HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.4 IKEA Project Attach 6 (1)
*). ()Ci
II(EA Project
Dra.ft ..f)upplemental
Environment{4~1 Impact Report
SCH#: 2003092076
Lead Agency:
City Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
. November 2003
Table of Contents
1.0 Summary of Supplemental Impacts and Mitigations................................. 1-1
2.0 Introduction ............ ............. ............................ .... ...... ...... ........... ...................... 1
2.1 EIR Requirement.. ............ ........................... ...... ........ ................ .............. ....... 1
2.2 Scope of Supplemental EIR.............................. .............................................2
2.3 Legal Basis for Supplemental EIR ................... ............................................. 3
2.4 Organization of Draft Supplemental EIR ....... .............................................4
2.5 DSEIR Review Process ..................................... .............................................4
2.6 Future Environmental Analysis ...................... ............................................. 5
3.0 Project Description. ..... ...... ....... ..... ..... ......... .............. .. .......... ....................... .......... 6
3.1 Project Location and Context........................... ............................................. 6
3.2 Prior Planning Approvals: 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan... ...... ..... ................................................. ................. 6
3.3 Project Entitlement Applications................................................................ 10
3.4 Project Objectives............. .................. .................................. ....................... 11
3.5 Project Characteristics............. .................. ........ ........... ........ ...................... 12
3.6 Future Actions Using This Supplemental DEIR ....................................... 13
4.0 Environmental Analysis ................. .......................... ........... ................................ 27
4.1 Air Quality .......... ................................ ......................... ................. ............... 28
4.2 Biological Resources............... ................. ...................... ....................... ....... 37
4.3 Transportation and Circulation..................................................................52
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project............................................................. 83
5.1 Alternatives Identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.................................... 83
5.2 Alternatives Identified in this Supplemental :sIlL................................... 84
5.3 Alternative 1: No Project .......... ............... ...... ...... .......... ................. ....... ...... 84
5.4 Alternative 2: No Development ................................................................. 85
5.5 Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative............................................ 86
5.4 Alternative 4: Mixed Use Development .................................................... 87
5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...................................................... 88
6.0 Required CEQA Discussion........................................................................... 89
6.1 Supplemental Cumulative Impacts............................................................ 89
6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ............................. 90
7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted ......................................................... 91
7.1 Persons and Organizations .............................. ........................................... 91
7.2 References........................... ........ ....................... ..... ..... ................................. 91
8.0 Appendices ................................... ................ ....... .............. ............................. 92
Appendix 8.1...... ................. ............... ..................... ..... ........................................... 93
Appendix 8.2....... ....... ...... ........... ................. ................ ... .................................. ...... 94
Appendix 8.3........ .... ........... ........ ................... ........ ...... .... ........... ............. ............... 95
Appendix 8.4................. .......................... ...... ............... .............................. ............. 96
Appendix 8.5.......... ................. ..................................... .................................. ......... 97
Appendix 8.6....... ............... ................ .......................... ........................................... 98
Appendix 8.7.................... .............................. .............. .................. ................... ...... 99
List of Tables
Table 4.1.1-Federal/State Ambient Standards..................................................... 34
Table 4.1.2- Livermore Air Quality 2000-02 ......................................................... 35
Table 4.1.3- Project Regional Emissions ............................................................... 36
Table 4.2.1- Special-status Plant Species............................................................... 48
Table 4.2.2- Special-status Wildlife Species.......................................................... 50
. Table 4.3.1- Existing Peak Hour LOS.................................................................... 70
Table 4.3.2- Baseline Park Hour LOS.................................................................... 71
Table 4.3.3- Vehicle Trip Generation, IKEA Store Surveys................................. 60
Table 4.3.4- Existing, Baseline, Baseline +Project AM Peak Hour LOS ............. 72
Table 4.3.5- Existing, Baseline, Baseline +Project PM Peak Hour LOS.............. 73
Table 4.3.6- Existing, Baseline, Baseline +Project Sat. Peak Hour LOS.............. 74
Table 4.3.7- Buildout with Project+ Campus Office, AM Peak Hour LOS........ 75
Table 4.3.8- Buildout with Project+ Campus Office, PM Peak Hour LOS......... 76
Table 4.3.9- Buildout with Project+ Campus Office, Sat. Peak Hour LOS ........ 77
Table 4.3.10- CMA Trip Generation Assessment................................................. 68
Table 4.3.11- Weekday Average Daily Traffic Forecasts..................................... 68
Table 4.3.12- Year 2025 Mainline Freeeway Operations, AM Peak ................... 78
Table 4.3.13- Existing, Baseline, Baseline +Project PM Peak Hour LOS............ 79
List of Exhibits
Exhibit I-Regional Location .................................................................................. 15
Exhibit 2-Site Context.... ..;........... .......... ..................... ..... ....................... ................ 16
Exhibit 3-Site Boundary ............ .............. ........... ........ ............................ .......... ...... 17
Exhibit 4- Aerial Photo. ............................ ................... ................... ......................... 18
Exhibit 5-General Plan/Specific Plan Amendemnt............................................. 19
Exhibit 6- Tentative Parcel Map .............................................................................20
Exhibit 7- Vesting Tentative Parcel Map ............................................................... 21
Exhibit 8-Project Site Plan... ....................... ............................. ........ ....................... 22
Exhibt 9- IKEA Site Plan...... ........................ ............... ..... ......... ................... ........... 23
Exhibit 10- IKEA Elevations .. .............. ......... ........... ...................... .................. ....... 24
Exhibit II-Preliminary Landscape Plan ............................................................... 25
Exhibit 12-Retail Center Site Plan ......................................................................... 26
Exhibit 13-Study Area Intersections ..................................................................... 80
Exhibit 14-Existng Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................... 81
Exhibit 15-Buildout Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................. 82
00
z
o
-
Eo-<
<
o
-
Eo-<
-
~
o
z
<
00
Eo-<
U
<
l:l.<
~
-
1j
....
c
.....
-
.....
s
ClJ
"'0
.5
"'0
ClJ
00
00
;j
u
00
;:a
ClJ
I-<
ct$
..c:
u
:.E
~
....:l
~
z
~
~
z
o
~
-
>
z
~
....:l
<
Eo-<
Z
~
~
~
....:l
l:l.<
l:l.<
;:J
00
~
o
>-
~
<
~
~
;:J
00
00
c .
ot:
..= 0
ct$0-.
.~&
.....
6ti
"'Oct$
~S-
00-
....-
uJ:!
ct$ C
S-ClJ
..... 6
.-c
s8
c.....
ClJ ~
g~
0'::::
.~ (tJ
:> I-<
cO
ClJ-
ClJJ:!
-:55
00 6
~ ClJ
.....-
1-<0-.
ct$0-.
6 ;j
600
;j.!9
oo..c:
~.::
o 0
-I-<
ClJ ClJ
..0"'0
.....c
ClJ.....
_ct$
~6
Eo-<~
o
~
~
I
= I
0
- ... -
(,,1-
.., .., =
S"~ t'll
.~
""
... ...
=~ =
bO
ClJ ... ...
'"
z~ J
-
.....
<
'"
'"
~
~
...
=
III
..,
~
~
=
o
...
-
..,
bO
...
....
...
:E
-
.:g
=
~
6
~
-
p.,
g.
00
-
~
S"
-
"
.....
Q"
~
-
~
S"
-
-U CIJ
.~ ..c:
""....
....
.... .
l=:C<::
~U3
.~ ~
~8
CIJ
Ei 'ti
o t'll
-~
!::: CIJ
o .c: ..
;E::;
-uo.c:
-uo'"
t'll . !:::
c:.....~
""';::;-.0
.. ..... ::s
'";'<"iCl
CJ~""
-< 0
I >.
~c:~
CJ') .::lU
CIJ
>
~
-u
--
::s 0
o ....
~-u
CIJ
<J:l ....
ev t'll
....-
;~ Q)
> ...
.... CIJ
- U
~ fa
g'~ ~
.... ::S...,.
ti!:::....
::s C1J~
... <J:l-u
- ;:I a
<J:l t'll
l=: u
00-
U....;g
:>.,iU-u
- .........
=:1:0
t'll CIJ ...
::s .... S
,..." 0....
V' 0.. <J:l
... "'.~
.... ~ Ei
-<-:5ev
6
-<
~
tIl.....
fa ...
.8.i~ 02 - 15
<J:lJ).s -~ t'll .8 3
!3~ ~ ~~ ~g'"
ti"".!2 .8-:50~ 0''':;:
1l 0 .~ ~ .~ :;; t'll ti ~ <J:l
l=:gjli:l ........<J:lbO t'll"'-
0:=- !:::..::;'el.Ei J:jevg
up..t'll .0.oUbO !:::li:l>
l=:..lo\Ei-UUt'llt'llt'll 0-:52::
.Sg....Sgli:l-u'ti ~oo..
~~:6~~]~]uj:8!3.8~
.... ev 0-:5.!:l p..o..id 2l:! <J:l gj t'll
~ 8 !3So~:;:; ~'~tlE~~
U -u... ;;~...0l=:-ut'll0
~~a~~-u~t'lltl8aev...
';:1 li:l <J:l 0 .!:l p.. ~ bO ;:l ev <J:l Ei .~
i-:lid':E g.3l C1J~ .!:l'!3:;o:E
c<::~g.8~~~:;;~i~~5..
<J:lo..ul:l!:.!:l8.8
t'll
..ci
<.i
,
Ul
C
.~
'iU
-
~
'0
c
'"
Ul
~
.E
~
C
Q)
E
c
o
...
';>
c
~
~
c
Q)
E
..!:!
...
'"
E
E
'"
en
~
c
.~
u
Q)
en
=
o
... ....
("I'"
=:m
Q"....
8~
-~
...
~""
z~
...
-<
~
""
=
III
=
~
~
=
o
....
...
=
tli)
....
...
~
...
("I
=
Q"
8
'=5
's..
o
Eo-<
....
u
III
=-
E
....
'U
!::: CIJ
Ill_
......0
!::: t'll
1ll'U
~ .0
... :>
= III
.~ =
tIlO
oW .~ "t ~
gj ~lt8
~... <J:l ~
<U_RSns
gj~]]a
:;0<J:ll=:~~
gj5~ e-g'~
e'";'.g..2!:g~
o~Cl 2"jl"g
04J.........o.~t.J(/)
6::: CIJ!:::O
... ..e-,.Q 0 g..
::: Ct') ..... be)..... J-4
-u~u -:;jo..
-u C1J.St:CIJ
t'll -:5~0-:5
..ss ..2~...
..' ~oco
N"O......"4-ctd......
Or .~ ~ CIJ ~ ~
-<~~-:5C1Ji
~~8~~ ~
-
t'll
-:5 ~
CIJ fa
gj .~
CIJ_
... ...
U ~
.6 ... <Ii
... <J:l ...
S Cl 0
'en ~ ~
.~ CJ U
8 -< ~
CIJ -< 0..
'tjj;QaI
,~ CIJ 6
e -:5 l:l
~-U'"
~~..E
=~~
t'll CIJ'::::
6:9]
... 5 ~
<~-:5
6
-<
~
tIlN
~ .~
.B,e> ~
;g~.s!ui'l:l ...
,.Qtt'll2!-:5ui' ~ O-u
:-.::= Q.cQl n:s ~~ ~ ~~
bp ~ :s:g 0.. ::S'S: .~ c:
CIJ'tl....... ~:S-u" M ~.f
ui'ui'-gb.......ab ~ .:a>.
~l! iIl.~-U_.2 6 ~o..~
..... .y ....., fa ~:3 u n:s ~ ......
:;:: !:1 '" ... 8 ... t'll -
Jgllj~JS~8 ]~:gS
~.l!l..2!o~:g-8 CIJ...ClJl!::Q.l
fI)::sUUj;>~"'1.t 1j~;:!:::::
!:::0ij-.8{j.80 8>.ClJt'll
~ e..... ...... "tS......... Q) ~ .... ....
";B~]~~-g~.;~~~,,;
-u.......-u ~-u U ill 0 '" "'-U'''~
os: V) os: e os: ~ Vi ~ os: .!l os: J: :E
~]~8~8t~~]~~~
t'll
.0
-d
<Ii
<.l
:S -E
.~g~~ .8 ~
u~::stho 6 0
~ s ~ loot "'g..... ......
Q) fI) <II Cl.._ i'd 1ii.-:;j ~...
l!::b08bOt'll<J:lS _
B .8, ~ .S 6 8 0 ..;::!
~ ~ Cl .c: .60.... - ,. I'l
~ :is(-tB <u1U.S~-
......ci ns-..N.......-.~
o u Q) ~ ......- .......
.... :Q1'l-:5C<J:l>.....
:~~'cg cU'- ~;.o ~
::s.~ t'll-U ~ "'l:l-U:-
-uiJ..2!'c!::: O",,~.c
l=:O>....t'llObOOO..!:::
!::: .... c: 0
U-UCIJbO-:;j.::l!::::::l
{j CIJ 8.6 S :a.S! t'll.~
... t..2! -g :0 ~ .~ 1:: <J:l
> ~ 0..- ... CIJ > Q.l :E
OO!:::UO-UO_~
~ o...:l .S 8 'c ~ ~
~
o
6
""
t>O
C\I
;"(1)
(1)0
010
asC\l
Q. CD
.c
E
(I)
>
o
Z
II:
W
(ij
+"
c:
(I)
E
(I)
Ci
a.
;j
en
'a
o
c
(I)
E
a.
o~
Qi.c-.t
>;j(l)
(1)09
0_C\1
<(00
w>-
~:=<(
_uQ.
E
.....
c;
c
'"
E
c
o
...
";;
c
~
c;
c
'"
E
2
...
'"
E
E
::>
CIl
q
c
,~
u
'"
CIl
=
o
tl;;
ca~
c....
E;::
-:E
....
~ ...
Z~
~
-<
~
...
=
III
ca
~
~
=
o
...
....
ca
.~
....
~
....
("I
ca
Q"
E
~
...
c.
o
Eo-<
...
...
III
Q,
E
-
"'Cl
!::: IU
t'll_
-.0
= III
~:g
tC 0
-a ;;
.~ =
tIl:J
N
I
~
I
~
CJ')
<J:l
t'll
CIJ
Ei
oS
CJ')
'"
(:) ....:
Cl ~ ~
~~E'
-< 1l.'~
~~~
CIJ 2"!!!
~ ~ ~
0...... 8
<J:l Q)
Q) v ....
v l=: c:
c: oS 5
cu U .'1""4
"0 ....-4 ~
CIJ :-:= "2
~ ~.~
UJ "en ell
"" t'll
. 0
.e- <J:l .5
;; :g be
::s ,g .S
0<J:l':::
... ~ ;l
<-:5~
.
01
-<
.
~
CJ')<f)
"'Cl
= Q)
t'll_
-.0
= III
1Il"'Cl
v ...
tC 0
... >
;,t'll
... !:::
tIl:J
N
&
-<
~
<J:l
t'll
Q)
Ei
t'll
CJ')
.~ 6
:::::-e
t'll t'll
l:l v
Q) bO
bO.S
] ~
Vii
-u .
-~
::s Q)
o >
~~
.
01
-<
.
~
tIl'Ot'
-
!:::
t'll
...
...
""
....
=
bO
...
tIl
=
t'll
-:5
.
'"
'"
CIJ
o-l
-u
Q)
'3
cr'
~
CIJ
6
z
6
<Ii
<J:l CIJ
~ ~
o..g
.s g)
- ...
v _
Q) oS
'0' .~
~ ~
vie
e:s
:i-g
~:.:::
Q) ....
lX:i:;
- Q)
e:g
'bo >.
0-
'0 ~
.... CIJ
a:l !:::
....
.
~g
tIla:l
-
=
t'll
.~
""
'=
bO
Ui
=
III
.c:
-
.
'"
'"
IU
o-l
-u
CIJ
.!:l
g.
~
CIJ
6
z
B]
J!l m
~ Q)
o..~
..Ei ~
t'll
s:::a:l
o ...
".= ~
~ 9
g.~<Ii
fa .S! 6
104 ti .....
E-o CIJ -
-u ~ ]0'"
fa~
v .S ~
~ ~ ~
...... ." .-
Cl.a2
E-o <J:l ~
'";'
.-<
~i:!
i:;
III
v
....
""
...
!:::
bO
'iil
;
.c:
-
'"
'"
~
"'Cl
;~
-.0
!::: III
~"'Cl
.... ....
"" 0
-2 ~
.~ !:::
tIl:J
fo bO Q)
gt'll~fa ~ CIJ Q)
~ ~le]~;g~~~
iU"':.....f~,og]l=<..
~ J! ~ i;g ~ ~ .~ ~ f
.......~.J::g 'E~""1:
g.li~]~]~';'-E]~
a;Ei-:5::S o~faC:CIJ:9
> ... 0 ~.o ::s - .::l !::: <J:l
Q)~'O~ ~-:5& e bO~ ~
~~~CIJ~::s!:::.a]c:....
lrl...t'll~...S$~..!o<J:lmO
-.....c:!.... .0"".... !:::
.~o......(I)oOQ.lO"Of:Q.lx ...
MO ~~..t::r\-~Q)c::
~_2-u c:E-<..... CIJ c: 0
...t'll!:::_.::l ._l=:~_m~
~Q)S::;j..oBtUo(d "..
<I: Ei.S! 0 ::s:c.c:'O- e.~
C<:: 1U't:~Cl &j ~.....c:.a'-:::
E-< 0..8.,::s Q) ~ 2.1ij~..!o Ei
::E CIJ 0 0-:5 2 o..l=: 2ii::a
CJ')-:51l.~ -:U.S ~8-:5'J:: ~
<J:l
ti
t'll
0..
.s
CIJ
>
::::
t'll
"3
Ei
::s
u
s::: <Ii
.S! 5
RS:t:
1:: ~
o <J:l
g.~
fa];
...
E-o gJ
-u ...
l=: t'll
t'll >.
v-U
s.a
os <J:l
... ....
E-o t'll
Q)
>
....
-
t'll
"3 6
Ei .~
::s:;:::
U os
...
g;
-Zj!:!
.l9,.!!!
c; ~
0.._
<J:l V
fa .~
... 0
E-o~
-u......
!::: 0
t'll CIJ
.~ ~
:::: 2::
os v
~ .S
~
~~
till-<
<?
~~
till-<
<Ii
>.
t'll
~
CIJ
Q)
.:::
...
!:::
Q)
V
t'll
:0-
t'll
e')
'e')
"'0
(1)0
~N
D.. Qj
.c
E
(I)
>
o
Z
a:
iii
tii
...
c:
(I)
E
(I)
C.
a.
;j
(J)
.t::
III
o
C
(I)
E
a.
oa
Cii.cv
>;je')
(1)09
O_N
<00
w~....
~.- ....
_un.
.E
<ii
C
II,)
E
c
8
';>
c
~
<ii
C
II,)
E
.2
...
'"
E
E
"
CIl
~
c
.S!
'0
II,)
CIl
=
o
.... ...
("I....
=:m
l:l.....
e=
-~
....
~""
Z~
....
<
~
=
III
=
~
::!1
=
o
...
....
=
CIl
....
....
~
....
("I
=
l:l.
e
~
's.
o
~
....
...
01
t:l.
E
-
~
.~
1
....
'"
1;
-:5
'"
'"
CII
...;l
-d
~
'g.
~
~
t'll
<J:l
~
::s
<J:l
t'll
Q)
Ei
6
....
-
t'll
.!!P
.~
o
Z
<Ii
u
6 a
~J:!
u ...
t'll tb
]'~
t'll
.~ 6
.....60
t'll Q)
t:c<::
0""
~o
a g)
... -
I-< g
-uc<::
.~ ~
:::d
flU
1-<<
,.
~~
tilE-
-=
t'll
u
...
""
.a
bO
...
'"
1;
-:5
<J:l
<J:l
CII
...;l
-d
~
'g.
~
~
t'll
<J:l
~
~
t'll
e
6
~
t'll
bO
~
's
o
Z
!:::
o
<J:l
...
U
t'll
~
....
g
....
....
t'll
....
~ ui
0....10:
<J:l .S
a-
... >.
I-< t'll
-u ~
a~
o
u ...
~-;
~,g
It)
,
~~
tilE-
'<t
'(')
....0
CDo
g>C\1
Q. Qj
.0
E
CD
>
o
Z
<J:l
Q)
~
::s
o
<J:l
~
-;
u
....
bO
o
-
o
:s
i-
:a
g.
...
.;
.S;
:::
t'll
...
....
-;
6
....
bO
~
-u
fa
-;
.3
>.
:1
~
,g
c::
o
U
c::
~
o
=
:llI:
""
o
'"
t'll
l!:
<
II:
jjj
co
-
c
CD
E
CD
a
a.
~
Cf)
1ij
o
-
c
CD
E
g. .5
iD]5'<t
>~(')
CDo9
O_C\1
<(00
w>-
~:!:<(
_OQ.
2.0 Introduction
2.1 EIR Requirement
This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report sup:?lements an earlier Program
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.
The purpose of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are to
regulate land use and development for the Eastern Extended Planning Area of the City
of Dublin. This Planning Area encompasses approximately 3,368 acres of land generally
located between the 1-580 freeway and the Alameda-Contra Costa County line, east of
Camp Parks RFT A to east of Fallon Road.
The environmental impacts of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were
addressed in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report, consisting of a Draft EIR, Final EIR, and May 4, 1993
addendum, as certified by the City Council in Resolution 51-93 on May 10, 1993. A
second addendum was adopted on August 22, 1994 to update sewer service to Eastern
Dublin. The above CEQA documents are referred to collectively in this DSEIR as the
"Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", and are incorporated herein by reference. The State
Clearinghouse Number (SCH) for the Eastern Dublin EIR is 91103064.
The IKEA Development Project ("Project") has been proposed on a 27.54-acre property
within Eastern Dublin. The Project consists of an IKEA store on the west portion of the
property and a separate Retail Center on the east portion of the property, as further
described below in Chapter 3.0, Project Description. Related Project applications include
a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment to change the land use
designation from Campus Office to General Commercial, a PD rezoning and Stage 1
and 2 Development Plan, and tentative parcel/vesting tentative parcel maps and
development agreement. A Site Development Review application was also submitted
for the IKEA portion of the Project. Consistent with the City's practice for projects in
Eastern Dublin, the City has prepared an Initial Study to determine if the Project would
require additional environmental review beyond that analyzed in the previous EIR. The
Initial Study is found in Appendix 8.1. The Initial Study determined that many
anticipated impacts of the proposed actions have been adequately addressed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. This is consistent with the comprehensive environmental analysis
undertaken as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR with a 20-30 year build-out horizon.
Although the Initial Study concluded that the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed
most of the potential environmental impacts of the proFosed Project, it also identified
the potential for a number of new significant impacts or potentially intensified impacts
beyond those analyzed in the EIR. The City of Dublin has determined that the potential
for new and/ or substantially intensified impacts required review at an EIR level and
concluded that a Supplemental EIR be prepared.
IKEA Draft Supplemental ErR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 1
November 2003
Consequently, as required by CEQA, the City prepared and circulated a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) to interested public and private parties. A copy of the NOP is
included as Appendix 8.2 and responses to the NOP are included in Appendix 8.3.
2.2 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-Ievel 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 (Appendix 8.1), the project proposes urban-intensity
non-residential uses. This is substantially the same as analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR, although there are potential changes in the requested entitlements for
development of the IKEA property that would vary somewhat from the adopted
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. As identified in the Initial
Study, there are changed circumstances and new information since certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR that could result in new or intensified significant impacts. These
include:
1. The potential for new or newly designated special status biological species to be
present on the Project site.
2. Traffic patterns and commuting trends since approval of the 1993 General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan may have substantially increased regional traffic
and congestion beyond that identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
3. The potential for supplemental traffic impacts may also cause related regional air
quality impacts.
The Initial Study identifies potential impacts to the categories of air quality, biological
resources, and transportation for further review in an ElR This Draft Supplemental EIR
(nDSEIRn) describes the degree to which the Project's potential impacts to these
environmental categories were adequately addressed in the previously certified Eastern
Dublin EIR. It further describes the type and extent of potential significant impacts
beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, Where supplemental significant
impacts are identified, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts to a
less-than-significant level.
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 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. However, to
address the potential for new and/ or substantially intensified significant impacts, this
DSEIR identifies and analyzes two additional alternatives for the Project Site that could
avoid or potentially lessen the additional impacts identified in this DSEIR.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 2
November 2003
The Eastern Dublin EIR and this Draft Supplemental EIR together fully identify and
assess all of the potentially significant impacts of proposed Project. Any need for
additional environmental review for future applications will be determined as
appropriate under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
The Eastern Dublin EIR is available for review at the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568.
2.3 Legal Basis for Supplemental EIR
Based on the previous analysis in the Eastern Dublin EIR and CEQA Guidelines Sections
15162 and 15163, the City has determined that additional EIR-Ievel review is required
and that a Supplemental EIR should be prepared for lhis Project rather than a
Subsequent EIR. Subsequent and Supplemental EIRs are similar in procedural and
substantive respects. Both types of EIRs build on a previously certified EIR. Both types
of EIRs analyze potentially significant changes to a project and/ or environmental
circumstances when those changes would result in a new significant impact or would
substantially increase the severity of previously identlfied impacts. Both types of EIRs
are circulated by themselves, without the previously certified EIR
With the above similarities, the choice between a Subsequent and Supplemental EIR is a
matter of the degree of additions or modifications to the previous EIR needed to
analyze the new or substantially increased significant impact. Both types of EIRs
analyze the substantial changes from the previous analysis. Based on the Initial Study
prepared for the project, the City has determined that a Supplemental EIR is
appropriate for the following reasons:
1. The Project proposes changes to land use types for a 27.5 acre portion of the
Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan area from one non-residential use
to another and at similar urban intensities.
2. There are no new impact categories from the previous EIR. All of the potential
additions or modifications involve impact cate:~ories that were analyzed in the
previous EIR
3. Proposed additions or modifications needed to update the previous EIR do not
require a full re-analysis of a particular impact. None of the modifications
introduces an entirely new environmental topic r,ot addressed in the previous
EIR
4. The proposed Project includes actions explicitly identified in the previously
certified EIR as implementing actions.
For the above reasons, the City has determined that the current Project does not raise
new policy issues as to the type, location, direction OJ' extent of growth. Further, the
range of potential impacts identified in the Initial Study is the same range as previously
analyzed. Finally, the nature of the potential changes :.dentified in the Project Initial
Study requires updating or refinement of the previous EIR analysis, rather than a full
re-analysis. Irrespective of the label, and consistent with both Subsequent and
Supplemental EIR provision of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, the City will
not approve the Project without first certifying an EIE which comprehensively
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 3
November 2003
addresses the potential for significant environmental impacts of the current Project
beyond those addressed in the previous EIR.
2.4 Organization of Draft Supplemental EIR
This Draft Supplemental EIR ("DSEIR") supplements the "Eastern Dublin EIR, and is
organized as follows:
. Section 1: Summary Table. This includes a summary of impacts and mitigation
measures.
. Section 2: Introduction: This section describes the organization of the DSEIR.
. Section 3: Project Description. Section 3 describes the proposed Project, project
location and project setting. Project Objectives are also described as well as future
approvals required to implement the proposed project.
. Section 4: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Section 4
includes the impact and mitigation analysis for the Project. Each environmental
topic includes existing conditions (the setting); potential supplemental
environmental impacts and their level of significance; and mitigation measures
recommended to reduce identified significant impacts.
. Section 5: Alternatives. This section addresses alternatives to the proposed
Project and a discussion of an environmentally superior alternative
. Section 6: References. Section 6 includes references used in the preparation of
the DSEIR.
. Section 7: Report Authors. Section 7 lists the authors of the EIR and
organizations and persons consulted as part of the environmental analysis.
. Appendices. Contained in the Appendices are the Initial Study (8.1), Notice of
Preparation (NOP) (8.2), responses to the NOP (8.3), Resolution No. 53-93
approving the Eastern Dublin EIR, including mitigation findings, overriding
considerations and mitigation monitoring program (8.4), a copy of the air quality
analysis (8.5), biological reconnaissance (8.6), and a copy of the traffic analysis
(8.7).
2.5 DSEIR Review Process
The DSEIR will be circulated for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA.
Written responses will be prepared to all relevant comments on environmental issues
received during the public review period. Public comments and responses will be
compiled in a Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR). After certification, the City will consider
the requested Project approvals and make appropriate findings based on the certified
SEIR.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 4
NoverTi>er 2003
2.6 Future Environmental Analysis
Following certification of this Supplemental EIR, the n:!ed for any additional
environmental reviews for future applications would be determined pursuant to the
tiering and streamlining provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, as appropriate.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EtR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
PageS
November 2003
3.0 Project Description
3.1 Project Location and Context
The Project site is located on the north side of the 1-580 freeway, between Hacienda
Drive and Arnold Road and south of a new east-west connector road formerly called
Digital Drive and renamed to Martinelli Drive south of Dublin Boulevard.
Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the Project site in context of the larger City of Dublin
and Exhibit 2 depicts the project site in relation to Eastern Dublin. Exhibit 3 shows the
property boundary.
The topography of the site is relatively flat, but has a distinct slope to the south,
towards the 1-580 freeway. Two small structures are located on site and will remain.
They are a Zone 7 water facility "turnout" structure located at the southwest corner of
the site and a Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) water chlorination structure,
which is immediately adjacent.
Exhibit 4 is a recent aerial photo of the Project site.
The site is owned by the Alameda County Surplus Prop~rty Authority (ACSP A). IKEA
Property Inc. has entered into an agreement to purchase this site from ASCP A.
In 1993, the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan,
which addressed long-term development of approximately 4,200 acres of land east of
the central portion of Dublin. The entire Project site is located in the westerly portion of
that General Plan Amendment area. The proposed Project would implement land uses
and other programs included in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to the
extent that it proposes urban, non-residential development. At build-out, the Project
site was planned for Campus Office land uses, which is similar to the General
Commercial designation currently proposed for the Project site.
3.2 Prior Planning Approvals: 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
In 1993, the City Council approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan (hereafter, "Eastern Dublin project"). The approved Eastern Dublin project
was a modified version of the original General Plan Amendment (hereafter, "GP A") for
a 6,920 planning area generally known as Eastern Dublin. The original GP A proposed to
change commercial land use designations on County property in the southwest portion
of the GP A area and agriculture/open space designations elsewhere in the planning
area to a range of urban uses, as shown on Figure 2-E of the Eastern Dublin Draft EIR.
Within the nearly 7,000 acre planning area, a new Eastern Dublin Specific Plan proposed
land use policy at a greater level of detail in order to "bridge" general plan policy and
individual development projects. Intended for both policy and regulatory use, the
Specific Plan addressed 3,328 acres, supplementing the GP A with more detailed land use
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 6
November 2003
designations, policies, programs and regulations. (Eastern Dublin Draft EIR, p. 2-4
hereafter, "DEIR.")
The GP A planning area was located east of the City of Dublin. The planning area is
characterized by a relatively flat plain along 1-580, whi.ch gives way to rolling foothills
and increasingly steep slopes to the northeast. Apart from facilities on County property
in the southwest portion of the planning area (former Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center,
former u.s. Naval Hospital), the Eastern Dublin proje:t area consisted primarily of
open grasslands used for grazing and dry farming, and with scattered residences.
(DEIR, p. 2-3.)
The original GP A land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area
with a mixed-use urban community. The planning concept is set forth in the following
excerpt from the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Residential and employment-generating uses will be balanced to enable residents
to live near work. Employment-generating use:; include retail, service, office,
governmental, research and development ("R and D"), and light industrial.
Residential designation [sic] range from Rural Residential to High Density multi-
family. Higher density housing has been locate:! near the future BART station
and along a key transit corridor. Higher densities hav~ also been located close to
commercial centers where the concentration of population will contribute to that
center's social and economic vitality.
The project provides a full complement of regional office and retail land uses
located near freeway interchanges, local-serving commercial centers are
envisioned as pedestrian-and transit-oriented nlixed-use concentrations which
include retail, service, office, and residential USE'S, and are carefully integrated
with surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Open space is a major component of the project's land use plan, giving form and
character to the urban development pattern. TIle open space concept envisions a
community ringed by undeveloped ridgelines. Urban and open space areas will
be linked by an open space network structured along enhanced stream
corridors. The circulation concept calls for an integrated, multi-modal system
that reduces potential traffic impacts by providing area residents with choices for
a preferred mode of transportation. (DEIR pp. :~-4, Eastern Dublin Responses to
Comments, hereafter, "FEIR" p. 66.)
At buildout, the GP A planning area was projected to provide 17,970 new residences,
including 2,672 acres designated for Rural Residential WIth a 100 acre minimum parcel
size. Approximately 10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287
acres, 571 acres of designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned, all on
6,920 acres of land. (DEIR, p. 2-7.) Buildout was expected to occur over a 20 - 30 year
period from the start of construction. (DEIR, p. 2-6, Ea:;tern Dublin Final EIR p. 8.) The
major policies of the GP A are summarized on pages 2..9 and 10 of the Eastern Dublin
DEIR.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 7
November 2003
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan originally addressed 3,328 acres and now includes 3,301
acres in the western portion of the GP A planning area. Seventy percent of the GP A
residential development and 94% of the new commercial space was planned for in the
Specific Plan area. (DEIR, p. 2-8.) The land use plan calls for compact villages with
residential and neighborhood serving uses. Employment-generating commercial uses
are provided along arterials with transit access. (Id.) The major policies of the Specific
Plan are set forth on pages 2-10 to 2-14 of the Eastern Dublin DEIR.
Eastern Dublin EIR
The City of Dublin prepared the programmatic EIR for the Eastern Dublin project based
on the original 6,920 acre GP A planning area and land use designations, and 3,328 acre
Specific Plan area, both as described above. The EIR also identifies a third component of
Project Implementation. (DEIR, p. 2-4.) This component includes "procedural steps ...
to be undertaken for full implementation of the [GP A and Specific Plan]
Project.. . [including] review and approval of specific development projects." (Id.)
The City initiated the Eastern Dublin project in 1988 after several separate development
projects were proposed for the area. The goal of the Eastern Dublin project was to
provide comprehensive planning for development types, locations and patterns in
Eastern Dublin, which would be implemented through future individual development
projects. As noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR statement of project objectives, the Eastern
Dublin project was intended to preserve visually-sensitive and biologically-sensitive
habitat areas, encourage development patterns that sup:?ort transit on local and
regional levels, and maintain balanced employment and housing opportunities to
reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. (DEIR, p. 2-5.)
The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the potential environmental effects of adopting and
implementing the GP A and Specific Plan project. The Eastern Dublin EIR also analyzed
the cumulative effects of the Eastern Dublin project, that is, the project "within the
context of regional development." (DEIR p. 5.0-1.) As required by CEQA, the Eastern
Dublin EIR includes a list of ongoing and future development projects that, together
with the Eastern Dublin project, might "compound subregional (i.e., Tri-Valley)
environmental problems." (Id.) Reflecting a surge of development interest at the time,
the cumulative projects in Dublin alone included 924 units, plus another 3,133 units on
3,140 acres in Western Dublin, and the potential intensification of uses at Parks RFTA.
The Dougherty Valley Specific Plan projected 11,000 units; while the City of Livermore
was considering the North Livermore General Plan Amendment with potential a
buildout potential between 3,713 and 16,513 units. The various cumulative projects also
proposed millions of square feet of non-residential development. The list of cumulative
projects from the Eastern Dublin EIR is shown on Figurt: 5-A of that DEIR. Virtually all
of the potential new development areas in the list of cumulative projects was
undeveloped land, primarily in agriculture and/ or open space uses, as evidenced by the
aerial photographs which form the base maps for Figures 2-B and 2-C.
As would be expected for a major general plan level project during a time of dramatic
development activity, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified many potential significant
impacts on both a project (GP A and Specific Plan) level and a cumulative (regional)
level. Mitigation measures were proposed and adopted for most of the significant
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
PageS
November 2003
impacts to reduce them to less than significant. The Clty of Dublin would implement
some of the mitigation measures directly; examples include but are not limited to
adopting a stream corridor restoration program, designating substantial areas within
the Eastern Dublin project area as Open Space or Rural Residential where low density
development will also provide foraging habitat, and continuing to participate in
regional studies of future transportation requirements, improvements and funding.
Other mitigations would be implemented through conditions or development
st~dards for future development projects; examples include but are not limited to
proportionate-share contributions to roadway improvements and transit service
extensions. Many of the mitigation measures also included policies and action programs
identified in the Eastern Dublin GP A and Specific Plan documents.
Even with mitigation, however, some of the identifiec, significant impacts could not be
reduced to a less than significant level. Several of the lhese impacts were cumulative
level impacts, such as loss of agriculture and open speece, 1-580 and other regional traffic
impacts, and air quality impacts. As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR identified project
alternatives, including No Project and No Development alternatives, a Reduced Land
Use Intensities alternative, and a Reduced Planning Area alternative, and analyzed
whether the alternatives would avoid any of the othelwise unavoidable impacts. As
further discussed below, the City Council adopted a nodified version of the Reduced
Planning Area alternative after certifying the Eastern Dublin EIR as adequate and in
compliance with CEQA on May 10, 1993. (Resolution 51-93.) The City Council also
certified an Addendum dated May 4, 1993 which asse:,sed the modifications to the
Reduced Planning Area alternative and concluded that this alternative "will have no
environmental impacts not addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan." (May 4, 1993 Addendum,
p. 1.) The Addendum further concluded that no subsequent or supplemental EIR was
required under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163 for approval of the modified
alternative.
A second Addendum was later prepared. Dated August 22,1994, the second Addendum
updated plans for providing sewer services to Eastern Dublin. The May 10, 1993
certified EIR, the May 4,1993 Addendum and the August 22,1994 Addendum are
collectively referred to hereafter as the Eastern Dublin EIR, or the "EDEIR" and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Eastern Dublin Project Approval
The Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan planning process spanned some four
years beginning in 1988. The City identified a preferred alternative in 1991 and
prepared a draft GP A for the 6,920- acre planning area and a Specific Plan for 3,228 acres
in 1992. A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review in August of 1992.
After numerous Planning Commission and City Council hearings, the City Council
declined to approve the original6,920-acre GP A. Instead, the City Council approved a
modified version of the Eastern Dublin EIR's Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area.
(Resolution 53-93, see Appendix 8.4 of this DSEIR.)
Alternative 2 reduced the GP A area by 2,744 acres, a nearly 40% reduction in the
Eastern Dublin project area. More specifically, Alternative 2 provided for buildout of the
Specific Plan area, buildout of the GP A area only within the Dublin Sphere of Influence,
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 9
November 2003
but no annexation and no GP A for Doolan Canyon. (DEIR p. 4-9.) Intended as a
"midpoint" between development and environmental concerns,
Doolan Canyon would not develop and its current agricultural land uses and
rural character would be maintained. The importance of this area's function as a
"green" community separator between Dublin, Livermore and the Tassajara
Valley would increase as development occurred in eastern Dublin, and North
Livermore, and lands east of San Ramon. (Id.)
Following certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the modified Reduced
Planning Area alternative, a lawsuit was filed challenging the validity of the Eastern
Dublin EIR. The Court upheld the Eastern Dublin EIR, finding it in compliance with
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City has since implemented the mitigation
monitoring program adopted by the Council (Resolutions No. 53-93 and 123-96), as
interpreted by the Court's Memorandum of Decision. Copies of the resolution and the
Court's Memorandum of Decision may be obtained from the City Clerk.
Previous site land use entitlements
In February 2001, the City Council approved the Commerce One Project that allowed
for the development of a four building, 780,000 square feet campus office complex on
the site.
In August 2001 Alameda County Surplus Property Authority informed the City that
Commerce One was no longer in contract with ASCP A to purchase the site.
3.3 Project Entitlement Applications
Overview
Project applications considered in this Draft SEIR include a General Plan/Specific Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation from "Campus Office" to "General
Commercial," a PO-Planned Development Stage 1 and Stage 2 rezoning, Site
Development Review for the IKEA store, subdivision maps and a Development
Agreement. These are described below.
General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment
The 27.54-acre project site has been designated for Campus Office land uses in the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The existing Campus Office land use
classification is intended to provide an attractive, campus-like setting for office and
other non-retail land uses that do not generate nuisances related to noise pollution,
odors or outdoor storage of material. Maximum Floor Area Ratio allowed under the
Campus Office designation is 0.25 to 0.80.
The requested General Commercial land use designatio::l accommodates a wide range
of regional and community serving retail, service and/ or office type uses within floor
area ratios between 0.20 to 0.60.
Exhibit 5 depicts the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment requests.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 10
November 2003
PD-Planned Development Rezoning
Existing zoning is PD-Planned Development (CampuH Office), reflecting the existing
General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. A request has been filed to rezone
the site to PD-Planned Development (General Commercial) with an associated PD
Development Plan, which would be consistent with the proposed General Plan and
Specific Plan Amendment. The proposed rezoning includes a Stage 1 and Stage 2 PO-
Planned Development rezoning to plan for coordinated development of the entire 27.54
acre site, and to establish regulations for the use, development, improvement and
maintenance of the site, to be implemented through the Project.
Site Development Review (SDR)
A Site Development Review (SDR) application has been filed for the IKEA portion of
the project site. SDR applications allow for review of project design characteristics,
including but not limited to the layout of structures on a site, architectural design of
structures, landscaping, provision of parking and related improvements. It is
anticipated that a future SDR application will be submitted for the Retail Center portion
of the project site.
Tentative and Parcel Maps
A Tentative Parcel Map has been filed that would subdivide the entire 27.54 acre parcel
into two parcels, one for the IKEA site and a second parcel to the east for the proposed
Retail Center. The Tentative Parcel Map would be actl~d upon by the Community
Development Director with the Final Map approved 1::y the Dublin City Council. Exhibit
6 shows the Tentative Parcel Map for the entire site.
Vesting Tentative and Parcel Maps
A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map with multiple Parcel Maps would subdivide the IKEA
portion of the Project site into four smaller parcels. n.e future owner of the Retail
Center may also seek a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map in the future. Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map(s) would be acted upon by the Community Development Director. The
IKEA Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is depicted on Exhibit 7.
Development Agreement
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that developers enter into a development
agreement prior to developing property. It is anticipated a development agreement will
be required for the Project. The development agreements would serve to "lock in"
approved development on the Project site for a specified number of years.
3.4 Project Objectives
The objectives of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are ~~et forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
(DEIR p. 2-5.) All of the identified objectives for the E2,Stern Dublin Specific Plan remain
objectives of the proposed Project. Additional objectives of the proposed project include
the following.
· Develop a destination retail experience located on a visually prominent site
adjacent to and accessible from the confluence of major regional traffic
corridors that carry high volumes of daily commuter and non-commuter
traffic.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 11
November 2003
. Develop a flagship IKEA store for the Tri-Valley Area on an immediately
developable site of sufficient size within the Project Site. .
. Develop the site in a landscaped and "pedestrian-friendly" fashion with
restaurants and related leisure services in order to heighten the shopping
experience.
. Offer a shopping experience that complements the nearby Hacienda
Crossings retail center and other retailers in the area by adding to the range
of retail and restaurant opportunities available to the shopper in Dublin.
. Develop in an area of compatible and complimentary existing and planned
land uses.
. Provide for greater employment opportunities within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and enhanced local revenues for the City of Dublin.
3.5 Project Characteristics
The proposed Project involves construction of a retail commercial complex on a 27.54-
acre site. The westerly portion of the site would include an IKEA home furnishing
facility and the easterly portion of the site would include a Retail Center under separate
ownership and management. Exhibit 8 shows the proposed site plan for the project site.
These are described below.
IKEA facility
The westerly 14.34 acres of the site would be devoted to a two-story IKEA home
furnishing facility that would sell a wide range of furniture and furnishing products in a
317,000 square foot building. The building would include approximately 217,000 square
feet of retail sales, a 21,000 square foot restaurant, 62,000 square feet of warehouse
space and 17,000 square feet of office space. The building would be elevated above
grade with parking provided under the building at grade. The building would have a
roof height of 51 feet and a maximum parapet height of approximately 70 feet and
would be oriented eastward, toward the proposed Retail Center.
The IKEA store would have a peak employment of 400 employees and would be open
to the public seven days per week during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday-
Saturday, and 10:00 am through 8:00 pm on Sundays.
A total of 1,130 on-site parking spaces would be provided, including 502 open, full size
spaces, 567 spaces under the building, 20 handicapped accessible spaces, and 41
customer loading spaces.
Landscaping would be provided within setbacks along adjacent streets and within the
open parking area.
Exhibit 9 shows the proposed site plan for the IKEA portion of the Project site. Exhibit
10 presents the proposed building elevations of the IKEA facility. Exhibit 11 shows the
proposed preliminary landscaping plan for the entire Project site.
IKEA Draft Supplemen~a1 EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 12
November 2003
Retail Center
The easterly portion of the project site, encompassing 13.2 acres of land, would be
devoted to the Retail Center, consisting of multiple buildings totaling 137,000 square
feet of floor area. Included within this total would be 27,400 square feet of potential
restaurant floor space. A total of 665 parking spaces would be provided to serve the
Retail Center. Exhibit 12 shows the proposed site plan for the Retail Center portion of
the Project site.
The proposed concept for the retail space is a "lifestyle center," which is a specialty retail
center with small and medium sized tenants organized like a modified city block with a
main street through the center of the project. No specific users or hours of operation
have been identified for the Retail Center as of this wIiting. The Retail Center would
have a different owner and would be developed separately from the IKEA store. There
would be an estimated 400 employees for the Retail Center.
Access and circulation
Access to both the IKEA and Retail Center developments from Martinelli Way
would be provided by one new signalized drive approach and one unsignalized
right- only exit drive from the IKEA site. Multiple customer and delivery truck
access points would also be provided along Arnold Road, the westerly boundary
of the project site.
Construction activities and timing
IKEA project design, engineering and entitlement processes are currently in
progress and are scheduled for completion in late 2003. Project construction for
the IKEA Store will require approximately one year to complete. The Retail
Center developer plans to submit a Site Design Review application early in 2004
and plans to be under construction later in the same year.
Other actions
Grading activities would occur on the site to accommodate planned buildings, roads
and utility connections. Water, sewer and recycled water services would be provided by
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) in accord with DSRSD's Eastern Dublin
Facilities Master Plan.
Sewer service for the project would be accommodated through connection to the
existing sewer system owned and maintained by the DSRSD. When and where
available, recycled water from DSRSD would be used for irrigation purposes, reducing
the need for potable water.
The Project would also include placement of onsite bu,iness identification and
directional signs.
3.6 Future Actions Using This Supplemental OEm.
This Draft SEIR supplements the certified Eastern Dublin EIR pursuant to Sections 15162
and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines for the following actions related to the proposed
Project.
. City action on the requested General Plan/Spedfic Plan Amendment
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 13
November 2003
. City action on the PD Rezoning, including Stage 1 and Stage 2 PD rezonings for
the proposed IKEA facility and Retail Center
. City actions on the Tentative Parcel Map and Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map applications
. City actions on Site Development Review (SDR) applications for both IKEA and
the Retail Center
. City actions on a Development Agreement(s)
In addition to the above approvals, the DSEIR may also be used by state or regional
agencies in their review of other permits required for the Project (e.g. Water Quality
Certification or waiver by the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Clean
Water Act).
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02,034
Page 14
November 2003
o
'c
~
<5
U
>-
..
~
iii
'"
Livermore
-~
~
-<
~
~
CiS
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
CITY OF DUBLIN
IKEA PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
N
~
A
6
,
8
,
10 miles
I
o
I
2
.
4
,
~
~.
s{:;
'6\%
~\u
<g,'~t
UW
"-~
-"-
~\-:a
<6\
r ~
E
z
~::::i
xm
w:)
~C CD ~
Zu. - =:
C\I Os en
- 80 -
;e ::J 0
CD
..c: ~> ~ '0 ~
>< Ot: (3 a...
W wO 0..
d~ I
a::I: . !
a..t: I
3= .
I
0
)
Z ;;;;I1\l ~
f'
.\
I '
.
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
\
\ ../?
,,61'
,
\
\
,
\
\
,
\
\
,
\
,
~~
cr~~
~~~
~<D'"
~~o
'"
z
o
.....
z
<(
C/)
<(
W
...J
a..
'"
llJ
()
Cl: "(
o llJ
lJ.. Cl:
~ "(
Cl: I:l
llJ <:
'" ~
~ ~
'" et
lo:: I-
et
~
u..
o
>-
.....
."':'.........................
. .
: Ll..C1:fJ)
:.._...~~....
()
z
0
:2
<(
a:
z
<(
C/)
u.. ~
0 a:
0
>- a.
..... w
a:
() ~
u
~
~
...J
.~ ~
z
.g W
"5 ::
u Z
,;. 0
Ql
~ a:
~ Z :;
z
.1. -I- w
...Jo
COw ...J
::>.., ~
< Co z
>< w
':) u.D: ::
'" all. w
c;; ><( ...J
a.
I-W a.
-~ :J
o_ f/)
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
.
I
I I
)0... I
'IIIIIt :;.
II
~ ....
il !l
-
...... i .
...... ~ .
~ i~ I
~
-
.....
Q:
'IIIIIt I I
~ I
I
I
i
I
J
I
I
I ~
I ~I
~
'"
I
~ I
""
~
0 I
'c
..~ 1_
-6
u
,;.
<I>
:~
ij;
co
.~
<(
~
"
"E
HACIENDA DRive
- -;;: - :- ~fal:': 111.46' .-.f ~1lM- ~
S Dr11'JI-" m.20 ---.".-,- - 1~ -----.....
S .ll'3rfr F 22.$6' .~' , .
S ~'fJ- C
~J2
/Io.lSlDJ" ,
O:f ~ ,
t- JOU6'
1fo2DtJ.(J1'
0-24'58 If'
t..1.Ir
1fo29J7.29'
0-~4()',,'-
t.'II4$f'
<;:::)
~
<;:::)
~ I
~~~
~~I\7::)
~C)
~Cl.~1
~~ ~
'-.)-<~Q;:)
Q:: ~O)
~:-J
ct:~~ .
Q:~C)
~t'\I<:
0...: <:
ct.
""{
>
c::
<t
M C
- Z
. ~ :.c :)
:c 0
>< m
w
w
!::
en
~
I
,
I
-
':t:
I
,
I
t:
,
l.
.:s
~~
J~
S lJtf'~. C S .-.liS"'- C ...
~J.De _ ~ II.(J()' II DI7~~C.JZ1.!l:-- __
1I017Jr;.{I66.~ __~_ _ _
II ff'JJ'fS" ( 21$J'
II 017.1''''" C JaM'
--
II DrJJ'}4" C 2J4W
ARNOLD
ROAD
C)
ClQ
V)
)....
~
~
:t:
(:)
8
~
<-
~
~
OJ
c:::
't:;
c:::
a:
't)
c:::
(1]
-J
OJ
c:::
.~
:s
CI)
OJ
c:::
'C:::
Cl)
Cl)
c:::
'0,
~
'S
G
t.5
.s
ui
Cf)
.~
~
""':l
&
~
~
I-
a:
o
a..
w
a:
I-
o
if
~
..J
:3
z
w
::
z
o
a:
:;
~I-ffi
..JO..J
alw<
::)-,1-
coffi
LLa:::
oa.~
>c::(a..
I-Wa..
C3:!!:~
:::I:
a..
<t
a:
"
:: ~
a 0
J: :::I:
an a..
...J
<t
a:
w
<t
M
a
a
C\J
<-
::J
"":l
~
0,
'S:
e:
e:
ct
'C
e:
Cil
-J
0, ....
e: a::
.s... 0
Q) D..
::.
'- w
::J a::
CI) ....
0, U
e: ~
';::
Q) ~
Q)
.S: ..J
0) ~
~
OS z
w
G :E
z
G 0
.s a::
vi ~1- :>
.!!? z
w
~ -JO ..J
COw ~
J: ::),
~ Co z
w
Uj LLa: :E
Oil. w
l) ><t ..J
Cl: D..
::J I-W D..
a -~ ::>
CI) 0- CJ)
Campus
Office
Q
c:
E
5
!,)
~
.,
~
,:g
.
I
.
Q)'
.2
.2
~
o
<:
o
c:
o
.....I
o
Z
c:
<:
DUBLIN BLVD.
Campus Office
MARTI NELLI WAY (future)
Existing General Plan!
Specific Plan Designation: Campus Office
Proposed General Plan!
Specific Plan Designation: General Commercial
Existing Zoning: PO-Campus Office
Proposed Zoning: PO-General Commercial
Eastern Extended
Planning Area Boundary
INTERSTATE 680
~
"'
'v
~
-<
~
~
"'ciS
CITY OF DUBLIN
IKEA PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
General
Commercial
L.U
>
c:
o
<:
o
z
L.U
o
<:
::r:
Exhibit 5
EXISTING AND PROPOSED
GPA I SPA I ZONING
N
t
Project Site
~
;:;
~
o
'c
g
'0
u
I
I
/
,
/
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
'-
.. I
I
I
I
I
I
./
~,
~I
.
~i
I
= I
1111116
'/tlIi11:1 'IN
.
~
}
-----...---...
,
I
I,
-=: ,
II
II
, I
, I
, I
II
II
" I
II I
II I
'I. :
Ii!
! I
:'
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
: i
I I
, I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I ,
I I
I I
I I
I I
. ,
I I
I I
, I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I ,
I :
~ :
: I. I
: l=r :
:1. :
I I
I I
I I
I I
, ,
I I
I I
.. I I
~: :
~ I I
.: :
..: :
-, I
:e:I' !
f :
I, i
: JI :
': : :
,I ,
I I I
: :
t :
I ,
: :
: I
: :
, I
: :
: I
I I
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ J
-,
..),
I:
.. :
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
g
~
~
0..
'<<:
"-
-
t-
l:I:
o
~
W
l:I:
t-
O
~
!
...
~
z
W
~
Z
o
l:I:
:;
~t-ffi
....U...
mW~
::>>~z
COW
u..a::E
OQ.~
>c(~
t:~~
U_CI)
.Q
g
.S:2
~
~
~
"0
c::
C1:l
,_," '1'.'1".
;s
/i
r
Q.
<(
:E
..J
W
0
a:
~
w
I'- >
- ~
:a
:c ~
>< Z
w W
I-
CJ
z
i=
CJ)
w
>
<(
W
~
-
Z ...is ~
! ......, I 51 'ti
"
~ lil ~
~
r--- ~
//, . Oi
.S
c:
c:
~
Cl:
'0
c:
~
-J
Oi ....
.S ~
~ 0
:s a.
~ w
~
....
Oi 0
.~ ~
Q:l ~
Q:l
.S ..J
0) ~
~ z
=s w
() ==
z
(,j 0
.s ~
u) 21:1- :>
.~ z
w
~ ""0 ..J
IDw ~
~ =>>..,
Co z
... ! - - -r-=: -:l w
; I Ljj u.a: ==
.~ / // oQ. W
(..) ..J
<: ~ >< a.
~ I-W a.
0 -~ ::;)
~ C/) 0_ en
"2:
- _' I
; \ \
: \
. i I
I
\ I I
\
\ ; ;
\ ,
\ I
,
; ~
o
c
.E
'0
u
~
~
ij;
ll)
:
i
1 I
i I
I I
: i I
; i
; \;
; I i:a,.;
~
,it;
; IJ
I i Ij
i~:} i~
: i Ii::!
, , ,It,
: ~
: ~
I I I
I I
: I !
: ; I
! ; ; !
! I
I
: ;
: I I : :
I
I; i !
: : II
(,:.:\\ : i
_ _ _J 1_
-- - _.. . --
~
-<
)(
':.
~
~
L~------
01'011 a70Nllr
~ J
-------~
/I
I' 0-
! ! !
i
I I
'i
Ii:
I
; ; J t
i:
!
! I
. I
I'
II
, ,
i!
I,
11
I
: I
i.
! i i
!! I
; i
: ! I
! j I
: . I
I
i . i
; I
I J
z
c:(
-I
c..
co W
- I-
:s (j)
:2 I-
~ 0
W
..,
o
a:
c..
g
~
~
::J
"")
~
.0
~
~
~
~
~
li.i
t)
~
o
CI)
t-
II:
o
CL
W
II:
t-
o
if
:!
..J
:!
Z
w
~
Z
o
II:
:.;:
~L-Z
..J[)W
mw~
::)..,..-
COZ
u..a:~
OCLw
><t~
~WCL
-~~
0_(1)
--
~
--
"--..--;;,;.;:.:-
~
- .... --"---~. -. ---~~
---~.:
-,
-_. --~ -).~._. ..:;
----=--
-
_~_ "= = = = = = ~ ~ _ == ~AvM.ln3N1J:~N~C'-~~. '-=:__=:.==~~_ =:: -
t t
,,,,
I
I
\~
I
o
<(
..J
o
z
a:
<(
~
~
;:;
~
~
~
o
u
'"
Q)
~
<5
'"
:~:"-::i~ I
~
.~
-<
:;
.E
:<.
Q)
-
:a
:2
><
w
z
~
...J
Q.
W
t-
en
~
w
~
N
!
....
a:
o
Q.
w
a:
....
o
~
~
...I
:!
z
w
:iE
z
o
a:
:>
~....ffi
~(J...I
mw~
::J-,.....
coffi
LLa::iE
oQ.~
><(Q.
....WQ.
O~~
0--'.
'i' I. u. :
~_..
II .
, .
H
I
s
!I .--~:
1\10 .-....
" -- ..
. -'
; . ..
i :
@)-f----.
I -'
,
e-t
I
,
e-f
~
..,
~
.~
~
~
,;.
0>
~
~
I
~
~
,; ff"
l I !
I
~;
I
I
i
::
.......... ....
..... ...... ....
............. ......
............ ....
............ ...
............... ....
@--
.............. ....
............. ....
............ ....
..0':
~- . ~O
II
II
&---;---
I _
I
e-+---
I .
I -
I,
J
~-~~~' ;::
O-i--
- _...~.'"
