Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 DubTransitVilgeNegDec CITY CLERK File #J II et Goo &e AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 20, 2004 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 02-003 AMB Properties, West Dublin Transit Village - Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, and Development Agreement Prepared by Janet Harbin, Senior Planner LO~ ' ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program with attached Exhibits: Exhibit A: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Exhibit B: Comments Received and Staff Responses 2. Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan with attached Exhibits: Exhibit A: Rezoning Exhibit, Development Plan, Project Plans 3. Applicant's Written Statement, Project Plans, Elevations (Binder 1) Project-Related Technical Studies (Binder 2) - Distributed under separate cover 4. Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City and AMB Properties (with Development Agreement ' attached as Exhibit A) 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-08, Recommending City Council Adoption of a Mitigation Negative Declaration for the Legacy Partners/AMB Transit Village Project [PA 02-003] [Attached to Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.1] 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-09, Recommending City Council Approx~al of a Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning/Stage 2 Development Plan for PA 02-003 LegacY Partners - West Dublin Transit Village [Attached to Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.1] 7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-12, Approving a Tentative Parcel Map 8069 and Site Development Review PA 02-003 Legacy Partners - West Dublin Transit Village (with Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069 attached as Exhibit A, and Site Plan attached as Exhibit B) [Attached to Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.1] 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-11, Recommending that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance for a Development g:\pa#L2002\02-003 legacy\cc\ccsrkitl.doc COPIES TO: Property Owner Interested Parties PA file Appellant Agreement for PA 02-003 West Dublin Transit Village [Attached to Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.1] 9. Planning Commission Staff report and minutes from February 24, 2004 [Attached to Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.1] 10. Planning Commission Staff report and minutes from February 24, 2004 [Attached to'Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.1] 11. List of Project-Related Studies and Information 12. Late Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Staff Responses RECOMMENDATON: 1. Hear Staff presentation. 2. Open public hearing. 3. Take testimony from the Applicant and the public. 4. Question Staff, Applicant, and the public. 5. Close public hearing and deliberate. 6. Adopt Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 1). 7. Waive the Reading and Introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 2) approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan. 8. Waive the Reading and Introduce the Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City and AMB Properties (Attachment 4). DESCRIPTION: AMB .Property Incorporated has submitted a project application consisting of a Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development'Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review and a Development Agreement for a mixed-use project transit village consisting of a four and ½ story structure, containing a maximum of 304 multi-family residences with a small amount of neighborhood retail uses on the ground story. The project also includes the construction of an approximately 150,500 square foot office building on the southern portion of the site closest to Dublin Creek (Alameda County Flood Control Channel Channel Line Tand 1-580 freeway corridor. The approximately 9.06 acre property is developed with a warehouse managed by Legacy Partners. The site is owned by AMB Property, Inc. who is the Applicant and Developer for this project.. Legacy Partners has been assisting AMB Property, Inc., with the processing of the project through the City. The property is located northwest of the 1-580 freeway, south of the future extension of St. Patrick Way in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area of Dublin. The extension of St. Patrick Way will be constructed as part of the AMB Property, Inc. project. Adjacent to the west boundary of the property are light industrial and professional/administrative office uses. Adjacent to the east is the Ampelon Development Group (formerly Orix) residential project on vacant property owned by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), and recently approved by the City Council for high-density residential land use and commercial development. The Project has been the subject of several prior City approvals. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan (WDBSP) and related General Plan amendment were adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000 to master plan the portion of the City's downtown between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard, and generally between San Ramon Road and 1-680. The goal of the plan was to encourage the transition of light industrial land uses to a more vital, high-intensity development of mixed uses thereby creating a transit- oriented community near a transit hub. This land use transition was stimulated by BART's 1990 decision to extend service east along the 1-580 corridor. BART subsequently extended its line east and the Eastern Dublin station was completed and has been in operation for several years. Both BARTand the City continued planning for the West Dublin portion of the 1-580 corridor. In December 2000, the City adopted three separate Downtown Specific Plans, each focusing on a particular portion of the City's downtown central urbanized area. Most of this area, including the Project site, is developed with urban type and intensity uses. The major exception is the vacant BART property east of the Project site. The general goals for planning in the downtown area were to revitalize the area through modified uses, public improvements, and design. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan focused on proximity to 1-580 and to the planned BART station on the property adjacent to the Project site. The General Plan and Specific Plan designated a portion of the BART property for a BART station. The remainder of the BART property as well as the Project site were planned for a mix of uses in order to provide residential, office, and ancillary retail uses in apPropriate combinations and densities to take advantage of and support the planned BART station. As required by CEQA, the City prepared an initial study for the general plan and specific plan actions, and adopted a Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration was based on the self-mitigating nature of the Specific Plan; that is, the policies, standards, and improvements programmed in the Specific Plan functioned as mitigation measures, whose implementation would avoid the potential for significant environmental impacts as the Specific Plan area was built out in the future. The next layer of approvals for the Project site occurred on June 4, 2002 when the City rezoned the site from the M-l, Light Industrial district to the PD-Planned Development district and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan, as required by the PD district regulations. The Stage 1 Development Plan functions as a Project-specific zoning ordinance that specifies uses and development standards to implement the West Dublin BART Specific Plan policies and programs. In fact, the Specific Plan was adopted as the Stage 1 Development Plan for the Project site. In approving the PD zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan, the City determined that the prior Negative Declaration covered the zoning approval, again noting the self-mitigating nature of the previously adopted Specific Plan. The current appliCations are the last in the series of discretionary approvals for the Project. Through the · . · '-.:~ stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review, the Applicant · . ;':-show~ the City how all the applicable standards and programs from the Specific Plan, and the uses and ' i:~ development standards from the Stage 1 DeVeloPment Plan will be implemented through building, grading and other ministerial development permits. BART has also been planning for its property. In April 2001, BART approved the West Dublin BART Station and Transit Village and certified a Supplemental EIR examining the potential environmental effects of both the planned station and a mixed use transit village north of the station. The developer of the transit village portion of the project has since applied for and received development approvals from the City. The chart on the following page illustrates the succession of pertinent project approvals prior to, and proposed by the Project. It is well eStablished that general plan level actions are at the top of the land use hierarchy, implicating the broadest legislative policy issues as to appropriate uses for a site or area. Once policy is established, the next steps in the hierarchy are to establish ordinances and regulations to implement the planning policy. Finally, administrative permit level approvals implement the regulations through the site-specific details of a particular development project. As reflected in the hierarchy chart on the next page, the Project has obtained most of its required legislative approvals, and the current applications are for the last legislative approval and for administrative permit entitlements for a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review. 3% S Hierarchy of Land Use Approvals for the AMB Properties Transit Village Project LEGISLATIVE APPROVALS General Plan Amendment Broadest policy decision as to whether it is a good idea to change the use of the site from industrial to mixed use and office. Council adopts amendment 12/19/2000 West Dublin BART Specific Plan Identify land use objectives for the planning area. Identify policies, uses, improvements, programs that will be used to meet the objectives. Council adopts specific plan 12/19/2000 PD Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Adopts specific plan policies, uses, improvements and programs as regulations to be implemented through project development. Council adopts rezoning and development plan 6/4/2002 Non-shaded Boxes: Previous Approvals Shaded Boxes: CUrrent project ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPROVALS Existing Uses On The Project Site The project site is currently developed and improved, containing the Cor-O-Van warehouse, a storage and distribution center, with associated paving for parking and loading areas. All utilities, infrastructure and improvements have been constructed on the property, and are fully operational. The Cor-O-Van center building also contains other smaller distribution businesses such as Airborne Express; however, the Cor- O-Van operations utilizes the majority of the square footage of the warehouse building. The operations have been located at this site since the mid-1990's, with the building previously occupied by Unisource. The Cor-O-Van distribution center intends to continue to operate as an interim use at the site until AMB Properties is prepared to commence construction on the mixed use development. An interim parking plan for the use was reviewed by the City Council on November 12, 2003 in conjunction with the review and approval of a minor amendment to the approved alignment plan for the extension of St. Patrick Way from Regional Street to Golden Gate Drive. ANALYSIS: The project site is located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive, near the intersection of Golden Gate Drive and adjacent to the future extension of St. Patrick Way on the Cor-O-Van warehouse site. The site is also located within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (WDBSP) area, a planning area in the City's downtown subject to the goals and pOlicies of that specific plan. TheWDBSP was adopted by the City of Dublin on December 19, 