach to extend to the main east-west drive aisle within Persimmon Place resulting in a significant and unavoidable queue impact. • Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way – installing an adaptive signal system and extending the northbound left turn pocket by approximately 100 feet would reduce some of the queue impacts, it would not reduce the eastbound left turn queue to less than significant and widening the eastbound approach to accommodate a second left turn lane would result in secondary impacts to pedestrians by increasing the pedestrian crossing distance. Since the eastbound approach cannot be modified without having a secondary impact on pedestrians, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 3: The proposed project may cause intersections and queues to operate below acceptable levels under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1b, TRANS-1c, TRANS-1d, TRANS- 1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-1g, TRANS-2b, TRANS-2c, TRANS-4a and: MM TRANS-3a: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have paid the City of Pleasanton the proportionate share fees for improvements to the intersection of Hopyard Road/Owens Drive in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of the following: 13 • Modify the northbound approach: 2 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn, • Modify the southbound approach: 3 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn, • Modify the eastbound approach: 2 left turn, 2 through, 1 right turn, • Modify the westbound approach 2 left turn, 1 through-right shared, 1 right turn, and • Un-split eastbound/westbound signal operations. MM TRANS-3b: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with proportionate share fees for improvements to the intersection of Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard. The improvement shall consist of reconstructing the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound left-turn lane and constructing a second receiving lane on the north side of the intersection. MM TRANS-3c: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have paid the City of Pleasanton the proportionate share fees for improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive/Owens Drive in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of converting a southbound through lane to a third southbound left-turn, and convert an eastbound through lane to a third eastbound left-turn lane, in conjunction with signal timing adjustments. MM TRANS-3d: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the City of Dublin shall modify the Eastern Dublin TIF at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard to provide a second northbound right-turn lane in lieu of a fourth northbound through lane with a right-turn overlap phase and retain the two eastbound right-turn-only lanes in lieu of a fourth eastbound through lane. The project applicant shall then pay the Eastern Dublin TIF fee as the project’s proportionate share for the improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. MM TRANS-3e: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact to Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hopyard Road/Owens Drive, Hacienda Drive/Owens Drive, Santa Rita Road/I-580, Eastbound Ramps, Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive, Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Martinelli Way/IKEA Way (Persimmon Place), Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way; Less than significant impact to all other facilities. Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced less than significant except for Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hopyard Road/Owens Drive, Hacienda Drive/Owens Drive, Santa Rita Road/I-580, Eastbound Ramps, Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive, Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Martinelli Way/IKEA 14 Way (Persimmon Place), Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way where the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. For those impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: The less than significant impact to some intersections is achieved through modifying the lane assignments of an approach (Dublin Blvd/Arnold Rd), installing adaptive signal systems (Dublin Blvd/Hacienda Dr, and Martinelli Way/Hacienda Dr), and payment of the eastern Dublin TIF (Dublin Blvd/Tassajara Rd). For those impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, the following rationale applies: • Dublin Boulevard at Dougherty Road - Due to limited right-of-way and the potential for secondary impacts on other modes, no additional capacity-enhancing improvements could be identified to mitigate the impact on intersection LOS. Additionally, extending the southbound left -turn lane to provide additional storage capacity to mitigate the queue impact is not feasible because of the short block size. Implementation of a TDM plan, as identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS- 4a, could reduce the severity of the impact, but it is not expected to reduce vehicle trips by a level sufficient to eliminate the impact on both intersection operations and queue length. Therefore, the intersection impact remains significant and unavoidable. • Hopyard Road at Owens Drive – while roadway modifications to change the lane assignments and signal phasing to mitigate the impact are feasible, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of the City of Pleas anton and complete implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin. Therefore, the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. • Owens Drive at Hacienda Drive – mitigating the impact at this location would require converting a southbound through lane to a third southbound left -turn, and converting an eastbound through lane to a third eastbound left -turn lane, in conjunction with signal timing adjustments. While these improvements are feasible, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of the City of Pleasanton and complete implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin. Therefore, the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. • I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp at Santa Rita Road – Proposed mitigation for this intersection includes modifying the southbound approach to construct a second southbound left-turn lane in addition to retiming the traffic signal. However, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and complete implementation of this mitigation measure is not within the control of the City of Dublin. Therefore, the resulting impact will remain significant and unavoidable. 15 • Dougherty Road at Scarlett Drive - Due to limited right-of-way and the potential for secondary impacts on other modes, no additional capacity-enhancing improvements could be identified to mitigate the impact on intersection LOS. Implementation of a TDM plan, as identified in Mitigation Measure TRANS -4a, could reduce the severity of the impact, but it is not expected to reduce vehicle trips by a level sufficient to eliminate the impact on both intersection operations and queue length. Therefore, the intersection impact remains significant and unavoidable. • Martinelli Way at IKEA Place/Persimmon Place – Modifying the northbound intersection approach to provide a left-turn and a through-right shared lane such that north/south protected signal phasing can be provided (as opposed to split phasing) would allow for more efficient signal operations and would minimize vehicle queue spill back. However, there is still the potential for the 95th percentile queue on the southbound approach to extend to the main east -west drive aisle within Persimmon Place resulting in a significant and unavoidable queue impact. • Hacienda Drive at Martinelli Way – installing an adaptive signal system and extending the northbound left turn pocket by approximately 100 feet would reduce some of the queue impacts, it would not reduce the eastbound left t urn queue to less than significant and widening the eastbound approach to accommodate a second left turn lane would result in secondary impacts to pedestrians by increasing the pedestrian crossing distance. Since the eastbound approach cannot be modified without having a secondary impact on pedestrians, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRANS – 4: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of freeway facilities. Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS-4a: Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the proposed project, the applicant shall retain a qualified transportation consultant to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The TDM set forth strategies to achieve the reduction target, which may include: • Ridesharing/Carpooling matching program • Posting transit information in employee-only areas • Provision of employee lockers • Provision of secure bicycle storage areas • Flex scheduling/Compressed scheduling • Staggered shifts to avoid shift changes during peak commute hours MM TRANS-4b: As an ongoing effort, the City of Dublin shall coordinate with Caltrans to optimize ramp metering rates at I-580 on-ramps within the Dublin city limits. 16 MM TRANS-4c: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share for the installation of an additional mixed-flow on-ramp lane for southbound Hacienda Drive to westbound I-580. This mitigation measure shall be coordinated with Mitigation Measure TRANS- 8d. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact to I-580 between Foothill Road and El Charro Road, I-680 between Stoneridge Drive and Alcosta Road, Dougherty Road & I-580 westbound ramp; Hacienda Drive & I-580 westbound ramp; Hacienda Drive & I- 580 eastbound ramp. Less than significant impacts for all other facilities. Finding: With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact will be reduced to less than significant except for I-580 between Foothill Road and El Charro Road, I-680 between Stoneridge Drive and Alcosta Road, Dougherty Road & I-580 westbound ramp; Hacienda Drive & I-580 westbound ramp; Hacienda Drive & I-580 eastbound ramp which will remain significant and unavoidable. For those impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: The applicant would develop and implement a TDM plan to reduce project-generated vehicle trips. The applicant would also pay regional and local transportation fees that would be used to construct freeway improvements and contribute to ramp lane improvements reducing the congestion in the project area. However, since the effectiveness of the TDM plan cannot be guaranteed and complete implementation of ramp and other improvements are not within the control of the City of Dublin and its implementation cannot be assured, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for the freeway segments and ramps described above . Impact TRANS–5: The project may conflict with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads, highways, or freeways. Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-4a. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact to Dublin Boulevard, Hopyard Road, Foothill Road, Isabel Avenue; Less than significant impact to all other facilities. Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced except for Dublin Boulevard, Hopyard Road, Foothill Road, Isabel Avenue where impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. For those impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. 17 Rationale for Finding: The applicant would develop and implement a TDM plan to reduce project-generated vehicle trips. However, the Project impact would remain significant and unavoidable because the effectiveness of a TDM Plan in reducing the number of Project trips cannot be adequately quantified to ensure Project impacts would be fully mitigated Impact TRANS – 8: The project may conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Mitigation Measures: MM TRANS-8a: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that depict a Class II bike lane on Arnold Road and a 10-foot sidewalk on Martinelli Way. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. MM TRANS-8b: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that include bicycle detection as part of the signal modifications to the intersections of Martinelli Way with Arnold Road, IKEA Place and Hacienda Drive. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. MM TRANS-8c: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that identify bicycle storage facilities in appropriate locations throughout the project site. The following minimum amounts of bicycle parking shall be provided: 80 short-term—51 bicycle parking spaces near the IKEA entrance and 29 bicycle spaces distributed throughout the retail/restaurant area—and 80 long-term bicycle parking spaces with the same distribution. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. MM TRANS-8d: During construction, the applicant shall maintain safe and convenient pedestrian access in the project vicinity. In cases where pedestrian facilities are temporarily closed, detours shall be established. MM TRANS-8e: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with fair share fees for pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange. This mitigation measure shall be coordinated with Mitigation Measure TRANS-4c. Resulting Significance: Significant unavoidable impact to Hacienda Drive pedestrian mobility; Less than significant impact to all other facilities. Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact will be reduced but the resulting impact to Hacienda Drive pedestrian mobility will remain significant and unavoidable. For those impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable, no 18 additional feasible measures are available to further reduce these impacts. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale for Finding: The Cities of Pleasanton and Dublin in cooperation with Caltrans are planning to improve the pedestrian connection over the Hacienda Drive and I-580 interchange. Since the project would be a beneficiary of the improvements, the applicant shall contribute a fair share to this project. However, the proposed changes are still under development and the implementation of the potential improvements is beyond the control of the City of Dublin. Therefore, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. 1 EXHIBIT D FINDINGS CONCERNING INFEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES AND POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES CEQA provides that decision makers should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project (CEQA section 21002). The Project EIR ide ntified feasible mitigation measures that would reduce most of the potentially significant impacts to less than significant, as set forth in the Exhibit C findings, above. However, the following impacts in the EIR either remained significant after mitigation or no feasible mitigation was identified: Transportation Impacts: The proposed Project would contribute vehicle trips to the following facilities that are expected to experience unacceptable operations under Existing Plus Project Conditions, Near-Term Conditions, or Cumulative Conditions. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Hacienda/Martinelli Way • Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard • Dougherty Road/Interstate 580 Westbound Ramp • Hopyard Road/Owens Drive • Santa Rita Road/Interstate 580 Eastbound Ramp • Martinelli Way/IKEA Place • Hacienda Drive/Owens Drive • Hacienda Drive/Interstate 580 Westbound Ramp • Hacienda Drive/Interstate 580 Eastbound Ramp • Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive • Interstate 580 between Foothill Road and El Charro Road • Interstate 680 between Stoneridge Drive and Alcosta Road • Dublin Boulevard (eastbound Dublin Boulevard between Demarcus Boulevard and Arnold Road, and Hacienda Drive to Keegan Street, and westbound Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and DeMarcus Boulevard) • Hopyard Road (northbound Hopyard Road between Owens Drive and Dublin Boulevard) • Foothill Road (southbound Foothill Road between Stoneridge Drive and Las Positas Boulevard) • Isabel Ave (between Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard ) As required by CEQA, the following findings address whether there are any feasible alternatives or any additional feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce any of these impacts to less than significant. FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires that an EIR “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or 2 to the location of the project, which would feasibly att ain most of the basic objectives of the project…” (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a)). If a project alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decision maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,… make the project alternative infeasible” (CEQA sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3)). Alternatives are identified and analyzed in Section 5 of the Draft SEIR and include the required No Project Alternative, a Reduced Density Alternative and an Existing Planned Development Alternative. Each of the alternatives was assessed for each resource topic and compared to potential Project impacts. As further set forth below, the City Council considered the alternatives identified and analyzed in Section 5 of the Draft SEIR and finds them to be infeasible for specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3). For CEQA purposes, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. (CEQA section 21061.1, CEQA Guidelines section 15364.) In addition to the Project Alternatives described below, the Draft SEIR considered and rejected one additional reduced alternative “50-Percent Reduction Alternative” and four different locations for the proposed project. The Draft SEIR found that the 50-Percent Reduction Alternative would not avoid the proposed project’s significant unavoidable transportation impacts because it would still generate a substantial number of new vehicle trips. In addition, the Draft SEIR found none of the alternative locations were feasible because of small size, general plan designation or zoning for other types of uses, commitment to other uses, or that IKEA did not own, control, or have access to the site. The Project objectives are set forth in Section 2.4 of the Draft EIR. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative – DSEIR Section 5.3, p. 5-3 CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a “No -Project” alternative be evaluated as part of an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: the project area remaining in its current state or development of the project area under its current General Plan land use and zoning designations. Because the Project site currently has no planning approvals for a specific project, the No Project Alternative consists of the Project site remaining undeveloped for the foreseeable future. The No Project Alternative would not advance any of the Project objectives because the Project site would remain vacant and undeveloped for the foreseeable future. No disturbance or new development would occur on the Project site, thereby eliminating the potential for impacts associated with aesthetics, light, and glare; air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; ; noise; public services and utilities; and transportation. Accordingly, this alternative would avoid all of the proposed Project’s significant impacts (including significant and unavoidable impacts), as well as the need to implement any mitigation measures. 3 The City finds this alternative infeasible because it would not be consistent with any of the Project’s objectives. The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the following Project objectives: 1. Positively contribute to the local economy through new capital investment, creation of new employment opportunities, expansion of the tax base, and increased retail offerings. 2. Reinforce Dublin’s status as a regional retail node by increasing commercial retail and service offerings within an established regional and highway-oriented commercial area. 3. Develop a new regional-serving retail use close to Interstate 580, Dublin Boulevard, and public transit options in order to better serve the retail demands of the Trade Area, while also minimizing the need for infrastructure improvements. 4. Promote economic growth in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the City of Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 5. Facilitate the reuse of a former, underutilized portion of Camp Parks that is zoned for commercial use and is currently in the Dublin city limits. 6. Develop smaller retail and restaurant uses that complement the major anchor and provide consumers with additional competitive and convenient options. 7. Design a site plan to minimize overall access and circulation conflicts, and that is also accessible to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. 8. Complete site remediation efforts in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and prevent future environmental degradation. 9. Improve the overall visual appearance of the area by developing new commercial uses that employ high-quality contemporary architecture and landscaping. Finding: The City Council considered the No Project Alternative and declines to adopt it because it will not achieve any of the Project’s objectives and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations described above, as suppo rted by the administrative record for the Project. Alternative 2: Existing Planned Development Alternative – DSEIR Section 5.4, p.5- 4 This alternative consists of developing the project site consistent with the existing Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development for the project site (PD Ord. 34-08). In total, this alternative would consist of 327,400 square feet of commercial uses. The existing Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development (PD Ord. 34-08) allow up to 327,400 square feet of retail (with ancillary office use) and restaurant uses on the project site. The existing Planned Development identifies 305,000 square feet as the base square footage and allows up to 327,400 square feet if retail uses are maximized. Buildings would range from 8,600 square feet to 50,000 square feet and would be organized around a pedestrian mall in the center of the project site. An anchor would be located at the east end of the mall, with six buildings located on the north and south sides of the mall. Five freestanding buildings would be located along the northern and southern perimeters of the project site. 4 Vehicular access would be taken from driveways on Martinelli Way and Arnold Road. A total of 1,513 off-street parking spaces would be provided. The purpose of the Existing Planned Development Alternative is to evaluate an alternate use that could be developed under the existing land use designations in order to lessen the severity of impacts. The Existing Planned Development Alternative would lessen the severity of, but would not avoid, the significant and unavoidable transportation impacts associated with the proposed Project. Additionally, this alternative would lessen the severity of impacts associated with air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and public services and utilities, which were found to be less than significant after mitigation. This alternative would similar impacts on biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and urban decay. The Existing Planned Development Alternative would advance most of the proposed project’s objectives, although some would be advanced to a lesser degree. For example, project objective #6 is to develop smaller retail and restaurant uses that complement the major anchor, and the Existing Planned Development Alternative (PD Ord. 34-08) allows for a mix of commercial uses without an identified major anchor. In addition, the reduction in square footage would result in less positive contribution to the local economy. Most others would be advanced to an equivalent degree as the proposed project, including developing a new regional-serving retail use close to Interstate 580, Dublin Boulevard and public transit options, and completing site remediation efforts. Finding: The City Council considered the Existing Planned Development Alternative and declines to adopt it because it will not avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts, including its significant unavoidable impacts related to transportation, will not obtain most of the basic Project objectives, and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project. Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative – DSEIR Section 5.5, p. 5-8 The Reduced Density Alternative consists of reducing the proposed project’s square footage by 108,025 square feet or 25 percent, to a total of 324,074 square feet. The 25 percent reduction in square footage would be applied to both the IKEA and lifestyle retail/restaurant uses. The key difference between this alternative and the Existing Planned Development Alternative is that IKEA would be part of this alternative. All uses would be identical to those proposed by the project; however, 25 percent less square footage would be assigned to each use. All vehicular access points and parking facilities would be similar to the proposed project. Additional landscaping, pedestrian facilities, and outdoor seating areas would be developed in place of the eliminated building square footage. This alternative would require the same discretionary approvals as the proposed project. The purpose of the Reduced Density Alternative is to evaluate a project alternative that develops the same end uses but with less square footage in order to lessen the severity of impacts associated with air quality/greenhouse gases, noise, public services and utilities, and transportation. 5 The Reduced Density Alternative would lessen the severity of, but would not avoid, the proposed project’s significant unavoidable transportation impacts. Additionally, this alternative would lessen the severity of impacts associated with air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and public services and utilities, which were found to be less than significant after mitigation. This alternative would have similar impacts on biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and urban decay. The Reduced Density Alternative would advance all of the proposed project’s objectives, although some would be advanced to a lesser degree. For example, the reduction in square footage would result in less positive contribution to the local economy. Most others would be advanced to the same degree as the proposed project, including developing a new regional-serving retail use close to Interstate 580, Dublin Boulevard and public transit options, and completing site remediation efforts. Finding: The City Council considered the Reduced Density Alternative and declines to adopt it because it will not avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts, including its significant and unavoidable impacts, will not attain most of the basic Project objectives to the same degree as the proposed Project , and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project. FINDINGS REGARDING INFEASIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES There are certain additional mitigation measures and/or modifications to the measures described in the Draft SEIR that may lessen significant and unavoidable transportation impacts identified in the Draft SEIR. The City carefully considered the proposed additional mitigations, and finds the proposed mitigations infeasible, or otherwise rejects the suggested mitigation, as further described below. In considering specific additional mitigation measures, the City is guided by CEQA’s legal standard to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects to the extent feasible. The mitigation measures recommended in the Project SEIR represent the professional judgment and experience of the City’s expert staff and envi ronmental consultants. The City therefore believes that these recommendations should not be modified unless necessary to comply with CEQA legal standards. Thus, in considering changes or additions to the mitigation measures, the City, in determining whet her to accept such modifications, either in whole or in part, has considered the following factors, among others: 1) whether the suggestion relates to a significant and unavoidable environmental effect of the Project, or instead relates to an effect that c an already be mitigated to less than significant levels by mitigation measures identified in the EIR; 2) whether the suggested mitigation represents a clear improvement, from an environmental standpoint, over the EIR mitigation that it would replace; 3) wh ether the suggested mitigation is sufficiently clear as to be easily understood by those who will implement the mitigation as finally adopted; 4) whether the suggested language might be too inflexible to allow for pragmatic implementation; 5) whether the suggestions are “feasible” as defined under CEQA including being able to be accomplished in a successful manner in a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, technical, legal, 6 social or other factors; and 6) whether the proposed mitigation is consistent with the Project objectives. The EIR found two intersection locations that could not be mitigated because physical improvements needed to address impacts were found to be infeasible. These locations include: • Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road – while adaptive signal control and implementation of a TDM plan could lessen the project’s impact at this intersection, only widening the intersection approaches to add additional lanes would fully mitigate the impact. Widening of the approaches is not feasible due to lack of available right-of-way. Additionally, widening would have secondary impacts on pedestrians by increasing the crossing distance which would reduce pedestrian safety. • Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive – implementing an adaptive signal would lessen the project’s intersection operations impact to less than significant. However, the queue length for the eastbound left turn could only be reduced to less than significant if the eastbound approach is widened to add a second eastbound left turn lane. Widening of this approach would have secondary impacts on pedestrians by increasing the crossing distance which would reduce pedestrian safety. 