':b,
. .9,
G>--
., ~ . ~ ., .-
...." #",,"
"".."" ,
ft fr 'I
t
o
~
-
:a
:c
><
w
en
z
o
ti
>
W
..J
W
<t
w
~
e--'
................. ..
............ ....
............ ....
................ ..
............ ....
I
I
I;
e--..
_-'__,':;' '0
--' .~
@--
8
~
~
~
~
.0
8
.S:2
~
~
~
~
~
o
C/)
I-
a:
o
a..
W
a:
I-
(,)
~
:!
...I
t!
z
W
~
Z
o
a:
:>
~~z
...Jow
In ...I
::>>w~
03z
u.a:W
oQ.~
><...1
~w8:
-~:')
0_0
~=
FP
,~=
,FP
;~:::.
lit ~ .
f~;= ~. ,,! ",~..j..
. TOTilLMIOUNT.DfINUGATIOttWAlER~lOAU. . HI1~T1CRUGATIONSYSTENADJuSTEDSEA5OJW.LYNfIJ _ ~ c:::= Y:
,. L.NClSCAI'E NfV,S DDE.S NOT EXCEED G ItCHESPER ~... WA:.:tE~ HOURS BE'1'WEEHJ. P.M. NfD 'ID:OD AM.
. .::-=:===:..~~ · =-~=~=::::-"-- J) .~,~. \) :c'.:: ~..:..1
-i-- i -- COIOSERVI<G T'fIOf: OF lUIlF\IJLIZED, . _llOltDEsiGHSENSIIM TO IU>PE 'ACTORS. ~ ~ y!
'~::~ __ ;~ ~:____'T I · =''=~=O~~~''IASED\I'ON . :..~..="lD<J<I<CTDO_"""""-nc ; .1'rN.-J ~ · : ==E:' ,
~ . I ~:~ ;i'il · .'ULOUl1IUIEO..1lElN<DSCAPE.rllEl'1H_ . _T1ONSGNE"'...__.....llOltSCHEDlAL I ~ :c :.
= :~:::), t, 1 ~~ ~:~ ~l (\ :s~~
--= -. ~',... . l rl 0.11 nLWr r. I ~I ~ Ij';;' ~~~~ '. .'.DEUVERY \). ~::
= ~ ~:~::':. .~:ii~ L"IL.1J...J I I L..t".ll.J L.- ~<~ '-'.. ~ _ ~
== 9. >:, :... · ~~,~ 1
o ~:'~~ J~I =:; 0 . ~ ~., ~ '-~,' · .' .A~>.~.'c]fl .~; ~. B::::.';
=;"" J~JJ1~,'jU,. ~~.. '.: it -1-~ :rtH~.I""~i ~J',lll ~~ I. ~. ~ ~~;;~I
~ IN EXIT CUSTOMER CUSTOMER - CANOPy
'. 0 ~:'~~ ..~~~}: - __ ~~. '~, 7 ~ ~ ~).~ ~ _ .'
_'. BERMEDr:=::!f l;~ ij ,: ---, A'" ~~ r-- f-' ... or. .-__
"'" I · · i 0 8KlSIYA<E ;;j ~. ''''''''''E,--;;] - 'fir; - ·
ft\* :r(~ ~::~:~.~:llli4m} ~JW.~.t~. .~..~~,~IIJ~~t;~ t1 t~~ 1~ 1 WJ~J~~., ."r~j~,'~;.jli.~-j!~..._.-
.... -.__u~.____ '-, ~~ n~FLA~rB)-..
IKEA SIGN . ,-' ~ ,----::.-,-------,-~--- _...~~~_~c:!._(BJ.__.________._._.7:_____.____._m_.______n'_._______.---~---.----- ~I' -t-.~-~:~-~~-- -- -.-,.. g!
TOWER it ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~ - MAlNACCESSfNPATH ~~ ~ :
. __ ___ ~~V~~~ .~~ ~~~ ~ - ~_._,.n:.::_._______m -,..------,. ____m_ --------- - --------- .-. .' -. ~~m ,';
:rt~~ ~r r .., ~''-''''~ / ",'-" /: /7, -: ;,.~ /7 ,~, ~~. ~-~.~-~.---~_--.~~" _~_-~-.. r,.-: _~-~~_=_--.-~-~.'~~~.~~_;:,"-.-.~~ : " .~-+-------~---
, N '..~ ;'1'--' ~to-.; "?-!.. 'i.i--,: "W ~:f , .,",-, ':.: , .- , .,,: . -- I,' l1 .......... ~-~--- --=----~ __------ o-~ _",,- -
. f.--!--r---;-~-ry~;':N~~:;:~L,7f,ii:;7!f~-:I", ;,~.;--1~~~1~17'lt:/''i~V'-J)i b ..~\. 'y' ..~, !:V~...--t~~~~~'''-~-Y~~V~~-t=:~~_ ,..iI
------ ~..... I !~l_'"" ~: ._..... ".!..:...." v _' 't. J '-". I ~ f,"- ! .. "'<1 ,; ~.' . 'X. ~ " , ..../, __ fl.... ! '- ... f... Y ~ ':.f.... V I~: \I. t~:J 'to j "Y~""i""""'f.} , ......')11 ~ I '..1' .J ;:'~.'-~5~'''''-... ;_, .. --
II\-
c~
I .1,;':".-
1 t
~l
~ ();:r:
'.
.' a
A
- - - -.----::J.~ - 9_ ~.-.T_=- - - -- ..-c:-9-r. - -- --=---,~ _9_ -'C:=:::-!l'- -- - ,.-~ - - - - Ei"'iIl\
I :.'-: - ~-'~~::=E- ~ !~:~- ~ ,- :-:. ,',lilii
':CT..<::::%:' UGUSlRUMJ. 'TE.X.AMAr, 5 GH..../3IrO.c. sa.EEHMC '
JbAS PfWIE'T HEDGE -
N;N'NnMUS A. 'QUEEN ANteI S GH... '" o.c. FOREGROlN) .=a..
LLY~.1HE"frA.( ACCEHf
CNU$SI. G. ..0ltW000 8EAUtY" 5 GAL. 130"' D.C. MOGRCJl.H) MASS
Nl\TAP\1IrIlI
~ ~....--......--.....
;:r,r~~
fi ' '(:::J';e/;)1'~"'";i.'
.01 ~
-
~~~
~. ~~'W'---- ..!
/"\ /\. ./'. ~~~R-oAf:r'J
j'~~':"~"";' '''~'Y ';"~""~" --~< ,,-~'., .",,;. ", t:;;,'~- <;:; 'WA. ~
~--.lU-.
~
t-l}
:l
o
!;
~
~
f:~:>.
.g~
:~~
RAMP UP
.,~~{ ~~~~~n~~~~~~~~L;
~---r Q
.---.J...d. j
I . .'~~\:
~H._,__.
. .'" ~~~,~~",,' .
~
'.
~rt~~>- ',\.'\'1'\It-
~$J..W t:mi-TI\ m1 i. :',
4+.O-i-" , '::, = = +
==l~ = = .,'
.==1' ~,:= =
== T' -:: =~BIOSWW
. . ".:::=:
=..... =
= ::~.= =
= :'= =
= :'= =
= .:= =
==l :. a=
~ ~~
= ~:~
=~ '})=
=r' :',::=
=1\-'"
It. "=
~~
==l ',:::=
I
. .-.'--- -~ ====-
-::.=
= ~~ r==
== :: ===
= ::.=
=/'=
= ,::
=
PRELIMINARY PLANT LEGEND
I
It
II
P""l. '. ......
~
SIZE'
SPAC:ItG
SYIIOIOI.
IIOT AHICAL I COUMQN MME
lllWfTIIY
CONPoEHTlI
TRRS
@
(0
f:\
'J
o
o
PlAlANUS A.. '8L00I.1C0CXX71
LONllOH f'\NE
:H'1Oll
5'
MAATMWDfWE
SlREET'TREE
=
t.AGE~ HJtCA,
C1U\I'E ..""'"
...-
..."""
..
.
COlOR ACCafI'
~~N.TTAlJCA"'
... lOll
..
BlOB PERlWElER
-
=~
=
=.
=.
=
=
=
,=
=
=
=.
=
=
=
=
=
QUERCUS tLfJll
HOLLY OAK
... lOll
.1
AMDLO """"
STAEET 'TAEE
P.YfWS C. ~ICLEER"
CHAHTICLEER PEM
.....
or lOll
..
22
PNItUNG LOT TREE.
WATER CONSERVATION NOTES
nE Fa.1.0'MfG WATER CQISUIYA10t TECHflQ.ES 5HAU.
8E aA.OI'ED"nIS PNlJECf:
====
=
WATERCOl'tSEAVWGP\.AHTS.NtDI'\..AHTSHATM TOfoDT. DRY .
sur.aEN. UTIJlED" 75'" OF ntE TOTN.. f'\.HfT MEA
o
t- ''\.~',
=
~es8~~~
h9,Q,a,a'~.~-6,::"::::~'~:::j
I . ~' ~-,:,::'i'.;.-:.:'. .~.1:;::::.,.:.:r: '...~
; -
TRUCK UNLoADING
AREA ABOVE
U~~n~~o~~o~~n~~t
t '
NEUCJ01JUCHOH SEAFEIMO(IG'
..- OAT GAASa
DPHIOPOGON SPP.'
""1UAF
PfJ'l'OSPOIWN T. 'CAEAU DE .....,
IJIWMF Y.MaE..GATED T~
fM'PHQEPIS L 'a.NtA",
--.-
~JA9t.MHDKIESl
57......-
CENKmtUS SP'.'
CALFCRfIIA L.LAC
HE1E.ROMELES ANUTFQ..I,I.I
TOYCH
AtMMAIS CALFORNCAI
~DAH&A COfF'EEBEMY
, GAL. 1% O.c.
,ORE..--
ACCEMf
FOREGAlkH>
1GH.../2"O.c..
SGAl..,:rtro.c.
--
5 GAL 13IrO.c.
IACMGAOUHD
1GH...'1rO.t;.
'OREGRDUG
. GAL. I3D"' D.C.
"""''''''"'
.......
LNlGE SCIIUHOG
.............
LAAGE SCRUe.G
"""""-
6GAL/.....O.C.
1~/wa.c.
UARA THOH'
SDO
S't"tIeQL 1KJ1AHlC,ql CQt.NClN MME
8~ PUlNTIHG
SIlE I SPACftG
a.MEHTS
o
fUrUCA""""'"
CAEEPIC RED F"ESCUE
SUI>
lllDSWoILt ,...,.,....
SON..MlEJrClWeNlS Un..aED to ~ WAtERHOI...DI'G
CAPACnY OF sea..
RAMP DOWN
J)
-:f
'3:
N
::r-
::..,
.::Jf)
J;
MAtN
TRUCK
EXIT
:':"::":::::-:.: :::' ..::.
U
BIOSWALE
~
.r
~:.
"-~.J =:.
r, ~":
\) ~';;
ft .-.... E .:....L....
'5::,
~,.
=E;:
~.:~
=::
(
\
)
(
-~
)
(
\
\
)
;: :.-r:.."~
g
Q
Z C\J
~
><( ~
a:.... ~
..... <(a.. .Q
..... ZW E:
- -a..
:c 0
:;<( ~
:c -0 ~
>< ....(f'J
W We ~
a:z ~
0.<( ~
.... ~
0
CI)
-;:{
g J i
!
'1
!
I
1
,
... - --. - - -... -1--'-'
1-,~:',"-~
. . .
. ~ .: :
i :
Ii
I'
. ;
e
~
~!
~I
~j
~:
~l
'~:
i'
~ ~r::=-Z
I-
a:
o
c.
w
a:
I-
o
~
!
-I
~
Z
w
:E
z
o
a:
:>
~t-Z
..JoW
mw~
::>>-'z
oow
u.a::E
OD.w
>-<(~
t-Wc.
-~::I
0_00
--
----
---------- (,%.~
u._h___._____.___________, ----......----..---.. .'0._-,_. _L: i
.; :
----- __n._._ -____w___ __..___.______._..___._..
~RfiNEtI.FWA:y:::::----:- :::_;;-::mo mooom:::o_ - =.- - -. 0 n ------~ i
'nnn - 00 n 0 0 : :::::-:::: -::::: -=:: ::: ::: ::0 ::0 ::: :::: :::::: :::::: : ::: ::::: ::: 0 ::::: :::: ::-:_ :::~l' ;
~i
=e:m
1m
L
~
]
,";
Z
<C
...J
Q.
W
...
N en
: a:
:s w
:E ...
x Z
W W
(,)
...J
~
W
a:
N
~
S
t c:;::::J
:m: ~~ ~
:m: a:
0
a.
=fIf w
:m: a:
~
=fIf u
:a: ~
:m: 8 ;!!
....I
~ ~ ~
<- z
~ ~ w
:=
~ &j z
~ 0
a:
~ :>
0 ~I-ffi
.!,1
~ ~ -'0....1
~ ~w~
> ~ c-'z
. Ow
2 LLa:::=
g L.i.j OC.w
U ....I
'. ~ ><a.
.~ I-Wa.
0 -~:l
'" tI) O_lJ)
~
'.
4.0 Environmental Analysis
Topics Addressed in the DSEIR [Jerry: Check headings-inconsistent in various
chapters]
This section of the Supplemental DEIR identifies the specific, focused environmental
areas identified in the Initial Study as having the poten:ial for new or substantially
increased significant impacts. The supplemental impact ueas are discussed individually
in subsections 4.1 through 4.3:
4.1 Air Quality
4.2 Biological Resources
4.3 Transportation and Circulation
Each topic area is covered in the following manner:
A. Environmental Issues
An overview of issues related to the topic area.
B. Environmental Setting
A discussion of existing conditions, facilities, services and general
environmental conditions on and around the project sites.
C. Impacts and Mitigation Measures from th~ Eastern Dublin EIR
S. Supplemental Environmental Impacts
An identification and evaluation of whether the potential impacts on the
environment identified in the Initial Study, should the Project be
constructed as proposed would result in a significant substantially
increased rnanner beyond the analysis in lhe Eastern Dublin EIR based on
the standards of significance set forth therein.
D. Supplemental Mitigation Measures and Impacts After Mitigation
An identification of specific efforts and measures which can be
incorporated into the project to reduce identified supplemental
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 27
November 2003
4.1 AIR QUALITY
Air quality was analyzed in Chapter 3.11 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement to
the EIR examines compliance with applicable significance thresholds, utilizes updated
methods of analysis, and is based on current traffic fo:recasts that reflect changes in
roadway improvements and travel patterns that have occurred since certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement also examines cha'1ges in the regulatory standards
since the Eastern Dublin EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is within the Livermore-Amador Valley. The Livermore-Amador Valley
forms a small sub-regional air basin distinct from the :.arger San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin. The Livermore-Amador Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills
or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon
and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County.
The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air
pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As all inland, protected valley, the area
has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared
to the greater Bay Area.
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion
conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically.
Inversions occur during all seasons in the Bay Area, b-~t are particularly prevalent in the
summer months when they are present about 90% of the time in both rnoming and
afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, air pollution potential is
high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall (BAAQMD,
1999). High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only
traps locally generated pollutants but also can be the receptor of ozone and ozone
precursors from upwind portions of the greater Bay .Area. Transport of pollutants also
occurs between the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east.
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and :.ts inland location results in
frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions, pollutants such as carbon
monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and
agricultural burning can become concentrated.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts :~e1ated to construction, mobile
source and stationary source emissions (Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E). Mitigation measures
were adopted to control construction dust and exhaust emissions, and to minimize
mobile and stationary source emissions through, among other things, cooperative
transportation and air quality planning and transportation demand management. All
mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Ecstern Dublin GP A/SP continue to
apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed project. Even with
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR Page 28
City of Dublin November 2003
PA 02-034
mitigation, however, significant cumulative construction, mobile source and stationary
source impacts rernained. (Impacts 3.11A, 3.llB, 3.11C, and 3.11E). Upon approval of
the Eastern Dublin GP A/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for these significant unavoidable impacts. (Resolution No. 53-93.)
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed Project would change land uses and development intensity from those
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The project would bcrease daily traffic generation
over that assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Since preparation of the Eastern Dublin EIR there have been several regulatory changes
and methods for air quality analysis as well as applicable thresholds of significance have
changed. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163, this supplement
assesses whether new or intensified air quality impacts will result from increased
regional traffic and changed regulatory standards.
Current Ambient Air Quality Standards. The federal and California ambient air quality
standards are summarized in Table 4.1.1 for important pollutants These standards have
changed since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993, becoming more stringent.
The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing
purposes and rnethods, although both federal and state standards are intended to avoid
health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In
general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for
ozone and PMIO'
The U.s. Environmental Protection Agency established new national air quality
standards for ground-level ozone and for fine particulate matter in 1997. The existing 1-
hour ozone standard of 0.12 PPM microns or less) is to be phased out and replaced by
an 8-hour standard of 0.08 PPM. Implementation of the 8-hour standard was delayed
by litigation, but was determined to be valid and enforceable by the U. S. Suprerne
Court in a decision issued in February of 2001. However, the new federal ozone
standard is not yet in effect pending final resolution of this litigation and adoption of
implernenting regulations.
In 1997 new national standards for fine Particulate Matter (diameter 2.5 microns or less)
were adopted for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. The current PM10 standards
were to be retained, but the method and form for determining compliance with the
standards were to be revised. Implementation of this standard was delayed by litigation
and will not occur until the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued court-
approved guidance.
The State of California regularly reviews scientific literature regarding the health effects
and exposure to PM and other pollutants. On May 3, 2002, the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) staff recommended lowering the level of the annual standard for PMIO
and establishing a new annual standard for PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in
diameter and smaller). The new standards became effective on July 5, 2003.
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
are another group of pollutants of concern. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR Page 29
City of Dublin November 2003
P A 02-034
injurious in srnall quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents.
The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACH is relatively recent compared to
that for criteria pollutants.
Current Air Quality. The project is within the nine-county Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a network of air quality
monitoring sites in the region. The closest to the site u; located in central Livermore on
Old First Street. Table 4.1.2 shows a summary of air quality data for this monitoring site
for the period 2000-2002. Data are shown for ozone, carbon monoxide, PMlO, and
nitrogen
Table 4.1.2 shows that concentrations of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide at the
Livermore monitoring site meet state/federal standards. Ozone concentrations exceed
both the state and federal standards, and exhibit wide variations frorn year-to-year
related to meteorological conditions. Years where the summer rnonths tend to be
warmer than average tend to have higher average oz:me concentrations while years
with cooler than average temperatures tend to have lower average ozone
concentrations.
Levels of PMlO and PM2.5 at Livermore meet the federal ambient standards but exceed
the more stringent state standards.
Attainment Status. The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988
require that the California Air Resources Board (CARB), based on air quality
monitoring data, designate air basins within the state where the federal or state
ambient air quality standards are not met as "non-attainment areas." Because of the
differences between the federal and state standards, the designation of non-attainment
areas is different under the federal and state legislation.
In 1995, after several years of minimal violations of the federal one-hour ozone
standard, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (BFA) revised the designation of
the Bay Area Air Basin from "non-attainment" to "attanment" for this standard.
However, with less favorable rneteorology in subsequent years, violations of the
one-hour ozone standard again were observed in the ':Jasin, particularly at the
Livermore rnonitoring station. Effective August 1998, the EP A downgraded the Bay
Area's classification for this standard from a "maintenance" area to an "unclassified
non-attainment" area. Also in 1998, after many years without violations of any carbon
monoxide (CO) standards, the attainment status for CO was upgraded to "attainment."
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attainment for ozone (state and
federal ambient standards) and PM10 (state ambient standard). While air quality plans
exist for ozone, none exists (or is currently required) for PM10. The Revised San
Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Pian for the I-Hour l\iational Ozone Standard
(BAAQMD, 2001) is the current ozone air quality plan required under the federal Clean
Air. The state-mandated regional air quality plan is the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan
(BAAQMD, 2000). These plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source
controls and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain
the state and federal ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 30
November 2003
Standards of Significance. The BAAQMD has revised recommended thresholds of
significance since publication of the Eastern Dublin EIR (BAAQMD, 1999). The
document, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines was published subsequent to the publication of
the Eastern Dublin ElR. These guidelines provided recommended mitigation practices
during construction based on the size of the project and expanded recommended
mitigations for operational impacts of commercial projects. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
establishes the following impact criteria:
· A significant impact on local air quality is defined as an increase in carbon
monoxide concentrations that causes a violation .)f the most stringent ambient
air quality standard for carbon monoxide (20 ppm for the one-hour averaging
period, 9.0 ppm for the eight-hour averaging period).
· A significant impact on regional air quality is defined as an increase in emissions
of an ozone precursor or PM10 exceeding the BAAQMD thresholds of
significance. The current significance thresholds are 80 pounds per day (or 15
tons/year) for ozone precursors or PM10.
· Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality
impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality
impact.
· Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to
objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact.
· Any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public
to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a
significant impact.
Despite the establishment of both federal and state standards for PM2.5 (particulate
matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significance for
this pollutant. For this analysis, PM2.5 impacts would be considered significant if project
emissions of PMIO exceed 80 pounds per day.
The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on
the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide
feasible control measures for construction emission of PMlO. H the appropriate
construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for
construction activities would be considered less-than-significant.
Supplemental Impact AQ-l: Construction activities would have the potential to cause
nuisance related to emission of dust and PM10.
The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on
the appropriateness of construction dust controls. H the appropriate construction
controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities
would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure MM 3.11/1.0 in the East
Dublin EIR implements most, but not all, of the currently recommended measures.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 31
November 2003
SM-AQ-1: In addition to measures identified in MM 3.11/1.0 of the East Dublin EIR, the
City of Dublin shall:
a. Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand
or other materials that can be blown by the wind.
b. Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water
sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction
sites.
c. Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
According the current BAAQMD CEQA guidelines, irrplementation of these mitigation
measures would reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Supplemental Impact AQ-2: Project emission increasE' that would exceed the
BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors.
Vehide trips generated by the Project would result in clir pollutant emissions affecting
the entire San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The Project's ccntributions to regional emissions
associated with project vehicle use have been calculated using the URBEMI5-2002
emission model. (Note: this is also a cumulative impact, see Supplemental Impact AQ-3.)
The incremental daily emission increase associated with Project operational trip
generation is identified in Table 4.1.3 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen
(two precursors of ozone) and PM10. The Bay Area Air Quality Managernent District's
thresholds of significance for these pollutants are also shown. Proposed Project
emissions shown in Table 4.1.3 would exceed these thresholds of significance for ROG
and NO", so the proposed project would have a significant effect on regional ozone air
quality.
SM-AQ- 2: In addition to measures identified in MM 3,11/5.0-11.0 of the East Dublin
EIR, the City of Dublin shall require that the following be implemented as part of the
Transportation Dernand Management program for thl~ proposed project:
a. Provide transit facilities, e.g., bus bulbs/turnou:s, benches, shelters, etc.
b. Provide bicycle land and/or paths, connected to community-wide network.
c. Provide sidewalks and/or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops,
and/ or community-wide network.
d. Provide secure and conveniently located bicycle storage.
e. Provide preferential parking for electric or alternatively-fueled vehicles.
f. Provide conduit for potential electrically powerl~d vehicle charging station.
g. Implernent feasible TDM measures including a ride-matching program.
coordination with regional ridesharing organizahons and provision of transit
information to the extent allowed by law.
Implementation of the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Mitigation
Measures 3.11 /5.0-11.0 together with the above measures will not achieve the 30%
reduction in Project-related emissions that would be needed to reduce emissions below
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 32
November 2003
the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Ozone air quality impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Supplemental Impact AQ-3: Exceedances of the BAAQMD thresholds of significance
for ozone precursors, resulting in a significant cumulative impact.
According to BAAQMD significance criteria, any proposed project that would
individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a
significant cumulative air quality impact as well. Since the proposed Project, after
mitigation, would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for Reactive Organic
Gases and Nitrogen Oxides, both of which are ozone precursors (see Supplemental
Impact AQ-2), the Project would have a significant cumulative impact on regional air
quality.
SM-AQ-3: Same as Supplemental Mitigation AQ-2.
Supplemental Impact AQ 4: The Project would change traffic volumes and
congestion levels, changing carbon monoxide concentrations.
On the local scale, the Project would change traffic on the local street network, changing
carbon monoxide levels along roadways used by Project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an
odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles.
Concentrations of this gas are highest near intersections of major roads. New vehicle
trips add to carbon monoxide concentrations near streets providing access to the site.
The Bay Area Air Quality Managernent District's BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
recommends estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where project
traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E,
or F or would cause Level of Service to decline to D, E, or F.
The analysis of intersection Level of Service (LOS) prepared for the Project found that,
of the 18 signalized intersections studied, only two would operate at LOS D or worse
before addition of project traffic in either the AM or PM peak traffic hour. However, the
Project would not change intersection operations at one of the two intersections (1-580
Eastbound offrarnp /Hopyard Road) and would actually improve the LOS at the other
intersection (Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road). Therefore, the BAAQMD threshold
trigger level for estimating carbon monoxide modeling of concentrations would not be
exceeded, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
Considering that the proposed Project is in an attainment area for carbon monoxide
(the state and federal ambient standards are rnet) and that Dublin has relatively low
background levels of carbon monoxide compared to other parts of the Bay Area and
that Levels of Service at intersections affected by Project traffic would remain relatively
good, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on local carbon monoxide
concentrations.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EtR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 33
November 2003
Table 4.1.1.
Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Fl!deral State
Time Plimary Standard
St~mdard
Ozone I-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.08 DDm --
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
I-Hour 35.0 DDm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 ppm --
I-Hour -- 0.25 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm --
24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm
I-Hour -- 0.25 ppm
PM10 Annual 3 20ug/m 3
24-Hour 50 ug/m
3 3
150 ug/m 50 ug/m
PM2.5 Annual 3 3
24-Hour 15 ug/m 12 ug/m
3 --
65 ug/m
Lead 30-Day Avg. -- 3
3-MonthAvg. 3 1.5 ug/m
1.5 ug/m --
ppm = parts per million
uglm3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Source: Donald Ballanti
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 34
November 2003
Table 4.1.2. Air Quality at Livermore Monitoring Site, 2000-2002
Pollutant Standard Davs Standard Exceeded Durin~:
2000 2001 2002
Ozone Federal I-Hour 1 0 2
Ozone State I-Hour 7 9 10
Ozone Federal 8-Hour 2 2 6
PM 10 Federal 24-Hour 0 0 0
PM 10 State 24-Hour 2 3 0
PM2.5 Federal 24-Hour 0 1 0
Carbon State/Federal 0 0 0
Monoxide 8-Hour
Nitrogen State I-Hour 0 0 0
Dioxide
Source: CARB, 2003
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 35
November 2003
Table 4.1.3. Project Regional Emissions in :Pounds Per Day
Reactive Nitrogen PM10
Organic Oxide s
Gases
Project 115.2 104.9 71.6
BAAQMD Significance 80.0 80.0 80.0
Threshold
Source: Donald Ballanti
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 36
November 2003
4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biological Resources were analyzed in Chapter 3.7 of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. This
DSEIR is a project-level environmental impact report. It is intended to supplement the
Eastern Dublin EIR with respect to the Project site.
This DSEIR also examines potential habitat types that were not previously
anticipated to occur in the Project area and regulatory changes since certification
of the Eastern Dublin EIR which have resulted in the identification of new
sensitive species not addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
The potential for supplemental impacts with respect to the IKEA Project was
assessed by the firm of LSA Associates in September, 2003. A copy of the LSA
report is located in Appendix 8.6 of this DSEIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project site characteristics
The Project site occurs in a wide expanse of open field along the southerly boundary of
the Eastern Dublin project area. The Project site was previously developed for a U.S.
military facility, which has since been removed. Property immediately east of the site
has been developed for a retail commercial project, known as Hacienda Crossings.
North of the site and north of Dublin Boulevard, property has been developed for a
major office complex by Sybase. Properties west of the Project site are partially fallow
and partially developed with a surface parking for a BART station.
The Project site itself is relatively flat with a gentle slope from north to south. No
unique topographic features or trees are located on the site.
Project area habitat types and locations
The Eastern Dublin ErR identified the Project site as containing non-native grassland.
This vegetation type supports a wide array of native and non-native grasses and herbs.
Characteristic introduced grass species include slender wild oat (Avena barbata), ripgut
grass (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus mollis), farmer's foxtail (Hordeum leporinum),
and rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros). Occasional stands of the native bunchgrass, nodding
stipa (Nasella pulchra), were observed on the north-facing slopes of some of the rolling
hills.
Special status species
Special status plants and wildlife with potential to occur on the Project site are described
below and summarized in Tables 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. The descriptions also include
information from background research and studies conducted since certification of the
Eastern Dublin ErR.
Special status species: botanical
The Eastern Dublin ErR evaluated 12 special-status plants. Of those 12 species, the great
valley gurnplant is no longer listed as a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare
plant species and is therefore not considered in this Supf'lement. Based on a review of
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 37
November 2003
the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2(00) and the CNPS (2001) for this
Supplement, 13 special status plant species not addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR may
have sorne potential to occur on the IKEA Project site. This potential is based on suitable
habitat present onsite and/or proximity to known occurrences in the area. These
additional species include two rare plants, the San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex
joaquiniana) and Congdon's tarplant (Hemozonia parryi ssp. congdonii). The Livermore
tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupiz) is a newly described rare plant species that has been
observed in two areas in Alameda County. Alkali gra~.slands throughout the Eastern
Dublin area provide potentially suitable habitat for thi5 new species (CNPS 2000). Based
on reported occurrences of these species near the Project site, these special-status
species may occur on the Project site and have been evaluated in this DSEIR (see LSA
report, Appendix 8.6). Based on previous biological surveys conducted in the Eastern
Dublin area, the following plant species may occur on the Project site: big-scale
balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis), large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia
grandiflora), San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquina), Mt. Diablo manzanita
(Arctostaphylos auriculata), Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern (Calochortus puIchelIus), hispid bird's-
beak (Cordylanthus moIlis ssp. hispidus), palmate-bracted bird's beak (Cordylanthis
palmatus), Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. Congdonii), Livermore tarplant
(Deinandra bacigalupii), round-leaved filaree (Erodium m.acrophylIum), diarnond-petaled
California poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetaIa), Diablo hehanthella (HelianthelIa castanea),
Brewer's western flax (Hesperolinon breweri), saline clover (Trifolium depauperatum var.
hydrophilum), heartscale (Atriplex cordulata), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), and alkali
milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), based on available habitat.
Botanically sensitive h.abitats
The alkali grasslands habitat type within the Eastern Dublin area is described above. It is
not recognized by the CDFG Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2000a) as rare and
declining in the state. No alkali grasslands are found on the IKEA site.
Special-status species: wildlife
The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated 27 special-status wildlife species. Fifteen of these
species still have state or federal special status, as iden1ified in Table 4.2.2. Nine of these
species no longer have state or federal special status, (or there is no suitable habitat on
the IKEA Project site. These species include American badger, Ricksecker's water
scavenger beetle, curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle, bay checkerspot butterfly,
Callippe silverspot butterfly, Bridges' coast range shoulderband, San Francisco forktail
damselfly, Lum's micro-blind harvestman and Califomia linderiella. Four new species
have been given state and/ or federal special status since the Eastern Dublin EIR was
certified: white-tailed kite, Ferruginous hawk, loggerhead shrike and California homed
lark. These species will not be addressed further in tlili; Supplernent as discussed below.
The following wildlife species identified as possibly oo:urring in the Eastern Dublin area
are also not addressed in this Supplemental EIR based on lack of suitable habitat on the
IKEA project site and failure to observe such species during the field observation
conducted by LSA Associates as part of this environmental document: California
homed lizard, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, sharp-shinned hawk,
Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and Bridges' coast ran.ge shoulderband.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 38
November 2003
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
Invertebrates. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant impacts for
special status invertebrates such as the longhorn fairy shrimp and the vernal pool fairly
shrimp. Since then, these species as well as the conservancy fairy shrimp and the vernal
pool tadpole shrimp have become federally-listed as Endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). These species live within strict habitat requirements, and
can be found in vernal pools and other small seasonal bodies of water that allow the
appropriate desiccation of the cysts (eggs).
Vernal pool fairy shrimp have been reported approximately six, seven and 13 miles east
of the Project site (CNDDB 2000). Longhorn fairy shrimp have been reported
approximately nine and ten miles east of the Project site (CNDDB 2000). No such
habitat exists on the IKEA Project site.
California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
impacts to the California red-legged frog (CRLF) as potentially significant (1M 3.7/F).
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, CRLF has been federally listed as
Threatened under the ESA. In addition, on March 13, 2001 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat for CRLF. The Project site was included
within the designated critical habitat. This decision was reversed in November 2002 and
is no longer in effect. The USFWS published a draft Recovery Plan for the CRLF in
January 2000. The Project site is located within the Mt. Diablo core area Unit 23 (Draft
Recovery Plan for the CRLF (USFWS 2000a). The CRLF is a California species of special
concern.
Additional surveys conducted between 1993 and 2000 detected CRLF in several
locations throughout the Eastern Dublin planning area and adjacent to the Project site
(H.T. Harvey and Associates 2000b). Seventeen reported CRLF observations within five
miles of the GP A/SP area encompassed by the Eastern Dublin EIR were reported
between 1981 and 1997 (CNDDB 2000). Specific locations of frogs, especially along linear
waterways, vary from year to year, and season to season, as habitat quality and
availability fluctuate. On the IKEA Project site itself, the potential for the presence of
CRLF is considered low due to absence of wetlands and other bodies of water.
Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophus lateralis em:yxanthus). The Eastern Dublin EIR
. identified impacts to Alameda whipsnake as less than significant due to the lack of
suitable habitat (1M 3.7 IE). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Alameda
whipsnake has been Federally-listed as Threatened under the ESA. The species has been
listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act since 1971. In October
2000, the USFWS designated critical habitat for this species, however, the project area
does not occur within the designated critical habitat. This designation was voided in
May, 2003. Primary habitats for Alameda whipsnake include east, southeast, south and
southwest facing slopes containing coastal scrub and chaparral, with rock outcrops
(Eastern Dublin Property Owner SEIR, 2002). Several observations north of the Eastern
Dublin area have been reported between 1972 and 1999. However, appropriate habitat
does not occur in Eastern Dublin, including the IKEA Project site. Based on the above
information, this species is not considered to occur on the project site.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 39
November 2003
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts
to peregrine falcon as insignificant due to the lack of appropriate habitat (lM 3.7 IE).
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR this specie:; was federally de-listed (August
25,2000) but remains state-listed as Endangered. Historic nesting locations are known
from the region north of the Eastern Dublin area. PerE~grine falcons have been
reintroduced to these historic sites on Mt. Diablo and are known to be nesting on Mt.
Diablo (Sproul, pers. comm.). The Project site does not contain suitable cliffs for nesting
and does not represent important foraging habitat for the peregrine falcon.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the
bald eagle was reclassified from federally Endangered to Threatened. It remains state-
listed as Endangered, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The bald eagle also is
protected under the federal Bald Eagle Protection Act. The historic breeding range of
the bald eagle in California extended from southern coastal areas through much of the
central and northern portions of the state. Bald eagles nest approximately 12 miles
southeast of the Project site at Lake Del Valle (CNDDB 2000). The Project site does not
provide suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles because there are no appropriate cliffs
or trees for nesting and no foraging habitat. Several birds are known to winter in the
Altamont area and thus rnay occasionally pass through the Project site.
San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpus macrotis mutica). The Eastem Dublin EIR identified impacts to
the kit fox as potentially significant (IM 3.7/D). The Satl Joaquin kit fox remains
federally-listed as Endangered and state-listed as Threatened. Since certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR, the USFWS has updated its recommendations for survey protocols
and protection measures (USFWS 1997 and 1999).
A number of surveys for kit fox have been conducted in the Eastern Dublin area (H.T.
Harvey & Associates 1997a) and the adjacent North Livermore Valley (H.T. Harvey &
Associates 1997b). None of these surveys detected kit J:ox with the exception of a single
kit fox detected on two separate nights while spotlighting approximately 7 miles east of
the IKEA Project site and five miles north of the Project site in Contra Costa County on
Morgan Territory Road.
Despite more intense efforts to detect kit fox in the E~;tern Dublin and North
Livermore Valley areas since 1997, none has been detected. Based on negative results
within the Eastern Dublin area and the surrounding areas, kit fox appear to be absent
from the Eastern Dublin area (see analysis presented in H.T. Harvey & Associates
1997c).
Several surveys of San Joaquin kit fox have been conducted in the Eastern Dublin area,
as noted above. No kit fox or sign of kit fox presence has been detected during these
surveys and there are no verified incidental observations of kit fox in the Eastern
Dublin area. The likelihood of lit fox presence on the IKEA Project site is very low,
given the amount of surrounding development, the disturbed nature of the site and
lack of burrows,
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
P A 02-034
Page 40
November 2003
Federal candidates proposed for listing - wildlife species
California Tiger Salamander (Arnbystoma californiense). The Eastern Dublin EIR
identified impacts to the California tiger Salamander (CTS) as potentially significant (IM
3.7/G). The crs is a candidate for listing under the ESA. No CTS have been observed
on the site; no suitable CTS habitat is present on the IKEA Project site, and no potential
breeding ponds occur on or near the Project site, an no potential breeding ponds occur
on or near the Project site.
California Species of Special Concern and Other Special-Status Wildlife Species
Western Pond Turtle (Clenunys marmorata). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts
to the western pond turtle as potentially significant (3.7/H). Since certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR, western pond turtle was removed from the federalist of candidate
species. It is a California Species of Special Concern, as identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR, this species also is protected under California Fish and Game Code Section 5050.
Western Pond turtle species are not present on the Project site primarily due to lack of
suitable aquatic habitat.
California Homed Lizard (Ph1:ynosoma coronatum frontale). The Eastern Dublin EIR
identified impacts to the California homed lizard as insignificant due to the their
extensive distribution (3.7/R). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the homed
lizard has been included as a fully protected species under the California Fish and Game
Code. Homed lizards have been documented approximately 11 and 12 miles south and
approximately 15 miles east of the Project site (1994) (CNDDB 2000). Marginal habitat
for the lizard probably occurs on portions of the Project site. However, the California
horned lizard is unlikely to occur on the Project site based on the marginality of on-site
habitat and the lack of contiguity with occupied habitat off-site.
Northern Harrier (Circus ~aneus). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the
Northern Harrier as potentially significant due to the potential loss of habitat (3.710).
Marginally suitable foraging habitat occurs in the grassland portions of the Project site.
However, the potential for occurrence of this species on the Project site is considered
low.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicu1aria hypugea). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
impacts to the burrowing owl as potentially significant (IM 3.7/M). In addition to being
a California Species of Special Concern, as indicated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, this
species is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game
Code Section 3503.5.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR burrowing owls have been observed within
Eastern Dublin (Biosystems Analysis 1989, H.T. Harvey & Associates 2000b). No
burrowing owls have been observed on the IKEA Project site and no burrows suitable
for their use are present.
Short-eared owl (Asio flanuneus). The Eastern Dublin identified impacts to the short-
eared owl as insignificant due to the lack of appropriate habitat (IM 3.7/Q), In addition
to being a California Species of Special Concern, as indicated in the Eastern Dublin EIR,
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 41
November 2003
this species is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game
Code Section 3503.5. No short-eared owls have been ,)b'5erved on the IKEA Project site.
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperiD. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the
Cooper's hawk as potentially significant (1M 3.7/P). In addition to being a California
Species of Special Concern, this species is protected wlder the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, Cooper'B hawk have been observed within
Eastern Dublin, (Eastern Dublin Property Owner SEm" 2002), however Cooper's hawk
nesting or foraging habitat occurs on the Project site. :LSA, 2003)
Golden Eagle (Aquila clu:ysaetos). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a significant impact
to a nesting site for a pair of breeding eagles (1M 3.7 In, potentially significant project
and cumulative impacts to foraging habitat (3.7/K), and a potentially significant impact
due to electrocutions (3.7/L). Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, an active
eagle's nest has been identified adjacent to the Dublin Ranch Phase 1 and Area A, north
of the project area (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2000c). There are no suitable nest sites on
the Project site.
Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the
prairie falcon as potentially significant (1M 3.710). Since certification of the Eastern
Dublin EIR, Prairie falcons have been found to nest several miles north of Eastern
Dublin on Mt. Diablo and to the northeast in Morgan Territory, near Brushy Peak
(Eastern Dublin Property Owner SEIR, 2002). No suitable nesting habitat occurs in the
Eastern Dublin area; however, rnost of the area is hig:1 quality potential foraging
habitat. Prairie falcons have been commonly observed during the winter in recent years
within Eastern Dublin (Eastern Dublin Property Owner SEIR, 2002) and likely forage on
or near the project site.
Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to
the sharp-shinned hawk as potentially significant (1M 3.7/P). Since certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR, it has been determined that suitable winter foraging habitat may
occur within the arroyo willow riparian habitat. Since this habitat type does not exist on
the project site, no impacts to sharp-shinned hawks are anticipated from the proposed
IKEA Project.
Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts to the
tricolored blackbird as potentially significant (1M 3.7 J I). The species has been reported
to the north and south of the Eastern Dublin area (CNDDB 2000). No tri-colored
blackbirds have been observed on the project site.
The next four species are not identified on Table 3.7-2 within the Eastern Dublin EIR, the
listing of potentially occurring special-status wildlife h the Eastern Dublin GP A and SP
areas. These species have been subsequently listed by state and I or federal agencies.
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Loggerhead shrike is a wide-ranging species
that occupies open habitats including grassland, scrub and open woodland
communities. The species typically nests in densely vegetated, isolated trees and shrubs
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 42
November 2003
and occasionally man-made structures. Loggerhead shrikes feed on a variety of small
prey including arthropods, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds. In California, the
species does not migrate and is resident year-round. Dedines in numbers have been
noted across a broad geographical range in the United States.
Nesting habitat for this species occurs near riparian habitat and coyote brush habitat in
Eastern Dublin. Since this habitat type does not exist on or near the project site, no
loggerhead shrike are anticipated to be impacted with this project.
California Horned Lark (Erernophila alpestris actia). This species, a California Species of
Special Concern, breeds in open grasslands throughout the Central Valley and adjacent
foothills and along the central and southern California coast region. It is a ground-
nesting species that prefers shorter, less dense grasses and areas with some bare
ground.
No California horned lark have been observed on the Project site
Ferruginous Hawk. The Ferruginous hawk is a California species of special concern. It
has no federal status. It breeds in interior grasslands and desert scrub of western North
America including, in very small numbers, the extreme northeastern portion of
California, Wintering birds are found in a variety of open habitats throughout
California, including open grasslands of the Eastern Dublin area. They would make
only incidental use of the IKEA Project site due to the amount of surrounding lands
which have already been developed.
White-tailed kite. Kites are common to uncommon year-long residents of coastal and
valley lowlands, generally occurring west of the Sierra Nevada mountains and southern
deserts. Black-shouldered kite populations declined in California prior to the 1940's.
White-tailed kites inhabit open areas of grassland, agricultural fields, marshes and
roadsides where rodents are common. No white-tailed kites have been observed on the
Project site.
Other Protected Species
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jami acensis), Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), white-tailed kite
(Elanus caeruleus) (referred to as black-shouldered kite in the Eastern Dublin EIR), American
Kestrel (Falco sparverius), Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus), barn owl (Tyto alba), and
Western Screech Owl (Otus kennicottii). With the exception of the white-tailed kite, these
species were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These raptors are federally
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBT A) and under California
Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Often edge species, these raptors
will forage in grasslands, open rneadows, and emergent wetlands adjacent to
woodlands, forests or riparian areas. Nesting substrates for these species vary between
dense riparian foliage near permanent water to isolated trees and human structures. All
are year-round residents. Some of these species are expected to forage on the Project
site, although there is no suitable nesting habitat present on the project site for any of
these species.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 43
November 2003
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR included a comprehensive assessment of habitat and wildlife
resources in the GP A/SP planning area. Table 4.2.1 shows special status plant species
and Table 4.2.2 [shows special status wildlife species the Eastern Dublin EIR identified as
potentially occurring in Eastern Dublin (also see Eastern Dublin EIR Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-
2. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified potential impacts related to the general effects of
potential development in Eastern Dublin including direct habitat loss, indirect habitat
loss due to vegetation removal for construction and development activities, and loss or
degradation of sensitive habitat (Impacts 3.7/ A, B, and C). The Eastern Dublin EIR also
identified potential impacts related to wildlife species such as San Joaquin kit fox,
California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, and others (Impacts 3.7/D - S).
Mitigation measures were adopted to, among other thlngs, provide for resource
management plans, avoid development in sensitive areas and revegetate disturbed
areas (generally Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0 - 28.0).
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GP A/SP
continue to apply to the Project. Even with mitigation, the City concluded that the
cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat was significant and
unavoidable. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant unavoidable impact
(Resolution No. 53-93).
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed Project includes approximately the same intensity of land use on the site
as was identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, although the type of land use is now
proposed as General Commercial rather than Campus Office. The Initial Study for this
Project notes that there have been new special status species identified since certification
of the Eastern Dublin EIR that could be affected by pre posed development on the
Project site.
Methodology. Prior to conducting field work, LSA biologists searched the California
Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2003) to locate records of special-status
species and sensitive communities/habitats in the general region of East Dublin. Using
information from these sources and LSA biologists knowledge of plants and wildlife in
the Livermore/Amador Valley, lists of potentially occurring special-status species and
sensitive habitats were developed.
LSA biologists visited the Project site on September 16, 2003 and walked the entire site
recording information on the habitat types present and. searching for sensitive plant
communities/habitats and evidence of special-status species or habitats that could
support such species. Plants and animals observed during the survey were recorded in
field notes.
Significance Criteria. The proposed Project would have a significant supplemental
impact on biological resources if the following impacts would occur but were not
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or are substantially more severe than analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR:
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 44
November 2003
. Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants or threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community;
. Substantially affect a rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species
(including those species that meet the definition of rare and endangered
according to CEQA), or the habitat of such species;
· Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species;
· Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; or
. Create runoff that significantly impacts wildlife habitat.
Regulatory Context. Biological resources are regulated by the following.
Federal Endangered Species Act. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects
listed species frorn harm or "take" which is broadly defined as to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or atternpt to engage in any
such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that results
in death or injury to a listed species. An activity can be defined as "take" even if it is
unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection than
listed wildlife species. Listed plant species are legally protected from take under
FESA if they occur on federal lands or if the project requires a federal action, such as
a Section 404 fill permit.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally-listed
threatened and endangered. species under the FESA. The USFWS also maintains lists
of proposed and candidate species. Species on these lists are not legally protected
under the FESA, but which may become listed in the near future and are often
included in their review of a project.
California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare (plants
only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with the CESA, California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has jurisdiction over state-listed species
(California Fish and Game Code 2070). Additionally, the CDFG maintains lists of
"species of special concern" that are defined as species that appear to be vulnerable
to extinction because of declining populations, limited. ranges, and/or continuing
threats.
California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15380(b) of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or
state lists of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species
can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled
after the definitions in FESA and CESA and the section of the California Fish and
Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was
included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency
is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that has not yet
been listed by either the USFWS or CDFG.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 45
November 2003
Clean Water Act. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into
waters of the United States. Waters of the U.S. and their lateral limits are defined in
33 CFR Part 328.3 (a) and include streams that are tributary to navigable waters and
their adjacent wetlands. Wetlands that are not adjclcent to waters of the U.S. are
termed "isolated wetlands" and, depending on the circumstances, may also be
subject to Corps jurisdiction. There are no steams or wetlands on the Project site.
California Water Quality and Waterbody Regulatory Programs. Pursuant to Section 401 of
the federal Clean Water Act, projects that are regulated by the Corps rnust obtain
water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). This certification ensures that the Project will uphold state water quality
standards. The RWQCB may impose mitigation requirements even if the Corps
does not.
The CDFG exerts jurisdiction over the bed and banks of watercourses and
waterbodies according to provisions of Section 1601 to 1603 of the Fish and Game
Code. The Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the
fill or removal of material within the bed and banks of a watercourse or waterbody.
There are no watercourses or waterbodies on or adjacent to the Project site.
Other Statutes, Codes, and Policies. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.c.,
Sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds
except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.
This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Most
native bird species on the Project site are covered by this Act.
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS), a non-governmental conservation
organization, has developed lists of plant species of concern in California. Vascular
plants included on these lists are defined as follow:;:
List 3
List 4
Plants considered extinct.
Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and
elsewhere.
Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but
more common elsewhere.
Plants about which more information is needed - review list.
Plants of limited distribution-watch list.
List 1A
List 1B
List 2
Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency and plants on these lists have no formal
regulatory protection, plants appearing on List 1B or ::"ist 2 are, in general, considered to
meet CEQA's Section 15380 criteria and adverse effed:s to these species are considered
significant.
Supplemental Impact BIO-l: Project impacts on newly identified biological
resources.
As discussed in Table 4.2.1 it is moderately likely that only one newly identified
special-status plant, the Congdon's tarplant, might occur on the Project site. No
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 46
November 2003
Congdon's tarplant, however, were found during the site visit by LSA staff.
Table 4.2.1 further shows that it is highly unlikely that any other special-status
plant or wildlife species occur on the Project site and none were found during the
site visit by LSA staff. Based on the site visit by LSA staff, the proposed Project is
expected to result in no supplemental impacts to rare, threatened, endangered or
special-status plants or animals or their respective habitats, including Congdon's
tarplant. The site is currently surrounded by a human-modified environment
and does not comprise a significant portion of any regional wildlife movement
corridors. Therefore, since the proposed Project would not result in any
significant supplemental biological resource impacts, no supplemental mitigation
is required.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 47
November 2003
Table 4.2.1. Special-status Plant Specie:; Potentially
Occurring on or Near IKEA ProjEd Site
Species Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence
(Fed/State/
CNPS)
Amsinckia grandiflora FE/SE/IB Valley and foothi 11 grassland Low: Disturbed nature of site
large-flowered fiddleneck in various soils. O'lly likely precludes occurrence.
known from 3 native
occurrences.
Atriplex cordu/ma -I-IIB Chenopod scrub, valley and Low: No alkaline or sandy
heartsca1e foothill grassland, meadows. soils on site,
Alkaline flats ani. sandy
soils.
Atriplex depressa -I-IIB Chenopod scrub, meadows, LmY,: No alkaline substrates
brittlescale playas, valley and foothill on site.
grassland, vernal pools.
Alkali scalds or clav.
Atriplex jOaI:Juinaiana -I-lIB Chenopodscrub,~ Low: No alkaline substrates
San Joaquin spearscale meadow, valley md foothill on site.
lmlSsland.
Arctostaphylos auricu/ma -I-IIB Chaparral. Known only from None: Out of species' range.
Mt. Diablo manzanita the Mt. Diablo area. No suitable habitat.
Astragalus tener var. tener -I-IlB AlkaIi playa, valley and Low: No alkaline substrates
alkali milk vetch foothill grassland, vernal on-site.
Dools.
Balsamorhiza macrolepis -I-IlB Valley and foothill Low: Disturbed nature of site
var. maaolepis grassland, cismoIltane likely precludes occurrence.
bil1;-scale balsamroot woodland.
Calochortus pulchelius -I-IlB Chaparral, cismoltane ~: Out of species' range.
Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern woodland, riparian woodland, No suitable habitat.
valley and foothiJ I grassland.
Wooded and brushv slopes.
Centromadia parryi ssp. -I-IIB Valley and foothi II Moderate: Species has been
congdonii grassland. found previously on
Congdon's tarplant disturbed sites, including
near oroiect site to north.
Cordylanthus mollis ssp. -I-IIB Meadows, playas, valley and Low: Disturbed nature of site
hispidus foothill grassland. Damp and lack of alkali soils likely
hispid bird's-beak alkaline soils. orecludes occurrence.
CordylanJhus palmatus FElSE/IB Chenopod scrub, valley and LmY,: No alkaline substrates
paImate-bracted bird's beak foothill grassland. Alkaline on site.
clav.
Deinandra bacigaLupii -/-IIB Meadows and seeps. None: No suitable habitat
Livermore tarplant AlkaIine meadov,s. (mesic sites).
Erodium macrophyllum -/-/2 Cismontane woodland, Low: Disturbed nature of site
round-leaved filaree valley and foothill grassland. likely precludes occurrence.
Eschscholzia rhombipetala -I-IlB Valley and foothill Low: Disturbed nature of site
diamond-petaled California grassland. Most sites are likely precludes occurrence.
poppv historical.
Helianthella castanea -I-IIB Upland forest, chaparral, None: No suitable habitat.
Diablo helianthella cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, riparian
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. Usually in rocky,
azonal soils.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 48
November 2003
Hesperolinon breweri -I-IIB Chaparral, cismontane None: No serpentine or
Brewer's western flax woodland, valley and foothill rocky soils on site.
grassland. Rocky serpentine
soils.
Trifolium depauperatum -I-lIB Marshes and swamps, valley None: No suitable habitat
var. hydrophilum and foothill grassland, vernal (mesic sites).
saline clover Dools. Mesic, alkaline sites.
Status:
FE Federally listed as an endangered species.
SE = State listed as an endangered species.
=California Native Plant Society (CNPS) list of plants rare or endangered in California and
elsewhere.
2 = CNPS list of plants rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.
= No status
Source: LSA Associates
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 49
November 2003
Table 4.2.2. Special-status Wildlife Species Potentially
Occurring on or Near IKEA Project Site
Species Status Habitat Potential for
(Fed/State/ Occurrence
CDFG)
Invertebrates
Longhorn fairy shrimp FE/-I- Vernal pools. None: No vernal pools on
Branchinecta longiantenna site.
Vernal pool fairy shrimp FT/-I- Vernal pools. None: No vernal pools on
Branchinecta lynchi site.
Amvhibians
California tiger FPT/-/CSC Grasslands with :;easonal None: Disturbed nature of
salamander ponds for breedir .g. site, lack of a breeding
Ambystoma califomiense site and surrounding
development preclude
occurrence.
California red-legged frog FT/-/CSC Ponds, streams, drainages, None: Disturbed nature of
Rana aurora draytonii and associated u~,lands. site and lack of aquatic
habitat preclude
occmrence.
Revtiles
Western pond turtle -I-/CSC Ponds, streams, drainages, None: Disturbed nature of
Clemmys marmorata and associated uplands. site and lack of permanent
water source preclude
occurrence.
Alameda whipsnake FT/ST/- Chaparral, scrub, alid None: No suitable habitat
Masticophis lateralis associated grassl;mds. on site.
euryxanthus Usually occurs n::ar rock
outcrODS.
Birds
White-tailed kite -I-/CFP Open grasslands, meadows, Low: Occasional foraging
Elanus leucurus or marshes. Require likely.
isolated, dense-tcpped trees
or shrubs for nesting and
perching.
Northern harrier -I-/CSC Nests in wet me<dows and ;(.my: Occasional foraging
Circus cyaneus marshes, forages over open likely.
grasslands and agricultural
fields.
Ferruginous hawk -1-1cse (wintering) Open grasslands. low ~: Surrounding
Buteo regalis foothills surrounding development and small
valleys, agricultural fields. size of area likely limit
foralrinl!:.
Golden eagle -I-leSe Rolling foothill~ and ;(.my: Surrounding
Aquila chrysaetos mountain areas. Nt;sts in development and small
cliff-walled canyons or large size of area likely
trees in open areas. oreclude occmrence.
Burrowing owl -1-/CSe Open, dry grasslmds or None: Lack of ground
Athene cunicularia agricultural area; that squirrel burrows and dense
contain abundan: ground vegetation preclude
squirrel burrows. occurrence.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 50
November 2003
Loggerhead shrike -I-/CSC Open grasslands and Moderate: No nesting
Lanius ludovicianus woodlands with scattered habitat but dispersing or
shrubs, fence posts, utility migrating individuals
lines, or other perches. could occur for brief
Nests in dense shrubs and periods.
lower branches of trees.
California homed lark -I-/CSC Open grasslands. Prefers ~: Surrounding
Eremophilo. alpestris actia areas with patches of bare development and small
ground interspersed with size of site likely preclude
short grasses. occurrence.
Tricolored blackbird -I-/CSC Nests in dense vegetation None:Lackoffo~~ng
Agelo.ius tricolor near open water, forages in and nesting habitat
grasslands and agricultural precludes occurrence.
fields.
Mam71UlIs
San Joaquin kit fox FE/ST/- Annual grasslands with ~: No suitable dens,
Vulpes macrotis mutica scattered shrubby Site is isolated from
vegetation. Loose-textured potentially occupied areas
soils required for dig~ng to east.
burrows.
Status:
FE = Federally listed as an endangered species.
FT = Federally listed as a threatened species.
FPT = Federally proposed as a threatened species
ST = State listed as a threatened species.
CSC = Califomia Species of Special Concem
CFP = Califomia Fully Protected Species
Source: LSA Associates
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 51
November 2003
4.3 Transportation and Circulation
(Note: Supplernental transportation and circulation impacts of the proposed Project
have been analyzed by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants. A complete copy of
their report, Final Report: IKEA Retail Center Transportadon Study, August 2003 ("the
Traffic Study"), is found in Appendix 8.7.)
Traffic and Circulation was analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This
Supplernental DEIR examines compliance with the City f)f Dublin's established
standards for intersection levels of service (LOS) in light of increases in regional traffic
and changes in commute patterns since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993.
The analysis also considers the cumulative (year 2025) growth of the entire region by
utilizing the Tri-Valley Transportation Model to examin.e future conditions with the
proposed Project and cumulative conditions. The Tri- Valley Transportation Model was
developed with and adopted jointly by the Tri-Valley dties after certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR. It assumes General Plan build-out for the Tri-Valley cities and
completion of each of the city's road networks to their ultimate geometries.