2000 for the purpose of directing the land use, circulation, infrastructure and development for 71.40 acres of land located in the central portion of Dublin, west of the 1-680 freeway and north of the 1-580 freeway. At build-out over the next five to seven years, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area would allow the development of a range of residential, commercial office, retail, employment and public/semi-public uses. General Plan and WDB Specific Plan Consistency The Dublin General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan designate the site as Mixed Use on the northerly portion of the site adjacent tothe extension of St. Patrick Way, which permits residential use as well as retail or office uses, and as Office on the southerly portion of the site closest to the freeway corridor. The project site is also designated as an "Opportunity Site" in the Specific Plan as it is considered a property in transition, moving away from the industrial uses in the past to a more vital urban transit-oriented use. The proposed Planned Development District Rezoning would implement and be consistent with the General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan by: Providing a high profile, state-of-the-art transit-oriented development with a mix of both residential and commercial uses in the vicinity of the West DUblin BART station; Providing higher intensity residential development for households desiring a more urban living environment close to a transit station; Promoting the development of a state-of-the-art transit-oriented development on properties adjacent to the West Dublin BART station to create a vital and visually distinctive district, both locally and regionally; · Encouraging the stimulus of the new BART station to increase economic vitality and overall activity within downtown Dublin; and, · Creating a more pedestrian friendly environment within the West Dublin BART planning area to attract businesses and visitors. The City Council recently approved a General Plan Amendment and PD Planned Development/Stage 1 Development Plan on the adjacent site owned by BART to allow a high-density residential development and a commercial center associated with the future construction of the West Dublin BART Station. That project and the proposed AMB Properties project will provide a cohesive and interrelated transit-foCused community. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The WDBSP also established Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for properties within the West Dublin BART planning area. The square footage of the office use proposed as part of the subject project is approximately 150,500 square feet. 'The FAR for the office use on the site is .38. This is consistent with the maximum FAR of 1.0 allowed on the site by the WDBSP. The proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies contained in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan, and with the projected land uses and land use designations of the Specific Plan as it consists of a rezoning to implement the existing general plan designations on the 9.06 acre site. Additionally, this project as a whole is an interrelated transit village and will be developed consistent with the provisions of the General Plan, Specific Plan, the negotiated Development Agreement (see Resolution, Attachment 4, Exhibit A). Mixed Use Residential Density: The Dublin General Plan and the WDBSP contain policies and guidelines to regulate the density of residential development in the City. The AMB Properties' site contains approximately 9.06 gross acres of land, and with the construction of 304 multi-family units as shown on the Applicant's plan, the residential development would result in a density of approximately 34 dwelling units per acre for the site. This density is consistent with the density range of 30 to 50 units per acre allowed by the WDBSP when found appropriate for residential projects (per Amendment to WDBSP on December 19, 2000, at Plan adoption). The total number of residential units in the mixed use project is also consistent with the Mixed Use land'use category in the WDBSP which allows a maximum development of 331 dwelling units in the area. Mixed Use Retail Component: The Mixed Use land use category in the General Plan and Specific Plan requires that the residential development also contain a non-residential component, such as retail or office use. The proposed project contains a neighborhood retail component of approximately 1,000 square feet with small storefronts on the ground level floor to serve residents and office users. Additionally, the office use within the 9.06 acre site adds to and complements the mix of uses in the Project. Traffic Issues: As required by the General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan, traffic impacts and programmed' improvements for this proposed project have been reviewed in the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan; the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared by BART for the BART extension project (certified by the BART Board in April 2001); the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the AMB Properties project (previously known as the Legacy Partners project); and the specific traffic studies prepared for this project. The specific studies prepared for the project are located in the second binder in Attachment 3. Consistent with the Specific Plan and the various Project CEQA reviews, improvements have been identified and incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan. No significant traffic impacts will result with inclusion of these improvements in the Project. In summary, the project is consistent with the General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Further details of the traffic improvements incorporated into the project are contained in the section on Traffic in this report. Planned Development District Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan As the next step in the series of approvals required for the Project, the Applicant has proposed a PD Planned Development District rezoning for the site. The existing zoning of the property is PD Planned Development with a Stage 1 Development Plan. Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose and requirements of the Planned Development District. The intent of the Planned Development Zoning District is to create a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical environment than would otherwise be possible under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. This district requires that a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan be adopted to establish regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the property within the requested Planned Development Zoning District. As the Stage 1 Development Plan was previously approved by the City Council in June 2002 with the rezoning of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, the Applicant is requesting approval ora Stage 2 Development Plan for the specific development of the subject site at this time to further implement'the project. The Stage 2 Development Plan depicts the precise location of land uses, unit count, and densities for the project, and addresses the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for this stage of development. The Development Plan and Project Plans for the residential, retail and office sites, roof views, ground level parking, podium-level parking, utility lines, grading and elevations are contained in the project plans in Attachment 2, Exhibit A. Prior to rezoning of the specific plan area to a PD and Stage 1 Development Plan, many of the area businesses were in the process of relocating to other areas in the City or other jurisdictions. The project proposed by AMB Properties would provide support for further office and commercial development in the Specific Plan area, and also serve as a transition from the existing light industrial uses in the area to development consistent with the vision of the adopted West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The design objective of the AMB Properties' Transit Village is to combine a dense, urban residential and :¢ :commercial/office development in a compact Space to create a "transit village', character. This is reflected in the propoSed high density residential dwelling units and the commercial/office uses close to amajor transit Station, the proposed future West Dublin BART Station. Stage 2 Development Plan: The Applicant's proposal consists of a multi-family residential product with a small retail component and an office building of approximately 150,500 square feet (see Attachment 3). Further details on the Applicant's development concept are also contained in Attachment 3, the Applicant's Written Statement. Statement of Proposed Uses: The project is proposed for development in two phases (see Attachment 3 for Phasing Plan). One phase of the project consists of the development of residential dwelling units at a density of 34 dwelling Units per acre, and the establishment of a small amount of retail space at ground level to serve the residents and office users in the project (see Attachment 3). Conditional and accessory uses would be permitted in accordance with those allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed land uses for the property are as follows: PD - High Density Residential/Neighborhood Retail Permitted Use: Phase 1 - Multi-Family Dwellings & Neighborhood Retail Retail uses of a neighborhood retail character Conditional Uses: As provided in the regulations and procedures of the R-M and C-N Zoning Districts as modified by the PD Rezoning Accessory Uses: As provided for in the regulation and procedures of the Zoning Ordinance Bo PD - Office/Retail Permitted Use: conditional Uses: Accessory Uses: Phase 2 - Office/Retail As provided in the regulations and procedures of the C-1 Zoning District As provided for in the regulation and procedures of the Zoning Ordinance Stage 2 Site Plan: The Stage 2 Site Plan is shown in Attachment 3, Sheets EX-1 and EX-2. The Stage 2 Site Plan depicts the location of the proposed land uses, circulation system, parking areas, topography and limits of grading on the site. Phasing Plan: The project is anticipated to be constructed in two phases, with construction of the residential and small ground-floor retail uses on approximately 4.5 acres (net acreage) oft he property fronting on the future alignment of St. Patrick Way as the first development phase. The office building will be constructed in the second phase of the project on approximately 3.28 acres (net acreage) of the site closest to the 1-580 freeway. The parking for the residential and neighborhood retail development will consist of a ½ story of subterranean parking area and one ground-level parking area as the first floor of the building. The office building will have ground-level parking located on the east portion of the site, close to the existing flood control channel and the freeway corridor. The first phase of the project will include construction of 304 multi-family dwelling units with approximately 1,000 square feet of neighborhood retail on the ground level, and is located adjacent to the south side of the future St. Patrick Way alignment from Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street. Additionally, property along the proposed alignment for St. Patrick Way will be dedicated', and roadway access will be constructed in this phase. On-site improvements proposed, such as the looP roadway within the project and the paved courtyard area providing pedestrian access to the BART Station between the residential building and the office building (see Attachment 3, Sheet EX-3), will also be constructed in this phase of the project. Additionally, the Applicant proposes to complete rough grading for the second phase of development as part of Phase 1. The development of Phase 1 is anticipated to commence in 2004, with PhaSe 2 following thereafter, .... ~ ~ · · .. ~ The second phase of development consists of the construction of the 150,500 square foOt office building ' · designated Retail/Office, and located to the south of the residential complex. Road improvements in Phase 2 include additional improvements as determined necessary for safe access to the entire development. A phasing