1 EXHIBIT E STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts resulting from development under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.) The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council is currently considering the IKEA Retail Center. The project proposes to develop an IKEA store on the westerly portion of the site, and to provide for future development of “lifestyle” retail center on the easterly portion of the si te. The City prepared a Supplemental EIR for the IKEA Retail Center project which identified supplemental impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant. The Supplemental EIR also identified supplemental Transportation impacts that could not be mitigated to less than significant and would remain significant and unavoidable. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin. The City Council must adopt new overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the IKEA Retail Center project and the supplemental Project impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original Eastern Dublin approvals and by the environmental protection measu res adopted through the IKEA Retail Center project approvals, and the related Conditions of Approval, to be implemented with the development of the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable significant environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the IKEA Retail Center Supplemental EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse significant impacts for the IKEA Retail Center project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the IKEA project. Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/B; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Although considerable development has occurred throughout the project area, the site is presently undeveloped land, and has some minimal open space character. Future development of the IKEA site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 2 Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. I-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: The Traffic Study prepared for the IKEA Retail Center project updates cumulative impacts to the I-580 and I-680 freeways from development in Eastern Dublin. While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated in some locations through planned improvements, transportation demand management, and other similar measures, mainline freeway impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Development of the IKEA Retail Center project will incrementally contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts. This impact was further analyzed in the Supplemental EIR. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts: The IKEA project will be required to implement all applicable adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City’s TIF program; however even with mitigation these impacts continue to be identified as significant and unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This impact was further analyzed in the Supplemental EIR. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the IKEA Retail Center project could be subject to damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area. 3. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts from the IKEA Retail Center Supplemental EIR. The following significant unavoidable air quality and traffic impacts are associated with the Project as identified in the SEIR. Transportation Impacts: The proposed Project would contribute vehicle trips to the following facilities that are expected to e xperience unacceptable operations under Existing Plus Project Conditions, Near-Term Conditions, or Cumulative Conditions. Mitigation is proposed; however, it would not fully reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the residual significance is significant and unavoidable. • Hacienda/Martinelli Way (Trans-1) • Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard (Trans-2 & 3) • Dougherty Road/Interstate 580 Westbound Ramp (Trans-4) • Hopyard Road/Owens Drive (Trans-2 & 3) • Santa Rita Road/Interstate 580 Eastbound Ramp (Trans-2 & 3) • Martinelli Way/IKEA Place (Trans-2 & 3) • Hacienda Drive/Martinelli Way (Trans-2 & 3) • Hacienda Drive/Owens Drive (Trans-3) • Hacienda Drive/Interstate 580 Westbound Ramp (Trans-4) • Hacienda Drive/Interstate 580 Eastbound Ramp (Trans-4) • Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive (Trans-3) • Interstate 580 between Foothill Road and El Charro Road (Trans-4) • Interstate 680 between Stoneridge Drive and Alcosta Road (Trans-4) 3 • Dublin Boulevard (eastbound Dublin Boulevard between Demarcus Boulevard and Arnold Road, and Hacienda Drive to Keegan Street, and westbound Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and DeMarcus Boulevard) (Trans-5) • Hopyard Road (northbound Hopyard Road between Owens Drive and Dublin Boulevard) (Trans-5) • Foothill Road (southbound Foothill Road between Stoneridge Drive and Las Positas Boulevard) (Trans-5) • Isabel Ave (between Stanley Boulevard and Concannon Boulevard ) (Trans-5) • Pedestrian mobility through the Hacienda Drive and I-580 interchange (Trans-8) 4. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of development under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to the development on the subject parcel and the Project’s supplemental unavoidable impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR, against the Project benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the record as a whole. The project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. The development of an IKEA store and “lifestyle” retail center will complement the existing range of retail opportunities in Eastern Dublin. These uses will provide a source of attractive, well priced home furnishings, pedestrian-oriented retail center, and restaurant opportunities that will help establish Dublin as a center for destination shopping. The Project will provide new shopping and restaurant opportunities not yet available in this part of Dublin, within a short distance of existing retail opportunities, thus leading to an increase of shoppers for all businesses in the area. Additionally, the Project will be within walking distance of transit facilities and the higher density residential development existing and planned nearby. The Project will further the General Plan objective of providing a broad range of non - residential uses, including retail commercial, in Eastern Dublin. The project is consistent with Guiding Policy 2.2.4, which encourages “development of a full range of c ommercial and employment-generating uses in the Eastern Extended Planning Area that will meet the needs of the City and the surrounding Tri-Valley area." This Project provides a much needed retail center convenient to existing and planned future residential uses. The project furthers the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan goal to provide for a balanced mixed use community by establishing “an attractive and vital community that provides a balanced and fully integrated range of residential, commercial, employment, recreational, and social opportunities." (Section 4.3.2, p. 32). The project also furthers the Specific Plan goal for commercial land use, to serve "the shopping, entertainment and service needs of Dublin and the surrounding area." (Section 4.5, p. 36). The IKEA Retail Center 4 project helps the City achieve these goals by providing a variety of commercial, employment and social opportunities in a retail setting. The project also meets Policy 4 - 12 to "concentrate regionally oriented commercial uses south of Dublin Boulevard and near freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts on the rest of eastern Dublin." The proximity of the Project site to the Interstate 580 and Hacienda Drive interchange is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan goals and policies and facilitates efficient transportation. The Project will provide a "destination retail" experience on a visually prominent site accessible from major regional transit and traffic corridor s. The site will be developed in a landscaped and "pedestrian -friendly" fashion, with restaurants and retail services. The combination of the IKEA store with the “lifestyle” retail center will offer a shopping experience complementary to the nearby Persimmons Place and Hacienda Crossings retail centers and add to the range of retail and restaurant opportunities available to the shopper in Dublin. The Project will provide significant fiscal contributions to the City. There will be a strong property tax income stream from the Project’s high value developments. The IKEA Retail Center project will generate substantial sales tax revenue to the City that would not occur with office uses. For all of the above reasons, the benefits of the IKEA Retail Center project outweigh its significant unavoidable environmental impacts. NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the IKEA Retail Center Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report City of Dublin, Alameda County, California State Clearinghouse Number 2017082047 Prepared for: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 925.833.6610 Contact: Amy Million, Principal Planner Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.357.2562 Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director Grant Gruber, Project Manager Janna Waligorski, Project Manager Date: October 2018 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 1 Table 1: IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Section 3.1—Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-7a and: MM AIR-3a: During construction, the following air pollution control measures shall be implemented: • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact both at the City of Dublin and at the office of the General Contractor regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 2 business days of a complaint or issue notification. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Notes on construction plans; field inspection During construction City of Dublin 114.334 2966566.2 City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 2 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial MM AIR-3b: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Dublin that demonstrates that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets United States Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 interim off-road emissions standards. Submittal of documentation Prior to issuance of grading permits City of Dublin MM AIR-3c: The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the architectural coating (paint and primer) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 45 grams per liter or less. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents for the proposed project, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin. Submittal of documentation Prior to issuance of building permits City of Dublin Section 3.2—Biological Resources MM BIO-1a: Prior to any vegetation removal or ground- disturbing activities, a focused survey shall be conducted to determine the presence of Congdon’s tarplant with potential to occur in the project site. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both “evident” and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods, and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. If no special-status plant species are found, then the project will not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. If the Congdon’s tarplant are found on-site and cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be required: Submittal of documentation Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities City of Dublin City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 3 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial 1. If the survey determines that Congdon’s tarplant is present within or adjacent to the proposed project site, direct and indirect impacts of the project on the species shall be avoided where feasible through the establishment of activity exclusion zones, where no ground-disturbing activities shall take place, including construction of new facilities, construction staging, or other temporary work areas. Activity exclusion zones for Congdon’s tarplant shall be established prior to construction activities around each occupied habitat site, the boundaries of which shall be clearly marked with standard orange plastic construction exclusion fencing or its equivalent. The establishment of activity exclusion zones shall not be required if no construction-related disturbances would occur within 250 feet of the occupied habitat site. The size of activity exclusion zones may be reduced through consultation with a qualified biologist and with concurrence from CDFW based on site-specific conditions. 2. If exclusion zones and avoidance of impacts on Congdon ’s tarplant are not feasible, then the loss of individuals or occupied habitat of Congdon’s tarplant shall be compensated for through the acquisition, protection, and subsequent management of other existing occurrences. Before the implementation of compensation measures, the project’s applicant shall provide detailed information to the CDFW and lead agency on the quality of preserved habitat, location of the preserved occurrences, provisions for protecting and managing the areas, the responsible parties involved, and other pertinent information that demonstrates the feasibility of the compensation. A mitigation plan identifying appropriate mitigation ratios at a minimum ratio of 1:1 shall be developed in consultation with, and approved by, the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact Congdon’s tarplant. A City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 4 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial mitigation plan may include but is not limited to the following: the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the Congdon’s tarplant, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the Congdon’s tarplant, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations of Congdon’s tarplant. MM BIO-1b: No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to perform pre-construction breeding bird surveys. If any nests are found, they shall be flagged and protected with a suitable buffer. Buffer distance will vary based on species and conditions at the site, but is usually at least 50 feet, and up to 250 feet for raptors. This mitigation measure does not apply to ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities that occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31). Submittal of documentation No more than 14 days prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) City of Dublin MM BIO-1c: Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following measures that pertain to burrowing owl, as applicable: 1. Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment. Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct two pre-construction surveys for the burrowing owl for the entire site. The first survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground-disturbing activities and the second survey shall be conducted within 48 hours of initial ground disturbance. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the surveys Submittal of documentation Prior to the first ground-disturbing activities City of Dublin City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 5 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial determine owls are present, then the measures set forth in this mitigation shall be followed. 2. Implement Avoidance Measures. If direct impacts to owls can be avoided, prior to the first ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls. • Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from February 1 through 31 August. • Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non- breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls. • Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development. • Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection. • Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows. • Do not fumigate or use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas). 3. Conduct Burrow Exclusion. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, prior to the first ground- disturbing activities, the project applicant, in consultation with the CDFW, shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out pursuant to the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 6 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial 4. Prepare and Implement a Mitigation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, and project activities may result in impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan that shall include replacement of impacted habitat at no less than a 1:1 ratio, number of burrows, and burrowing owl in a ratio approved by CDFW. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the Plan shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFW and the City prior to the first ground- disturbing activities. MM BIO-1d: Pre-removal bat surveys of the existing on-site building shall occur no more than 30 days before its removal. If bats are found, then a qualified biologist shall develop an appropriate relocation plan consistent with USFWS, CDFW, and East Alameda County Conservation Strategy standards and policies. Submittal of documentation No more than 30 days prior to building removal City of Dublin MM BIO-3a: As part of the design, an updated wetland delineation shall be completed for the site consistent with current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) protocol to determine if wetlands are subject to USACE jurisdiction. Submittal of documentation Prior any ground- disturbing activity on the site City of Dublin MM BIO-3b: Prior to any ground-disturbing activity on the site, the project applicant shall acquire appropriate permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the USACE if the wetlands are determined to be subject to USACE jurisdiction, and shall obtain Section 401 certification from the RWQCB and approval of a wetlands mitigation plan that meets the following standards. A mitigation plan shall be prepared that will establish suitable compensatory mitigation based on the Submittal of documentation Prior to any ground- disturbing activity on the site City of Dublin City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 7 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages, to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies. Specifically, a wetland mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented that includes creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off- site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment of an endowment for the long-term management of the site. The mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the applicable regulatory agency (USACE and/or RWQCB) and the City. Section 3.3—Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-2: Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to sample any soil stockpiles that may be present for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), diesel and oil range petroleum hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If sampling determines that concentrations of these substances exceed acceptable human health exposure levels, the applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to properly remove and dispose of the impacted soils. If sampling determines that concentrations of these substances do not exceed acceptable human health exposure levels, no further action is required. Submittal of documentation Prior to issuance of the first grading permit City of Dublin Section 3.4—Noise MM NOI-1: To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi-part mitigation measure shall be implemented for the proposed project: • The project shall comply with Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR requiring development projects in the project area to submit a Construction Noise Notes on plans; site inspection During construction City of Dublin City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 8 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial Management Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize construction noise impacts on existing residents. • The project shall comply with Mitigation Measures 3.10/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR requiring all construction operations to comply with local noise standards and be limited to normal daylight hours. All stationary equipment shall be adequately muffled and located away from sensitive receptors. • The construction contractor shall limit all on-site noise- producing construction activities, including deliveries and warming up of equipment, to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily. • The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine-driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise- generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 9 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial When a complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem, as deemed acceptable by the City of Dublin Community Development Department. The construction contractor shall conspicuously post the contact name and telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site. Section 3.6—Transportation MM TRANS-1a: The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. Receipt of fees Acceptance of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies Funds shall be provided prior to issuance of the first building permit. Adaptive Signal Control Technologies shall be completed within 180 days after IKEA occupancy but not prior to 90 days after IKEA occupancy City of Dublin MM TRANS-1b: The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. Receipt of fees Acceptance of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies Funds shall be provided prior to issuance of the first building permit. Adaptive Signal Control Technologies shall be completed within 180 days after IKEA occupancy but City of Dublin City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 10 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial not prior to 90 days after IKEA occupancy MM TRANS-1c: The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. Receipt of fees Acceptance of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies Funds shall be provided prior to issuance of the first building permit. Adaptive Signal Control Technologies shall be completed within 180 days after IKEA occupancy but not prior to 90 days after IKEA occupancy City of Dublin MM TRANS-1d: The project applicant shall fund the conversion of the southbound through lane on Arnold Road to a left-turn- only lane and install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the intersection of Arnold Road and Martinelli Way prior to project occupancy. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. Receipt of fees Acceptance of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies Funds shall be provided prior to issuance of the first building permit. Adaptive Signal Control Technologies shall be completed within 180 days after IKEA occupancy but not prior to 90 days after IKEA occupancy City of Dublin MM TRANS-1e: The project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to install Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the intersection of IKEA Place and Martinelli Way. The project applicant shall modify the northbound intersection approach to provide a left-turn and a through-right shared lane such that north/south protected left-turn signal Receipt of fees; acceptance of improvements Acceptance of Adaptive Signal Control Funds shall be provided prior to issuance of the first building permit. Intersection improvements shall City of Dublin City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 11 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial phasing can be provided (as opposed to split phasing). The improvements shall be installed prior to project occupancy. Technologies be installed prior to IKEA occupancy. Adaptive Signal Control Technologies shall be completed within 180 days after IKEA occupancy but not prior to 90 days after IKEA occupancy MM TRANS-1f: The Project Applicant shall fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive at Dublin Boulevard intersection prior to project occupation. The City of Dublin will modify the Eastern Dublin TIF improvement to provide a third westbound left-turn lane in lieu of the westbound right-turn-only lane. Receipt of fees Acceptance of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies Funds shall be provided prior to issuance of the first building permit. Adaptive Signal Control Technologies shall be completed within 180 days after IKEA occupancy but not prior to 90 days after IKEA occupancy City of Dublin MM TRANS-1g: The Project Applicant shall fund extending the length of the northbound left-turn pocket by approximately 100 feet through median modifications and widening along the project frontage in order to provide a second eastbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way. The improvements shall be installed prior to project occupancy. Acceptance of improvements Intersection improvements shall be installed prior to IKEA occupancy. City of Dublin Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1b, TRANS-1c, TRANS- 1d, TRANS-1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-1g, TRANS-4a and: MM TRANS-2a: The project applicant shall work with the City of Pleasanton to identify and pay the project’s proportionate share towards near-term improvements at Owens Drive/Hopyard Road Submittal of documentation Prior to issuance of building permits City of Dublin City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 12 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial consisting of modifying the westbound approach to provide 1 left turn, 1 through, and 2 right-turn only lanes. MM TRANS-2b: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the Eastern Dublin TIF fee as the project’s proportionate share for the improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. The improvements shall consist of constructing two additional northbound through lanes (for a total of four), construct two additional eastbound through lanes on eastbound Dublin Boulevard (for a total of four) to allow for the opening of the third eastbound through lane that has already been constructed, and to convert one of the two eastbound right- turn-only lanes to a fourth eastbound through lane. Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of the first building permit City of Dublin MM TRANS-2c: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin documentation that they have worked with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans to identify and pay the project’s proportionate share for improvements to the intersection of Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of modifying the southbound approach to construct a second southbound left-turn lane, and either modifying the northbound approach to construct a third eastbound left-turn lane or modifying the southbound approach to provide a third southbound through lane, in addition to re-timing the traffic signal. Submittal of documentation Prior to issuance of the first building permit City of Dublin MM TRANS-2d: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin the Eastern Dublin TIF for improvements to the intersection of Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard. The improvements would consist of a second northbound left-turn lane at Fallon Road. Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of the first building permit City of Dublin Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1b, TRANS-1c, TRANS- 1d, TRANS-1e, TRANS-1f, TRANS-1g, TRANS-2b, TRANS-2c, Submittal of documentation Prior to issuance of the first building City of Dublin City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 13 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial TRANS-4a and: MM TRANS-3a: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have paid the City of Pleasanton the proportionate share fees for improvements to the intersection of Hopyard Road/Owens Drive in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of the following: • Modify the northbound approach: 2 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn, • Modify the southbound approach: 3 left turns, 3 through, 1 right turn, • Modify the eastbound approach: 2 left turn, 2 through, 1 right turn, • Modify the westbound approach 2 left turn, 1 through -right shared, 1 right turn, and • Un-split eastbound/westbound signal operations. permits MM TRANS-3b: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with proportionate share fees for improvements to the intersection of Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard. The improvement shall consist of reconstructing the eastbound approach to provide a second eastbound left-turn lane and constructing a second receiving lane on the north side of the intersection. Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of the first building permit City of Dublin MM TRANS-3c: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with documentation that they have paid the City of Pleasanton the proportionate share fees for improvements to the intersection of Hacienda Drive/Owens Drive in the City of Pleasanton. The improvements shall consist of converting a southbound through lane to a third southbound left-turn, and convert an eastbound through lane to a third eastbound left-turn lane, in conjunction with signal timing adjustments. Submittal of documentation Prior to issuance of the first building permit City of Dublin MM TRANS-3d: Prior to the issuance of the first building Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of City of Dublin City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 14 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial permit, the City of Dublin shall modify the Eastern Dublin TIF at the intersection of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard to provide a second northbound right-turn lane in lieu of a fourth northbound through lane with a right-turn overlap phase and retain the two eastbound right-turn-only lanes in lieu of a fourth eastbound through lane. The project applicant shall then pay the Eastern Dublin TIF fee as the project’s proportionate share for the improvements to the intersection of Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard. the first building permit MM TRANS-3e: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the project applicant shall pay the City of Dublin a fee equal to the cost to fund the installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technologies at the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection prior to project occupation. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of the improvement. Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of the first building permit City of Dublin MM TRANS-4a: Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the proposed project, the applicant shall retain a qualified transportation consultant to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The TDM set forth strategies to achieve the reduction target, which may include: • Ridesharing/Carpooling matching program • Posting transit information in employee-only areas • Provision of employee lockers • Provision of secure bicycle storage areas • Flex scheduling/Compressed scheduling • Staggered shifts to avoid shift changes during peak commute hours Approval of TDM program Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy City of Dublin MM TRANS-4b: As an ongoing effort, the City of Dublin shall coordinate with Caltrans to optimize ramp metering rates at I- 580 on-ramps within the Dublin city limits. Submittal of documentation Ongoing City of Dublin MM TRANS-4c: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of City of Dublin City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 15 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial project applicant shall contribute its fair share for the installation of an additional mixed-flow on-ramp lane for southbound Hacienda Drive to westbound I-580. This mitigation measure shall be coordinated with Mitigation Measure TRANS-8d. the first building permit MM TRANS-8a: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that depict a Class II bike lane on Arnold Road and a 10-foot sidewalk on Martinelli Way. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. Approval of plans Prior to issuance of the first building permit City of Dublin MM TRANS-8b: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that include bicycle detection as part of the signal modifications to the intersections of Martinelli Way with Arnold Road, IKEA Place and Hacienda Drive. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. Approval of plans Prior to issuance of the first building permit City of Dublin MM TRANS-8c: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Dublin that identify bicycle storage facilities in appropriate locations throughout the project site. The following minimum amounts of bicycle parking shall be provided: 80 short-term—51 bicycle parking spaces near the IKEA entrance and 29 bicycle spaces distributed throughout the retail/restaurant area—and 80 long- term bicycle parking spaces with the same distribution. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. Approval of plans Prior to issuance of the first building permit City of Dublin MM TRANS-8d: During construction, the applicant shall maintain safe and convenient pedestrian access in the project vicinity. In cases where pedestrian facilities are temporarily closed, detours shall be established. Notes on construction plans; site inspection During construction City of Dublin MM TRANS-8e: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of City of Dublin City of Dublin—IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 16 Table 1 (cont.): IKEA Retail Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Verification of Completion Date Initial applicant shall provide the City of Dublin with fair share fees for pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the Hacienda Drive/I-580 interchange. This mitigation measure shall be coordinated with Mitigation Measure TRANS-4c. the first building permit 1 ORDINANCE NO. xx – 18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RELATED STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2016-00016 (APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-02, 986-0033-006-00) The Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. The Applicant, IKEA Property, Inc., submitted an application to construct the IKEA Retail Center project, which consists of up to 4 12,099 square feet of commercial uses on the 27.45- acre parcel. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review Permit, Tentati ve Parcel Map 10792 and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “IKEA Retail Center Project” or the “Project”; and B. The Project site is approximately 27.45 acres located south of Martinelli Drive between Hacienda Road and Arnold Road (APNs 986 -0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-02, 986-0033-006- 00); and C. The project is located in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the C ity Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 (“Eastern Dublin EIR” or “EDEIR”, SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference); and D. The City prepared an Initial Study for the IKEA Retail Center project consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15163 and determined that a supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR was required and based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR dated January 31, 2018 (SCH No. 2017082047); and E. The Draft Supplemental EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the project such as, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, hazards/hazardous materials, noise, and transportation, most of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and F. Following a public hearing on September 25, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18-22, recommending denial of the Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 2 1 and 2 Development Plan, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and G. On October 16, 2018, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the project, including the proposed Planned Development Rezone and relat ed Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and continued the item to November 8, 2018; and H. Staff Reports dated October 16, 2018 and November 8, 2018, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the Planned Development Rezone and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, for the City Council; and I. The City Council considered the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and related prior CEQA documents and all above referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on the project; and J. On November 8, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-18 certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and adopting mitigation findings, findings regarding alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the IKEA Retail Center project. SECTION 2: FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The IKEA Retail Center Project (“the Project”) PD-Planned Development zoning meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development plan that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design of the site plan. 2. Development of the Project under the PD-Planned Development zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surroundin g area in that the site will provide new retail development in an area that has retail uses on the north and east, a highly travelled freeway on the south, and future campus office development on the west. B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows. 1. The PD-Planned Development zoning for the Project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding area in that the proposed site plan has taken into account adjacent development, which as noted above includes a freeway, retail, and future campus office in the immediate surroundings with high density residential development nearby, and provides excellent ingress and egress to and from Interstate 580. The proposed site plan has taken into account a land use type and density that is compatible with the adjacent areas and densities. 2. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed in that the project site is flat with improved public streets on three sides and served by existing public utilities. The project site conditions are documented in the 3 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and prior certified EIR for the EDSP, and the project will implement all adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. There are no site conditions that were identified in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report that will present an impediment to development of the site for the proposed commercial development. 3. The PD-Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. The project uses are compatible with surrounding uses. 4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, in that the proposed use as a retail project is consistent with the General Commercial land use designation for the site. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council finds as follows: 1. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council adopted a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program via Resolution xx-18 on November 8, 2018, prior to approving the project. SECTION 3: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning District and supersedes and replaces the previously ado pted zoning (Resolution 34-08): 27.45 gross acres located south of Martinelli Way between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive. (Assessor Parcel Numbers 986-0033-004, 986-0033-005-02, 986-0033-006) (“the Property”). A map of the rezoning area is shown below: 4 SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF STAGE 1 & STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire 27.45-acre project area, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1/Stage 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. The following Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans meet all the requirements for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans as set forth in Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan 1. Statement of Uses. Use types listed below are as defined in Dublin Municipal Code section 8.08.020, unless otherwise noted. The site is divided into two parcels. “Commercial Area 1” is the western parcel of the project site (IKEA) and “Commercial Area 2” is the eastern parcel of the project site (Retail Center). Commercial Area 1 Permitted Uses: • Retail-General • Retail-Service • Warehouse and Distribution, accessory only • Eating and Drinking Establishment • Eating and Drinking Establishment-Specialty • Eating and Drinking Establishment-Take Out • Mobile Retail Cart1 • Office-Professional/Administrative, accessory only • Retail Kiosk2 • Shopping Center • Daycare Center, accessory only • Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Conditional Uses: • Retail-Outdoor Storage3 • Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Commercial Area 2 Permitted Uses • Comedy Club • Banks and Financial Services • Eating and Drinking Establishment-Specialty • Eating and Drinking Establishment-Take Out • Eating and Drinking Establishment • Health Club/Fitness Center4 5 • Health Services/Clinics • Massage Establishment • Mobile Food Truck5 • Mobile Retail Cart1 • Outdoor Seating. This also includes undesignated outdoor seating located in common areas usable for both information seating and dining and not dedicated to a specific tenant. • Personal Services • Recreational Facility/Indoor4 • Repair Shop • Retail-General • Retail-Neighborhood • Retail Kiosks • School-Commercial • Shopping Center • Theater • Tobacco Retailers4 • Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Conditional Uses • Arcade • Animal Sales and Services • Community Facility • Hotel/Motel • Retail-Outdoor Storage3 • Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Temporary Uses: • Arts and Crafts Fair • Christmas Tree Sales Lot • Construction-Related Temporary Uses • Farmer’s Market • Office Trailer-Commercial • Outdoor Sales by Established Dublin Business • Pumpkin Sales Lot • Temporary Outdoor Sale (Sidewalk Sale) • Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Notes: 1 Mobile Retail Cart. This includes small outdoor retail carts for the sale of any type of merchandise not constructed on a permanent foundation. The location is limited to the plaza areas. Maximum of 5 carts total for Commercial Area 1 and Commercial Area 2 combined. 2 Retail Kiosk. This is a fixed structure constructed on a permanent foundation for the sale of any type of merchandise, including food and beverages. The location is limited to the plaza areas. Maximum of 5 kiosks total for Commercial Area 1 6 and Commercial Area 2 combined. Approval subject to a Site Development Review Waiver. 3 The decision-maker for the conditional use permit is the Zoning Administrator 4 Permitted with a Zoning Clearance 5 A Mobile Food Truck shall comply with all the following: a. A Site Development Review Waiver approving the location of a food truck is required. Applications for multiple food trucks may be combined into one Site Development Review Waiver application. The application shall include a site plan demonstrating compliance with the following: 1. The location of a mobile food vendor is limited to the parking area and shall not be located within a pedestrian plaza or public right -of- way. 2. The area used for all mobile food truck operations, including but not limited to customer queuing, trash, and dining, shall not impede the traffic visibility area at any driveway or intersection, emergency access, pedestrian and vehicular ingress or egress through the remainder of the parking, or the adjacent public right of way. 3. The area used for all mobile food truck operations, including but not limited to customer queuing, trash, and dining, shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the parking area. 4. If more than one mobile food vendor is on the site at one time, they shall be located within the same vicinity, not more than 25 feet apart. b. In addition to the Site Development Review Waiver, the following operational standards apply: 1. Hours of Operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. 2. The food truck must be stationary for a minimum of two (2) hours. No trolling allowed. 3. Provision of at least one trash receptacle, one recycling receptacle and one compost receptacle for use by patrons and in a convenient location that does not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 4. Collection and removal of all litter and debris generated within a minimum 25-foot radius of the food truck. 5. No signs other than those exhibited on or in the mobile food truck. 6. Adequate lighting must be provided to ensure customer safety and shall be directed downwards and away from public streets and adjacent properties. 7. Maintenance of a valid business license from the City of Dublin. 8. Maintenance of a valid health permit from the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. 2. Phasing Plan. The project site will be graded, improved, and constructed as a whole. The construction and occupation of the individual buildings shall occur concurrently but may be separated into different building permit submittals. 3. General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Consistency. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of General Commercial, which permits a floor area ratio of 0.20 to 0.60. The FAR is .37 based upon the combined square footages for entire project site. 7 4. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. The project is not subject to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68) for the provision of affordable housing because the regulations apply only to residential development projects of 20 units or more. 5. Aerial Photo. 6. Site Plan. As shown in the Site Plan below, “Commercial Area 1” is the western parcel of the project site (IKEA) and “Commercial Area 2” is the eastern parcel of the project site (Retail Center). 8 7. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to the project: Regulation Commercial Area 1 Commercial Area 2 Minimum Lot Area 8 acres 25,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width 250 feet Minimum Lot Depth 400 feet Maximum Building Height 65 feet 35 feet Minimum Setbacks 20’ at I-580, Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive 0’ at Martinelli Way 0’ at property line along main entry road Maximum Building Area 410,000 square feet 317,000 square feet 93,000 square feet of which, no more than 58,440 square feet of restaurant uses are allowed unless a trip generation study is completed to demonstrate that the site trip generation remains within what was evaluated in the EIR. Notes: Square footage for the enclosed trash rooms, building electrical rooms, parking areas, or enclosed loading and delivery areas shall not be counted toward the maximum building area. Retail kiosks and carts are permitted in the project's common areas and are not included in the maximum building area square footage. A maximum of 5 kiosks and 5 carts are allowed at the project site. Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.37 over entire site Parking Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations unless otherwise noted. Notes: No parking is required for the Retail Kiosks, Mobile Retail Carts, Food Trucks and undesignated outdoor seating located in common areas usable for informal seating and dining and not dedicated to a specific tenant. Parking Stall Dimensions Standards Full Size Space: 9’ x 18’ Compact Car Space: 8’ x 17’ Per DMC Minimum Parking Setback 5’ from property line along public streets 10’ from property line along main entry road 5’ from Caltrans right of way Signage Pursuant to an approved Master Sign Program 9 8. Architectural Standards. Commercial Area 1: The project’s architectural style is modern with clean lines and bold geometry enhanced through the use of high-quality materials and a strong color palette. The architectural design of the project shall reflect the following standards: • Bold elements enhanced with bold geometry, and varying building materials such as composite metal panels, steel elements and clear anodized glass and aluminum storefront that are durable and of high quality. • Use diversity of textures in the building finishes providing a varied and interesting base form for the buildings. • The simple form of the building is enhanced by the juxtaposition of protruding planes, material textures, and colors. • Provide a functional outdoor plaza with enhanced paving treatment, and other features that connects people to Commercial Area 2. • The building may be raised with partially subterranean parking to eliminate the need for surface parking, except for minimal large-vehicle loading spaces. Illustrative examples of architectural style: Commercial Area 2: The architectural style of Commercial Area 2 is Contemporary Casual and embodies the qualities of a strong relationship between the indoor and outdoor environments, reinforced through the use of earth tones, unique materials and inviting, dynamic patio spaces The architectural design of the project shall reflect the following standards: • Employ high quality materials to provide visual interest in the project and to complement its surroundings. 10 • Use diversity of textures in the building finishes providing a varied and interesting base form for the buildings. • Strong linear massing with rich articulation, utilization of a variety of materials and surfaces, and a site design that emphasizes interaction and access to common spaces. • Incorporate features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, roof elements, signs, light fixtures and landscaping to contribute layers of detail at the pedestrian level. • Provide functional outdoor spaces where people will gather and socialize, with landscaping, outdoor seating, enhanced paving treatment, and other features to provide an appropriate urban scale for the development. Illustrative examples of architectural style: 9. Preliminary Landscape Plan. The landscape design of the project shall reflect the following standards: • Create a rich pedestrian experience connecting Commercial Area 1 to Commercial Area 2 and through the plaza in Commercial Area 2 by the diverse offering of activities, amenities and retail options. • Provide flexible open space and varied seating options to allow for a mix of activities. • Treat the site’s storm water in a set of basins throughout the site that are linked to the site’s water infrastructure. • Create a visual buffer and soften the edge between the public realm and the site. 11 • Utilize plants that provide a year-round vegetated landscape with seasonality, color, and interest for an attractive visual environment. 10. Applicable Requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically provided in this Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the C-1 Retail Commercial Zoning District (the closest comparable zoning district) pursuant to section 8.32.060C or its successor. 11. Statement of compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage 2 portion of this Development Plan is consistent with the Stage 1 po rtion of this Development Plan. SECTION 5. POSTING OF ORDINANCE The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public spaces in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption. 12 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this _____ day of _______, 2018, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. xx - 18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10792 FOR THE IKEA RETAIL CENTER PROJECT PLPA 2016-00016 (APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-02, 986-0033-006-00) WHEREAS, the Applicant, IKEA Property, Inc., submitted an application to construct the IKEA Retail Center project, which consists of up to 412,099 square feet of commercial uses on the 27.45-acre parcel. Requested land use approvals include a Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792 and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as the “IKEA Retail Center Project” or the “Project”; and WHEREAS, project site is approximately 27.45 acres located south of Martinelli Drive between Hacienda Road and Arnold Road (APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-02, 986- 0033-006-00); and WHEREAS, the project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the project plans, attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, illustrate the site layout and elevations for the IKEA Retail Center project consistent with the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and P lanned Development zoning proposed as part of this project; and WHEREAS, the Site Development Review Permit application collectively defines this project and is available and on file in the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the project is located in the General Plan’s Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 (“Eastern Dublin EIR” or “EDEIR”, SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significan ce. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53 -93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the IKEA Retail Center project consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15163 and determined that a supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR was required; and 2 WHEREAS, the City held a public scoping meeting on September 7, 2017, where an overview of the proposed scope and content of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was provided; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR dated January 31, 2018 (SCH No. 2017082047); and WHEREAS, the Draft Supplemental EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects anticipated as a result of the project such as, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, hazards/hazardous materials, noise, and transportat ion, most of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18- 23 recommending that the City Council certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and adopting mitigation findings, the findings regarding alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 18- 22 recommending that the City Council deny a Planned Development Zoning district with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development plan, Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated October 16, 2018 and November 8, 2018 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the project, including the Planned Development Rezoning and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the City Council; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2018 the City Council adopted Resolution xx-18 certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and adopting mitigation findings, findings regarding alternatives, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the IKEA Retail Center project; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on October 16, 2018 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard and continued the item the November 8, 2018; and WHEREAS, proper notice of the public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the Site Development Review application; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City of Dublin City Council does hereby make the following finding regarding the IKEA Retail Center Project: The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and related findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program approved by the City Council Resolution No. xx-18 are adequate and sufficient to satisfy CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin’s CEQA guidelines and hereby incorporates said documents by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following Site Development Review findings and determinations regarding the IKEA Retail Center project: A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan, and any applicable Specific Plans and design guidelines because: 1) the project provides an orderly, attractive and harmonious development compatible with the site’s surrounding properties; 2) the development gives thoughtful consideration to building location, architectural and landscape design and theme, vehicular and pedestrian access and on -site circulation, parking and traffic impact; 3) the project includes contemporary, high-quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan ; 4) the proposed project will conform to the density, design, and allowable uses as sta ted in the Planned Development Zoning Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 5) the project includes streetscape enhancements to compliment those already in place; 6) the proposed project is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the Plan states that regionally-oriented commercial uses should be located south of Dublin Boulevard and near freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts to the rest of Dublin and the retail center is intended to service the community as well as the region; and 7) the project is in all respects consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan . B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because: 1) The architecture and landscape design for the project provides an appropriate pedestrian scale with the proposed layout of buildings and landscaping and parking are well-suited to the proposed use; 2) the overall design of the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 3) the overall project is consistent with the total development potential for the site as stated in the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 4 ) the proposed project is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the Plan states that regionally-oriented commercial uses should be located south of Dublin Boulevard and near freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will lim it traffic impacts to the rest of Dublin and the retail center is intended to service the community as well as the region ; and 5) the proposed project meets the intent of the Dublin General Plan which discourages projects that do not relate well to the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that includes commercial, office, and multi-family residential uses. C. The design of the Project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding properties, and the lot in which the Project is proposed because: 1) the architecture 4 combines a variety of materials, textures and colors intended to provide visual interest in the project and to complement its surroundings; 2) the landscape design for the project provides an appropriate pedestrian scale and the landscaping and parking areas are well-suited to the uses; 3) the overall design of the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan; 4) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial which allows for a variety of retail and other commercial uses; 5) the project has been designed to screen all mechanical equipment and all service and loading areas to enhance the aesthetics from within the property and surrounding properties; and 6) the proposed development locates a regionally oriented commercial use, consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, south of Dublin Boulevard and near freeway interchanges and provides convenient vehicular access to the freeway, thereby limiting traffic impacts to the rest of Dublin. D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development because: 1) the project helps to provide the desired mix of specialty shops, eating places, and associated uses that conform to the General Commercial land use stipulated in the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; 2) it provides for its own infrastructure and required services; 3) it is a pedestrian oriented development which encourages connectively within the site and adjacent commercial center which reflects the planned visual character of the area and provides a place for community gathering; 4) the project is also designed to include sufficient vehicular and pedestrian access, with parking and similar infrastructure to support the use; 5) the retail center will have a blended FAR of .40 which is consistent with the Stage 2 Development Plan; and 6) the proposed density of the site is consistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because : 1) the project site is relatively flat; 2) the roadway and utility infrastructure to se rve the site already exists; and 3) future approval of grading and improvement plans will enable the site to be modified to suit the project, which will be developed for the site in accordance with City policies and regulations. F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design, site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other developments in the vicinity because: 1) the architectural style and materials will be consistent and compatible with the contemporary architectural style, colors, and materials being utilized on other commercial and residential projects in the vicinity of the project site; 2) the project is utilizing contemporary, high-quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the architecture of the buildings includes light fixtures, varying roof designs and heights, awnings, outdoor spaces and therefore is consistent with good design, which encourage the use of these elements; and 4) the surface parking lot includes a large number of trees which will provide a canopy in the parking lot and therefore will limit the expanse of parking lot and will provide an attractive element to the parking lot area. 5 G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the Project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for the public because: 1) the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the project site emphasizes the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment that will include a large outdoor area for patrons; 2) the outdoor plaza includes a variety of plant material, paving and outdoor gathering spaces including seating areas; 3) landscaping will be provided throughout the project site; and 4) the project landscaping is consistent with other commercial development in the vicinity and conforms to the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. H. The site has been adequately designed to en sure the proper circulation for bicyclist, pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) all infrastructure including driveways, pathways, sidewalks, and street lighting have been reviewed for conformance with City policies, regulations, and best practices and have been designed with multi- modal travel in mind; 2) development of this project will conform to the major public improvements already installed allowing patrons the safe and efficient use of these facilities; 3) the project includes the addition of multi-use pathway along the south side of Martinelli Way and along the eastern and southern perimeter of the property which contributes to the City’s pedestrian and bicycle network; and 4) the location of the project site and the project’s circulation design provides an efficient flow of vehicles to and from the major arterial roads and the I-580 freeway. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed vesting tentative map for the IKEA Retail Center project: A. The proposed subdivision map together with the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792 together with the provisions for its design and improvements complies with the development standards of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan and 2) will eliminate an unnecessary parcel and create two parcels for development of the IKEA building and the retail center. B. The subdivision site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development because: 1) the project site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development (.40 FAR project-wide) is consistent with the General Commercial land use designation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (.20 to .60 FAR).and Stage 2 Development Plan; 2) the proposed commercial development is consistent with the scale of other commercial developments in the immediate vicinity; and 3) the project site is located on approximately 27.45 acres of relatively flat topography, and so therefore is physically suitable for the type and density of development that is proposed. C. The tentative tract map is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision design or improvements of the tentative tract map are consistent with the city’s general plan and any applicable specific plan because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to create two parcels for the IKEA building and retail center (.60 and .20 FAR respectively) is consistent with the development densities if the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (.20 to .60 FAR) and Stage 2 Development Plan (.20 to .60 – Blended FAR of .40). 6 D. The subdivision design and proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is for the development of an relatively flat and vacant property which has been disturbed through vegetation management for years; 2) the City certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Resolution No. XX-18) which mitigated any potential impacts and therefore the proposed subdivision will not result in environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause public health concerns. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health concerns because: 1) the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health concerns as it has been conditioned to comply with all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of permit issuance ; 2) in addition, the City conducted a review to evaluate the project’s impacts; 3) the City certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Resolution No. xx-18) which mitigated any potential impacts to public. F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision; or alternate easements are provided pursuant to Government Code Section 66474(g) because: 1) the City Engineer has reviewed the Vesting Tentative Map and title report and has determined that the future proposed buildings will not conflict with existing or new easements nor with future property lines. G. The design or improvements of the tentative map are consistent with the city’s general plan and any applicable specific plan because: 1) the proposed Vesting Tentative Map 10792 together with the provisions for its design and improvements complies with the development standards of the Stage 2 Planned Development and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. H. The subdivision is designed to provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities because: 1) the proposed development is located very closely to mass transit (BART) where it will be a part of a sustainable infrastructure system; 2) the proposed IKEA store is designed to LEED-Silver at minimum and incorporate below store parking to reduce its heat island effect; 3) the proposed retail center is design for compliance with California Green Building Code Tier 1 requirements and 4 ) landscaping will be provided throughout the project site including the surface parking lot providing natural shading. I. The tentative tract map, including design and improvement, shall comply with all the applicable provisions and requirements of the zoning ordinance, the latest municipal stormwater permit issued to the city by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, this title, any other ordinance of the city, and the Subdivision Map Act because: 1) the project is compliant with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit; 2) the project would include bioretention areas and stormwater treatment vaults to ensure consistency with regional C.3 stormwater treatment; and 3) the project would include full trash capture devices to ensure consistency with regional C.10 stormwater treatment requirements. 7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Site Development Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map for the IKEA Retail Center project as shown on the project plans date stamped received on August 8, 2018 and included as Exhibit A and Exhibit B to this Resolution, subject to the conditions included below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. # CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY WHEN REQ’D Prior to: PLANNING 1. Approval. This approval is for the IKEA Retail Center Project (PLPA-2016-00016). This approval shall be as generally depicted and indicated on the project plans prepared by JMH Weiss, Greenbergfarrow, Ware Malcomb and Smith+Smith, dated received August 8, 2018 , attached as Exhibit A (Site Development Review Plans) and project plans prepared by JMH Weiss, Inc. dated received August 8, 2018, attached as Exhibit B (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map), and other plans, text, and diagrams relating to this Project, and as specified as the following Conditions of Approval for this project. PL Ongoing 2. Effective Date. This approval becomes effective upon certification of the IKEA Retail Center Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and approval of the companion Planned Development Rezone has become effective (Stage 1 and 2). PL Ongoing 3. Permit Expiration – Site Development Review. Approval of this Site Development Review shall be valid of one (1) year from the effective date for the project. This approval shall be null and void in the event the approved use fails to be established within the prescribed time. Commencement of the use means the establishment of use pursuant to the Permit approval or, demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such use. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. PL One Year After Effective Date 4. Permit Expiration – Vesting Tentative Map. Approval of the Vesting Tentative Map shall be valid for 36 months from the effective date as set forth in Section 9.08.130.A of the Dublin Municipal Code. PW 36 months after Effective Date 5. Time Extension. The original approving decision-maker may, upon the Applicant’s written request for an extension of approval PL Prior to Expiration Date 8 prior to expiration, upon the determination that all Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant an extension of the approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing shall be held before the original hearing body. 6. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall operate this use in compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development Review Permit, the approved plans and the regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified may be subject to enforcement action. PL On-going 7. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. PL On-going 8. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Applicant/ Developer shall comply with applicable City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District and the California Department of Health Services requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of any improvements related to this project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met. Various Building Permit Issuance 9. Required Permits. Developer shall obtain all permits required by other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the permits to the Public Works Department. PW Building Permit Issuance and Grading Permit Issuance 10. Fees. Subject to Government Code section 66498.1(b), Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and applicable. Approved Development Agreement supersedes where applicable. Various Building Permit Issuance 11. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by ADM On-going 9 Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Developer’s duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City’s promptly notifying the Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City’s full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 12. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this project. PL, PW On-going 13. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for clean-up & disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean and litter-free site. PL On-going 14. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site Development Review approval may be considered by the Community Development Director if the modifications or changes proposed comply with Section 8.104.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. PL On-going 15. Equipment Screening. All electrical equipment, fire risers, and/or mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view by landscaping and/or architectural features. Any roof-mounted equipment shall be completely screened from adjacent street view by materials architecturally compatible with the building and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Building Permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. PL Building Permit Issuance and Through Completion/ On- going 16. Temporary Promotional Banners and Balloons. Temporary Promotional Banner Signs and Balloons shall only be permitted after first securing an approved Temporary Promotional Sign Permit. All temporary on-site signage shall be subject to the sign regulations contained in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. PL On-going 17. Construction Trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain a Temporary Use Permit prior to the establishment of any construction trailer, storage shed, or container units on the project site. PL Installation of a Construction Trailer PLANNING – PROJECT SPECFIIC CONDITIONS 18. The size of the IKEA store shall be a maximum of 317,000 square feet. This modification eliminates approximately 22,099 square feet from the warehouse area by pulling in one side of the building on the southern end, and thereby shortening the length of the building by approximately 60 feet. This reduction shall result in an increase in open space on the south side, not an increase in parking area. PL Building Permit Issuance and Ongoing 19. Public Art. The project is required to comply with Sections 8.58.05A and 8.58.05D of Chapter 8.58 (Public Art Program) of the Dublin Municipal Code. The Project will make a monetary contribution in-lieu of acquiring and installing a public art project PL Building Permit Issuance 10 on the property, as provided by the Dublin Municipal Code section 8.58.050D. The in-lieu contribution shall be as provided in the Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.58. 20. Reciprocal Parking Agreement. A reciprocal agreement between Parcel 1 (IKEA site) and Parcel 2 (Retail Center) for parking shall be recorded and provided to the City. PL Building Permit Issuance 21. S Shopping Carts. Shopping cart return stalls shall be provided as shown on the project plans and shall not occupy required parking stalls. Shopping carts provided for the IKEA shall include a wheel locking system to keep shopping carts from crossing over IKEA Place or any street property line. All carts must remain on the IKEA side of the development and stored in the designated cart returns. A note identifying the locking system shall be placed on the building permit plans. PL Building Permit Issuance and Ongoing 22. CalTrans coordination. Consult with CalTrans regarding details of proposed improvements along their ROW. PL Approval of Improvement Plans 23. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/ Developer shall comply with The IKEA Retail Center Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) certified by City Council Resolution xx-18, including all mitigation measures, action programs, and implementation measures contained therein. The SEIR is on file with the Community Development Department. PL Ongoing 24. P Parking of Delivery Trucks. The parking of delivery trucks shall be limited to designated loading areas and for the express purpose of loading and unloading. PL Ongoing 25. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program is required prior to installation of any project related signage. Any signs shown in the Project Plans are for illustrative purposes only and the full details of the sign sizes, location, content, materials, and construction shall be shown in the separate sign package. PL Installation of Project Related Signage 26. Project Phasing. The IKEA Retail Center project shall be constructed as one phase as outlined in the Supplemental Draft EIR for the project. The construction of the individual buildings may be separated into different building permit submittals. If the building permit for the IKEA building is issued first, the building permits for buildings D-H (as shown on the project plans) shall be issued prior to the first building inspection for the IKEA building (not including the parking structure) PL First Building Inspection for IKEA Building 27. Non-Taxable Merchandise. Less than ten percent of the total floor sales area shall be dedicated to the sale of non-taxable food for human consumption in accordance with DMC Chapter 8.42 Superstores Ordinance. PL Ongoing PLANNING - LANDSCAPE 28. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan. Plans shall comply with Chapter 8.72 and be generally consistent with the project plans attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and date stamped received on August 8, 2018. A Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan prepared and stamped by a State licensed landscape architect or registered engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. Landscape and irrigation plans shall provide for a recycled water system. PL Building Permit Issuance 29. Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations. The Applicant shall PL Building Permit 11 meet all requirements of the City of Dublin's Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations, Chapter 8.88 of the Dublin Municipal Code and submit written documentation to the Public Works Department (in the form of a Landscape Documentation Package and other required documents) that the development conforms to the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. Issuance 30. Sustainable Landscape Practices. The landscape design shall demonstrate compliance with sustainable landscape practices as detailed in the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines by earning 60 points or more and meeting the 14 required practices in the Bay- Friendly Landscape Scorecard. PL Building Permit Issuance 31. Landscape Edges: Concrete curbs or bands shall be used at the edges of all planters and paving surfaces. The design width and depth of the concrete edge to be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. PL Building Permit Issuance 32. Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape Plan shall show the location of all backflow prevention devises. The location and screening of the backflow prevention devices shall be reviewed and approved by City staff. PL Building Permit Issuance 33. Maintenance of Landscape. All landscape areas on the site shall be properly maintained at all times. Any proposed or modified landscaping to the site, including the removal or replacement of trees, shall require prior review and written approval from the Community Development Director. PL On-going DUBLIN POLICE SERVICES 34. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. IKEA staff and their construction representatives shall coordinate with the Dublin Police Services’ Crime Prevention Unit to conduct a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) inspection. These inspections may occur both during the construction phase and prior to certificate of occupancy. The Crime Prevention Unit through the CPTED program may provide strategies to deter crime and allow Dublin Police to best assist the businesses should crime occur. PL, PO During Construction and On-going BUILDING CONDITIONS 35. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. B Through Completion 36. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is requested to occur in phases, then all physical improvements within each phase shall be required to be completed prior to occupancy of any buildings within that phase except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the Department of Community Development. The Phased Occupancy Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of Community Development and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered by said Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all parcels in each phase and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No individual building shall be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining additional B Occupancy of any affected building 12 construction activity. Subject to approval of the Director of Community Development, the completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement weather with the posting of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated improvements. 37. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, Applicant/Developer shall submit electronic plans and specs and the number of hard copies as determined by the Building Official for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. Applicant shall submit one copy of the plans directly to Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and submit their acceptance letter to the City upon first submittal of the plans. B Issuance of Building Permits 38. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. B Issuance of building permits 39. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with materials compatible to the main building. Units shall be permanently installed on concrete pads or other non-movable materials approved by the Chief Building Official and Director of Community Development. B Occupancy 40. Addressing a) Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin’s address grid overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale). Highlight all exterior door openings on plans (front, rear, garage, etc.). Provide information for each tenant space. Three (3) copies on full size sheets and three (3) copies reduced sheets. b) Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Commercial Security Code. c) Address will be required on all doors leading to the exterior of the building. Addresses shall be illuminated and be able to be seen from the street, 4 inches in height minimum. B Prior to release of addresses Prior to permitting Prior to occupancy 41. Engineer Observation. An Engineer of record shall be retained to provide observation services for all components of the lateral and vertical design of the building, including nailing, hold-downs, straps, shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final frame inspection. B Scheduling the final frame inspection 42. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils report shall review and approve the foundation design. A letter shall be submitted to the Building Division on the approval. B Permit issuance 43. 60-Foot No Build Covenant. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Section 7.32.130, if the design of the project uses yards for B Prior to Permitting 13 allowable square footage increase, the owner shall file with the Building Official a Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance of Yards for an Oversized Building binding such owner, his heirs, and assignees, to set aside a 60-foot required yard as unobstructed space having no improvements. After execution by the owner and Building Official, such covenant shall be recorded in the Alameda County Recorder’s Office, and shall continue in effect so long as an oversized building remains or unless otherwise released by authority of the Building Official. 44. Accessible Parking. The required number of parking stalls, the design and location of the accessible parking stalls shall be as required by the CA Building Code. B Through Completion 45. CALGreen Building. The project shall incorporate the requirements of the CALGreen Building Standards Code. The project shall be provided with: a) short and long -term bicycle parking, b) conduit installed from the electrical supply panel to the roof for the installation of future PV (DMC 7.94.070), and c) covered entries. The Green Building Plan shall be submitted to the Building Official for review. B Prior to permitting 46. Cool Roofs. Flat roof areas shall have their roofing material coated with light colored gravel or painted with light colored or reflective material designed for Cool Roofs. B Through Completion 47. Solar Zone – CA Energy Code. Show the location of the Solar Zone on the site plan. Detail the orientation of the Solar Zone. This information shall be shown on the roof plan. This condition of approval will be waived if the project meets the exceptions provided in the CA Energy Code. Typical for each building. B Through Completion 48. Clean Air Vehicle Parking. The project shall incorporate the requirements of the CAL Green Building Standards Code with: a) designated clean air vehicle parking stalls and b) electric vehicle charging stations. B Prior to Occupancy 49. CASp. Applicant shall obtain the services of a Certified Access Specialist for the review of the construction drawing and inspections for the building interior and site exterior. A written report shall be submitted to the City prior to approval of the permit application. In Addition, a written report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the final inspection. B Prior to Permitting and Occupancy 50. Accessory Structures. Building permits are required for all associated exterior amenities/structures, including some shall meet accessibility regulations. Examples of amenities include: trash enclosures, shade structures, fire pits, retaining walls located outside of the buildings, water features, exterior fixed seating, BBQs, etc. Provide a list of these structures requiring separate permits on the cover sheet of plans for each separate project (Ikea and retail buildings). B Through Completion 51. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide City with one (1) reduced (1/2 size) copies of the City of Dublin stamped approved plan. B 30 days after permit and each revision issuance 52. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all work under construction. B Through Completion FIRE PREVENTION 53. No fire service lines shall pass beneath buildings. F Approval of Improvement Plans 14 54. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring Requirements In accordance with The Dublin Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with the NFPA 13, the CA Fire Code and CA Building Code. Plans and specifications showing detailed mechanical design, cut sheets, listing sheets and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. This may be a deferred submittal. a) Sprinkler Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed mechanical drawings of all sprinkler modifications, including cut sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. b) All sprinkler system components shall remain in compliance with the applicable N.F.P.A. 13 Standard, the CA Fire Code and the CA Building Code. c) Underground Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed shop drawings for the fire water supply system, including cut sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department for approval and permit prior to installation. All underground and fire water supply system components shall be in compliance with the applicable N.F.P.A. 13, 24, 20, 22 Standards, the CA Fire Code and the CA Building Code. The system shall be hydrostatically tested and inspected prior to being covered. Prior to the system being connected to any fire protection system, a system flush shall be witnessed by the Fire Department. d) Central Station Monitoring. Automatic fire extinguishing systems installed within buildings shall have all control valves and flow devices electrically supervised and maintained by an approved central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of central station alarm signals shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. e) Fire Protection Equipment shall be identified with approved signs constructed of durable materials, permanently installed and readily visible. F Building Permit Issuance 55. Fire Access During Construction. a) Fire Access. Access roads, turnaround, pullouts, and fire operation areas are fire lanes and shall be maintained clear and free of obstructions, including the parking of vehicles. b) Entrances. Entrances to job sites shall not be blocked, including after hours, other than by approved gates/barriers that provide for emergency access. c) Site Utilities. Site utilities that would require the access road to be dug up or made impassible shall be installed prior to construction commencing. d) Entrance flare, angle of departure, width, turning radii, grades, turnaround, vertical clearances, road surface, bridges/crossings, gates/key-switch, within a 150-foot distance to Fire Lane shall be maintained. e) Personnel Access. Route width, slope, surface and obstructions must be considered for the approved route to furthermost portion of the exterior wall. F During Construction 15 f) All-weather access. Fire access is required to be all- weather access. Show on the plans the location of the all- weather access and a description of the construction. Access roads must be designed to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. 56. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required A Fire Alarm-Detection System shall be installed throughout the building so as to provide full property protection, including combustible concealed spaces, as required by NFPA 72. The system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, CA Fire, Building, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes. If the system is intended to serve as an evacuation system, compliance with the horn/strobe requirements for the entire building must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be interconnected to the fire alarm system so as to activate an alarm if activated and to monitor control valves. Delayed egress locks shall meet requirements of C.F.C. a) Fire Alarm Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed drawings of the fire alarm system, including floor plan showing all rooms, device locations, ceiling height and construction, cut sheets, listing sheets and battery and voltage drop calculations to the Fire Department for review and permit prior to the installation. Where employee work area’s have audible alarm coverage, circuits shall be initially designed with a minimum 20% spare capacity for adding appliances to accommodate hearing impaired employee’s. b) Central Station Monitored Account. Automatic fire alarm systems shall be monitored by an approved central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of central station alarm signals shall be approved by the Fire Department. c) Qualified Personnel. The system shall be installed, inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 72. Only qualified and experienced persons shall perform this work. Examples of qualified individuals are those who have been factory trained and certified or are NICET Fire Alarm Certified. d) Inspection & Testing Documentation. Performance testing of all initiating & notification devices in the presence of the Fire Inspector shall occur prior to final of the system. Upon this inspection, proof that the specific account is UL Certificated must be provided to the Fire Inspector. F Occupancy 16 57. Fire Extinguishers. Extinguishers shall be visible and unobstructed. Signage shall be provided to indicate fire extinguisher locations. The number and location of extinguishers shall be shown on the plans. Additional fire extinguishers maybe required by the fire inspector. Fire extinguisher shall meet a minimum classification of 2A 10BC. Extinguishers weighing 40 pounds or less shall be mounted no higher than 5 feet above the floor measured to the top of the extinguisher. Extinguishers shall be inspected monthly and serviced by a licensed concern annually. F Occupancy 58. FD Building Key Box. Building Access. A Fire Department Key Box shall be installed at the main entrance to the Building. Note these locations on the plans. The key box should be installed approximately 5 1/2 feet above grade. The box shall be sized to hold the master key to the facility as well as keys for rooms not accessible by the master key. Specialty keys, such as the fire alarm control box key and elevator control keys shall also be installed in the box. The key box door and necessary keys are to be provided to the fire inspector upon the final inspection. The inspector will then lock the keys into the box. F Occupancy 59. Means of Egress. Exit signs shall be visible and illuminated with emergency lighting when building is occupied. F Occupancy 60. Main Entrance Hardware Exception. It is recommended that all doors be provided with exit hardware that allows exiting from the egress side even when the door is in the locked condition. However, an exception for A-3, B, F, M, S occupancies and all churches does allow key-locking hardware (no thumb-turns) on the main exit when the main exit consists of a single door or pair of doors. When unlocked the single door or both leaves of a pair of doors must be free to swing without operation of any latching device. A readily visible, durable sign on or just above the door stating “This door to remain unlocked whenever the building is occupied” shall be provided. The sign shall be in letters not less than 1 inch high on a contrasting background. This use of this exception may be revoked for cause. F Occupancy 61. Maximum Occupant Load. Posting of room capacity is required for any occupant load of 50 or more persons. Submittal of a seating plan on 8.5” x 11” paper is required prior to final occupancy. F Occupancy 62. Interior Finish. Wall and ceiling interior finish material shall meet the requirements of Chapter 8 of the California Fire Code. Interior finishes will be field verified upon final inspection. If the product is not field marked and the marking visible for inspection, maintain the products cut-sheets and packaging that show proof of the products flammability and flame-spread ratings. Decorative materials shall be fire retardant. F Occupancy 63. General Inspection. Upon inspection of the work for which this submittal was provided, a general inspection of the business and F Occupancy 17 site will be conducted. 