ENVIRON1vlENTAL SETTING
The Project area is located on the eastern edge of the City of Dublin's planned
urbanized area and almost in the middle of the Livermore-Amador Valley's Interstate
580 (1-580) corridor. 1-580 is a major Bay Area east-weBt commuter route from
communities as far east as the San Joaquin Valley to job centers as far west as San
Francisco and Redwood City and more local job centers in Walnut Creek, Bishop Ranch
(San Ramon), Dublin and Pleasanton. 1-580 also provides commuter access to Interstate
680 (1-680). 1-680 lies west of the IKEA Project area and is a major north-south freeway
and commuter route from the Tri- Valley area and communities farther north to the
technology job centers in Santa Clara County and San rose (the "Silicon Valley").
Existing Roadway Network
Interstate 580 (1-580) is an east-west freeway extending from U.S. 101 in San Rafael to
Interstate 5 (1-5) south of Tracy. Through Dublin, 1-580 carries approximately 183,000
vehicles per day within six travel lanes. Local interchanges are provided at
Dougherty Road/ Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road.
Interstate 680 (1-680) is a north-south freeway that extends from Interstate 80 (1-80)
in Solano County south to San Jose. Through Dublin, 1-680 carries approximately
147,000 vpd across eight travel lanes. Local access t:> 1-680 is provided at an
interchange located north of 1-580.
Dublin Boulevard is a rnajor east-west arterial that extends frorn just west of
Brigadoon Way at the western city limit, through Dublin parallel to 1-580, to Keegan
Street in eastern Dublin. Dublin Boulevard has six ":ravel lanes between San Ramon
Road and Village Parkway and between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road. This
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 52
November 2003
roadway (east of San Ramon Road) is classified as a Metropolitan Transportation
System (MTS) roadway under the county's Congestion Management Program.
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are provided on this roadway within the project
vicinity.
Hacienda Drive, bordering the project site on the east, is a major north-south arterial
that extends from Gleason Drive in Dublin to West Las Positas Boulevard in
Pleasanton. Hacienda Drive has six travel lanes between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard.
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are provided on this roadway within the project
vicinity.
Arnold Road is a two lane, north-south roadway that extends from Gleason Drive to
Dublin Boulevard. In the future, this roadway will extend south past the future
Martinelli Way intersection and along the western boundary of the project site. This
roadway is proposed to provide access between the project site and Dublin
Boulevard.
Martinelli Way is a planned, future east-west roadway extending from the Hacienda
Crossing traffic signal on Hacienda Drive to Arnold Road and eventually through
the transit center area. The main entrance to the IKEA Store will be on Martinelli
Way. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be provided along the roadway.
Transit Service
Fixed-route transit, DART (Direct Access Responsive Transit), paratransit and BART
(Bay Area Regional Transit) are available in Dublin. "Wheels" is the fixed-route transit
service provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VTA) for the
Tri- Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. The "Wheels" routes
that provide service near the Project site include Routes 1, 3, and 54. Each route is
described below.
Route 1: Route 1 is separated into Routes 1A and lB. Route 1A operates clockwise
and Route 1B operates counter-c1ockwise. These routes connect the Dublin Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART) station with the Santa Rita jail, Hacienda Crossing, and
the Rose Pavilion. Service is provided from 6:00 AM to 7:30 PM on weekdays with
30-minute headways.
Route 3: Route 3 is separated into Routes 3A and 3B. Route 3A operates clockwise
and Route 3B operates counter-clockwise. These routes connect the Dublin BART
station and Stoneridge Mall along Dublin Boulevard and Foothill Road. They also
connect these sites to downtown Dublin and Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. The
routes cover most of Dougherty Road within the city limits of Dublin. Service is
provided during peak weekday periods from 6:00 to 9:30 AM and 2:00 to 7:00 PM
with 1-hour headways.
Route 54: This Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) shuttle provides service between
the Dublin BART station, Pleasanton Fairgrounds, and ACE train. Service is
provided along Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive near the project site. This
route operates on weekdays during peak periods from 5:30 to 8:30 AM and 4:00 to
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 53
November 2003
8:00 PM with headways of more than I-hour. The ACE train provides service
between Stockton and San Jose, including stations in Livermore and Pleasanton.
DART provides service during off-peak hours when most fixed-route buses are not in
operation. Weekday service runs between 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM and 7:30 to 9:30 PM.
Saturday service runs from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM. With a reservation, a DART van will
provide passengers with the most direct transportation service possible. Dial-a-Ride
para-transit is also available seven days a week for pa~sengers with disabilities.
BART provides regional rail transit access from the Dublin/Pleasanton station. BART
runs at 15- to 20-minute headways between 4:00 and 12:00 AM on weekdays. Saturday
service is available every 20 minutes between 6:00 and 1'2:45 AM. Service is also
available on Sunday from 8:00 to 12:45 AM with 20-minute head ways.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTER1\ DUBLIN EIR
Freeways
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant, significant cumulative, and significant
unavoidable adverse impacts related to daily traffic volumes on 1-580 with and without
build-out of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment and under a
Year 2010 cumulative build-out scenario (Impacts 3.3/A, B, C, D, and E). The
significance criteria for freeway segments was operations that exceed level of service
(LOS) E. Mitigation measures (3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0) were adopted which reduced impacts
on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on 1-680 north of 1-580 to a level
of insignificance. Other mitigations (3.3/2.0,2.1,3.0 and 5.0) were adopted to reduce
impacts on the remaining 1-580 freeway segments and the 1-580/680 interchange. Even
with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on 1-580 freeway
segments between 1-680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of 2010, on
other segments of 1-580. Upon certification of the Eastem Dublin EIR and approval of
the Eastern Dublin GP A/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93), for these signif.cant unavoidable cumulative
impacts (Impacts 3.3/B and E).
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the: Eastern Dublin EIR continue to
apply to implementing actions and projects such as the proposed IKEA Project.
Intersections and roads
The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated levels of service and. PM peak hour traffic volumes at
18 intersections with roads and 1-580 ramps for cumulative build-out without the
Eastern Dublin project and cumulative build-out with the Eastern Dublin project. The
significance criteria for intersections were operations that exceed LOS D. Mitigation
rneasures were identified for each intersection that was projected to exceed the LOS D
standard in each scenario. Mitigation measures (3.3/6.0 - 9.0 and 11.0) for Impacts
3.3/F, G, H, 1 and K were adopted to reduce impacts t::> each of these intersections to a
level of insignificance. These mitigations include constluction of additional lanes at
intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton and
Livermore to restripe, widen or modify on-ramps and off-ramps and interchange
intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain interchanges.
Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area contribute a proportionate
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 54
November 2003
share to the multi-jurisdictional improvements through the Eastern Dublin traffic
impact fee program and the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee program
(discussed below).
Other mitigations (3.3/13.0 and 14.0) were adopted to reduce impacts on other
identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impacts 3.3/M, N).
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GP A/ SP and
Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to implementing actions and projects within
Eastern Dublin, such as the IKEA Project. Individual development projects within the
GP A/SP contribute a proportionate share to fund these improvernents through
payment of traffic impact fees or construction of the required improvements for a
credit against payment of such fees. Even with mitigaticns, however, significant
cumulative impacts rernained on several identified intersections: Santa Rita Road/I-580
Eastbound ramps (Impact 3.3/1), Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive and Dublin
Boulevard/Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M). Upon certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR
and approval of the Eastern Dublin GP A/SP, the City adopted a Statement of
Overriding Consideration (Resolution No. 53-93), for these significant unavoidable year
2010 and cumulative impacts.
Transit, Pedestrians and Bicycles
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to transit service extensions
and the provision of safe street crossings for pedestrians and bicycles (Impacts 3.3/0
and P). Mitigation measures 3.3/15.0 -15.3 and 16.0 -16.1 were adopted which reduced
these impacts to a level of insignificance. These mitigations generally require
coordination with transit providers to extend transit services (for which the GP A/SP
projects contribute a proportionate share through payment of traffic impact fees) and
coincide pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings. All
mitigation rneasures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GP A/SP and eastern
Dublin EIR continue to apply to implernenting actions and projects such as the
proposed IKEA Project.
Fee Programs
Prior to approval of any development in Eastern Dublin, in January 1995 the City
adopted (and has since updated) the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee which consisted
of three "categories": Category 1 was, in general, to pay for required transportation
improvernents in the SP /GP A project area; Category 2 was, in general, to pay for
required improvements in other areas of Dublin; and Category 3 was to pay for
regional improvements to which development in Eastern Dublin should contribute.
The improvements for which the fee is collected included those improvements assumed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR, those improvements necessary for Eastern Dublin to
develop, and those improvements identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as mitigation
measures. In June 1998, the City adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Development
Fee, in conjunction with the cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon and Danville
and the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa to fund regional improvements. This
fee replaced the Category 3 fee. In addition, the City has adopted a Freeway
Interchange Fee to reimburse Pleasanton for funding construction of certain
interchanges on 1-580 that also benefit Eastern Dublin. All development projects in
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 55
November 2003
Eastern Dublin are required to pay these fees at building permit or construct the
improvernents included in the fee programs.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND :MITIGATION MEASURES
As described in more detail in the Project Description, the IKEA Project includes retail
land uses for the site that were not anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan or the
Eastern Dublin EIR, which designated the site for Campus Office. The Initial Study
noted that retail use on the site could result in different peak-hour impacts and in
conjunction with changes in regional traffic patterns could result in significant impacts
beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 and 15163, this section of the Supplemental EIR assesses whether significant new
or intensified traffic impacts may result from changes in the land use designation of the
Project site and increased regional traffic.
Significance Criteria.
Intersections
An impact would be significant if an intersection previously mitigated to an acceptable
level would now exceed acceptable levels. In addition, an impact would be significant if
a newly proposed intersection is identified as exceeding acceptable levels and if such
intersection was not previously identified in the Easten.. Dublin EIR as a study
intersection. The General Plan standard requires that the City strive for LOS D at
intersections (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy F).
Roadway segments
With respect to routes of regional significance, an impact would be significant if a road
has been identified since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR as such a route and such
a route would fail to comply with the applicable standard of the General Plan or if a
segment previously mitigated to an acceptable level wculd now exceed acceptable
levels. The General Plan requires the City to rnake a good faith effort to maintain LOS D
on arterial segments and intersections of routes of regional significance (i.e., Dublin
Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road and San Ramon Road), or implement
transportation improvements or other measures to improve the service level. If such
improvements are not possible or sufficient, and the Ti.-Valley Transportation Council
cannot resolve the matter, the City may modify the LOS standard if other jurisdictions
are not physically impacted (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding
Policy E [LOS DJ).
The maximum average daily traffic (ADn threshold standards of the General Plan for
four-lane roadways (30,000 vpd), six-lane roadways (50,000 vpd) and eight-lane
roadways (70,000 vpd) are used to determine street widths.
Existing traffic volumes and lane configurations. The City retained Fehr and Peers to
complete a traffic study for the IKEA Development Project. Fehr and Peers prepared a
document entitled Final Report: IKEA Retail Center Transportation Study, August 2003
("the Traffic Study"), which is included in the Appendix to this SDEIR. The Traffic Study
analyzed intersection traffic operations under weekday AM and PM peak hour
conditions and Saturday mid-day peak hour conditions for 18 key intersections in the
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 56
November 2003
Project area ("the study intersections"). Exhibit 13 shows the location of the study
intersections in relation to the Project site. Peak hour conditions were determined from
peak period intersection turning movement counts. Weekday AM and PM turning
movernent counts were conducted on February 11,19, and 20,2003, from 7:00 to 9:00
AM and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM. Saturday turning movement counts were conducted on
July 13,20, and August 24,2002 from 3:30 to 5:30 PM. The raw traffic count data for the
AM, PM, and Saturday peak periods is provided in Appendix A of the Traffic Study.
The peak hour represents the highest traffic-volume hour during the peak period traffic
counts. From the data collection effort, weekday peak hours were determined to be
7:30 to 8:30 AM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM, and the Saturday peak hour was 3:30 to 4:30 PM.
Exhibit 14 presents the existing peak hour turning movement counts.
Level of Service Methodology. The concept of level of service (LOS) is commonly used
to determine the operating conditions of an intersection or roadway. The LOS grading
system is a rating scale ranging frorn LOS A to LOS F, where LOS A represents free-
flow conditions and LOS F represents jammed conditions. A unit of measure, such as
the volume-to-capacity (V Ie) ratio or average delay, generally accompanies a LOS
designation. The City of Dublin General Plan states that a service level of LOS D or
better is considered acceptable; LOS E or LOS F standards are considered undesirable.
The City of Dublin uses the intersection LOS methodology outlined in Technical
Procedures (Contra Costa County Transportation Authority [CCTAl, 1997), which
relates service level grade to a V IC ratio. The V IC ratio relates the total traffic volumes
for critical opposing movements to the theoretical capacity for those movements. This
methodology is only applied to signalized intersections. For unsignalized intersections,
methods are based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research
Board, 2000). This method determines the service level for each rnovernent based on
the average control delay per vehicle. Control delay includes deceleration delay, queue
move-up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service. The existing lar.e configurations and peak hour
turning movement volumes were used to determine service levels for the study
intersections. These results are shown in Table 4.3.1. The measure of effectiveness (V Ie
ratio) for signalized intersections and LOS are presented. As indicated in the table, all
study intersections operate at acceptable LOS C or better during the AM, PM, and
Saturday peak hours.
Baseline Traffic Estimates. Fehr and Peers developed baseline conditions by adding
existing traffic (calculated as described above) with traffic generated by approved
projects other than this Project. A list of approved but not yet constructed or fully
occupied developments was provided by the City of Dublin. The City also provided
traffic studies that were completed for many of the approved projects. The amount of
traffic generated by these developments during weekday AM and PM and Saturday
peak hours was estimated from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation (6th Edition) and the respective project traffic studies. A complete list of
approved projects, including trip generation information, is provided in Appendix C of
the Traffic Study. Approved projects in Dublin are estimated to generate between 2,000
and 2,500 net new peak hour trips, as follows:
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 57
November 2003
. 2,070 (820 inbound and 1,250 outbound) for the AM peak hour
. 2,410 (1,320 inbound and 1,090 outbound) for the PM peak hour
· 2,080 (1,100 inbound and 980 outbound) for Saturday peak hour
Fehr & Peers contacted the City of Pleasanton and Contra Costa County in July 2002 to
investigate probable projects, both north and south of the City of Dublin that
potentially could impact the study intersections. The City of Pleasanton provided both
land use forecasts and expected build-out traffic forecasts from their traffic model.
Contra Costa County provided information related to Dougherty Valley developrnent.
Appendix C (located in the Traffic Study) contains a summary of the baseline traffic
estimates for Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley including land use type, size and
resulting trip generation. Combined, development in Dougherty Valley and the City of
Pleasanton is likely to generate about 2,550 AM peak h:>ur trips, 2,950 PM peak hour
trips, and 1,720 Saturday peak hour trips.
The directional distribution of the trips generated by tbE: developments in Dublin,
Pleasanton, and Dougherty Valley were developed using a combination of distribution
characteristics frorn the Tri-Valley traffic model, previously completed traffic studies,
and knowledge of local travel patterns.
Traffic generated by the developments in Dublin, Ple~,anton, and Dougherty Valley
was assigned to the roadway system using the softwar,? TRAFFIX. The assigned traffic
was added to the existing turning movement volumes to obtain the Baseline conditions
traffic forecasts.
Baseline roadway changes. There is a planned roadway improvement currently under
construction within Project area that was included in tbe Baseline conditions analysis:
. Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road /1-580 Interchange Reconstruction - This project
includes interchange improvements such as: (1) one westbound right-turn lane
and an exclusive overpass lane leading to the northbound free right-turn lane at
the 1-580 westbound off-ramp/ Tassajara Road intersection; and (2) adding one
eastbound left-turn lane, one westbound left-twllIane, and one northbound
overpass through lane at the 1-580 off-ramp/Pimlico Drive/ Santa Rita Road
intersection.
Baseline conditions intersection levels of service. Levels of service were calculated for
the study intersections. Table 4.3.2 presents the LOS r~.ults for Baseline conditions. LOS
calculation worksheets are included in Appendix D of be Traffic Study.
As shown in Table 4.3.2, all intersections operate at an acceptable LOS D or better
during the AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours.
Notable differences between the Existing (which includes traffic volumes recently
counted as part of this SDEIR) and Baseline conditions (which includes existing traffic
volumes plus traffic anticipated to be generated from approved but not yet built
projects excluding the proposed IKEA Project) include:
. The change from LOS A to LOS B at the 1-580 ea:;tbound off-ramp /Pimlico
Drive/ Santa Rita Road intersection during the weekday PM peak hour. LOS
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
P A 02-034
Page 58
November 2003
degradation occurs despite the roadway improvements assumed at this study
intersection.
. The 1-580 eastbound off-ramp /Hopyard Road intersection is anticipated to
deteriorate from LOS B to LOS D during the weekday AM peak hour and from
LOS A to LOS B during the PM peak hour.
. The Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection is expected to deteriorate
from LOS C with Existing conditions to LOS D with Baseline conditions during the
weekday PM peak hour.
Project traffic estimates. The amount of traffic associated with a project is estimated
using a three-step process:
1) Trip Generation - the amount of traffic entering and exiting a project site is
estimated on a daily and peak-hour basis.
2) Trip Distribution - the directions of trips to approach and depart the site are
estimated.
3) Trip Assignment - the traffic assigned to specific roadway segments and
intersection-turning movements is determined.
The results of this process are described in the following sections.
Trip generation
The AM and PM peak hour traffic added to this roadway system by the proposed IKEA
store was estimated based on traffic volume data collected at existing IKEA stores in
Emeryville, California in December 2001, and in Woodbridge, Virginia in November
2002. The survey findings are presented in Table 4.3.3.
Other factors considered in the trip generation development process included the
relative locations of the approved East Palo Alto store (recently opened) in Santa Clara
County and the existing IKEA store in Emeryville. The regional attraction of these
stores creates a situation where a third similar-type establishment is not expected to
generate new trips at the same rate as the initial establishment. According to the
market projections conducted by IKEA Property, Inc., when fully operational, IKEA
Dublin will generate about 61 percent of the current sales at IKEA Emeryville.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 59
November 2003
Table 4.3.3. Vehicle Trip Generation, IKEA Store Surveys
Survey Location 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peck Hour Saturday Peak Hour
Vehicle Trips Vehicle Trips Vehicle Trips
In Out In Out In Out
Emeryville 2 29 32 266 298 630 549
Woodbridge 3 19 9 119 148 733 795
Notes:
1. These survey sites are similar in size, visitor activity, and are lhe only IKEA stores in their respective
markets.
2. Vehicle trips obtained from driveway volumes counted at the eldsting IKEA location in Emeryville,
Califomia during December 2001.
3. Vehicle trips obtained from driveway volumes counted at the e <isting IKEA location in Woodbridge,
Virginia during November 2002.
Source: Fehr & Peers, June 2003
Considering the survey data from Table 4.3.3 and saleE projections discussed above,
Fehr & Peers, in consultation with City staff, determined the Dublin IKEA would likely
generate about 25 percent fewer weekday trips than was generated at the existing
Emeryville IKEA. Appropriate adjustments were madE~ for pass-by IKEA traffic during
the weekday PM peak hour. For Saturday data, trip estimates were based solely on the
Woodbridge IKEA store trip generation survey results as this facility is located at a
shopping destination similar to the Dublin site.
The amount of traffic generated by the Retail Center was derived frorn lTE's Trip
Generation (6th Edition) for a Shopping Center (Land U:;e Code 820) and Restaurant
(Land Use Code 832) with appropriate adjustments made for pass-by traffic. Trip rates
for the shopping center were based on the regression equation (and not average value)
from Trip Generation, according to the guiding principles stated in the Trip Generation
Handbook (October 1998). The same publication indicatE~s that restaurant rates should be
based on average values. Table 6, contained in the Traffic Study, shows the projected
trip generation for the IKEA Project.
At build-out, the IKEA Project is projected to generate approximately 16,100 daily trips
during a typical weekday. During the AM peak hour, about 460 net new trips (250
inbound and 210 outbound) would be generated. Net new PM peak hour traffic
generated by the site is anticipated to be about 880 trip:; (440 inbound and 440
outbound). Net new Saturday peak hour traffic is estimated to be approximately 2,510
trips (1,310 inbound and 1,200 outbound).
Table 5, contained in the Traffic Study, compares the trip generation of the IKEA Project
with the Campus office use currently approved for the Project site. Trip generation
information was obtained from the traffic impact study prepared for the previously
approved Commerce One office development. As shown, net new PM peak hour trips
generated by campus office use and the IKEA Project developments are similar (Le.,
within 5 percent). During the AM peak hour, campus office use would generate
substantially more traffic than the IKEA Project, while the reverse is true for the
Saturday peak hour.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 60
November 2003
. Trip distribution and assignment
Traffic distribution for the IKEA Project was derived frem the primary trade areas
(PTAs) established by IKEA Property, Inc. PTAs were established using zip code sales
surveys at the existing Emeryville IKEA, 2006 population projections, and the relative
locations of the three stores (Le., existing store in Emeryville, store opening in East Palo
Alto, and proposed Dublin store) within the Bay Area.
Using information provided by IKEA, Fehr & Peers derived the following regional trip
distribution for IKEA Project trips:
. 35 percent of trips to/from the south along 1-680
. 30 percent of trips to/from the north along 1-680
. 10 percent of trips to/frorn the west along 1-580
. 11 percent of trips to/from the east along 1-580
. 14 percent of trips to/from the Dublin, Pleasanton, and San Ramon areas
The distribution percentages shown and listed above were applied to the trip
generation estimates shown in Table 6 within the Traffic Study. The resulting trips were
then assigned to the roadway systern through the study intersections. The assignment
process was completed using the assignment software TRAFFIX. The traffic
assignments used the closest proximity interchange (Le., Hacienda Drive) to access the
freeway. Pass-by traffic assignments were applied according to the inter-relationship
between traffic levels on Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive.
Planned roadway improvements to be completed in the Project area. The intersection
of Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road would consist of lane configurations based
on the interim improvements planned for this intersection. These improvements are
included in the City of Dublin's 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and are
expected to be implemented by the time the proposed IKEA Development Project is
fully developed. The current CIP project to install the interim improvements at Dublin
Boulevard/ Dougherty Road is funded by project developers who are required to pay
their pro-rate share of the cost to construct these improvements through payment of
the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee.
Ultimate improvernents at this intersection are expected to occur at build-out with the
development of the Dublin Transit Center project, located immediately west of the
Project site.
Planned roadway improvements to be completed with the Project. Roadway
improvements assumed within the study area and constructed with the Project include:
Martinelli Way
. Construct Martinelli Way between Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road.
. Modify the traffic signal at the Martinelli Way/Hacienda Drive/Hacienda
Crossings intersection to accommodate the Martinelli Way extension
. Design Martinelli Way to accommodate the triple northbound to westbound
left-turn lanes from Hacienda Drive onto Martinelli Way.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 61
November 2003
. Construct two left-turn lanes on Martinelli 'Vay at the Project site main
entrance.
. Signalize the Project main entrance at Martinelli Way.
. Construct a secondary site access right-turn in and out only driveway on
Martinelli Way east of Arnold Road.
Arnold Road
. Construct the Arnold Road extension south from Dublin Boulevard to the
Altamirano Avenue intersection with the southern most project site access.
. Modify the traffic signal at the Arnold Road IDublin Boulevard intersection to
accommodate the Arnold Road extension south from Dublin Boulevard to
the Altamirano Avenue intersection with the southernmost project site
access.
. Signalize the newly constructed intersection of Arnold Road/Martinelli Way.
. Design the project access on Arnold Road (nidway between Martinelli Way
and Altamirano Avenue) for the future instc.lhtion of a traffic signal at this
location.
Buildout impacts. The following impacts are anticipated under Existing and Buildout
conditions with the proposed Project.
Supplemental Traffic Impact TRA-l: Impacts to study intersections under
Baseline and Project conditions.
With the addition of Project trips, most intersections would generally continue to
operate at similar service levels as identified for Baseline conditions. Some notable
differences in intersection Levels of Service caused by the proposed Project are noted
below None of the following changes would exceed the significance criteria for
supplernental impacts and are therefore considered te, be less-than-significant.
. Martinelli Way/Hacienda Drive-Intersection serv:,ce level would change from LOS
A to LOS C during the Saturday peak hour as a result of additional Project traffic
and the construction of Martinelli Way, which results in the need to convert the
existing traffic signal operations from a 3-phase to an 8-phase systern.
. 1-580 Eastbound Off-ramp/Hacienda Drive-Intersedion operations would change
from LOS A to LOS B for the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours.
. 1-580 Westbound Off-ramp/Hacienda Drive-Intersection operations would change
from LOS A to LOS B for the Saturday peak hour.
. Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road-Weekday PM peak hour intersection operations
would change from LOS D to LOS A with project traffic and planned road
improvements assumed in this study
Although intersections near the site would experience additional traffic from the
proposed Project, LOS would not be decreased below City of Dublin standards of
significance for intersections. This would therefore be a less-than-significant impact.
Table 4.3.4 summarizes Existing, Baseline and Baseline' Plus Project impacts during AM
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR Page 62
City of Dublin November 2003
PA 02-034
peak hour conditions. Table 4.3.5 summarizes traffic under the same conditions but
under PM peak hour conditions. Table 4.3.6 summarizes traffic under the same
conditions under Saturday conditions
Cumulative Build-out Analysis. Build-out conditions include existing traffic, Baseline
traffic, and traffic generated by planned long-term development. The City of Dublin
provided Fehr and Peers with a list of potential projects representing the build-out of
Dublin. The amount of traffic generated by these developments during weekday AM-,
PM-, and Saturday-peak hours was estimated frorn ITE's Trip Generation (6th Edition)
and project traffic studies.
Fehr & Peers (in conjunction with T]KM Transportation Consultants) developed the
build-out TRAFFIX model used in this study to represent the conditions of approved,
pending, and build-out projects in Dublin with and without the IKEA Project, as well as
the development potential within the cities of Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley. The
rnodel quantifies the relative impact of Dublin build-out on the local road system. The
model distributes, assigns, and analyzes traffic at local city intersections. The model was
developed to better understand City of Dublin traffic on a local level, such as at key
intersections and local streets, which a regional model (for example, the 2025 Tri-Valley
Model) does not fully consider. While the TRAFFIX model uses a local focus approach
to forecast traffic within Dublin, the model also takes into account regional traffic
patterns by considering potential traffic diversions from 1-580 to adjacent surface streets
within the 1-580 corridor.
The build-out projects in Dublin (including the Transit Center development just west of
the Project site) are estimated to generate approximately 273,000 trips during a typical
weekday. AM peak hour net new trip generation is expected to be 22,000 trips (13,700
inbound and 8,300 outbound). Net new trip generation for the PM peak hour is
expected to be 27,300 (11,100 inbound and 16,200 outbound). The build-out scenario is
expected to generate 24,400 net new Saturday peak hour trips (12,800 inbound and
11,600 outbound).
The build-out traffic estimates for Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley are summarized in
Appendix C of the Traffic Study by land use type, size and the resulting trip generation
estimates. Combined Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley development assumed in this
study is estimated to generate about 6,110 trips during the AM peak hour. Trip
generation is expected to be 9,510 trips during PM peak hour. Saturday peak hour
traffic is expected to be 7,990 trips. The final traffic forecasts in this study were
compared to Pleasanton's forecasts (Le., across the affected interchanges) for
consistency between models.
The directional distribution of trips generated by developments in Dublin, Pleasanton,
and Dougherty Valley was estimated using a combination of distributional
characteristics frorn the Tri-Valley traffic rnodel, previously completed traffic studies,
and local knowledge of travel patterns.
Traffic generated by the developments in Dublin, Pleasanton, and Dougherty Valley
was assigned to the roadway system using the software TRAFFIX. The assigned traffic
was added to the Baseline conditions turning movement volumes (from Figures 8A /
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR Page 63
City of Dublin November 2003
PA 02-034
8B) to obtain Build-out condition traffic forecasts. Traffic assignments used the closest
proximity interchanges to access 1-580 while traffic wa:; also distributed more evenly
among interchanges in a rnanner consistent with the effects of ramp rnetering on traffic
patterns in the study area. The resulting turning movement volumes under Build-out
conditions for the IKEA Project are shown on Exhibit J 5.
Additional future roadway improvernents are planned within the study area and are
represented in the Build-out conditions analysis. Road :mprovements incorporated into
the Buildout conditions analysis include the following:
. Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road Capacity Improvements - Addition of two
westbound left-turn lanes, one through lane and one right-turn lane; one
northbound left-turn lane and two through :,anes; one eastbound left-turn
lane and one through lane; and one southbound left-turn lane. Some of these
improvements have been constructed, but are not open to traffic. (Eastern
Dublin TIF improvement)
· Dublin Transit Center Roadways - Incorporation of new and improved
roadway connections at the Dublin Transit Center due to development of the
Transit Center. Reduction from two to one northbound exclusive left-turn
lanes on Iron Horse Parkway at Dublin Boulevard. The ultimate lane
configurations for this approach would consist of one left-turn lane and one
shared right/left turn lane. (The approved Dublin Transit Center is responsible for
reconstructing Iron Horse Parkway between Dui,lin Boulevard and Martinelli Way.)
· Scarlett Drive Extension - Extension of Scarlett Drive from Dublin Boulevard
north to Dougherty Road and associated intersection improvements at
Dublin Boulevard/ Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive, as
identified in the Transit Center EIR. For analysis purposes, 75 percent of the
southbound left turns and westbound right turns at the Dublin Boulevard /
Dougherty Road intersection were assumed to shift to the Scarlett Drive
Extension. Eastern Dublin TIF improvement)
. Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive Capacity Improvements - Addition of one
westbound through lane and conversion of a northbound right-turn lane to a
third through lane. (Eastern Dublin TIF improvement)
· Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound Off-ramp Capacity Improvements - Widening of
the northbound Hacienda overpass to four lanes to accommodate an
exclusive lane leading to the 1-580 westbowld loop on-ramp. Addition of one
shared right/left-turn lane on the off-ramp approach. These improvements
are identified in the Transit Center and East Dublin Properties EIRs. (The
approved Dublin Transit Center is responsible for funding these improvements.)
· Hacienda Drive/I-580 EB off-ramp Capacity Improvement - Addition of one
shared right/left-turn lane on the off-ramp approach, as identified in the
East Dublin Properties EIR.
· Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road Capacity Improvement - Addition of ultimate
improvements as identified on pages 158, 159, and 167 of the Transit Center
DEIR and page 3.6-17 of the East Dublin Properties Draft SEIR. These
improvements are expected to occur with the developrnent of the Transit
Center project. (Eastern Dublin TIF improvement)
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 64
November 2003
· Dougherty Road/l-580 WB Off-ramp Capacity Improvement - Addition of one
southbound free right-turn lane and one shared right/through lane by re-
striping an existing shoulder area, and widening of the westbound diagonal
on-ramp to two single-occupancy vehicle lane'3 as specified in the Transit
Center EIR. (Local developers, including the Transit Center development, will
contribute their fair share of these improvements as part of the planned intersection
improvements at Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road,)
. Fallon Road Extension - Extension of Fallon Road north to Tassajara Road to
include four lanes of traffic. (Eastern Dublin TIF improvement)
. Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road Capacity Improvement - Addition of a second
eastbound left-turn lane (Eastern Dublin TIF improvement) plus ultimate
improvements as identified in the Transit Center EIR. (Unless previously
constructed by others, such as the proposed IKEA project, the Transit Center
development will be responsible for constructing the western frontage improvements
and all travel and turning lanes and the median within the existing right-of-way for
Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and Altamirano Avenue.)
. Dublin Boulevard Extension_- Extension of Dublin Boulevard east to Fallon
Road to include six lanes of traffic. (Eastern Dublin TIF improvement)
Buildout LOS was calculated for the study intersections using the buildout traffic
volumes and roadway improvements discussed above. Tables 4.3.7, 4.3.8 and 4.3.9
present the LOS results at buildout conditions. LOS calculation worksheets are included
in Appendix F of the Traffic Study. One intersection, Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty
Road, would be anticipated to have degraded level of service operations during the PM
peak hour with or without the addition of the proposed IKEA Project.
As noted in Tables 4.3.7, 4.3.8 and 4.3.9, the proposed IKEA Project would have
incrernental impacts to the study intersections as compared to the existing Campus
Office land use designation. During the weekday AM peak hour, the incremental
impacts are generally beneficial as compared to the existing land use designation on the
site. Weekday PM peak hour incremental impacts would be mixed; the IKEA Project
causes increased V / C ratios at some locations but decreases the V / C ratio at other
areas. Saturday peak hour incremental impacts are more substantial with the IKEA
Project increasing the V / C ratios at most study intersections. While the IKEA Project
and existing Campus Office land use designation would generate similar levels of traffic
during the weekday PM peak hour, the trip distribution and assignment characteristics
differ due to differences in land uses. These differences explain the variance in
intersection operations, which are documented in Tables 4.3.7, 4.3.8, and 4.3.9.
Supplemental Impact TRA-2: Cumulative impacts at study area intersections.
Based on information contained in Tables 4.3.7, 4.3.8 and 4.3.9, anticipated traffic
contributed to the local roadway system by the proposed IKEA project would not
exceed standards of significance as identified in the DSEIR and would therefore be less-
than-significant. Nonetheless, at build-out even without the Project, Dublin
Boulevard/Hacienda Drive (PM peak), Dublin/Boulevard/Arnold Road (pM peak), and
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road will operate below LOS D.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 65
November 2003
Although Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive intersection was identified as a significant
cumulative impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Easte:m Dublin EIR did not evaluate
traffic conditions at the Arnold Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection, since Arnold Road
was not included as a roadway within the Eastern Dub:.in Specific Plan or the associated
General Plan Amendment. Arnold Road was constructe:i as part of the Eastern Dublin
BART station, which is located just west of the Project site. The BART station site was
not included in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan, but has
since been approved as the Dublin Transit Center and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and General Plan have been amended to include this 91 -acre site into the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan.
Tables 4.3.7, 4.3.8 and 4.3.9 present the intersection operation results with the identified
road improvements. PM peak hour operations at the Lublin Boulevard/Arnold Road
intersection are expected to improve to LOS E (V /C = 1.00) with the IKEA Project,
which is a significant impact. With the mitigation described below, this is further
improvement to LOS D (V /C = 0.88), to a level of insigrrificance. Both the AM and
Saturday peak hour operations are acceptable without or without the mitigation
measure.
SM-TRA-2: Project developer shall pay its proportioncte share, based on trips
generated, of the cost of installing a southbound-to-wEstbound right-turn lane at the
Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road intersection. The southbound Arnold Road approach at
Dublin Boulevard would consist of one left-turn lane (existing), one through lane
(existing in the form of a right-turn lane), and one right-turn lane.
With this mitigation, the Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Ro.id intersection will operate at
acceptable levels of service. This supplemental cumulative impact will be reduced to a
level of insignificance.
Cumulative Freeway Segment Conditions with the Project. To identify potential
mainline freeway impacts, weekday AM and PM peak hour freeway traffic forecasts
were obtained from the Dublin Transit Center Environmental Impact Report (SCH #
2001120395) available at the City of Dublin Community Development Department) As
noted, the proposed IKEA Project is expected to generate similar levels of freeway-
related traffic as compared to the previous forecasts in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Differences in the forecasts can be attributed to the different trip generation
characteristics and the differing distribution characteristics associated with an
ernployment (campus office) center versus a retail cen1er.
Six mainline freeway segments were analyzed along 1-;80 and 1-680 in the Project area.
They are the following segments:
1-580: 1-680 to Dougherty Road
Dougherty Road to Hacienda Drive
Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road
Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
1-680: 1-580 to Alcosta Road
1-580 to Stoneridge Drive
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 66
November 2003
As shown on Tables 4.3.12 and 4.3.13, several freeway segments near the Project site
are expected to operate below the Alameda County Congestion Management
Authority's standards for the LOS Monitoring Program. However, similar to the E1R
conclusions documented for the Transit Center development, if IKEA Project trips were
added to Year 2025 No Project mainline volumes on 1-580 and 1-680, projected LOS for
freeway segments within the study area would remain unchanged during the AM and
PM peak hours.
Supplemental Impact TRA-3: Cumulative increase of Project related traffic on
adjacent freeways.
The proposed IKEA Development Project would add additional vehicles to already
deficient conditions on some of the freeway segments as identified in Table 4.3.12 and
4.3.13. This is considered a significant cumulative impact. This was also identified as a
significant cumulative impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Mitigation for impacts to these freeway segments is not feasible since freeway
improvements are not under the City of Dublin's jurisdiction. However, the Project
remains subject to Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0, 3.3/2.0, 3.3/2.1, 3.3/3.0, 3.3/4.0, 3.3/5.0
in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which generally require developers to contribute their
proportionate share towards regional freeway improvenents. Non-residential
development projects with 50 or more ernployees are also required to participate in a
Transportation Management System program to reduce the use of single-occupant
vehicle use. These measures have been implemented through the requirement that
development projects in the Tri-Valley area pay the Tri-Valley Transportation
Developrnent (TVTD) Fees. Such fees fund the construction of planned freeway
improvernents, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, and interchange improvements on
1-580 and 1-680. The IKEA Project will be required by a condition of project approval to
pay the appropriate TVTD Fees.
Therefore, the impact of the freeway system of 1-580 and 1-680 in the Project area
remains a significant unavoidable cumulative impact.
Consistency with Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Thresholds.
Analyses were completed for Routes of Regional Significance and the Metropolitan
Transportation System (MTS). The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
(ACCMA) rnay require additional analysis if specific project trip generation thresholds
are exceeded. The threshold for analysis is met if the project generates more than 100
net new vehicle trips during either the weekday AM or PM peak hour. The current
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation on the site is Campus Office.
Supplemental Impact TRA-4: Impacts on ACCMA Routes of Regional
Significance.
To assess whether an additional roadway analyses is necessary, the IKEA Project trip
generation was compared to the current land use designation for the site, as shown in
Table 4.3.10. As previously noted in this SDEIR, the net new peak hour trips generated
by the IKEA Project would generate fewer trips than the 100-trip threshold (as
IKEA Draft Supplemental EtR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 67
November 2003
compared to the current Campus Office designation) necessary to conduct additional
roadway analyses on the Routes of Regional Significance and the MTS routes. Based on
the information shown in Table 4.3.10, there would be no impact with regard to
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency thresholds.
Table 4.3.10. Congestion Management Agency Trip Generation Assessment
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
II<EA Development Project 455 881
Campus Office (Existing 975 922
Specific Plan designation)
Trip Difference - 520 - 41
Source: Fehr & Peers, August 2003
Impacts to Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes on local arterial roadways.
Fehr & Peers calculated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) f,)recasts for typical
weekday conditions for four arterial road segments near the proposed Project
including Hacienda Drive north of Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive North of
Martinelli Way, Hacienda Drive north of 1-580 and TaBsajara Road south of
Dublin Boulevard. The results are summarized below in Table 4.3.11.
Table 4.3.11. Weekday Average Daily TI'affiC Forecasts
Existing Base- Ba!;,eline Plus Build-out Plus
line IKEA IKEA
Development Development
Project Proj ect
Hacienda Drive North 11,140 12,940 13,170 24,550
of Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive North 20,550 23,060 23,140 38,330
of Martinelli Way
Hacienda Drive North 29,479 31,989 38,979 65,456
of 1-580
Tassajara Road South 26,287 32,587 32,787 59,177
of Dublin Boulevard
Source: Fehr & Peers, August 2003
The above forecast were developed using the following methods:
· The City of Dublin conducted 24-hour traffic counts for Hacienda Drive between
Hacienda Crossings and 1-580 westbound ramps and Tassajara Road between
Koll Center Drive and Dublin Boulevard in May 2003. This data was used to
determine existing ADT forecasts for Hacienda Drive north of 1-580 and
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR Page 68
City of Dublin November 2003
PA 02-034
Tassajara Road south of Dublin Boulevard. The future traffic forecasts were
developed by adding the daily traffic (calculated as 10 times weekday PM peak
hour traffic) generated by approved projects, build-out projects, and the IKEA
project to the existing volumes, as applicable, to the appropriate scenario.
. The ADT data for Hacienda Drive north of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive
north of Martinelli Way was not developed from traffic count but calculated by
increasing weekday PM peak hour traffic 10 times.
According to the City of Dublin General Plan, the following roadway design standards
(upper threshold) are assumed based on ADT:
. 30,000 vehicles per day - four lanes
. 50,000 vehicles per day - six lanes
. 70,000 vehicles per day - eight lanes
Supplemental Impact TRA-5: Impacts on local roadway links.
The number of lanes provided at each roadway segment for each scenario is sufficient
to accommodate the calculated traffic as shown in Table 4.3.11. There would therefore
be no impact with regard to anticipated Project traffic being accommodated on local
arterial roadways near the Project site.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
P A 02-034
Page 69
November 2003
Q)
("I
....
e
Q)
'J}
....
Q
-
Q)
>
QJ
....;I
=
Q
....
-
("I
QJ
CI)
'"
QJ
-
=
-
'"
=
Q
::c
~
..,
Q)
~
tlO
r::
....
-
CI)
....
><
~
~
rti
~
Q)
-
J:l
..,
f-4
... N
::s tIl
~g
~
lU
GI
llo.
>.
lU
"tI ~
... III
::s '-Ol
-:; 0
tIl~
tIl
.. 0
6 ...:I
:I:
~
lU
Q)
~
~ ~1Il
llo.'-Ol
o
~
tIl
.. 0
6 ...:I
:I:
~
lU
GI
llo.
~ ~
<&J
o
~
<<<<<<<~<~~<<<<<<
= l=: =
~~~-~~~t'll~lUlU~~~~O-
NM~N~M~,_,,__N~~M
0000000=01::l=:000000
<<<<<<<~<~~<<<u<<
l=: l=: l=:
~M~~MN_lU_lUt'llNM~~__
~~~MM~~,M"MM~~~~
0000000l=:0l=:l=:000000
<<=<<<<~<~~<<<===
l=: = l=:
~ 0 _ ~ ~ N ~ lU ~ <IS t'll 01_ ~ ~ N ~
N~~NN~~,N"NN~~~~
0000000l=:0l=:l=:000000
'"
=
~
v
GI
~
Q)
C
-
-u
lU
o
~
<IS
...
-g .~
o ~
~ <J:l
<IS
CIl
.~
...
Cl
lU
-U
I::
Q)
'0
lU
:t
~
lU
3:
Q)
.:: CJJ
... >
'; 5 ~
-g ~ ~
.~ fD .:=
~ .0 -d
:t lU
, :t .5
~ ~ <IS
Ei S E
f! lU <
~ t. {.IJ
.....~~
0'0-
-u-u":::-
l=: I:: iU
g g 3:
.;!"Q
~ 't) Qj
~ ~ ~
g g ..
~~i
-u
lU
~
-u
-u "0
<IS -u l=:
o lU ..
~ 0 <
-u~,
"0 -
l=: :g =II:
-< g ~
, .. ==
-u < Q)
;; ":::- .~
> iU ..
..2!3:~
g ... g
~ Ql '::S
.. '.;:l=: t::
:::: <
"Q .. ,.,
::s <IS S2
Cl~_
-U
lU -u
~ ~ <IS -u
~ "tI~~ ~
... <IS Q) -u
t'llQ) o~:; -U
~.~-g~g~ g
~o o-Cl,Q ;:
o-~t,... ""
:tQj~~~~-.l;:;'
l=:~t::sEEO=ll:
,gtX~8~f!i=:~
..................=',::::~2:~
-u-uo-uO'SOf
:;:;Cl ;;-u"tlu.:::;
>>'>=l=: ...
Q) Q) Q) Q) ::s ::s Q., -u
"3 "3 .~ "3.& 0 0 S
00):;: o-"QE-< l=:
==....= gj'tiCll'-
=s::-~,.lU...E
......-].== ~ Q.I~<
:E:E ...:Egg~~
::s ::s l'l ::s ~ ~;:.. ~
ClClCJ')O..l....I..-.l-
-.l'N
'o:t: -
N<"i~tri-cto:ccia\~:::~~~~~~
lU
,
l=:
CD
(3
:E
CD
>
O(\')
!'-O
Q)~
~...
a..jg
E
~
z
<IS
......
s::
......~
.~ ~
;::-s::
.;::.~
liP::
~CD
0=
;'.9
.501
'OC
0:0
80
illS
-ct$
C C
g.2
0_
CDO
I/) CD
"'1/)
.!Q5
.5'E
~ '0;
_.c
--
0'"
.c.E
o~
III CD
0(3
a.:E
Q.CD
Ill>
-fiCii
1llQ.
CD I/)
...'0
OC
-0
1/)0
c~
CD~
E~
~q;
0'0
E-
-ag
oc
6' ~8
.> 0 CD
o~ _001
Oi: ~ ctS
co_ 0Q)
f6'g g~
lilg. f!c
'00 ,,0
CD' ...,
1ii~ >"g.
um _coS
'CE oJgo
C::l EI/)~
'0;0 ::l-
.c > I/) C/) -r5
-CD co'"
_om O-l~
'OclD
iii~ CDO.c
'x ~o l3 15 ~
CD~ .QCDIll
-- CD~CD
ge .gCD13
1/)0 c::Ea:
:!lw 2l~l5C")
'00 '--'-0
c~~oC/)iiio
O~Oq; .~C\l
;:Cf);>_O_
~13~.s!S;~~
I/)CI/)CO>C!,,!
~Q),-o~ttS::S
.$! .~ oS;:: ..~ <(
c:-c:uc(!::,.
_o-CD~......I/)
.~'Of?ol1l~
.s!W~.sO;::CD
.Q_-c~!\ja.
1ll0<<i-tf}~alS
.g,^c'O!l)
_YI CD~~'"
8:e.2lN-5~.c
Ill~~~q)lijaf
-ct$::lC~~
o CD... 01'" !\j 00
..z"'" o'-~f..S CD
~I":::;_CJ)....... ~
o~ . 5
Zc.... N C/)
-
a;
c
(ij
E
Q)
Ec
J!?=-.:t
c...o ("'\
c..:::lo
:::l0 ,
C/)_C'l
<tOO
W :>.......
~:!::.......
_O~
lU
,
l=:
~
Q.
I/)
'0
C
o
o
CD
en
.5
>-
III
q;
'0
E
'E
o
o
CD
01
f!
CD
>
III
'0
C
III
en
C
.2
t5
CD
f?
CD
~
'0
CD
.!::!
<<i
C
01
'w
lU
,
s::
lU
,
l=:
lU
,
l=:
.E
o
~
a:
W
~
t.l
...
t:
Q)
'Jj
-
o
{I)
-
~
>
~
...;l
c::
o
...
-
t.l
Q)
{I)
~
Q)
-
c::
-
~
=
o
:I:
~
l'Cl
~
=--
~
c::
...
-
~
{I)
..,
=:I
N
rf)
~
~
-
..Q
l'Cl
~
... N
::s fIJ t'll tll ct$ tll ....
0 0 < < < < < < < ....... < ....... ....... < < < < < < ....... .S!
::c l:: l:: l:: l::
.... 0) 0)
~ 13 ~:5
t'll :2
~ 0) .~ .e
~ > ~C)
;>., lD ~.5
III a. ~'E
"tl ..
... ~ ..t< \0 .... ..t< CO .... to-. III a- III t'll \0 """ to-. to-. N to-. III m 0
:s 'C 00
.... ~ C"l C"l tt) N tt) ..t< C"l ....... .... ....... ....... .... N N tt) ..t< C"l ....... C _0
III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l:: 0 l:: l:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 l:: 0 C)tll
fIJ 0 C~
0) .- 0
m 'Etll
.5 oe
>. oa.
oa.
tll ~tll
CD
N 'C Cc
fIJ t'll tll ct$ t'll 00
.. 0 < < l:O < < < < ....... < ....... ....... < < < 0 < l:O ....... 0) uti
:s l:: l:: l:: l:: C)
.... ~ 0)0)
0 ~m
::c 0) BCD
>
i tll .5~
'C
Q) I NIN C CD 0)
~ tll ~~
--
~ ~ m - ....
~ .... N ..t< \0 to-. ct$ tt) III III Il'l co \0 C"l C"l C"l III C 00
~ \0 ..t< C"l ..t< Il'l ....... C"l ....... ....... C"l C"l ..t< co ..t< \0 ....... .2 ~-
~ ~ .LO o~
cio 0 0 0 0 0 l:: 0 l:: c:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 l:: '0 as..21
0) e~
~
0) a. 0)
:5 a.>
as ....
'C ~CD
0) oa.
.!::! asm
... CD'C
fIJ t'll III III III <ii ....c
.. 9 < < < < < < < ....... < ....... ....... < < < l:O l:O 0 ....... c .S!g
:s l:: l:: l:: l:: C)
0 '0; ~m
::c .E c__
CD>.
~ .2 Ect$
Si CD-
e >CD
~ 0'C
~ .. Q Eo
~ a- N CO Il'l 0 ..t< 0 t'll Il'l III III C"l \0 CO to-. C"l .... t'll CiS':::
-< ~ C"l ..t< tt) C"l C"l Il'l \0 ....... C"l ....... ....... N N ..t< \0 \0 CO ....... .> .S:! g
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l:: 0 l:: l:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 l:: 0-- :=0
'C>. tiCD
as:=
CO '-~
CD as .S!....
oa. m CD .
mas
III 'Crr .2 iUS
.... .mS iiico
ii! as' '-o~
OCD ()'C -
III .- E 3> m'E
.... "g,2
l:: .- 0 _asas
III CD> O.c 0
fIJ CII "t:l =0) E.!I2~
"t:l ....... ~
ct$ CII > .:: III "t:l (SCU ~CI)~
... 0
0 .:: .. .. >. ~ Q::; III -'C cO tll
~ .. 0 0 t'll "t:l 0 "t:l 7ijCD 0...J m
0 ~ III ~ Q::; III
ct$ III tll ~ ~ 0 .- 1::
... ~ "t:l CII "t:l ... "t:l Q::; ~o 'CCCD
"t:l tll 0 .:: CII "t:l .:: III CII a. 0) .2 a:
tll .~ .~ l:: .. CII fo ... -0) (J)oc
0 '(ij" ... > CII ... "t:l "t:l III .:: "t:l ~ t'll ~ 0,- tllCDO
m 11 0 ... '0 '0 ll. >. c~
II) Q::; CIl ... \J "t:l III ... ct$ :s g- O .c "'._
= ~ ct$ 0 III tll 0 "t:l e CII 0 ~ >. 8 e ",'" G)-Cii
~ ct$ i5: = = c:: Q::; ct$ <f.l i O)W o CD,!:
... -g 'iii ~ < ... = < o 0 .- 'E 0 (I)
III ....... ....... III ....... ....... ~ .... 'C::!!: ~.- a.O
... "t:l "t:l .... ~ ....... .......
'(ij" Q" Q.. = ....... .!l ..c:: .......
Q) ~ ~ Q" S- '0 S- ~ c-- 0) a.",o
~ CIl = = '0 = "t:l .... ... .. bO ~ o .mocC\l
rn -< e - '#: ~ t'll 1! :l ;:~!oCi5!1ii
~ III tll III tll '0 III ct$ 0 >. \J 0 tll ~
.... .. ... = ~ ~.2 CD t:. ~
= ~ ...:. ...:. III .... ... ~ < e III CJ') bO 0 .. ...
- ....... ... ....... = :::: ...:. ~ ~ ..... ....... :l :::: I ~ ! CD "0 > .....:...iis ::s
... ... ....... < ....... ....... ~
"t:l 0 0 "t:l ....... 0 0 ..... "E CII "E "t:l 0 "t:l 0 0 CII .!~m..21S;;:;<(
.... ... "t:l .... ....... ....... > ... 0 .::
III "t:l tll >. "t:l "t:l >. t'll ... "t:l cOlDC<>>~ur
0 l:: III >. ... t'll ....... tll -g
> l:: > III C c:: t'll > ct$ .. > > CII > 3 ... -:~c~-:'~CD
~ ~ 5 :l <II ~ :l :l ~ <II ~ "t:l .!l CII > .!l :l .... "tl ..21w.- 0<(~0)
'3 -B 0 '3 0 0 g .. :l '3 ... :l 0 0 0 ... ~ - 'C m h",. a..
~ 0 -B 0 ... -B -B ... ... 0 0 .... .:e .:e 0
l:O '" l:O - - - .5 0 CQ 0 0 ~ .5 .S:!o:!llD()~alS
0 ~ rn a:; III III a:; CQ a:; CQ CQ <f.l rn -""--()Sl'-
~ III CII III = :::: CII III = a. CD <ii c -- ~
w .5 CII .S .S ~ CII .S .S .5 .5 .S .!l .S ~ <II a.~ c'-lfla CD
.... :0 0 0 :0 .... 0 - :0 .... -< :0 :0 :g 0 0 01< as m Cl'C ~ U.
.. 0 .... ... ...
co co III co tll tll ~ ct$ co co w~ -lll'-O);.::s~
~ :l tt) Il'l :l co :2 :l :l :l OCD"'N1)llloo
0 ::s 1? ::s ::s ~ 0 ("I tt) 1? Q.. ~ UiZ c:= :to)
0 I ..!."t:l 0 0 fIJ 0 ,.l,
- - ..... ..... O),::!!:::l~~~~
C-' t'll - ~
0 0 ,...; C"'i ~ Lri -0 to: 00 N -as C)!:).!;,i)::l
... 0...... .-ct~ 0
U) ,...; N C"'iQ::; ~ Lri -0 to: 00 0\ .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... U) .... Zc..... CI) CI)
....(1)
1'-0
Q)O
C)C\I
ct$....
Cl.~
E
~
z
a::
ii:i
....
-
e
Cl
(ij
'E
Q)
Ec
CD.-
o..::C-.:r
Q.:::::IM
:::::ICl 0
(1)-N
<(00
w>.
~:::<C
_UCl.
00
o
...:l
lo<
=
o
::c
~
..,
~
~
~
<
~
("I
Q)
'0
lo<
~
III
=
-
f:l.o
Q)
C
....
-
Q)
Ct.l
..,
!:Q
."
C
..,
~
c
....
-
~
Ct.l
..,
~
cO
c
....
-
III
....
><
~
~
tti
..;.
~
-
,.Q
..,
E-<
u 5
>=
- =
u..D
IlIb
'0'=
... 0
="u
....
'"
III
-e-
=..
o
::s
==
III
.S
'i
o
I'll
i:Cl
III
.S
'i
o
I'll
i:Cl
bIl
~
o
'X
~
'"
=
.S!
-
'"
III
i!J
III
-
=
-
N
CJ')
o
..:I
N
rI:J
o
....:l
N
rI:J
o
..:I
g g 8 S a '2 g
o 0 0 000 0
.....
.....
o
I
SSg ~~ ~ I ~
d d d 90 0
<( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( ~ ~ <(
~
o
::;
~
~
~
::;
a- N co
<'> '<l' U')
000
< <
a- N
<'> '<l'
o 0
< <
~ M ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 N N ~
0000000 000 0
<
< < < <
tIl
-= <(
tIl tIl
? ? < < <
co
U')
o
~ g ;jl; ~ ~ ~ ~
o 0 0 0 C 0 C
tIl <'>
....... N
C 0
'" co
N '<l'
o 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C
'tl
tIl
~
r:
tIl
'i;"
'"
'"
~
.......
"" 'E
o ~
r: ~
z ~
8 .5
"" :E
~ 8
"
....
II)
...; N
~ < < <
'tl
tIl
~
r:
tIl
'i;"
'"
<I)
~
.......
Q.,
E
tIl
..
..!,
'0
-g
:>
o
-B
'"
CIJ
~
<:>
co
~
'tl
tIl
~
.l!!
c;;:
tIl
'E
III
CJ'l
.......
CIJ
>
'C
Cl CIJ
o >
.S:! -c
E Cl
c:: .@l
....... C
Q., CIJ
E 'u
III tIl
.. :I:
~ =E
'tl tIl
!3 s;
o '3
.c 0
en ~ Qj
III .5 ,5
~ :0 1::
~ 6 ~
CIJ
>
'C
Cl
tIl
'tl
C
CIJ
'u
tIl
:I:
.......
>.
~
ca ca <<s I
<.......<..............<1<<
C C C
CIJ
>
'C
Cl
tIl
'tl
C
Qi
'u
tIl
:I:
.......
Q.,
E
tIl
..
..!,
'0
'tl
C
:>
o
.c
~
Qi
~
<:>
co
~
>.
tIl
~
Qi
>
1:
'tl
C
.;
E
<
~
~
.......
>.
tIl
~
'tl
tIl
~
'tl
'0
e
<
.......
>.
~
tIl <:>
....... N
C 0
..... l'o. '"
N '<l' '"
o d 0
'tl
tIl
~
'tl
'0
e
<
.......
.....
..
>.
tIl
~
,2:
.;;
....
o
C
'E
<
~
~
>.
tIl
~
....
&: ~
cu 'C
~ 0
~ Oi
c: "5
e eX
:::::........
-s ~
tIl tIl
~ ~
'3 '3
o 0
~ ~
.5 .5 i
;g ;g "5i
Cl 0 eX
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g = ~ ~ ~
'tl
tIl
~
~
..
Qi
.<::
tlO
:>
o
o
.......
CIJ
.2:
..
Cl
:
a-
U')
o
....
'"
o
...
Xl
::i
co
co
~
~
o
~
o
;0
::i
co
co
::l
~ ~
o :::i
'tl
tIl
o
Ill::
~
..
Qi
.<::
tlO
:>
o
Cl
.......
'E
tIl
>
Qi
'3
o
CO
.S
;g
o
-0
.....
'tl
tIl
~
~
..
~
tlO
:>
o
o
.......
Q.,
E
tIl
..
..!,
'0
'tl
C
:>
o
.c
~
Qi
~
<:>
CO
~
't:l
tIl
o
Ill::
'E
tIl
>.
Q.,
o
:x::
......