summary is provided below indicating the proposed land use, number of units, and net acreage (minus dedicated land and improvements) for each phase. PHASING PLAN *}Vet Acreage excludes the private roads and local streets ' Lots/ Max. Net Acreage* Phase No. Land Use Parcel # Units or Sq. Ft. 1 Mixed Use 1 304 4.446 Multi'Family Residential & Retail 1,000 sq. ft. 2 Office 1 150,500 sq.ft. 3.281 304 units Total 2 151,500 sq.ft. 7.73 Compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage 2 Development Plan propOsed at this time is generally consistent with the Stage 1 Development Plan approved with the rezoning of the West Dublin Specific Plan area in June 2002 as the table below illustrates: W~St DU~lin Tra~sl~ Viiiagi Acres~ units~sq~ar~F0~g~ Acres~ Units/Squ;re Footage Multi-Family Residential 4.45 304 units 4.45 331 Retail 1,000 sq.ft. Max. For Plan Area Office 3.28 150,500 sq.ft. 2.5 6.98 For Entire Plan Area ;t. Patrick Way R.O.W 1.15 59,101 2.11 N/A Property for BART Frontage .18 N/A YOTAL 9.06 304 9.06 331 Max. For Plan Area (per WDBSpecific Plan) Architectural Standards: The architectural design standards and unit floor plans for the Stage 2 Development Plan are established by the architectural drawings prepared by the MBH in the project plans (see Sheets A.9 through A. 14 of the Project Plans in Attachment 3). Additionally, the Applicant has provided supplemental information in Attachment 3, Colored Elevations, which also includes the color samples for residential/retail complex as well as the office building. Development Standards: To accomplish the land plan envisioned, specific development standards are established in the Development Plan to guide the Stage 2 development of the property. The proposed Development Plan and development standards for the PD zoning district are included in the Ordinance in Attachment 2, Exhibit A, Project Plans, stamped by the City, "received January 2, 2004." preliminary LandsCaPe Plan: The Preliminary LandSCape Plan is shown on Sheets L. 1 through L.6 of the project plans, Attachment 2, Exhibit A. A condition of the Site Development Review (see Resolution, Attachment 7) requires the submittal of a Final Landscaping and Irrigation. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations: The Applicant will comply with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and any City Council Resolution relating to that ordinance in effect at the time of the issuance of the first building permit for this project. The regulations recently adopted by the City Council require new residential projects to provide 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units with the development as affordable units. The City Council may authorize that fees in-lieu of construction can be paid for 40% of the required units. At the present time, the Applicant proposes to provide a minimum of 38 affordable units within the High Density (multi-family) residential area, which equals 7.5% of the total number for units within the project site. These dwelling units will be for-rent apartment units. The Applicant proposes to meet the remaining percentage of the affordable housing requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees. An agreement between the City and the Developer will be prepared to facilitate meeting the affordable housing requirement. The City Council will be the authority in determining how the Applicant will be required to meet this housing need. Development Agreement The property owner of the site, AMB Properties, proposed to enter into a development agreement with the City. Unlike the mandatory development agreements required for projects developed within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, the proposed agreement is not required of the project by the provisions of a specific plan or other adopted plan, but rather it would be voluntarily entered into by the developer and the City. In other words, whether to enter into the development agreement' is within the City's discretion. The purpose of the Development Agreement Statute and the City's regulations implementing the statute (See Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56) is to provide certainty to a developer that once a project is approved the developer can proceed with the project without fear that local regulations would change and prevent development. Absent a development agreement, or some other vesting mechanism such as a vesting tentative map, a developer's right to construct a project under California law does not "vest" until such time as they have obtained all permits, begun construction, and made substantial expenditures in such construction. In exchange for vesting the developer's right to develop, cities can obtain benefits that they could not otherwise require as a condition of approval of the project. City Staff and developer negotiated the proposed development. The basic terms are as follows: o o o The term of the agreement is 10 years. The project approvals and the land use in existence at the time of the approvals are vested for the term of the agreement. The term of the project approvals are extended for the term of the agreement. The developer would not be subject to any new development impact fees adopted during the term of the agreement, excepting the proposed, but now tabled, Linkage Fee for affordable housing. However, the developer Would be subject to increases in existing development impact fees, such as the public facilities fee. The developer agrees upon development of the project to construct and dedicate certain land for the completion of St. Patrick Way between Regional Street and Golden Gate .Drive. The City will pay the costs of construction and acquisition of land of the eastern one-third of the extension, and the developer will pay for the costs of construction and acquisition of land for the western two-third. The City would pay a fixed price of $13 per square foot for land dedicated by developer in the eastern third. Additional contingencies regarding the construction of St. Patrick Way are set forth in the agreement. These provisions generally allow the City, if it deems necessary, to complete the St. Patrick Way extension, and in particular the eastern one-third, prior to development of the Project and require the developer to dedicate the necessary land. The terms set forth in the proposed agreement are consistent with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.56, Development Agreement Regulations. Staff feels that the development agreement provides substantial benefits to the City. It ensures the completion of the entire extension of St. Patrick Way. The developer is also absorbing the costs of much of the project, and those costs will not have to be passed along to other developers. This will encourage development in the Downtown area, where the costs of the necessary transportation infrastructure improvements is a potential barrier to development. The proposed development agreement was considered by the Planning Commission and recommended for approval by the City Council at the public hearing conducted on February 24, 2004. The Commission found the agreement to be consistent with the objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan. As such, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 04-09 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the agreement. , The following describes the Site Development Review and Tentative Parcel Map, as approved by the Planning Commission: 4003:15 Site Development Review Topography and Site Development: The site is located within a developed portion of the City's downtown area. The topography of the site is relatively flat as the site was previously graded for the construction of the warehouse and the paving when the facility was built. The site lies at a lower elevation than the 1-580 corridor, and is separated from Dublin Creek by a gentle upward slope and a grassy filtration swale. The Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan for the project (Sheet C.2 of Attachment 2, Exhibit A) takes into consideration the existing contours and infrastructure of the site to minimize excessive cuts and fills. The parking lot for the proposed office building, lying closest to the freeway, is setback from Dublin Creek by approximately 20 feet and a grove of mature redwood trees. Architectural Concept & Theme: The architectural concept for the West Dublin Transit Village community is to create a moderu, urban transit-°riented character with an interesting color palette. This architectural style is articulated on the residential complex and the office building with detailed features such as colored stucco, wood, glass, and steel. The selected architectural style has been developed by MBH Architects for AMB Properties to achieve the urban transit village architectural concept and provide a clean innovative design (see Elevations in Exhibit A of the Development Plan/Project Plans, Attachment 2). The proposed architectural design will complement the style of the moderu urban buildings and landscaping which eventually will be constructed in the Specific Plan area, and also provide interest in the physical landscape from the freeway corridor. MBH Architects has provided supplemental information in Attachment 3, Colored Elevations with color samples for the building design. These illustrations were presented at the Planning Commission hearing for review and approval, and provide renderings of the architectural style and design of the project. The four-story apartment complex is designed with four buildings constructed around a large landscaped courtyard. The apartment units consist of 20 studio, 132 one-bedroom, 124 two-bedroom, and 16 three- bedroom units. Unit sizes range between 575 to 1,275 square feet. The parking garage is two levels under the living space, one level of which ½ is subterranean and contains 723 parking spaces. The ground level garage floor is hidden behind the first-story facade of the building and the neighborhood retail storefronts. The garage is entered from the looped accessway within the complex, creating a pedestrian-friendly fully landscaped street frontage and main entry to the complex along St. Patrick Way. The typical unit plans are illustrated on Sheet A. 14 of the project plans (Development Plan), and many of the units provide balconies. MBH Architects has provided supplemental information in Attachment_ 3, Colored Elevations in Section VI, for the building design and proposed elevations. ~ The office building is an approximately 150,500 square foot four-story structure with a paved parking lot containing 484 surface parking spaces. Between the residential/retail complex and the office building is a paved and landscaped courtyard area (see Sheet L-3 of the Preliminary Landscape Plans in Development Plan), providing pedestrian access to the residential, retail and office uses, and a convenient paved walkway to the adjacent development proposed by Ampelon Development Group on the BART-owned property. The Applicant and BART/Ampelon Development Group will cooperate together to make this an uninterrupted pedestrian pathway to the BART Station. Sheet EX-3 of the Development Plan in Attachment 3 illustrates the various paths of travel from the project to the BART Station, including the connection of a future Ampelon Development Group/BART pedestrian access. Lot Coverage: In the context of this planned Development, the Applicant is requesting that the lot coverage standard in the Zoning Ordinance of 50% for the high-density residences be applied. The residential/retail portion of the project has a 50 % lot coverage, and is, therefore, consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Landscape Design Theme: The Preliminary Landscaping Plan is presented in Sheets L-1 through L-6 of the project plans. The landscape elements have been designed by Caducci and Associates, Landscape Architects, to blend with and enhance the architectural theme. The landscape elements have also been designed to tie the project to the surrounding street network, sidewalks and pedestrian pathways which lead to the BART Station and the commercial areas of the central downtown. The residential/retail complex is enhanced with landscaping, creating an outdoor courtyard wrapping around and in between the four buildings and the total percentage of landscaping