64. Addressing. Addressing shall be illuminated or in an illuminated area. The address characters shall be contrasting to their background. If address is placed on glass, the numbers shall be on the exterior of the glass and a contrasting background placed behind the numbers. Building Address. The building shall be provided with all addresses or the assigned address range so as to be clearly visible from either direction of travel on the street the address references. The address characters shall not be less than 5 inches in height by 1-inch stroke. Larger sizes may be necessary depending on the setbacks and visibility. Multi-Tenants. Where a building has multiple tenants, address shall also be provided near the main entrance door of each tenant space. The address shall be high enough on the building to be clearly visible from the driveway, street or parking area it faces even when vehicles are parked in front of the tenant space. The address shall not be less than 5-inches in height with a ½- inch stroke. Rear Doors. The address shall also be provided on any rear doors to the tenant space with minimum 2-inch high characters. F Occupancy 65. FIRE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION A. Clearance to combustibles from temporary heating devices shall be maintained. Devices shall be fixed in place and protected from damage, dislodgement or overturning in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. B. Smoking shall be prohibited except in approved areas. Signs shall be posted “NO SMOKING” in a conspicuous location in each structure or location in which smoking is prohibited. C. Combustible debris, rubbish and waste material shall be removed from buildings at the end of each shift of work. Flammable and combustible liquid storage areas shall be maintained clear of combustible vegetation and waste materials. F Ongoing during construction and demolition DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT 66. The regulations that apply to development projects are codified in: the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code; the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities" as amended from time to time; all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the pertinent documents. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 67. Planning and review fees/ inspection fees, and fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules and at time of payment as established in the DSRSD Code. Planning and review fees are due after the 1st submittal of plans. Construction Permit and Inspection Fees are due prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. Capacity Reserve Fees are due before the water meter can be set or the connection to the sewer system. DSRSD Permit Submittal and Construction Permit Issuance 68. For Construction of DSRSD Facilities: All improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall DSRSD Building Permit Issuance or Construction 18 contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer and/or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a faithful performance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. Permit Issuance 69. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, widths, and restrictions. DSRSD Approval of Final Map 70. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate future flow demands. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 71. The locations and widths of all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. DSRSD Issuance of any grading permit, site work permit or building permit 72. Water and sewer mains shall be located in public streets rather than in off street locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each sewer or water main in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 73. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 74. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD’s existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 75. The District employs Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), a fixed water meter reading system. The system uses radio communication between the individual water meter boxes or vaults and Tower Gateway Base Stations (TGBs) to transmit data on water consumption and meter readings. Due to the high density and tall profile of the buildings in this project, the buildings themselves may hinder effective communication between the individual meter boxes and the TGBs. Applicant shall fund an AMI Propagation Study provided by the District to determine if supplementary AMI communication equipment is required. If required, the supplementary equipment will be provided by the DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 19 developer, and the location and appearance of the equipment must be approved by both the City of Dublin and the District. 76. This project will be analyzed by DSRSD to determine if it represents additional water and/or sewer capacity demands on the District. Applicant will be required to pay all incremental capacity reserve fees for water and sewer services as required by the project demands. All capacity reserve fees must be paid prior to installation of a water meter for water. If a water meter is not required, the capacity reserve fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The District may not approve the building permit until capacity reserve fees are paid. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance 77. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Condition No.66 have been satisfied. DSRSD Construction Permit Issuance 78. Above ground backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves shall be installed on fire protection systems connected to the DSRSD water main. The applicant shall collaborate with the Fire Department and with DSRSD to size and configure its fire system. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 79. Upon the District's determination that sufficient supply of recycled water is available at the time of planned connection and the connection is technologically and financially reasonable, the project shall use recycled water for irrigation of large landscape areas. Recycled water is not intended for small and incidental landscaped areas. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans and ongoing 80. Development (construction permit) plans will not be approved until landscape plans are submitted and approved. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 81. Improvement plans shall include recycled water improvements as required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall connect to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements therein. Availability of Recycled Water to be determined by District. DSRSD Approval of Improvement Plans 82. The District's water facility Turnout 4 is located at the southwest corner of the site, at the end of Arnold Road. Turnout 4 is a vital part of DSRSD potable water infrastructure. Access to our operations at Turnout 4 are not to be restricted or impaired in any way during the construction or operation of the project. DSRSD During Construction and ongoing 83. The project is located within the District Recycled Water Use Zone (Ord. 301), which calls for installation of recycled water irrigation systems to allow for the future use of recycled water for approved landscape irrigation demands. Recycled water will be available as described in the DSRSD Water System Master Plan, March 2016. Unless specifically exempted by the District Engineer, compliance with Ordinance 301, as may be amended or superseded, is required. Applicant must submit landscape irrigation plans to DSRSD. All irrigation facilities shall be in compliance with Districts "Recycled Water Use Guidelines" and Dept. of Health Services requirements for recycled water irrigation design. DSRSD Approval of Final Landscape Plans 84. If any trash enclosures are to be connected to the sanitary sewer, they must have a grease and sand trap and the areas must be DSRSD Building Permit Issuance and 20 covered to prevent the entry of rainwater. ongoing 85. Water for fire protection will be available as described in the DSRSD Water System Master Plan, March 2016. Any demand required in excess of what is listed will need to be planned for and designed accordingly. The District cannot provide flow in excess of what is described within the DSRSD Water System Master Plan, March 2016. DSRSD Building Permit Issuance and ongoing PUBLIC WORKS – SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT 86. Substantial Conformance. All future Improvement Plans for public and community-wide improvements shall be in substantial conformance with the City of Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan approved for the IKEA Retail Center Project (PLPA-2016-00016). PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 87. Landscape Features within Public Right-of-Way. The Property Owner shall enter into an “Agreement for Long Term Encroachment for Landscape Features” with the City to require the Property Owner to maintain the landscape and decorative features within public right-of-way including frontage landscaping, decorative pavements and special features (i.e. walls, portals, benches, etc.). The Agreement shall identify the ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities. The Property Owner will be responsible for maintaining the surface of all decorative pavements including restoration required as the result of utility repairs. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 88. Martinelli Way. Developer shall construct all street improvements along Martinelli Way. Required roadway and utility improvements on Martinelli Way shall include, but are not limited, to the installation of sidewalk, curb ramps, driveways, roadway widening as required to provide second eastbound left-turn lane at Hacienda Drive, drainage structures, street trees, utilities, landscaping, bio-retention planters, fire hydrants, signal modifications, median modifications, slurry seal and/or grind and overlay of existing roadway pavement, signing and striping and restriping of existing and new pavements along project’s frontage. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 89. Arnold Road. Developer shall construct all street improvements along Arnold Road. Required roadway and utility improvements on Arnold Road shall include, but are not limited, to the installation of sidewalk, curb ramps, driveways, drainage structures, street trees, utilities, landscaping, bio-retention planters, fire hydrants, signal modifications, median modifications, removal of existing driveway, slurry seal and/or grind and overlay of existing roadway pavement, signing and striping and restriping of existing and new pavements on project’s frontage. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 90. Bus Shelter. A bus shelter approved by the City Engineer and Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority shall be installed at the existing bus pullout along the Martinelli Way frontage of the site. The Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and installing the shelter. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 91. Green Infrastructure Along Public Street Frontages. Green infrastructure improvements consisting of bio-retention planters shall be provided to treat stormwater runoff from portions of the existing public street pavement along the Martinelli Way and PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 21 Arnold Road frontages to a reasonable extent as determined by the City Engineer. Design of frontage stormwater treatment measures shall conform to the City’s Green Infrastructure Typical Details. 92. Curb Ramps. The number, location and layout of all curb ramps shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer with the Improvement Plans submitted for the site. All pedestrian ramps shall be designed and constructed to provide direct access to marked or unmarked crosswalks. Each pedestrian ramp shall be oriented such that it is aligned and parallel to the marked or unmarked crosswalk it is intended to serve. Pedestrian ramps serving more than one marked or unmarked crosswalk are not allowed, unless specifically approved by the City Engineer on a case by case basis. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 93. Pavement Structural Sections. Asphalt concrete pavement sections within the public right-of-way shall be designed using the Caltrans method for flexible pavement design (including the asphalt factor of safety), an assumed R-Value of 5 and the following traffic indices: Hacienda Drive, TI=12; Martinelli Way and Arnold Road, TI=11. Final pavement sections shall be based on the actual R-Value obtained from pavement subgrade. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 94. Street Restoration. A pavement treatment, such as slurry seal or grind and overlay, will be required within the public streets fronting the site as determined by the Public Works Department. The type and limits of the pavement treatment shall be determined by the City Engineer based upon the number and proximity of trench cuts, extent of frontage and median improvements, extent of pavement striping and restriping, excessive wear and tear/damage due to construction traffic, etc. PW Occupancy 95. Existing Curb and Gutter. Existing curb and gutter along the project frontages within the public rights-of-way shall be evaluated for condition and compliance with current Public Works standards, and shall be repaired or replaced with the development of the site, as determined by the Public Works Department. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 96. Street Trees. Street trees along project frontages shall be in conformance with the City of Dublin Streetscape Master Plan. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 97. Shared-Use Path: Developer shall construct the Class I Shared- Use Path extending along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site from the southwest corner of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way to the southern terminus of Arnold Road as generally shown on the attached Development Plans (Exhibit A) and as approved by the City Engineer. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 98. Stormwater Management. A final Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Approval is subject to the developer providing the necessary plans, details, and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies with the standards issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 99. Hydromodification. Applicant shall submit an updated “Stormwater Requirements Checklist” and accompanying required documentation. This project is subject to PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 22 Hydromodification (HM) requirements. Consistent with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, the applicant shall submit documentation demonstrating HM requirements are met. 100. Trash Capture. The project Stormwater Management Plan shall incorporate trash capture measures such as screens, filters or hydrodynamic separator units to address the requirements of Provision C.10 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) or such MRP provisions as may be in effect at the time the Improvement Plans are approved. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 101. Stormwater Source Control. “No Dumping Drains to Bay” storm drain medallions per City Standard shall be placed on all public and private storm drain inlets. PW Acceptance of Improvements 102. Grading of Landscaped Areas. Provide grading and drainage in all landscaped areas. All runoff shall be collected and conveyed upstream of sidewalks. MWELO requirements regarding the containment of irrigation runoff on-site shall be met. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 103. Soils Report. The Developer shall submit a detailed soils report prepared by a qualified engineer, registered with the State of California. The required report shall include recommendations regarding pavement sections for all project streets including all perimeter streets and internal private driveways and parking lots. Grading operations shall be in accordance with recommendations contained in the required soils report and grading shall be supervised by an engineer registered in the State of California to do such work. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 104. Seismic Hazard Zone. The southwest corner of the project site is located in the Alquist-Priolo fault zone according to maps published by the State of California. The Developer shall provide a geotechnical or geologic report defining and delineating any seismic hazards. The report shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines published by the State. The report is subject to review and approval by a City selected peer review consultant. The applicant shall pay for all costs related to the required peer review. Prior to commencement of any site-specific seismic hazard study, the applicant’s geologic/geotechnical consultant should provide the City with a “Hazard Study Scope” which outlines the proposed scope of study including locations and types of subsurface investigations (borings and trenches). The Hazard Study Scope will be forwarded to the City’s geotechnical peer review consultant, who will comment on the adequacy of the proposed study. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 105. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to review all final grading plans and specifications. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall approve all grading plans prior to City approval. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 106. Grading Off-Haul. The disposal site and haul truck route for any off-haul dirt materials shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. If the Developer does not own the parcel on which the proposed disposal site is located, the Developer shall provide the City with a Letter of Consent signed by the current owner, approving the PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 23 placement of off-haul material on their parcel. A Grading Plan may be required for the placement of the off-haul material. 107. Dust Control/Street Sweeping. The Developer shall provide adequate dust control measures at all times during the grading and hauling operations. All trucks hauling export and import materials shall be provided with tarp cover at all times. Spillage of haul materials and mud-tracking on the haul routes shall be prevented at all times. Developer shall be responsible for sweeping of streets within, surrounding and adjacent to the project if it is determined that the tracking or accumulation of material on the streets is due to its construction activities. PW During Grading and Site Work 108. Underground Obstructions. Prior to demolition, excavation and grading on any portion of the project site, all underground obstructions (i.e. debris, septic tanks, fuel tanks, barrels, chemical waste) shall be identified and removed pursuant to Federal, State and local regulations and subject to the review and approval by the City. Excavations shall be properly backfilled using structural fill, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 109. Resource Agency Permits. Prior to the start of any grading of the site as necessary, permits shall be obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service for the grading or alteration of wetland areas within the site, if applicable. The project shall be modified as needed to comply with the conditions of the permits. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 110. Lighting. The Developer shall prepare a photometric plan for the site to demonstrate that the minimum 1.0 foot candle lighting is provided in accordance with the City of Dublin’s requirements. The photometric plan shall show lighting levels which takes into consideration poles, low walls and other obstructions. Exterior lighting shall be provided within the surface parking lot, on the building, and along the trail and shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties, businesses or to vehicular traffic. Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to provide for security needs. The parking lot lights shall be designed to eliminate any pockets of high and low illuminated areas. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 111. Lighting Inspection. Prior to Occupancy, the Applicant shall request an inspection of the lighting levels throughout the site to determine if lighting is sufficient. If additional lights are required to be installed to meet the 1.0 foot-candle requirement, or for other safety or operational reasons, the Applicant shall do so prior to Occupancy. PW Prior to Occupancy 112. Trash Enclosures. Waste enclosures shall meet all requirements set forth in the Dublin Municipal Code (DMC), Chapter 7.98 and in the Solid Waste Requirements, Waste Handling Standards, and Waste Enclosure Requirements Checklist on the City’s website at the following link: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/1932/Development-Resources PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 113. Vehicle Parking. All on-site vehicle parking spaces shall conform to the following: a. All parking spaces shall be double striped using 4” white PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 24 lines set 2 feet apart in accordance with City Standards and DMC 8.76.070.A.17. b. 12”-wide concrete step-out curbs shall be constructed at each parking space where one or both sides abut a landscaped area or planter. c. Where wheel stops are shown, individual 6’ long wheel stops shall be provided within each parking space in accordance with City Standards. d. A minimum 2’ radius shall be provided at curb returns and curb intersections where applicable. e. Parking stalls next to walls, fences and obstructions to vehicle door opening shall be an additional 4’ in width per DMC 8.76.070.A.16. f. Landscaped strips adjacent to parking stalls shall be unobstructed in order to allow for a minimum 2-foot vehicular overhang at front of vehicles. 114. Bicycle Parking. Developer shall install the bike lockers and bike racks in accordance with California Green Building Standards Code requirements. Locations of the bicycle parking shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 115. Striping Plan. A Traffic Signing and Striping Plan showing all proposed signing and striping within public streets, on-site parking lots, and drive aisles shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 116. Visibility Triangle. All improvements within the sight visibility triangle at all intersections, including but not limited to walls and landscaping, shall be a maximum height of 30” from the roadway surface elevation at the nearest lane. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 117. Surface Slopes. Pavement surface slopes in parking lots and drive aisles shall be a minimum of 0.5% and a maximum of 5% (unless otherwise required at parking spaces for the disabled and at ramps at the parking structure and loading dock). Exceptions may be considered by the City Engineer to account for unusual design conditions. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit 118. Rights-of-Entry. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for any improvements on their property. The easements and/or rights-of- entry shall be in writing and copies shall be furnished to the City Engineer. PW Issuance of Grading / Sitework Permit PUBLIC WORKS – VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 119. Compliance. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Dublin Subdivision Ordinance in effect at the time of the filing of the Parcel Map. PW Approval of Parcel Map 120. Substantial Conformance. The Parcel Map shall be substantially in conformance with the Approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10792, unless otherwise modified by the conditions contained herein. PW Approval of Parcel Map 121. Deferral of Frontage Improvements. Pursuant to Section 66411.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, installation of frontage improvements required in the Site Development Review Permit Conditions of Approval may be deferred until such time that a permit or other grant of approval for development on any of the parcels created is issued by the City. If the owner chooses to defer such improvements, a Deferred Improvement Statement shall clearly PW Approval of Parcel Map 25 be included on the first sheet of the Parcel Map. 122. Dedications. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required by the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map or as otherwise required by these conditions or determined necessary by the City Engineer shall be shown on the Parcel Map. PW Approval of Parcel Map 123. Abandonments. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public agencies of existing easements and rights- of -way that will no longer be used. PW Approval of Parcel Map 124. BART Right-of-Way. If required for BART future expansion, The Developer shall dedicate the right-of-way along the southern boundary of the site to accommodate the planned future improvements by BART and/or Caltrans (i.e. aboveground BART extension to Livermore) in the manner and form determined by the City Engineer. PW Approval of Parcel Map 125. Emergency Vehicle Access Easements. The Developer shall dedicate Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE) over the clear pavement width of all drive aisles as required by the Alameda County Fire Department and City Engineer. PW Approval of Parcel Map 126. Public Access Easement for Path. The Developer shall dedicate the Public Access Easement encompassing the Class I Shared- Use Path extending along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site as generally shown on the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and as approved by the City Engineer. PW Approval of Parcel Map 127. Easements Between Parcels. Reciprocal access and utility easements and joint use parking easements between the parcels shall be provided as required. The easements shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. PW Approval of Parcel Map 128. Approval by Others. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all applicable non-City agencies. PW Approval of Parcel Map PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS 129. Compliance. Subject to Government Code section 66498.1(b), Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, City of Dublin Title 7 Public Works Ordinance, which includes the Grading Ordinance, the City of Dublin Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements of the State Code Title 24 and the Americans with Disabilities Act with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as “public works” under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following). PW On-going 130. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In the event that there needs to be clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the City Engineer has the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going to a public hearing. The City Engineer also has the authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts of this project. PW On-going 26 131. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. The Applicant/Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zone Administrator, or any other department , committee, or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law: provided, however, that the Applicant/Developer’s duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be submitted to the City’s promptly notifying or proceeding and the City’s full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. PW On-going 132. Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fees. The Applicant shall complete a “Zone 7 Impervious Surface Fee Application” and submit an accompanying exhibit for review by the Public Works Department. Fees generated by this application will be due at issuance of Building Permit. PW Grading Permit or Building Permit Issuance PUBLIC WORKS – AGREEMENTS AND BONDS 133. Tract Improvement Agreement. If necessary, Developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City for all public improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or roadway improvements that are needed to serve the development, as determined by the City Engineer. PW Final Map Approval or Grading Permit Issuance 134. Security. Developer shall provide faithful performance security to guarantee the improvements, as determined by the City Engineer (Note: The performance security shall remain in effect until one year after final inspection). PW Final Map Approval or Grading Permit Issuance 135. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. Developer shall enter into an Agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the property owner’s perpetual maintenance obligation for all stormwater treatment measures installed as part of the project, including those on-site and within the public right- of -way along Martinelli Way and Arnold Road. Said Agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074, as applicable. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. The Agreement shall be recorded against the property and shall run with the land. PW Final Map Approval PUBLIC WORKS – PERMITS 136. Encroachment Permit. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity within the public right-of-way of any street where the City has accepted the street right of way. The encroachment permit may require surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment permit for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. PW Start of Work 137. Grading Permit. Developer shall obtain a Grading Permit from the Public Works Department for all grading. PW Start of Work PUBLIC WORKS - SUBMITTALS 138. All submittals of plans shall comply with the requirements of the “City of Dublin Public Works Department Improvement Plan PW Improvement Plan Approval 27 Submittal Requirements”, the “City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List,” and current Public Works and industry standards. A complete submittal of improvement plans shall include all civil improvements, joint trench, street lighting and on- site safety lighting, landscape plans, and all associated documents as required. The Developer shall not piecemeal the submittal by submitting various components separately. 139. Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. PW Improvement Plan Approval 140. Composite Exhibit. Construction plan set shall include a Composite Exhibit showing all site improvements, utilities, landscaping improvements and trees, etc. to be constructed to ensure that there are no conflicts among the proposed and existing improvements. PW Improvement Plan Approval 141. Geotechnical Report. Developer shall submit a Design Level Geotechnical Report, which includes street pavement sections and grading recommendations. PW Approval of Improvement Plans, and Grading Plans 142. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements. Applicant shall submit an Ownership and Maintenance Exhibit for review and approval by Planning Division and Public Works Department. Terms of maintenance are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. PL, PW Final Map Approval or Grading Permit Issuance 143. Building Pads, Slopes and Walls. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department with a letter from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the approved Grading Plans. PW Acceptance of Improvements 144. Approved Plan Files. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a PDF format file of approved site plans, including grading, improvement, landscaping & irrigation, joint trench and lighting. PW Improvement Plan Approval 145. Master Files. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a digital vectorized file of the “master” files for the project, in a format acceptable to the City Engineer. Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or higher drawing format. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. PW Acceptance of Improvements PUBLIC WORKS - GRADING 146. Grading Plan. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report, the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review, and the City design standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil engineer’s recommendation and the City ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. PW Approval of Grading Plans 147. Erosion Control Plan. A detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be included with the Grading Plan submittal. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and PW Grading Plan Approval 28 maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control measures. 148. Retaining Walls. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall not cross property lines, or shall be located a minimum of 2’ below the finished grade of the upper lot. PW Grading Plan Approval PUBLIC WORKS - IMPROVEMENTS 149. Public Improvements. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown on the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review. However, the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review is not an approval of the specific design of the drainage, sanitary sewer, water, traffic circulation, parking, stormwater treatment, sidewalks and street improvements. PW Improvement Plan Approval 150. Public Improvement Conformance. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard Plans, current practices, and design requirements and as approved by the City Engineer. PW Improvement Plan Approval 151. Public Street Slopes. Public streets shall be a minimum 1% slope with minimum gutter flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. Private streets and alleys shall be a minimum 0.5% slope. PW Improvement Plan Approval 152. Curb Returns. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall be 40-foot radius, all internal public streets curb returns shall be minimum 30-foot radius (36-foot with bump outs) and private streets/alleys shall be a minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb ramp locations and design shall conform to the most current Title 24 and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved by the Public Works Traffic Engineer. PW Improvement Plan Approval 153. Decorative Pavement. Any decorative pavers/paving installed within City right-of-way shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Where decorative paving is installed at signalized intersections, pre-formed traffic signal loops shall be put under the decorative pavement. Decorative pavements shall not interfere with the placement of traffic control devices, including pavement markings. All turn lane stripes, stop bars and crosswalks shall be delineated with concrete bands or color pavers to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be the responsibility of the developer or future property owner. PW Improvement Plan Approval 154. Traffic Signing and Striping. Developer shall install all traffic signage, striping, and pavement markings as required by the Public Works Department. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 155. Street Lighting. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed or relocated as determined by the City Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for streetlights is 5%. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 156. Water and Sewer Facilities. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water and sanitary sewer facilities required to serve the project in accordance with DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 157. Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrant locations as approved by the Alameda County Fire Department shall be shown on the improvement plans. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of 29 be installed in the street opposite each hydrant. Improvements 158. Utilities. Developer shall construct gas, electric, telephone, cable TV, and communication improvements within the fronting streets and as necessary to serve the project and the future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 159. Utility Locations. All electric, telephone, cable TV, and communications utilities, shall be placed underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility easements or public services easements and sized to meet utility company standards. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 160. Utility Vaults and Boxes. All utility vaults, boxes, and structures, unless specifically approved otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in landscaped areas and screened from public view. Prior to Joint Trench Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to the City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes, and structures and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to construction of the joint trench improvements. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements 161. Street Signs. Developer shall furnish and install street name signs, traffic signs and markings for the project as required by the City Engineer. PW Certificate of Occupancy or Acceptance of Improvements PUBLIC WORKS - CONSTRUCTION 162. Erosion Control Implementation. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be implemented between October 1st and April 30th unless otherwise allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Developer will be responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the City’s acceptance of the improvements. PW On-going as needed 163. Archaeological Finds. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until a professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. PW On-going as needed 164. Construction Activities. Construction activities, including the idling, maintenance, and warming up of equipment, shall be limited to Monday through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Extended hours or Saturday work will be considered by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis. Note that the construction hours of operation within the public right of way are more restrictive. PW On-going as needed 165. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of all work under construction to separate the construction operation from the public. All construction activities shall be confined within the fenced area. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction and On-going 30 166. Construction Noise Management Plan. Developer shall prepare a construction noise management plan that identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours of construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided prior to project construction. PW Start of Construction Implementation, and On-going as needed 167. Traffic Control Plan. Closing of any existing pedestrian pathway and/or sidewalk during construction shall be implemented through a City approved Traffic Control Plan and shall be done with the goal of minimizing the impact on pedestrian circulation. PW Start of Construction and On-going as needed 168. Construction Traffic Interface Plan. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and parking may be subject to specific requirements by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction; Implementation, and On-going as needed 169. Pest Control. Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities. PW On-going 170. Dust Control Measures. Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust-palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. PW Start of Construction; Implementation On-going as needed 171. Construction Traffic and Parking. All construction related parking shall be off street in an area provided by the Developer. Construction traffic and parking shall be provided in a manner approved by the City Engineer to minimize impact on BART patrons. PW On-going PUBLIC WORKS - NPDES 172. NOI and SWPPP. Prior to any clearing or grading, Developer shall provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. PW Start of Any Construction Activities 173. SWPPP. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices Handbook. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures in the SWPPP. PW SWPPP to be Prepared Prior to Approval of Improvement Plans; Implementation Prior to Start of Construction and On-going as needed 174. Stormwater Management Plan. Construction Plans shall include a Stormwater Management Plan subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. PW Approval of Improvement Plans and Building Permit Issuance 175. Trash Capture. Specific information is required on the PW Approval of 31 construction plan set demonstrating how MRP Provision C.10 (trash capture) requirements are met. Trash capture devices to be used shall be listed and details shown on plans. Improvement Plans and Building Permit Issuance PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of November, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk T72C77T7TTTT7C5PMH7L LLLLLLLLLLL LL LLLL L L A R N O L D R O A DH A C I E N D A D R I V EM A R T I N E L L I W A YI - 5 8 0±7.5% T R U C K R A M P S L O P EM A R T I N E L L I W A Y I K E A P L A C E264846435248363636382421'5,9(7+58/2$',1*63$&(62193147810106.5% TRUCK RAMP 4203417171295111282821141025512131428108121333191947525426192945(7$,1,1*:$//*5((163$&(6/23('2:172/2:(5/(9(/:$//*5((163$&(6,'(:$/.*5((163$&(5(7$,1,1*:$//$61(('('*5((163$&(6,'(:$/.5(7$,1,1*:$//$61(('('*5((163$&(*5((163$&(30548235555555555555555555555(55555555555555((((((55555555(((((((((((555::77777(((((((((((:::7777777777((((((:::::$$77$7$7777777777::::::::$$$$$$$77$7$777777:$:$:$:::::$$$$$$$$$$$$77$7$7$$$:$:$:::$$$,,$,,$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$:$:$$$$$$11,,$,,$$$$$$////$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$11111111,,,,$//////$$$$66$6$6$$$$****111111111111,//////////6666$6$6$$*******,,,1111111111//////////6666666**********11,,,11111/////////666665*******111111,,,,///////111116665555*****111111111,///111111115555555****11111111111(11111115((5555555555******111111(((((((111111(((5((55555*************(((((((((11((((((((5**********(((((((((((((((((((((((((******((((((((((((((((((((((((**((((((((((((((((((((''''(((((((((11(1(((('''''''''((((1111(1(('''''''''''''11111(((((''''''''''66111(((((((((((''''6666661'((((((((((((((66666666666''''''''((((((((366666666'''''''''''''((36666''''''''''''''3336'''''''3$3333333'3$333$$$$$&&$&&$$$$$&&&&&&$&&$$&&&&&&&&&&((((&&&&&&&&((((((((&&&&((((((((((((((**************************5555*****55555555***555555555555555(((5(55555555(((((((5(5555(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((111(1(((((((((111111(1(((((111111111111111111116666661116666666666666666636666666666666666663333366666666633$333333363333$$$333333333$$$$$3$333$$$$$&$&$$$$$$$$$$$$&&&&&&&$$&$$$$$$&&&&&&&&&&&&&$$&$$&&&&&(((&&&&&&&&&$$$$$&&&&((((((((&&&&&$$$$$$$$$&&(((((((((((((&$66$$$$$$$$$$6((((((((((($66$$$$$$666((((((6666$66$:$66666(6666:::::6666166:::::::::661111:::::::::::::111111:$$::::::::::$1111((1111$$:$:$:::555:::$$$111(((((111$$$$$:$:$555555555$$$$$1(((((((((((//$$$$$$$55555555555555$$$/(((((((((((((((((//$$$$(555555555555($///((((((((((((((((((/////////(((((555555(((/////((((('''(((((((((////////(7((((((((5((((/////((((''''''''(((((/////7777(((((((((((77////((''''''''''''''///77777777(((((7777//'''''((('''''''/$$7$$777777777777$$'''(((((((('''$$$$$$7$77777$$$$'((('((((((((($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$(((('''''(((((((,,$,,$$$$$$$$$$$,(('''''''''''((1111111,,$,,$$$$$,11'''''''''''''11111111,,,,1111''''''''',1111111111111'''1,1,111111111,11111,1,1,111111111,,1111**111111111111******111111*************1***********************//////222:::222:22:::::::::::::::$$::::::$$$$:$::::$$$$$$$((//$/$$$$$((////$//$$5///////55//////////55////////////////((((((9999999999(((((((((((////////:::::::::::::::::::::$$:$::::::::$$$$$$::::///::$$$$/$$$$$$$$///$$$$$//$//$$$$$2222$$$//////$/$$2222$///////////2222///////////::::///////////:::://////::::/:::((((((((5555555555////////(((((((((9999999999(9(99(((((((((((((/////////::::::::::::::::////2:(5 /(9(/(((((5$03*5((163$&(*5((163$&(6/23('2:172/2:(5/(9(/:$//*5((163$&(*5((163$&(*5((163$&(6/23('2:172/2:(5/(9(/72*5((163$&(6/23(72/2:(5/(9(/*5((163$&(6/23(72/2:(5/(9(/*5((163$&(6/23(72/2:(5/(9(/*5((163$&($&&(6672/2:(5/(9(/*5((163$&(6/23('2:172/2:(5/(9(/72(;,721/<(;,67,1*6(:(5($6(0(17327(17,$/758&.$&&(66352326('%$57($6(0(175$,6('3('(675,$1&5266,1*5$,6('3('(675,$1&5266,1*)8785(&8/'(6$&8321(;7(16,212)08/7,86(75$,/7:26725<6)727$/833(5/(9(/3$5.,1*63$&(6%/'**%/'*+%/'*)%/'*(%/'*'%/'*&%/'*%%/'*$SHEET 1(;(&87,9('5,9(68,7(620(56(71-WISITE DEV. COORDINATORGFA PROJECT NUMBERDUBLIN, CASWC HACIENDA DR & MARTINELLI WAY20150809.0PROJECTPROJECT INFORMATIONDRAWING ISSUE/REVISION RECORDSP-18BUILDING AREA-85,6',&7,21 &,7<2)'8%/,1(;,67,1*=21,1*/$1'86('(6,*1$7,21,.($/,0,766,7($5($&200(5&,$/&(17(5/,0,761(76,7($5($727$/1(76,7($5($'(',&$7,21)255$,//,1( %$57 727$/*52666,7($5($“$&5(6“$&5(6“$&5(6“$&5(6“$&5(6'$7(1$55$7,9(PROJECT NOTES7+,6&21&(378$/6,7(3/$1,6)253/$11,1*385326(621/<7+,66,7(3/$1,6%$6('21$/7$6859(<%<-0+:(,66,1&'$7('5(&(,9('9,$(0$,/35(36335(36335(36335(3635(963$&&(66,,,,$%,,,,,.($ 7:26725< 5(7$,/727$/%8,/',1*$5($6)6)6),.($),567)/2255(7$,/727$/),567)/225%/'*$5($6)6)6) 63 $%ALEJANDRO BACARICK JOHNSON 63 $% 63 '9 63'9SITE PLANNERSITE AREAPARKING SUMMARYZONING CLASSIFICATION727$/6,7(&29(5$*( 6)$&727$/)$5“6)$&,1,7,$/63'2UG($67(51'8%/,163(&,),&3/$1*(1(5$/&200(5&,$/ 635(9,6(' $% 63 $%3$5.,1*)25,.($,63529,'('$6)2//2:686(5 5$7,25(48,5('63$&(65(4 '3529,'('5(67$85$176) 63$&(6) $&&(66,%/(72&86720(56   63$&(6)127$&&(66,%/(72&86720(56  :$5(+286(6) 63$&(6) )851,785(6) 63$&(6) *(1(5$/5(7$,/6) 63$&(6) 727$/,.($ 6)  3$5.,1*3529,'('$872727$/67$//65(4 $&&(66,%/( 67$//6&$59$1322/(9 67$//6)8785(&$59$1322/(9 67$//6%,.(67$//6 67$//63$5.,1*3(56) 67$//6685)$&(3$5.,1*)257+(&200(5&,$/&(17(5,63529,'('$6)2//2:686(5 5$7,25(48,5('63$&(65(4 '3529,'('5(7$,/86(   08/7,3/(%8,/',1*6 63$&(6) 6)5(67$85$17)22'86(08/7,3/(%8,/',1*66) 63$&(6) $&&(66,%/(72&86720(56  63$&(6) 127$&&(66,%/(72&86720(56  83726($76287'2256($7,1* 25025( 6($763(5$5($ 6($76727$/&200(5&,$/&(17(5 6)  727$/6,7(&29(5$*(727$/5$7,23529,'(' 636)727$/  63 $% 63'9 635(9,6('&,9,/3/$1 '9 5(3/<72&,7<&200(176 '9 $(5,$/9,(:$'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$:HG$XJ'8%/,1,.($$(5,$/9,(: $(5,$/9,(:$'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$:HG$XJ'8%/,1,.($$(5,$/9,(: ,17(567$7(127)25&216758&7,216+((7'5$:1%<-2%123$30'8%/,1&$/,)251,$'8%/,1,.($5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<(;,67,1*&21',7,216&%$6,62)%($5,1*'(7$,/ $ 6(('(7$,/ $ %(1&+0$5./,1($1'&859(7$%/( 127)25&216758&7,216+((7'5$:1%<-2%123$30'8%/,1&$/,)251,$'8%/,1,.($5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<*5$',1* '5$,1$*(3/$129(5$//& 127)25&216758&7,216+((7'5$:1%<-2%123$30'8%/,1&$/,)251,$'8%/,1,.($5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<& DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:PA / PM:REMARKSDATEDATEREMARKS pleasanton, california 94588 4683 chabot dr. suite 300 graphics planning architecture interiors p 925.244.9620 f 925.244.9621 civil engineering DUBLIN IKEA HACIENDA DRIVE & MARTINELLI WAY DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA RETAIL CENTER '5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7(5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—'8%/,1,.($+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$5(7$,/&(17(5 H A C I E N D A D R I V EI - 5 8 0M A R T I N E L L I W A Y I K E A P L A C E             ( 9 ( 9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9(9 (9 (9 (9(9 (9 (9 (9(9 (9(9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9(9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9(9(9(9(9(9(9(9(9(9(9(9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9 (9(9 (9 (9 (9(9(9(9 (9(9 (9(9( 9 ( 9 ( 9 (9 (9( 9 (9(9(9 (9(9(9(9(9(9(96,7(3/$1$6,7(3/$1127(66,7(/(*(1'6,7(3/$1$1'$'$&203/,$173$7+2)75$9(/16((6+((7$)25*(1(5$/127(6(9(9 '5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($ %8,/',1*$(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$1257+(/(9$7,21'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($($67(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21(/(9$7,21127(66((6+((7$)25*(1(5$/127(6 1257+(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*%(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$(/(9$7,21127(66((6+((7$)25*(1(5$/127(6'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($ 1257+(/(9$7,211257+($67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,216287+($67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*&(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$D(/(9$7,21127(66((6+((7$)25*(1(5$/127(6'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($ 6287+:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,211257+:(67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*&(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$E(/(9$7,21127(66((6+((7$)25*(1(5$/127(6'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($ '5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($1257+($67(/(9$7,216287+($67(/(9$7,216287+:(67(/(9$7,211257+:(67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*'(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$(/(9$7,21127(66((6+((7$)25*(1(5$/127(6 '5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($1257+(/(9$7,211257+($67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*()(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$D(/(9$7,21127(66((6+((7$)25*(1(5$/127(6'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($ 6287+(/(9$7,216287+($67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*()(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$E(/(9$7,21127(66((6+((7$)25*(1(5$/127(61257+:(67(/(9$7,21'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($ 1257+(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1**(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$(/(9$7,21127(66((6+((7$)25*(1(5$/127(6'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($ 1257+(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,216287+($67(/(9$7,216287+(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*+(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$D(/(9$7,21127(66((6+((7$)25*(1(5$/127(6'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($ 6287+:(67(/(9$7,21:(67(/(9$7,21%8,/',1*+(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$E(/(9$7,21127(66((6+((7$)25*(1(5$/127(6'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($ 75$6+(1&/2685((/(9$7,216%8,/',1*&75$6+(1&/2685((/(9$7,216$(/(9$7,21127(66((6+((7$)25*(1(5$/127(6'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($75$6+(1&/2685(%8,/',1*&75$6+(1&/2685((/(9$7,216%8,/',1*'75$6+(1&/2685(%8,/',1*'$ % &$ % &' 6,7(5(1'(5,1*6$'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($&21&(378$/6,7(',$*5$0:,7+9,(:/2&$7,216%8,/',1*&/22.,1*1257+:(67%8,/',1*&/22.,1*($67%8,/',1*$/22.,1*1257+($67%8,/',1*&/22.,1*6287+($67%8,/',1*$/22.,1*6287+:(67 6,7(5(1'(5,1*6$'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$:HG$XJ'8%/,1,.($&21&(378$/6,7(',$*5$0:,7+9,(:/2&$7,216%8,/',1*%/22.,1*1257+($67%8,/',1*%/22.,1*6287+:(673/$=$$1'%8,/',1*6($1')/22.,1*6287+:(671257+5(7$,/(175<$1'%8,/',1**/22.,1*6287+:(67%8,/',1**/22.,1*1257+($67NORTH 6,7(5(1'(5,1*6$'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$:HG$XJ'8%/,1,.($&21&(378$/6,7(',$*5$0:,7+9,(:/2&$7,2166287+5(7$,/(175<$1'%8,/',1*6'($1')/22.,1*1257+:(673/$=$$1'%8,/',1*6($1')/22.,1*6287+:(671257+($675(7$,/(175<$1'%8,/',1*6'$1'+/22.,1*6287+:(67:(675(7$,/(175<$1'%8,/',1*6'($1')/22.,1*6287+($673/$=$$1'%8,/',1*+/22.,1*1257+($67NORTH 6,7(5(1'(5,1*6$'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($&21&(378$/6,7(',$*5$0:,7+9,(:/2&$7,2163/$=$$1'%8,/',1*'/22.,1*($67%8,/',1*'/22.,1*:(67 ),1,6+(0$7(5,$/6$'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($678&&2'5<9,7&2$7,17(*5$/&2/25 $&5</,&6<67(0&2/25/,*+7*5$<:22'$&&(17:22'1&20326,7(:22' (;7(5,25&/$'',1*),1,6+&8%$60227+),1,6+6,'(678&&2'5<9,7&2$7,17(*5$/&2/25 $&5</,&6<67(0&2/2568('(5,&+/,7(5$,16&5((1),1,6+6/$7(6721(&5($7,9(0,1(685%$1/('*(9(1((5),1,6+%/$&.758))/(0(7$/&$123<3$,17('6+(5:,1:,//,$0&2/25&,7<6&$3(6:&&/($5$12',=('$/80,1806725()52176<67(0 3+2720(75,&6$'5$:1%<-2%123$305(0$5.6'$7('$7( 5(0$5.6™•ŽŠœŠ—˜—ǰȱŒŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱşŚśŞŞŚŜŞřȱŒ‘Š‹˜ȱ›ǯȱœž’ŽȱřŖŖȱ›Š™‘’Œœ™•Š——’—Š›Œ‘’ŽŒž›Ž’—Ž›’˜›œ™ȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŖȱşŘśǯŘŚŚǯşŜŘŗŒ’Ÿ’•ȱŽ—’—ŽŽ›’—5(7$,/&(17(5+$&,(1'$'5,9( 0$57,1(//,:$<'8%/,1&$/,)251,$7KX-XO'8%/,1,.($*$5'&2/(':$//6&21&(3+2720(75,&6/$%(/''&2/25%/$&.),1,6+7%'/2&$7,21%$&.2)7+(+286( 6((3+2720(75,&6+((76 *$5'&2/(':$//6&21&(3+2720(75,&6/$%(/(((&2/25%/$&.),1,6+7%'/2&$7,21%$&.2)7+(+286( 6((3+2720(75,&6+((76 %(*$/('%2//$5'3+2720(75,&6/$%(/&&2/25%/$&.),1,6+7%'/2&$7,21 6((3+2720(75,&6+((76 &$/&8/,7(/('*(1(5$7,21&5'/3+2720(75,&6/$%(/*5281''2:1/,*+7/0&2/25%/$&.),1,6+7%'/2&$7,21 6((3+2720(75,&6+((76 %(*$'(&232/(7233+2720(75,&6/$%(/%&2/25%/$&.),1,6+7%'/2&$7,213('(675,$13$7+ 6((3+2720(75,&6+((76 )(67221/('675,1*/,*+7.,73+2720(75,&6/$%(/)&2/25%/$&.),1,6+7%'/2&$7,21 6((3+2720(75,&6+((76 3+,/,36*$5'&2/('385()25033+2720(75,&6/$%(/$$$$$&2/25%/$&.),1,6+7%'/2&$7,213$5.,1*/27 6((3+2720(75,&6+((76 %(*$'(&23+2720(75,&6/$%(/%:$//02817('/,*+7),;785(&2/25%/$&.),1,6+7%'/2&$7,213('(675,$13$7+ 6((3+2720(75,&6+((76 i i J • a 9.0, N 00 0 6 co I LINE AND CURVE TABLE �A R=13.00' D=48°30'07 L=11.00' © N 47°06'32" W 1.34' © N 01'23'35" E57.15' (D) N 88°36'25" W 12.39' EO R=15.00' D=90°00'00" L=23.56' Q N 43'36'25" W 5.66' © N 46'23'35" E 5.66' HQ N 01 °23'35" E 56.99' STD CITY MONUMENT LS 7139 (SERIES NO. 2007182437) 56.45N 88' 16'05" W 683.88' (M-M) 627.43' N 1 °43'55" E 58.00' SHEET INDEX: VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP & PROPOSED EASEMENTS EXISTING BOUNDARY EXISTING EASEMENTS TO BE ABANDONED EXISTING EASEMENTS TO REMAIN PROPOSED SITE PLAN Ln Iw Ln 0 MARTINELLI WAY CD (RIGHT-OF-WAY VARIES) STD CITY MONUMENT N 88°16'05" W 824.06' (M=M) - LS 7139 (SERIES NO. 2007182437)� STD CITY MONUMENT 680.48' - - - - - PARCEL 3 PARCEL NIAP 8262 2J8) PIM 69 TM-1 TM-2 TM-3 TM-4 TM-5 S 76 57 29 E 50.99 143.58 LS 7139 (PM 8262) o I N 88' 16'05" W 116.60' N 89'56'41 " W 205.09' - _ _ N 88' 16'05" W 397.23' ,N N 1 °43'55" E F-33'45" ��8.25' -r- S 851605 E _---- - - - N 88'16'05" W 436.7 ' 52.00' W 25.53 308.99 T?.0'35 W 30.84--------rz---- ��--_ I 38 _ - - - - _0__ _ _ ------------�t-1- - _- � � - - - PROPOSED SIDEWALK 1 - _ t- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �� �-------------------- EASEMENT I I I N 80'25'19" E 5099' \ 00 PROPOSED D.S.R.S.D. EASEMENT I FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER ~ \ 1 U-)� I I NI � � I I � I J L---- 31.0' - N N 88'49'09" W 16.86' co cm N LO 0 / III I I PROPOSED SIDEWALK III \ \ \ I I I EASEMENT N 88°48'09" W 108.00- - - - - - ' w III I I r-� I L-� IJI I I I Fj I -jCN o j 11 f /I -----------I r I LIMIT OF CALTRANS ROW to PROPOSED D.S.R.S.D. EASEMENT I I I a, I L------1 FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER S I I / � I 00 L- - - - / - - - - - - - -- I o Cn �� �� r i r----------I F-----------� �---zs\\ / I I Lu M� I II I L J L J �\ \\ I I o 00 N I I I o II QD Z I I \\\ Ln w LOT 1 i i t I LOT 2 `' I I 6 I W R=13.00' D=48'30'07" L=11.00' I I I �w oN �n A-13.659f AC L w-J l I PROPOSED STORM \ N 4T06'32" W 1.34' I I DRAIN EASEMENT A=13.787f AC \ 11 zlB 0 Z I I Z cv 1 I I I IZ I II � D N 01'23'35" E 57.15' I I m E I PROPOSED STORM �' I I I I I I N 39'52'47" W 22.58' o N 88'36'25" W 12.39' DRAIN EASEMENT r- I I I I I aN � R=15.00' 0=90'00'00" C r -I L=23.56' I I ///// I I / \ / / �jc• I I z 00 °O - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / / PROPOSED D.S.R.S.D. EASEMENT I I I------- Zr---- / / � r / / / FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER I I -------------------- It N 8 ' W �� / I IN / I I \\ \\ /// / 24.87 cn PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS-,, R=150.00' D=10'05'01" L=26.40' \ / EASEMENT � / // STD CITY MON, STAMPED / "ALA. CO. RS 385 1969" PER PM 7714 \ I f I CO \ \ I I I S 11 18 23„ W 93.00 / /Xv \\ \1 I I I /o 1 I PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED D.S.R.S.D. EASEMENT I ' I FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT CONNECTS TO EXISTING S.D.E. I I I R=315.00' D=11'18'23" L=62.16' //// ��°c ADJACENT APN I --- I I I ' 1Q 986-0008-012 ------------------------ ---I ----------- 986-0008-013 ----------� I i 3Q 986-0008-005 986-0008-004 986-0008-001 FUTURE BART RIGHT-OF-WAY I S 0'00 00 E 70.27 - - DEDICATION PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS I I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ------------------------ EASEMENT ------_- ---_-------------------- R/ a1� �_ - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ R-2937.29' D-3'40 41 REVISIONS ----------- --- ----------- � � � - '` - - - - - N 87*41'26" E 448.55' N 6°26' 16" W (R) DATE DESCRIPTION 1 11 02 2017 First CitySubmittal _ _ N 2°45'35" W (R) N 31°24'30" W (R) 2 01 02 2018 Second CitySubmittal --- N86'22'10"E297.22' S 88'48'14"E- 35.34' = - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7- - - - - - - - S 89'56'59" E 56.89' S 88'26'44" E 7.10' CONVEYANCE TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA I N T E R S T A T E 5 8 0 CTn CITY WWI INAFNT ABUTTERS 2RIGHTS6RE9 RELINQUISHED 0 JO' 60' 120' LS7139(SERIES NO. 2007182437) SCALE. • 1" = 60' W 0 BASIS OF BEARING THE BEARING N 01'13'15" E OF THE MONUMENT LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 385. FILED OCTOBER 28, 1970 IN BOOK 8 OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS AT PAGES 27 THROUGH 29, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. OWNER: IKEA PROPERTY, INC 420 ALAN WOOD ROAD CONSHOHOCKEN, PA 19428 ENGINEER: KEVIN R. WEISS, R.C.E., P.L.S. / DJ EDWARDS, P.E. JMH WEISS, INC. 1731 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, STE# 880 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110 P: 408-286-4555 SOILS ENGINEER: UNITED SOIL ENGINEERING, INC. 3476 EDWARD AVENUE SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA 95054 P: 408-988-2990 F: 408-980-1336 ATTN: VIEN VO, P.E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCELS 1, 2 AND A, PARCEL MAP 8262, FILED JUNE 19, 2007, IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGES 69-78, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. APN NUMBERS: 986-0033-004, 986-0033-005-02 AND 986-0033-006 EXISTING ZONING: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: PA 02-034 PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT - GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN: GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPOSED LAND USE: GENERAL COMMERCIAL TOTAL EXISTING LOTS: 3 TOTAL PROPOSED LOTS: 2 SUBDIVIDED AREA: APPROXIMATELY 27.447 +/- ACRES WATER SYSTEM: TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT SANITARY SEWER: TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT STORM DRAINAGE: TO BE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN GAS AND ELECTRIC: TO BE INSTALLED TO CONFORM TO LOCATIONS AND STANDARDS OF PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC FIRE HYDRANTS: TO BE INSTALLED TO CONFORM TO LOCATIONS AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINAL MAPS: PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66456.1, SUBDIVIDER HEREBY PROVIDES NOTICE THAT SUBDIVIDER INTENDS TO FILE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS ON THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP. SUBDIVIDER WILL SUBSEQUENTLY COORDINATE WITH THE CITY REGARDING THE NUMBER AND CONFIGURATION OF THESE MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS. THE USE OF MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS ALSO INVOKES THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66452.