HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1.h - 8. Exhibit A to Attachment 7 IKEA Retail Center Dr
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