Q.,..,j
E 0
~ e:
::::: Z
o 0
11 u
:> ll.,
~ ~
~ II)
CIJ >-
~ ~
'? ".
- ..,j
to: .0 ..,j N
,..... ,..... "( ,.....
<:>
to:
Ql
.s 1ii=
CD .~ .s
'0 j;; Cl Ql
:2 ~ .E ~
~ ~'E
o Ql
~ .e8 E
o Cl CIl III
'0 I:: .I:: Ql
a ~ ~ =
o Of:! Cl
Q) 00. I::
(/) 16 0. 'iij
.E CIl:::l
>. gl:: c:
CIl 0 ._2
Q; titi
'0 Ql Q) '5
(/)(/) I::
Q) QiQi 0
~ ~:E _00
Qi
> QlQ) Ql
ctS == "e
-g Co 0..
CIl .1::- ~
.~ r~ ~
'0 8: ~ .E
Ql CIl> CD
~ ~ O.l en
Q) 00. CIl
:E as(/) ED
Ql '0 Q)
~ 0 c :5
.~ - 8 .E
(ij ~31 II)
c: c_ "E
Cl QlE >. Ql
'iij as E
... ~CD Ql
.E 0"'0 >
._2 Eo 0
... is. C\I'
~ ~g Eo
'" ...0 7;0
'-' -.: (I)
-.. OQ) _.-
oc. ...~ Qll::
-.:>. .E... E.2
Ill:!:: 0>Q) .oQl'S
1::0 0 -0 ~
Q) as .. as 0 Cl~
~9- el::oQl,%
v#.v OC\ll::cs
'09 Q'O~~u
s.s >Q)~I::
as . (/)... U
oQl cas~.2-
'5E .000'0>
~~ ~~~ ~.~
:5Ql g9m:E]i
o~ '01::81~u
=-g CD.20:_<
.!!l't: lQ'Ol::OW
~ g, .0 3l,g;~
o~ .~.s~-6~
I:: _ ~ .5 g,.!!l,g
II)~ Qlo.(/)o'-
~O ~.EI::..-g
'0:: orn~~8
I:: ~ . CD C-u
,g Zl ~ >~1ii>:g
OQlO~C):::l =
Q)1::"1::C)l:::~Ql
f!!~a;.2""'~-lQ
~;:rno<~~aJ
.5 0 Qi Q)I- .~- ...
Q)-(/),,~I::Ql
'=c:~"""-<D~
~w'-2()I\IEI::
.Q-'OI::~~Ql:::l
asoQ)'-lIln>
.2(/)N'O~'"'0~
8: ~ ~ ~ il ~ is.:s
as iil B,~ ~j~.5 ~
- CIl'- I:: '" 1'::. Q)
..~~ ~.2l~~'.I:: ~
8l . ~ :::lrn.........~ C>
o~ .
zc:.... ci C'i
tIl
......
C
tIl
.......
C
tIl
......
C
tIl
.......
C
'tl
tIl
o
Ill::
'tl
'0
e
<
.......
N
..
>.
'"
~
Qi
>
'C
'tl
..
g
'E
<
~
~
~('t)
a>8
ClC\l
as~
0..Q)
.0
E
~
o
Z
C')
o
o
C\lCI:
Ciijjj
~
:::l
<
-
......
~
o
~
Q) Cii
Q) E
ll. a>
all E c
.... a>.-
.I:: "Q.:C ~
Ql c.:::l ('t)
U. :::lOO
Cli CJ)-N
!:<Coo
:::lL.LJ>-
o~:!::<C
rn_Oo..
00
o
~
J::
Q
....
-
("I
OJ
CLl
""
OJ
-
J::
-
""
:=
Q
::c
~
tel
OJ
Q.,
~
Q.,
.;-
("I
OJ
.s
Q.,
CLl
:=
-
Q..
OJ
J::
....
-
OJ
CLl
tel
=
"'0
J::
tel
OJ
J::
....
-
OJ
CLl
..,
=
~
J::
....
-
CLl
....
><
~
at5
rt5
~
OJ
-
~
..,
E-<
uS
>=
::s
-,Q
"'.-
ClI ..
eOC
.. Q
ll.U
-
...
Q)
'0'
...
ll.
'"
::
s::
ClI
.5
~
'"
<'II
=:I
ClI
.5
~
'"
<'II
=:I
bO
~
'"
.>(
~
'"
=
~
...
III
'"
..
III
-
!:
-
...
,....OO,....NCOC'\ <<IN <<s cu,....NO
OOOO....OO.........................OO~
0000000 l=:0 l=: l=:000
'1-.0 0
NO 0
~O 0
tIl
o
...:I
<<=<<<=<<<<<<<<<=
'"
~
o
:?J
~ N .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~N~""N~~~~~~
00000000000000000
...
tIl
o
...:I
<<=<<<<~<~~<<<Cl<=
l=: l=: l=:
'"
~
o
:?J
NN....N~~~<'II~<'II<'II~~~~~~
~~~~~~~.......~..............~~~~~~
00000001:0l=:l=:000000
tIl
o
...:I
<<<<<<<~<
I:
<'II <'II
..............<<<U<<
l=: l=:
'"
~
o
:?J
~~~~~N""<'II""<'II<'IIN~~~........
~~~~~~~.......~..............~~~~~~
0000000l=:01::l=:000000
"0
t'll
o
c::
<'II
...
<'II
';;r
<J:l
<J:l
<'II
E-
...:I.......
0'E
~ ~
~ '3
o 0
u =
...l .5
~:g
~ Cl
~ .....;
-u
<'II
o
c::
<'II
...
<'II
';;r
<J:l
<J:l
~
.......
e-
<'II
...
...!.
-
o
]
:::l
o
-:e
<J:l
CIJ
~
o
~
::2
-u
<'II
o
c::
.1S
2
<'II
'E
<'II
CJ')
.......
Q)
.~
..
Cl Q)
o ;.
.~ .C
eQ
Q:;~
....... I:
Q., Q)
E '0
<'II t'll
~::c
-.......
o 'E
-u t'll
l=: >
::s Q)
o '3
,Q 0
'ti l:Q
&'l .5
~:E
:26
N <"i "'"
Q)
>
'C
Cl
<'II
-u
I:
Q) Q)
> '0
-;:: n:s
Q ::t
<'II .......
-u 0..
I:: E
Q) <'II
.0 1-1
<'II ...!.
::t '0
.......-u
>. l=:
<'II ::s
3: 0
-:e
Qj :fi
.5 ::
t: ~
.:il '~
~ I:
Q)
.~
... >.
Q <'II
<'II ~
-u ClI
~ .~ -u -u
'0 -u 2l 2l
<'II l=: c:: c::
::t 'OJ -u
';::- E - -u
.... g '0
E < ... E
E ~ < <
...!..~..................
'0 :::::: 'E >.
-u >. <'II t'll
l=: <'II [j 3:
5 ~ :; --
~~~]
~ -.a .:: :;
~ ~ :E ~
:2 ::E 8
r' a5 0\ ~ :::
-u >.
<'II <'II
o ~
c:: ~
-U <'II
'OQ..
E ~
< 0
;::;-::t
'II: l=:
~]
:: .......
~ 'E
'C ~
-u Q)
~ :1
I: 0
's ~
< ;::
~ ,Q
:.G ::s
_ Cl
-u
<'II
~
.::-
...
Q)
~
::s
o
Cl
.......
Q)
>
'C
Cl
<"i"",lli \lir-.: cO
,.... ,.... ,.... ,.... ,.... ,....
<'II
.......
l=:
(I)
~=
.~ .s
~!2l CD
~.= c::
~'E .!!!
o CD
Q; ,gg E
0. OlCO m
~ .5 'fi CD
5 'E ct$ -=
o oe Ol
CD 00. c::
(I) ~ 0. '0
.5 ct$::l
c::~ c:: C
~ ~~ ~
'0 (I) (I) '6
CD f!?~ c:
Ol (1)(1) 8
! ~.E '0
~ CD(I) (I)
as == -e
-g 00 c..
as ..c:::" ~
~ ~~ C[
.2 e~ (I)
'0 0.(1) .5
CD c.> ;;:;
(fJ co:~ ""
... .l:: CD (I)
CD 00. co
:E .., (I) CO
(1)'0 CD
-g csC: ==
.!::! - 8 .5
Gj ~:g (I)
~ 5i- E
'0 E ~ CD
... ~CD E
.E 0'0 ~
E-o 0
.2 ... c.."":
1ii Gj- Eo
- .25
u:=o ';:;0
........ <:; CD :s .~
02::. ...~ (l)EC::
'1: >. .E... .2
co:= (I)~ .0'5
c::o ._Q-SQ).o
CD III - 0 Ol'1:
00. COC::OCD-=:
(l)1ll "'OC\lC::-
'09 ~'O...!!!8
.!S >(I)~c::
co' (l)cuoo
0(1) -0 CO 0'--
'-E ..cco'O>
~ -o::l E .!I2.l:: :g.(I)
::leno"':;:;
CD> (1)0"'(1)=
SQ) s:: alEt:
... o-lCD.-CD
Sill 'Oc:::g~0
~-g (I).l2a:-c:(
'-1: ~oc::ow
~8. .o:g,g;~
a~ ~~~-5~
c::_ '~.E 8.(1).2
~~ ~~~~~C')
'O~ oeneeoo
c:: ~ . CD Co 0 ~
.2 (I) (I) >...:.';;:_> (1)_
-(I)c::(I).....~ C::(I)
aq~ ,g ~ gp~ (I) 'ai ~
t'!(I)Oo....~-=!!3::l
CD > (1).- oo:::_,uc:(
-::::: 00< .:CD
.E~Qj:gI-~'EQjt'!
'='E"'O ~ CD '0 CD
~w.-~O~Ec::(I)
..c_'Oc::~~CD::lc..
~O(l)-~G>(I)O/S
'-(I)N'O~ 00
Q.o. ~ =a IS ~ ~ i5.:s.E
1ll::lc::="'~E(I)(I)
_ (1).2>'" ~-S:'- ElL.
olll(l)c::t'i.~CDO..
"z~ c::.2>~:.;::.l:: (I) (I)
:g ..c:; ::len..........1- Ole
a_CO. =0
zc::.... N M en
.E
CD
-0
1:
CD
>
<
o
cO
<'II
.......
l=:
<'II
.......
l=:
<'II
.......
l=:
t'll
.......
I::
-u
<'II
o
c::
"0
'0
E
<
.......
~
>.
<'II
~
Q)
>
'C
-u
...
o
l=:
's
<
~
~
N
....
C')C')
.....8
Q)~
g>~
c..E
~
o
Z
a::
W
...
~
Q
al
'E
Q)
Ec:
Q)-
'C.:Ov
o.:JC')
:JQO
(J)-c\J
<(00
w>-
~:=<(
_00..
en
o
....J
::
Q
....
-
("I
QI
CI)
Jo<
QI
-
::
-
Jo<
=
Q
::c
~
!U
QI
~
>..
!U
"t:l
Jo<
=
-
!U
en
~
("I
QI
.S
Jo<
~
tIl
=
-
~
Q)
::
....
-
QI
CI)
!U
=
"t:l
::
!U
QI
::
....
-
Q)
CI)
!U
=
cO
::
....
-
CI)
....
><
~
...c
rt5
~
QI
-
~
!U
E-
u S
>=
_ ::s
u~
Qj:E
'0'1::
... 0
~u
-
u
Qj
-e-
~
'"
:s
s:::
Qj
.5
Qj
II}
t'll
CQ
Qj
.5
Qj
II}
1II
CQ
co
~
II}
;E
II}
c
~
u
Q)
Ie
Qj
-
c
-
...
CI:J
o
,.J
~
~
...
CI:J
o
,.J
~
~
...
CI:J
9
~
~
NOO......to.<Xlto. 1II00 '" "'..",...",.......
OOOO......NN'O"OOO
c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i l=: c:i l=: l=: c:i c:i c:i
<"J
['l') 'f""""I ,-4
-'0 (::::>
c:i c:i <:5
,
< < < < U I:Q I:Q < < < < < < < < <.:t: <
-.0 -.0 ...... l!') l!') 0\ ..",. l!') to. 0\ to. 0 00 00 ..",.
~ <"J l!') N to. -.0 -.0 ..",. N ...... ..",. N N N ..",.
o c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i
<<<<<<<
'" '" 1II
,<"<<<<
l=: l=: l=:
~ ~ 'f""""I ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~
<"J <"J l!') N l!') ~ <"J,......
c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i 0 c:i c c:i
I~
l=:
1II -.0 ..",. to. to.
,...... N N l!')
l=: c:i c:i c:i c:i
<<<<<<<
'" 1II t'll
,<"<<<<
el=:l::
~~~N~~~~~
c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i C c:i
-u
'"
o
~
'"
....
'"
./u
<J:l
U)
'"
E-
,
-u
...,J ...
o ~
~ .;
Z 0
o I:Q
U .S
...,J :g
i 0
I.:l
~ ~
~
'"
o
e:::
'"
....
'"
./u
<J:l
U)
'"
E-
,
0..
E
'"
...
::::
o
-u
C
::s
o
-:9
<J:l
CIJ
~
o
00
::z
-u
'"
c@
,l;!
QZ
'"
"E
'"
CJ')
,
CIJ
.::
...
o Q)
o >
~~ -c
E 0
c::~
~ ~
E 'u
l\I l\I
j: :c
....'
o "E
-u l\I
l=: >
::s CIJ
.8 "3
t) ciS ~
&'l .S :E
~ :0 ...
l!') ::l l\I
,..!.. Cl ::2:
Q)
:>
.t::
Cl
l\I
-u
C
Ql
'u
l\I
:t
,
>.
l\I
=:
Q)
>
't::
o
l\I
-u
l=:
Q)
'u
l\I
:t
,
0..
E
l\I
...
..!.
.....
o
-u
l=:
::l
o
-:9
<J:l
CIJ
~
o
<Xl
::z
CIJ
:>
.t::
Cl ~
~ ~
5i .::
.0 1-4
l\I -u
:t c::
, ';u
c.. E
~ <
... t<l
~ ~
o '-
-g ~
g =:
-:9
<J:l Qj
~ :E
o ...
~ l\I
,..!.. ::2:
l\I l\I ..",. 0\ \C l!')
..................'f""""I'f""""IC"'!1.t")
l=: l=: c:i 0 0 c:i
-u
1II
o
~
-u
a
I::
....
<
......
-u
...
1II
>
CIJ
"3
o
I:Q
.S
:0
::l
o
-u
l\I
o
~
-u
a
-u C
l\I ....
o <
e:::......
-u ~
a >.
C l\I
... ~
I~ Q)
'>. .~
l\I -u
=: ...
o
I::
~ 's
... <
l\I ~
~ ~
N <"i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>.
l\I
~
'""
...
l\I CIJ
Q.. >
CJ .C
Ie Cl
o ....
:t ]
l=: ;
e eX
"
-u ~
... ...
l\I l\I
> >
CIJ CIJ
"3"3
o 0
I:Q I:Q
.5 .5 i
:0:0;:::
::l ::s l\I
ooeX
......<"i~~-.o
'f""""I 'f""""I 'f""""I 'f""""I t"""'I
-u
l\I
o
e:::
~
...
CIJ
.c:
bO
::l
o
Cl
,
Q)
.::
...
o
-u
t'll
~
~
...
Q)
.c:
bO
::s
o
o
,
-u
...
l\I
:>
CIJ
"3
o
I:Q
.S
:g
Cl
<"J co
..",. ''l
c:i C::l
< .:t:
N I...
..",. (I')
c:i <:5
< .:t:
o ,...
..",. (I')
c:i <:i
-u
l\I
~
~
...
Q)
..c
bO
::s
o
o
,
0..
E
l\I
...
..!.
.....
o
-u
C
::l
o
or.
'ti
CIJ
~
o
00
::z
':;I
:ll
:J
,~
":;I
~
>.
~
:J
:c:
" .,
E-'O
a ~
,~ ~
'5 0
'2 u
:i Q.,
,5 ~
.~ tI.)
~ >-
~6 ;;:
:2 ~
...,J
~ ..:i ...,J N
f"""l 1---l "'( 'f""""I
......
......
~
,.
~
...~
~<
-e.s
" <.l
<.l t:l
l? ~
l:l..c3
as
.: ~
:::..::
u.e.o
~:t:
.911
bO~
c_
~bC
8~
OJ ...
'" 0
, OJ
C OJ
o '"
'':: .c
~ ~
~ e
Be..
c e..
.- '"
<) C
-5.9
e~
.c .,
~B
e .5
~~
.c ...
~~
<) ~
...~
13 ~ .~ .:
.!::2 !5 ~ ~
-a c> c
~ t).... e
'Vi ~ 2:l. <)
"'" > '" >
cE o~ e
as e..
.2 te ~ .5
e .g~ ()
~ .;: >. .;:
U U t'::: G)
0> ...Qj a
._ - a -c 0
~~ Vl ~
c::: 0 e
IU 'u .- c cu
~a !o ~o\
'0'" OJ-o
B6 u:>_~ so
= - = -::; fI)
.5:!~ ~~ u.-
'g5 o~ i!!s
.-::s a <) ._
0)0 ='c c:;
oS> mO ._~
.... ~ 813 ~'.5
~= -o~ -6
~~ ~.o Be..>
.~~ ].~~~~
-0 at... 8~8'O>
'S;...J o.~ (I)
~~ ~ 5~.g~
.g~ 'O.ti~e~...,o
"" _~ouuo
s-- <) ...C:->.-;oN
._V-l >V.&: '""'4",
t)~ ~C()cuttJc;;
~~ c.;.~=~~
~> .2o~c(I)3
C - U - ~.- C ~
:~ ~~~5:~~
:o~ .,;~r::-.9 ~'g~
~'Og.-&1;:i>o
;:: ",.:'0_ t:: eUcIC!
8:~ ~.~ "8.Q.~..c
",::s",-<l:.,5.-<)
CI:I""tUf-.c.-'Ot:L.
'0 ~ ~ QU e 0 (I) ..
;,; z::S.5 (;j ~c~ ~ 8
<) 0 ...
- :l
~~"':..i M r55
'0
'"
.!:l
c;j
c
CI)
'Vi
c
::s
...
<)
'0
c
::s
'"
OJ
.C
a;
E
o
<)
bO
<)
c
~
...
<E
<)
u
:c
<)
>
<)
5
'"
'"
...
'"
e..
<)
-5
'"
'0
C
o
OJ
'"
'"
bO
c
'Vi
::s
i::
.g
:a
c
o
u
.:
l\I
,
l=:
>.
'"
"0
'"
<)
CI)
'"
...
<)
>
'"
'0
C
'"
'"
::s
c::
'"
.:
Qj
'"
'"
c:
<)
-5
to
<)
'0'
c:
1II
,
l=:
'"
c
.9
to
i!!
<)
.5
t'll
,
l=:
C'Cl
......
l=:
-u
C'Cl
o
~
-u
a
l=:
...
<
,
~
>.
C'Cl
~
Q)
>
.t::
-u
...
g
's
<
Ul
~
r:tOO
Cl)8
ClC\l
!U....
Q.Cl)
.I:J
E
~
z
CI:
Ui
-
-
~
Cl
(ij
"E
Cl)
Et::
Cl).-
i3..:Cv
c.::300
::JOO
C/)-N
<(00
UJ>'
~=:<(
_ua..
CI}
c:
o
....
....
....
"'0
c:
o
U
lo<
::s
o
:I:
~
fa
Q.l
~
~
-<
c:
o
= =
t'll 0
"tS ...
C:'Q..
QI'e
~ ~
o QI
uQ
QI
r:==:
N
"'... rr.,
.e~::a0
r:l..c:~,...J
-~-
::SU III
cr<=
"tS ~ ... ...
=~:2:~
:--0
:2:
...
....
c:
Q)
e
p..
o
-
Q.l
...
Q.l
o
Q)
c:
o
Q.l
("I
lo<
Q.l
e
e
o
U
"'0
c:
fa
....
U
Q.l
.0'
lo<
~
.::
....
.i
rrJ
o
,...J
c:
o
....
....
u
Q.l
~
Q.l
....
c:
-
....
::s
o
"'0
-
....
::s
=
t-.:
ct5
~
Q.l
-
,.Q
fa
Eo-<
~ 6
= .:
QI U ::s
U_.c
> .~
< ~
~ 0
~ u
'" ...
~.!!
r:l.. c:
- ~
6U
.,;<
=~
1::S~
=-
N
"'~ rr.,
::S.:: 0
s::= ,...J
-0
::s '"
o ::s
.,; Q" ..
=e ~
::Slit ~
=u ~
rIl
c:
.:a
-
u
QI
~
QI
-
c:
-
N
rr.,
o
,...J
...
~
~
8888~~~~o
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I I I I I
coUClCO<ClU<O
~oooot'-.~N<"}~O\
-.Ot'-.OO\OU'lOOt'-.<"}OO
000000000
coUClcocoClU<O
~OOOOt'-.\OOU'l-.OO
-.ot'-.OO\O\OO\t'-.<,,}O\
000000000
-u
'"
o
~
'"
...
'"
'CG
<J:l
<J:l
t'll
f-<
.......
-u
...
t'll
>
ClI
"3
o
co
.5
:g
Cl
-u
'"
~
e
'"
'CG
<J:l
<J:l
'"
f-<
.......
0..
e
t'll
...
:t:
o
-u
l=:
:l
o
.g
<J:l
CIJ
~
o
00
:2
Q)
-us::
Ei..s!
oS
.l:l:l
..c:....
.... ,
:l....
0"::,
C/} .:=-
...
co
...,.
\0
o
~ f:) ~ 8 000
o 0 0 0 ~ ;; ~
I I I I
o
o
o
<<coco<uco Cl
0\ \0 (') 0\ \0 t'-. U'l -.0
(') (') \0 \0 ...,. t'-. \0 00
00000000
<<COU<uco Cl
..... <"} U'l N -.0 t'-. U'l -.0
U'l""'\Ot'-.~t'-.-.o 00
00000000
-u
>. '"
'" ..9
~ ~ .....
~ -u t 'E
~Q)_~.c: '"
QJ'~~~~ ~
flOo>'o 0
o....~t::Cl :I:
:I:Qj~l!""'" ..........:l
s:: ;:: ... bO p.. g.. 0
o"'l!::So~ t'll...I:o~~
.........!:: ~ bO'" ';'
,=~::: ~o
'E'E8'E~ ~(.)
~ ~ ....... '" s:: s::
Q)Q)~[;::S :l~
]gi!5g~ ~g
- co co g) ..-'
.5s::~ ,. lll>o
_.-~.5... o~
.g :E :; :E as 00 s:
Cl ~ ~ ::s U'l-u"( I
.... Cl...!. '" - ...:l
g ::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
-u
'"
o
~
-u
'0
-u E
'" <
o .......
~ .....
-u ~
'0 >.
s:: '"
... ~
~ ~
~-a
3: Ci
s::
Qj '6
:E <
:; ~
~ ~
s
o
-'.0
.....C\1
CD -
uiCD'E
c~'"
,g <(-dl
gt;.c
~~~
~~!
'i J;;:! a:
~ c
CiS ~
~~
~~ 8-
=,.~ en
.e~~
.!!!~t::.
~o~
~;,~
lii.E~
Q.'E ~
",0.,.,
'C g ~\S
5'"
~g
~tl ~
-Cl>:
Cl>i!!~
~.!!l~
Q)'~""
>Cl>Cl>
lll==
"gcs.s
lll.c 01
~~.s:
00'E
""-0
g g;g
"'llllll
a;oC C
~~:8
~~~
NoS! i!!
~S~
cc_
.E> CD Q)
"'E=
o~...
~ QoS!
::E"Ci)
1!!1il:9
Q~i
2:.'-' >
~i
o "00') tn
'C lllO'C
! Q."" 5
~ Bl!!o
'" 60CD
'C or>.!!.
S . CD_ >
BU- E 0.J!l
-cn;2E{!l
'EO!i!::l-
-....I "'e
~~;5i:8
-w'C'i
S(f.)-!u>CZJ
~g 8.! ~
.!ca!~~
2.!!l'ii)'~ ~
'" ;~ 5: 0
.g 8-~o'ig
5Sl:lj.!~
~i!~.!l-
CDC:; CD 5(1) ~
2!CD~tlO:S
.!!l ~~ Cl>....I<(
.E CD= 2! c ~
cD 0W CD~ CD
:s a-oc 0 Q)
(0':1:1 -CDa...
g ~ gri e20cs
8:~:S~~.E
lll.!!l gJ Ill-CD
'01: 0) 6>>~
U;Z I :EuHn CD
CD . '0 ~
. '0<<115 ::J
~ ZCm..-'N S
<J:l
-u
s::
o
1rl
<J:l
<"}
I
co
......
......
co
~
......
-u
'"
~
-u
g
...
<
.......
~
>.
t'll
~
.~
...
-u
...
o
l=:
'6
<
~
~
~8
(l)C\j
0>....
III (I)
0...0
E
~
o
Z
a:
jjj
.;;:
~
o
Cii
E
(I)
Ec:;
(1).-
a.:O~
Q.:JC':l
:JOO
OO-N
<00
UJ>-
~~<
_00..
c
;: c:
.. C
"Cl ...
~ c;
e c.;::
e ~
c III
U Cl
III
c=:
00
o
~
..
=
~
==
~
eu
~
~
eu
"C
-
=
-
eu
00
..
'" tIl
l! t~1 0
Q.. C III ....
"'11I'"
gu ~
1<=
;g~~..",
::s""'__ lI.l
=:1- 0
~
... =
2 c
c: :;:
lIlu ='
U_.J:l
<;>',5!
~ =
~ 8
..:
y
~
"e-
..
c..
~
=
o
~
y
..
~
e
e
~
u
"Cl
=
eu
-
y
~
"e-
..
c..
;:
'i
00
o
..;;l
-
=
~
'tl
-
'5
==
='
~
~
Q)
:E
eu
Eo-
'"
..=t
Q..c
-Ill
gu
'<
:l:!~
.S~
=:1-
",2:
=,...
-""
Q..""
_0
='",
~ ::s
-uQ.
=e
='..
=:Iu
'"
c
~
U
III
~
CIJ
C
-
8oo~::l::l~:$t;
c::i ~ ~ c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i
+ + + + + +
..
tIl
o
....
'"
lI.l
o
~
..
tIl
o
....
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
~ ICl 0 < u < ~ u ~
I
~~a-t'-oot'-oC'lIl'lOO
..o~~Il'lOOIl'l..ot'-o..o
000000000
~ClCl<~<<<~
'"
lI.l
o
~
"ll::tl~0'\Lt)"'l::f4~1t')~'t"""'l
..oOOooll'l..o~..,.........o
000000000
-u
m
o
c=:
m
...
m
';a
<J:l
<J:l
'"
~
o.l .......
o "E
e: ~
z '3
o 0
U i:Q
o.l .5
~ :g
~ Cl
~ -4
-u -u
m m
c@ c@
~ .!
.~ ca
<J:l m
~ 1:
t::J1l
0.........
E 0..
'" E
... '"
::: j:
o ""
-u 0
c -u
g 3
.0 0
't;) -:3
Q) <J:l
~ 18
o 0
00 00
Il'l Il'l
~ .!..
Q)
.2: ~
o 5 >.
m m ~
Q) -u -U ;>
.2: I:: c CIJ
... Q) Q) Q) .2: -u
~~@@~!
Q) Q., 0.. E '0
'g ~E....c:
\... ,-(U~s...
:t ~..~<
........ ......~~.........
"'g Oo::::"E
m -U-u>.m
> C C <<l >
CIJ :l::s > ~
'300i>::l
o of!.o 0
co Qj ~ 1;; Q) CQ
.5 :E ~ III :E .5
:Es...~~"":O
::s '" Il'l Il'l '" :l
o::2..!....!..~Cl
m
-u
l=:
CIJ
'0
m
:t
.......
>.
m
::
coi <"i -i< Lri ..0 too: cO 0\
Q)
-ul=:
3~
oS
;g,E
.... ,
:l....
~~
...
i:Q
~
..0
o
10 a- (<) ..,.
~ C'f") 0 0
c::i c::i c::i c::i
+ + + +
I
I
i
00......
000
c::i c::i 0
+
i
I
<<<<<Cl<
..oa-oa-(<)""OO ..,.
~~Il'l""(<)oo"" ..,.
00000000
<<<<<Cl< <
......ot'-oll'l(<)~t'-o ..,.
.............,.~(<)oo..,. ..,.
0000000 C
-u
m
o
c=:
-u
'0
c
...
<
.......
......
'II:
>.
m
~
>
.;:::
-u
...
o
l=:
~ 's
... <
m t:.l
::2 ~
-u
m
o
c=:
-u
'0
c
..
<
.......
>.
m
::
>.
<<l
~
...I(
...
m Q)
Q.. >
Q.) .C
~ Cl
o ....
:t ]
l=: ...
] G
.......~
"'g-u
<<l ...
> <<l
CIJ [;
:;~
o 0
i:Q =:I
.5 .5
:g:o
Cl 8
-u
<<l
-u c@
m ~
c@ ...
~l!
t ~
.c: 0
bOCl
::s .......
o -u
Cl ..
....... <<l
Q) >
> ~
";:: g
~ =:I
] .5
~ :g
Jl 0
c::i ...... <"i -i< Lri ..0
,-4 'l'"""'l 't"""'l 't""""l 't"""'l 't"""'l
-u
m
~ c@
~ 1!
.c: ..
be >.
::s 0..
o 0
e. ~ o.l
0., g- 0
~ f ~
~ ~ 2;
'0 .... 0
"Cl ~ U
l=: c: Q.,
g g 0
of! .o!-o
CI.l U; U')
~ 18>-
c 0 ~
CC 00 ~
u-:."LQ I
~ca-~
. 0 . o.l
~c=:~ "(
c
o
o
<
.s
Ol
s::
'6
o
o
o
III
c:
.2
'0
Q)
VJ
0>
E :E
Q) Q)
E :;
Q)
~ .g
E Ql
1ii 13
~ :2
6' t; ~
~ '-
.2 .E ~
C6 ~ 0 rn
15 .~ ,g -g
lil g. !!! 8
'C C? () Q)
Q) o-..~
as .~ >
ou..Q) -0 ~
.- en E -
-go.:! E ~
'-..JO ::l
Q)...> U) e
=0(1) s:: 'E
oW li; 0 0
-en'C 'C 0
(;j0Q) 5l Q)
.- ..J 1:: III Ol
~-8. ~ !!!
_1IlQ) Q) Q)
OQ)'" 0 >
s::-_ .~ III
VJIIlVJ c:
Q)O>W Q) 0
o c.0 :::.. 'C C')
'CO:a 0 Q) 0
c:O~ _ VJ 0
o-VJuiell.1Il C\!
;:-cUJC:~~.c c;;
g oS ~.2 - adl .-:. ~
VJOQ)OS::C>>CJ)O:;
...Q)>ellO..... 0
ell c.._ VJ;; _00<(
"EX"O_O<(..,JC\I -
_CDellCDCD~c: -~
.U)="E~Oo~G)
~ c:w.- CDt).- III CD
i.2 -"0 'E --~ 0 c-
0'00 CD'- \I) VJCDclS
.- CD VJ N'C ~....r=
~t!!~~l!:l~oSol:
Q)::lc:=,->c:li;CD
lIl-enOlIll9:l- u..
_ c: 1Il'- c: ~ c.51
"~I ~ :g.2l~.E Q) CD
~,'C""'::len-CJ)c:e
coi o.!'!o . 5
......zc:a1..... C\i en
<J:l
-u
c:
o
u
CIJ
<J:l
(<)
i:Q
......
......
~
~
......
-u
m
c@
-u
'0
c:
...
<
.......
~
>.
m
~
.2:
...
-U
...
o
c
's
<
~
~
.E
CD
13
:2
CD
>
0>
c.
en
'C
s::
o
o
Q)
en
.5:
CD
Ol
!!!
CD
~
'C
s::
III
en
c:
.2
'0
CD
t!!
CD
E
'C
Q)
.!::!
1ii
s::
Ol
'iij
15
.~
~
~
"
c:
.2
iii
1::
o
c.
en
c:
III
t:.
15
::5
lii
~
~
(j
[
~
~
3;E
~
~
Q)
:;
.E
Ol
s::
'6
o
o
o
<ll
C
.2
'0
ell
t!!
Q)
:s
CD
:;
'0
.r=
o
ct$
o
a.
c.
<ll
.r=
o
<ll
Q)
.E
.E
o
~
~8
CDC\!
Cl...
~~
E
~
z
a:
W
-
~
o
a:i
'E
CD
Ec:
CD.-
'Q.:Ov
o.::lM
::lOO
Cf)-N
<(00
w>.
~=<
_OQ..
Table 4.3.12. Year 2025 Mainline Freeway Operations, AM Peak Hour
Location Capacity Transit Center Build- Build-out
out 1 With IKEA
Development Project
Volume LOS Volume LOS
1-580, 1-680 to Dougherty Road
Eastbound 9,200 7,439 D 7,319 D
Westbound 9,200 10,536 F 10,665 F
1-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda
Drive
Eastbound 13,800 7,339 C 7,200 C
Westbound 9,200 10,414 F 10,528 F
1-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara
Road
Eastbound 11,500 5,681 C 5,685 C
Westbound 9,200 11,177 F 10,942 F
1-580, Tassajara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound 9,200 5,705 C 5,710 C
Westbound 9,200 10,549 F 10,324 F
1-680, 1-580 to Alcosta Blvd.
Northbound 6,900 6,277 E 6,329 E
Southbound 6,900 6,074 E 6,026 E
1-680,1-580 to Stoneridge Drive
Northbound 6,900 4,674 D 4,616 D
Southbound 6,900 5,238 D 5,300 D
Note: Assumes maximum service flow rate of 2,300 passenger cars per hour per lane.
1 Traffic volumes and Level of Service (LOS) obtained from the Dublin Transit Center Environmentallmpac/ Report,
July 2002. Forecasts include Commerce One project.
Source: HighwayCapacityManual, Chapter 23, Table 23.2, LOS Criteria for Basic Freeway Sections,
Transportation Research
Board, 2000
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
P A 02-034
Page 78
November 2003
T bI 4 3 13 Y
2025 M 'nr F
o
ti
PM P ak H
a e . . . ear at Ine reewa V Jpera ons, e our
Location Capacity Transit (:enter Build- Build-out
out 1 With IKEA
Development Project
Voluml! LOS Volume LOS
1-580,1-680 to Dougherty Road
Eastbound 9,200 10,541 F 10,839 F
Westbound 9,200 8,840 E 8,890 E
1-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda
Drive
Eastbound 13,800 9,878 D 10,143 D
Westbound 9,200 8,600 E 8,617 E
1-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassajara
Road
Eastbound 11,500 10,150 E 9,975 E
Westbound 9,200 7,318 D 7,330 D
1-580, Tassaiara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound 9,200 10,395 F 10,230 F
Westbound 9,200 6,656 D 6,678 D
1-680, 1-580 to Alcosta Blvd.
Northbound 6,900 7,486 F 7,506 F
Southbound 6,900 5,762 D 5,881 D
1-680,1-580 to Stoneridge Drive
Northbound 6,900 5,436 D 5,579 D
Southbound 6,900 6,034 E 6,058 E
Note: Assumes maximum service flow rate of 2,300 passenger cars per hour per lane.
1 Traffic volumes and Level of Service (LOS) obtained from the Dub/in Transit Center Environmentallmpact
Report, July 2002. Forecasts include Commerce One project.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 23, Table 23.2, LOS Criteria for Basic Freeway Sections,
TransDortation Research Board, 2000
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
P A 02-034
Page 79
November 2003
'~O ':fON31:J':fH
'O~ 010N~':f
'O~
AJ.~3H!)noo
~
,.,;
0.
:;;!~
go 31J.~M'I
z
w
U
.~O ':fIN~38H
~':fr':fSS':fJ.
o
ci
::;
Cl
It
z
:;
Cl
:::J
o
8 '~o .LL31~':f:JS
I .
..
..
..
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
I
,
@
~
a>
ro
u
CJ')
Z.8
o
Z
>en
cz
::>0
1--
ent)
uw
-en
lL.a:
lL.w
<(I-
a:z
1--
CO)
....
-
:c
:E
)(
w
8
<::>
'"
c;;
'"
g> ~
<( II:
~ 0
ll.
Ca w
'S II:
Cf) ~
c:: (,)
c ~
l)
.g ~
rJl -l
t:: rJl {g ~
0 >, c Z
,tj co ~
;: w
a> .:.< 'C @ :E
rJl co Z
Q; U
co 0 ;::: 0
E t= 0:: ~ II:
t- a> Cl> ~I- :>
>, .... ~ Z
'C 0:: ::l W
::l <( 'S "<:l ...Ju -l
U5 CD U. ... lIlw ~
II .11 II ~ ::)~
ClO z
C w
u.a: :E
z lij oa. w
~O l) >ct -l
~ ll.
W I-W ll.
...I 0 -~ :;:)
CI) u_ en
l5"~
~i~
~~~
~+~
Dublin Blvd.
65 (255) [115]""
6(11)[3]"
165(616)[434]~
~
;S~
to._
0-
::::i
~~
+~
I Mar1inelli wayr ·
.,;
52 a:
- S 'D
~ .. g
~ ~ ;
i ~
~ ~
.
.
199(B7)lZ3l"" ·
3l3B(1,217)[614]".
.
""
Q.
Ql
S20(1,116)[607]" ~
5(8)l2J~ ~
,g
~2(7)l2J
7(17)[5]
1""14(53)[7]
~t",
~a~
~~~
~~
",
[~
;:-~
s;...
~i
00(8)[5]
757 (693) I5B3I
Dublin Blvd.
.... !ISO (B5O) (578]
I"" 101 (3J) I42l
Dublin Blvd.
", ",
~ ~
~ ~
III ;-
~ 293 (334) l2fSJ
I"" 555 (473) [374]
1-580 we
Ram
_6'
&::.~
[~@
g!~~
~+~
,
~;
E
<(
· .J Mar1inelli way I
......... ----..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
· 4- 751 (1.248)!645]
· 1""42(24)~
.
.
Dublin Blvd.
0(15)[0]"" g
721 (1.132)[607]" ~
17(37)(12]~ ~
", ",
!R' ~
~ ~
i 5!!
~
'l::
.!
.,;
S44(4al)[274]"" ~
co
1,165 (554) (39JJ ~ :I:
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants, August 2003.
CITY OF DUBLIN
IKEA PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2S2 [271) (207)~'
138(241) (225J-t.
515 (3l6) [395]~,
~~
::'i
I~
~+
~
~
531 (542)[718]""
1,a37 (361) [273] ~
'"
l'r~
::.1S.Jl2:
~llilS
;r~
1S (5) l2J""
1(1)[0]"
56(24)[38J~
Pimlico Or.
t;tj+
6'~~
I:::._irj'
~~-
--I:::
;::!{l
00(96) [521""
159 (71 5) (316)....
1ce(47a) [259)')f,.
~41 (16)[201
268 (.m) 13191
I"" 195(14O){213]
Dublin Blvd.
", ",
Wlii'~
~=-:;:.
~~~
~~if
~
· J Mar1inelii way I
......r
[
~-=-
0.0
<(ro
w~
;!;
~
.
I Ati;mjra-;:;o -Av-;. t .. .
i ~179(420)[209]
.l: ....EOl(555) [411l
8 1""193{33111213]
Dublin Blvd.
", ",
m:~~
6"~;=-
:;;lB~
~~~
LEGEND:
O = Study
Intersections
XX[YY](2Z) = AM [PM] (Saturday)
Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
- - - - = Future Roadway
~
~
I
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,;
a:
i ~4(1)16J
.l: 0(3)[0]
8 __17(8)[8]
J Scarlett Dr
",t",
i:i'li'::
-;::.-
~E6"~
~5~
~
.,;
. ~~ a:
~~i
!!1BM
N -l;:;
;-+~
31 (8B) [105]""
:m (656) [353]
3l3B (564) {623J ')f,.
Exhibit 14
EXISTING PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
~ ::~ ~
~ ("':1--- N'~iB'
~~~ .; ~eJ(267)[191J ~~ Vi~_
~~g ~.-- i'i5'
.. S12 (ffi9) [634J :::'?i ~~~
~!~ ~ ~585(ll91)[Efi8j m__ --
~.'ll Dublin Blvd. ~. ~.'ll
~+", ", 1-580 EB Ram
I~~ ~i 'ti
162(511) [294],;t a:
".lQ. i~ 939(1,100)[1,366j,;t ~
6(1,502)[642]- ~~~ 138(241)[225)_ ~
372 (210) [646J~ ~~~ ~re Sl5(446)[471)~ ~
" -
CD ~ <J:l
a;
... c5 ~~ -~ Q
~- ..
~I?J .. IE' '0
'0
C ~~ ~~ c
,!!! ~Z3(42)[67] .!II
"
~~~ " ~::: ..
.. ....20(40)[9] 1ij~ :z:
$:!~ :z: ~137(348)[t981) n
~ 'll Maninelli Wa ~. ~.
~+", ", ",
2 (58) [!I6J,;t ~ii ~~ 2.041 (1 ,178)(1 ,977],;t n~
,,:=: ~i
20(100) [0) ~n' ~1il. i-
43:J (1.323) [1,109]~ le.:::i ;:j-::' 1,454 (558) 1463j~ ~~
~_~N -~ gj
_N ! --
&~W 'ti ,; ;:~~ ,;
a: ~~~ a: a:
'0 ~ ~37(165)161] :!i!
~-- g ~ 101 (24)[10] -IE'~ -W 0 ~ 34 (156) 12431
~- ~t:!.~ E
-~~ <( 1,781 (2.CQl)[1,Sll9j _l:l._ ~ 620(200)[140) ..:
~-- !Hl$l ~<O:::.
"lB~ ~332(1S9)[1S6] ~ sa; (110) [221) Vif(j
~.'ll Dublin Blvd. ~.'ll Maninelli ~.'ll
~+", ~1'"
6'31 (OJ) [277],;t ~~~ eJ(1ED) [161,;t ~~& 20 (3ll) [2S},;t
1,411 (2.489)[1,592)- ~!e~ 200(332)[1~ ~~1
273(197) [434J~ ~~ 2O(10)[3J~ 10(2O)[O)~
~ fil :Blli
....2.105(2.772) (2.ce:l)
~221 (9J)[93J
I
~ r6
~ ~
~ ~
~ 'll
c5
ii ~ 340(739) [343]
B 1,4l5(2.632)11,SalJ
'" ~67(37)[47)
~~ ~
o;'lii~
wi~
;::---~
~.'ll
Dublin Blvd.
Dublin Blvd.
i ~ 324 (7Zl) [J35J
.r; 0(3)[0)
g ~17(8)18I
Scanett Dr.
18(5)[2]""
1(1)[0)
$(24)l38l~
~+",
i!I~E:
~:=:!S'
~;~
i
~ ",
~ i
~ ~
U; ~
t
[;
~
~
"-
..
2.369 (2.635) [2.229J 5
225(148)[45J~ ~
,g
<18(69)[43]""
1,966 (1.952) [1.563]
49(54)l38l~
'ti
a:
Iii
'ti
a:
1,005 (6eJ) [S23],;t ~
1,638(724)I577J~ :f!
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers. Transportation Consultants, August 2003.
f5~
-~-
- "'
~ Dl.
~:::~
U~
~ 'll
228 (181)[134],;t
9:6(2.421) [1.422J_
242(810)[325J~
c5
~ ~46(17)[21)
15 1,383(1.327)[1.378)
~ ~:m (200) 13661
Dublin Blvd.
~+",
~l~
~~~
~~8
"~.-
c
~ gr ~ ~ 267 (28) [51J
~ ~ 1:5 ....1.145(33:))[381]
.... ~ ~ 155 (371) (9)4)
~ 'll Martinelli Wa
73(8) [14J,;t
420 (1 Z38) [71 9)
7 (12) [40)~
'ti
~ lll_- ~
~ g
. ~ .;;:
i iii
~ 'll
Altarrllrano Ave.
100 (OJ) [34)""
0(20)[0)-
. it) "CI
~!li.W IX
-F::'=-
~fl~
;;:~.lil
N__
~.'ll
1:5 (357) [3J7]""
1,174(1,491}[1,123]
SeJ (9:)1) [954]~
~ ",
E ~
.~ ~
CD &
~
~38(138)(3:15)
! ~67 (171)[102)
" 1.273(1,540)[1.165)
8 ~410(1.C68)[492]
Dublin Blvd
~t",
;::---
~l[~
i~~
~i~
LEGEND:
o = Study
Intersections
XX(YY)[ZZJ = AM (PM) [Saturday]
Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
CITY OF DUBLIN
IKEA PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 15
BUILD-OUT PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Proj ect
The California Environmental Quality Act requires identification and comparative
analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the proposed Project which
have the potential of achieving most of the Project objectives and would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the Project.
5.1 Alternatives Identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for a General Plan Amendment encompassing
approximately 6,920 acres of land and for a Specific Pbn for 3,328 acres within the
General Plan Amendment area. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
(GP A/SP) proposed a variety of types and densities of housing, as well as employment-
generating commercial, campus office and other land uses. Other portions of the
planning area were designated schools, open space and other community facilities.
Protection for natural features of the planning area, induding riparian corridors and
principal ridgelands, was provided through restrictive land use designations and
policies. The land use plan reflected the Eastern Dublin Project objectives as set forth in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, Section 2.5.
As required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified project alternatives that could
eliminate or reduce significant impacts of the Eastern Dublin Project. The four identified
alternatives included: No Project, Reduced Planning Area, Reduced Land Use Intensities
and No Development. These are described below:
No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative evaluated potential development of
the GP A/SP area under the then-applicable Dublin General Plan for the unincorporated
portion of the planning area under the Alameda County General Plan.
Reduced Planning Area Alternative. The Reduced Planning Area Alternative evaluated
development of the Specific Plan as proposed, but assumed development beyond the
Specific Plan only to the Dublin Sphere of Influence boundary. The effect of this
alternative was to exclude Upper and Lower Doolan Canyon properties from the
project.
Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative. The Reduced Land Use Intensities
Alternative evaluated potential development of the entire GP A/SP area, but reduced
some higher traffic generating commercial uses in favor of increased residential
dwellings.
No Development. The No Development Alternative assumed no developrnent would
occur in the planning area other than agricultural, open space and similar land uses then
in place.
The Dublin City Council certified the Eastern Dublin EIR on May 10, 1993, under
Resolution No. 51-93. The City Council found the No Project, Reduced Land Use
Intensities and No Developrnent alternatives infeasible and then approved a
modification of the Reduced Planning Area Alternativ(~ rather than the GP A/SP project
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR Page 83
City of Dublin November 2003
PA 02-034
as proposed (Resolution No. 53-93). This alternative was approved based on City
Council findings that this alternative land use plan would reduce land use impacts,
would not disrupt the Doolan Canyon community, would reduce growth-inducing
impacts on agricultural lands and would reduce traffic, infrastructure and noise impacts
of the originally proposed Eastern Dublin Project. Even under this alternative project,
however, significant unavoidable impacts would remain. Therefore, upon approval of
the GP A/SP, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Resolution No. 53-93).
5.2 Alternatives Identified in this Supplemental EIR
The Initial Study prepared for this proposed Project (see Appendix8.1) identifies the
potential for new or significantly intensified significant impacts beyond those
previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections
15162 and 15163. The potential for new or intensified significant impacts primarily
derives from increased regional traffic using 1-580 and related effects on air quality.
These and other impact areas are further discussed in Section 4. With identification of
supplemental impacts, this DSEIR identifies new alternatives that could avoid or lessen
these impacts. No Project and No Development alternatives are also discussed.
Alternatives selected for analysis in this DSEIR include:
Alternative 1: "No Project," which assumes development on the Project site under
the existing Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan.
Alternative 2: "No Development," which assumes the IKEA Project site would
remain vacant.
Alternative 3: Reduced intensity development.
Alternative 4: Mixed-use development on the IKEA Project site.
The following analysis compares the supplemental impacts of the IKEA Project to the
potential impacts of the alternatives, and evaluates whether the alternatives would
cause potentially significant impacts of their own. Since some of the Project
supplemental impacts cannot be avoided even with mitigation, the following analysis
also examines whether the alternatives would avoid the Project's significant
unavoidable impacts.
5.3 Alternative 1: No Project
The No Project Alternative assumes development on the Project site under the existing
Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan. The existing land use designation on the
site is Campus Office, which allows for construction of attractive, campus-like settings
for office and related non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related
to noise, odors or outdoor storage of materials. Floor area ratios for the Campus Office
land use designation range from 0.25 to 0.75. The impacts of the existing Campus Office
designation were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. A previous campus office
development, Commerce One, was approved by the City of Dublin on the Project site
but was later withdrawn by the applicant prior to construction; however, land use
entitlements for the Commerce One project remain in effect.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 84
November 2003
Air Quality. Campus Office development on the project site would generate
approximately 20% more trips than General CommerciC'1 during P.M. weekday peak
hours. The higher trip levels compared to the Project would also increase ozone
precursor emissions to approximately 72 pounds/ day for ROG, 70 pounds/ day for
NOX and 55 pounds/ day for PMlO' Therefore, development of Campus Office uses
under the No Project Alternative would not exceed the BAAQMD threshold and would
not be significant and unavoidable on a project and cumulative level.
Biological Resources. Under the No Project Alternative, Campus Office development
would be expected to occur across the entire 27.54- acre site. Biological impacts
anticipated with the development of Campus Office en the Project site were analyzed
on a programmatic level in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The identified impacts included both
cumulative impacts such as loss of open space character and the potential for site
specific impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species. These are summarized in Section
4.2 of this document. Because Campus Office development under the No Project
Alternative would result in developrnent of the site to urban uses, the cumulative loss
of open space character would be the same as for the Project. The site-specific biological
assessment conducted as part of this DSEIR identified no special-status plants or animals
on the Project site, so no biological resource impacts are anticipated for either the No
Project Alternative or the proposed Project.
Traffic and Circulation. As noted in Tables 4.3.7, 4.3.8 and 4.3.9, the proposed IKEA
Project would improve performance at the study intersections as compared to the
existing Campus Office land use designation during the weekday AM peak hour.
Weekday PM peak hour impacts would be mixed; the IKEA Project causes increased
V /C ratios at sorne locations but decreases the V /C ratio at others. While the lKEA
Project and existing Campus Office land use designation would generate similar levels
of traffic during the weekday PM peak hour, the trip distribution and assignment
characteristics differ from one land use to the other. These differences explain the
variance in intersection operations, which are documented in Tables 4.3.7, 4.3.8, and
4.3.9.
Differences in Saturday peak hour impacts are more substantial with the IKEA Project
increasing the V /C ratios at most study intersections. Table 5 in the Traffic Impact
Analysis (Appendix 8.7) compares the trip generation of the IKEA Project with the trip
generation for a Campus-Office use on the site. Trip generation information for this
type of Campus-office use was obtained from the traftic impact study prepared for the
Commerce One office development. As shown, net new PM peak hour trips generated
by the Campus-office use and the IKEA Project develcpments are similar (Le., within 5
percent). During the AM peak hour, Campus Office would generate substantially more
traffic than the IKEA Project, while the reverse is true for the Saturday peak hour. A
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact would occur under both the No Project
alternative and the proposed Project.
5.4 Alternative 2: No Development
The purpose of this alternative is to compare the effects of approving the proposed
Project against the existing physical character of the Project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR
evaluated the No Developrnent Alternative for the entire GP A/SP planning area. The
existing character of the site is vacant and is located nEar existing major commercial and
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 85
November 2003
office uses. Under the No Development alternative, no development would occur on
the site. All impacts would be avoided, including the Project's significant contribution to
mobile air pollution source emissions, traffic and other impacts identified in Section 4.
Air Quality. No new vehicle trips and related emissions would occur. Any air quality
impacts would be related to existing use of the property.
Biological Resources. There would be no loss of open space character, and no impacts
to biological resources as the site-specific survey of the site showed no existing sensitive
resources.
Traffic and Circulation. Under this alternative, there would be no traffic generation
and no change in levels of service at nearby street intersections. Proposed access roads
and other transportation improvements envisioned in the Project would not occur.
None of the significant adverse impacts on the adjacent freeway system would occur,
although significant cumulative Year 2025 impacts could still occur, since 2025 impacts
are expected to occur even without development on the project site.
5.5 Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative
This alternative assumes that the Project site would be developed with General
Commercial development, however, such development would occur at a Floor Area
Ratio of 0.25, near the minimum of the range for the General Commercial land use
designations. At this land use intensity, a maximum of 299,475 square feet of
commercial uses could be constructed. This intensity has been selected for analysis
based on a potential for reduction of both significant regional traffic and cumulative air
quality impacts as identified in Section 4.
Under this alternative, approximately the same footprint of development would occur
with the remainder of the Project site used for surface auto parking and landscaping.
Land uses would include those uses permitted by the General Commercial land use
designation as described in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, however,
the square footage would be reduced by approximately one-third.
Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts of the reduced intensity
alternative would somewhat less and/or would occur over a shorter period of time
than the proposed Project. Incremental carbon monoxide emission impacts of this
alternative would be approximately 80% of the proposed Project and would not result
in a significant project-level impact. Regional air quality emissions of this alternative,
which are roughly proportional to daily trip generation, would be approximately 60%
of those anticipated with the proposed Project and would not exceed the BAAQMD's
threshold of significance. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less-than-significant.
Biological Resources. Development of the site under the Reduced Intensity Alternative
would result in the same loss of open space character impact as the Project. The site-
specific biological survey shows that no significant biological resources exist on the site,
therefore there would be no impacts to biological resources from either the Reduced
Intensity Alternative or the proposed Project.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 86
November 2003
Traffic and Circulation. Under this alternative, daily weekday traffic generation would
be approximately there would be approximately 25% less than the proposed build out
of the Project. Similar to the Project, less-than-significan1 impacts would result on local
streets near the Project site. However, since even under a reduced project scenario,
additional trips would be added to adjacent freeways. Significant and unavoidable
cumulative Year 2025 impacts to adjacent freeways could still occur, since 2025 impacts
are expected to occur even without development on 1he Project site.
5.4 Alternative 4: Mixed Use Development
One potential rnethod to achieve economically viable land uses on the site while
reducing local and regional traffic impacts is a Mixed Use Development Alternative. In
2002, the City of Dublin approved a mixed-use development on 91 acres immediately to
the west of the Project site, known as the Dublin Transit Center. The Transit Center
includes development of a mix of campus office (2.0 million square feet), high-density
residential (1500 units) and commercial (70,000 squarE' feet) uses within the existing
surface parking lot in the East Dublin BART station. A multi-story parking garage is also
included in the Transit Center.
Given the proximity of the Project site to the East Dublin BART station and bus transit
opportunities on nearby Dublin Boulevard, a mixed-use development on the Project
site represents a feasible alternative to the proposed Project.
Based on the amount of development approved within the Transit Center, a similar but
srnaller mixed-use development on the Project site could include up to 450 higher
density aparbnent units, 600,000 square feet of office development and 21,000 square
feet of comrnercialland use.
Air Quality. Construction period impacts of this alternative would be somewhat
greater than the proposed Project, although this impa,:t could also be reduced to a less-
than-significant level. The incremental carbon-monoxide impact, which would be
proportional to peak-hour trip generation, would be ~;imilar to the proposed Project
and would not result in a significant impact. The regional emissions of this alternative
which are roughly proportional to daily trip generation, would be approximately 40%
of those of the proposed IKEA project and would not ,~xceed the BAAQMD level of
significance and would therefore be a less-than-significant impact.
Biological Resources. Development of the site under the Mixed Use Development
Alternative would result in the same loss of open space character impact as the Project.
The site-specific biological survey shows that no significant biological resources exist on
the site, therefore there would be no impacts to biological resources frorn either the
Mixed Use Development Alternative or the proposed Project.
Traffic and Circulation. A reduction of approximately 10,000 total daily vehicle trips
associated with a mixed-use development compared to General Commercial or
Campus Office uses would likely be realized due to the proximity of the West Dublin
BART station and the ability of multiple uses on the project site to capture trips that
would normally travel on local streets near the site. nUs would represent a less-than-
significant impact to local streets, similar to the propo:;ed Project. However a mixed-use
development project would still contribute new trips to the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 87
November 2003
which would result in significant and unavoidable regional cumulative conditions on
these freeways in the Year 2025.
By adding a residential component, the mixed use alterr:.ative could potentially
result in other impacts not associated with the proposed commercial IKEA
project, including but not limited to increased levels of permanent noise, impacts
to the local educational system, impacts to the City's parks and recreation systern
and a permanent increase of permanent population in a portion of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan area where residential uses have not been anticipated.
5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior
alternative is the "No Project" alternative (the "No Development" alternative in this
instance), the Em shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the
other alternatives. The No Development Alternative would be the environmentally
superior alternative because it would avoid all of the identified Project impacts and the
Project's contribution to cumulative impacts. However, consistent with the CEQA
Guidelines, an environmentally superior alternative has been chosen from among the
other alternatives. Compared to the other alternatives and based on the above
discussions, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be the environmentally superior
alternative. This alternative, like all the alternatives other than No Development, would
exceed BAAQMD thresholds for ozone precursors, however the level of emissions
would be relatively lower than the other alternatives, representing the least
contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. Like the other alternatives, the Reduced
Intensity Alternative would contribute to Year 2025 significant unavoidable mainline
freeway impacts, however its contribution would be the least. Furthermore, unlike the
other alternatives, this alternative would reduce traffic impacts along adjacent arterial
roadways.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 88
November 2003
6.0 ~uired CEQA Discussion
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 mandates a discussiol1 of the following topics in an
EIR in addition to those previously addressed: cumulative impacts, unavoidable
significant adverse impacts, significant irreversible environmental changes and growth
inducing impacts. These impacts are addressed in Sec1ion 4.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The Eastern Dublin EIR discussions of growth inducing impacts and significant
irreversible changes are unchanged by the proposed Project because the Project
proposes urban non-residential uses similar to the intensity and character analyzed in
the prior EIR. Therefore, this section summarizes the :::>SEIR findings regarding the
Project's identified significant unavoidable and cumulative impacts, beyond those
impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
6.1 Supplemental Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 as those
which taken individually may be minor but, when combined with similar
impacts associated with existing development, propoBed development projects
and planned but not built projects, have the potential to generate more
substantial impacts. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be evaluated when
they are significant and that the discussion describe fr.e 3everity of the impacts
and the estimated likelihood of their occurrence.