on the developed site would be approximately 32% of the site area. The landscaping and decorative paving along the walkways is continued to the office ~ building site and 'integrates the development into a cohesive community. Enhanced landscaping has also been added to the surface parking lot of the office building to buffer the visual landscape of the development from the freeway. The grove of redwood trees near the freeway corridor near the northwest comer of the site will remain undisturbed. Should any trees be proposed to be removed or altered in the future, the procedures in the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance must be followed. A street tree program and streetscape with pedestrian walkways unify the project and provide a hierarchy of color, texture and size. The various entries to the development are characterized by monumentation, textured concrete paving and boxed specimen canopy trees (see Sheets L-1 through L-5 of the project plans for monuments, landscaping and paving features). Landscaped sidewalks along the street frontage of the project are designed for pedestrians to travel throughout the site year-round and for visual relief. The landscape has been designed to enhance the residents' experience and provide the City with a quality development, and will greatly improve the visual experience in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. Irrigation for this development will be an automatic and efficient system designed to reduce overspray and excessive runoff, utilize low precipitation heads and conserve water. Irrigation valves will be separated based on orientation, exposure to the sun, shade and wind and will be designed to be sensitive to the water requirements of the plant material selected. The irrigation design in the Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan will be required to meet the City's water efficient landscape regulations. Additionally, this project is located within the DSRSD District RecYcled Water Use Zone, which calls for installation of recycled water irrigation systems to allow for future use of recycled water for approved landscaped irrigation demands. Compliance with this District regulation is required, unless the District Engineer approves an exemption (see Conditions of Approval in Resolution, Attachment 7). Traffic and Circulation: The consulting firm of Omni-Means, Engineers & Planners completed a traffic impact study for the proposed AMB Project in May 2002. The initial site plan was later modified in 2003 and the traffic study was updated in May of that year to reflect minor adjustments to the initial site layout, office size and residential units. The traffic study analyzed existing and future levels of service (LOS) at 16 adjacent intersections on Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard, St. Patrick Way and San Ramon Road. The study also analyzed LOS on roadway segments in the vicinity of the project along Golden Gate Drive, Regional Street and St. Patrick Way. The LOS calculations under build-out traffic conditions in the project area took into consideration circulation improvements planned for intersections and roadway segments in downtown Dublin based on improvements identified in previous traffic studies for the Downtown Specific Plan, proposed Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (TIF), and Dublin Transit Center. Intersection LOS Analysis: Based on the above analysis, it was found that two intersections in the Project area would operate at an unacceptable LOS with or without the Project during the AM or PM peak hour. The two intersections are Amador Valley Boulevard/Starward Drive and San Ramon Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp. The unacceptable LOS at Amador Valley Boulevard/Starward Drive refers to traffic delay caused by the Stop-sign controlled southbound lef~- and right-turn movements from Starward Drive onto Amador Valley Boulevard. This unacceptable LOS will be resolved with a traffic signal installation planned by the City for this intersection. The design for this traffic signal is currently underway and installation is anticipated for 2005. The unacceptable LOS at San Ramon Road/I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp is attributed to a traffic-weaving problem from the diagonal westbound off-ramp to make a left turn at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Re-alignment of this off-ramp to intersect with the San Ramon Road overpass at a 90-degree angle and installation of a traffic signal at this new intersection will provide an acceptable LOS. This improvement project is currently under construction with completion anticipated in Spring 2004. Roadway Segment LOS Analysis:_The roadway segment LOS analysis revealed that Regional Street just south of Dublin Boulevard would operate at an unacceptable LOS under build-out traffic conditions, with the St. Patrick Way extension in place between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street. This would primarily be due to cross-traffic access and lack of turn lanes at major driveways, which causes delays to through-traffic. On-street parking is currently prohibited along Regional Street within approximately 300 feet south of Dublin Boulevard. Left-tm pockets and/or a two-way left-turn lane at the major driveways ,\ will be re-striped in this 300-foot segment of Regional Street without any removal of on, street parking, which would provide an acceptable LOS on Regional Street. These improvements are included in the Project. Parking Analysis: The parking for the residential and retail development consists of a ½ story of subterranean parking area and one ground level parking area as the first floor of the building. The office building will have ground-level parking located on the east portion of the site, close to the flood control channel and the freeway corridor, and adjacent to Street "F" on the project plans. Based on the proposed site plan, there will be a total of 944 parking spaces apportioned to residential, office, and "shared" residential/office uses as follows: Residential spaces: Office spaces: "Shared" residential/office spaces: 460 221 263 Total parking supply: 944 spaces The Applicant is proposing that 263 parking spaces within the parking garage for the residential/retail portion of the project share spaces with the office use to the south. According to the Parking Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, the parking requirement is 1,046 parking spaces for the mixed-use development. The Applicant has requested a 15% parking ratio reduction to allow provision of less parking for the development than would normally permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant is also requesting permission to implement a shared parking space program for the mix of uses on the site, along with a parking management plan. A shared parking analysis was conducted as part of the Omi-Means traffic study and found that the hourly residential and office demand would peak at 849 spaces between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m., including a peak demand of 209 spaces for shared residential/office spaces. Based on these projections, the traffic study concluded that the proposed shared parking plan would provide sufficient spaces to accommodate peak residential and office parking demand. The study also recommended that a parking management plan be instituted so that exclusive Spaces for residential or office use be clearly identified. Traffic Effects of BART Development: Traffic and parking studies have analyzed the Project both with and without the BART station. If the BART station is not constructed, the overall traffic generated in the project area would decline, further reducing potential traffic in the general area. Dedication of St. Patrick Way: The new segment of St. Patrick Way between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street will provide access to the proposed West Dublin BART/Ampelon Development Group and AMB properties (Cor-O-Van) developments. The future extension of St. Patrick Way will be a connection to 1-680 on/off ramps, allowing development of surrounding land uses per the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The ultimate right-of-way width for St. Patrick Way will vary between 68 and 71 feet. The ultimate section will consist of two 12-foot wide travel lanes, a 12-foot wide center two-way left-mm lane, and 8-foot wide parking lane on the south side and sidewalks that vary between 6 feet and 11 feet on both sides of the street. The St. Patrick Way improvements will assure safe and convenient access to abutting properties, and the design will be based on a 25 mile per hour speed limit. Access to BART-Owned Property: Under the Conditions of Approval in Attachment 7, and approved by the Planning Commission, the Applicant is required to dedicate a private egress easement across the northeastern portion of Parcel 1 for the benefit of the neighboring BART property (APN 941-1500-046). The easement is necessary to accommodate vehicle and pedestrian egress from the future BART development across Parcel 1 's eastern drive aisle, terminating at St. Patrick Way. The dedication will be required with approval of the final map, or sooner as stipulated by the Development Agreement. The proposed driveway along the east side of Parcel 1 (residential/retail parcel) is to be designed to accommodate the connection of a future BART egress driveway near its northern terminus at St. Patrick Way, assuming the Project precedes development of the neighboring BART property (see exhibits in Attachment 4, Development Agreement, and in Attachment 3, Development Plan). Should the BART development occur first, the Applicant will be required to adjust the alignment of the proposed driveway to conform to the BART egress driveway to maintain access from the BART driveway open and unobstructed at all times during construction. Emergency vehicle access will be provided as a secondary use of the internal pathway/accessway between the buildings for fire and police access to the residential, retail and office uses. Pedestrian Access to BART Station: As this project is within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area and implements development of land uses in accordance with the Specific Plan, the basic concept of providing pedestrian-friendly access to the future BART Station on Golden Gate Drive is reflected in the - project site design. The adjacent BART project contains a parking garage and provides for bus access . directly through the garage. As the AMB Properties' project is within walking distance (via low volume internal roadways) of the BART garage, the project plan includes an uninterrupted walking path through the site to the adjacent BART-owned property (see Pedestrian Path of Travel diagram in Attachment 3, Sheet EX-3): To enhance the transit access, BART has also included the continuation of the pedestrian accessway to the BART Station in their concept plan for the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan for their site recently approved by the City Council. Water Supply: The project site is presently served and will continue to be served by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD or other approved water system, and must be installed at the expense of Applicant in accordance with the District's Standards and Specifications. DSRSD's specific requirements are included in the Conditions of Approval, and the Applicant must comply with them prior to issuance of building permits and/or acceptance of final improvements. Sanitary Sewer and Recycled Water Irrigation: The existing warehouse use on the property is currently served with sewer service from the DSRSD. Expansion of water and sanitary sewer infrastructure and relocation of pipes within the right-of-way of St. Patrick Way is a requirement of the project (see Resolution, Attachment 7) to provide adequate capacity to the project. Existing sewer mains on Golden Gate Drive between St. Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard, and sewer mains on Dublin Boulevard between 1-680 and Golden Gate Drive also require upsizing to meet the project demands. These improvements are included in the project improvement and roadway plans, and the Applicant will be 14~t~ required to submit ail plans to DSRSD for review and approvai prior to issuance of building permits and construction. Storm Drainage/Hydrology: The storm drain system for the development will be connected to Dublin Creek, which is owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as Line T. This open channel flows southerly adjacent to 1-580. The site is fully developed, including impervious coverage and drainage facilities developed with an industrial use, and is covered with concrete and paved areas which provide a greater amount of impervious coverage and stormwater drainage than the development proposed. Overall site drainage will be improved with the proposed development through the reduction in impervious coverage on the site. The Applicant will be installing a substantial amount of landscaping and various paving types in the project which will allow the drainage facilities to work more efficiently. Additionally, prior to issuance of building permits to construct the project, the Applicant will be required to submit calculations and soil information to the Director of Public Works and to the Zone 7 for approval. This will ensure that any improved drainage facilities are of sufficient capacity to service the development and other development proposed for the area. The Applicant will be required by the City to contribute a fair-share portion of the cost of any facility expansion serving the development. Police and Fire Department Requirements: The Applicant will comply with all Alameda County Fire Services (ACFD) rules, regulations, City of Dublin and standards, including minimum standards for emergency access roads and payment of applicable fees, including City of Dublin Fire facilities Fees. Maintenance of Landscaping and Streets: The City generally is responsible for maintenance of landscaping within the rights-of-way of streets that are accepted for dedication. The landscape improvements for street right-of-way will be installed by the Developer concurrently with the development of the parcel unless otherwise specified by the Development Agreement. St. Patrick Way · -~.-.-.~ .~,.., ~ and the public streets in the project will be publicly maintained. All private accessways and pedestrian pathways will be maintained by the property owner. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069 The Applicant submitted a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069 for the two phases proposed with the project which was also approved by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2004. The map subdivides the AMB property into two parcels for each of the phases of development, with Parcel 1 to be developed with the multi-family residential development, and Parcel 2 to be developed to coincide with the office development closest to the freeway corridor. The primary access to the project will be from the two driveway accessways from the future extension of St. Patrick Way, a public street (See Attachment 3, Sheet C.1 for diagram of accessway). The access way loops around the office portion of the project, and continues to St. Patrick Way where it will provide an additional shared accessway to residences and those on the adjacent BART property site. Further details on traffic and circulation can be found in the section Traffic and Circulation under Site Development Review, above. Improvements provided by the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, along with the Conditions of Approval in the Resolution in Attachment 7, address flood control, street improvements, utilities, schools, phasing, noise attenuation, landscaping. The Development Agreement for the project (Exhibit A of Attachment 4) also includes information and reflects the requirements of the Applicant related to improvements. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are shown in detail on the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Plans contained in the Stage 2 Development Plan (Exhibit A of Attachment 2). Requirements of the affected utilities and special districts have been incorpOrated into the Conditions of Approval as part of the required obligations of the AppliCant (see Resolution in Attachment 7 for Conditions of Approval). ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The City prepared an Initial Study dated November 6, 2003 for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 to determine whether the Project would require additional review beyond the Specific Plan ND. Based on the Initial Study, no subsequent EIR was required for the Project and the Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared a draft subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162 to examine how the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs were included in the Project, and thus how prior adopted mitigation established in the Specific Plan would be implemented. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution in Attachment 1. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The City reCeived one comment letter on the Project, from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, dated December 2, 2003. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments in a Responses to Comments matrix dated February 10, 2004 which is contained in Exhibit B of the Resolution in Attachment 1. The comment letter included a substantial amount of background materials that are on file and available for review in the Planning Department. Staff carefully reviewed the comments in preparing the written responses and the responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments. Adams Broadwell submitted another set of comments on February 20, 2004, well after the close of the public review and comment periOd on the Project MND. Like the previous letter, the comments objected to the City approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than preparing an EIR. Again, although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to the late comments. The February 20, 2004 letter and the City's written responses dated April 20, 2004 are contained in Attachment 10 of the Staff report. Both sets of comments generally assert that the Project may have potentially significant impacts on air quality, water quality, traffic, and public services that have not been mitigated. All of the letters · ~ ~..,~ include extensive consultant reports; City Staff carefully reviewed all the comments; including the · consultant reports~ Where appropriate, the written responses explain why the City disagrees with the · : consultant reports, and how the City's conclusions are supported by the record. In general, the Adams Broadwell comments reflect a number of common misunderstandings, as discussed below. First, many of the comments state or assume that the Project site is vacant, and thus that the Project is going from no development to intense urban development, with its attendant impacts. However, the Project site is not vacant; it is fully developed and operational with a high intensity trucking and warehousing operation, and a high level of existing impacts. Pursuant to CEQA, the potential for the Project's environmental impacts is measured against .the existing development and operations. As explained in the City's written responses, the Project will reduce rather than increase certain potential impacts, e.g., by reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on a site which currently is almost entirely covered by building or paving. Second, the comments do not reflect the past enVironmental reviews for the Project and Project site. As noted in the earlier chart showing the hierarchy of land use approvals for the site, the Project and site have been the subject of past approvals and related CEQA reviews. Contrary to the comments' assertions, CEQA's "fair argument" standard does not apply to the Project. Instead, the Project is subject to the subsequent review standard under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, which prohibits the City from requiring a subsequent EIR unless the Project will cause new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed. Section 15162 states that when a negative declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless substantial evidence shows that 1) the project is substantially changed or the circumstances of the project have substantially changed from the previous review, such 16 000[5 that the project would involve new significant environmental effects, or, 2) substantial new information which was not known and could not have been known when the previous negative declaration was adopted shows the project will have new significant effects. In this case, none of these standards for a subsequent EIR is present. 1) No Project Changes, No Changed Circumstances. The Project has not changed from that analyzed in the Specific Plan ND; the Project is consistent with the general plan and specific plan land uses and development standards assumed in the ND and later approved by the City Council in 2000. Of particular note is the fact that during the specific plan process, changes were proposed for the Project site in anticipation of the current mixed use and office development applications. Those changes were considered by the Council and are reflected in underscored text in the adopted Specific Plan ND. See, for example, underscored text on pp. 3, 14 of the ND describing and analyzing the increased office density then proposed for the Project site. The current Project is consistent with these changes that were specifically analyzed in the prior ND. Similarly, there have been no substantial changes in circumstances since the prior ND. None was identified when the City relied on the prior ND for the 2002 rezoning approval, and none was identified in the Project MND. 2) No New Information of New Significant Impacts. There is no new substantial information showing that the Project will have new significant environmental effects. The record contains various reports and studies for the Project, as required by the Specific Plan, the Specific Plan ND, and City standards, such as updated traffic studies and preliminary geotechnical studies referenced earlier in this Staff report, in the Project MND and elsewhere in the record. The reports generally show how the Project implements the Specific Plan and City standards, and none identifies the potential for new significant impacts. In their comment letters, Adams Broadwell appends several consultant reports in support of their contention that an EIR should be prepared for the Project. City Staff carefully reviewed the letters and consultant, reports to determine if they provided any new information of new significant impacts. Much of the i~ormafion in the reports predates both the 2000 and 2002 City actions based on file Specific Plan ND, so that information was available at the time and is not new information. Similarly, the impacts addressed in the letters, such as construction and operational air quality, Construction and operational water quality, traffic impacts and public services were addressed in the Specific Plan and the Specific Plan ND. More importantly, the consultant reports often assume the Project site is vacant rather than fully developed, and generally do not acknowledge the Specific Plan standards or adopted City standards that apply to the Project and Project site. As such, the information and analysis in the consultant reports is faulty and does not constitute substantial evidence of the potential for significant impacts. Throughout the responses to Adams Broadwell's MND and late comments, Staff explained where and how it disagreed with the consultant reports. As noted in CEQA Guidelines section 15151, experts may disagree on the environmental consequences of a Project. Although not required for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or for late comments, the City has provided written responses to the comments consistent with section 15151 in an effort to provide an adequate, complete, and good faith disclosure of the potential effects °fthe Project. The City adopted a Negative Declaration when it approved the Downtown Specific Plans, including the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, on December 19, 2000. The City revisited the Negative Declaration when it adopted the PD zoning for the Project site in June of 2002. CEQA allows, even requires, the City to rely on these