(A)(1), WHICH PROVIDES THAT EACH FILING OF A MULTIPLE FINAL MAP EXTENDS THE EXPIRATION OF THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP. ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LEGEND ON SHEETS 2-4 DUBLIN BOULEVARD APN APN o 986-0033-008, 986-0033-009, 1� w 986-0034-012 Q 986-0033-010, 986-0033-011, 986-0033-012 0Lu MARTINELLI WAY 0 APN 3O a986-0033-004 o APN Q I z 4 Lu U 986-0034-014 986-0 33 005-02 I ( 986-0 33-006 Q I = 5 ADJACENT APN & EXISTING BOUNDARY INTERSTATE 580 NTS DWG NAME: P:\5084 - Clover Retail - Dublin\5084\Engineering\Survey\Maps\5084-Tentative Map.dwg, LAST EDITED: Wed, Jan 03, 2018 3:22pm USER: cteves, AutoCad V.20.Os (LMS Tech), Microsoft Windows NT Version 6.2 (x64) • 0 J O Z Q �I� I N� 00 CD o z 00 STD CITY MONUMENT LS 7139 (SERIES NO. 2007182437) LINE AND CURVE TABLE �A R=13.00' D=48°30'07 L=11.00' © N 47°06'32" W 1.34' © N 01'23'35" E57.15' DQ N 88°36'25" W 12.39' EE) R=15.00' D=90°00'00" L=23.56' FQ N 43'36'25" W 5.66' © N 46'23'35" E 5.66' HQ N 01 °23'35" E 56.99' PARCEL 3 PARCEL NIAP 8262 2 9 8) P 1\il 69 MARTINELLI WAY (RIGHT-OF-WAY VARIES) N 88°16'05" W 683.88' (M-M) 56.45' - - _ 627.43' - N 1 °43'55" E 58.00' STD CITY MONUMENT LS 7139 (PM 8262) I N 88'16'05_W 116.60' _ N 89'56'41" W 205.09' _ _N 88'16'05" W 397.23' S 46'33'45" W 25.53' 273.92 68.05 - - 5� 38.0' S 1'23'35" W 30.84' R=30.00' D=35°08'18" L=18.40' R=30.00' _I I � N V) I w CD i� 04 o �I PARCr A 0 w o 00 N I PARCEL 1 298 1\/1 69 I� I Ln Iw c o I STD CITY MONUMENT N 88°16'05" W 824.06' (M=M) - LS 7139 (SERIES NO. 2007182437)� 680.48' - - - - S 76'57'29" E 50.99' o 143.58' N 1 °43'55" E _ S 88'16'05" E , 52.00' 52.38' - - _ _ �N 88' 16 05 W 436.70 -------- III Go N 80'25'19" E 50.99' D=38'36'07" L=20.21' N 88°48'09" W k 108.00' -----' FARCEEL 2 LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS PROPERTY LINE - SUBJECT PARCEL PROPERTY LINE - ADJACENT PARCELS EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVED PROPERTY LINE -NEW MONUMENT LINE / CENTERLINE, AS NOTED TIE LINE EXISTING EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED EXISITNG EASEMENT TO REMAIN NEW EASEMENTS TO BE DEDICATED W ABUTTER'S RIGHTS RELINQUISHED, PER 2357 O.R. 287, o SERIES NO. 93431464, AND 298 M 69 I z LIMIT OF CALTRANS ROW � Q 0 Z o (0 LIJ a� i Q I cn � U co 0 Cn Q �of� 2 om U ogck:: r r r r)r rr r r r 8rr 2 v wJ 1�/1 J °O 2 9 8 1\/1 5 J r o Y cll LOLu of A o o `0 o z z B o CD Z C� C D Z N 90'00'00" W 2.00' E R=10.00' A=90°00'00" L=15.71' m I N 39'52'47" W 22.58' o N a m I I I I00 04 co 1'^ � I m _ _ _ - _ _N 88'48'09" W 130.95' 24.87' STD CITY MON, STAMPED ALA. CO. RS 385 1969 PER PM 7714 Cb 4-3 R-10.00 A-58 40 04 L-10.24 / O N 00'00'00" E 22.64' R=5.00' A=60°43' 57" L=5.30' .ham N 29° 16'03" W (R) R=40.00' A=85°45'30" L=59.87' �o SEE DETAIL 'A' R=40.00' A=102°04'21" L=71.26' �\ N 00'00'00" E 18.92' _ R,20002 r ' 245.75' - - "" L=188.56' D124.5a�4 REVISIONS 202.80' \ = - - - - - R=2937.29' D=3'40 41 `,8111 �7� - - - N 87'41'26 E 448.55' DATE DESCRIPTION - / L� 1 11 02 2018 First CitySubmittal 2 01 02 2018 Second CitySubmittal 4" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S 89'56'59" E 56.89' 26'44" E 7.10' CONVEYANCE TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA INTERSTATE 5 8 0 (INSTR. # 2012316839) Y MONUMENT ABUTTER'S RIGHTS RELINQUISHED LS 7139 (SERIES NO. 2007182437) m w 0 0 0 0 0 0 z N 90'00'00" W 11.00' 0 JO' 60' 120' SCALE. 1 " = 60' a ■ AC ALA. CO. D.S.R.S.D. E.V.A. E. I.E.E. (M-M) MON. O.R. PAC BELL PG&E PM P.S.D.E. P.S.E. PT.U.E. RS S.D.E. STD. S.W.E. T.S.E. W.L.E. (298 M 69) MAP REFERENCES: STD. CITY MONUMENT, AS NOTED 5/8" REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAP "CH2M HILL LS 5199" PER 19 ROS 55-58 ACRES ALAMEDA COUNTY DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT MONUMENT TO MONUMENT DISTANCE MONUMENT OFFICIAL RECORDS PACIFIC BELL PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PARCEL MAP PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT RECORD OF SURVEY STORM DRAIN EASEMENT STANDARD SIDEWALK EASEMENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENT WATER LINE EASEMENT BOOK AND PAGE OF MAPS PARCEL MAP 7233, RECORDED JUNE 26, 1998, BOOK 236, PAGE 7, ALAMEDA COUNTY PARCEL MAP 7714, RECORDED AUGUST 1, 2001, BOOK 260, PAGE 30, ALAMEDA COUNTY PARCEL MAP 8261, RECORDED MAY 26, 2004, BOOK 276, PAGE 41, ALAMEDA COUNTY PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007, BOOK 298, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY EASEMENTS TO BE ABANDONED: (AS SHOWN ON SHEET TM-3) PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA SUBDIVISION MAP ACT SECTION 66434(g), THE FOLLOWING EASEMENTS WILL BE ABANDONED BY THE FINAL MAP AND WILL NOT BE SHOWN: 1. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007 IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. 2. INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007 IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. 3. WATER LINE EASEMENT, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007 IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. 4. PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007 IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. 5. PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007 IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. 6. TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENT, ALONG ARNOLD DRIVE, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007 IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. EASEMENT NOTES: 1. NEW EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES, ACCESS, ETC, TO BE DEDICATED ON THE FINAL MAP OR BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT, AS NEEDED EXISTING BOUNDARY DWG NAME: P:\5084 - Clover Retail - Dublin\5084\Engineering\Survey\Maps\5084-Tentative Map.dwg, LAST EDITED: Wed, Jan 03, 2018 3:22pm USER: cteves, AutoCad V.20.Os (LMS Tech), Microsoft Windows NT Version 6.2 (x64) i i J I I; I N 00 0 6 co z a-, I STD CITY MONUMENT LS 7139 (SERIES NO. 2007182437) PARCEL 3 Pr\RCEL 1\/AP C9262 I � 298) FIM 69 Lc Iw 0 MARTINELLI WAY CD (RIGHT—OF—WAY VARIES) N 88` 16'05" W 683.88' (M-M) 56.45' - - 627.43' - - - STD CITY MONUMENT N 1°43'55" E 58.00' - - - N 88°16'05" W 824.06' (M-M) - LS 7139 (SERIES NO. 2007182437)� STD CITY MONUMENT 680.48' - - S 76'57 29 E 50.99 143.58' LS 7139 (PM 8262) '� ' o I N 88'16'05" W 116.60' _ N 89'S6'41_05.09' N 88'16'05" W 397.23' N N 1°43'55" E - - - - - - . - - S 88' 16'05" E "' - C46*33 '45" W 25.53' T T _ LN 88'16'05" W 436.70' 52.00' 38.0'35 W 30.84 52.38 T _ -7,I N 80'25'19" E 50.99' o ---N 8808 00 ' W---,� � EX. E.V.A.E. (298 M 69) EX. I.E.E., P.S.D.E., E.V.A.E., PT.U.E. TO BE ABANDONED (298 M 69) TO BE ABANDONED O' V 00 EX. W.L.E. (298 M 69) CD z 3 \ TO BE ABANDONED LIMIT OF �r EXISTING PL TO CALTRANS ROW i I I BE REMOVED - I I � rE.V.A.E. (298 M 69) I I O BEABANDONED o- a, �Cn Of �I I(n 0- I � w u')I Go N I � z w Ln R=11.00' D=48'30'07" L=11.00' ----- -- o I A 4TOf�'32" W 1.34' z g 1 � D C N 01'23'35'r E 57.15' E EX. T.S.E. 260 PM 30 I TO BE ABANDONED N $8'36'2 it 12.39' =15.0Q' _j EXISTING PL TO I P=90'00'00" BE REMOVED I I IC4 Cq N Ir EX. I.E.E., P.S.D.E., E.V.A.E., PT.U.E. (298 M 69) TO BE ABANDONED I� J EX. S.W.E. TO BE ABANDONED (298 M 69) EX. EV.A.E. (298 M 69) TO BE ABANDONED SEX. T.S.E. TO BE ABANDONED (298 PM 69) 17 T-- - --- -- - — -- S 89'56'59" E 56.89' EV.A.E. (298 M 69) AND I.E.E. (298 M 69) TO BE ABANDONED -S 88'26'44" E 7.10' CONVEYANCE TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA I N T E RS TAT E 5 8 0 (INSTR. # 2012316839) STD CITY MONUMENT ABUTTER'S RIGHTS RELINQUISHED LS 7139 (SERIES NO. 2007182437) / ILn o `o z � � z Iz m N 39'52'47" W 22.58' o I m I I 00 I ' N I) FW I I/ N 88 -- - - - ----- -- - - -- 130.95' i III���III / STD CITY MON, STAMPED "ALA. CO. RS 385 1969" PER PM 7714 �o JO' 60' 120' Y SCALE. • 1 " = 60' " L=188.56' R=2937.29 D=3'40 41 N 6'26' 16" W (R)- N 2'45'35" W (R) N 31'24'30" W W 0 Q Z W U Q 2 LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS PROPERTY LINE - SUBJECT PARCEL - - - PROPERTY LINE - ADJACENT PARCELS EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVED PROPERTY LINE -NEW MONUMENT LINE / CENTERLINE, AS NOTED TIE LINE EXISTING EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED EXISITNG EASEMENT TO REMAIN - - - - - - - - - NEW EASEMENTS TO BE DEDICATED _ ABUTTER'S RIGHTS RELINQUISHED, PER 2357 O.R. 287, SERIES NO. 93431464, AND 298 M 69 STD. CITY MONUMENT, AS NOTED 5/8" REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAP "CH2M HILL LS 5199" PER 19 ROS 55-58 AC ACRES ALA. CO. ALAMEDA COUNTY D.S.R.S.D. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT E.V.A.E. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT I.E.E. INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT (M-M) MONUMENT TO MONUMENT DISTANCE MON. MONUMENT O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS PAC BELL PACIFIC BELL PG&E PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PM PARCEL MAP P.S.D.E. PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT P.S.E. PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT PT.U.E. PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT RS RECORD OF SURVEY S.D.E. STORM DRAIN EASEMENT STD. STANDARD S.W.E. SIDEWALK EASEMENT T.S.E. TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENT W.L.E. WATER LINE EASEMENT (298 M 69) BOOK AND PAGE OF MAPS EASEMENTS TO BE ABANDONED: (AS SHOWN ON SHEET TM-3) PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA SUBDIVISION MAP ACT SECTION 66434(g), THE FOLLOWING EASEMENTS WILL BE ABANDONED BY THE FINAL MAP AND WILL NOT BE SHOWN: 1. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007 IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. 2. INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007 IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. 3. WATER LINE EASEMENT, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007 IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. 4. PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007 IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. 5. PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007 IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. 6. TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENT, ALONG ARNOLD DRIVE, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8262, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2007 IN BOOK 298 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 69, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS. EXISTING EASEMENTS TO BE ABANDONED DWG NAME: P:\5084 — Clover Retail — Dublin\5084\Engineering\Survey\Maps\5084—Tentative Map.dwg, LAST EDITED: Wed, Jan 03, 2018 3:18pm USER: cteves, AutoCad V.20.Os (LMS Tech), Microsoft Windows NT Version 6.2 (x64) 0 _J O Z ry Q I I I I PARCEL PARCEL NIAP C9262 29CS FM 69 I STD CITY MONUMENT MARTINELLI W A Y LS 7139 (SERIES NO. 2007182437) (RIGHT—OF—WAY VARIES) \__STD CITY MONUMENT I LS 7139 (PM 8262) �S 76'57'29" E 50.99' N 88' 16'05" W 116.60' N 89'56'41 " W 205.09' N 88' 16'05" W 397.23' S 46'33'45" W 25.53' - — — — — — S 1'23'35" W 30.84' EX. 10.0' P.S.E. (298 M 69)� EX. S.W.E. (298 M 69) } I EX. P.S.E. (298 M 69 EX. S.W.E. (298 M 69) EX. T.S.E. (298 M 69) j —EX. 20S.D.E. (SERIES NO. 2003301785) � I I N � I I II� --1—EX. 10.0' P.S.E. (298 M 69) �I i� N I �I Iw M N z LOT 1 R=13.00' D=48'30'07" L=11.00' 47'06'32" W 1.34' INN 01'23'35" E 57.15' J N 88'36'25" W 12 39' A=13.659 f AC f R=15.00' A=90'00'00" I L=23.56' II II I --- EX. 15.0' P.S.E. (260 PM 30) �ro N L0 "II EX. W.L.E. (SERIES NO. 2000-366225) I J I I I N EX. 20.0' S.D.E. (SERIES NO. 2003301785) II I I I EX. W.L.E. (SERIES NO. 2000-366225) I I EX. S.D.E. (SERIES NO. 2003301785) co — N00 I EX. P.S.E. (260 PM 30) x \ EX. S.D.E. (260 PM 30) ��-- EX. 20.0' S.D.E. (260 PM 30) TO REMAIN_ — — — — — S 88' 16'05" E 52.38' I STD CITY MONUMENT LS 7139 (SERIES NO. 2007182437)� _ _ _ _ N 88'16'05" W 436.70' 80*25'19" E 50.99' — EX. 10.0' P.S.E. (298 M 69) ABUTTER'S RIGHTS OF ACCESS RELINQUISHED BY PARCEL MAP 8262 (298 M 69) LIMIT OF I CALTRANS ROW o' w Co w rn Q I Ln 00 o `t of 8 U U a- o ¢LLJ I I� LOT 2 A=13.787f AC z / I / — N 39'52'47" W 22.58' _N Ek S Qo l/ isEE TO BE R(2 36 PM I EgSEMeNT �oT�� � / J STD CITY MON, STAMPED "ALA. CO. IRS 385 1969" PER PM 7714 EX. 20.0' S.D.E. (260 PM 30) Cb O W 0 Q 0 Z W U Q 2 / q ABUTTER'S RIGHTS OF ACCESS RELINQUISHED PER 2357 O.R. 287 AND SERIES NO. 93431464 EX. PG&E EASEMENT (SERIES NO. 2006451964) a —I------ --------____ __ __ �� /7-1 /?/ N 87.41 1, 4/ �5 - ?/ 2✓� -EX PG&E EASEMENT ��—?_'��- S 89'56'59" E 56.89' EX. W.L.E. (SERIES NO. 2000-366 S 88'26'44" E 7.10 — — — EX. PG&E EASEMENT (2386 O.R. 375) PORTION NOT QUITCLAIMED BY SERIES NO. 95298042) STD CITY MONUMENT LS 7139 (SERIES NO. 2007182437) CONVEYANCE TO —STATE—OF CALIFOWA — — (INSTR. # 2012316839) ABUTTER'S RIGHTS RELINQUISHED ------INTERSTATE 580 N 2'45'35" W (R N 6-26'16" W (R) _ - FEX__PG_&EANI5_ _ PAC BELL EASEMENT —(SERIES NO. 94-188323)- N 31'24'30" W (R) LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS PROPERTY LINE - SUBJECT PARCEL PROPERTY LINE - ADJACENT PARCELS EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVED PROPERTY LINE -NEW MONUMENT LINE / CENTERLINE, AS NOTED TIE LINE EXISTING EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED EXISITNG EASEMENT TO REMAIN - - - - - - - - - NEW EASEMENTS TO BE DEDICATED _ ABUTTER'S RIGHTS RELINQUISHED, PER 2357 O.R. 287, SERIES NO. 93431464, AND 298 M 69 0 STD. CITY MONUMENT, AS NOTED 5/8" REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAP "CH2M HILL LS 5199" PER 19 ROS 55-58 AC ACRES ALA. CO. ALAMEDA COUNTY D.S.R.S.D. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT E.V.A.E. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT I.E.E. INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT (M-M) MONUMENT TO MONUMENT DISTANCE MON. MONUMENT O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS PAC BELL PACIFIC BELL PG&E PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PM PARCEL MAP P.S.D.E. PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT P.S.E. PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT PT. U.E. PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT RS RECORD OF SURVEY S.D.E. STORM DRAIN EASEMENT STD. STANDARD S.W.E. SIDEWALK EASEMENT T.S.E. TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENT W.L.E. WATER LINE EASEMENT (298 M 69) BOOK AND PAGE OF MAPS 0 30' 60' 120' SCALE. • 1 " = 60' EXISTING EASEMENTS TO REMAIN DWG NAME: P:\5084 — Clover Retail — Dublin\5084\Engineering\Survey\Maps\5084—Tentative Map.dwg, LAST EDITED: Wed, Jan 03, 2018 3:19pm USER: cteves, AutoCad V.20.Os (LMS Tech), Microsoft Windows NT Version 6.2 (x64) SA I, , ALAMEDA 15 ❑ ❑ — — _ _ u I I I I CITY OF CONJ�MED COUNS NSY COUNTY SAN RAMON PAP +I 0 DOOR 6 DECORATIVE 3 g I I I I TACREEKRA w ❑ LIGHTING, TYP. CAMP PARKS PARK l i I 11 I I r L PAD 2 IZ ❑❑ —I fi51\I I w t/ �xhx2xxI� xx w I �—w 't II —I —II� ��III � IIIII II— III —I �� I II I ' I III�I �I g II IIII • I�I' I I IlI 1I`iI�I I \ I`I(�II.III1II II�II:I.r�I I : IILJII.III IIi Il I I 1I\ II I IIII II II I I J1_'II �II I II I 1I DDNN¢"N a�,� I I-2I I � II � •_I -_/•• J I—III- -III I1 1IIIIII1I 'B1I I J "=/3I I I3II I I mI I I eII /rI �II MII III I 1IIII�IIIIIII1I II I II I IIII IIIV1I ,I II II ,I�IIIII II —I I II --�; I;� • I" �—'l I I I I II I —_o° —T_o—AI" T L HIGH LIGHT PAD 3 Cr TRANSFORMER I I I I R—zAovN_SmOIRe—Mr ER PADIIII I I —rI /— \�4 —/ —« •/°� — //—��/�O Z ,` //—/ ��/, — ,/II / /,_ry �3� - — /IIII +� �/y —.�•/--/�— �—� �-- /—° �—'. —�.---�.� ° o �" • +II µI � II® 0—°..k.:. �•° �-l/-�'rx�/'xJ%T.:�:: "xI�x � 1Ix1\l� I�' IdrIi,IxI III Il I � I I1II I IIrIIIXI �II II IIIIIIlI III II I; IIII II_I IIIIII II I I I III I I I IIII\ I III I II � II III I II I IIImoIII III Ii II,II ' I i �,°;I,I ► �niI, I I i!'xI�I r�_I \\ GI I I -I I PI I wI `GIP II A I I II I 1IfI` II \ 'I IiI I ,I ----- A—Z_—Z— E80 R100E aoa CDI� R QY IVpESDP tSF PaS g�p CAMP MP P5P` APRQ�KFP� S REFUSE (DUBLINIXUR(TYP.) ENCLOSURE �)�O0 J� �J 4)000 SF REFUSE 9719' INTERIOR STALLS WITH 24' AISLES � '� �BqLPP V� � z a iUw A RL�ARo 4ENCLOSURE 10'X18' 9718' EXTERIOR STALLS (TYP) KE DUBLIN10 ACK, TYP 30' HIGH LIGHT TRANSFORMER PAD PAD 1 SITE FIXTURE (TYP) REFUSE T SI a c ENCLOSURE 1X5,000 Sr CITY OF RIGHT IN PLEASANTON RIGHT LANDSCAPE PROJECT jIbN RIGHT PPTS (TYP) EASENENL PROJECT SIGNBUILDING —WEMT VICINISOT YO Y5e8p0SM ZP / LANDSCAPE SUBDRAIN NOT TO SCALI LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS PROPERTY LINE — SUBJECT PARCEL PROPERTY LINE — ADJACENT PARCELS EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVED W — PROPERTY LINE —NEW -- — — — MONUMENT LINE /CENTERLINE, AS NOTED 1TIE LINE EXISTING EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED c EXISITNG EASEMENT TO REMAIN — — ----- — — NEW EASEMENTS TO BE DEDICATEDL ABUTTERS RIGHTS RELINQUISHED PER 2357 O.R. 287 SERIES NO. 93431464' AND 298 M 69 STD. CITY MONUMENT, AS NOTED 5/8" REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAP "CH2M HILL LS 5199 PER 19 ROS 55-58 AC ACRES 1 ALA. CO. ALAMEDA COUNTY4 D.S. R.S.D. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT E.V.A.E. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT I.E.E. INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT (M—M) MONUMENT TO MONUMENT DISTANCE L MON. MONUMENT wW ---------- W W W w w O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS PAC BELL PACIFIC BELL PG&E PACIFIC GAS &ELECTRIC W PM PARCEL MAP P.S.D.E. PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT P.S.E. PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT PT. U.E. PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT ST L RS RECORD OF SURVEY LLJL S.D.E. STORM DRAIN EASEMENT STD. STANDARD S.W.E. SIDEWALK EASEMENT_J T.S.E. TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENT W.L.E. WATER LINE EASEMENT (298 M 69) BOOK AND PAGE OF MAPS _MTFFM� II11 /.A//ij GAS U 12 v, 1x � �I +� 0 30' 60' 120' Lw SCALE.1=60' — — — — ---W ---w — ® — — — JJPROPOSED SITE PLAN Al ❑ IT IT IT IT JT IT AS AS —GAS GAS ExPOP !I REVISIONS 411 DATE DESCRIPTION 1 11 02 2017 First City Submittal IKEA 2 01 02 2018 Second City Submittal DUBLIN CALIF( CONVEYANCE TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA JMH WEISS, ��PPROXIMATE LOCATION (INSTR. # 2012316839)OF ALQUIST—PRIOLO ZONE ABUTTER'S RIGHTS RELINQUISHED ,,;,,;, �nr;r _;nr _, C„;_, -„-,,— 1 4 o,rnr;__ )WG NAME: P:\5084 - Clover Retail - Dublin\5084\Engineering\Survey\Maps\5084-Tentative Map.dwg, LAST EDITED: Wed, Jan 03, 2018 3:01pnn JSER: cteves, AutoCad V.20.Os (LMS Tech), Microsoft Windows NT Version 6.2 (x64) 1 Amy Million From:Vidya Shetty <vidyashetty@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:25 PM To:City Council; Amy Million Cc:Vijay Shetty Subject:NO on IKEA “NO on IKEA” Thanks Vidya Shetty Concerned Dublin Resident   Sent from my iPhone  1 Amy Million From:Lily Geng <lilygengbay@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:12 PM To:City Council; Amy Million Subject:Say Yes on IKEA We have 4 people here, we all say "Yes on IKEA". Thanks, Lily Lu 1 Amy Million From:Annette Frei <annette@annettefrei.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:09 PM To:City Council; clerkgrp; Danielle Diaz; Amy Million; daviddivecchio@gmail.com Subject:IKEA - NO!! -Project Name: IKEA Retail Center Project (PLPA-2016-00016) Council Members and others concerned,    Project Name: IKEA Retail Center Project (PLPA‐2016‐00016)    I moved to the Tri‐Valley because it still had the appeal of smaller city living. In the seven years since, I and my family have seen traffic in Livermore on 580 and the 680/580 exchange balloon to jaw dropping traffic. You have got to be kidding if you say that an IKEA in that corner of Dublin is a good idea. It seems that with all the growth in Dublin Ranch area and the sea of condos on Dublin Blvd that the Dublin City Council has completely lost its mind. PLEASE do not bring IKEA here as well. We have a thriving economy, and a beautiful valley. IKEA will bring truckloads of people from as far as Sacramento, who will go straight to IKEA, shop and eat there, then clog our highways with traffic. They will not bring money to other businesses. Please consider the people who live here.     Thank you,  Annette Frei and James Allen    Annette Frei and Jim Allen Home land line 925‐292‐1668 Annette's cell 480‐707‐2903 Jim's Cell 480‐707‐2901 127 Diamond Drive, Livermore, CA 94550   text_0 NO ON IKEA Page 1 1 Amy Million From:9258957702@mms.att.net Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 7:05 PM To:Amy Million Attachments:text_0.txt   1 Amy Million From:Pavani <a.pavani@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 7:05 PM To:Amy Million; City Council Subject:No IKEA in Dublin please Hello,    This is to let you know that we do not need an IKEA store in Dublin. Please accept this email as a vote for NO IKEA in  Dublin.     Thank you  Pavani      Sent from my iPhone  1 Amy Million From:Atul Nema <anmca@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 7:01 PM To:City Council; Amy Million Subject:No on IKEA Council@dublin.ca.gov;Amy.million@dublin.ca.gov Sent from my iPhone xyz pls ignore typos. 1 Amy Million From:Rashmi Kizhekke T <rashmi.rk@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 6:55 PM To:Amy Million; City Council Subject:NO to IKEA in Dublin We have enough traffic and having ikea is just going to aggravate the situation . We do not want ikea in Dublin     Thanks  Rashmi Kizhekke   1 Amy Million From:rajni sukhwani <rajnisukhwani@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 6:51 PM To:Rajesh Shroff; Amy Million; City Council Subject:No on IKEA Thanks         Rajni   1 Amy Million From:Priyanka Sharma <ranu09@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 6:35 PM To:Amy Million Subject:“NO on IKEA” “NO on IKEA”    Best,   Priyanka Sharma   1 Amy Million From:Ravi Chayanam <cvrkiran@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 6:31 PM To:City Council; Amy Million Subject:No IKEA in Dublin please hello,    We think that the traffic addition to Dublin roads because of Ikea is too much for us to handle. I would like to send in my  No to adding Ikea to Dublin. Please stop this!    I am long time Dublin resident (9+ years now) and happy to elaborate more on this.    ‐Ravi  1 Amy Million From:ed demattia <edemattia@beaconpayments.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 6:09 PM To:City Council; clerkgrp; Danielle Diaz; Amy Million Subject:Opposition to the 580 IKEA Development Project To Ms. Diaz, Ms. Million, and the entire Dublin City Council,    I am a San Ramon resident who is writing to you to express my opposition to the proposed development of an IKEA box  store, to be located on Route 580 in the city of Dublin, California.      The proposed area of development is already a highly dangerous, traffic‐congested mess.  While there are a wide variety  of stores and amenities in the area that are of interest to me, I routinely re‐consider each and every visit to the area as  the traffic adds quite a bit of travel time to and from the shopping district, often making it an unpleasant  experience.  Adding IKEA to the area will, most assuredly, diminish my desire to patronize existing restaurants, movies  and retail shops, thus reducing sales revenue and associated sales tax dollars for the city of Dublin.    Though I'm sure the observation has already been made, it's one that likely bears repeating:  perhaps the worst traffic in  the entire Bay Area just happens to be where the IKEA in Emeryville is located... Given this situation, IKEA management  might want to consider treating their customers better by NOT locating their stores in over‐trafficked (dangerous),  stressful, anxiety‐producing areas.    Please take my comments into condideration, and vote NO on the development of the IKEA project.  Thank you.    Sincerely,    Ed DeMattia  650‐207‐0594      1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:23 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: NO on IKEA   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: "satish.veni@yahoo.com" <satish.veni@yahoo.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 3:54:42 PM PDT  To: "council@dublin.ca.gov" <council@dublin.ca.gov>  Subject: NO on IKEA  !!! NO on IKEA PLEASE !!! 1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:24 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: Dublin resident request- regarding IKEA vote today   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: Anand kumar Katakam <anand.katakam@gmail.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 3:12:24 PM PDT  To: council@dublin.ca.gov  Subject: Dublin resident request‐ regarding IKEA vote today  Dear Mayor and other City Council Members,    Greetings. As we are all aware, today is the crucial  yes/ no vote for IKEA in Dublin . I sincerely request  you to vote No to IKEA for the reasons Planning Commission already listed and  many lingering  in the  minds of Dublin residents.     After listening to the presentation, the discussions and arguments for and against IKEA, it is  clear that  this mega store is not for  already crowded Dublin, where we are experiencing heavy traffic and safety  issues  due to over housing, lack of second high school, narrow roads  and thousands of new houses  being added on Boulevard development and other places.     Fiscal Revenue Report and the Economic Impact Analysis reports seem to have inaccuracies as pointed  in an email to the Council by a dublin resident. I hope this is addressed properly. Also, what  is the  financial analysis done by the city of Dublin to assess the annual operating expenses for this  project?  We need to have risk vs benefit on a long term basis for this kind of projects.    Apart from all these, we all want Dublin to be livable as a vibrant city for generations to come in a safe,  less crowded and polluted environment.    We hope that you all consider Dublin resident viewpoints.    Best regards,  Anand  1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:24 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: No to ikea   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: ank shah <ankishah2@gmail.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 3:07:00 PM PDT  To: council@dublin.ca.gov  Subject: No to ikea  We dont want ikea in dublin please it will come with lot of problems     No to ikea  ‐‐   Thanks  Ankita Kothari  1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:25 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: Dublin City Council Decision for Ikea   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: "Dr. Melissa Ko" <drko@sycamorevalleychiropractic.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 3:03:08 PM PDT  To: <council@dublin.ca.gov>  Subject: Dublin City Council Decision for Ikea  Hello sirs and madams, I am writing to you as a long-time local native and resident. I am a physician, a mother of a 20 month old and spend a majority of the week commuting around the bay area to see patients at various clinics. I wish to voice my concern that I strongly oppose the plans to build an Ikea shopping center in Dublin. I believe that the presence of this store will have extremely detrimental local and global effects upon our Contra Costa, Santa Clara and Alameda county areas in obviously the commute, economics but also in our local residents' overall quality of life. Please take my concerns, along with all those who oppose this project, into consideration when deliberating your decision. Yours in Health, Melissa Ko, DC Sycamore Valley Chiropractic 565 Sycamore Valley Rd. West Danville, CA 94526 (925) 837-5595 www.SycamoreValleyChiropractic.com 1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:26 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: IKEA vote   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: manmohan reddy <manoochem@yahoo.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 2:14:47 PM PDT  To: "council@dublin.ca.gov" <council@dublin.ca.gov>  Subject: IKEA vote  Dublin City Council Members:  Please vote no to IKEA as Dublin has seen enormous population growth in the last 6‐7 years. Bringing  IKEA to Dublin makes our traffic even worse.  My humble request to you all think how we can make Dublin is one of the best cities in bay area  (standard of living, traffic, schools etc.,)   Manmohan Reddy Leleti  Resident of our proud Dublin  1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:27 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: NO to IKEA   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: shamanth reddy Mittapalli <shamanthreddy@gmail.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 1:46:27 PM PDT  To: council@dublin.ca.gov, city.clerk@dublin.ca.gov,  Danielle.Diaz@dublin.ca.gov,  amy.million@dublin.ca.gov  Subject: NO to IKEA  I vote NO to IKEA. It is environmentally bad for our Dublin city and its residents.    Thanks,  Shamanth  1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:35 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: Item 6.1 IKEA Retail Center (PLPA-2016-00016) - Oppose!   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: "David DiVecchio" <daviddivecchio@gmail.com>  To: "City Council" <council@dublin.ca.gov>, "clerkgrp" <clerkgrp@dublin.ca.gov>, "Danielle Diaz"  <Danielle.Diaz@dublin.ca.gov>  Subject: Item 6.1 IKEA Retail Center (PLPA‐2016‐00016) ‐ Oppose!  Dear Mayor Haubert and Councilmembers Goel, Gupta, Hernandez‐Strah, and Thalblum,     I have been a resident of Dublin for 12 years and Ikea in Dublin truly concerns my family.  We  are not in support of this project and hope that you as our elected officials do the right thing  and deny this project.       So who also opposes this Project?  ‐ Over 3000 signatures on change.org  ‐ 2 Polls on Nextdoor.com of an additional 3000 people – resulting in 61 to 68% oppose  Ikea  ‐ How about the City Council’s appointed officals?...     The Planning Commission recommends denial of this project, these are the people YOU  appointed…  Commissioner Scott Mittan states:   “No effort from applicant to take what was requested at study session, they did not adjust  building design to match its surroundings, Bart never addressed (turned back literally and  figurely to Bart), will develop more traffic to the extreme with failing intersections which would  get worst, concerned with safety aspect with real gridlock and safety vehicles not being able to  pass.     