Reasonably foreseeable development projects in the area were fully considered in the
Eastern Dublin EIR as were associated cumulative impacts associated with the Eastern
Dublin Project. Cumulative impacts addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR that are related
to the impacts analyzed in this Supplement include.
· Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and
Fallon Road (Impact 3.3/ A)
· Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between 1-680 and
Dougherty Road (Impact 3.3/B)
· Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and
Airway Boulevard (Impact 3.3/ C)
· Cumulative degradation of 1-680 freeway operations north of 1-580 (Impact
3.3/0)
· Dust deposition soiling nuisance from construclion activity (Impact 3.11/ A)
· Construction equipment/vehicle emission (Impact3.11/B)
· Mobile source emissions of reactive organic ga~ses and oxides of nitrogen (Impact
3.11/C)
· Stationary source emissions (Impact 3.11 /E)
The proposed Project would create significant cumulaive impacts beyond those already
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, as follows:
Supplemental Impact AQ-2: Project emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds for ozone precursors. The number of increased vehicle trips
associated with the proposed project would and resulting pollutants would exceed the
BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors. Adherence to mitigation
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR Page 89
City of Dublin November 2003
PA 02-034
measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Supplemental mitigation measures
contained in this document will reduce this impact but not to a less-than significant level
and his impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Supplemental Impact AQ-3: Regional cumulative air quality impacts. Since the
Proposed project, after mitigation, would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of
significance for Reactive Organic Gases and Nitrogen Oxides, the Project would have a
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on regional air quality.
Supplemental Impact TRA-3: Increase of Project related traffic on adjacent freeways.
The proposed IKEA Development Project would add additional vehicles to already
deficient conditions on adjacent freeway segments. This is considered a significant
cumulative impact.
6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable impacts in considering whether to approve the
project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the anticipated unavoidable
impacts, the adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable by the Lead
Agency. To approve the project without significantly reuucing or eliminating an
adverse impact, the Lead Agency must make a Statement of Overriding Consideration
supported by the information in the record.
Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Project, the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.) Any approval of the current
Project would likewise require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the significant unavoidable supplemental impacts identified in this DSEIR, i.e.,
supplemental impacts AQ-2, AQ-3, TRA-3. Pursuant to the recent Citizens for a Better
Environment case, the Statement of Overriding Considerations would also be required
to address the significant unavoidable impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR that are
related to the Project.
Significant and unavoidable impacts identified in this Supplement are all cumulative
impacts. These impacts were also previously identified as cumulatively significant and
unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 90
November 2003
7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted
7.1 Persons and Organizations
EIR Preparers
The following individuals participated in the preparation of this
document.
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager)
Malcolm Sproul, LSA Associates (biology)
Donald Ballanti (air quality)
Robert Rees, P.E., Fehr & Peers (traffic and transportation)
Jane Maxwell, Blue Ox Associates (graphics)
City of Dublin Staff
Eddie Peabody, Jr. AICP, Community Development Director
Jeri Ram, AICP, Planning Manager
Andy Byde, Senior Planner
Mike Stella, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer
Ray Kuzbari, P.E., Traffic Engineer
Applicant Consulting Team
Doug Greenholz-IKEA Properties
Randy Ackerman- Opus Southwest
William Clarke-Consulting Planner
Michael Durkee-Allen Matkins
7.2 References
The following documents, in addition to those included in the Appendix, were used in
the preparation of this DEIR.
City of Dublin Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendrnent and Specific Plan, 1993, Wallace
Roberts and Todd, as amended
City of Dublin Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR, 1993,
Wallace Roberts and Todd, including supplernents
City of Dublin. Eastern Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and
Annexation EIR, 2002.
IKEA Project Air Ouality Analysis, Donald Ballanti, October, 2003
IKEA Project Biological Reconnaissance, LSA Associates, October 2003
IKEA Retail Center Transportation Study, Fehr & Pee::s, August 2003
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR Page 91
City of Dublin November 2003
P A 02-034
8.0 Appendices
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 92
November 2003
Appendix 8.1
Initial Study
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 93
November 2003
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist!
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the
proposed project described below.
The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the
environmental topics addressed in the checklist. The applicant proposes to change the land uses
for the project site from office to commercial; however, the project maintains an urban intensity
development plan generally consistent with the development patterns in the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Thus, the Initial Study relies on a Program EIR certified by the
City in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report," State
Clearinghouse No. 91103064). That EIR, also known in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin
EIR," evaluated the following impacts: Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing, Traffic
and Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage, Soils,
Geology and Seismicity, Biological Resources, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Air
Quality and Fiscal Considerations.
Some of the potentially significant impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR apply to the
proposed project and, therefore, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and are included in
this Initial Study by reference. However, as indicated in the environmental checklist, conditions
related to air quality, transportation and circulation, land use and biology may have substantially
changed since the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. These topics will be addressed in a focused
supplemental EIR.
Applicants/Contact Persons
Doug Greenholz
IKEA Property, Inc.
3350 Brunnell Drive
Oakland CA 94602
Project Location and Context
The project site is located on the north side of the 1-580 freeway, between Hacienda Drive and
Arnold Road and south of a new east-west connector road formerly called Digital Drive and
renamed to Martinelli Drive south of Dublin Boulevard.
Exhibit I depicts the location of the project site in context of the larger City of Dublin and
Exhibit 2 depicts the project site in relation to Eastern Dublin.
The topography of the site is relatively flat, but has a distinct slope to the south, towards the 1-
580 freeway. Two small structures are located on site and will remain. They are a Zone 7 water
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 2
September 2003
facility "turnout" structure located at the southwest corner of the site and a Dublin San Ramon
Services District (DSRSD) water chlorination structure, which is immediately adjacent.
The site is owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSP A). IKEA Property
Inc. has entered into an agreement to purchase this site from ASCPA.
Project background
In '1993 the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan Amendrr..ent and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, which addressed long-term development of approximately 4,200 acres of land east of the
central portion of Dublin. The entire project site is located in the westerly portion of that General
Plan Amendment area and is also included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The
proposed project would implement land uses and other programs included in the General Plan
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to the extent that it proposes urban-level non-residential
development. The potential effects of changing the land use designations for the project site from
Campus Office to General Commercial will be examined in this Initial Study.
In February 2001, the City Council approved the Commerce One Project that allowed for the
development of a four building, 780,000 square feet campus office complex on the site. This
application is further described in Section XVII, Earlier Analysis.
In August 2001 Alameda County Surplus Property Authority informed the City that Commerce
One was no longer in contract with ASCP A to purchase the iite.
Project Description
The proposed project involves construction of a retail commercial complex on a 27.54-acre site.
The westerly portion of the site would include an IKEA home furnishing facility and the easterly
portion of the site would include a Retail Center under separate ownership and management.
These are described below.
lKEAfacility
The westerly 14.34 acres of the site would be devoted to a two-story IKEA home furnishing
facility that would sell a wide range of furniture and furnishing products in a 317,000 square foot
building. The building would include approximately 217,000 square feet of retail sales, a 21,000
square foot restaurant, 62,000 square feet of warehouse space and 17,000 square feet of office
space. The building would be elevated above grade with parldng provided under the building at
grad. The building would have a roof height of 51 feet and a maximum parapet height of
approximately 70 feet and would be oriented eastward, toward the proposed Retail Center.
The IKEA store would have a maximum peak employment (If 400 employees and would be open
to the public seven days per week during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday-Saturday,
and 10:00 am through 8:00 pm on Sundays.
A total of 1,130 on-site parking spaces would be provided, including 502 open, full size spaces,
567 spaces under the building, 20 handicapped accessible spaces, and 41 customer loading
spaces.
Landscaping would be provided within setbacks along adjacent streets and within the open
parking area.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 3
September 2003
Retail.Center
The easterly portion of the project site, encompassing 13.2 acres of land, would be devoted to the
Retail Center, consisting of multiple buildings totaling 137,oeD square feet of floor area.
Included within this total would be 27,400 square feet of potential restaurant floor space. A total
of 665 parking spaces would be provided to serve the Retail Center.
The proposed concept for the retail space is a "lifestyle center," which is a specialty retail center
with small and medium sized tenants organized like a modified city block with a main street
through the center of the project. No specific users or hours of operation have been identified for
the Retail Center as of this writing. The Retail Center would have a different owner and would
be developed separately from the IKEA store. There would be an estimated 400 employees for
the Retail Center.
Other actions
Grading activities would occur on the site to accommodate planned buildings, roads and utility
connections. Water, sewer and recycled water services would be provided by Dublin San Ramon
Services District (DSRSD) in accord with DSRSD's Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan.
Sewer service for the project would be accommodated through connection to the existing sewer
system owned and maintained by the DSRSD. When and where available, recycled water from
DSRSD would be used for irrigation purposes, reducing the need for potable water.
The project would also include placement of onsite business identification and directional signs.
Requested entitlements
The following applications have been filed with the City of Dublin:
· General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment The General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designate the 27.54-acre site as "co-Campus
Office." As part of this application, the General Plan and Specific Plan land use
designation would be changed to "General Commercial."
· Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development ("PD") Rezoning- The Stage 1 and 2 PD-Planned
Development zoning would establish specific land use and development standards unique
to the proposed retail use. As part of the PD rezoning, site-specific Planned Development
Plans must be approved by the Dublin City Council.
· Site Development Review (SDR). An SDR application has been filed on the IKEA
portion of the site to describe specific design, color, materials, parking and access,
landscaping and signs for the IKEA store. The SDR application must be approved by the
Dublin Planning Commission. An SDR approval will be required for the Retail Center
before it could be constructed.
· Tentative and Final Parcel Maps: A Tentative Parcel Map would subdivide the entire
27.54 acre parcel into two parcels, one for the IKEA site and a second parcel for the
Retail Center. The Tentative Parcel Map would be acted upon by the Dublin Planning
Commission.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 4
September 2003
.. Vesting Tentative and Final Map. A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map with multiple Final
Maps would subdivide the lKEA property into four smaller parcels. The future owner of
the Retail Center may also seek a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map in the future. Vesting
Parcel Map(s) would be acted upon by the Planning Commission.
· Development Agreement. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that developers enter
into development agreements prior to developing property. It is anticipated that two
separate development agreements will be required, one for the IKEA store and one for
the Retail Center. The development agreements would serve to "lock in" approved
development on the project site for a specified numher of years.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 5
September 2003
Exhibit 1. Regional Context
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 6
September 2003
Exhibit 2. Site Location
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 7
September 2003
Exhibit 3. Proposed Site Plan
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 8
September 2003
1. Project description
Construction of a commercial complex to consist of an
IKEA store (317,000 square feet of building area) and
adjacent Retail Center (137,000 sq. ft. of building area) on
a 27.54-acre site, inclu:ling 1,795 on-site parking spaces,
signs, landscaping and related site improvements. The
project also includes all amendment to the General
PlanlEastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use
designation from Campus Office to General Commercial
and other related land llse entitlements.
2. Lead agency:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
3. Contact person:
Andy Byde, Senior Planner
(925) 833-6610
4. Project location:
Between 1-580 freeway and Martinelli Drive and between
Hacienda Drive and Amold Road within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area.
Doug Greenholz, IKEA Property, Inc.
5. Project contact person:
6. General Plan! Specific Plan:
Designation:
Existing: CO-Campus Office
Proposed: General Cornmercial
7. Proposed Zoning:
Existing: PD-Campus Office
Proposed: PD General Commercial
8. Other public agency required approvals:
· General Plan Amendment! Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment (City of Dublin)
· Stage I and 2 Planned Development Rezoning (City
of Dublin)
· Site Developme:Dt Review (City of Dublin)
· Tentative and Final Parcel Maps (entire site) (City
of Dublin)
· Tentative and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map with
multiple Final Maps (IKEA site) (City of Dublin)
· Development Agreement (City of Dublin)
· Grading and building permits (City of Dublin)
· Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
· Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
· Notice of Intenl (State Water Resources Control
Board)
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significanl impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 9
September 2003
- Aesthetics - Agricultural X Air Quality
Resources
X Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils
- Hazards and - Hydrology/W ater - Land Use/ Planning
Hazardous Materials Quality
- Mineral Resources - Noise - PopulationIHousing
- Public Services - Recreation X Transportation!
Circulation
- Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings
Systems of Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and the
previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately addresses
potential impacts and mitigates impacts to a less-than-significant level.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
-X- I find that the proposed project may have a potentially significant or potentially significant unless
mitigated effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. A focused supplemental Environmental Impact
Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the
proposed project.
Signature:
Date:
Printed Name:
For:
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis
following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone) or in this case, there is no
impact of the proposed project beyond that which was considered previously in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and/or for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration was
adopted by the City Council at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. A "no
City of Dublin Page 10
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center September 2003
P A 02-034
impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well
as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if the:~e is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when
the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies
elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less
than significant level.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 11
September 2003
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
1. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista? (Source: 1,2,4)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? (Source: 1,2,4)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (Source: 2,4)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? (Source: 4)
2. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as
showing on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (Source:
1,2)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture
use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source:
1,2)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
farmland to a non-agricultural use? (1, 2)
3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air
quality management district may be relied
on to make the following determinations).
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 2)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitil!ation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 12
September 2003
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? (2)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? (Source: 2)
e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2,5)
4. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Source: 2)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source:
2)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact 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?
(Source: 2)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impac' With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 13
September 2003
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 1, 2)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale
ontological resource or unique geologic feature?
(Source: 2)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source:
2)
6. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist or based on
other known evidence of a known fault (Source:
2)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (2)
iv) Landslides? (2)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (25)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on-
and off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 2)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 2)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 14
September 2003
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste?
(Source: 2, 5)
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials
(Source: 2, 5)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous into the environment?
(Source: 2, 5)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source: 2, 5)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
(Source: 5)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such plan has not been adopted,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 2)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 2, 5)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
SignificaClt Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 15
September 2003
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? (Source: 2)
8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g. the production rate of existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted? (Source:
2)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the aeration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration
of a course or stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or
off-site? (Source: 2)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 2)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 2)
g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 2)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitiszation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/lKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 16
September 2003
h) Place within a loo-year flood hazard area
structures which impede or redirect flood flows?
(Source: 2)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (2)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (2)
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1,2,4)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,
2)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(1, 2, 4)
10. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1,
2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Source:I, 2)
11. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? (Source: 2)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Source: 2)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing
levels without the project? (Source: 2)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
SignifiCa:lt Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti~ation
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 17
September 2003
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? (Source:2)
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
expose people residing or working n the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(Source: 2)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 2)
12. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 1,2)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (2, 4)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 4, 5)
13. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service rations, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services? (Sources: 1, 2)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 18
September 2003
14. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated
(Source: 2)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 2)
15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads or congestion at
intersections)? (2)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (2)
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? (2)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as
farm equipment? (2)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (2)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (2)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities)
(1)
16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
project
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potentidly Less Than Less than No
Signific.mt Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 19
September 2003
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (2)
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? (2, 5)
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? (5)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing water
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (2)
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 providers existing
commitments? (2)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? (2)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? (2)
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitie:ation
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 20
September 2003
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife X
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a X
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).
c) Does the project have environmental effects X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Source
1. City of Dublin General Plan (Revised through November 5, 2002)
2. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, City of Dublin (June 6, 1998)
3. Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064) for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (incbding the Draft and Final EIRs,
Addenda, etc.)
4. Site Visit
5. Other Source
These documents are available for review during normal busmess hours at:
City of Dublin Community Development Departmenl
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
XVll. Earlier Analyses
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
This Initial Study is being prepared to determine whether the Eastern Dublin EIR previously
certified by the City may be used to evaluate the proposed pr:.lject pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
City of Dublin
Initial Study/lKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 21
September 2003
Section 15063 (c)(7). The Eastern Dublin EIR is available for review during normal business
hours at the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin,
California.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial
Study refer to environmental information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern
Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan areas in which this Project is located. It was certified by the
Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan (GPAlSP), the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for impacts including but not limited to: cumulative traffic, extension of certain
community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and
visual.
The Council also adopted mitigation findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program to ensure
that the mitigation measures would be implemented through subsequent planning and
development projects in Eastern Dublin. Many of the mitigati0n measures apply to this project
and/or project site and are referenced in the text of this Initial Study.
The project proposes to amend the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land
use designations from Campus Office to General Commercial and to develop a retail commercial
complex on the approximately 27 acre project site. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections
15162 and 15163, this Initial Study examines whether the proposed land use changes and the
related development project could result in any new or substantially more severe significant
impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study also identifies
changes in circumstances since certification of the previous EIR that could require additional
environmental analysis. Such changes in circumstances include, but are not limited to: I) the
potential presence on the project site of species added to the California and/or Federal
Endangered or Threatened Species Lists but not identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR; 2) potential
changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may also affect air quality in the
project area. As reflected in the following checklist and discussions, this Initial Study determines
that additional review will be required for potential air quality, traffic and biology impacts. All
other potential impacts of the Project are within the scope of the previous project and analysis in
the Eastern Dublin EIR or are otherwise less than significant.
As noted earlier, the City of Dublin previously reviewed a campus office development on this
proposed project site. This was a proposal submitted by Commerce One to develop
approximately 780,000 square feet of office space, a five-story parking garage and related site
improvements. The Dublin City Council found the project within the scope of the Eastern Dublin
EIR and approved a Planned Development Stage 1 and 2 rezoning for the Commerce One
Development on January 16,2001 (reference City file PA 00-015). This project was later
withdrawn by the project applicant and was not constructed.
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS: Potentially Significant
LS: Less Than Significant; or Less Than Significant due to the
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 22
September 2003
previously adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin Em
NI: No Impact; or No Additional Impact beyond that which was
previously identified in the Eastern Dublin
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The project site is vacant and contains no rock outcroppings, significant stands of vegetation or
other features with significant aesthetic qualities. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not classify the
project area as containing visually sensitive resources (Fig 3.8-H).
The 1-580 freeway from the 880 Freeway to the easterly Alameda County line, is designated as a
Scenic Route in the County Scenic Route Element of the General Plan, which has also been
adopted by the City of Dublin by reference in the Dublin General Plan. Travelers along 1-580
would have long distance views of the Diablo Range and medium distance views of hills located
north of Dublin.
Program 6Q of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan says that the "the City of Dublin should
officially adopt Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors, adopt a
set of scenic corridor policies and establish review procedt.:res and standards for projects within
the scenic corridor viewshed." In 1996, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor
Policies and Standards document prepared by David Gates & Associates. This document
contains more detailed policies that allow future development as envisioned in the Specific Plan
while maintaining the visual character of natural features within the area. Such implementing
polices are in addition to all other goals and polices contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vistG?
LS. Approval and construction of the proposed project would alter the character of existing
scenic vistas and could obscure important sightlines by adding new buildings and signs adjacent
to the 1-580 freeway.
This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts, 3.8/B, 3.8/C, 3.8/F, 3.8/ H, 3.8/1
and 3.8/J). Related Mitigation Measures applicable to the proposed project and/or site include:
3.8/2.0, 3.8/3.0, 3.8n.0, 3.8n.1, 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8.1 (pages 3.8-4 through 3.8-9 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR). Mitigation measures encourage preservation of the natural landscape, preservation
of the natural beauty of the hills, and preservation of views to the northerly hills.
The proposed project is located in Scenic Corridor Zone I as identified in the Eastern Dublin
Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document. Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies state
that properties within Scenic Corridor Zone 1, are subject tl) three specific standards, Standard
1.1, 1.2, and 2.1.
Standard 1.1. Standard 1.1 states that from the three designated Viewpoints in Zone I (shown in
Figure 12 of the Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards dOo;ument) maintain a generally
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 23
September 2003
uninterrupted view to significant natural resource. Within the project area, the significant natural
resource identified in Figure 12, is Tassajara Creek. Tassajara Creek, and the view cone
identified in Figure 12, are approximately 2,400 feet to the west. Therefore the project complies
with Standard 1.1 because it will not have a visual impact to Tassajara Creek or the view cone
identified to protect the visual resource associated with the Creek.
Standard 1.2. Standard 1.2 of the Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document states
that structures generally within 700 feet of the Scenic Corridor (identified as 1-580) should be
allowed to obstruct the views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from 1-580 for not more than
approximately 50% of the developed frontage.
The Visually Sensitive Ridgelands as identified in the Scenic Corridor Policies are the
Ridgelands located to the east of Fallon Road, within the area know as the Eastern Dublin
Property Owners project, which was recently annexed to the City in 2002. The Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands are approximately 3 miles to the east. The acute view angle (approximately 12
degrees) restricts the ability for the driver on westbound 1-580 to view the Visually Sensitive
Ridgelands,3 miles to the east. Additionally, the view of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for
eastbound 1-580 drivers is obscured by the existing BART station and raised tracks. Moreover,
the total frontages of the project site is approximately 1,320 feet, the project proposes to
construct 600 feet of building facing the frontage of 1-580 (320 feet for the proposed lKEA
portion and 280 feet for the proposed Retail Center, of which 160 feet of the Retail Center is
setback a minimum of 250 feet from 1-580). Therefore, the proposed project complies with
Standard 1.2 because it will not have a visual impact on Visually Sensitive Ridgelands or have
more than 50% view obstruction of the developed frontage.
Standard 2.1. Standard 2.1 states that architecture visible from the Scenic Corridors should
complement the local environment. The local environment includes the Hacienda Crossings
shopping center to the east, the proposed Transit Center high-density project to the west, and
various large office buildings constructed and/or proposed to the north. The existing local
environment is characterized as a "built environment." Landscaping has been incorporated into
the project to enhance and soften the IKEA building; various corridors have been incorporated
into the design of the Retail Center. The proposed project has been found to be consistent with
the local environment. Additionally, landscaping and view corridors have been incorporated to
ensure compliance with this standard; therefore the project is consistent with Standard 2.1.
The adopted Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies will continue to apply to the project.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highways?
LS. Development of the project site will alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic
routes in Eastern Dublin. Interstate 580 has been designated as a scenic corridor by Alameda
County and the City of Dublin.
This potential impact (Impact 3.8/J) was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8.1 (page 3.8-9) encourage the City to adopt certain roads as
scenic corridors, and encourage the City to require detailed visual analyses with development
project applications (Le., Stage 2 PD-Planned Development applications). Additionally, Policies
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 24
September 2003
6-30 and 6-31 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provide guidance for areas of the project
visible from a scenic corridor. The required visual analysis was submitted with the PD rezoning
application and shows that the project is consistent with the S~enic Corridor policies and
standards as identified in subsection "a," above and would therefore be less-than-significant.
Impacts on scenic highways were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no further
analysis is required.
Standard 2.1. Standard 2.1 states that architecture visible from the Scenic Corridors should
complement the local environment. The local environment includes the Hacienda Crossings
shopping center to the east, the proposed Transit Center high-density project to the west, and
various large office buildings constructed and/or proposed to the north. The existing local
environment is characterized as a "built environment." Land:;caping has been incorporated into
the project to enhance and soften the IKEA building; various corridors have been incorporated
into the design of the Retail Center. The proposed project ha.:; been found to be consistent with
the local environment. Additionally, landscaping and view corridors have been incorporated to
ensure compliance with this standard; therefore the project is consistent with Standard 2.1.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or thE' quality of the site?
NI. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.8/B-Alteration of
Rural/Open Space Visual Character and Impact 3.8/F-Alteralion of Visual Character of
Flatlands). Development of the project area would alter the ex:isting rural and open space
qualities and alter the existing visual character of valley gras:>es and agricultural fields The
Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that no mitigation measures C'Juld be identified to either fully or
partially reduce this impact on flatlands to a less than significant level. Therefore, the EIR
concluded this impact would be a potentially significant unavoidable impact and an irreversible
change and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration for this impact. The proposed project would reduce the scale of development
anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area but would not change the level or
intensity of impact since the flatlands along 1-580 would still be developed for urban uses.
Impacts on the existing visual character of the project site Wfre adequately addressed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and no further analysis is required.
d) Create light or glare?
LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase the ,mount of light and glare due to
new street lighting and building security lighting. In some in:;tances the additional lighting could
result in perceived negative aesthetic impacts through the "spill over" of unwanted lighting onto
adjacent properties that are not intended to be lighted. The articipated light and glare generated
by the proposed project would not be unique or different from other development projects within
the City or the Eastern Dublin planning area Furthermore, similar lighting either exists or would
be installed in the future on neighboring properties with approved or potential development
projects. The City of Dublin has adopted regulations which limit the amount of "spill-
overlighting and standard conditions of approval limit potential light and glare impacts. The
City's zoning ordinance, adopted site development review gt.idelines, and conditions of approval
become part of the project, if approved and the project wouk have impacts that are less-than-
significant
City of Dublin
Initial Study/lKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 25
September 2003
Because light and glare created by the proposed project would be typical of development
elsewhere in the City, and due to standard City regulations, light and glare impacts would be
less-than-significant.
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental Setting
Although, historically this area was used for grazing, dry-land farming, and other non-intensive
agricultural endeavors, the project site has not been used for any such activities for more than 50
years. The project site is in an area that the Eastern Dublin EIR characterizes as farmland "of
local importance" (Figure 3.1-B). This is defined as those farmlands which contribute to the local
production of food, feed, fiber, forage and oilseed crops (p. 3.1-2). Despite this characterization,
the Eastern Dublin EIR considered the discontinuation of agricultural uses as an insignificant
impact due to the high percentage of Williamson Act contracts which were non-renewed and the
limited value of the non-prime soils.
Portions of the soils within the project area were identified as Class I or Class II soils in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, however, the project area has not been u~ed for agricultural purposes for a
number of years.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use?
LS. Impact 3.1/F of the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed conversion of non-urban lands, such as
the project site. Although the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies portions of the project site as
containing Class I or Class II Prime Agricultural Soils, the site has not been used for agricultural
uses for a number of years and is substantially surrounded by urbanized lands or properties
where urban development has been approved but not yet constructed. The project is consistent
with the urban intensity uses assumed in the prior EIR. The Eastern Dublin General Plan and
Specific Plan also provide for long-term protection of future agricultural operations on lands
designated for Rural Residential and Open Space within the Eastern Dublin planning area.
Consistent with the Eastern Dublin EIR, Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated
with regard to conversion of prime agricultural land, and no further analysis is required.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Nl The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act
contract. No impacts will therefore result.
3. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
City of Dublin
Initial Study/lKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 26
September 2003
Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal standards for
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other airborne pollutants,
including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate: matter (PM-lO) are not met in at
least a portion of the Basin.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan?
ps. Impact 3.11/E of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified increased stationary source air emissions
from the project area that would remain significant on a cumulative level even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 and 13.0. The prior EIR also assumed
increased development in other areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, and related commutes to
the Bay Area, and identified cumulative air quality impacts ~s Significant and Unavoidable.
Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GP A1SP, the City adoped a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for these two impacts. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR,
development and commutes from the east have increased as~xpected, but commute patterns
along 1-580 may be different than expected as commuters cut through nearby Dublin streets to
avoid the freeway. In addition, based on the applicants traffic study, the project may contribute to
further degradation of anticipated LOS F conditions on 1-580. Since automobile traffic is the
primary source of pollutants for which the Basin is in non-ccnpliance, the potential for
supplemental traffic impacts could also contribute to emissicns exceeding Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant
impact and will be assessed in a focused Supplemental EIR. The potential impacts of changing
from office to commercial uses will also be assessed.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards?
ps. For the reasons noted above, the project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD
significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significanl impact and will be assessed in a
focused Supplemental EIR.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerabl~~ air pollutants?
ps. For the reasons noted in a), the project could contribute 10 emissions exceeding BAAQMD
significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact and will assessed in a
focused Supplemental EIR.
d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors?
NI. Development of the project area with urban uses will create emissions from a variety of
stationary (non-vehicular) sources such as evaporative emissions from paints and cleaning
products, etc. The project does not propose residential development and no residential
development is existing or planned adjacent to the project. Nor are there any other nearby
sensitive receptors that could be exposed to stationary or vehicular source pollutants from the
project. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with respect to smsitive receptors. The potential for
supplemental cumulative air quality impacts is addressed in c:) above.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 27
September 2003
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Setting
Figure 3.7-A of the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the project area was historically dominated
by dry-farming rotational cropland and non-native grasslands. The project site is now a vacant
site predominantly covered with non-native grasses and other native and non-native ruderal
vegetation.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species?
PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified twelve special status plant species, seventeen special
status amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species, and ten special status invertebrate species
which could potentially occur within the entire Eastern Dublin planning area (Tables 3.7-1 and
3.7-2, pp. 3-7.19-21. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, new special status species
not addressed in the prior EIR have been identified and may occur on the project site which
could be potentially significant. A focused Supplemental EIR will be prepared to analyze
whether the project could result in new significant impacts related to these species.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies to protect special status species (policies 6-17
and 6-20). The proposed project would adhere to the Specific Plan policies and all previously
adopted mitigation measures, as applicable.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected
wetlands?
NI. Figure 3.7 -B of the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies no potential riparian habitat and springs on
the project site based upon the location of intermittent streams, seeps, etc., therefore, no impacts
are anticipated.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species?
PS. As noted above, a focused Supplemental EIR will be prepared to examine whether listed
species not addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR could occur on the project site. The focused
Supplemental EIR will also examine the potential for movement impacts on the species.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
tree protection ordinances:
NI. No trees grow on the project site, so no impacts exist with respect to conflicts with tree
protection ordinances or similar regulations.
f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any
adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 28
September 2003
NI. There are no Habitat Conservation Plan areas or Natural Community Conservation Plans
located on the project site. No impacts would therefore result.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
Chapter 3.9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR addresses the potential impacts on cultural resources
which may be located within the project area. A field inspection of the entire Eastern Dublin area
was performed in 1988. Three potential pre-historic sites (two of them isolated locales) and two
historic sites were identified within the EDSP area (see pp. ::,.9-4 - 3.9-6 of the Eastern Dublin
EIR). Maps of these sites were not included in the EIR to protect them from possible vandalism.
The Eastern Dublin EIR mandated additional project-level archeological surveys. None of these
sites are located on the IKEA project site.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources?
NI. The project site is vacant and contains no historic struchlres. No impacts are therefore
anticipated.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources?
LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a remote but potentially significant possibility that
construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant
archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites. The Eastern Dublin EIR
categorized these resources as pre-historic cultural resources. Three potential pre-historic sites
were identified by the EIR within the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area. The
Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some
manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed .in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact
3.9/A) and mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7) that require
subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such resources; and
development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Section
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9/:5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also
were adopted to address the potential disruption of any prev:.ously unidentified pre-historic
resources and would apply to the project as may be appropriate.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (policies 6-24 and 6-25) requiring
research of archaeological resources prior to construction and determination of the significance
and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction. The previous EIR
adequately addresses potential impacts to these resources. Adopted Mitigation Measures will
continue to apply to this project and will be implemented through conditions of approval to
reduce impacts to archeological or paleontological impacts to a less-than-significant level. There
are no impacts beyond those previously identified and analyzed in the Easter Dublin EIR.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/lKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 29
September 2003
d) Disturb any human resources?
LS. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could be uncovered
on the site during construction activities. Implicit in the mitigation measures of the Eastern
Dublin EIR and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies is the potential for discovery of human
resources near or within the identified pre-historic and historic sites. With implementation of the
previously adopted mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure[ 3.9/1.0 -12) and adherence to the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies relating to cultural resources (policies 6-24 and 6-25), as
appropriate, potential impacts to human resources would be less-than-significant and have been
adequately addressed.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Adopted Mitigation
Measures will continue to apply to this project and will be implemented through conditions of
approval. Therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Setting
This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and landforms,
drainage and erosion and the potential impacts of localized soil types. It further identifies related
impacts and mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and whether the prior analysis is
adequate for the current project.
Seismic
The project area is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically active
regions in the nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby significant
faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault and San Andreas Fault
(pp. 3.6-1 - 3.6-2 and Figures 3.6-A and 3.6-B). The likelihood of a major seismic event on one
or more of these faults within the near future is believed to be high. However, no active faults are
known to traverse the project site and the site is not identified as located within an Earthquake
Safety Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone) as determined by the California
Division of Mines and Geology.
A second thrust fault system has been inferred in the Coast Ranges of the Bay Area that may be
seismically active. A belt of faults and folds has been mapped in sedimentary rocks south of
Mount Diablo, including one identified as the "leading edge-blind thrust, Mount Diablo
Domain." Further investigation of this inferred fault has concluded that the risk of ground rupture
from this inferred fault is low within the project area. The pot~ntial for on-site faulting will be
addressed in the site-specific geotechnical report for the proposed project.
Site Geology and Soils
Site soils are identified as ''undifferentiated alluvial deposits" on Figure 3.6-C of the Eastern
Dublin EIR.
Landforms and Topography
The project area is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-Amador
Valley. Much of the property is flat with a distinct slope to the south. Grading spoils from
City of Dublin
Initial Study/lKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 30
September 2003
construction on adjacent lands have been deposited on the site which creates minor topographic
relief.
Drainage
Existing drainage patterns on the site is in a sheet flow pattern to the south.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including
loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground
failure or landslides?
LS. Similar to many areas of California, the site could be subject to ground shaking caused by
the regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable
in the Bay Area over the next 30 years, buildings, utilities and other improvements constructed in
the project area would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. However, since the
project area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the
potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the primary and secondlUY effects of ground-shaking (Impacts
3.6/B and 3.6/C) and mitigation measure 3.6/1. requiring mcodem seismic design for resistance to
lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potenlial for structure failure, major
structural damage and loss of life. These design standards are reflected in current building
standards and would be required for issuance of building pelmits by the City of Dublin for the
proposed project.
Mitigation measures 3.6/2.0,4.0,5.0.6.0. 7.0 and 8.0 will be implemented, as appropriate to the
project site, to reduce the secondary effects of ground-shaking and require stabilization of
unstable landforms where possible or restriction of improvements from unstable landforms;
utilization of properly engineered retention structures and fill; design of roads and infrastructure
to accommodate potential settlement; and completion of des.lgn-level geotechnical investigations
(pp. 3.6-8 through 3.6-9).
Adherence to Mitigation Measures MM 3.6/1.0 through 8.0 will ensure that new structures and
infrastructure built within the project area will comply with generally recognized seismic safety
standards.
The applicant for development of the property has commissioned a soils and geotechnical report
to conform with adopted mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and policies
set forth in the EDSP. Development plans submitted for the :Jroject reflect the report's
recommendations. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Adopted Mitigation Measures will continue to apply to this project. Therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil?
LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that development would modify the existing ground surface
and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in
erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities (Imp. let 3.6/K). Long-term impacts could
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 31
September 2003
result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing vegetation (Impact
3.6/L). Related Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 (pp. 3.6-14 - 3.6-15) require the
preparation and implementation of erosion control measures to be utilized on a short-term and
long-term basis. In addition to these measures, the project would be subject to erosion control
and water quality control measures required by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board and implemented by the City of Dublin. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a
policy (Policy 6-43). which requires that new development be designed to provide effective
control of soil erosion as a result of construction activities. Erosion impacts are adequately
addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no further analysis is required
c, d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or will result in potential
lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse?
LS. Portions of the project area are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell potential that
has the potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Impact 3.6/H). The
proposed project will be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 (pp.
3.6-11-12) requiring appropriate structural foundations and other techniques to overcome shrink-
swell effects. The applicant's geotechnical report contains recommendations for implementing
these mitigations through project design and construction.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Adopted Mitigation
Measures will continue to apply to this project. Therefore no additional review or analysis is
necessary .
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not
available?
NI. All new development within the project area would be connected to a public sanitary sewer
system and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District which serves all of the City of
Dublin. No septic systems are proposed within the project area. Therefore, no impact is
anticipated with regard to septic tanks.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Setting
The site contains open grasslands. Historically, the project site has been used for agriculture and
most recently has been used by United States Army, as part of Parks Reserve Forces Training
Area (RFT A) but was decommissioned and transferred to the Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority in the mid-1980's.
Based upon the results of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments performed on the property,
there is a possibility of encountering contaminated soil and/or other potentially hazardous
material remaining from previous site uses.
However based on information received by the Alameda County Health Services Agency:
Environmental Protection Department, incinerator debris and ash were discovered during
environmental studies north of the subject property within the public right-of-way of Martinelli
Drive and the property north of Martinelli Drive. The waste was removed from both properties
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 32
September 2003
and are now considered "clean closed" with respect to this contaminant. Policy 11-1 of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that prior to the issuance of building permits for sites in the
project area, site-specific environmental site assessments are required. As part of the normal
review process for development of the site, the City of Dublin will require the applicant to obtain
a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the property. If applicable, remediation measures
would be recommended as part of the Phase II analysis and required to be completed, prior to
development, in accordance with State law.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Create a significant hazard through transport ofhaz,!rdous materials or release or
emission of hazardous materials?
LS. Proposed uses of the project area would include commercial and retail uses. Only minor
less-than-significant quantities of potentially hazardous materials such as lawn chemicals,
household solvents, etc., would be associated with the majority of the proposed uses. With the
expected minimal use of hazardous materials and the requirement for adhering to a hazardous
materials business plan, this impact is less-than-significant
c) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site?
LS. None of the parcels comprising the project area have been listed as a hazardous materials
site. As noted above, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments have been completed for the
property. Levels of petroleum-based products typical of agricultural uses have been discovered
but these levels are less-than-significant Remediation measures, if needed, would be
recommended and completed in accordance with appropriate regulatory agencies. This impact is
considered to be less-than-significant.
d) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private
airstrip?
LS. The project site is located within the General Referral Area of the Livermore Municipal
Airport, as shown on Figure 3.1/D of the Eastern Dublin EIR The City of Dublin will refer the
proposed development plan to the Alameda County Airport land Use Commission to ensure all
airport height and safety issues will be addressed. The project appears to comply with applicable
Airport Land Use Plan standards, therefore, this is considered a less-than-significant impact.
e) Represent a safety hazard to persons if located within two miles of a private airstrip?
LS. The project is not located within two miles of a private airstrip. No impacts are therefore
anticipated.
f) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan?
LS. There is no adopted emergency evacuation plan for the project area. The proposed project
would provide vehicular access on three frontages of the project site and pedestrian access on all
four sides to allow for emergency evacuation. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore
anticipated.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/lKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 33
September 2003
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
NI. The proposed project would not block any potential emergency evacuation routes, including
Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road or Martinelli Drive. No impacts are therefore anticipated.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
. NI. The proposed project would be located within an urbanized area with fire protection systems
!nstalled as required by the Dublin Fire Department. No impacts are therefore anticipated.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
The project area is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San
Francisco Bay. The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ("Zone 7").
The project site is not located within a lOO-year flood plain (reference Flood Insurance Rate
Map, CP # 0607050002 B, September, 1997)
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
LS. Site grading (cut and fill) would occur to construct driveways, parking lots, building pads,
utilities connections and similar improvements. Proposed grading could increase the potential of
erosion and increase the amount of sediments carried by storm water run-off into bodies of
water, on and off the project site. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
(Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA) along with mitigation measures 3.5/44.0 - 46.0, 47.0, 49.0,51.0 and
52.0 that require: drainage facilities to minimize any increased potential for erosion; preparation
of a Master Drainage Plan for each development prior to development (Stage 2 PD-Planned
Development) approval; facilities and management practices which protect and enhance water
quality; specific water quality investigations which address water quantity and quality of run-off;
and community-based programs to educate local residents and business on methods to reduce
non-point sources of pollutants. The mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed project
as appropriate.
Additionally, development of individual parcels within the project area will be required by City
ordinance to prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), implementing Best
Management Practices that reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction
and post-construction activities. These measures can include revegetation of graded areas, silt
fencing and use of biofilters within parks and other landscaped areas. These individual SWPPPs
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 34
September 2003
must conform to standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of
Dublin and shall be approved by the City of Dublin prior to issuance of grading permits. Both
agencies monitor construction and post-construction activides according to the SWPPP and
adjustments are made during project construction as necessary to erosion control methods and
water quality protection as field conditions warrant. Specific development projects containing
five acres of more are also required to submit a Notice of htent from the State Water Resources
Control Board prior to commencement of grading.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies, which reflect the mitigation measures of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR listed above. Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T
through 9X (pp. 133-134) address the potential for erosion and changes in water quality, storm
water run-off and storm drainage due to development of thl~ project area. The Eastern Dublin
EIR and applicable requirements for project-specific SWPPPs adequately address potential water
quality impacts of the project. No further analysis is requited.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lower the local groundwater table?
LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the project area is located in an area of minimal
groundwater recharge stating that groundwater reserves and the majority of the Tri- Valley's
groundwater resources are in the Central Basin, south of the project area. Mitigation Measure
3.5/50.0 notes that Zone 7 supports on-going groundwater recharge programs for the Central
Basin. Water for the proposed project would be supplied by DSRSD, so that there would be no
depletion of groundwater resources. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that development of the area
could have an impact on local groundwater resources and groundwater recharge due to an
increase in the amount of impervious surfaces within the project site, (Impact 3.5/Z). With
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 (pages 3.5-26), this impact is less-
than-significant.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including stream courses, such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur?
LS. Development of the project site would change existing natural drainage patterns in the area.
Approval and implementation of the proposed project would increase stormwater runoff from the
site due to construction and post-construction activities and thereby increase the potential for
erosion. These impacts and related mitigations have been identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
(Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA) in relation to item "a" above. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also
contains policies and programs (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9S through 9X, pp. 133-
134) addressing potential erosion.
The Eastern Dublin adequately analyzes potential erosion impacts. The adopted Mitigation
Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project. There are no impacts
beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis
is necessary.
d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or resi4lt in flooding, either on or off the
project site?
LS. Construction of new commercial square footage and parking areas would change drainage
patterns within the project area. This impact was identified,n the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 35
September 2003
3.5Y) along with Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0, 46.0, and 47.0 that require drainage facilities to
minimize flooding; preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each development prior to
development approval; and construction of facilities to alleviate potential downstream flooding
due to project development;
The Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addresses potential drainage and flooding impacts. The
adopted Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or
add substantial amounts of polluted runoff?
LS. Construction and operation of the project could lead to greater quantities of stormwater
runoff and could include pollutants in the runoff. These potential impacts were identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA) along with mitigation measures 3.5/44.0, 46.0,
47.0,49.0,51.0, and 52.0, described in item a) above. Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133-134) also would be
implemented through the project and would ensure that project design and improvements are
adequate for runoff and do not degrade water quality.
The Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addresses drainage capacity for the project. The adopted
Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review
or analysis is necessary.
f) Substantially degrade water quality?
LS. Construction activities related to development of the project site and post-construction
activities could degrade water quality resulting in additional sedimentation and potential
pollutants in on-site or down-stream waters. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA) and related mitigation measures 3.5/44.0-49.0, 51.0 and 52.0,
as described in item a) above. Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 9-7 through
9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented through the project
in that the City will require preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prior to the
issuance of project grading plans.
The Eastern Dublin adequately addressed potential water quality impacts for the project. The
adopted Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project.
There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
g, i) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map or expose people or structures to a significant risk due to flooding or failure of a
levee or dam?
NI. The proposed project does not include construction of residential land uses, so there would
be no impact with regard to placing housing within a lOO-year flood plain. The project site is not
located within a l00-year flood plain.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 36
September 2003
h) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structurei' which would impede or redirect
flood flow?
NI. As noted in the response to "g" above, the project site is not located within a lOO-year flood
plain, so there would be no impacts with impedance or redirl~ction of flood waters.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows.~
LS. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche or tsunami.
The risk of potential mudflow is considered low because the project site is generally flat.
Therefore, any potential impacts from the project will be les,~ than significant.
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan planning
area. An amendment has been requested to these documents, changing the land use designation
from Campus Office to a General Commercial land use designation.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Physically divide an established community?
NI. The project site is composed of a single parcel not separated by freeways, or arterial
roadways. No impacts are therefore anticipated.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation?
NI. The proposed project includes a change of the General Plan and Specific Plan land use
designation as well as a PD rezoning request appropriate to the proposed development. The
project as proposed will have no impacts related to land use plan, policy or regulation conflicts.
Potential physical impacts on the environment from develop ment of the retail commercial center
are addressed in the appropriate checklist discussions, e.g., biology, traffic and circulation, and
similar topics.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
NI. No habitat conservation plan or natural community cons,ervation plan has been adopted by
the City or other agency that includes the project site. No impact would therefore occur.
10. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
The subject area currently contains no known mineral resources.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/lKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 37
September 2003
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral
resources?
NI. There are no known significant mineral resources located within the project area.
Development of the project as proposed would have no impact on mineral resources.
11. Noise
Environmental Setting
The major source of noise on and adjacent to the project site h from vehicles traveling on the 1-
580 freeway, immediately south of the site. Figure 3.10-B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
identifies the project site as subject to future exterior noise levels in excess of 70 dbA CNEL.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, d) Would the project expose persons to generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard or to substantial temporary
or periodic increases in ambient noise levels?
LS. The project site is subject to severe noise levels from the 1-580 freeway. However, the
proposed project would include general commercial land uses, not residential, resulting in less-
than-significant impacts regarding significant noise levels. Section 3.10 of the Eastern Dublin
EIR identified exterior noise levels in excess of 60 dba (CNEL) as significant for residential
uses. The Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies an exterior noise level of up to 70
dBA (CNEL as acceptable and up to 75 as conditionally acceptable.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise
levels?
LS. Groundborne vibrations could be caused by vehicular traffic along the 1-580 Freeway and
within driveways and parking areasof development areas. Since future development is
commercial in nature, less-than-significant impacts are anticipated.
c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels?
NI. Development of the project site with urban-type uses will introduce noise to the project area
where no noise generating noise uses presently exist. However, any new noise levels on the
project site would be less than presently exists from the adjacent 1-580 Freeway, and in any case,
there are no current noise sensitive uses that could be affected by project noise. There would
therefore be no impacts with regard to permanent noise increases on the site
e, f) Expose people residing or working within two miles of a public airport or in the vicinity
of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels?
NI. There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the proposed project, therefore, no impact would
result.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/lKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 38
September 2003
12. Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
Data from Projections 2002, published by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),
expects the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region to add a?proximately 1,230,340 new
residents by the year 2020. This represents an increase of about 16 percent over the 20-year
forecast period from 2000-2020. ABAG expects approximaely 428,351 new households in the
region by year 2020. ABAG estimates that Dublin's populatioa (including its Sphere of
Influence) was 30,007 in the year 2000 and is projected to grow to 57,900 by 2020. ABAG
estimates that the increase in new households will create a c.emand for at least 20,000 new
dwellings each year. The City of Dublin is expected to provide 21,290 dwellings by the year
2020.
The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated that the Eastern Dublin area would create 12,458 new
dwelling units (Table 3.2-5, page 3.2-7), generating a new r'~sident population of 27,794.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, eitl-ter directly or indirectly?
LS. Development of the retail commercial complex will not induce substantial population
growth beyond that analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The project site was proposed for urban
level development of a similar nature and somewhat greater intensity in the Eastern Dublin GP A
and SP. The Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addresses growth inducement issues and no further
analysis is required.
b, c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of e;:isting housing units or
people?
NI. The project area contains no residences that would be displaced to accommodate the
proposed project, no impact is expected.
13. Public Services
Environmental Setting
Fire Protection. Fire protection service to the project site is provided by the Alameda County Fire
Department (ACFD), under contract to the City of Dublin.
Police Protection. Dublin Police Services provides police and security services to the project site.
Dublin Police Services is under contract with the Alameda County Sheriff s office: the City of
Dublin owns the department's facilities and equipment but the personnel are employed by the
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 39
September 2003
Sheriff> s Office. Police and security protection includes 24 hour security patrols throughout the
community in addition to crime prevention, crime suppression and traffic safety.
Schools. Public educational services to the project area are provided by the Dublin Unified
School District (DUSD).
Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other public facilities within the project area is
the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works Department.
Solid Waste Service. Solid waste service is provided by the LivermorelDublin Disposal
Company.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed urban development of a similar nature and intensity to that
proposed by the Project. It addressed the impacts of development of the project area on services
and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the identified impacts to a less than significant
level As reflected below, the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addressed public services impacts
and no additional analysis is required.
a) Fire protection?
LS. High intensity non-residential development proposed for the site was evaluated in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. The EIR identified demand for fire services and fire response to outlying
areas as significant impacts (1M 3.4/C and 304/E) and identified mitigation measures (MM
3.4/6.0 - MM3.4111) that require construction of new facilities timed to coincide with
development; require appropriate funding mechanisms for capital improvements; identify and
acquire new fire station sites; and incorporate fire safety measures into project design. These
mitigation measures would apply to the site under both the existing Campus Office and the
proposed General Commercial land use designations. Appropriate fire protection measures, as
required by the Eastern Dublin EIR, will be imposed on the proposed project through the project
review process implemented by the City of Dublin.
Fire protection impacts are adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The adopted
Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project. The
Dublin Fire Department has reviewed proposed project plans and have indicated it has the ability
to provide fire and emergency rescue services to the proposed project. There are no impacts
beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis
is necessary.
b) Police protection?
LS. Demand for police services and police services accessibility were considered significant
impacts in the Eastern Dublin EIR (1M 304/A and 304/B). Related mitigation measures (MM
3.4/1.0 - MM3.4/5.0) include provision of additional personnel and facilities; coordination of
development timing so services can be expanded; and incorporation of police department
recommendations into project design to ensure that adequate rafety and security provisions have
been considered as part of the proposed project.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 40
September 2003
Police protection impacts are adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The adopted
Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project. The
Dublin Police Department has reviewed proposed project phms and have indicated it has the
ability to provide police services to the proposed project. Th~re are no impacts beyond those
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
c) Schools?
NI. The proposed project involves approval and constructior: of non-residential land uses on the
site which would not contribute children to local schools. AI )0, project developers will be
required to pay non-residential school impact fees to offset any indirect impacts to local schools.
Therefore, there would be no impact on Dublin Unified School District facilities.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
LS. New facilities are proposed to be constructed in the projl~ct area, including Martinelli Drive
to the north and a portion of Arnold Road to the west. Ail sUI;h roads and public facilities would
be constructed by the project developers. Maintenance of these facilities was anticipated by the
Eastern Dublin EIR and considered a significant impact (1M 3.12/A and 3.12/B). Adopted
mitigation measures (MM 3.12/1.0-8.0) encourage development agreements; adoption by the
City of an area of benefit ordinance; creation of Special Assessment of Mello Roos Community
Facilities Districts; City evaluation of Marks-Roos bond pooling; and consideration of City-wide
developer and builder impact fees. Pursuant to these mitigati:m measures and related Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan policies and programs, the project includes a Development Agreement
request, and would be subject to the City's adopted public fa;ilities fees.
The Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addresses public facilities impacts. The adopted Mitigation
Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project. There are no impacts
beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis
is necessary.
14. Recreation
Environmental Setting
Since the project area is not currently developed with urban uses the area contains no parks or
other recreational facilities. Nearby community and regional parks include Emerald Glen Park, a
50-acre city park now being developed by the City of Dublin immediately west of Tassajara
Road, and two community parks slated for development elsewhere in the Eastern Dublin area.
The combined area of the two community parks is 126 acres. Each of these parks would allow
for organized sports activities and individual sports as well a:; for passive recreation. Numerous
neighborhood parks and neighborhood squares have been included in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and General Plan planning areas.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 41
September 2003
LS. Pursuant to the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR
mitigation measures, the City has adopted a parks impact fee program. The project will be
required to participate in this program thus implementing previously adopted mitigations for
potential parks and recreation impacts.
The Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addresses park facility impacts. There are no impacts beyond
those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is
necessary.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities?
NI. The project includes no park or recreation facilities, and any such facilities that could be
needed would be addressed through payment of City fees. No impacts would therefore result.
15. Transportationtrraffic
Environmental Setting
The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the traffic and transportation impacts of development of the
project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified impacts to a
less than significant level. Preliminary traffic analyses indicates there could be the potential for
additional transportation/traffic impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR,
including potential changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities.
Protect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the traffic and transportation impacts of development of the
project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified impacts to a
less than significant level. Due to increased urban development in the Tri- Valley area and
beyond which may impact roadways within the project area, t1ere could be the potential for
additional transportation/traffic impacts. including potential changes in commute patterns and
traffic intensities.
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street
capacity ?
PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project area with Campus Office
land uses, and adopted mitigation measures to address the impacts thereof. However, retail uses
could result in different peak hour impacts, and changes in Tri- Valley commute patterns in
addition to the anticipated project traffic, may cause potentially significant impacts not
anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. These impacts could include traffic impacts within the
project area, or at nearby intersections, or on freeways, roads, etc. which project traffic may use.
This topic will be addressed in a focused Supplemental EIR.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County
CMAfor designated roads?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 42
September 2003
PS. As noted above, the construction of retail floor space on the project site was not anticipated
in the Eastern Dublin EIR and could result in different peak hour traffic impacts than originally
considered. Potential impacts of proposed development on regional freeways and local
roadways in conjunction with changing commute patterns and traffic intensities unrelated to the
project may also cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR.
This topic will be addressed in a focused Supplemental EIR.
c) Change in air traffic patterns?
NI. Development of the project area is not expected to creale a change in air traffic patterns at
the airport and hence would have no impact on air traffic p~~tterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use?
LS. Approval of the proposed project and future development of the site would add new
driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Municipal Code contain design standards intended to
assure that access to and from a development site, and circulation within the site, will be safe and
efficient. Since project facilities will be required to be constructed to these design standards,
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
LS. Construction of new commercial development on the project area will provide frontage and
other roadway improvements to accommodate project traffi.; and pedestrian demand. These
improvements are also expected to provide adequate emergency access. Specific buildings
proposed as part of the project will be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure that emergency
access provisions of the Uniform Fire Code and other applicable safety codes will be met.
f) Inadequate parking capacity?
NI. Parking for IKEA project is proposed at 3.5 spaces perl,OOO feet of gross floor area, this
exceeds the City's Zoning Ordinance requirement for Furnilure Store/large appliance stores at 1
space per 400 square feet of gross floor area Additionally, ~,pccific projects within the Retail
Center will be reviewed by the City of Dublin at the time such specific development proposals
are submitted to ensure consistency with City parking requirements. Based on compliance with
the City's Zoning Ordinance, no impact is anticipated.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programsfor alternative transportation?
NI. The proposed development projects would be designed with sidewalks, pedestrian walkways,
bus facilities and bicycle routes to minimize potential hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists and to
support these alternative transportation modes. In accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, bicycle routes and pedestrian trails are included as part of the proposed project. The City
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have standards by which bus turn-outs, bicycle paths, trails and
sidewalks must be planned and constructed. LA VT A has indicated that a bus stop will be
required along the north and south side of Martinelli Drive. The project as designed can
accommodate the requested bus stop. Project developers in accordance with City and LA VT A
requirements will install the bus stop. These improvements '.vill be confirmed at the time each
individual development project is reviewed by the City. No impacts are therefore anticipated.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 43
September 2003
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
Water and Sewer. The project area lies within the service area of Dublin San Ramon Services
District area that provides both domestic and recycled (non-potable) water for irrigation
purposes. The District also provides sewer collection services via a series of sewer trunks and
mains and treatment services at a central wastewater treatment plant located in Pleasanton.
Stormwater Drainage. The City of Dublin provides and maintains local storm drain pipes and
related facilities. Regional drainage channels and related facilities are provided and maintained
by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7).
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR require adequate water
and sewer services for new urban development. DSRSD, as the service provider for both water
and sewer, has adopted an Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan based on the General Plan land
uses and densities. Demand for water and sewer services for the proposed commercial uses
would be similar or less than the demand associated with a development scenario under Campus
Office land use designation specified in the General Plan and would thus be within the
assumptions of the Eastern Dublin EIR as well as the DSRSD master plan. Consistent with the
adopted plans and mitigation measures, DSRSD provided the City with a will-serve letter for
water and sewer service to the Project. The letter is attached to this Initial Study.
In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified overdraft of groundwater
resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact Adherence to Mitigation Measures
3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificant. These measures require the
City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to develop recycled water resources and otherwise
carefully use water resources and that all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to
connect to the DSRSD water system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a
potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based
on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures require
implementation of water conservation measures in individual development projects and
construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded by development impact
fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is the need for additional water
treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identified as being reduced to a level of
insignificance through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0-31.0, which requires
improvement to the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees.
Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially significant
impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an insignificant level
through adherence to Mitigation Measures3.5/4.34.0-38.0. These mitigations require upgrades to
the project area water system and provision of a "will serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading
permit. Impact 3.5ff identified a potentially significant impact related to inducement of
substantial growth and concentration of population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin found
that this was a significant and unavoidable impact.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 44
September 2003
Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a wastewater
collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated through adherence
to Mitigation Measures 3.51.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD to prepare an area-wide
wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new development to be connected to
DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve"
letter from DSRSD and requires that all sewer facilities be I;onstructed to DSRSD engineering
standards. Impact 3.5 noted an impact with regard to extemion of a sewer trunk line with
capacity to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the
proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased
sewer demand from the proposed Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of
wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility is
presently being constructed by the Livermore Amador Vall,~y Water Management Agency.
Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant c:apacity as a potentially significant
impact, all of which could be reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation
Measures 3.5/8.0 and 9.0.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB?