previous reviews unless new or more significant impacts are identified. All of the issues raised in the comments, including air quality, water quality, traffic and public services are typical development issues, and all were addressed in the previous reviews. Third, the comments do not recognize the self-mitigating intent of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. As further explained in the written responses, the Specific Plan contains extensive policies, programs and improvements, which ensure that implementing projects will not have significant environmental effects. In addition, the Project is subject to the City's comprehensive regulatory scheme for land development, including adopted ordinances and programs and standard conditions of approval. For example, the Project included programmed roadway improvements identified in the Specific Plan, and is subject to such adopted requirements such as preparation of a construction management plan for air quality, traffic and noise during construction. The site is presently developed with a land use (light industrial) generally considered more intense than the mixed use (residential and retail) and office use now proposed with the AMB Property project. The site will be redeveloped in accordance with the City's General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance, all of which have been previously reviewed and adopted or amended for the Project, with appropriate CEQA analysis. Under these circumstances, preparation of an EIR is unwarranted. Based upon the substantial amount of environmental review completed for the project and the measures incorporated in the project by the Applicant's plan, Staff has determined that no subsequent EIR-level review or recirculation of the document is warranted, that the prior Negative Declaration and the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identify and analyze the Project's environmental /- impacts, and that the comments and responses do not constitute or require substantial revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Appeal of Planning Commission Approvals On March 4, 2004, the law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo, representing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104, and the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342, submitted a Letter of Appeal appealing the February 24, 2004 Planning Commission approval of the Site Development Review and the Tentative Parcel Map for the AMB Properties project; and, the Planning Commission's recommendations of approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, and the Development Agreement, to the City Council. The appeal is discussed in a separate Agenda Statement for tC~iiight"~' meeting ~d will' be acted Upon by' the Council separately frOm the actions On. the PD'Rezoning, stage 2 D~veiopmeht PIan and 'Development Agreement. CONCLUSION: This application has been reviewed by the applicable City Departments and agencies, and their comments have been incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan (see PD Ordinance, Attachment 2) and the conditions of approval for the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review (see Resolution, Attachment 7), the Planning Commission approval that Staff recommends the City Council affirm. The proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan rezoning previously approved, and represents an appropriate and well-planned transit-oriented project for the site to assist in revitalizing the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area and the economic viability of the area. Additionally, the City has taken many steps prior to this project in approving various environmental documents and taking action to support the mixed use development of this site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council; 1) open the public hearing and hear Staff presentation; 2) take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 3) question Staff, Applicant, and the public; 4) close the public heating and deliberate; 5) adopt Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment 1); 6) waive the Reading and Introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 2) approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan; and 7) waive the Reading and Introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 4) approving a Development Agreement between the City and AMB Properties. RESOLUTION NO. -04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE AMB PROPERTIES TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT PA 02-003 WHEREAS, AMB Properties submitted applications for a Transit Village project consisting of a multi-story structure containing a maximum of 304 multi-family dwellings, a separate multi-level 150,000 square foot office building, and associated landscaping, parking and small retail uses, on approximately 9.06 acres north of 1-580, on the existing Cor-O-Van Moving and Storage warehouse site. The development includes applications for a PD-Planned Development rezoning and related Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069, Site Development Review, and Development Agreement. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project site is relatively fiat and fully developed with a moving and storage warehouse operation; and WHEREAS, the Project site is in the Dublin downtown area and within the planning area for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan is one of three downtown specific plans approved by the City on December 19, 2000 and intended to improve the appearance, fimctionality, and economic vitality of the downtown area, particularly in recognition of a planned BART station adjacent to the project site. (See Resolution 227-00, incorporated herein by reference). The Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the City's General Plan goals. The Specific Plan area is intended as a "high-intensity mixed-use area, capitalizing on regional transit linkages provided by both the BART line and supported by nearby freeways, 1-580 and 1-680." (p. 21). Implementation of the Specific Plan explicitly contemplates review of private development plans. (p. 30); and WHEREAS, the effects of implementing the Specific Plan and related general plan amendments were reviewed in a Negative Declaration which was properly circulated for public review and adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000 (See Resolution 226-00} incorporated herein by reference). In approving the Negative Declaration, the City determined that adoption and implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant effect on the environment. The City subsequently rezoned the Project site to PD-Planned Development and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan on June 4, 2002, based on the prior adopted Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration is available for review in the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan was prepared as a self-mitigating plan. Upon adoption of the Negative Declaration, the City found that the Specific Plan and associated actions would not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation was incorporated into the Plan as part of the Plan implementation (Resolution 226-00). In this context, the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs act as mitigations that must be included in subsequent implementing developments, such as the Project. The Project is consistent with and implements the Specific Plan land uses, policies, standards, guidelines and programs; and WHEREAS, the Project is a mixed use residential, small retail, and office project, consistent with the type, nature, location and extent of development anticipated for the site upon approval of the general plan amendment, Specific Plan, Specific Plan ND and subsequent PD-rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan. The Project includes design level plans to implement these prior legislative approvals; and q. Zt>-oq ATTACHMENT 1 a,, ;z.~ WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated November 6, 2003 for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 to determine what, if any, additional environmental review might be required beyond the previously adopted Specific Plan ND. The City determined that no subsequent EIR was required because there were no substantial changes to the Project or to the circumstances in the area since the prior environmental reviews that would involve new significant impacts. There was also no new substantial information since the prior reviews of new significant impacts from the Project; and WHEREAS, although not required by CEQA based on the Initial Study and CEQA Guidelines section 15162, the City prepared a draft subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration to examine how the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs were included in the Project, and thus how prior adopted mitigation established in the Specific Plan would be implemented. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The City received one comment letter on the Project, from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo ("Adams Broadwell"), dated December 2, 2003. Although CEQA does not require written responses to comments on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City prepared written responses to all the comments in a Responses to Comments matrix dated February 10, 2004 in order to provide the public and decisionmakers with information on the issues raised by the comments. The comment letter and responses are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The comment letter included a substantial amount of background materials, including consultant reports, that are on file and available for review in the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, Adams Broadwell submitted a second set of comments on February 20, 2004, well after the close of the public review and comment period. Although CEQA does not require written responses to late comments, the City prepared written "Responses to Late Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration", dated April 20, 2004. The late comments and the City's written responses are incorporated herein by reference, and are on file and available for review in the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, responses to the comments received during the public review period andto the late comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments and related consultant reports. Where staff disagreed with the comments and consultant reports, the nature of the disagreement was explained in the responses in the interest of providing full disclosure of information pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15151; and WltEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comment letters and written responses pursuant to the recirculation provisions of CEQA Guidelines section15073.5 and determined that the comments and responses did not constitute or require substantial revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration; therefore, no recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was required. The City further determined that during the negative declaration process, there was no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment and thus that no subsequent EIR-level review of the document was warranted; and WHEREAS, the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, the December 2, 2003 comment letter and the February 10, 2004 responses to comments matrix collectively comprise the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated February 24, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the late comments from Adams Broadwell at a noticed public hearing on February 24, 2004 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Project (Resolution Nos. 04-08 & 04- 09, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated April 20, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project for the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a noticed public hearing on April 20, 2004 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WltEREAS, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan was adopted as a self-mitigating plan which incorporated mitigation into the Plan; therefore, the City determines that ongoing compliance with the Specific Plan constitutes the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project pursuant to CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097. Policies, programs and improvements required by the Specific Plan have been incorporated into the Project and/or made conditions of approval to the Project thereby avoiding or mitigating significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PA 02-003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the AMB Properties Transit Village Project. A. The foregoing recitals are tree and correct and made a part of this resolution. B. The Dublin City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to approving the Project. C. The prior Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describe the environmental impacts of the Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, no subsequent EIR is required for the Project because there is no substantial evidence of changes to the Project or to area circumstances, or of new substantial information showing a new significant impact that was not assumed or analyzed in the prior Negative Declaration. 