Don’t find findings in EIR to be accurate…the project Ikea building is not attractive and not  harmonious with facing properties, the vehicular and pedestrian access is highly concerning,  highly disagrees that the project includes attractive high quality materials, false that the project  provides an appropriate pedestrian scale, false that the architecture provides visual interest  and complement its surroundings, false that it is pedestrian oriented, can’t find the findings  adheres to the PLAN.“     Commissioner Stephen Wright states:  “Concern with traffic, General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (the blue print for building  in East Dublin) – says the intent is to intise alternative modes of transportation including,  2 walking, cycling, rideshare, bus and bart, to reduce air and noise polution, increase energy  conservation through the reduction and # of daily vehicle trips with new development. This  may not be the best use of this property to achieve these goals stated in the Eastern Dublin  Speciifc Plan.”     Commissioner Amit Koharti states:   “Community concerns are credible, we do not have a meeting of the minds.  Not convinced  traffic will not be an issue.    Not convinced the color, size and an eye sore.  No commitent from applicant on restaurant or  retail use of project, unanswered lingering questions. Who is in the driving seat, community?,  applicant?, who?”     Commissioner Tara Bhuthimethee states:   “I don’t think Ikea is the right project for this site because of its massiveness.  Yes traffic will be  terribly impactful, it will go from bad to very very very bad.  I do wish the Ikea building itself would have more high quality materials.  There is no minimum  of restaurant.”           So what does the City Staff Report say?:  Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions:   The EIR identified cumulative air quality impacts as a significant unavoidable impact of  development in Eastern Dublin     Biological Resources:  The 1993 EIR identified numerous sensitive habitats and protected species with the potential to  occur in the Eastern Dublin Extended Area and identified the cumulative loss of sensitive  habitat as a significant unavoidable impact of development.      Transportation:   In order to approve the project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) will need to be  adopted that identifies all environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated and explain why the  benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable environmental impacts.     Urban Decay:  The Project impacts that could potentially lead to urban decay were found less than significant  and, therefore, no mitigation is required.  There are a number of furniture stores in the area; Macy’s Furniture Gallery, JC Penney Home  Store, Thomasville Home Furnishings, Bassett Home Furnishings, and Ethan Allen in the City of  Dublin, La‐Z‐Boy and Homelife Furniture, American Living Furniture, Home Furnishings, and Z  Gallerie. Along with these stores that also sell furniture and home goods are Home Depot,  Lowe’s, and Sears, Bed Bath and Beyond, Home Goods ,Target and Walmart.  There will be a reduction in sales through 2026.  After the anticipated 2021 opening of Ikea,  that will be 5 years of reduced sales for these local business, which is not accounted for in Ikea’s  revenue projects.     3 How does the Ikea project fit into the city of Dublin’s Mission and Vision?  It doesn’t!  I request  that the City Council works with the City Manager and City Attorney and instead of finding  reasons why we can’t deny the project, they do their job and find a way to deny this project.     Sincerely,     David DiVecchio  4510 Sparrow Ct  Dublin, CA 94568  (925) 595‐9194    daviddivecchio@gmail.com         4 5 6 1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:35 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: Please Vote NO to IKEA   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: Srinivas Jakkula <jsmadhav@yahoo.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 4:30:43 PM PDT  To: council@dublin.ca.gov  Subject: Please Vote NO to IKEA  Please Vote NO to IKEA     Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone  1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:16 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: No on IKEA   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: Sandi Arajs <bogart64@comcast.net>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 5:13:44 PM PDT  To: janine.thalblum@dublin.ca.gov, %20david.haubert@dublin.ca.gov,  melissa.hernandez@dublin.ca.gov, %20abe.gupta@dublin.ca.gov, arun.goel@dublin.ca.gov  Subject: No on IKEA  Reply‐To: Sandi Arajs <bogart64@comcast.net>  Hi all, this is one last plea. Please vote "No" tonight on the IKEA project. Most of the arguments against this proposal have been identified through various other outlets (e.g., NextDoor, the EIR). The traffic and infrastructure in Dublin is already a mess and will be made even worse by the traffic and pollution caused by this big box store. We don't think that the revenue is worth the costs, especially after you figure in the additional costs of law enforcement and possible traffic controls, not to mention the possible cannibalization of existing stores. As for jobs, the reality is that most of the employees will come from more affordable locations, like the Central Valley, leading to even more traffic. Dublin Boulevard will become more of a parking lot than it is now. And we don't buy the litigation argument brought forward by the City Attorney. He sounded more like an IKEA attorney threatening blackmail! Finally, there's aesthetics and reputation. Even with the so-called life style center next door (where we have seen no evidence that the businesses there will be upscale), that building is an eyesore! And, do we really want to be lumped in with East Palo Alto, Emeryville, and West Sacramento? We are supposed to be "America's Backyard" not its salvage yard! We have held off submitting our ballots for the upcoming election, and what we see tonight will determine how we vote in the city council/mayoral races. 2 Please take the recommendation of the Planning Commission and vote "No." Thank you for listening... Tom Rogers and Sandi Arajs, Dublin Residents since 1997  1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:32 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: NO on IKEA   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: Vidya Shetty <vidyashetty@gmail.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 4:25:05 PM PDT  To: council@dublin.ca.gov, amy.million@dublin.ca.gov  Cc: Vijay Shetty <svijji@gmail.com>  Subject: NO on IKEA  “NO on IKEA” Thanks Vidya Shetty Concerned Dublin Resident   Sent from my iPhone  1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:33 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: IKEA   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: "Senthil Kenchiah (skenchia)" <skenchia@cisco.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 5:26:25 PM PDT  To: "council@dublin.ca.gov" <council@dublin.ca.gov>  Subject: IKEA  Dear council Members  Please say NO to ikea tonight. Ikea is not what Dublin needs. Have you experienced the tragic nightmare  at 580/680?   This vote must be taken by the new council next month or a new ballot in a future vote.  Not 3 weeks  before election.    Sent from my iPhone  1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:34 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: IKEA Additional comments  Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: Danielle Oda <danielle.oda@gmail.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 5:23:45 PM PDT  To: Janine.Thalblum@dublin.ca.gov  Subject: Re: IKEA  Dear Janine,    I'd like to add that I recently moved to Dublin from Canton, Michigan where Ikea has one of their stores,  so I know first hand what Ikea can bring to the community. Most Canton residents thought traffic would  get worse because of the store, but it was busy just a few weeks after the store opened, then it became  normal. It didn't change the residents routine after that.     Another good point is that Ikea pays their employees well, and it brought employment for a lot of  people in the area. They even hired elderly people to greet customers at the door! They have so many  different positions to fill and I'm sure it'll bring employment and wealth for many people of diverse  professions.    Thank you for listening.    Danielle Oda.        On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:25 AM Janine Thalblum <Janine.Thalblum@dublin.ca.gov> wrote:  Dear Danielle,     Thank you very much for taking the time to provide your comments regarding the IKEA’s retail project,  the Glen.  When considering any proposal before us we want to obtain all views on how it may  positively or negatively impact our community members.  Your thoughts are greatly appreciated and  will definitely be part of our discussion at the council meeting.     Regards,  2    Janine          Janine Thalblum  Councilmember  City of Dublin   100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568  (925) 833-6650 | (925) 833-6651 FAX   Janine.thalblum@dublin.ca.gov | www.dublin.ca.gov   Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, and fosters new opportunities.       1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 6:29 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: Opposition to the 580 IKEA Development Project   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: ed demattia <edemattia@beaconpayments.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 6:09:09 PM PDT  To: council@dublin.ca.gov, city.clerk@dublin.ca.gov,  danielle.diaz@dublin.ca.gov,  amy.million@dublin.ca.gov  Subject: Opposition to the 580 IKEA Development Project  To Ms. Diaz, Ms. Million, and the entire Dublin City Council,    I am a San Ramon resident who is writing to you to express my opposition to the proposed development  of an IKEA box store, to be located on Route 580 in the city of Dublin, California.      The proposed area of development is already a highly dangerous, traffic‐congested mess.  While there  are a wide variety of stores and amenities in the area that are of interest to me, I routinely re‐consider  each and every visit to the area as the traffic adds quite a bit of travel time to and from the shopping  district, often making it an unpleasant experience.  Adding IKEA to the area will, most assuredly,  diminish my desire to patronize existing restaurants, movies and retail shops, thus reducing sales  revenue and associated sales tax dollars for the city of Dublin.    Though I'm sure the observation has already been made, it's one that likely bears repeating:  perhaps  the worst traffic in the entire Bay Area just happens to be where the IKEA in Emeryville is located...  Given this situation, IKEA management might want to consider treating their customers better by NOT  locating their stores in over‐trafficked (dangerous), stressful, anxiety‐producing areas.    Please take my comments into condideration, and vote NO on the development of the IKEA  project.  Thank you.    Sincerely,    Ed DeMattia  650‐207‐0594      1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 6:29 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: No on IKEA   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: Harry O'Hagin <panyo@hotmail.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 5:42:08 PM PDT  To: "council@dublin.ca.gov" <council@dublin.ca.gov>  Subject: No on IKEA  Hello City Council, I am a 14.5 year resident of Dublin. The city is no full over the brim with residents and shoppers. Dublin is too crowded already. Thus please vote no on the IKEA store. Thank you for listening. Harry O'Hagin Get Outlook for Android 1 Amy Million From:Chris Foss Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 11:09 AM To:Amy Million Subject:FW: In favor of IKEA       Chris Foss City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6650 | (925) 833-6651 FAX chris.foss@dublin.ca.gov | www.dublin.ca.gov Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, and fosters new opportunities.     From: Janine Thalblum   Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 9:08 PM  To: Chris Foss <Chris.Foss@dublin.ca.gov>  Subject: Fwd: In favor of IKEA       Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: Janay Minton <janayminton@comcast.net>  Date: October 21, 2018 at 8:03:51 PM PDT  To: council@dublin.ca.gov  Subject: In favor of IKEA   Hello,    I want to express my support with IKEA coming to Dublin. I’ve lived in Dublin for 25 years and raised two  children in an amazing school system. IKEA will be a wonderful addition to this city. We will be a premier  city spearheading the new design and IKEA is globally known for giving back to the communities they are  in.     This is a win/win!! Promote growth and build a strong infrastructure!    Janay Minton  8003 Stagecoach Rd, Unit B  Dublin, CA 94568  925‐768‐7227    Sent from my iPhone  1 Amy Million From:Susan Milne <susanwasmilne1@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 1:22 AM To:Amy Million Subject:No IKEA Dear Ms. Million,  Dublin CA is extremely overcrowded and does not need an IKEA.  I vote NO on IKEA in Dublin, CA.  If building keeps  increasing, there won’t be any land left.    Susan M    Sent from my iPhone  1 Amy Million From:klmcauliffe23@gmail.com Sent:Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:01 PM To:City Council; clerkgrp; Danielle Diaz; Amy Million Cc:David DiVecchio; Vanessa Sood Subject:IKEA vote Good afternoon,     I think by now you have heard the feedback from what happened last night around 12:30 am. The public learning of the  letter sent by the applicants (IKEA) attorney was conveniently shared AFTER public comment closed. Additionally, you  are pushing the vote until after the November elections. I respectfully request the City Council to do one of the following  prior to the 11/6 elections:   1. Confirm the IKEA vote will go to the residence (at a future date TBD)   2. Vote for or against IKEA prior the elections    In closing, You all CLEARLY understand the contention of this project. It would serve the public interest to know where  you stand prior to November 6, so we can cast our votes appropriately. As Mr. Gupta stated “lay the cards on the table”  and let’s see how Dublin responds at the ballet box (for or against) the IKEA project.     CC:   Facebook  Next door  Twitter      Kevin McAuliffe  714‐350‐6575    Community Development Department Planning Division MEMORANDUM DATE: November 1, 2018 TO: City Council SUBJECT: IKEA Retail Center Project – Identical Comments of Support The City received numerous emails of support of the project that were identical in content. A sample email is attached. The content of these emails is the same as those provided for the October 16, 2018 City Council meeting. The following is a list of all those who submitted this comment after all the public comment was distributed for the October 16, 2018 meeting: 1. Angel Diaz 2. Yery Cool 3. Glenn Wong 4. Sandi Ybarra 5. Barbara Zischka 1 Amy Million From:Janine Thalblum Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:23 PM To:Chris Foss Subject:Fwd: Please Approve IKEA in Dublin   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: Angel Diaz <ggl4ms1@gmail.com>  Date: October 16, 2018 at 4:14:38 PM PDT  To: council@dublin.ca.gov  Subject: Please Approve IKEA in Dublin  Reply‐To: googleforms@noreply.com  Dear Mayor & City Council,   I support IKEA's retail project, The Glen.   With IKEA, The Glen will bring essential tax revenue, hundreds of jobs, and a high quality mix of retail  and restaurants to our community. It will be a positive addition to Dublin and I urge you to approve it.   Name: Angel Diaz  Email: Diaz_Angel14@yahoo.com  Address: 8334 Cypress Ct Dublin Ca, 94568  Phone Number: 9256404137  Pull email addresses from Gmail with Address Extractor for Gmail.  This email was sent via the Google Forms Add‐on.   November 8, 2018 SB 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the City Clerk’s office that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the City Council be available to the public. The attached documents were received in the City Clerk’s office after distribution of the November 8, 2018, City Council meeting agenda packet. Item 3.1 IKEA letter 11062018.docx Gregory J. Rolen direct: (415) 281-7654 grolen@hbblaw.com Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Three Embarcadero Center Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94111 415.546.7500 415.546.7505 fax www.hbblaw.com November 7, 2018 VIA EMAIL John D. Bakker, Esq. Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson, PLC 555 12th Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94607 Email: jbakker@meyersnave.com Re: Concerns about Transparency in Government and Possible Brown Act Violations-IKEA Retail Center Project (“Project”) Dear Mr. Bakker: My name is Gregory J. Rolen and I am a partner at the Haight Brown & Bonesteel office in San Francisco. Our office has been retained by a number of Dublin citizens who have serious concerns regarding the City of Dublin’s (“City”) manipulation of California public meeting laws in order to postpone the IKEA Project Council vote until after the November 6, 2018 election. My clients believe that this is a purposeful tactic to avoid public accountability for an unpopular vote on an unpopular project. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Without belaboring the procedural history of the Project, suffice it to say it has been highly controversial. Recently, the Project has been opposed by local citizens, labor unions, the City of Pleasanton and environmental groups based on California Environment Quality Act (“CEQA”) concerns. CEQA litigation remains a real possibility. Furthermore, the Project has been a primary issue in elections for City Council, and a change.org website entitled, “say NO to IKEA in Dublin, California” has well over 3000 signatories. Two (2) online polls demonstrate over 60% opposition to the Project. Letters and email messages to the Council prior to the October 16 meeting were approximately 8:1 against the project. The public repeatedly requested Mayor David Haubert (“Mayor”) to place the Project on the ballot. The public’s concerns were not addressed. At the September 25, 2018 Planning Co mmission hearing, Commissioner Scott Mitton (“Mr. Mitton”) introduced a motion to deny all three (3) resolutions approving the project. However, your office interjected recommending Mr. Mitton revise his motion to recommend certification of the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). John D. Bakker, Esq. November 7, 2018 Page 2 IKEA letter 11062018.docx Perhaps the most troubling fact is that two (2) members of the voting City Council (“Council”) have publicly announced that they are not seeking reelection. Janine Thalblum (“Ms. Thalblum”) and Abe Gupta (“Mr. Gupta”) are off the November 6, 2018 ballot. However, there are five (5) “slow growth” candidates on the upcoming November 6, 2018, ballot in which two (2) have expressed either opposition to, or reservations with, the Project based on environmental concerns including, but not limited to pollution, overcrowding and traffic. In addition the Mayoral position (1) member is up for reelection. Regardless of the election results, it is inevitable that three (3) “lame-duck” Council members would cast deciding votes on the Project, before the new Council is sworn in on December 4, 2018. Therefore, Councilmembers, with no public accountability, would be deciding a transformative, lifelong issue for Dublin. II. OCTOBER 16, 2018 BOARD MEETING Approval of the Project was placed on the agenda for the October 16, 2018 Council meeting (“Council meeting”). The public turned out in opposition to the Project. However, they were not given a full and fair opportunity to be heard. Additionally, the Council did not vote at the regularly scheduled Council meeting. This was ostensibly due in part to a letter dated October 10, 2018, from IKEA counsel David H Blackwell (“Mr. Blackwell”) to you threatening litigation if the Council did not approve the Project (“letter”). The letter was not included on the Council meeting agenda, although it was available over 72 hours prior to the October 16, 2018 meeting. The letter was only revealed by Mr. Gupta very late in the Council meeting. My clients are concerned that that was done in violation of the Ralph M Brown Act (“Brown Act”). The legislative intent of the Brown Act was expressly declared in its original statute. The Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. (Chapter 1588, Regular Session. (Cal. 1983)) John D. Bakker, Esq. November 7, 2018 Page 3 IKEA letter 11062018.docx The concerns listed below demonstrate an intent to manipulate the Brown Act to deny the public an opportunity to meaningfully participate in the Council’s decision on the Project. A. Public Comment The Brown Act undeniably exists to provide citizens the right to participate in public meetings. The public’s participation is further enhanced by the Brown Act’s requirement that a meaningful agenda be posted in advance of meetings. (See discussion infra.) Approximately ninety (90) members of the public, in which several openly stated they wished to speak on the Project, were relegated to the “overflow room” adjacent to the Council meeting room. Many requested public comment cards, staff denied that opportunity, in contravention of the letter and spirit of the Brown Act. B. Incomplete Agenda The letter was not included in the agenda packet, although it was available 72 hours prior to the October 16, 2018 meeting. The letter was revealed by Mr. Gupta very late in the Council meeting, most notably, after the close of public comment. My clients believe that this also was done in violation of the Brown Act. The public has the right to review agendas and other writings distributed by any person to a majority of the legislative body in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at a meeting. Except for privileged documents, those materials are public records and must be made available upon request without delay. (Government Code §54957.5.) Simply put, the Council had the letter and did not attach it to the agenda. Although the letter was ultimately provided, albeit inadvertently, it was done so in a manner that intentionally reduced, if not eliminated, the public’s ability to scrutinize and digest the letter. Had my clients, or members of the Dublin community, had an opportunity to review the letter they could have commented publicly that the letter provided no specific reasoning, legal or otherwise, to approve the project. C. Adjournment Finally, the adjournment of the meeting demonstrates pattern and practice to quell public opposition to the Project. Discussion on the Project was prematurely terminated. The regularly scheduled November 6, 2018, Council meeting was canceled. Instead, based on the Notice of the Adjournment, the Council meeting was adjourned to Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 6:30 PM, and for a duration of 30 minutes only. Thus, either staff, the Council or both made the conscious decision to cancel a regularly scheduled meeting, and adjourn the October 16, 2018 meeting to a later date. The meeting was canceled, and adjourned, to eliminate additional public comments against the Project. John D. Bakker, Esq. November 7, 2018 Page 4 IKEA letter 11062018.docx The public was denied relevant information, denied an opportunity to speak, and will be denied an opportunity to be heard on November 8, 2018. This runs contrary to the legislative intent of the Brown Act and Dublin’s commitment to transparency in government. III. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS My clients respectfully submit that the Council can avoid the specter of “back room political dealings,” by delaying the vote until after the new Council is sworn. The public was denied the opportunity to participate on October 16, 2018. The public will be denied the opportunity to participate on November 8, 2018. However, the aforementioned manipulations of the Brown Act will not deny the public its opportunity to vote on November 6, 2018. It is entirely possible that there will be three (3) new Council members. We respectfully submit that it is appropriate to allow duly elected officials decide an issue of such magnitude for Dublin’s future. The Council has an opportunity to fulfill its commitment to transparency and restore faith in the Council’s constituent responsiveness. The Project has been discussed for many years, there is no ethical reason that the Council cannot delay the decision for one (1) month. By contrast, the Council can intentionally choose to have two (2) or possibly three (3) Council members who will only serve until December 4, 2018, ultimately decide the community’s fate. My clients posit that if the Project is approved in such a manner that discounts and bypasses public opinion, input, and worth, it will cast eternally negative stigma on the Project. If the Council elects to move forward on November 8, 2018, they may be subject not only to a CEQA lawsuit, but also Brown Act challenges. If the Council elects to delay its decision democracy will be served. We believe the choice is clear. Sincerely, Gregory J. Rolen Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP GJR:PH THE CITY OF gm t men Iliilaelil !sifter• I I 1 a 1LEpLEASANTON. November.8,2018. Via Email: amy.million@dublin.ca.gov Amy Million, Principal Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza NOV 08 2018 Dublin, CA•94568 DUBLIN PLANNI 'G RE: City of Pleasanton Request for Mitigation Measure Modifications Prior t® Consideration of Certification of Final SEIR for IKEA Retail Center Project State:Clearinghouse No.'2017082047 Dear Ms: Million: The City of:Pleasanton ("Pleasanton")has reviewed the responses to comments provided in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(Final SEIR)prepared for the;IKEA Retail Center Project ("proposed project")-approximately 27.31 acres located at 5344 and 5411 Martinelli Way in the City of Dublin: CEQA requires the City of Dublin to identify and analyze the environmental effects of the proposed project,then mitigate those adverse environmental effects through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures: (See Cal. Public Resources Code § 21002.) At least two of the three responses to comments on Final SEIR pages 3-21 to 3-22 do not adequately analyze mitigate measures to address the significant impacts of the proposed project as such impacts are described in Pleasanton's March 16, 2018 comment letter(pgs. 25-27 of the Final SEIR) : The proposed project will generate significant traffic impacts that Will result in a degraded level of service("LOS") at the freeway interchanges and on local Pleasanton roadways that is not adequately mitigated. Therefore, Pleasanton is requesting that the City of Dublin address the following comments and mitigation measures prior to its consideration of certifying the Final SEIR: 1. Freeway Ramp Intersection Mitigations—Install Improvements with Project The"fair share"contribution language that is sporadically found:in the supplemental environmental impact report mitigation measures is not acceptable as an approach for the I-580/Santa Rita Road intersection. In this case, the proposed project applicant should be responsible for construction of the • required mitigations at the freeway ramp intersections to mitigate.theproposed project's significant effects. The proposed project applicant should be responsible for construction of the mitigations because the proposed project would significantly impact Santa Rita Road at eastbound. 1-580 ramp in the near- term PM as well as the cumulative traffic in the PM peak. The aforementioned improvements must be completed prior to operation of the proposed project: The applicant should work with the City of Dublin to arrange a re-imbursement program to recoup costs from future development in this area. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P.0:BOX 520 • 200 Old Bernal Avenue www,cityofpleasantonca.gov Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 Planning Building&Safety Code Enforcement Permit Center Traffic Engineering. (925)931-5600 (925)931-5300 (925)931-5620 (925)931-5630 (925)931-5677 Fax: 931-5483 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 . Fax: 931=5478 Fax 931-5487 Amy Million=SEIR Comments. Page 2 November.8_2018. : 2. Freeway and Ramp Operations . Pleasanton's comment letter on the Draft SEIR raised points regarding the proposed mitigation: measures relating to the freeway ramp operations at Hopyard westbound on ramp,Hacienda . westbound and Hacienda eastbound-on ramp..The:vehicle"spill-back"that will:occur is a direct result of traffic generated by the:proposed project.Additionally,:.Iinpactsl.Mitigation Measures identify that. the freeway mainline between Foothill Road and El Charro Road on 1-580 and between Stoneridge Drive and Alcosta.Boulevardon.I-6,80 are impacted and worsen theLOS F condition,which is considered.a.signifcant impact. The Draft SEIR mitigation:uieasures propose to increase metering rates to solve the.queue:"spill-back."Merely increasinaramp metering rates is not an adequate Mitigation to the impact.: Additional freeway volume-will further impact the freeway mainline:The Final SEIR does include the additional mitigation of a"fair-share contribu_ tion"to the construction of a second mixed-flow.on- ramp lane from:southboui d Hacienda.Drive to westbound 1-580. The proposed project would add nearly 150 vehicles to the southbound Hacienda to westbound freeway on ramp; This would increase the volume by 25%over existing volumes::Adding•25%to the existing volume:is a sign ficant.e,ffect and the.proposed pi.oject must construct the improvements to the fteaway.rarnps pi onto operation af' the proposed project. Atthis time, Pleasanton.requests that the City of Dublin.revise the.rnitigationmeasures referenced in this letter prior to consideration of certification of the Final SEIR for the proposed project.If you:have any questions,please`contact Mike Tassano, Traffic Engineer,at(925)93:1-5670. Sincerely, • Gerry Beauditi,.AICP :. Community Development Director Electronic cc.: Ellen CIark,Planning Manager MikeTassano,:Traffic Engineer. Dan Sodergren,City Attorney Nelson Fialho,City Manager. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P,O..BOX.520 200 Old Bernal Avenue www.cityofpleasantonca.gov . Pleasanton,•CA94566=0802 Planning Building&Sefety, :Code Enforcement Permit Center Traffic Engineering: (925)931-5600 (925)931-5300 p925).931-5620 1925)931-5630. (925)931756.77 Fax 931-5483 Fax 931-5478 Far; .93.1-5478 Fax 931-5478 Fax 931-5487