LS. A letter has been received from DSRSD indicating that adequate wastewater treatment plan
capacity exists within DSRSD wastewater treatment faciliti,~s to accommodate the incremental
amount of untreated effluent resulting from development of the proposed project, so there would
be a less-than-significant impact with regard to wastewater treatment requirements. A copy of
the will serve letter is attached to this Initial Study. Therefore, no new impacts above and beyond
that addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated wilh approval and implementation of the
proposed project and no new analysis is needed.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatmentfacilities or expansion of existing
facilities?
LS. As noted above, a ..will serve" letter has been submitted to the City of Dublin regarding the
ability of DSRSD to provide water and wastewater services. A copy of the will serve letter is
attached to this Initial Study. Therefore, no new impacts above and beyond that addressed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated with approval and implementation of the proposed project
and no new analysis is needed.
c) Require new stonn drainage facilities?
LS. See response to 8 ue," Hydrology.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available?
LS. Based on the ..will serve" letter provided to the City of Dublin (attached), adequate water
supplies can be provided to the proposed project by DSRSD. Therefore, no new impacts above
and beyond that addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are andcipated with approval and
implementation of the proposed project and no new analysi~ is needed.
e) Adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed project?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
P A 02-034
Page 45
September 2003
LS. . Based on the "will serve" letter provided to the City of Dublin (attached), adequate
wastewater treatment capacity can be provided to the proposed project by DSRSD. Therefore, no
new impacts above and beyond that addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated with
approval and implementation of the proposed project and no new analysis is needed.
f) Solid waste disposal?
LS. Development of the project as proposed could incrementally increase the generation of solid
waste. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. (Impacts 3.4/0 and 3.4/P).
Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0-40.0 have been adopted which. require preparation of a sold waste
management plan for the Eastern Dublin area, revisions to th.e City of Dublin recycling plans to
include new development anticipated in Eastern Dublin and related activities. Based on the
adopted mitigation measures, a less-than-significant impact is anticipated for the proposed
project and no new impacts above and beyond that addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are
anticipated with approval and implementation of the proposed project.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
NI. The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would emure that developers of individual
projects constructed in the project area would adhere to federal, state and local solid waste
regulations; therefore, no impact would result.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the majoi" periods of California history or
prehistory ?
YES. Please refer to the discussion in the Air Quality, Biolc,gical Resources and Transportation
sections above.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually iimited, but cumulatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects and the effects of possible future projects.)
YES. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the cumulative impacts of development of the project
area within its evaluation of the overall Eastern Dublin plan:ling area. To the extent that
potential impacts will be addressed in a focused Supplememal EIR, related cumulative impacts
should also be examined as appropriate.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which '.vill cause substantial adverseeffects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 46
September 2003
YES. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed potentially significant adverse impacts of development
on the Project site through its evaluation of the proposed Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan. This Initial Study identifies certain potentially significant impacts
beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR that will be addressed in a focused
Supplemental EIR.
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner
Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney
References
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report, Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994'
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, June 6, 1998
City of Dublin General Plan, revised November 5, 2002
IKEA, application submittal package to City of Dublin, July 2003
Projections 2002, Association of Bay Area Governments, December 1999
Persons! Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Document
City of Dublin
Public Works Department
Planning Department
Fire Department
Police Department
Other agencies
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Project applicant
IKEA development staff
City of Dublin
Initial Study/lKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034²
Page 47
September 2003
DSRSD "VVill Serve" Letter
City of Dublin
Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center
PA 02-034
Page 48
September 2003
f.
- ,
P.OO1/12102
I
I
SEP-1121-2003 1219:42 FROM:CITY OF DUBLIN
9258336628
TO:51121 5486123
D$:LIN
SAN'RAMON
SERVICES
DISTRICT
7051 Dublin Boull:<l'o.rd
Dublin.~1~94S68
FAX: 925 829 1189
925 828 0515
July 30, 2002
Jennifer Heywood
BICF Engineers
540 Price Avenue
Redwood City, CA 94063
Subject:
''Will Serve" ~tter for
lKEA Project, Dublin CA
Parcel 2 ofParC<:l Map 7714
Dear.Ms. Heywood:
In response to your request. this letter addresses the information you requested regarding the.
. above referenced project For all District services, please note the following:
Sanitary S_cwer
Sanitary Sewer Capacities are available fqr your project and are sold 00 a first-come, first serve
basis. Construction of sanitary sewer pipeline onsite and offsitc is the owner's respoDSlbmty.
Design -and insw,latioo oftb.ese facilities shall conform to District Standard Procedures llJ1d
Specifications. The owner m~ obtain a constructiOn permit for the installation of these
facilities from. the District. Onsite sanitaxy sewer facilities and s~ces to. this project may
COImect to existing sanitary sewer maiDs on Dublin Blvd. or Amold R.d.
Potable Wate!
The District will be able to provide potable water for normal use and a fireflow of 4,500 gallons
per minute (&pm) to the site. Th~ fiteflow required shall be verified during project design and
confirmed with the District based on the latest recommenda.tions of the Alameda County Fire
Department
Construction ofwatcr services and the onsite and offsite water distribution system are the
owner's responsibility. Design and installation of these facilities sbal1 conform to District
Standard Procedures and Specifications. The owner must obtain a construction pem:1it for the
installation of these facilities from the District. Onsite water distribution facilities and water
services to this project may conuect to existing water maim on Dublin Blvd., Arnold Rd. and
Hacienda Dr.
Thr.: Dulillft Raft ~ 8ftrt'\~ ~tN:lI. . 'Public: &nttty
H:\l!;NOOEP'l'\PERMITS\DEVLPMNTIlND_COMI \1KEA\lkea Will Serve.do<:
SEP-10-2003 09:42 FROM:CITY OF DUBLIN
9258336628
TO:510 5486123
P.002/002
I
!
:
!
t..
Jennifer Heywood
:Bra: Engineers
July 30,2002
Page 2 of2
Rcevcled Water
The District will be able to provide recycled water to your project site. District Ordinance 280
and the City of Dublin's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance caJls for installation of recycled
water irrigation systems to allow for the use of recycled w~er. TI.e owner's contractor may tap
into existing recycled water mains on Dublin Blvd. The onsite ret:ycled,watcr irrigation system
shall be designed and installed in conformance to District Recycled VI ater Use Guidelines, as
amended. The owner must obtain a construction permit for the in:rtal1ation of these facilities..
from the District.
If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesita.tl~ to call me at (925) 551 ~ 7230.
ext 124. . .
SVD;es
cc: Rhodora Biagtan
K.en 'Peterson
David Requa
CbronIFile: DP~02-281
H:\ENGDBPT\PERMTTS\DEVl...l'MN'nlND_COM1\IKEA\llc..~ Will Serve.doc
Appendix 8.2
Notice of Preparation
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 94
November 2003
(f:~ .
19~:~b CITY~F DUBLIN
~'01~ -,~ 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
"~'Y
_.-.~_:.......
Website: http://www.cLdublin.ca.us
Notice of Preparation/Notice of Scoping Meeting
To: Distribution List (see attached)
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmenulllmpact Report/Notice of
Scoping Meeting , ~... ~~~.:' ENI)9R.~J!.
.- . ,. ;':~'L ~{:,
Date: September 22, 2003 Al ,;.~~Fi)A COUN'"
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin; CA 94568
.~.,. OCT 0 B ZODJ
1;1' -ATfiWK O'CONNeu., County Clerk
r """It\~.. ~...
. ," ....,.....~,.\lU~. ..11\
_-=: /1).. ~~
Contact: Andy Byde, Senior Planner, Planning Department, (925) ~:5J uu~ v
The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the proposed scope
and content of the Environmental Impact Report:.for the projel~t identified below. Your agency
may need to use the EIR prepared by 1l!e Lead Agency when ~nsidering follow-on permits or
other approvals for this project.
Project Title: IKEA/Retail Center development project (P A 02-034)
Project Location: Immediately north of the 1-580 Freeway, west of Hacienda Boulevard, east
of Arnold Road and south of future Martinelli Drive (APN S'86-0005-040)
Project Description: Approval and construction of (1) an 1KEA retail store totaling 317,000
square feet on 14.34 acres ofland, including retail sales, restaurant, warehouse and 1,130 on-
site parking spaces; and (2} the Dublin Retail Center, consirting of up to 137,000 square feet
of retail space and related uses on 13.20 acres of land with 665 on-site parking spaces. The
project also includes site grading, installation of landf:caping and utility connections.
Requested land use entitlements include an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin General Plan
and Specific Plan, Stage 1 & 2 rezoning and Development Plans, Site Development Review,
. a Tentative Parcel Map, a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map ane a Development Agreement
The attached Initial Study identifies potential environmental effects anticipated to be discussed in
a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
Scoping Meeting
.::-.
A Scoping Meeting for this project will be held at 3 PM on Tb.ursday, October 16,2003, in the
Relrional :&gom of the Dublin Civic Center 100 CiV1.6Plaza. DJblin.. .
Area Co~ (925)' ity Manager 833-6650 . City Council 833-6650 . Personnel 833-6305 . Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 833-6640 . Public WorkslEngineering 833-6630 . Parks & Community Services 833-6645 . Police 833-6670
PlanningICcrde Enforcement 833-6610 . Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
Printed on Recycled Paper
t NOTICE OF PREPARATION DISTRIBUTION LIST
Ikea Project
September 2003
California State Clearinghouse -Terry Roberts (send 15 copies) -
Dublin San Ramon Services District (Greg Taylor) *
Dublin Unified School District - John Sugiyama/Kim McNeeley
LAVTA-Austin O'Dell
Zone 7, ACFC&WCD - Yan Kee Chan
Alameda County Planning Department - Buzz Sorenson
Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County - Pat Cashman
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission
PG&E
Pacific Bell
Comcast Cable
Livermore Dublin Disposal Service - Dan Borges
City of Pleasanton Planning Department
City of Livermore Planning Department
LA VWMA-Vivian Housen
California Regional Water Quality Control Board-San Francisco Bay Region
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
City Departments
Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director
Melissa Morton, City Engineer
Chris Foss, Economic Development Director
ENDORSED
PILED
ALAMEDA OOUNTY
oer~'o 8 lOOj .
PAbb / . .
0,' ~~::
Appendix 8.3
Responses to Initial Study
IKEA Draft Supplemental EtR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 95
November 2003
ST A TE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
ORA y DAVIS Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 286-5505
FAX (510) 286-5513
TIY (800) 735-2929
~
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
October 22, 2003
ALA580780
ALA-580-18.82
SCH2003092076
Mr. Andy Byde
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Byde:
DUBLIN HillA - NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the
early stages of the environmental review process for the Dublin IKEA Project. The
following comments are based on the Notice of Preparation.
Traffic Analysis
Please include the information detailed below in the Traffic Study to ensure that project-related
impacts to State roadway facilities are thoroughly assessed. We encourage the City to
coordinate preparation of the study with our office, and we would appreciate the opportunity to
review the scope of work. The Department's "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies" should be reviewed prior to initiating any traffic analysis for the project; it is available
at the following website:
htto:1 Iwww.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/operationalsystems/reportsItisguide.pdf
Tne Traffic Study should include:
1. Site plan clearly showing project access in relation to nearby state roadways. Ingress and
egress for all project components should be clearly identified. State Right-of-Way
(ROW) should be clearly identified.
2. Project-related trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The assumptions and
methodologies used to develop this information should be detailed in the study, and
should be supported with appropriate documentation.
3. Average Daily Traffic, AM and PM peak hour volumes and levels of service (LOS) on all
significantly affected roadways, including crossroads and controlled intersections for
existing, existing plus project, cumulative and cumulative plus project scenarios.
"Caltrans improves mobility across California ..
RECEIVED
CJCT 2 4 2003
. 'UBUN PLANNING
Mr. Andy Byde
October 22, 2003
Page 2
Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating
developments, both existing and future, that would affect study area roadways and
intersections. The analysis should clearly identify the proje.ct's contribution to area traffic
and degradation to existing and cumulative levels of service. Lastly, the Department's LOS
threshold, which is the transition between LOS C and D, (md is explained in detail in the
Guide for Traffic Studies, should be applied to all state facilities.
4. Schematic illustration of traffic conditions including the project site and study area
roadways, trip distribution percentages and volumes as well as intersection geometrics, i.e.,
lane configurations, for the scenarios described above.
5. The project site building potential as identified in the City's General Plan. The project's
consistency with both the Circulation Element of the Geneml Plan and the Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency's Congestion Management Plan should be evaluated.
6. Mitigation should be identified for any roadway mainlir. e section or intersection with
insufficient capacity to maintain an acceptable LOS with the addition of project-related
and/or cumulative traffic. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling,
implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should also be fully discussed
for all proposed mitigation measures.
7. Special attention should be given to the following trip-reducing measures:
· Encouraging mixed-use,
· Maximizing density through offering bonuses and/or credits,
· Coordinating with LAVTA and BART to increase transit/rail use by expanding routes
and emphasizing express service to regional rail statioru, and by providing bus shelters
with seating at any future bus pullouts,
· Providing transit information to all future employees and patrons of the project, and
· Encouraging bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly design.
While the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) may not be the preferred LOS methodology,
it should be used for analyzing impacts to state facilities, parti<:ularly where previous analysis
employing alternative methodologies has identified impacts. The residual level of service,
assumii'1g mitigation has been implemented, should also be analyzed \Vith HCM 2000.
Please forward a copy of the Traffic Study, including Technical Appendices, the environmental
document, staff report and the City's transportation impact fee policy to the address below as
soon as they are available.
Patricia Maurice, Associate Transportation PlaJmer
Office of Transit and Community Planning, Mail Station 100
California DOT, District 4
111 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612-3717
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
Mr. Andy Byde
October 22, 2003
Page 3
Right of Way
Work that encroaches onto the ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the
Department. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental
documentation, and five (5) sets of plans, clearly indicating State ROW, must be submitted to
the address below. Traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the
construction plans during the encroachment permit process.
Sean Nozzari, District Office Chief
Office of Permits
California DOT, District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
Please feel free to call or email Patricia Maurice of my staff at (510) 622-1644 or
patricia maurice(a),dot.ca.gov with any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
~~~
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA
c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
ALAV1EDA CCLNTY
CONGES1l0f\; MANAGElv1ENT AGENCY
1333 BROADWAY, SUITE 220. OAKLAND, CA 94612. PHONE: (510) 836-2560. FAX: (510) 836-2185
E-MAIL: mail@accma.ca.gov.WEBSr"E:accma.ca.gov
October 22, 2003
Andy Byde
Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
SUBJECT:
Comments on the General Plan Amendment for the IKEA and Dublin Retail
Center Projects in the City of Dublin
Dear Mr. Byde:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Dublin's General Plan Amendment
(GPA) for the 14.34 acre IKEA project and 13.2 acre Dub~n Retail Center project. The project
would allow approval and construction of an IKEA retal. store totaling 317,000 square feet
including retail sales, restaurant, warehouse and 1,130 on-site parking spaces, and would include
the Dublin Retail Center, consisting of up to 137,000 squaTl~ feet ofreta.il space and related uses
on 13.2 acres of land with 665 on-site parking spaces. The project requires an Amendment to the
Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan, Stage 1 & 2 rezoning and Development Plans,
Site Development Review, and Tentative Parcel Map, A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and a
Development Agreement. The project is located immediatel~' north of the 1-580 Freew;ry, west of
Hacienda Boulevard, east of Arnold Road and south offutur,~ Martinelli Drive.
The ACCMA respectfully submits the following comments:
· The City of Dublin adopted Resolution 120-92 on September 28, 1992 establishing
guidelines for reviewing the impacts of local land use d<~isions consistent with the Alameda
County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Baslxl on our review of the GPA and the
land uses that are being considered, the proposed projl~ appears to generate at least 100
p.m. peak hour trips over baseline conditions. If thiS is the case, the CMP Land Use
Analysis Program requires the City to conduct a trafiic analysis of the project using the
Countywide Transportation Demand Model for Yeat 2005 conditions. Please note the
following paragraph as it discusses the responsibility for modeling.
· The Countywide Model has been updated to Projections 2002 for base years 2010 and 2025.
The CMA Board amended the CMP on March 26th, 19~18 so that local jurisdictions are now
responsible for conducting the model runs themselvl~ or through a consultant. The
Countywide model is available to the local jurisdictions ;:or this purpose. The City of Dublin
has not yet returned a signed a Countywide Model Agreement to the ACCMA. Before the
model can be released to you or your consultant, the 3!:reement must be signed by the City
RECEIVED
OCT 232003
nUBUN PLANNING
Mr. Andy Byde
October 22, 2003
Page 2
and the ACCMA and a letter must be submitted to the ACCMA requesting use of the model
and describing the project. A copy of a sample letter agreement is available upon request
. Potential impacts of the project on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) need to be
addressed. (See 2001 Congestion Management Program (CMP)). The analysis should
address all potential impacts of the project on the MTS roadway and transit systems. These
include 1-580, 1-680, SR-84, Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon RoadIFoothill Boulevard,
Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, as well as BART and
LAVTA. Potential impacts of the project must be addressed for 2010 and 2025 conditions.
Please note that the ACCMA does not have a policy for detennining a threshold of
significance. Rather, it is expected that professional judgment will be applied to determine
project level impacts.
. The CMA requests that there be a discussion on the proposed funding sources of the
transportation mitigation measures identified in the environmental documentation. The CMP
establishes a Capital hnprovement Program (CIF) (See 2001 CMP) that assigns priorities for
funding roadway and transit projects throughout Alameda County. The improvements called
for in the analysis should be consistent with the CMP CIP. Given the limited resources at the
state and federa11evels, it would be speculative to assume funding of an improvement unless
it is consistent with the project funding priorities established in the Capital Improvement
Program of the CMP, the federal Transportation Improvement Program (rIP), or the adopted
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Therefore, we are requesting that the environmental
documentation include a financial program for all roadway and transit improvements.
. The adequacy of any project mitigation measures should be discussed. On February 25, 1993
the CMA Board adopted three criteria for evaluating the adequacy of DEIR project
mitigation measures:
. Project mitigation measures must be adequate to sustain CMP service standards for
roadways and transit;
. Project mitigation measures must be fully funded to be considered adequate;
. Project mitigation measures that rely on state or federal funds directed by or influenced
by the CMA must be consistent with the project funding priorities established in the
Capital Improvement Program (CIF) section of the CMP or the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP).
It would be helpful to indicate in the analysis the adequacy of proposed mitigation
measures relative to these criteria. In particular, the analysis should detail when
proposed roadway or transit route improvements are expected to be completed, how they
will be funded, and what would be the effect on LOS if only the funded portions of these
projects were assumed to be built prior to project completion.
. Potential impacts of the project on CMP transit levels of service must be analyzed. (See
2001 CMP, Chapter 4). Transit service standards are 15-30 minute headways for bus
service and 3.75-15 minute headways for BART during peak hours. The analysis should
Mr. Andy Byde
October 22, 2003
Page 3
address the issue of transit funding as a mitigation melSure in the context of the CMA's
policies as discussed above.
. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, which appears tel be approximately one-quarter mile
from the proposed project site, is the site of an approved Transit Village with proposed high
density transit-oriented development, and has been the recipient of funding for a parking
structure to support the transit village. The Alameda County CMA is developing a policy to
encourage transit-oriented development. How will the design and location of the 454,000
square feet of retail, warehouse and related uses for Ikea and the Dublin Retail Center and
the 1,795 parking spaces on the 27.54 acre site encourage transit and pedestrian use in the
project area?
. The analysis should consider demand-related strategies that are designed to reduce the need
for new roadway facilities over the long term and to mak:e the most efficient use of existing
facilities (see 2001 CMP, Chapter 5). The analysis could consider the use of TOM
measures, in conjunction with roadway and transit imp rovements, as a means of atbin;ng
acceptable levels of service. Whenever possible, mechanisms that encourage ridesharing,
flextime, transit, bicycling, teleconunuting and other means of reducing peak hour traffic
trips should be considered. Street layout and design strategies would foster pedestrian and
bicycle connections and transit-friendly site design she,uld also be considered. The Site
Design Guidelines Checklist may be useful during the review of the development proposal. A
copy of the checklist is enclosed.
. We have been asked to inform you about the success of the Financial Incentives Program and
the Guaranteed Ride Home Program, both of which are supported by the ACCMA.
Employee oriented financial incentive programs, such HS parking cashout programs, have
proven to be successful in encouraging solo drivers to choose other conunute alternatives.
We would like you to consider applying the Financial Incentive Program as part of the
conditions of approval and/or developer agreements as a way to reduce congestion. The
Guaranteed Ride Home Program, sponsored by the ACCMA, ensures that any carpooler or
transit rider at participating worksites can get home in ~:e of an emergency.
. The Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan was approved by the ACCMA Board on June 28,
2001. The analysis should consider opportunities to promote countywide bicycle routes
identified in the Plan through the project development review process.
. For projects adjacent to state roadway fucilities, the analysis should address noise impacts of
the project. If the analysis finds an impact, then mitigation measures (i.e., soundwalls)
should be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval of the proposed project. It
should not be assumed that federal or state funding is avaliable.
Mr. Andy Byde
October 22, 2003
Page 4
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this GP A. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 510/836-2560 ext. 13 if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
~.
Diane Stark
Senior Transportation Planner
cc: Chron
file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Responses - 2003
BAY AREA
AIR O1!ALITY
MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
AlAMEDA COUNTY
Roberta Cooper
Scott Haggerty
(Chairperson)
Nate Miley
Shelia Young
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Marl< DeSaulnier
Marl< Ross
Gayle Uilkema
(Secretary)
MARIN COUNTY
Harold C. Brown, Jr.
NAPA COUNTY
Brad Wagenknecht
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
Willie Brown, Jr.
Chris Daly
Jake McGoldrick
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Jerry Hill
Marland Townsend
(Vice-Chairperson)
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Liz Kniss
Patrick Kwok
Julia Miller
Dena Mossar
SOLANO COUNTY
John F. Silva
SONOMA COUNTY
Tim Smith
Pamela Torliatt
William C. Norton
EXECUTIVE OFFICERlAPCO
~\~~o
~~C 'l. C"~ 1..~~'?l
'J~ \ ","~~\~G
")\)~;V~ ~
October 22, 2003
Andy Byde
Senior Planner, Planning Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Subject:
IKEAlRetail Center Development
Dear Mr. Byde:
The Bay Area Air Quality Management Di!,trict (District) staff have
received your agency's Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR.) for the IKEAlRetail Center Development project. The
project proposes to change the land use designations for the project site from
Campus Office to General Commercial. The proposed project includes the
development of 1) a 317,000 square foot IKEA retail store; 2) the Dublin Retail
Center which would consist of up to 137,000 square feet of additional retail uses;
and 3) 1,795 on-site parking spaces on a 27.54 acn site in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area.
We agree with the NOP's conclusion that the DEIR should analyze the
project's potential impacts upon air quality. The.DEIR should indicate that the Bay
Area is currently a nonattainment area for federal and state ambient air quality
standards for 1 hour ozone and state standards for particulate matter. The air
quality. standards are set at levels to protect public :lealth and welfare. Toxic air
contaminants are also an area of serious concern in the Bay Area Any project
which exposes sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of
criteria air pollutants or toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a
significant impact and would need to be properly mitigated. AE general
background for readers, the DEIR should discuss the health effects of air pollution
and the contribution of mobile and stationary soure es to air pollution emissions.
The DEIR. should analyze the potential impacts on air ql~8.11rj from project
construction and project operation at buildout. If significant air quality impacts are
identified, the DEIR must include all feasible miti~;ation measures to reduce those
impacts. Without mitigation, a commercial projecl of this size is likely to have
significant air quality impacts through an increasem motor vehicle traffic.
Throughout the Bay Area, communities are reconsldering the desirability of
building large-scale auto-oriented developments 011 greenfield sites. For example,
as part of the Regional Agencies Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability
Footprint Project, Alameda County residents recently expressed a preference for
more infill and mixed use development that provides a range of travel options. We
believe that through land use decisions that support transit, walking and cycling,
Bay Area cities can help to reduce the rate of increase in vehicle miles traveled and
improve local and regional air quality.
939 ELLIS STREET. SA!': FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94109.415.771.6000. www.baaqmd.gov
Mr. Andy Byde
-2-
October 22, 2003
We have concerns about the suitability of this site for auto-oriented retail and commercial
land uses. According to the map of the project area, the Dublin Pleasanton BART stationlDublin
Transit Center and a number of Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VTA) bus lines
are located adjacent to the proposed project site. The City should consider whether the subject
property might be better utilized for transit-oriented development rather than as an auto-oriented
shopping center.
If significant air quality impacts are identified, the DEIR should include all feasible
mitigation measures to reduce the air quality impacts. If they cannot be reduced to a level less
than significant, alternatives should be identified that would not result in significant air quality
impacts. We encourage the City to consider a project alternative that locates equivalent
commercial space on in-fill properties in already urbanized areas of Dublin.
If the City determines that the proposed retail land uses cannot be accommodated at a
different location, decides not to propose different land uses for .this site, and still finds
significant air quality impacts from vehicle trips generated by the project, then we urge the City
to require the project sponsor to scale back the size of the project or to substantially mitigate the
air quality impacts by reducing vehicle trips. District staff encourage the City to require the
implementation of specific and comprehensive mitigation measures as part of the conditions of
project approval.
We suggest that the City encourage the project sponsors to include the following physical
improvements to the project that will help to promote transportation alternatives to the single-
occupant vehicle: safe, convenient public walkways/trails; bicycle parking; and linkages to local
and regional bike/pedestrian networks. In addition, the City can further reduce vehicle trips by
incorporating as many appropriate programmatic transportation dernand management (TDM)
measures as possible, including: transit subsidies such as the Commuter Check program for
employees; guaranteed ride home program; flexible work schedules; bicycle and pedestrian
incentive programs; and others listed in our guidance document, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines:
Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (1999), mentioned below. Such
measures promote transportation alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, which help to
mitigate the project's air quality impacts.
Weare concerned about the project's design with respect to on-site parking. An over-
supply of parking is one of the reasons why people do not consider alternatives to the single-
occupant vehicle. We recommend that the City reduce the number of parking spaces and
implement a parking cash-out program. Parking cash-out requires employers to provide transit
and/or ridesharing subsidies to non-driver employees in amounts equivalent to the value of
subsidized parking, thereby encouraging those who would normally drive alone to consider a
commute alternative.
The DEIR should also evaluate potential nuisance impacts, such as exposure to odors and
dust that could result from project implementation. Odors and dust may not necessarily cause
physical harm, but can still be unpleasant and can motivate citizen complaints. Air quality
problems arise when sources of air pollution and sensitive receptors are located near one another.
Mr. Andy Byde
-3-
October 22, 2003
Particulate matter (PM) is a pollutant of concern for both nuisance and health-related reasons.
PM larger than ten microns is more likely to be a public nuisance than a serious health hazard.
On the other hand, research has demonstrated a correlation betwel~n high levels of fine PM and
increased mortality rates and high incidences of chronic respiratOlY illness. The DEIR should
evaluate potential impacts and propose appropriate mitigation me:tsures.
For more details on our agency's guidance regarding environmental review, we
recommend that the City refer to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality
Impacts of Projects and Plans (1999). The document provides information on best practices for
assessing and mitigating air quality impacts related to projects and plans, including construction
emissions, land use/design measures, project operations, motor vehicles, nuisance impacts and
more. If you do not already have a copy of our guidelines, we recommend that you obtain a
copy by calling our Public Information Division at (415) 749-490:> or downloading the online
version from the District's web site at http://www.baaqmd.gov/pbllCEQAlceqaguide.asp.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, plea:;e contact Suzanne
Bourguignon, Environmental Planner, at (415) 749-5093.
Sincerely,
W~.; c- -- JJ-
William C. Norton/ ~
Executive Officer/ APCa
WN:SB
cc: BAAQ:MD Director Roberta Cooper
BAAQMD Director Scott Haggerty
BAAQMD Director Nate Miley
BAAQMD Director Shelia Young
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
1052 S Livermore Avenue
Livennore. CA 94550-4899
Ph (925) 960-4000
Fa.x. (925) 960-4058
TOD (925) 9604104
MAYOR I COUNCIL
Ph: 960-4010 . Fax 960-4025
CITY MANAGER
Ph: 960-4040 . Fax: 960-4045
CITY ATTORNEY
Ph: 960-4150 . Fax: 960-4180
RISK MANAGEMENT
Ph 960-4170. Fax: 9604180
CITY CLERK
Ph 960-4200 . Fa.x 960-4205
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Ph: 960-4400 . Fax: 960-4459
BuiUWtg Division
Ph: 960-4410 . Fax: 960-4419
Engineuiltg Division
Ph 960-4500 . Fax: 960-4505
Housing Division.
Ph 960-4580 . Fax: 960-4149
PUuuaing Division
Ph: 960-4450 . Fax: 960-4459
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Ph. 960-4140 . Fax: 960-4149
FlNANCE DEPARTMENT
Ph. 960-4300 . Fax: 960-4309
FIRE DEPARTMENT
4550 East Avenue
Ph 454-2361 . Fax. 454-2367
UBRARY
J 000 S. Livermore Avenue
Ph. 373-5500 . Fax: 373.5503
PERSOJ'lo"NEL
Ph: 960-4100 . Fax 960-4105
POUCEDEPARTMENT
1110 S. LivennoreAvenue
Ph: 371-4900 . Fax: 371-4950
TOD 371-4982
PUBUC SERVICES
3500 Robertson Park Rd.
Ph: 960-8000 . Fax: 960.8005
Airport DivisiDIt
636 Terminal Circle
Ph: 373-5280 . Fax: 373-5042
Golf Coune Division
909 Clubhouse Drive
Ph 373-5239 . Fax: 373-5203
M Gintenaltce Division
3500 Robertson Park Rd.
Ph: 960-8020 . Fax: 960-8025
RlGtD' Raourus Division
101 W Jack London Blvd
Ph 960-8100 . Fax 960-8105
.- v.:-___.......~,~.'ooM_~.;.:.:._:.~.......w.:._~.:.;;;.._..:I_~~.:_.._..'_.
CITY OF LWERMORE
''Wine
Country
Since
1849'
October 22, 2003
Andy Byde, Senior Planner
City of Dublin Planning Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin. CA 94568
RE: Notice of Preparation for the IKEAlRetail Center Development
Dear Mr. Byde,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for
the above referenced project.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should consider the traffic impacts
of over 450,000 square feet of retail and related uses on the existing and proposed
subregional roadway system including 1-580 and the Dublin BoulevardINorth
Canyons Parkway connection. The potential impacts to the EI Charro Road and
Airway Boulevard interchanges and intersections along North Canyons Parkway are
of concern to the City of Livermore. Air quality impacts resulting from increased
traffic and traffic congestion should also be considered in the Draft EIR.
Please forward two copies of the Draft EIR when completed to Susan Frost, Senior
Planner, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550. If you have any
questions, please contact Susan Frost at (925) 960-4450.
Sincerely,
~
Susan Frost
Senior Planner
cc: Marc Roberts, Community Development Director
Eric Brown, Planning Manager
RECEIVED
OCT 27 2003
DUBLIN PLANNING
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
RICHARD T. DRURY
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
MARC D. JOSEPH
SUMA PEESAPATI
A PROFESSIONAL. CORPORATION
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1029 K STREET, SUITE 37
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209
651 GATEWAY 80ULEVARD, SUITE 900
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
OF COUNSEL
THOMAS R. ADAMS
ANN BROADWELL
TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX: (650) 589-5062
zbassett@adamsbroadwell.com
October 21, 2003
RECEIVED
OCT 1 tl 2003
'USLlN PLANNING
Via Facsimile and Bv u.s. Mail
Andy Byde
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Kay Keck
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: CEQA Notice -- IKEAlRetail Center Development Proiect
Dear Mr. Byde and Ms. Keck:
We are writing on behalf of the Plumbers and Steemfitters Union Local 342,
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 595, and the Sheetmetal
Workers Local 104 with respect to the IKEA/Retail Center Development Project (FA
02-034) ("Project") to request mailed notice of the availab ility of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report or any environmental revi'3w document, such as an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), Negative Declaration ("ND") or Exemption,
prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, as
well as a copy of the EIR when it is made available for public review.
We also request mailed notice of any and all hearings and/or actions related
to the Project. These requests are made pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21092.2 and Government Code Section 65092, which require local agencies to mail
such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of
the agency's governing body.
141Op-0l
o printed on recycled paper
October 21, 2003
Page 2
Please send the above requested items to our South San Francisco Office as
follows:
Zohary Bassett
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
651 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 900
South San Francisco, CA 94038
Please call me at (650) 589-1660 if you have any questions. Thank you for
your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
d-
ary Bassett
search Specialist
cc: Richard Drury
ZB:
141Op-0l
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND V/ATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
5997 PARKSIDE DRIVE 4 PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-51:'7 4 PHON: (925) 484-2600 FAX (925) 462-3914
October 23,2003
Mr. Andy Byde, Senior Planner
Comm~tyD~d~m~D~mm~
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Initial Study and Notice ofPr~aration (NaP) for a Draft EIR
IkeaIRetail Center Development Project (P A 02-034)
Zone 7 Referral No. 00-093D
Dear Mr. Byde:
Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA docwnents in the context of our responsibilities to provide
wholesale treated water, non-potable water for agriculture and irrigated turf, flood protection, and
groundwater and stream management in the Livennore-Amador Valle:y. Also, enclosed for your
reference is our previous review letter dated August 26,2003 for Ikea Devel~ment (P A 02-034). Our
comments are as follows:
1. Hydrology and Water Quality, Paragraph 8a, page 35.
The second paragraph states that development projects th2t result in soil distmbance of at
least five acres ofland are required to submit a Notice ofIntent to the State Water
Resources Control Board. Please be advised that, as ofMoll"Ch 10, 2003, the size threshold
for a NPDES General Construction Permit is reduced from five acres to one acre of
disturbed land.
2. Hydrology and Water Quality, Paragraph 8d, page 36.
Mitigation for the creation of any new impervious areas within the Livennore-Amador
Valley is addressed through the collection of Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 drainage
fees. Zone T s standard mitigation practice is to collect an SDA 7-1 fee on any new
buildings, improvements (including but not limited to paving), or stnlctmes to be
constructed that substmtially increase the imperviousness of the land surface.
Cl
r'I') z
Q~ Z
w~ z
:> "" :3
iii ~ Q.
U Z
W I- ~
tr:=? m
:J
The proposed project will be connecting to an existing Zone 7 flood control facility (Line
G 2-1), a tributary to ('''habot Canal. Hydraulic ca1culatiom. for the proposed drainage
system should be provided to Zone 7 to ensure that design flows do not adversely impact
existing hydraulics downstream of the project
Mr. Andy Byde
October 23, 2003
Page 2
3. Hydrology and Water Quality, Paragraph 8f: page 37.
The Project Description, page 4, states that recycled water seIVices would be provided by
DSRSD in accordance with DSRSD's Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan, when and
where available to reduce the need for potable water. The referenced paragraph does not
address the potential salt loading impacts over OlD" main groundwater basin. Zone 7
considers all applied water (rainwater is an exception), including both potable water and
recycled water, to contribute salt loading to the groundwater basin, and use of recycled
water requires mitigation of the associated impacts.
The Groundwater Demineralization Project is the recommended project to accomplish
Zone 7's Salt Management Program's goal of non-degradation of OlD" main grolDldwater
basin from the long-term buildup of salts. Zone 7 expects to complete the first phase of
this project in 2006. We request that the City support the Groundwater Demineralization
Project in the Draft EIR as the appropriate mitigation for the proposed project. Otherwise,
we request that the lead agency address the mitigation of any salt loading impacts of the
project should Zone 7's future GrolDldwater Demineralization Project not be constructed
and placed into operation.
We appreciate the opporttmity to comment on this document Please feel free to contact me at (925)
484-2600, ext. 400,jhoren@zone7water.com, or Jack Fong at ext. 245,jfong@zone7water.com, if
you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
F~J
Jim Horen
Principal Engineer
Advance Planning
JPH:JF:arr
cc: Dave Requa, DSRSD
Ed Cununings, Zone 7
John Mahoney, Zone 7
Joe Seto, Zone 7
Mona Olmsted, Zone 7
Jack Fong, Zone 7
P:Advpln/CEOAReferrals-lkeaRetailCenter
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND VIATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
5997 PARKSIDE DRIVE ; PLEASANTON. CALIFORNIA 94588-51: 7 4 "HONE (925) 484-2600 FAX (925) 462.3914
August 26, 2003
Mr. Andy Byde, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
SUBJECT: IKEA Development / (P A 02-034)
. North of 1-580, Between Arnold Road & Hacienda Drive, Dublin
Zone 7 Rt>ferral No. 00-093D
Dear Mr. Byde:
This letter is in response to your referral dated August. 2, 2003, regarding the aforementioned
project. Zone 7's sections submitted the following coniments:
Water Supply:
As per our letter of February 16,2001, please identify the existing 16-inch waterline shown on
the project plans as a Zone 7 waterline. In addition, sheet C-4.0 of the plans appears to include
the following two drafting errors: 1) Amanhole and branch pipeline which is connected to Zone
T s 16-inch waterline. (These facilities do not exist in the field). 2) A direct connection between
the new development's planned 16-inch waterline and Zone..7's 16-inch waterline. (Direct
connections to the Zone 7 transmission system are not allowed). These drafting errors are circled
in red on the plans submitted for review. Please revise and resubmil the plans for final approval.
As before, valves and other appurtenances that are located within the limits of construction must
be clearly located prior to construction. If any resurfacing or grading work is performed, these
appurtenances shall be raised to grade at no expense to Zone 7. An encroachment permit is
required when working in close proximity to Zone 7 water facilities. This permit will have
specific conditions for construction around a Zone 7 facility. The permit will become effective
upon payment of an application fee and any applicable inspection charges and the deposit of an
approved surety bond to Zone 7.
Please contact Jaime Rios at extension 407 for an encroachment permit and if you have any
questions regarding water supply issues.
Mr. Andy Byde, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
August 26, 2003
Page 2
Groundwater Management:
Our records indicate there are no water wells or monitoring wells located. within the project
boundaries. If any wells are found within the proj ect limits, they should be reported to Zone ,.
Any planned new well, soil boring or well destruction must be permitted. by Zone 7 before
starting the work. There are no fees for the Zone 7 drilling permits. Well permit applications
can be obtained by contacting Wyman Hong at extension 235 or can be downloaded from our
web site at ,^'WW.zone7water.com.
Flood Control:
Developments that increase impervious area are subject to Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1
drainage fees. Drainage fees are collected by the governing agency for new roads (upon
application for approval of vesting tentative or final map) and buildings, driveways, etc. (upon
application for building permit). There are no existing Zone 7 flood control facilities at this
location. Should you have any flood control related questions, please contact Clayton Borchers
at extension 402.
For future submittals at this loc,~tion, please refer to Zone 7 Referral No. 00-093D.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the person identified per section
comments or me at extension 249.
Very truly yours,
~~.i~_
J K. Koltz - ~ ~
S . or Engineer
Advance Planning
Enclosure
JKK:CB:jr
cc: Clayton Borchers, Zone 7, Flood Control
Jaime Rios, Zone 7, Water Supply
P:1FloodlReferral.s\2003Refen-als\O()"93D IKE.A. Development (PA-02-034).doc
Appendix 8.4
City of Dublin Resolution No. 53-93
IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
PA 02-034
Page 96
November 2003
,.
/
.-........
RESOLUTJ:ON NO.
~-93
A RESOLUTION OJ' THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OJ' DUBLIN
RESOLtJ'J.'IOIl ADOPTJ:IlG THE EAS'l'ERN DtJBL:IN GBIlERAL PLAN
AIIBIlJ)~ AIlD BASTBRR DUBLIIl SPECIJ':tC PLAIl: QX:tHG
FDtDINGS PORSlmNT '1'0 THE CALI:FORND EIlVZRONKEllTAL QtJAL1:'1'Y
ACT UD ADOP'1'I:HG A STA'1'BHBIlT OF OVBRRIDING CONSI:DBRATXOJl'S
FOR 'rBB BASTBRB DOBLDf GBRBRAL PLAN AKENDIIENT AJm SPBCD'I:C
PLAB; ABD ADOftJ:NG A HI:'1'J:GATI:ON HON:tTORIIlG PROGRAKJ'OR 'I'D
BASTBD DUBLI:R GEHBRAL PLAN AKBIlDHBNT AND SPBCI:J'I:C PLAN
Recitals
1. In response to a proposal for residential development of
the Dublin Ranch property, the City of Dublin undertook the Eastern
Dublin study to plan for the future development of the eastern
Dublin area. .
2. The City council and Planning Commission conducted three
joint public study sessions and three workshops relating to
planning issues in eastern Dublin.
a. The April 18, 1990, study session considered a land
use concept report containing four land use scenarios and the
consistency of each land use concept with existing general plan
policies. Alternative #4 was considered the preferred land use
concept for environmental study by informal consensus.
b. The August 22, 1990, study session considered
Alternative #4 and a fifth concept (based on the 1986 annexation
agreement with Alameda County). The "Town Center" concept, types
of streets, location and types of parks were discussed.
c. The November 15, 1990, workshop solicited comments
from the public regarding the existing and desired life style
qualities in Dublin and what the public wanted to see in a new
community.
d. The December 6, 1990, workshop continued with a
similar discussion of desired types of commercial development and
discussed circulation systems and parks and open space.
e. The December 18, 1990, workshop presented a
preliminary conceptual land use plan. Input was received on the
transit spine, l.ocation of civic. center, types of residential uses,
location of commercial uses, the concentration of high density
residential uses, and jobs/housing balance.
1
. ..-....
f. The February 14, 1991, study session considered a
land use plan that incorporated comments made at the three
workshops and included a discussion of major issues, such as the
location of a high school, connection to e,xisting Dublin, size of
streets and types of parks.
3. With the. identification of a preferred alternative on
February 14, 1991, the city prepared a Draf't General Plan Amendment
for approximately 6,920 acres to plan for future development of a
mixed use community of single- and mUltiple-family residences,
commercial uses (general commercial, mdghborhood commercial,
campus office and industrial park), ];.ublic and semi-public
facilities (including schools), parks and open space.
Draft General Plan Amendment
4. The Draft General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992,
designates the proposed general distribution and general location
and extent of the uses of Eastern Dublin for residential,
commercial, industrial, public, open space and parks, and other
categories of public and private uses of .land.
5. The Draft General Plan Amendment includes a statement of
standards of population density and standards of building intensity
for Eastern Dublin.
6. Pursuant to the provisions of state Planning and Zoning
Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning commission of the
city of Dublin to review and recomm~ld action on proposed
amendments to the city's General Plan.
7. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan AmendInent on october 1,
1992, which hearing was continued to Octol::,er 6, 1992, October 12,
1992, and october 15, 1992.
8. Based on comments received duri ng the public hearing,
related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the
Draft General Plan Amendment and were reviewed by the Planning
Commission on December 21, 1992.
9. The Draft General Plan Amendment was reviewed by the
Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act thro'~gh the preparation and
review of an Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992,
by Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning Commission recommended
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
10. On December 21, 1992, the Planning Commission, after
considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public
hearing, adopted of ReSOlution No. 92-J61, recommending City
2
--..
--
council adoption of the Draft General Plan Amendment, as revised
December 21,1992.
Draft Snecific Plan
11. The Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, implements
an approximately 3,328-acre portion of the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment by providing a detailed framework, including
policies, standards and implementation programs, for evaluation of
development proj ects proposed in the portion of eastern Dublin.
covered by the Draft Specific Plan.
12. Pursuant to State Law, the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific
Plan was prepared and reviewed in the same manner as a general plan
amendment.
13. The Planning commission. held a duly noticed public
hearing on the Eastern Dublin Draft Specific Plan on October 6,
1992, which hearing was continued to October 12, 1992, and October
15, 1992.
14. Based on comments received during the pUblic hearings,
related text revisions, dated December 21, 1992, were made to the
Draft Specific Plan and were reviewed by the Planning Commission
on December 21, 1.992.
15. The Draft Specific Plan was reviewed by the Planning
Commission in accc;>rdance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and review of a
Final Environmental Impact Report. On December 21, 1992, by
Resolution No. 92-060, the Planning Commission recommended
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
16. On December 21, 1992, the Planning commission, after
considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public
hearing, adopted Resolution No. 92-062, recommending city Council
adoption of the Draft Specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, as revised
December 21, 1992.
council Public Hearina
17. The city council held a duly noticed public hearing on
the Eastern Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Specific
Plan on January 14, 1993, which hearing was continued to January
21, 1.993, February 23, 1993, March 30, 1993, and April 27, 1993.
18. on April 27, 1993, the City Council, by Resolution No.
45-93, voted to refer Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area
("Alternative 2") with modifications back to the Planning
Commission for its recommendation, pursuant to Government Code
section 65356.
3
--
19. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 3,
1993, to consider Alternative 2' with modific;:ations and has reported
back to the City Council by planning Commis,sion Resolution No. 93-
013.
20. The City council considered all written and oral
testimony submitted at the public hearing and all written testimony
submitted prior to the public hearing and the recommendation of the
Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution
Nos. 92-061, 92-062 and 93-013.
21. On May 1.0, 1993 the Council held duly noticed a public
hearing to hear testimony regarding the Planning Commission IS
recommendation as set forth in Planning commission Resolution No.
93-013.
22. On May 10, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
51-93, certifying the Addendum to the Draft EIR and the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") a::: adequate and complete.
The Final EIR identified significant advers,eenvironmental impacts
which can be mitigated to a level of insigni.ficance through changes
or alterations in the project. Therefctre, pursuant to CEQA,
findings adopting the changes or alterations are required and are
contained in this resolution. Some of the significant impacts
cannot be mitigated to a level of insigni:Eicance and a statement
of overriding considerations is therefore rl~quired pursuant to CEQA
and is also contained in this resolution.
23. Upon consideration of the land use and environmental
effects of the project, as described in thE! Final EIR, the Council
has determined to adopt Alternative 2, as described in the Final
EIR, with certain modifications which are dl~scribed in the Addendum
to the Draft EIR ("Alternative 2 With Modifi.cations"). Alternative
2 With Modifications reduces land use impac.ts, does not disrupt the
existing rural residential community in Doolan Canyon, potentially
reduces growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands, reduces
certain traffic impacts to a level of insignificance, produces less
demand for infrastructure, reduc;:es the ne,ise impacts for Doolan
Road to a level of insignificance and will have a positive fiscal
impact on ~e city.
24. Alternative 2 was considered by the Planning commission
at its hearings, in testimony at the public hearings, in staff
reports presented to the Commission at its hearings, in the EIR
reviewed by the Planning Commission at i'ts hearings and in its
deliberations.
25. Alternative 2 With Modificat.ions includes several
substantial modifications to Alternative 2, as Alternative 2 is
described in the Draft EIR. Althot:lgh several of these
modifications were considered by the Plar.ning Commission at its
hearings, the Planning Commission has considered Alternative 2 With
4
-
--.
Modifications and has reported back to the Council with its
recommendation regarding Alternative 2 With Modifications. The
Council has determined to follow the Planning Commission's
recommendation as set forth in its Resolution No. 93-013, except
with respect to the width of the Transit spine and with the
addition of the phrase "or other appropriate agreements" on page
160 of the Draft Specific Plan (S 11.3.1; first sentence).
Findinas/OVerridina Considerations I
Mitiaation Monitorina proaram
26. Public Resources Code section 21081 requires the city to
make certain findings if the City approves a project for which an
environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies
significant environmental effects.
27. Section 15093 of the state CEQA Guidelines requires
adoption by the City Council of a statement of overriding
considerations if the Council approves a project which will result
in unavoidable significant effects on the environment.
28. Public Resource Code section 21085 and section 15092 of
the state CEQA Guidelines require the city to make certain
determinations if it approves a project which reduces the number
of housing units considered in the environmental impact report.
29. The Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan identifies certain significant adverse
environmental effects.
30. certain of the significant adverse environmental effects
can be reduced to a level of insignificance by changes or
alterations in tbe project.
31. certain of the significant adverse environmental effects
cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
32. The Council has selected Alternative 2 identified in the
Final EIR with modifications described in the Addendum to the Draft
EIR, reducing the number of housing units for suoh property from
the projeot as reviewed by the Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
33. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City
to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes in a project
or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects in order to ensure compliance during project
implementation.
34. Government Code section 65300 authorizes a city council
to adopt a general plan for land outside its boundaries which in
the Planning Commission' s judgment bears relation to its planning.
5
.-...
.-
35. The Planning Commission has c:msidered whether land
outside the City's boundaries bears re:lation to the City's
planning.
36. The city has referred Alternati~Te 2 with Modifications
to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commi.ssion ("ALUC") pursuant
to Public utilities Code section 21676 (b). The City has not
received a determination from the ALUC. ThH 60-day time period for
the ALUC to make a determination has not y,at run.
)tow, THEREFORB, BB IT RESOLVED THAT
A. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve "Alternative
2: Reduced Planning Area" as the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment, with the Revisions dated Decembe:c 21, 1992, and with the
Modifications described in the AddendUlll to Draft EIR, dated May 4,
1993.
B. The Dublin city Council finds the Eastern DUblin specific
Plan, as described in the Final EIR as "Alternative 2: Reduced
Planning Area," with Revisions dated DeceD~er 21, 1992, and with
the modifications described in the Addendunl to Draft EIR dated May
4, 1993, to be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as revised
by the Eastern Dubli.n General Plan Amendme:r1t.
C. The Dublin City Council does her,eby approve the Eastern
Dublin specific Plan, with the Revisions d,3.ted December 21, 1992,
and with the Modifications described in the Addendum to Draft EIR,
dated May 4, 1993 and with the revision to page J.60 referred to in
paragraph 25 above.
D. The Dublin City Council does her,aby direct the staff to
edit, format, and print the up-to-date DUblin General Plan with
all city Council approved revisions a:1.d without any other
substantive changes.
E. The Dublin City Council does herE~by direct the staff to
edit, format, and print the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan with all
city council approved revisions and withou'~ any other substantive
changes.
BB IT FURTKBR RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby make the findings set forth in Secti.ons 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of
Exhibi t A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 'l'BA'l' the Dublin City Council finds and
declares that the rationale for each of thla findings set forth in
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of its findings (Exhibit A) is contained
in the paragraph entitled "Rationale for Finding" in Exhibit A.
6
.----
.-,
The Council further finds that the mitigation measures for each
identified impact in Exhibit A make changes to, or alterations to,
the Eastern DUblin General Plan Amendment and specific Plan, or are
measures incorporated in the Eastern Dublin specific Plan that,
once implemented as described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
(Exhibit B hereto), will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effects of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and specific Plan on the environment.
BB :tT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin city council does
hereby adopt the statement of overriding Considerations set forth
in Section 6 of Exhibit A, attached hereto, which statement shall
be. included in the record of the project approval.
BE :tT FURTHER RBSOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does
hereby adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin
specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit B, as the reporting and monitoring
program required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6 for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and specific Plan.
BB :t'1" FUR'l"BER :aBSOLVBD THA'1" the Dublin city council does
hereby direct that the Applicants for land use approvals in the
Specific Plan area shall pay their pro rata share of all costs
associated with the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
BB :t'1" FUR'l"BERRESOLVED THA'1" the Dublin city Council does
hereby direct that all fees established pursuant to Government Code
Section 65456, to recover costs of preparation of the specific
Plan, shall include the cost of preparation, adoption and
administration of the specific Plan plus interest on such costs
based upon the City of Dublin's average monthly weighted investment
yield calculated for each year or fraction thereof that such costs
are unpaid.
BB rP FUR'l"BER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin city council does
hereby direct the City Cler~ to file a Notice of Determination for
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project
with the Alameda County Clerk and the State Office of Planning and
Research.
BE :tT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin city Council does
hereby direct the City Clerk to make available to the public,
within one working day of the date of adoption of this resolution,
copies of this resolution (inclUding all Exhibits) and the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment, dated May 27, 1992, with the
Revisions dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications described
in the Addendum to Draft EIR dated May 4, 1993, and the Eastern
Dublin specific Plan, dated May 27, 1992, with the Revisions to
Draft Specific Plan, dated December 21, 1992, and the modifications
7
.'-
-.
described in the Addendum to DraftEIR, all as modified by this
resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this rtasolution shall become
effective thirty (30) days from the date o:E passage.
BE IT FURTHER RBSOLVED THAT if, on the effective date of this
resolution or within the remaining 60-day l?eriod for ALUC action,
the ALUC has found that Alternative 2 with Modifications is not
consistent with the ALUC's Alameda County ;~irport Land Use Policy
Plan, the City shall submit all regulations, permits or other
actions implementing the Eastern DUblin General Plan Amendment and
specific Plan to the ALUC for review until such time that the city
Council revises the Eastern Dublin Genel:'al Plan Amendment and
specific Plan to be consistent with the ALUC's Alameda County
Airport Land Use Policy Plan or adopts specific findings by a two-
thirds vote that the General Plan Amendmen.t and specific Plan are
consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Part
1 of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code as stated in section
21670 of such Code.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10t.h day of May, 1993, by
the following vote:
AYES: Coun.ci.lmambers Burton, Houston, Ebl7ard, M::>ffatt & Mayor Snyder
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
/,~v. .;f lJ-'...J
Mayor
ATTEST:
~~EdL
114 \RBSOL \29 \RBSOLUTION
8
.-,
,...-~.
section 1
FXNDXNGS CONCBRHJ:NG SXGlaFXCANT XKPACTS
AI1D IUTXGATXOH DAStJRBS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, the city
Council h~eby makes the following findings with respect to the
Project's potential significant environmental impacts and means
for mitigating those impacts. Findings pursuant to section
21081, subdivision (c), as they relate to "project alternatives,"
are made in section 3.
Section 3.1-- Land Use
XMPACT 3.1/F. cumulative Loss of Aqricultural and Open space
Lands. Agricultural grazing land and open space in Alameda and
Contra Costa counties will be converted to urban uses by proposed
projects such as Dougherty Valley, Tassajara Valley, North
Livermore, and Eastern Dublin. Because it would result in the
urbanization of a large area of open space, the proposed Project
would contribute to this cumulative loss of agriCUltural land and
open space in the Tri-Valley area. This is considered a signifi-
cant unavoidable cumulative impact. Response to Comments (flRC")
# 34-9.
Findina. No mitigation measures are
impact to a level of insignificance.
of overriding considerations must be
of the Project.
proposed to reduce this
Therefore, a statement
adopted upon approval
Rationale for Findina. The tota1 amount of open space
within the RPA that will be urbanized will be cumulatively
significant, in light of numerous other open space areas
within the region that is also anticipated for urbanization.
DlPACT 3.1/G. Potential Conflicts with Land Uses to the West.
The Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (nCamp Parks") is located
due west of ..the Specific Plan area. Existing and future Army
training activities, such as the use of high velocity weapons and
helicopters, could result in noise and safety 90nflicts with
adjacent open space and single-family residential areas of the
specific Plan. The extent of future army activity is unknown and
lThe "Project" is Alternative 2 described in the DEXR at
pages 4-9 through 4-14 with the modifications described in the
May 4, 1993 Addendum to the EIR. Alternative 2 calls for
development in the Reduced Planning Area (the portion of eastern
Dublin within its sphere-of-influence) (hereafter "RPA").
114\eastdub\fiDd(4)
1
~-rAat~~ b :
UBIBlS- A
..--....
-...
the Army has not yet completed its Camp Parks Master Plan. DELR
page 3.1.-1.3.
Mitiaation Measure 3.1./1..0. The City of Dublin should
coordinate its planning activities with the Army to achieve
compatibility with adjacent camp PClrks land uses, to solve
potential future conflicts, and to reconcile land use incom-
patibilities. The city should com;ult with the Army for any
specific development proposals witlLin the RPA. DEIR pages
3.1.-1.3, -22.
Findina ~ Changes or alterations helve been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project thai: avoid or substantially
lessen:the significant effect iden1:ified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Coordinated planning activities will
allow the City and Army to identify potential noise and
safety impacts before they occur and will allow specific
mitigation measures, including redElsiqn, to be incorporated
into development in the Proj ect ArE!a..
section 3.3 -- Traffic and Circu1.ation
When a mitigation measure referenced in this section requires
development ,projects within the RPA to pay for a proportionate
cost of reqional transportation prograw:: and/or traffic and
circulationiimprovements, the proportiorl shall be as determined
by regional;"transportation studies, suet, as the current study by
the Tri-Val+ey Transportation Council.
DlPAC'l' 3. 3/~. I-580 Freeway, '1'assajara-'1!'allon. Year 201.0 growth
without the .~Project would cause cumulative freeway volumes to
exceed Level of Service E on I-580 betwE,en Tassajara Road and
Fallon Road. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised), 5.0-3.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/1..0. Caltrans, in cooperation with
local jurisdictions, could construct auxiliary lanes on I-
580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to create a total
of ten lanes, which would provide I,evel of Service D opera-
tions, consistent with the Caltrans Route Concept Report for
I-580. DEIR pages 3.3-21. (as revised), 5.0-3.
Findina. Approval of the construct ion of the auxiliary
lanes, and cooperation by juriSdictions other than the City
of Dub~in, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
other public agencies and not the city of Dublin. Such
actions can and should be taken by other agencies. If
taken, !such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
~
,
114\eastdub\fiDd(4)
2
-,
............
Rationale for Finding. This mitigation measure provides
acceptable Level of service D operations during peak hours
on the. freeway.
DlPACT 3.3/8. X-S80 Freeway, ;[-680 to Hacienc1a. Year 2010
growth with the project would cause 1-580 between 1-680 and
Dougherty Road to exceed Level of Service E. This is also a
significant cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.3-21 (as revised),
4-11, 5.0-3.
Mitiaation !easure 3.3/2.0. Consistent with specific Plan
policy 5-21. , all non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees in the RPA shall participate in a Transportation
systems Management (TSM) program to reduce the use of single
occupant vehicles through strategies including but not
limited to encouraging public transit use, carpooling, and
flexible work hours. DEIR pages 3.3-21. (as revised), 5.0-
3.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/2.1. All projects within the RPA
area shall contribute a proportionate share of the costs of
regional transportation mitigation programs, as determined
by regional transportation studies. Such regional miti-
gation ;'programs may include enhanced public transit service
and/or upgrading alternate road corridors to relieve demand
on I-580 or 1-680. DEIR page 3.3-21 (as revised).