1. No Substantial Project Changes. There have been no substantial changes to the Project that were not assumed and analyzed in the previous ND. Changes considered by the Council in the course of the Specific Plan process were incorporated into a revised Specific Plan ND which was adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000. The Project is consistent with the mix of uses, density, building heights and other standards reviewed in the previous Specific Plan ND and approved in the previous general plan amendment, specific plan, rezoning and development plan actions. 2. No Substantial Change in Circumstances. There have been no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that were not assumed and analyzed in the previous ND. The Specific Plan and its ND planned for change in the area as uses such as the Project site transition to transit oriented development. 3. No New Substantial Information. There has been no new information of substantial~ importance that was not known or could not have been known that shows the Project will have new significant effects not addressed in the previous ND. Much of the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, contains existing development, with existing impacts. The previous ND analyzed the effects of transitioning existing developed sites to different uses, including effects on air quality, water quality, hazardous materials, and public services. Furthermore, based on the information existing in 2002, the City determined that no additional environmental review was required when it relied on the prior ND for rezoning the Project site. Two comment letters and related consultant reports (collectively, "comments") on the MND do not constitute new information under section 15162 for the following reasons. First, the comments often rely on information dated prior to the Specific Plan ND, or prior to the 2002 rezoning action based on the ND, and cannot thus be "new information" under section 15162. Second, the comments often incorrectly assume that the site is vacant and thus use an inappropriate baseline for measuring the potential for impacts. Third, the comments also incorrectly assume there has been no previous CEQA review for the Project. In consequence, the comments incorrectly assert that the fair argument standard applies to CEQA review of the Project rather than the section 15162 standard for subsequent environmental review. Fourth, the comments fail to acknowledge or recognize the information available to the City when it approved the Specific Plan ND in 2000 and relied on it again in 2002 to approve the Project site rezoning. D. On the basis of the whole record before it, including the Project plans incorporating Specific Plan standards and adopted City standards, the prior Negative Declaration, the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, background materials, testimony received from the public, and all other materials in the record, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. E. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. F.~The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the AMB Properties Transit Village Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the AMB Properties Transit Village Project, PA 02-003, consisting of attached Exhibits A and B, and adopts a Mitigation Monitoring Program consisting of the adopted West Dublin BART Specific Plan. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk GAPA#L2002\02-003 Legacy\CC\CC-Reso for MND.DOC CITY OF .DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http://www.ci.du blin.ca, us MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, November 6, 2003 (Prepared pursuant to City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines) Mitigated Negative Declaration For: PA 02-003 Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review, and Development Agreement Description of Project: A Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review and Development Agreement for a mixed-use Transit Village near the future West Dublin BART Station on the existing Cor-O-Van warehouse site. Ultimate development would include a multi-story structure containing a maximum of 308 multi-family dwellings, and a separate multi-level 150,000 square foot office building with associated landscaping, parking and small retail uses. Project Location: 6700 Golden Gate Drive Name of Proponents: Legacy Partners Tom Jodry, Vice President Acquisitions & Development 4000 East Third Ave., Suite 600 Foster City, CA 94904 Public Hearings: A public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 (tentative date), at 7:00 P.M: in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin. I hereby find that the above project will not have a significant effect onthe environment with the mitigation measures incorporated in the project. Attached is a copy of the Initial Study ("Environmental information Form" and "Environmental Checklist Form") documenting the reasons to support the above finding. Dated: November 6, 2003 Date Published: November 9, 2003 Date Posted: November 10, 2003 Date Notice Mailed: November 10, 2003 g:\paO2-OO3\MitNegDec. Considered by: on', i. Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration: Approved Disapproved J~otice of Determination filed: 'esotutiOn No, Area Code (925) · City Manager 833-6650 · City Council 833-6650 · Personnel 833-6605 - Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 · Parks' & Community Services 833-6645 · Potice 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 · Building inspection 833-6620 · Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE LEGACY PARTNERS -AMB PROPERTY PA 02-003 Cor-O-Van Site 6700 Golden Gate Dr. Dublin, CA ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan Tentative Parcel Map Site Development Review Development Agreement PA 02-003 Lead Agency: City of Dublin November 6, 2003 INTRODUCTION This initial study has been prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed Legacy Partners' project in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. The analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and provide the City with adequate information for project review. This initial study includes a project description, environmental checklist and discussion focused upon issues identified in the checklist. tn summary, this Initial Study concludes that the project will not pose any significant adverse environmental im pacts. Additionally, with the policies and programs included in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, the mitigation measures incorporated in the project, and mitigation measures in the Conditions. of Approval for the Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review, required to be implemented with development of the Project, no significant impacts will result. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared and distributed according to the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study was prepared based upon the location of the project: Community Development and Public Works staff review; field review; comments from City, County, local and regional agencies: studies prepared by consultants' use of City Planning Documents; the CEQA Law and Guidelines; and. City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project is a transit-oriented, mixed-use project consisting of a maximum of 308 multi- family units fronting on St. Patrick Way consisting of a total of 177.264 square feet with below-grade kf"~arking and store front retail space on the ground level, and a four-stow 15.0,000 square foot office uilding with surface parking adjacent to the Interstate 580 freeway corridor. The proposed project is located on approximately 9.06 acres of land within the West Dublin BART Specific' Plan area and in proximity to the future West Dublin BART Station, on property owned by AMB Properties. The site is presently developed and utilized as the Cot-O-Van Moving and Storage warehouse site. Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, and Site Development Review, PA 02-003 to be considered for approval and adoption by the Dubiin Planning Commission and the Dublin City Council. The development plan for the project site is planned to include high-denSity residential housing and office use near a future transit facility located within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. This Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin on December 19, 2000 for the purpose of directing the land use, circulation, infrastructure and development for 71.40 acres of land located in the central portion of Dublin west of the t-680 freeway and north of the t-580 freeway. At build-out over the next five to seven years, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area would allow the development of a range of mixed-uses such as residential, commercial office, retail, employment and public/quasi-public type uses. Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the project area in the context of the larger City of Dublin, and Exhibit 2 depicts the project site in relation to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Project Rezoning '& Background The proposed project involves a rezoning to a Planned Development Zoning District/Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and a Tentative Parcel Map To subdivide the property into wo separate parcels. With approval of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan in December 2000, the City of Dublin approved a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the subject City of Dublin Page 2 W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 November 2003 NE[LSEN t SCHOOl' ~INTERSTATE 580 LEGEND DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AREA VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AREA LOCAL CONTEXT WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN N.T.S. DECEMBER 2000 CITY OF DUBLIN' EXHIBIT 2' property to Retail/Office for a portion of the site lying adjacent to the 1-580 and Mixed Use (a combination of High Density Residential and Retail or Office development) for the larger portion of the site, to accommodate small commercial/retail businesses and multi-family housing. At that time, a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment were also approved which analyzed and evaluated the land use mix proposed in the Plan, including that proposed in the area of the West Dublin Transit Village by Legacy Partners. Subsequent to that, the' City rezoned the three Downtown Specific Plan areas to Planned Development (PD) zoning district and Stage 1 Development Plan, which requires approval of a Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan prior to actual development of any property. The Stage 2 Development Plan is more specific to the site than a Stage 1 Development Plan in that it presents the ultimate development and design layout, infrastructure and improvements for the property. Tentative Parcel Map & Site Development Review The applicant has submitted an application for a Tentative Parcel Map to divide the 9.06 acre property into two (2) parcels to create separate building tots for the residential use and for the office