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact might not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findina. Approval of Alternative 2 reduces to
a level of insignificance the impact on 1-580 between
Doughetty Road and Hacienda Drive. DE1R page 4-1.1. The TSM
progrcnP. strategies will reduce single car occupancy, thereby
reducin,g the number of cars expected to use the subject
stretc~ of 1-580. Regional actions may focus not only on
reduciI'j.g auto use by reducing single occupant vehicles, but
also o~ increasing Project area road capacities through
2 This policy appears in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
which plan applies only to the identified Specific Plan area.
The provisions of this policy provide useful mitigation outside
the Specific Plan area as well. Therefore, the EIR and these
findings adopt these provisions for the entire RPA. Hereinafter,
those Specific Plan goals, policies, and action programs whose
provisions are similarly adopted for the RPA throughout these
findings will be indicated by an asterisk.
"
"
11&\eastdub\f~d(4)
.~.
3
r---
.....-......
construction of routes providing convtmient al ternati ves to
I-580 and 1-680. Given the overall e~cpected increase in
traffic, however, these measures are not sufficient to
reduce ,the cUlllulative impacts on 1-580 between 1-680 and
Doughe~y Road to insignificance.
~
:IMPACT 3.3/C. :I-580 Preeway, Tassajara-Fa:Llon-Airway. Year 2010
growth with ;the Project would cause freewa~r volumes to exceed
Level of Service E on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway
Boulevard.tThis is also a significant cUllIulative impact. DEIR
page 3.3-21:\(as revised), 5.0-3.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/3.0. The city shall coordinate with
Caltrans and the city of Pleasanton b, construct auxiliary
lanes on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard.
All projects within the RPA shall con":ribute a proportionate
share of the costs of these improvem~lts. DEIR pages 3.3-
22 (as revised), 5.0-3; RC #7-6
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Proj ect that av"id or substantially
lessen the significant effects identi:Eied in the Final EIR.
Freeway construction actions are within the ultimate res-
ponsibility and jurisdiction of Caltr.:lns, .who can and should
take stich actions. If taken, such act.ions would avoid or
subst~tially lessen the significant ,affect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The auxiliary lanes will provide
sufficient additional capacity on 1-5BO to provide Level of
Service D between Fallon Road and Air-Nay BOUlevard, and
Level of service E between Tassajara :Road and Fallon Road.
Both Level of service D and E are accaptable during peak
freeway hours. DEIR pages 3.3-2, -18. Development in the
RPA will be required to contribute its fair share to the
auxiliary lane improvements so that woen such improvements
are needed, they will be provided by new development
generating the need. State law author'izes the City to enter
into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to make the
freeway improvements (see. e.a., Streets & Highways Code
SS 113.5, 114).
:IMPACT 3.3/~. X-680 Freeway, Horth of X-5BO. Year 2010 growth
. .1 .
W1th the Prd,Ject would cause freeway volUllles to exceed Level of
Service E on 1-680 north of the I-580 interchange. This is also
a significa4t cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.3-22, 5.0-4.
Mitiaa~ion Measure 3.3/4.0. All projects in the RPA shall
contriDute a proportionate share of the costs of Caltrans'
planned improvements at the I-580/1-680 interchange, in-
cluding a new two-lane freeway-to-freeway flyover with
114\eastdub\fiDd(4)
4
r-.
,.-......
rel.ated hook ramps to the City of Dubl.in. DEIR page 3.3-22.
(as reyised) (see also page 3.3-17 (as revised)).
"
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorp~rated into the Project that'avoid or substantial.ly
l.essenlthe significant effects identified in the Final EIR.
Freewaf interchange improvement actions are within the
responsibil.ity and jurisdiction of Caltrans, who can and
shoul.d,take such actions. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rational.e for Findina. The expected interchanges and
related improvements will provide sufficient additional
capacity on 1-680 to provide Level. of service D north of the
1-580 interchange. Development in the RPA wil.l be required
to contribute its fair share to the interchange and related
improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they
wil.l be. provided by new devel.opment generating the need.
i
:i .
1KPACT 3.3/~. cumulative Freeway xmpacts. cumul.ative buildout
with the Pr~ject would cause additional. freeway sections, in-
cluding 1-5~0 east of Airway Boul.evard, and the segment of 1-580
between Dougherty and Hacienda to exceed level of service E.
OEIR pages ~.3-22 (as revised), 5.0-4.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/5.0. The Project shall. contribute a
proportionate share to the construction of auxiliary lanes
(for a total. of 10) on 1-580 east of Airway Boulevard, for
implementation by Caltrans. The city shall coordinate with
other local jurisdictions to require that al.l future de-
vel.opment projects participate in regional transportation
mitigation programs as determined by the current Tri-Valley
Transportation Council study. OEIR pages 3.3-22 (as re-
vised), 5.0-4.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorpo.rated into, the Project. Actions by other agencies
and Ca~trans to impl.ement this mitigation measure are within
the re~onsibil.i ty and jurisdiction of those other agencies
and no~ the city of Dubl.in. Such actions can and should be
taken by the other agencies. However, even with these
change~ the impact will not be avoided or substantial.l.y
l.essen~d. Therefore, a statement of Overriding considera-
tions must be adopted.
~i
Rationale for Findina. The auxiliary lanes will provide
sufficient additional capacity to provide acceptable level
of service on part of 1-580 widening to ten l.anes is
consistent with the Route Concept Report. OEIR page 3.3-22
(as revised). Regional transportation mitigations can
114\eas~ub\fiDd(4)
5
".-
.~
reduce cumulative impacts through n\E:asures to decrease
single occupant vehicle use and increase public transit use
to further decrease traffic impacts. However, even with
these improvements, part of I-580 (1:,etween I-680 and
Hacienda Drive) will still be beyond. acceptable LOS E. DEIR
pages 3.3-20, 3.3-21 (as revised), 4-11.
DlPACT 3.3/P. Dougherty Road and Du):)lin Boulevard. Year 2010
development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations ~t the intersection of Dougherty Road with Dublin
Boulevard. ~DEIR page 3.3-25.
~
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/6.0. The city of Dublin shall
monitor the intersection and implement construction of
additiGnal lanes when required to maintain LOS D operations.
All pr~jects within the RPA shall contribute a proportionate
share Qf the improvement costs. DEIR page. 3.3-25 (as
revised) .
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
. lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The additional lanes at the
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection will provide
sufficient capacity for Level of Service D operations, which
is acceptable at street intersections in Dublin (DEIR pages
3.3-2, -18 (as revised)). Development in the RPA will be
requir~d to contribute its fair share of the intersection
ilD.prov~ents so that, when such improvements are needed,
they will be provided by new development generating the
need. 1;
DlPACT 3.3/G. Hacienda Drive and :I-S80 Eastbound Ramps. Year
2010 develoPment with the Project would C:luse Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Haciend,a Drive with the I-580
eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as reyised) .
.:
Hi tiaation Measure 3.3/7.0. The city of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordinati,:)n with the city of
Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the eastbound off-ramp to
provide a second left turn lane. All projects in the RPA
shall contribute a proportionate sha:ce of the improvement
costs. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised); RC # 7-9.
Finding. Changes or alterations havl~ :been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen.::the significant effect identi:cied in the Final EIR.
Off-r~ widening actions are within the ultimate respon-
sibilit.y and jurisdiction of Caltranl;. Such actions can and
should~be taken by Caltrans. If talmn, such actions would
.,
,
114\eas~ub\f~d(4)
.'.!
6
,,--
.~
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi-
fied i# the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The additional lanes at the east-
bound 6ff-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service C
operat+ons. Development in the Project area will be
required to contribute its fair share of the intersection
improvements, so that when such improvements are needed,
they will be provided by new development generating the
need. state law authorizes the City to enter into a
cooperative aqreement with Caltrans to make the off-ramp
improvements (see. e.a., Streets & Highways Code 55 113.5,
114).
DlPAC'l' 3.3/H. Tassajara Road aDd X-580 West:J)ound Ramps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Tassajara Road with the 1-580
westbound r~mps. DEIR page 3.3-25 (as revised).
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/8.0. The city of Dublin shall
implem~nt improvements in coordination with Caltrans to
widen the 1-580 westbound Off-ramp and to modify the
northbound approach to provide additional turn and through
lanes.): All projects in the RPA shall contribute a pro-
portio~ate share of the improvement costs. DEIR page 3.3-
26 (as ~:revised) .
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or Substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Coordinating and ramp widening actions are within the ulti-
mate responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can
and should take such actions. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identi-
fied in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The reconfigured lanes at the east-
bound ~ff-ramp will provide acceptable Level of Service B
operati:-ons. Development in the Project area will. be
requir~d to contribute its fair share of the intersection
improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they
will ~ provided by new development generating the need.
State law authorizes the City to enter into a cooperative
agreem~t with Caltrans to make the off-ramp improvements
(see. a.a., Streets & Highways Code SS 113.5, 114).
DlPAC'r 3.3/I.. SllIlta Rita Road and X-580 Bastbound Ramps. Year
2010 devel.opment with the Project woul.d cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Santa Rita Road with the 1-580
eastbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-26.
114\eastdUb\~ind(4)
7
!:
~
,,-.....
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/9.0. The city of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordinati()n with the city of
Pleasanton and Caltrans to widen the 1-580 eastbound off-
ramp to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and
one right-turn lane to provide Level of Service E at this
intersection. All projects in the Rl?A shall contribute a
proportionate share of the improvement costs. The city of
Dublin shall continue to work with the City of Pleasanton to
monitor level of service at this intl!rsection and partici-
pate in implementing improvements which may be identified in
the future to improve traffic operations. DEIR page 3.3-26
(as revised); RC # 7-11.
Finding. Changes or alterations havl! been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. Ramp widening actions are
within<the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of
Caltrans, which can and should take :;uch actions. However,
even with these changes and actions, the impact will not be
. avoide~ or substantially lessened. ~t'herefore, a Statement
of ov~riding considerations must be adopted upon approval
of the ~;Project.
Rationale for Findinq. The off-ramp widening will provide
LOS E eperations, which is still significant. Development
in the.Project area will be required to contribute its fair
share of the intersection improvemen1:s, so that. when such
improvements are needed, they will Dt! provided by new
development generating the need.
IMPACT 3.3/1r.. Airway Boulevard and 1-580 West])oUDdRallps. Year
2010 development with the Project would cause Level of Service F
operations at the intersection of Airway Boulevard with the I-
580 westbound ramps. DEIR page 3.3-27 (a:; revised).
Hi tiqation Measure 3.3/11. o. The City of Dublin shall
implem~nt improvements in coordinatic)n with the city of
Livermore and Caltrans to replace or widen the Airway
Boulevard overcrossing .of 1-580 and ':0 widen the offramp for
additional turn lanes. All projects within the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of ":he improvement costs.
DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised); RC #1'7-2
l'
Findina. Changes or alterations have:! been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identi:Eied in the Final EIR.
Road and ramp widening actions are within the ultimate
responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which can and
should take such actions. If taken :;uch actions would avoid
or substantially lessen the siqnificiint effect identified in
the Final EIR.
114\eas~ub\find(4)
8
~
,..-..."
Rationale for Findina. The Airway Boulevard and 1-580
improvements will provide an acceptable Level of Service D.
Development in the Project area will' be required to contri-
bute its fair share of the improvements so that when such
improvements are needed, they will be provided by new
development generating the need. state. law authorizes the
city to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to
make ~e road and ramp improvements (see. e. a., streets &
Highway's Code 55 113.5, 114).
XHPACT 3.3/L. El Charro Road. Project traffic could introduce
stops and delays for loaded trucks from the quarries on El Charro
Road south of 1-580. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised).
Mitiqation Measure 3.3/12.0. The City of Dublin shall
implement improvements in coordination with caltrans, the
city of Pleasanton, and Alameda County to ensure that
modifications to the 1-580 interchange at Fallon RoadlEl
Charro Road include provisions for unimpeded truck movements
to and from El Charro Road. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs. DEIR
page 3.3-27 (as revised).
Findinc:r. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorpOrated into the Project, that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Freeway interchange modification actions are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of CaTtrans, which
can and should take such actions. If taken, such actions
would ~void or substantially lessen the signifxcant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Providing unimpeded access for the
quarry trucks will prevent other traffic from backing up
behind the heavily laden trucks with their slow starts and
stops. Development in theProj ect area will be required to
contribute its fair share of the improvements so that when
such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new
development generating the need. State law authorizes the
city to enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to
make the off-ramp improvements (see. e.a., streets &
Highways Code 55 113.5, 114).
.~
:IMPACT 3.3/~. cwaulative Impacts on Du])lin BoulevarcS. cumulative
buildout with. the Project would cause Level of Service F opera-
tions at thE! intersection of Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard
and Level of Service E operations at the intersection of Tassa-
jara Road with DUblin Boulevard. DEIR page 3.3-27 (as revised),
5. 0-4. ?,
t
114\eastdab\f1Dd(4)
9
~.
....-..~.
:-
~.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/13.0. The city shall continue to
participate in regional studi~s of :future transportation
requirements, improvement alternati,~s, and funding pro-
grams. Buildout of proposed project:s outside Eastern Dublin
would require the city to build grac~-separated interchanges
on Dublin Boulevard and/or establish alternate routes to
redistribute traffic flow. All proj ects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share of improvement costs. DEIR
pages 3.3-27 (as revised), 5.0-4.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. Howe:ver, even with these
changes, the impact might not be avclided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted .upon approval of the Project. .
Rationale for Finding. Re<Jional tra.nsportation programs
will attempt to reduce the amount of future traffic and
associated impacts. Even with these, efforts, however, the
cumulative traffic impacts on Dublir, Boulevard might not be
reduced to insignificance.
:tHPACT 3.3/N. cumulative :tJDpacts on Tassajara Road. CUmulative
buildout with the Project would cause Level of Service F opera-
tions at the intersections of Tassajara F:oad with Fallon Road,
Gleason Road, and the Transit Spine. ThE,se impacts..w.ould be
caused pr~arily by traffic from the Taseajara connection to
Dougherty valley, and full buildout of the Tassajara Valley.
DEIR page 3.3-28 (as revised), 5.0-4.
Mitigation Measure 3.3/14.0. The city shall reserve suffi-
cient right-of-way to widen Tassajaxa Road to six lanes
between Dublin Boulevard and the Contra Costa County line
and monitor traffic conditions and implement widening pro-
jects as required to maintain LOS D operations on Tassajara
Road. ;All projects in the RPA shall contribute a propor-
tionate share of the improvement costs. DEIR pages 3.3-28
(as re~ised), 5.0-4 and -5; RC #5-2, 7-13, 8-2
.'
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Allowing for the widening of
Tassajara Road to six lanes, if needed, will allow the city
to maintain an acceptable LOS D. Development in the Project
area will be required to contribute its fair share of the
improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they
will be provided by new development generating the need.
i
114\eastdub\f~nd(4)
10
?:
.--
-'.
:IKPAC~ 3.3/0. Transit service BxtensiollS. The Project would
introduce significant development in an area not currently served
by public transit, creating the need for substantial expansion of
existing transit systems. DEIR page 3. 3-28.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/15.0. Specific Plan Policy 5-10*
requires the city of Dublin to coordinate with LAVTA to
provide transit service within one quarter mile of 95% of
the population, in accordance with LAVTA service standards.
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.} DEIR
page 3~j3-28.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/15.1. specific Plan POlicy 5-11*
requiras the City of Dublin to coordinate with LAVTA to
provide at least one bus every 30 minutes during peak hours,
to 90% ..of employment centers with 100 or more employees, in
accordance with LAVTA service standards. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.3-28.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/15.2. All projects in the RPA shall
contribute a proportionate share to the capital and
operation costs of transit service extensions. DEIR page
3.3-28.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/15.3. The City shall coordinate with
BART and LAVTA to provide feeder service to the planned BART
stations. Until the BART extension is completed. (projected
for 1995), the city shall coordinate with BART to ensure
that BART express bus service is available to eastern Dublin
resid~ts. DEIR page 3.3-28.
Findind. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. Some of the transit service
coordination actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of Bart and LAVTA agencies and not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by those
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Ration~le for Findina. The mitiqations provide for
expans10n of existing transit systems to meet Project
demand, not only on the local level through LAVTA but also
on a local and reqional level through BART.
1HPACT 3.3/~. S~.et crossinqs for pedestrians and Bicycles.
Pedestrianscand bicycles would cross major streets with high
projected traffic volumes, such as Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara
Road and Fallon Road, introducing potential safety hazards for
pedestrians .and bicyclists. DEIR page 3.3-29.
;1
114\eastduh\find(4)
11
~.
..-....
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/16.0. specific Plan POlicy 5-15* and
specific Plan Figure 5.3* require a class I paved
bicycle/pedestrian path along Tassajara Creek and trails
along other stream corridors in the Project area.
(*specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3~3-29.
Mitiaation Measure 3.3/16.1. The city shall locate
pedestrian and bicycle paths to cross major arterial streets
at signalized intersections. DEIR page 3.3-29.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Placing a major bicycle/pedestrian
path along Tassajara creek and using trails along other
stream corridors allows bicycles and pedestrians to avoid
traveling on major streets with their high traffic volumes.
Where the paths must cross a major arterial street, re-
quirinq the crossing at a signalized intersection minimizes
path and traffic conflicts by stopping traffic on a regular
basis t,o let path travelers cross the street safely.
Section 3.4:-- community services and Facilities
LMPACT 3.4/A and B. Demand for Xncreased Police Services and
police services Accessibility. The Project will increase demand
for police services from the Dublin Police Department's admini-
strative and sworn staff, and will require reorganization of the
police operations to provide new patrol beats in the Project
area. The hilly topography of most of the Project site may
present some accessibility and crime-prevention problems. DEIR
page 3.4-2.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/1.0.
Policy 8-4,* the city shall
facilities and revise beats
and matntain city standards
Easter~Dublin. (*Specific
throug~out RPA.) DEIR page
Pursuant to specific Plan
provide additional personnel and
as needed in order to establish
for police protection service in
Plan provisions adopted
3.4-2.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/2.0. Pursuant to specific Plan
Action;Program 8D,* the City shall coordinate with the city
pOlice;Department regarding the timing of annexation and
proposed development, so that the Dep.artment can adequately
plan for the necessary expansion of services in the RPA.'
(*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.4-2
114\eas~ub\find(4)
12
.-
..----
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program SE,"* the City shall incorporate into the
requirements of project approval Police Department recommen-
dations on project design that affect traffic safety and
crime prevention. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-2.
Mitiqation Measure 3.4/4.0. Upon annexation of the RPA, the
city o~ Dublin Police Department will be responsible for
police::services. The City will prepare a budget strateqy to
hire tije required additional personnel and implement a beat
system~ DEIR page 3.4-2.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/5.0. As part of the development
review process for residential and non-residential projects,
the Police Department shall review development projects'
desiqnand circulation for visibility, security, safety,
access;. and emergency response times and any other police
issues. DEIR pages 3.4-2 to -3.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The five mitigations identified will
ensure that additional police will be hired and, that other
admini~trative measures will be employed to provide adequate
protec~ion for Project area residents. Police Department
input into design of Project development will insure that
police~services are efficiently provided.
XHPACT 3.4/0. Demand for Increased Pire Services. Buildout of
the project ... will substantially expand the DRFA service area and
increase demand for new fire stations and firefighting personnel.
This will significantly increase response times and reduce
service standards unless new facilities and personnel are added.
DEIR page 3.4-5.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 8-5,* the City shall 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 will begin construction concurrent
with initial development in the planning area. (*Specific
Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5.
MitiaationMeasure 3.4/7.0. Pursuant to specific Plan
Action:program 8F,* the city shall' establish appropriate
funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital
improvements. (*specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5.
114\ea&tdub\~ind(4)
13
.~
. ,..---...~
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/8.0. Pur~uant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8G,* the city shall coordinate with DRFA to
identify and acquire specific sites for new fire stations;
with the westernmost site in the Spe:ific Plan area assured
prior to approval of any development plans. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-5; RC #
~5-26. I
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/9.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Action Program 8H, * the. City shall incorporate DRFA
recommendations on project design relating to access, water
pressure, fire safety and prevention into development
approvals. Require compliance with. :DRFA design standards
such as non-combustible roof materials, minimum fire hydrant
flow requirements, buffer zones alon<;J open space areas, fire
alarm and sprinkler systems, road ac.::ess, and parking
requirements. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) ';DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -6.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/10.0. Pursua:nt to Specific Plan
Action.. Program 8I, * the city shall e:ilsure, as a requirement
of Project approval, that an assessmlent district, homeowners
association, or some other mechanism is in place that will
provide regular long-term maintenancla of the urbanI open
space interface. (*Specific Plan pr,:)visions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/11.0. Pursuant to specific Plan
Action Program 8J, * the City shall elilsure that fire trails
and fire breaks are integrated into '~e open space trail
system. And that fire district staruiards for access roads
in these areas are met while enviromnental impaCts are
minimized. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-6.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/~2.0. The Ci1:y of Dublin, in
consu1t:ation with DRFA and a qualifi4ad wildlife biologist,
shall prepare a wildfire management plan for the RPA to
reduce..;open land wildfire risks consistent with habitat
protect:ion and other open space valulas. The plan shall
specify ownership, maintenance, use, brush control, and
fire-resistant landscaping measures, as well as periodic
review::of these measures, for RPA oplm lands. Any park
districts or other open space agencil:ls with jurisdiction
over lands within the RPA shall. be encouraged to participate
in the preparation of the plan. DEIR pages 3.4-6 to -7.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/13.0. The Ci1:y shall consult with
DRFA to determine the number, locatilmand timing of
additional fire stations for areas within the RPA outside
114\ea$tdub\f~(4)
14
.-
the specific plan when such areas are proposed for
annexation to the city. DEIR page 3.4-7.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to determine the number and location of fire
stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
DRFA and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and
should be taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and
would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. New fire facilities will be
constructed to meet the needs of Project residents; DRFA
input into Project design features will enable additional
and ef~icient provision of fire services. The wildfire
management plan should further limit the project fire
protection impacts by reducing the risk of wildfires.
IMPACT 3.4/'0. Fire Response to ou'tlY2.Dg Areas. Based on DRFA' s
preliminary:locations for new fire stations, the northern-most
portions of the RPA would be outside the District's standard
response area. Development in these areas (especially the north
end of Tassajara Road) could experience adverse fire hazard
exposure and emergency response impacts. DEIR page .3:.. 4-5 .
Mitiqation Measures. Mitigation measures 3.4/6..0 to 13.0 as
described above. DEIR pages 3.4-5 to -7.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to determine the number and location of fire
stations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
DRFA ~d not the City of Dublin. Such actions should be
taken by DRFA. If taken, such actions can and would avoid
or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the FiJ!lal EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. New fire facilities will be
constructed to meet the needs of all project residents,
including those in the outer lying areas; DRFA input into
project design features will enable additional and efficient
provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan
should further limit the Project fire protection impacts by
reducing the risk of wildfires.
IHPACT 3.4/E. Exposure to 'Wildfire Hazards. Settlement of
popUlation and construction of new communities in proximity to
high fire hazard open space areas with difficult access poses an
114\eas~ub\fiDd(4)
1.5
.'-.
----..
increasing wildfire hazard to people and property if open space
areas are not maintained for fire safety. This is also a
significant cumulative impact in that incl:'eased development in
steep grass and woodlands around the edge:; of the Tri-Valley's
core communities may reduce response timel; and strain f ire-
fighting resources for regional firefighting services, many of
whom participate in mutual aid systems. J>EIR paqes 3.4-5, 5.0"'"
5.
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0.. Mitiqation measures
3.4/6.0 to 13.0, as described above. DEIR paqes 3.4-5 to
-7, 5.0-5; RC #26-26.
Findina. Changes or alterations hav.~ been required in, or
incorporated into the Project, that llvoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identij:ied in the Final EIR.
Actions to determine the number and :Location of fire
stations are within the responsibili1:y and jurisdiction of
DRFA agencies and the city of Dublin '. Such actions should
be taken by DRFA. If taken, such ac1:ions can and would
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR. DEIR pages 3.4-4 to -7.
Rationale for Findina. New fire facilities will be
cons~cted to meet the needs of all Project residents,
including those near open space areal; i DRFA input into
project design features will enable ndditionaland efficient
provision of fire services. The wildfire management plan
should,further limit the project wildfire exposure impacts
through fire safety planning and open space management.
IMPACT 3.4/F, G. Demand for New C1assroon space; Demand for
Junior High Schools. Buildout of the pro:iect will increase the
demand for new classroom space and school facilities beyond
current available capacity. At the junior high school level,
classroom demand may exceed both current clnd planned capacity
levels. DEIR page 3.4-11 to -12.
Mitigation Measure 3.4/13.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 8-1,* the City shall reserve Bchool sites within the
RPA designated on the Specific Plan Clnd General Plan
Amendm~nt Land Use Maps. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throug~out RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-12.
:~
Mi ti<<181Hon Measure 3.4/14.0. The Ci 1:y shall ensure that the
two proposed junior high schools are designed to.accommodate
the projected number of junior high Bchool students. DEIR
page 3.:4-12.
Findina. chanqes or alterations havE~ been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that clvoid or substantially
114\eastdub\fiDd(4)
16
.-...
lessen the significant effect.identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to determine junior high school siting and
design are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
other public agencies and not the city of Dublin. Such
actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If
taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Providing elementary, junior high,
and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand
generated by Project residents. Mitigation Measures
3.4/17~0 through 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for
such de.velopment.
DlPACT 3.4/J!!.. OVercrowding of Schools. Existing schools may be
overcrowded:if insufficient new classroom space is provided for
new residential development. DEIR paqe 3.4-12.
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/13.0 to 14.0. Mitigation Measures
3.4/13~0 to 14.0, as described above.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/15.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
policy 8-2,* the city shall promote a consolidated develop-
ment pattern that supports the logical development of
planning area schools, and in consultation with the appro-
priate school district(s), ensure that adequate classroom
space is available prior to the development of new homes.
(*specific Plan provisions adopted throuqhout RPA.) DEIR
page 3,4-12.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen ~.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to site and design schools are within the
respon$ibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and
not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Providing ~lementary, junior high,
and high school sites will accommodate classroom demand
generated by Project residents, while a consolidated
development pattern ensures that the classroom space will be
available when it is needed. Mitigation Measures 3.4/17.0
throug~ 3.4/19.0 will ensure sufficient funding for such
development.
.~
rKPACT 3.4/1. Impact on school Financing District Jurisdiction.
Development~}of the RPA under existing jurisdictional boundaries
would resul~ in the area being served by two different school
114\eaB~ub\ffnd(4)
17
--
._,
districts and would adversely affect finc;~ncinq of schools and
provision of educational services. DEIR page 3.4-12.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/16.0. PurStLant to Specific Plan
Action. Program 8A, * the City shall work with the school
districts to resolve the jurisdictic,nal issue to best serve
student needs and minimize the f isca.l burden of the service
providers. (*specific Plan provisie,ns adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-12 to -13.
j;
Findind. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to resolve the jurisdictional issue are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies
and not the city of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would
avoid or Substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Resolving the school district
jurisdiction issue will limit conflicts and ensure that
school services are efficiently provided.
DlPACT 3.4/ J . Pinancial BUrden on School Districts. The cost of
providing new school facilities could adversely impact local
school districts by creating an unwieldy financial burden unless.
some form of, financinq is identified. DEIR page 3.4-13.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/17.0 to 19.0. Pursuant to Specifi~
Plan policy 8-3* and Action Program 8B, ensure that adequate
school facilities are available prior to development in the
RPA to:the extent permitted by law, for example, by
requiring dedication of school sites and/or payment of
developer fees by new development. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program. 8C, * the City shall work with school
districts to establish appropriate funding mechanisms to
fund new school development and encourage school districts
to use best efforts to obtain state funding for new con-
struction. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR p. 3.4-13; RC #15-31.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen,the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to fund new school development are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and
not th~ city of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by such other agencies. If taKen, such actions would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR.
114 \eastdub\ find (4)
18
.r--..
-.
Rationale for Finding. Through these mitigations, develop-
ment creating school facilities demand will have pr~ary
responsibility for accommodating that demand, with the
school t:districts being provided with back-up financial
suppo~ from other sources.
XHPACT 3.4/K. Demand ror Park Facilities. Without the addition
of new parks and facilities, the increased demand for new park
and recreation facilities resulting from buildout of the Project
would not be met, resulting in deterioration of the city's park
provision standard and of the City's ability to maintain existing
services and facilities. This is also a significant cumulative
impact. DEIR pages 3.4-16, 5.0-5.
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 24.0. General Plan
Amendment Guiding Policies A, B, and G and Implementing
POlicy D require the City of Dublin to provide and maintain
parks and related facilities adequate to ~eet Project and
citywi~e needs and in conformance with the city's Park and
Recrea~ion Master Plan 1992. I~plementing POlicy K
specifically requires dedication and improvements for the 20
parks qesignated in the RPA with collection of in-lieu fees
as reqUired by city standards. DEIR pages 3.4-16 to -17,
5.0-5.:
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/25.0 to 27.0. Sufficient parkland
shall be designated and set aside in the RPA t& satisfy the
citY's\Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992 and its park
provision and phasing standards. DEIR pages 3.4-17, 5.0-5.
Mitiaation Measure 3.4/28. The City shall implement
specific Plan Policies 6-1 to -6* to establish large,
continuous natural open space areas with convenient access
for users, and adequate access for maintenance and manage-
ment; to preserve views of designated open space areas; and
to establish a mechanism for open space ownership, manage-
ment, and maintenance. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
througl:1out RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-18 to -19.
Findin~. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorpQrated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Ration~le for Findinq. These mitigations provide added new
parks and facilities to meet increased demand fro~ Project
residents, and require compliance with phasing plans in the
Park and Recreation Master Plan 1992, to ensure that new
parks and facilities construction will keep pace with new
residential construction.
114\eastdub\fiDd(4)
19
-
-.
DIPACT 3.4/L. park Facilities Fiscal xmplLct. Acquisition and
improvement of new park and recreation fac:ili ties may place a
financial strain on existing city of Dublin revenue sources
unless adequate financing and implementation mechanisms are
designed. DEIR page 3.4-~8.
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/20.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 4-29* and Action Program 4N, * the city shall
ensure that development provides its fair share of planned
open space; for example, through in-lieu fees under the
city's .,parkland dedication ordinance. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Program 4M, * the City shall deVE!lop a Parks Imple-
mentation Plan identifying phasing, j:acilities priorities
and location, and design and construc~ion responsibilities.
(*specific Plan provisions adopted tl~ouqhout RPA.) DEIR
page 3~4-18.
Findina. Changes or alterations haVE! been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that eLvoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identij'ied in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. These mitiga1::ions ensure that needed
park facilities will be provided by developers at the time
of development, thereby avoiding the use of existing revenue
sources to build new parks for Projec:t area residents.
XKPACT 3.4/H, N. J:mpact on R8(Jiona1 TraiJ. system. and Xmpact.on
open space connections. Without adequate provisions for trail
easements arid without adequate design and implementation, urban
development. along stream corridors and ridgelands would obstruct
formation of a regional trail system and en interconnected open
space system. DEIR page 3.4-~8 to -19.
Mitiaation :Measure 3.4/32.0. Pursuarlt to General Plan
Amendment Guiding PolicyH, * establis:h a trail system with
regional and subregional connections, including a trail
along the Tassajara creek corridor. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout .RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-19.
Mitiaation :Measures 3.4/23.0 and 33.(1 to 36.0. Pursuant to
General Plan Amendment Guiding Polic~' I, Implementation
Policy D, Specific Plan Policies 6-~,* 6-3,* Action Program
40,* and consistent with the city's Parks and Recreation
Master Plan ~992, use natural stream corridors and Eajor
ridgelines as the basis for a trail s:ystem with a conti-
nuous, :'integrated open space network, emphasizing convenient
user access, pedestrian and bicycle c:onnections between
developed and open space areas, and cleveloper dedication of
ridget9P and stream corridor public e.ccess easements.
(*specific Plan provisions adopted tl~oughout RPA.) DEIR
pages ~.4-~7, -~9.
114\east4ub\f~d(4)
20
-.
(-
.~
Findincr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Establishing a Project area trail
system incorporating planned regional connections contri-
butes to development of a regional trail system and allows
the trail planning to be considered and incorporated into
individual Project area developments in the RPA. By.
requir~ng that open space and trail planning be based on
contin~ous physical features such as stream corridors and
ridgel~nes, and that public access be provided along these
featur~s, these mitigations avoid a disconnected open space
system ..
DlPAc-r 3.410, P. Xncrease4 Solid Wast.e Produc'tion and Xmpact. on
Solid .ast.e Disposal Facilities. Increased popUlation and
commercial land use will cause a proportional increase in the
total projected amount of solid waste and household hazardous
waste gen~rated by the city of Dublin. This increase creates the
need for additional capacity, personnel, and vehicles to dispose
of the wastes. . It can create public health risks from improper
handling. The increased solid waste and household hazardous
waste generated by the Project may accelerate the closing
schedule for Altamont landfill unless additional capacity is
developed or alternate disposal sites are identified. This
impact on the Altamont landfill is also a potentially significant
cumulative impact. DEIR pages 3.4-21 to -22, 5.0-6.
MiticrationMeasures 3.4/37.0 to 40.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program SK* and other EIR mitigations, adopt a
Solid Waste Management Plan for the RPA, including waste
reduct~on programs such as composting and curbside and other
collection of recyclables. Include goals, objectives, and
programs necessary to .integrate with the diversion targets
of the City'S Source Reduction and Recycling Element and
Household Hazardous Waste Element. New development in the
RPA shall demonstrate adequate available landfill capacity
for anticipated wastes. (*specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3-4.22 to -23, 5.0-6.
Findincr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. These mitigations minimize the
amount~of solid waste production and related needs and risks
through compliance with AB 939 solid waste planning.
Reducing the amount of Project-generated waste will also
avoid a.n accelerated closing schedule for the Altamont
landfill. In addition, these mitigations require that new
114\eastdub\fiAd(4)
21
:.1
,,--.. .
'-.
;.,
~
develol?ment anticipate and provide fc>r adequate waste
dispoS~1 before the development is al>proved.
DlPAC'l' 3.4/0. De1Ilancl ror utility Extensiclns. Development of the
Project site will significantly increase demand for gas, electric
and telephone services. Meeting this demcLnd will require
construction of a new Project-wide distrit~tion system. This is
a significant growth-inducing impact. DEJ:R pages 3.4-24, 5.0-14
to -15.
Mitiaation Measures. None proposed. DEIR page 3.4-2.4.
Findina. No changes or alterations clre available to avoid
or substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a statement
of overriding considerations must be adopted upon approval
of the :.project.
iMPACT 3.4/R. utility Extension Visual aI~ Biological Xmpacts.
Expansion o~ electrical, gas, and telephone lines could adversely
affect visual and biological resources if not appropriately
sited. DEI*- page 3.4-24.
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/41.0 to 44.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 8L* and other idEtntified mitigation
measures, development within the RPA must document the
availabili ty of electr ic, gas, and te:lephone service and
must place utilities below grade or, preferably, underground
and routed away from sensitive habita.t and open space lands.
A development project service report shall be ..reviewed by
the city prior to improvement plan a~proval. C*Specific
Plan provisions adopted throughout RI~.) DEIR page 3.4-24
to -25. .
Findind. Changes or alterations have: been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that a.void or substantially
lessen ;the significant effect identif.ied in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Undergrounding utilities will avoid
visual ;;effects by placing the utilit}" extensions where they
cannot~be seen. Routing the utility extensions away from
sensitive habitat and open space area.s will avoid impacts on
biological resources by avoiding the resources themselves.
IMPACT 3.4/8. consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources.
Natural gas and electrical service would increase consumption of
non-renewable natural resources. DEIR pa9~ 3.4-25.
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/45.0 to 46.0. Major developers in
the Project area shall provide demons,tration proj ects on
cost-effective energy conservation tE:chniques including but
not limited to solar water and space heating, landscaping
114\eastdub\~iDd(4)
22
.--,
for water conservation, and shading. All development
projects in the RPA shall prepare an energy conservation
plan as part of their proposals. The plan shall demonstrate
how site planning, building design, and landscaping will
conserve use of energy during construction and long term
operation. DEIR page 3.4-25.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the. Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of Overriding considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findinq. Through the demonstration projects,
developers can educate themselves and Project residents
about available and feasible techniques to reduce
consumption of energy resources. Requiring energy
conservation plans forces both developers and the city to
actively consider various techniques to reduce energy
consumption and to build those techniques directly into the
Project. These actions cannot, however, fully mitigate the
impact.
XMPACT 3.4/~. Demand for xncreased Pos~l Service. The project
will increase the demand for postal service. DEIR page 3.4-26.
Mitiqation Measures 3.4/47.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to specific
Plan Policy 8-10 and Action ProqralD 8M, the city shall
encourage the U.S.P.S. to locate a new post office in the
Eastern Dublin town center. DEIR page 3.4-26;. RC # 15-37.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to site a new post office within the town center are
within the ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the
USPS and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and
should be taken by the USPS. If taken, such actions would
avoid or SUbstantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. A post office conveniently located in
the to~ center area will provide postal service to meet the
Project generated demand.
XKPACT 3.4/U. Demand for Xnereased Library Service. without
additional ~ibrary facilities and staff, the increase in
population ~esulting from the Project would adversely affect
existing library services and facilities DEIR page 3.4-27.
114\eas~dub\fiDd(4)
23
.---..
.- .-....~.
Mitiaation Measures 3.4/49.0 to 51.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 8-11* and Action Program 8N* and other identi-
fied mitigation measures, the city shall encourage and
assist the Alameda County Library System to provide adequate
library service in eastern Dublin, considering such factors
as location, phasing, and funding of needed library
services. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR pages 3.4-27 to -28; RC #15-38.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Action$ to provide library facilities are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the Alameda
County:Library system and not the city of Dublin. Such
actionS can and should be taken by the Alameda County
LibrarY System. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Providing library services to the RPA
will meet Project generated demand. Planning how and when
to provide those services will ensure that they are
efficient and convenient to the maximum number of users.
Section 3.5 -- Sewer. Water. and storm Drainaae
DlPACT 3.5/A. Xndirect Xl1lpacts ReSUlting fro. the Lack of a
Wastewater service Provider. Although Specific Plan POlicy 9-4
(page 127) calls for the expansion of DSRSD's service boundaries
to include the Specific Plan area, the Project does not provide
for wastewater service to areas in the RPA outside the specific
plan area. iThis could result in uncoordinated efforts by future
developers in this area to secure wastewater services. DEIR page
3.5-5, RC #~32-18.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/1.0a. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy':9-4,* the City shall coordinate with DSRSD to expand
its service boundaries to encompass toe entire RPA.
C*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) RC #
32-18.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to expand DSRSD's service boundaries are within the
ultimate responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSD and
not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be
taken by the DSRSD. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substa~tially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Fir;ial EIR..
114\eas~dub\~iDd(4)
24
---
-.
Rational for Findina. Expanding DSRSD's service
boundaries to include the entire RPA will ensure that
securing wastewater services will be coordinated
through one agency.
IMPACT 3.5/B. Lack of a Wastewater Co~~ection systea. Estimated
wastewater flow for the RPA is 4.6 MGD; however, there currently
is no wastewater collection system adequate to serve the Project
area. DEIR page 3.5-5.
Mitiaation Measures 3.5/1.0 to 5.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Proqrams 9P,* 9I,* 90,* 9M,* and 9N,* all
development in the RPA shall be connected to public sewers
and shall obtain a "will-serve" letter prior to grading
permits; on-site package plants and septic systems shall be
discouraged. The city shall request that DSRSD update its
collection system master plan to reflect Project area
proposed land uses, with the cost of the plan to be borne by
future development in the RPA. All wastewater systems shall
be designed and built in accordance with DSRSD standards.
C*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3~:5-6; RC # 32-19, 32-20. .
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen. the significant effect identified in the. Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. These mitigations will provide a
wastewater collection system adequate to meet Project
generated demand, and will ensure the system m~ets design
and construction standards of DSRSD.
IMPACT 3.5/C. Extension of a Sewer Trunk Line with capacity to
Serve New Developaents. Construction of a wastewater collection
system could result in development outside the RPA that would
connect to the Project's collection system. This is also a
potentially significant growth-inducing impact. DEIR pages 3.5-
6, 5.0-15.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/6.0. The proposed wastewater system
shall be sized only for the RPA area. DEIR pages 3.5-6, 4-
11, 5.0-15.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen:the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. By sizing the planned wastewater
collection system only to serve the RPA, growth inducing
impacts on lands outside that area are avoided.
114\eastdub\fiDd(4)
25
---
.. --....
DlPACT 3. SID. Allocation of DSRSD Treatml,nt and Disposal
capacity. There is limited available capi!lcity at the DSRSD
Treatment Plant, limiting the number of St:lwer permits available
for new developments. It is very unlikel:, that any of the
presently remaininq DUE's will be availab:Le for the Eastern
Dublin Area. DEIR.page 3.5-7; RC #32-21.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/7.0.. Pursuani: to specific Plan
Action Program 9L, * development projl!ct applicants in the
RPA shall prepare. a desiqn level watl!r capacity investi-
gation, includinq means to minimize anticipated wastewater
flows and reflecting development pha:;ed according to sewer
permit allocation. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) OEIR page 3.5-7.
Hitiaation Measure 3.5/7.1. OevelopJ~ent project applicants
in the.RPA shall obtain a wastewater nwill~serve" letter
from OSRSD before receiving a gradinq permit. RC #32-22.
Findind. Changes or alterations havH been required in, or
incorpc;lrated into, the Project that avoid or SUbstantially
lessen i:the significant effect identij:ied in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The required =.nvestigation will allow
development to be phased to ensure there are adequate
wastewater facilities available to mE~et Project. generated
demand. The requirement of a "will-!;erve" letter will
insure that adequate wastewater faci:.ities will. exist for
all new development. If capacity is not available, OSRSD
will not issue a will-serve letter. HC #32-22..
:IMPACT 3.5/E. Future Lack of Wastewater 'J~reat:ment Plant
capacity. Development of the Project require an increase in
wastewater treatment plant capacity within DSRSD to adequately
treat the additional wastewater flows to Dleet discharge
standards. This is also a potentially si~mificant cumulative
impact in that increased demand on area wCLstewater treatment
facilities exceeds current remaining capac:ity. OEIR page 3.5-7
to -a, 5.0-6.
Hi tiaation Measures 3. 517 . 1. 8. o. 9. q. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-6* and mitiqations ider~ified in the EIR,
ensure:'that wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are
available for future development in tlle RPA through
compliance with "OSRSO's master plan t~o fund, desiqn, and
construct wastewater treatment plant expansion once export
capacity is available (unle~s TWA ap~lroves export of raw
wastewater, in which case DSRSD's wa$tewater treatment plant
expansion will not be necessary). AJ.so, development project
applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve"
letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit.
114\eastdub\fiDd(4)
26
---.
..-........
C*Specific Plan prov1s1ons adopted throughout RPA.) DErR
pages 3.5-7 to -8, 5.0-6; RC #32-23.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. compliance with DSRSD's master plan
will ensure that adequate wastewater treatment plant
capacity will be available in the future to serve Project
generated demand once export capacity of treated wastewater
is provided.(see Mitigation Measure 3.5/11~O). Alternative-
ly, expanded treatment capacity will not be necessary if
export.. of raw wastewater is approved. The requirement of a
"will-serve" letter will insure that adequate wastewater
facilities will exist for all new development. If capacity
is not available, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter.
RC #32':"22.
:IMPACT 3. S/F. :Increase in BDergy Usage Through :Increased
Wastewater Treatment. Development of the Project will result in
increased wastewater flows and will require increased energy use
for treatment of wastewater. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC #32-24.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/10.0. Include energy efficient
treatment systems in any wastewater treatment plant
expansion and operate the plant to take advantage of off-
peak energy. DEIR page 3.5-8; RC #32-24.
Findina. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin.; Such actions can and should be taken by other
agenci~s. However, even if such actions are taken, this
impact:'will not be avoided or substantially lessened.
TherefOre, a statement of Overriding considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findina. Use of energy efficient treatment
systems and plant operations will reduce the amount of
enerqy;use but these actions cannot fully mitigate the
impact.
ZMPACT 3.S/G. Lack of Wastewater current Disposal capacity. The
increase in wastewater flows from the Project and other sub-
regional development will exceed available wastewater disposal
capacity until additional export capacity is developed. This is
also a significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.5-8, 5.0-6.
Mitiaation Measures 3.5/7.~. ~~ to 14.0. Pursuant to
Specif~c Plan Policy 9-5* and Action Programs 9H,* 9J,* and
9K,* the City shall support current efforts to develop
114\eaB~dUb\fiDd(4)
27
.,.-...
...-....
additiona~ export capacity. The Cit~. sha~l require use of
recycled water for landscape irrigation in accordance with
DSRSD's Recycled Water pOlicy and re~~ire development within
the RPA to fund a recycled water dist:ribution system model
to reflect proposed land uses. Also, development project
applicants in the RPA shall obtain a wastewater "will-serve"
letter from DSRSD before receiving a grading permit.
(*Spec~fic Plan provisions adopted ttxoughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3~5-9, 5.0-6 to -7, RC #32-22, 32-25, 32-26, 32-27.
1
Finding. Changes or alterations haVE, been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen 'the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Actions to develop additional export capacity are within the.
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies,
and not the city of Dublin. Such actions can and should
take by such agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid
or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. These mitigations will provide the
additional wastewater disposal capacity necessary to meet
Project generated demand. The requirement of a "will-serve"
letter will insure that adequate wastewater facilities will
exist for all new development. If capacity is not avail-
able, DSRSD will not issue a will-serve letter...RC #32-22.
XHPACT 3.5/.. Zncrease in Energy Usage Tbrough Xncreased
Wastewater Disposa~. Development of the Project wil~ result in
increased wastewater flows and will require increased energy use
for disposal of wastewater; more specifically, for (1) pumping
raw wastewater to CCCSD for treatment under the TWA proposed
project; and/or (2) operation of an advanced treatment and
distribution system for recycled water. DEIR page 3-5.9.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/15.0 to 16.0. The City shall
encourage off peak pumping to the proposed TWA export
system. The City shall plan, design, and construct the
Project recycled water treatment system for energy efficient
operation including use of energy efficient treatment
systems, optimal use of storage facilities, and pumping at
off peak hours. DEIR pages 3.5-10 to -11.
Findina. Such actions are within the responsibility and
juriSdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. However, even if such actions are taken, this
impact;will not be avoided or substantially lessened.
Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted upon approval of the Project.
114\eastdub\f~(4)
28
r---.
~
Ration~le for Findina. The proposed mitigations will reduce
the amount of energy used for wastewater disposal but these
action~ cannot fully mitigate the impact.
IMPACT 3.5/7. Potential Failure of Export Disposal system. A
failure in the operation of the proposed TWA wastewater pump
stations would adversely affect the overall operation of the
wastewater collection system for the Tri-Valley subregion, as
well as the Eastern Dublin project. DEIR page 3.5-10.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/17.0. Engineering redundancy will be
built into the TWA pump stations, which will also have
provisions for emergency power generators. DEIR page
3.5-10.
Findina. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the city of
Dublin~' Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencie.s. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationche for Findina. Engineering redundancy will minimize
the risk of pump station system failure; providing emergency
power generators will ensure that any system failure which
does occur will be short lived, thereby avoiding the effects
of such failure. RC #32-28.
IMPACT 3.5/J. Puap station Noise and Odors. The proposed TWA
wastewater pump stations could generate noise during their
operation and could potentially produce odors. DEIR page 3.5-10.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/18.0. TWA's pumps and motors will be
designed to comply with local noise standards and will be
provid$d with odor control equipment. DEIR page. 3.5-10.
to
Findinq. Such actions are within the responsibility.and
jurisd~ction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin~i SUch actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Requiring compliance with local noise
standards will ensure that any noise produced not exceed
acceptable levels. Odor control equipment will ensure that
odor production effects are avoided. RC #32-28.
7KPACT 3.5/E. storage Basin Odors and Potential Failure. The
proposed TWA Emergency Wastewater Storage Basins could poten-
tially emit odors and/or the basins could have structural failure
114\eastdub\f~d(4)
29
,"--
----.
due to landslides, earthquakes, or undermi:~ing of the reservoir
from inadequate drainage. DEIR page 3. 5-1'J.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/19.0. TWA1s ba.sins will be covered,
buried .tanks with odor control equipmant and will be
designed to meet current seismic code:s. DEIR page 3.5-11.
Finding. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the city of
Dublin~ Such actions can and should :t:>e taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or
substantially lessen the significant ,~ffect identified in
the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. These mitigations ensure that any
odors related to the TWA basins are cl:)ntained and controlled
within the basins so as not to be det,actable beyond the
basins. Compliance with seismic code:; will ensure that the
basins are properly constructed to wi'thstand landslides and
earthquakes and are provided with adel:;{Uate drainage to avoid
structural failure. RC #32-28.
IMPACT 3.5/L. Recycled Water system Operation. The proposed
recycled water system must be constructed and operated properly
in order to ,iprevent any potential contamination or cross-
connection with potable water supply systems. DEIRpage 3.5-11-
Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0. Construction of the recycled
water distribution system will meet all applicable standards
of the Department of Health Services (DBS) and.sanFrancisco
Bay Re<jional Water Quality control Board (RWQCB). DEIR page
3.5-11..
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Applicable regulations of the DHS and
RWQCB are designed to prevent cross-connection contamina-
tion; compliance with these regulations will therefore avoid
the contamination impact.
IMPACT 3.5/K.. Recycled Water storage Failure. Loss of recycled
water storage through structural damage from landslide, earth-
quake, and undermining of the reservoir through inadequate
drainage. DEIR page 3.5-11.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/21.0. The City shall require
reservoir construction to meet all applicable DSRSD and
other health standards and shall require preparation of
soils and geotechnical investigations to determine potential
114 \eastdub \fiDd (4)
30
.-..
. ..-..,
landsli.de and earthquake impacts. Reservoirs shall be
designed to meet current seismic codes and to provide
adequate site drainage. DEIR page 3.5-11.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Soils and geotechnical studies will
ensure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to
comply with current seismic, DSRSD, and other applicable
health standards, the purpose of which is .to avoid
structural failure.
XMPACT 3. SIB. Loss of Recycled Water system. Pressure. Loss of
pressure in:the proposed recycled water distribution systems
could result in the system being unable to meet peak irrigation
demand, which could result in loss of vegetation through lack of
irrigation water. DEIR page 3.5-12; RC #32-30.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/22.0. The recycled water pump
stations shall meet all applicable DSRSD standards. DEIR
page 3.5-12; RC #32-31.
FindinCl. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the si~ificant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Compliance with DSRSD standards will
minimize the risk of pressure being lost.
IMPACT 3.5/0. secondary xapacts from Recycled Water.yatem
Operation. Failure to identify and implement treatment plant
improvements related to recycled water use may increase salinity
in the qroundwater basin. DEIR page 3.5-12.
Mitiaation Measures 3.5/20.0. Recycled water projects shall
incorporate salt mitigation required by Zone 7. DEIR paqe
3.5-12f.
{,
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Compliance with salt mitiqation
requirements will reduce the salinity of the recycled water,
thereby avoiding the risk of increased salinity in the
groundwater basin.
XMPACT 3.5/P. OVerdraft of Local Groundwater Resources. If the
Project area is not annexed to DSRSD and development projects are
114\eas~ub\fihd(4)
31
-
~
not required to connect to OSRSO's water distribution system,
development projects may attempt to drill their own wells,
causing overdraft of' existing limited groundwater supplies. OEIR
page 3.5-17.
Mitiaation Measures 3.5/24.0 to 25.0. Pursuant to specific
Plan Policy 9-2* and other EIR mitigcltions, the City shall
coordinate with DSRSD to expand its flervice boundaries to
include the Project area and to develop annexation
conditions encouraging water conservntion and recycling.
The city shall encourage all developnents in the RPA to
connect to OSRSD' s system and discow~age the use of
groundwater wells. C*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-17; He '14-4.
Findinq. Changes or alterations hav.! been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identij:ied in the Final EIR.
Actions to expand OSRSO's service boundaries are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the DSRSO and not the
city of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by the
OSRSO. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially
lessen.the significant effect identi:Eied in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Annexation t.) DSRSD and connection
to its:-water distribution system will eliminate-: the need for
development projects to drill their l)Wn wells and will
therefore avoid the risk of groundwa't:er overdrafting.
IHPACT 3.5/2. Increase in Demand for Wat,er. Estimated average
daily water:demand for the RPA is 6.4 MGD, which demand could
exceed available supply. This is also a :potentially significant
cumulative impact in that ongoing urban d.evelopment in the Tri-
Valley is reSUlting in a cumulative increase in water demand at a
time when water supplies and delivery are uncertain. DEIR page
3.5-18, 5.0-7 to -8.
Mitiqation Measures 3.5/26.0 to 31.0. Pursuant to specific
Plan Action Programs 9A* and 9B,* the city shall require
development projects in the RPA to include water conserva-
tion measures wi thin structures as well as in public and
other improvements. Require developments to comply with
OSRSD and Zone 7 recommendations for developing and using
recycled water. Pursuant to other EIR mitigations,
implement Zone 7 and OSRSD water supply and water quality
improvements and interconnect Project area water systems
with existing surrounding water systems for increased
reliability. c*specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.)EDEIR pages 3.5-18 to -19; 5.0-9; RC #13-9, 32-43.
114\eastdub\fiDd(4)
32
.---
.-.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Some actions to improve water supply and quality are within
the res,ponsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies
and not the city of Dublin. Such actions should be taken by
such other agencies. If taken, such actions can and would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect
identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Through required water conservation
and water recycling mitigations, the Project reduces the
magnitude of the impact by reducing the demand for water
using recycled water for irrigation reduces the estimated
average daily water demand in the RPA to 5.5 MGD. (RC
#32.52.) The remaining water quality and water supply
mitigations will result in an increased water availability
from Zone 7 and DSRSD to meet Project generated demand.
DlPACT 3.5/R. Additional 'lreabnent Pl.ant Capacity. The increase
in water demand through development of the Project will require
an expansion of existing water treatment facilities in order to
deliver safe and potable water. DEIR page 3.5-19.
Mitiaation Measures 3.5/32.0 to 33.0. Implement Zone 7's
planned water treatment system improvements. DSRSD shouId
constrUct two new chlorination/fluoridation stations at the
two proposed Zone 7 turnouts to eastern Dublin, with the
constrUction phased west to east as anticipated in the
General Plan Amendment. DEIR page 3.5-19.
Findina. Such actions are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of
Dublin~ Such actions can and should be taken by other
agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant effect identified in the
Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Proposed water treatment system
improvements will insure that project water supply meets all
apPlic~ble water quality requirements.
DlPACT 3.5/8. Lack of a Water Distribution system. .There
currently i$. no water distribution system to provide water
service forj.the RPA. DEIR page 3.5-20.
~
Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0 to 38.0. Pursuant to specific
Plan Policy 9-1* and Action Programs 9C,* 9D,* 9E,* and 9G,*
the city shall provide an adequate water supply system with
related improvements and storage facilities for all develop-
ment, in compliance with applicable DSRSD standards. The
114\eastdub\fiad(4)
33
.--.
. ..-..
city shall request that DSRSD update its water system
masterPlan to reflect the proposed lClnd uses, and require a
"will-Sierve" letter from DSRSD prior to grading permits for
any Project area development. The C:Lty shall encourage the
proposE!d water system to coordinate Clnd combine with
existing neighboring water systems. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.5-20.
Findina. Changes or alterations havE~ been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identi:l:ied in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. These mitiga1:ions will provide a
water distribution system adequate to meet Project-generated
demand, and will insure the system mE~ets design and
construction standards of DSRSD.
:IHPACT 3.5/T. Inducement of Substantial orowth and Concentration
of population. The proposed water distril)ution system will
induce grow~ in the Project area and has been sized to poten-
tially acco~odate the Dougherty Valley DE~velopment to the north.
However, if j~DSRSD does not provide water 1:0 the Dougherty Valley
Developmentj' the pipes will be sized to only accommodate the RPA.
The impact is also a potentially significant growth-inducing
impact. DEIR page :~.5-20, 5.0-15, RC #32--41, 32-55.
Findina. No feasible mitigation mea~;ures are identified to
reduce this impact. Therefore, a statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
:IHPACT 3.5/U. Increase in Energy Usage Tl~ough Operation of the
Water Distribution System. Development 0:1: the Project will
result in increased water demand and will require increased
energy use to operate a water distribution system, especially for
pumpingwat~ to tht~ system and to storagE~. DEIR page 3.5-21.
Mitiaa~ion Measure 3.5/40. Plan, denign, and construct the
water distribution system for energy efficient operation.
Design ;'pump stations to take advantaqe of off-peak energy.
DEIR p~ge 3.5-21.
Findind. Changes or alterations havo been required in, or
incorp~rated into the Project. Howev'er, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or SUbstantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findina. Use of energy efficient water
distribution systems and operations .,ill reduce the amount
of energy used, but these actions cannot fully mitigate the
impact.
114\eastdub\fiDd(4)
34
.-
,...-.....
IKPA~ 3.5/V. potential Water storage Reservoir Failure. Loss
of storage in proposed water distribution reservoirs from
landslides, earthquakes, and/or undermining of the reservoir
through inadequate drainage would adversely affect the ability of
the water sqpply system to maintain water pressures and to meet
fire flows. DEIR page 3~5-21.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/41.0. Require water reservoir
construction to meet all applicable DSRSD standards.
Prepare soils and geotechnical investigations to determine
potential landslide and earthquake impacts. Design the
reservQirs to meet current seismic codes, and to provide
adequate site drainage. DEIR page 3.5-21.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen thesiqnificant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Soils and geotechnical studies will
insure that reservoirs will be designed and constructed to
comply.with current seismic, DSRSD, and site drainage
standards, thereby avoiding the risk of structural damage or
failure.
IMPACT 3.5/.. Potential Loss of system Pressure. Loss of
pressure in. the proposed water distribution systems could result
in contamination of the distribution system and would not allow
adequate fl~ws and pressures essential for fire flow. DEIR page
3.5-22 . ~}
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/42.0. The proposed water pump
stations shall meet all applicable standards of DSRSD and
shall include emergency power generation baCk-Up. DEIR page
3.5-22.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Compliance with DSRSD standards will
minimize the risk of pressure being lost. Providing
emergency power generators will insure the pumps. will
continue operating, thereby avoiding the risk of contamina-
tion i~ the distribution system and insuring that adequate
water flows are available for fire protection.
IMPACT 3.5/%.. Potential Pump station Noise. Proposed
system pump:stations would generate noise during their
that could adversely affect the surrounding community.
3.5-22.
water
operation
DEIR page
.: ~
114\eas~ub\fiDd(4)
35
(.!
.-----
....---
:!
;
;,'
"
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/43.0. Design pump stations to reduce
sound levels from operating pump motclrs and emergency
generators. DEIR page 3.5-22.
Findina. Changes or alterations haVE! been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that clvoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Reducing SOUlld levels of the
mechanical equipment will reduce the amount of noise
perceivable by surrounding residents. thereby avoiding the
impact.
DlPACT 3.5r~. potential Flooding. Develc)pment of the Project
and develop~ent of former agricultural, rural, and open space
lands throughout the Tri-Valley will resu:.t in an increase in
runoff to creeks and will result in an inc:reased potential for
flooding. This is also a potentially si~lificant cumulative
impact. DEIR page 3.5-25, 5.0-9.
Mitiaation Measure 3.5/44.0 to 48.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan policies 9-7* and 9-8,* Action Programs 9R* and 95,*
and other EIR mitigations, require a master drainage plan
for each development project in the l~A to provide drainage
facilities adequate to prevent increased erosion or flood-
ing, including channel improvements uith natural creek:
bottoms, and side slopes with natural vegetation,. This
design level plan shall include studies of the development
project area hydrology, potential impacts of the development
proj ect, and proposed design featurel; to minimize runoff
.flows and their effects on erosion alld riparian vegetation.
Development pr()j ects shall also addr4ass potential downstream
flooding, and f;hall include retentioll/detention facilities
andlor <:energy dissipators to minimiz4a and control runoff,
discharge, and to minimize adverse biological and visual
effects. Construct storm drainage facilities in accordance
with approved storm drainage master J?lan. (*5pecific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR 3.5-25 to -26,
5.0-9.;.
Findina. Changes or alterations ha~a been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identi:Eied in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Through plan::ling and implementation
of storm drainage master plans, development projects will
minimize the amount of runoff to creleks and will provide
drainage facil:i.ties to control the r,ate and location of
runoff that does discharge into cree~s. These measures will
minimize the increase in runoff, the:t:'eby avoiding increased
flooding potential.
114\eas~dub\find(4)
36
,-'
...-....
DlPACT 3.5/Z. Reduced Groundwa"ter Recharqe. Increasing the
amount of impervious surfaces in the project area could reduce
the area's already minimal groundwater recharge capabilities.
This is also a potentially significant cumulative impact, as
impervious surfaces inerease throughout the Tri-Valley. DEIR
page 3.5-26~ 5.0-9 to -10.
Miti9ation Measure ~.5/49.0 to 50.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policy 9-9* and other EIR mitigations, plan facilities
and operations that protect and enhance water quality;
support Zone 7's ongoing groundwater recharge program for
the nearby Central Basin, which contains the majority of the
Tri-valley's groundwater resources. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 2.5-26,
5.0-9.
FindinCf. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. These mitigation measures protect
and enhance what minimal groundwater recharge capability
exists'. in the Proj ect area.
DlPACT 3.5/AA. Hon-Point sources of Pollution. Development of
the project could result in a deterioration of the ~a~ity of
stormwater due to an increase in non-point sources of pollution
including (1) urban runoff; (2) non-stormwater discharges to
storm drains; (3) subsurface drainage; and (4) construction site
runoff (erosion and sedimentation). This is also a potentially
significant. cumulative impact as other projects in the subregion
are developed. DEIR page 3.5-26.
MitiCfation Measure 3.5/52.0 to 55.0. The City shall develop
a community based education program on non-point sources of
pollution, coordinating such programs with current Alameda
County programs. The city shall require all development to
meet the requirements of the City'S "Best Management
Practices", the City'S NPDES permit, and the County's Urban
Runoff Clean Water Program to mitigate stormwater pollution.
DEIR 3~5-27, 5.0-10, Addendum.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Education programs will acquaint all
Project area residents with the issue of non-point
pollution, and will suggest ways residents can avoid such
pollution. Existing City, county, and state regulatory
programs will insure that potential impacts of non-point
114\eas~ub\find(4)
37
,-
.-.
sources of pollution or stormwater q\l.a~ity will be mitigated
to a level of insignificance.
Section 3.6 -- soils. Geoloqy. and Seismic:itv
ZHPAC!r3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking: Primary Effects.
Earthquake ground shaking resulting from large earthquakes on
active fault zones in the region, could be, strong to violent, and
cou~d result in damage to structures and infrastructure and, in
extreme cases, loss of life. DEIR page 3.6-7.
Mitiaation Measure 3.6/1.0. Use mode,rn seismic design for
resistance to lateral force in const%'uction of development
projects, and build in accordance wit;h Uniform Building Code
and applicable county and city code requirements. DEIR page
3.6-7.
Findina. Changes or alterations haVE~ been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of OVerriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval elf the Proj ect.
Rationale for Findina. Modern seismi.c design and compliance
wi th applicable building codes will I'educe the risk of
structural failure, major structural damage, and loss of
life from the effects of ground-shaki.ng. These actions will
not, however, cOEpletely avoid the iD~act.
IMPACT 3. 6/C. Earthquake Ground Shaking': Secondary' Bffects. The
secondary effects of ground shaking inclucle seismically-induced
1andsliding, differential compaction andJ clr settlement. This is
also a significant cumulative impact in tbat further development
in the area could expose residents to significant safety hazards
and could strain emergency response systen~. DEIR page 3.6-S,
5.0-10.
Mi tiaation Measure 3. 6/2 . o. In relat:i vely flat areas,
development should be set back from unstable and potentially
unstable land or these landforms should be removed,
stabilized, or reconstructed. Where improvements are
located on unstable land forms, use Dlodern design,
appropriate foundation design, and comply with applicable
codes and,po~icies. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10.
Hi tiaation Measure 3.6/3.0. In hill=:dde areas, where
development may require substantial ~rrading, require
appropriate grading and design to cOlllplete1y remove unstable
and potentially unstable materials. DEIR page 3.6-S,
5.0-10~
114\eastdub\find(4)
3S
---.
.--
Mitiaation Measures 3.6/4.0 to 5.0. Use engineering
techniques and improvements, such as retention structures,
surface and subsurface drainage improvements, properly
designed keyways, and adequate compaction to improve the
stability of fill areas and reduce seismically induced fill
settlement. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10.
Mitiaation Measure 3.6/6.0. Design roads, structural
foundations, and underground utilities to accommodate
estimated settlement without failure, especially across
transitions between fills and cuts. Remove or reconstruct
potentially unstable stock pond embankments in development
areas. DEIR page 3.6-8, 5.0-10.
Mitiaation Measure 3.6/7.0. Require all development
projects in the Project area to perform design level
geotechnical investigations prior to issuing any permits.
The investigations should include stability analysis of
natural and planned engineered slopes, and a displacement
analysis to confirm the effectiveness of mitigation measures
propos~d in the investigation. DEIR page 3.6-9, 5.0-10.
Mitiaation Measure 3.6/8.0. Earthquake preparedness plans
should:be developed by the City and all Project site
residents and employees should be informed of appropriate
measures to take in the event of an earthquake.' DEIR page
3.6-9, .. 5.0-10.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Mitigations 3.6/2.0 to 6.0 provide
specific engineering techniques for reducing the effects of
ground shaking throughout development in the Project area.
Mitigation 3.6/7.0 requires development projects to apply
these and other available engineering techniques at a design
level, to identify specifically the effects that can occur
on a.p~icular site, to propose mitigations specific to
those effects and the site, and to provide a means for
evaluating the likely success of those measures. Through
these engineering, planning, and design mitigations,
development projects will be able to anticipate and avoid or
reduce:qround shaking effects before the development is
built.
DlPACT 3.6/D. substantial Alteration to Project site LandforDlS.
Development of the Project area could result in permanent change
to the Project siters existing topography, particularly in
hillside areas. This is also a significant cumulative impact as
the hillsides and ridgelands of surrounding Tri-valley cities are
1 14\eastduh\fiDd (4)
39
,-.
-.
graded and excavated for development projE~ctS. DE:IR page 3.6-9,
5.0-10.
Mitiqation Measures 3.6/9.0 to 10.0. Adapt improvements to
natural landforms in order to minimi<i:e required cuts and
fills 't;brough such techniques as conlHtruction of partial
pads and use of retaining structures and steeper cut and
fill slopes where appropriate and prc~erly designed.
Further reduce landform alteration b~' carefully siting
individual improvements on specific lots after identifying
geotechnically feasible building arecLS and alignments. site
improvements to avoid adverse geotect~ical conditions and
the need for remedial grading and USE! techniques such as
clusterinq where appropriate to minilldze grading and/or
avoid adverse geotechnical conditiom.. DEIR page 3.6-9.
5.0-10.
Findinq. Changes or alterations haVE! been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that cLvoid or substantially
lessen ;.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for l<'indinq. These mitigat~ion measures provide
design {iand engineering techniques which maintain natural
landfoJhns to the greatest degree pose;ible, and thereby
minimize alteration of those landforIlls. The mitiqations
also require that geotechnical condit~ions be identified for
development projects, allowing individual projects to
identify and reduce, or in some casee. completely avoid, the
condition which might otherwise require alteration.
J:HPACT 3.6/F, G. Groundwater DIlpacts. Gl'oundwater J:mpacts
Associated with J:rriqation. Shallow grour~water conditions occur
in places throughout the RPA and could be caused by irrigation
associated with development of the RPA. ~~ese conditions can
adversely affect the performance of foundcLtion and pavements,
particularly in areas with expansive soile; and bedrock. In
addition, shallow groundwater can cause slope instability,
including landsliding and fill settlement, and can lead to
liquefaction of RPA soils. DEIR page 3.6-'10.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/11.0 to 13.0. Prepare detailed
design ~ilevel geotechnical investigations on development
project;.s within the RPA, to locate and characterize
groundwater conditions and +ormulate design criteria and
measures to mi i:igate adverse condi ticlns . Control
groundwater by construction of subdrcLin systems, remove
stock pond embankments and drain resE!rvoirs in development
areas. (See MM 3.6/4, 6, 15, 18, 23, and 27 for additional
techniques to c:ontrol soil moisture clnd maintain slope
stability. DEJ:R page 3.6-8, -11 thrc1ugh -14.) DEIR page
3.6-10 through -11; RC #15-43.
114\eastdub\find(4)
40
-.
.-.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The geotechnical investigation will
identify areas which have groundwater, and development will
proceeq in accordance with measures to protect structures
and improvements from slope and soil instability due to
shal~ow groundwater.
DlPACT 3.6/H. Shrinking and SWelling of Bxp&JlSive Soils and
Bedrock. The Project site contains expansive soils and bedrock,
which tend to shrink upon drying and swell upon wetting. This
process can~cause distress to overlying structures and infra-
structure, causing damage to foundations, slabs, and pavements.
DEIR page 3.6-11.
Mitiaation Measures 3.6/14.0 to 16.0. Prepare design level
geotechnical investigations for development projects in the
Project area to characterize site-specific soils and bedrock
conditions, and to formulate appropriate design criteria and
mitigation measures for those conditions. Such responsive
measures include, but are not limited to, contrOlling
moisture in the soils and bedrock, and designing foundations
and pavements to be built either below the zone of seasonal
moisture change, or upon structurally supportive floors and
after i;emoval of the expansive materials. DEIR page 3.6-11
to -12~
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen~the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The design level geotechnical
evaluation will identify expansive soils and bedrock and
insure that special techniques are used in these areas to
reduce the risk of structure and infrastructure damage.
DlPACT 3.6/1. Batural Slope Stability. The Project area
contains active and dormant landslides, as well as steep slopes
and colluvium-filled swales, which are subject to potential slope
instability~ and could cause damage to structures and infra-
structure located in these areas. DEIR page 3.6-12.
Mitiaation Measures 3.6/17.0 to 19.0. Development projects
within:the Project area should prepare design level
geotechnical investigations to characterize site-specific
slope stability conditions and to formulate appropriate
design1criteria and mitigation measures in response to those
conditions. Such design measures and mitigations include
siting!:development away from unstable landforms and from
114\eastdub\find(4)
41
-.
--
slopes greater than about 30%, and providing lower density
development in steep, unstable areas. Where unstable areas
cannot.be avoided, design measures and mitigations include
removirlg the unstable Dlaterial, reconstructing or repairing
the unstable area, or engineering structural responses,
including subsurface drainage improv4~ments. (See also MM
3.6/26.0, recommending maintenance an.d inspection plans for
drainage systems. DEIR paqe 3.6-14. > DEIR paqe 3.6-12 to
-~3 .
Findina. Changes or alterations haVI! been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen. the significant effect identij:ied in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The design ll~vel geoteChnical
investigation will disclose areas wh:Lch may be susceptible
to slope instability. Special techn:Lques, such as siting of
structure and i.mprovements, removing the unstable materials,
and providing structural remediation i' will improve slope
stability.
IMPACT 3.6/j. cut and fiJ.lSlope stabili1:y. Potentially
unstable cut and fill slopes may fail or :;ettle, causinq damage
to structures and infrastructure. DEIR page 3.6-13.
Mi tiqation Measures 3.6 f 2 0 . 0 to 2 ~ . 0" Require:'.qrading plans
for hillside areas, which plans miniJ:tl.ize grading and
required cuts and fills by adapting l:oads to natural
landforms, stepping structures down :lteeper slopes, and
demonstrating compliance with applicable building code and
other applicable city and County requirements. DEIR page
3.6-13. .
Hitiqation Measures 3.6122.0 to 25.0.. Detailed design level
geotechnical investigations such as 1:hat required by
mitiqation measure 3.6/17.0 should duscribe and evaluate cut
and fill slopes proposed for developIllent projects in the
RPA. ~etaining structures, reinforcE~ment and drainage
measures should be provided on cut slopes as determined by
code requirements and the specific conditions identified in
the gec:)technical investigation. UnrE~tained cut slopes
should generally not exceed 3: 1. Filled slopes steeper than
5:1 should be keyed and benched into competent material and
provided with subdrainage prior to placing engineered fill.
DEIR pages 3.16-13 to -~4.
Mitiaation Measure 3.6/26.0. Development projects in the
Project area should prepare plans for the periodic in-
spection and maintenance of subsurfa<:e drainage features,
and the removal and disposal of materials deposited in
surface drains and catch basins. (S4~e also measures
1 14\eastdub \fiDd (4)
42
.r--.
.--
described in MM 3.6/28.0.) The plans should include
inspection and disposal procedures, schedule and reporting
requirements, and a responsible party, and should emphasize
overall long-term Project monitoring and maintenance. DEIR
page 3...6-14.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The detailed design level geotechni-
cal investigation will identify areas where cut and fill
slopes are proposed. Specific grading plans affecting these
conditions would be required to show how each development.
project will minimize cut and fill slopes, and how the
remaining slopes will be stabilized through siting or engi-
neering features. Long-term monitoring and maintenance
plans will ensure that the design facilities and engineered
features effectively protect the cut and fill slopes over
the long term.
ZKPACT 3.6/E, L. Erosion and Sedimentation: construction-Related
and Long-Term. Construction of development projects in the RPA
will modify:the ground surface and its protective vegetative
cover and will alter surface runoff and infiltration patterns,
causing shoJrt-term erosion and sedimentation during.:<construction,
and long-term erosion and sedimentation once permanent structures
and improvements are in place. The long-term impact is also a
significant cumulative impact as similar sites are developed
throughout the Tri-valley. DEIR page. 3.6-14, 5.0-11.
Mitiaation Measure 3.6/27.0. Time grading activities to
avoid the rainy season as much as possible, and implement
interim control measures, including but not limited to,
providing water bars, mulch and net blankets on exposed
slopes, straw bale dikes, temporary culverts and swales,
sediment traps, and/or silt fences. DEIR page 3.6-14.
Mitiaation Measure 3.6/28.0. Reduce long-term erosion and
sedimentation impacts through appropriate design, construc-
tion, and c~ntinued maintenance of surface and subsurface
drainaeje. Appropriate measures include, but are not limited
to, constructing sediment catch basins, adequate storm sewer
systems, stabilizing creek banks, revegetating and main"';
taining wooded slopes, constructing facilities to control
drainage and runoff, and emphasizing periodic homeowner/
landowner maintenance. (See also MM 3.6/26.) DEIR page
3.6-15, 5.0-1.1..
11.\eastdub\fiDd(.)
43
-
,---
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen..the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. These mitigcltions include m.easures
to prevent concentration of runoff, control runoff velocity,
and trap silts on both a short-term and long-term basis,
thereby minim.izing the identified iD~act.
section 3.'.-- Bio1o~ical Resources
DlPA~ 3.7/A. Direct Habitat Loss. UndE!r Alternative 2, the
Project will result in the loss, degradation, or disturbance of
1900 acres of existing vegetation. No urlique or rare plant
species occur in the Project area; howevE!r, urbanization will
substantially reduce the habitat and range for botanical and
wildlife sp$cies which are resident or mi.gratory users of the
RPA. The Project contributes to the cum\:llative, ongoing toss of
natural habitat in the Tri-Valley region, and is also a
potentially significant cumulative impact~. DEIR page 3.7-9, 5.0-
1.1, Addendum.
.1
Mitiaation Measures 3.7/1.0 to 3.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan POlicies 6-21* and 6-23,* and }~tion Program 60,*
direct ?disturbance of trees or veget:ation should be
minimized and restricted to those areas actually designated
for construction of improvements. t1evelopment:projects
should. include vegetation enhancemer~/management plans for
all open space areas identifying ways to enhance the
biological potential of the area as wildlife habitat and
focusing on such measures as reintrclducing native species to
increase vegetative cover and plant diversity. Development
projects shall also be required to prepare a detailed
revegetation/restoration plan, developed by a qualified
revegetation specialist, for all dis~urbed areas that are to
remain undeveloped. C*Specific PlaII provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-9, :i. 0-11.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/4.0. The cit~ shall develop and
implement grazing management plans t:o protect riparian and
wetlanq areas, increase plant diversdty, and encourage the
recovery of native plants, especialJy perennial grasses.
DEIR page 3.7--9, 5.0-1.1.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen.the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Restricting direct disturbance to
actual construction areas will reduc:e the amount of habitat
lost. The ve~Jetation and grazing plans will protect and
restore disturbed areas to minimize the amount of habitat
11~\eastdub\find(~)
44
.-----
-.
loss and to enhance the value of the habitat area remaining.
DlPACT 3. 7/B. Zn4irec1; :Impacts of vegetation Relllova~.
Construction activities on the Project site may cause dust
deposition, increased soil erosion and sedimentation, increased
potential for slope failures, and alteration of surface and
subsurface drainage patterns. DEIR page 3.7-9 to -10.
Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0. Pursuant to specific Plan
Policy... 6-22, * all disturbed areas should be revegetated as
quickly as possible with native trees, shrubs, herbs, and
grasseS, to prevent erosion. The City shall determine
specific physical characteristics of proposed revegetation
areas to evaluate the long-term feasibility of the proposed
mitigation and to identify potential conflicts at the site.
Plants used for revegetation will be native to the Tri-
Valley Area. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.)DEIR page 3.7-10; RC # 13-18.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/18.0. 22.0. 23.0. and 3.11/1.0.
Development should avoid siting on steep slopes and should
observe special design and engineering mitigation features
where construction occurs on 3:1 or steeper slopes. The
city of DUblin shall require dust deposition mitigations
during construction, inoluding but not limited to, watering
the construction site, daily Clean-up of mud arid dust,
replanting and repaving and other measures to reduce wind
erosio~. DEIR pages 3.6-12 to -13, 3.7-10, 3.11-3 to -4.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen,ithe significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
~.
Rationale for Finding. Requiring construction to avoid
siting on steep slopes will protect hillside vegetation and
reduce. erosion impacts. Where disturbance is necessary,
engineering and other teChniques to reduce erosion and
.sedimentation and promote slope stability will also ensure
that revegetation efforts to control erosion will be more
efficient and successful.
~ACT 3.7/C. Loss or Deqradation of Botanically sensitive
Babitat. Direot loss and degradation from grading, road
construction, and culvert crossings could adversely affect the
Project area's unique and sensitive Northern Riparian Forest,
Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland, and Freshwater Marsh habitats.
Indirect ~pacts could result from increased sedimentation or
spoil deposition affecting stream flow patterns and damaging
young seedlinqs and the. roots of woody plants. This impact is
also a pote~tially significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.7-
10, 5.0-11. ...
114\eastdub\f~Dd(4)
45
.-
..-.
Mitiaation Measures 3.7/6.0. 7.0. and: 11.0. RiDarian and
Wetland Areas. Pursuant to specific Plan policies 6-9,*
6-10, * and Action Program 6E, * natura.l riparian and wetland
areas shall be preserved wherever pos:sible. All development
projects in the RPA shall consult witn the Army corps of
Engineers (COE) and the California DE!partlnent of Fish and
Game (DFG) to determine these agenciE!s I jurisdiction over
the riparian or wetland area. These areas shall be
incorporated into project open space areas. Any lost
ripari~n habitat shall be replaced as; required by DFG. Any
lost we.tlands shall be mitigated per COE's "no net loss"
policy... (*Specific Plan provisions c!ldopted throughout RPA.)
DEIR pa,.ge 3.7-10, and -11, 5.0-12.
Mitiaation Measures 3.7/8.0 to 10.0. 12.0 to 14.0. Pursuant
to Specific Plan Policies 6-11 to 6-13,* and Action Programs
6F to 6H,* the city shall require re'~getation of natural
stream corridors with native plant species and preservation
and maintenance of natural stream corridors in the Project
area, through measures including, but: not limited to,
avoiding underground drainage systemfl in favor of natural
open-stream channels and retention bclsins. The city shall
establish a stream corridor system (flee specific Plan Figure
6.1) to provide multi-purpose open space corridors for
pedestrian and wildlife circulation. The City should also
work with Zone 7 and DFG to develop a stream corridor
restora,tion program, with standards j:or grading, stabiliza-
tion, imd revegetation, and long-tern managemen~ of RPA
stream~channels. Development projec1:s in the RPA are to be
reviewed against, and any approval shall be consistent with,
the program standards. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-10 to -12, 5.0-12; RC #14-
7, 35-25.
Mitiaation Measure 3.7/15.0. Pursuallt to specific plan
Action Program 6K,* the city of Dublin shall establish and
maintain a liaison with state and fecleral resource manage-
ment agencies throughout the planninq and development
process of individual development prc)jects, in order to
avoid violations of state and federal regulations and insure
that specific issues and concerns arl! recognized and
addressed. (*Specific Plan provisiol'ls adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR paqe 3.7-12, 5.0-12.
Miti9a~ion Measures 3.7116.0 to 17.0. Existing sensitive
habitats shall be avoided and protec.t:ed where feasible.
const~ction near drainages shall ta(e place during the dry
season~: DEIR page 3.7-12, 5.0-12.
Findina. Changes or alterations hava been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. Thesa changes will avoid or
114\eas~ub\~ind(4)
46
-
.-.
"
t
,.
substantially lessen the Project-related significant effects
identified in the final EIR. However, these changes will
not av6id the cumulative effects of lost or degraded
biolog~cally sensitive habitat. Therefore, a statement of
overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of
the Project.
Rationale for Findina. Requiring compliance with "no net
loss" policies will ensure that the amount of habitat shall
remain.constant. By incorporating wildlife corridors into
Project plans, wildlife habitats will be enhanced and will
not become isolated because wildlife will be able to migrate
through these corridors as necessary. Disturbance of
natural stream corridors can reduce the habitat value of
these areas, but will be minimized by requirements to
preserVe and maintain these corridors in a natural, open
condit~on, and by requiring construction to take place in
the drY season. Any disturbed streams shall be rebuilt,
reconstructed and revegetated according to the stream
corridor pl.an, which will further enhance and protect
habitat: values in the RPA. Even with these protections for
the RPA's biologically sensitive resource, the cumulative
impactjcannot be fully mitigated.
IMPACT 3.7/D. .BaD Joaquin Kit Fox. Construction of new roads
and facilities could adversely impact kit fox by destroying
potential dens or burying foxes occupying dens at the time of
construction. Modification of natural habitat could reduce
available prey and den sites. Increased vehicle traffic, the
presence of humans and domestic dogs, and resident use. of poison
for rodent control could kill or disturb foxes or reduce their
prey populations. DEIR page 3.7-12 to -13.
Mitiaation Measure 3.7/18.0. The City shall require all
development in the RPA to comply with the East Dublin San
Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan outlined in Appendix E, DEIR
Part II. Extensive mitigation measures stress siting urban
develoPment to avoid kit fox habitat where possible, and
protecting and enhancing the habitat which remains primarily
in the~open Space and Rural Residential areas. Mitigations
incl.ud. measures for pre-construction and construction
conditions, and address steps to be taken if potential or
known dens are identified. DEIR page 3.7-13, DEIR Appendix
E (as revised fol.lowing RC #20-7.)
Mitiaation
with other
identifies
fox in the
Measure 3.7/18.1. The city of Dublin shall work
agencies to develop a management plan that
measures to protect viable habitat for the kit
Tri-Valley area. RC #20-5.
114\eas~Ub\find(4)
47
.--.
---'.
Hi tiaation Measure 3.7/19.0. PursuaJllt to specific Plan
Action, Program 6N, * the city shall rt~strict rodenticide and
herbicide use. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-13.
Findina. Changes or alterations havt~ been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
1essen the siq.nificant effect identi:Eied in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Appendix E p:rovides a comprehensive
protection plan addressing several ~Ilases of kit fox
protection, from avoidance of potential dens to maintenance
of habitat. Through this plan, the :?roject will avoid most
direct;'and indirect adverse effects ,:m any kit fox that
might be present in the Project area.
.1
DlPACTS 3.7/F to:t. Reel-legged Frog, Callfornia Tiger
salaman4er,Western Pond Turtle, Tri-colo:t'ed. Blackbird. The
destruction and alteration of water impo~lldments and stream
courses in the RPAthreatens to eliminate habitat for these
species. Increa~ed sedimentation into th.~ riparian areas could
reduce water quality and threaten breedin9 and larval habitat.
Disturbance of the already minimal vegeta.tion in the stream
courses could reduce habitat opportunity Eor adult species.
Increased vehicle traffic and new road cO:llstruction could
increase direct mortality. Harassment an-;! predation. by feral
dogs and cats already occurs, and would i:ncrease with increased
residential development. DEIR page 3.7-13 to -14.
Hitiaation Measures 3.7/20.0 to 22.0. Pursuant to specific
Plan Action Program 6L* and other EI:R mitigations, develop-
ment projects in the RPA shall prepa~e open space plans to
enhance and preserve existing habi ta.t and revegetation plans
for any disturbed open space or hab~tat areas and shall
preserve and protect riparian, wetla:nd, and stream corridor
areas whenever possib1e. (see MMs 3.7/2.0 to 3.0.)
Maintain a minimum buffer of at leas.t 100 feet around
breeding sites of the red-legged fro-;, California tiger
salamander, and Western pond turtle. Development projects
in the'RPA shall conduct a pre-const~ction survey within
sixty days prior to habitat modific4cion to verify the
presence of sensitive species. (*specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.7-14.
Findina. Changes or alterations ha~e been required.in, or
incorporated into, the Project that ,avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Open space protection, revegetation,
and restoration planning, as well as planning to protect and
enhance wetland and riparian areas will also protect and
114\eas~dub\fiDd(4)
48
.----~
.-.
minimize impacts to the riparian habitat necessary for the
specie~ identified in this impact.
IKPACTS 3.7IK. Golden Eaq1e: The conversion of grasslands and
the consequent reduction of potential prey could reduce the
amount and quality of foraging habitat for golden eagles. Noise
and human activity associated with development could also disrupt
foraging ac~ivities. Elimination of golden eagle foraging habi-
tat is also a potentially significant cumulative impact which
contributes to the overall regional loss of foraging habitat for
this species. DEIR paqe 3.7-15, 5.0-12.
Mitiaation Measure 3.7/25.0. Designate substantial areas of
land in the Project area as Open Space or Rural Residential
(includinq future study areas), providing open space
protection and low intensity development that will also
provide a suitable foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-15,
5.0-12.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Providing a natural open space zone
around ,the existing golden eagle nest avoids destruction of
the nesting site; providing an additional buffer during the
golden..eagle reproductive period. further proteCts the
integrity of the existing nestin~ site. Tbe natural open
space zone, together with the over acres of open
space and low intensity development across the. Project site
provides ample opportunity to maintain effective foraging
habitat for golden eagles.
IMPACT 3.7/L. Golden Eagle and Other Raptor Electrocutions.
Golden eagles and other raptors which perch or fly into hiqh-
voltage transmission lines may be electrocuted. DEIR page
3.7-15.
Miti9ation Measures 3.7/26.0 and 3.4/42.0. Require all
utilities to be located below grade where feasible.
Pursuant to specific Plan Action program 6M,* require all
transmission lines to be undergrounded where feasible.
Where not feasible, design specifications to protect raptors
from electrocution shall be implemented. These specifica-
tions include, but are not limited to, spacing dangerous
components; insulating conductors,. using non-conductive
materials, or providing perch guards on cross arms; and
avoiding grounded steel cross arm braces. C*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throuqhout RPA.) DEIR page 3.4-24, 3.7-
1.5 to -1.6.
114\eas~ub\fiDd(4)
49
.~.
----.
Findinq. Changes or alterations ha'.re been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findino. undergrouncling utilities, including
all transmission lines, avoids the c~lectrocution hazard.
Where the hazard cannot be avoided 1:hrough undergrounding,
the design specifications identified in the mitigations
reduce,the electrocution hazards by neutralizing and/or
coverit.ig the 1:eatures that provide C)pportunities for
electrocution.
IMPACT 3.7/14, It. Burrowing OW1 and Amer:Lcan Badger. Annual
grasslands in the.RPA provide suitable habitat for burrowing
owls. Development and related construction activity could
destroy both burrowing owl and American badger burrows. Harass-
ment by feral dogs and cats, as well as llse of poisons for rodent
control, could harm these species and/or reduce their prey
populations. DEIR page 3.7-16 to -17.
Mitioation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 27,0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Action Program 6L* and other EIR mitigations, develop-
ment projects in the RPA shall conduct a pre-construction
survey within sixty days prior to hcLbitat modification to
verify the presence of sensitive spElcies. The projects
shall maintain a minimum. buffer of cLt least 300,. feet around
the breeding sites of the American badger during the
breeding season (March to September) to avoid direct loss of
individuals. Also, projects shall maintain aminillLum. buffer
of at least 300 feet around known or identified:-nesting
sites of the burrowing owl, or implE~ent other mitigation
action* pursuant to standardized prcltocol now under
development, including relocation 01: nesting sites in
coordination with the USFWS and the CDFG. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR pages 3.7-14, and
-17; RC #15-60. .
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or SUbstantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findino. The pre-construction survey and
required buffer zone around known nesting and breeding sites
preserves these species' burrows by allowing them to be
avoided during the construction and development process.
IMPACT 3.7/0. prairie Palcon, Northern Barrier, and Black-
Shou1dered Kite. Development in the RPA could cause loss of
foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-17.
If
:'
114\eas~dub\f~d(4)
50
~.
.-
Mitiaation Measure 3.7/25.0. Substantial areas of land in
the Project area are designated for open space and 10w
intens~ty Rural Residential 1and uses (including future
study areas). DEIR pages 3.7-15 and -17.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
1essen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The designated open space and low
intensity rural residential uses provide adequate foraging
habitat for these species.
DlPACT 3. 7/P . Sharp-Shinned Hawk and Cooper I s Hawk. Development
in the RPA cou1d cause loss of foraging habitat. DEIR page 3.7-
17.
Miti9ation Measures 3.7/6.0 throuah 17.0 and 21.0.
Establish protective buffer zones for riparian and fresh-
water marsh habitats to protect and enhance sensitive
habitats. Preserve riparian, wetland, and stream corridor
areasi~where avoidance of these areas is not feasible,
prepare and implement habitat restoration, enhancement and
maintenance plans. DEIR pages 3.7-10 to -12, -14, -17.
:.I
Findind. Changes or alterations have been reqwired in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or. suPstantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the; Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. The mitigations provide,
preservation, enhancement and maintenance features for
riparian and freshwater marsh habitats upon which these
species rely for forage. Protecting and enhancing this
habitat avoids the impact of lost habitat.
IMPACT 3.7/S. special status Invertebrates. Impacts to special
status invertebrates cannot be estimated at this time. DEIR page
3.7-18. \
i~
Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0. species-specific surveys shall
be con~ucted in appropriate riparian/wetland habitats prior
to approval of specific projects in the RPA. DEIR page 3.7-
18, Add,endum.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identif~ed in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Any potential impacts to special
status Invertebrates will be addressed during CEQA review of
specific development projects in the RPA.
114\eas~duh\fiDd(4)
51
.i
.,.--. .
.-.,
section 3.8 -- Visua1 Resources
DlPAC'l' 3.8/A. standardized "Tract" Development. Generic
"cookie-cutter" development could obscure the specific natural
features of the RPA, such as its landforDs, vegetation, and
watercourses, that make it a unique place with its own identity.
DEIR page 3 ~.8-4.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0. Pursua~t to the goal statement
in Spe~ific Plan Section 6.3.4,* estab1isb a visually
distinCtive community which preserves the character of the
naturell landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors and public
spaces. Implement the extensive design guidelines for
development as described in Chapter 7* of the Specific Plan.
These guidelines provide a flexible design framework, but do
not compromise the community character as a whole.
(*specific Plan provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR
page 3.8-5.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated i.nto, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. By protecti~g key natural and visual
elements, the Project maintains the natural features of the
RPA, which make it unique. The general design guidelines
for the Project, inCluding a village center, town center,
mixed use orientation, and varying lot sizes, provide a
varied 'development pattern, which avoids the look of
stand~d cookie-cutter tract developnents.
rMPACT 3.8/B. A1teration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character.
Urban development of the RPA will subst~tially alter the
existing rural and open space qualities that characterize eastern
Dublin. This is also a significant cumulative impact as the
natural rural character of the Tri-Valley subregion is replaced
by urban development. DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.1.0-12.
Mitiaation Measure 3.8/2.0. Implement the land use plan for
the RPA, which plan emphasizes retaining the predominant
natural features, such as ridgelines and watercourses, and
preserves the sense of openness that characterizes Eastern
Dublin. DEIR page 3.8-5, 5.0-12.
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
chang-es, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
114\eastdUb\f~d(4)
52
,--.
. ------
Rationale for Findina. Maintaining predominant natural
features minimizes the alteration of the RPA's current rural
open space character; however, it does not fully mitigate
this impact.
IMPACT 3.a/C. Obscuring Distinctive Natural Features. The
characteristic unvegetated landscape of the RPA heightens the
visual importance of existing trees, watercourses, and other
salient natural and cultural features. The Project has the
potential to obscure or alter these existing features and thereby
reduce the visual uniqueness of the site. DEIR page 3.8-5.
Mitiaation Measure 3.8/3.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
POlicy 6-2B,* preserve the natural open beauty of the hills
and other important visual resources, such as creeks and
major stands of vegetation. (*Specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-5.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorpQrated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen.!;the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Ration~le for Findina. This mitigation measure calls for
preservation of the RPA's important visual resources,
thereby avoiding the impact of obscured or altered visually
important features. .
IMPACT 3.8/D. AlteratioD of Visual QUality of Hillsides.
Grading and excavation of building sites in hillside areas will
severely compromise the visual quality of the RPA.'.DEIR page
3.8-6.
Mitiaation Measures 3.8/4.0 to 4.5. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 6-32,* and 6-34 to -38,* grading and
excavation throughout the RPA should be minimized, by using
such grading features as gradual transitions from graded
ares to natural slopes, by revegetation of graded areas, by
maintaining natural contours as much as possible and grading
only tne actual development areas. Building pads in
hillside areas should be graded individually or stepped,
wherever possible. structures and roadways should be
designed in response to the topographical and geotechnical
conditions. Structures should be designed to blend in with
surrounding slopes and topography and the height and grade
of cut and fill slopes should be minimized wherever
feasible. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted throughout
RPA.) DEIR page 3.B-6.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
114\eastdub\fiDd(4)
53
};
i,l
..-.
, -----
Rationale for Findina. The various grading techniques
identified, together with revegetation and sensitive
building design will avoid the impac,t by minimizing physical
alteration throughout the RPA.
IMPACT 3.8/B. A1teration of visua1 oua1i,ty of aidqes.
structures built in proximity to ridges lIlClY obscure or fraCJ1llent
the profile. of visually-sensitive ridgelines. DEIR page 3.8-6.
Mitiaation Measures 3.8/5.0 to 5.2. pursuant to specific
Plan POlicy 6-29, * development is ne,t permitted on the main
ridqeline that; borders the specific Plan area to the north.
and east, but may :be permitted on the foreground hills and
ridgelands. Minor interruptions of views of the main
ridgeline by individual building mas:ses may :be permitted
only where all other remedies have I:leen exhausted. PUrsuant
to specific Plan Policy 6-30* and Ge~neral Plan Amendment
Guiding pOlicy E, structures shall flot obstruct scenic views
and shall not appear to extend abOVE! an identified scenic
ridgetop when viewed from scenic ro~~es. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen:the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. prohibiting development along the
main ridgeline in the RPA preserves the visual. quality of
this resource. Limiting development; so that structures are
not silhouetted against other scenic: ridgetops,. as well as
requiring that a backdrop of natural ridgeline remain
visible, miniDlizes the obstruction clr fragmentation of
visually sensitive ridgelines.
IHPAC'l' 3.8/F. Alteration of Visual Char;.cter of Flatlands.
Commercial and residential development 01' the RPA's flatlands
will completely al't:er the existing visual character resulting
from valley grasses and agricultural fields. DEIR page 3.8-7.
Miti<1ation Measures. None identifiEld. DEIR page 3.8-7.
Findina. No (:hanges or alterations are available to
substantially lessen this impact. ,]~herefore, a statement of
Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of
the Project.
Rationale for Findina. Development of the project site's
flatter areas is regarded as a "trade-off" measure designed
to preserve slopes, hillsides, and ridgelines.
114\eastdub\f1nd(4)
54
.-
-.
XHPACT 3.8/G. A1teration of the visual Character of Water-
courses. Urban development of the Project site in proximity to
watercourse~ may diminish or eliminate their visibility and
function as::,distinct landscape elements. DEIR page 3.8-7.
Mitiaation Measure 3.8/6.0. Pursuant to Specific Plan
Policy 6-39,* protect the visual character of Tassajara
Creek and other stream corridors from unnecessary alteration
or disturbance. Adjoining development should be sited to
maintain visual access to the stream corridors. Implement
earlier identified mitigation measures 3.7/8.0, 12.0, and
13.0, to revegetate stream corridors to enhance their
natural appearance, to prepare a comprehensive stream
corridor restoration program, and to establish dedication of
land along both sides of stream corridors. (*Specific Plan
provisions adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-7 to -8,
3.7-10 to -11.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. preserving the RPA watercourses will
retain both their visibility and function as distinct
landscape elements. Special attention to stream corridors
through revegetation, restoration, and dedication of land
along both sides, will further enhance this distinct
landscape element.
DlPACT 3.8/T.. Scenic visus. Development on the RPA will alter
the character of existing scenic vistas and may obscure important
sightlines. DEIR page 3.8-8.
Mitiaation Measure 3.8/7.0 to 7.1. Pursuant to Specific
Plan policy 6-5* and other EIR mitigations, preserve views
of designated open space areas. The City will conduct a
visual survey of the RPA to identify and map viewsheds of
scenic vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.)
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen ,the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding. Identifying and mapping critical
viewsheds allows the City to consider specific ways of
preserving those views when reviewing development projects
within: the RPA.
:IJlAGB 3.8/J. scenic Routes. Urban development of the RPA will
significantly alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic
114\eas~dUb\find(4)
55
.-
-,
routes in eastern Dublin. As quiet rural roads become major
suburban thoroughfares, foreground and distant views may be
obstructed. DEIR page 3.8-8 to -9.
Mitiaation Measure 3.8/8.0. Pursuar.~ to Specific Plan
Action Program 6Q,* the City should officially adopt
Tassajara Road, I-580, and Fallon Rc.ad as designated scenic
corridors, should adopt scenic corridor policies, and should
establish development review proced~res and standards to
preserve scenic vistas. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9.
Mitiqation Measure 3.8/8.1. Pursual1.t to specific Plan
Action Program 6R,* the City should require that projects
with potential impacts on scenic cOJ:ridors submit detailed
visual analysis with development preject applications. The
analysis shall include graphic simulations and/or sections
drawn from affected travel corridors and representing
typical views from scenic routes. (*Specific Plan
provisfons adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.8-9.
Findincr. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Establishing scenic co~idor
policies will insure that the visual experience of travelers
along scenic routes be maintained as much as possible.
Requiring visual analyses will allo~. the city to specifi-
cally review development projects fer their visual impacts
and to review how locations of structures and associated
landscaping can be used to adjust the project design to
minimize its visual impacts from scenic routes.
Section 3.' -- CUltural Resources
XMPACT 3.'/A. Disruption or Destruction of xdentified
Prehistoric i.Resources. Due to the level of development proposed
in the RPA, ji t is assumed that all prehistoric sites identified
in the 1988 ; inventory will be disturbed cr altered in some
manner. DEIR page 3.9-6.
Mitiaation Measures 3.9/1.0 to 4.0. Develop a testing
program to determine the presence OJ: absence of hidden
deposits in all locations of prehistoric resources. All
locations containing these components shall be recorded with
the State of California and their bcrders will. be staked so
that professional survey teams may develop accurate location
maps. If any of these recorded and mapped locations are
affected by future construction or increased access to the
areas, evaluat;ive testing, consistir,g of collecting and
114\ea8~dub\find(4)
56
/-.
'~'-.
analyzing any surface concentration of materials, shall be
undertaken in order to prepare responsive mitigation
measures. The city shall hire a qualified archaeologist to
develop a protection program for prehistoric sites con-
taining siqnificant surface or subsurface deposits of
cultural materials in areas where development will alter the
current condition of the resource. DEIR page 3.9-6 to -7.
Findin9. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. Throuqh these mitigations,
prehistoric resources can be identified and mapped, and
specific mitigation plans prepared as part of review of
development projects that will affect the resources.
IMPACT 3.9/B. Disruption or Destruction of Unidentified Pre-
Historic Resources. PreviOUSly ~nidentified pre-historic
resources may exist in the RPA and would be subject to potential
disruption or destruction by construction and development
activities associated with the Project. DEIR page 3.9-7.
Mitiaation Measures 3.9/5.0 to 6.0. Pursuant to specific
Plan Policy 6-25* and Action Program 6P,* cease any grading
or construction activity if historic or prehistoric remains
are discovered until the significance and extent of those
remain$ can be ascertained by a certified archaeologist.
Development projects in the RPA shall prepare an archaeolo-
gical site sensitivity determination and detai~ed research
and field reconnaissance by a certified archaeologist, and
develop a mitiqation plan. C*Specific Plan provisions
adopted throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-7.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. These mitigations will insure that
any significant prehistoric resources which are discovered
during';development activities are not disrupted or
destro~ed.
IMPACT 3.9/e. Disruption or Destruction of Identified Historic
Resources. iDue to the level of development proposed in the RPA,
it is assumed that all historic sites identified in the 1988
inventory will be disturbed or altered in some manner. Even
cultural resources in the proposed Open space and Rural Residen-
tial areas will potentially be disturbed or altered due to the
presence of new residential population ,in the area. DEIR page
3.9-8.
114\eas~ub\~iDd(4)
57
.-
.-.
Mitiaation Measures 3.9/7.0 to 12.0. Pursuant to Specific
Plan Policies 6-26* and 6-27* and other mitigations
identified in the EIR, all properties with historic
resources and all standing structural remains shall be
evaluated by an architectural historian as part of in-depth
archival research to determine the significance of the
resource prior to any alteration. All historic locations in
the 1988 inventory shall be recorded on official state of
California historical site inventory forms. These records
should:'be used to make sure that hist.orical locations are
recordE;!d .onto development maps by prc,fessional surveyors.
Where the disruption of historical resources is unavoidabl.e,
encourage the adaptive reuse or reste,ration of the struc-
tures whenever feasible. A qualified. architectural
historian shall be hired to devel.op a. preservation proqram
for historic sites found to be significant under Appendix K
of the CEQA guidelines. (*Specific Plan provisions adopted
throughout RPA.) DEIR page 3.9-8.
Findina. Changes or alterations have, been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that a~oid or substantially
lessen.. the significant effect identifie9, in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina . Archival rese:arch and. recordation of
historical. sites on state inventory i'orms will insure that
histor~cal resources are identified tllroughoutthe project
area. . ~Encouraging adaptive reuse or restoration of historic
structUres and devel.opment of a prese:rvation program for
historic sites will insure that ident~ified resources are not
disturbed or destroyed.
IKPACT 3. 9/D. Disruption or Destruction Clr UJlidentified Historic
Resources. Previously unidentified historic resources may exist
in the RPA and woul.d be subject to potential disruption or
destruction by construction and developmerlt acti vi ties associated
wi th the Proj ect. DEIR page 3.9-8.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 to 7.0. 9.0. 10.0. and 12.0.
These previously identified mitigaticlD measures will be used
to ascertain the presence of unidentified historic resources
on a development project site in the RPA. If a historic
resourc.e is identified, archival. resE!arch shall be performed
to determine the significance of the resource or structure.
The City shall hire a qualified architectural historian to
develop a preservation program for s:.gnificant historic
sites. t DEIR page 3.9-7 to -9.
Findin9. Changes or alterations haVE! been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that uvoid or substantially
lessen ; the significant effect identij:ied in the Final EIR.
114\eas~dub\fiDd(4)
58
,-
.-...
Rationale for Findina. Mitigations will ensure that any
significant historic resources which are discovered during
development activities are not disrupted or destroyed.
Section 3.10 -- Hoise
XMPAC~ 3.10/A. Exposure of Proposed Rousing to Puture Roadway
Noise. Proposed residential housing along Dublin Boulevard,
Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, and Hacienda Drive will be exposed
to future noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. DEIR page 3.10-
2.
Mitiaation Measure 3.10/1.0. Require acoustical studies for
all residential development projects within the future CNEL
60 contour to show how interior noise levels will be reduced
to 45 dB.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lesseni;the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
\
Rationale for Findina. The required acoustical studies must
show how interior noise exposures are reduced to 45 dB CNEL,.
the minimum acceptable noise level.
IMPACT 3.10/B. Exposure of Existing Residences to IUture Roadway
Hoise. Increased traffic noise on local roads would, result in
significant cumulative noise level increases along Tassajara .(4
dB), Fallon (6dB), and Hacienda Roads of 6 dB. This is a
potentially significant cumulative impact in that small indivi-
dual Project noise increases considered together and over the
long term, will substantially increase overall noise levels.
DEIR page 3 ~;10-3, 5.0-13.
Mitiaation Measures 3.10/2.0. All development projects in
the RPA shall provide noise barriers or berms near existing
residen,ces to control noise in outdoor use spaces. DEIR
page 3~:10-3.
.
Mitiaation Measure 3.10/7.0. To mitigate cumulative noise
impacts, the city shall develop a noise mitigation fee to
pay for on- and Off-site noise mitigations, including but
not limited to, noise barriers, earthen berms, or
retrofitting structures with sound-rated windows. DEIR page
5.0-13.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
114\ea~dub\f~d(4)
59
.-.,
Rationale for Finding. providing nc)ise barriers or berms
will reduce noise exposure for exist:ing residences; however,
mitigation may not be feasible at all locations because of
site constraints such as driveways nnd proximity to road-
ways. Furthermore, while developers will provide funding for
noise ~itigations to reduce overall noise levels, funds
derived from the experimental progrcm may not adequately
mitigate the cumulative impact. ThE!refore, this noise
impact-cannot be fully mitigated.
DlPACT 3.10/D. Exposure of Proposed ResiLdentia~ DeveJ.opment to
Noise ~ro. Future HiJ.itary Training Acti,rities at parks aeserve
Forces Training Area (camp Parks RFTA) and the county Jail..
Residential development on the Project site within 6000 feet of
camp Parks RFTA and the County Jail could be exposed to noise
impacts from gunshots and helicopter overflights. DEIR page
3.10-4.
Mitiaation Measure 3.10/3.0. The City shall require an
acoustical study prior to future development in the Foothill
Residential, Tassajara Village CentE~r, county Center, and
Hacienda Gateway subareas (as definE~d in Figure 4.2 of the
Specific Plan) to determine whether future noise impacts
from Camp Parks and the county jail will be within accept-
able limits. This study should identify and evaluate all
potential noise generating operations. DEIR page 3.10-4.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. HowE~ver, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findina. The required acoustical study will
identify noise sensitive areas in tlle Project site and noise
generating opE!rations at Camp Parks and the jail. and will
propose mitigation to reduce noise impacts to acceptable
limits. However, mitigation may not: be possible at all
critical locat:ions, so the impact m<LY not be fully
mitigated.
IMPACT 3.10/E. Exposure of EXisting and proposed Residences to
Construction Roise.. construction would CICCur over years on the
Project site and will be accompanied by lIoise from truck activity
on local roads, heavy equipment used in c;rrading and paving,
impact noises during structural framing, and pile driving.
Construction impacts will be most severe near existing residen-
tial uses along Tas;sajara Road and near E!xisting uses in the
southern portion 01: the Proj ect area. DI:IR page 3. 10-4.
114\eastdub\fiDd(4)
60
.----
-...
Mitiaation Measures 3.10/4.0 to 5.0. Development projects
in the RPA shall submit a Construction Noise Management
Program that identifies measures proposed to minimize
construction noise impacts on existing residents. The
Program shall include a schedule for grading and other major
noise-generating activities, limiting these activities to
the shortest possible number of days. Other noise
mitigation measures include, but are not limited to,
restricting hours of construction activity, developing
construction vehicle access routes which minimize truck
traffic through residential areas, and developing a
mitiga~ion plan for construction traffic that cannot be
avoided in residential areas. In addition, all development-
related operations should comply with local noise standards,
including limiting activity to daytime hours, muffling
stationary equipment, and locating that equipment as far
away from sensitive receptors as possible. DEIR page 3.10-
4 to -5.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findinq. Through these mitigation measures,
developers will limit the intensity and duration of noise
exposure experienced by existing residences in<construction
areas. Other mitigations will limit noise exposure by
moving the noise-generating equipment as far away from
residential uses as possible.
IMPACT 3.10/P. Roise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse
Land Uses Permitted.bY Plan Policies supporting K1xed-Use
DevelopDlent~ The presence of different land use types wi thin the
same development creates the possibility of noise impacts between
adjoining uses, particularly when commercial and residential land
uses abut. <DEIR page 3.10-5.
Mitigation Measure 3.10/6.0. Development projects in the
RPA shall prepare noise management plans to be reviewed as
part of the development application for all mixed use
projects involving residential uses and non-residential
uses. To be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant,
the plan should aim to provide a high quality acoustic
environment for residential and non-residential users and
should propose steps to minimize or avoid potential noise
problems. The plan should address the concerns of resi-
dents, non-residential users, and maintenance personnel, and
should .make maximum use.of site planning to avoid noise
conflicts. DEIR page 3.10-5 to -6.
"
114\ea&~dub\fibd(4)
61
,-...
-.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Findina. The required noise management plans
allow both the developer and the city to anticipate possible
noise conflicts in mixed-use developments and to propose
specific measures to address the specific conflicts identi-
fied. ~occurring at an early stage in the process and
reviewed with the development application, projects can make
use of. the greatest array of conflict reducing techniques,
including building design and site planning. compliance
with these mitigations will lessen or avoid potential noise
conflicts from adjacent mixed uses.
IMPACT 3.11/A. Dust Deposition soiling Nuisance from
construction Activity. Clearing, grading, excavation, and
unpaved roadway travel related to project construction will
generate particulate matter which may settle out near the
construction sites, creating a soiling nuisance. Any additional
dust pollution will worsen the air basin's non-attainment status
for particulates. Dust emissions is therefore also a potentially
significant cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11-3, 5.0-13.
Mitiaation Measure 3.11/1.0. Require development projects
in the Project area to implement dust control.measures,
including but not limited to, watering construction sites,
Cleaning up mud and dust carried by construction vehicles,
effective covers on haul trucks, planting, repaving., and
other revegetation measures on exposed soil surfaces,
avoiding unnecessary idling of construction equipment,
limiting on-site vehicle speeds, and monitoring particulate
matter "levels. These measures will reduce project dust
deposition to acceptable levels, but will not avoid
cumulative impacts of dust generation. DEIR page 3.11-3 to
-4, 5.0-13.
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, cumulative dust generation impacts will not be
substantially avoided. Therefore, a statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project.
Rationale for Findina. The mitigation measures identify
various feasible and reasonable dust control measures that
. developers can take during construction activity. These
measures elimi.nate and/or minimize the amount and effect of
dust deposition in construction areas. Even with these
measures, however, some small amount of additional pollution
will occur. 'l'herefore, the cumulative impacts of dust
emissidns cannot be fully mitigated.
114\eastdub\find(4)
62
~i
-..
..-,
'.
XHPACT 3.11/B. CODs~ructioD Equipment/Vehicle Emissions.
Construction equipment operation generates daily exhaust
emissions. Normally considered a temporary impact, buildout of
the Project area over the long term will be a chronic source of
equipment/vehicle emissionS. This is also a potentially signifi-
cant cumulative impact due to the non-attainment status of the
air basin. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13.
Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0 to 4.0. Minimize construction
interference with regional non-Project traffic movement by
scheduling and routing construction traffic to non-peak
times and locations. Provide ride-Sharing incentives for
construction personnel. Require routine low-emission tune-
ups for on-site equipment. Require development projects in
the Project area to prepare a Construction Impact Reduction
Plan incorporating all proposed air quality mitigation
strategies with clearly defined responsibilities for plan
implementation and supervision. DEIR page 3.11-4, 5.0-13.
Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of OVerriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findina. The mitigations include construction
timing and siting measures that will reduce eqaipment and
vehicle emissions over the long-term buildout of the
Project. Even with these mitigations, however, neither
Project nor cumulative air quality impacts can-be fu.lly
mitigated.
IKPACT 3.11/C. Kobile Source Emissions: ROO or HOE. Project
implementation at full buildout will generate 500,000 da~ly
automobile trips within the air basin. Mobile source eDl1ssions
for ROG and:NOx associated with these vehicle trips are
precursors to ozone formation. The emissions associated with
this level o.f vehicle use will far exceed BAAQMD thresholds for
significantieffect. This is also a potentially significant
cumulative impact. DEIR page 3.11-5, 5.0-14.
Mitiaation Measures 3.11/5.0 to 11.0. Exercise interagency
cooperation on a subregional and regional basis to integrate
local air quality planning efforts with transportation,
transit and other infrastructure plans. Implement techni-
ques, such as transportation demand management (TDM),
shifting travel to non-peak periods, and encouraging mixed-
use development which provides housing, jobs, goods and
services in close proximity as a means of reducing vehicle
trips and related emissions and congestion. At the
development project level, maintain consistency between
1 14\eastdub\fiDd (4)
63
,...-.....
-,
specific development plans and regional transportation and
growth management plans, coordinate J.evels of growth with
roadway transportation facilities and improvements, and
require linkage between housing grow1:h and job opportunities
to achieve a positive subregional jobs/housing balance.
DEIR pa,ge 3.11-5, 5.0-14.
Finding. Changes or alterations havE~ been required in, or
incorporated into the project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a statement of overriding considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the project.
Rationale for l"indina. The various 1:echniques described in
the mitigation measures provide oppol~unities to reduce
vehicle trips, and therefore reduce vehicle emissions.
However, becau~~e of the size of this Project, neither
Project nor cumulative impacts can bH fully mitigated.
IKPACT 3.11/E. stationary Source Emissions. Specific Plan
buildout will create emissions from a varj_ety of sources,
including but not lindted to, fuel combus1:ion in power plants,
evaporative.emissions from paints, and subsurface decay of
organic materials associated with solid wilste disposal. This is
also a potentially ~;ignificant cumulative impact. DEIR page
3.11-6, 5.0~14.
Mitiaa"tiion Measures 3.11/12.0 to 13.q. Minimize stationary
source;emissions associated with Pro:iect devel.Opment where
feasible, with the goal of aChieving 10 percent above the
minimum conservation target levels eBtablished in Title 24
of the California Code of Regulationu. Include sol.id waste
recycling in all devel.opment plannin~r. DEIR page 3.11-6,
5.0-14.
Findina. Changes or alterations haVE! been required in, or
incorporated into the Project. However, even with these
changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions must be adopted upon approval of the Project..
Rationale for Findina. Focusing on reducing emissions from
various sources will allow an incremEmtal reduction in
statiorlary source emissions. These reductions will not,
however, be sufficient to avoid eithE!r Project-related or
CUlIlulati ve impclctS.
114\eastduh\fiDd(4)
64