use within the area encompassed by the proposed Planned Development Zoning District. This would provide a separate parcel for the each of the planned land uses. It is anticipated that the residential property will be developed first and the office building would be the second phase of the site development. The properties may be developed by separate entities in the future. Grading activities would occur within the project area to accommodate planned land uses, roads and utilities. A preliminary grading plan has been submitted as part of this application. Water, sewer and recycled water services would be provided to the site by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) in accord with DSRSD's Water Supply and Wastewater Collection System Master Plans. At the present time, it is anticipated that water service for the project wo(Jid be.provided by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation .District. Water service is available to the surrounding properties and would be extended to serve this site; however, a new water service line'may be required prior to the extension of service to accommodate the intensity of the proposed development on this site, and others in the surrounding area to be built-out within the near future. Sewer service for the project would be accommodated th'rough connection to the existing sewer system owned and maintained by the Dublin. San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which has existing lines in the vicinity of the site and adequate capacity to service the planned development. When and where available, recycled water from DSRSD would be used for irrigation purposes, reducing the need for potable water. The storm drain system for the development will be connected to the eXisting system of drainage facilities owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation System. This system consists of underground pipes, box culverts and open channels that flow southerly adjacent to 1-580. From there, stormwater runoff will be transported south into Alameda County Flood Control District facilities. City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 Page 3 November 2003 CITY OF DUBLIN Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study introduction This Initial Study has'been prepared in accordance with 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. Applicant/Contact Person ~om Jodry, Vice President £ "cquiSitions & Development Eegacy Partners . 4000 East Third Ave., Suite 600 Foster City, CA 94404-4810 Project Location and Context The proposed project is located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive on approximately 9.04 acres of land within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area and in proximity to the future West Dublin BART Station, on property owned by AMB Properties. The site is presently developed and utilized as the Cot-O-Van Moving and Storage warehouse site and adjacent to a property owned by BART and planned for residential and commercial use. Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the project area in context of the larger City of Dublin, and Exhibit 2 depicts the project site in relation to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The project site is located within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. This Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin on December 19, 2000 for the purpose of directing the land use, circulation, infrastructure and development for 7t .40 acres of land located in the central portion of Dublin west of the 1-680 freeway and north of the 1-580 freeway. At build-out over the next five to seven years, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area would allow the development of a range of residential, commercial office, retail, employment and public/quasi-public uses. City of Dublin Page 4 W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 November 2003 /$ GOLDEN GAT~ DRIVE VESTING TENTATIVEo~P~ERCEL MAP NO. 8069 ' , DUI]LIN TRAN.~ITVILL&GE FO~ AMB COMPANY r-.AUFORNIA IIi [~i~ [ [[} I[ !l~l~ } Land Use Deveiopm, ent P/an The overall land use development plan is oriented toward creating a Transit Village providing an integration of transportation services, employment opportunities, services and housing within a section of downtown Dublin-that is both visible and accessible from the freeways and in close proximity to the future BART station. The preliminary development plan for the Planned Development Zoning District/Stage 2 rezoning indicates that the project'sponsor proposes a maximum number of 308 multi- family dwelling units (apartments) on 7.11 acres of the 9.06 acre property, with a density of approximately 45 dwelling units per acre. A 150',000 square foot office building is proposed on approximately 1.95 acres of the property immediately east of the residential development and adjacent to the freeway. Parking for the development would be provided in surface lots and two levels under the residential buildings. Pedestrian walkways and landscaping would be provided with the plan. Grading activities would occur within the project area to accommodate planned land uses, roads and utilities. A preliminary grading plan has been submitted as part of thiS application. Water, sewer and recycled water services would be provided to the site by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) in accord with DSRSD's Water Supply and Wastewater Collection System Master Plans. At the present time, it is anticipated that water service for the project would be provided by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Water service is available to the surrounding .properties and would be extended to serve this site. Sewer service for the project would be accommodated through new connection to the existing sewer system owned and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which has existing lines in the vicinity of the site and adequate capacity to service the planned develoument. When and where available, recycled water from DSRSD would be used for irrigation purposes, reducing the need for potable water. The storm drain system for the development will be provided with a new connection to the exi.sting system of drainage facilities owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation System. This system consists of underground oipes, box culverts and open channels that flow southerly adjacent to t-580. From there, stormwater runoff will be transported south into Alameda County Flood Control District facilities. Exhibit 3 depicts the Proposed Planned Development Rezoning & Development Plan. Exhibit 4 shows the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the project. I, Project title: PA 02-003 Legacy Partners/AMB - West Dublin Transit Village Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan. Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review. and Development Agreement 2. Project description: Proposed Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review and Development Agreement for a mixed-use Transit Village near the future West Dublin BART Station. Ultimate development would include a multi-stow apartment complex containing a maximum of 308 multi-family dwellings, and a multi- stow 150,000 square-foot office building, with associated landscaping, parking and small retail uses. City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Viltage - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 Page 5 November 2003 3. Lead agency: 4. Contact person: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 Janet Harbin. Senior Planner Community Development Department (925) 833;6610 5. Project location: 6700 Golden Gate Drive (generally located on Golden Gate Drive. between St. Patrick Way and interstate 580). 6. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 941-1500-046 & 941-1500-035 7. Project sponsor: Legacy Partners Tom Jodry, Vice President 4000 East Third Ave., Suite 600 Foster City, CA 94404-4810 8. General Plan designations: Retail/Office and High Density Residential 9. Zoning: PD Planned District (Stage 1 Development Plan) 10. Specific Plan designations: 11. Surrounding land uses: (R) Residential & (O) Office The project is adjacent to the future residential, commercial, and West Dublin BART Station with an associated parking garage, designated Residential Commercial. and Public/Semi-Public Facility on the General Plan. North and west of the site are retail/commercial and office buildings, which are designated for Retail/Office use on the General Plan. Adjacent to the southern property boundary is the Interstate 580 freeway corridor. 12. Other public agency required approvals: Final Maps (City of Dublin) Grading and Building permits (City of Dublin) Sewer and water connections (DSRSD) Encroachment permits (City of Dublin') Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board) City of Dublin Page 6 W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA O2-003 November 2003 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 significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following, pages. "Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality - Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils l Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology/Water Quafity Land Use/Planning Materials - Mineral Resources X Noise Population/Housing - Public Services Recreation X Transportation/ Circulation X Utilities/Service I Mandatory Findings of Systems 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 address potential impacts and mitigate any impacts to a tess-than-significant level. X.... I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wile not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attac~qed sheet have been incorporated into the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration wilt be prepared. ~ [ find that although the proposed project may have a significant 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. If the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "pOtentially significant Unless mitigated," and 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. Signature Date: // Printe~_.~me: Janet Harbin. Senior Planner For: November 6, 2003 City of Dublin. Community Development Dept, City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 Page 7 November 2003 Environmental impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in Parenthesis. See listing of sources used to ~etermine each Potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? (Source: 1,2,3,4) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not Iimited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings Within a state scenic highway? (Source: 2,3,4,5) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5) Il. Agiicaltm'a1:4Res~U rces, .Wo.~fd:fhe .'..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: 2,4,5) b) Conflict with eXisting zoning for agriculture use; or a Williamson. Act contract? (Source: 2,4,5) 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? (Source: 2,4,5) lll.',AirQuaiity (Where a,cailable, the significance . criteria esta'biished by. the applicable air qu.a!ity management district msy be relied on to mabe the ~ol'tewing determir~a;tionS). W..ould:.th.e a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 3,4,5,6) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 3,4,5,6) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact impact With impact M tigation 'X X X X × × × × City of Dubtin Page 8 W. Dublin Transit Village- Legacy Partners PA 02-003 November 2003 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the projest region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (Source: 3,4,5) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 3,4,5) e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 3,4,5) !,~; 'BiolOg'icail: Resou.rc'es 'W¢U!d'fhe 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: 2,3,4,5,7) 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: 2,3,4,7) c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlandsas 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: 2,3,4,7) 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: 2,3,4,5,7) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 2,3,4) Potentially Less Than Less than No" Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation _ X X × × × × × × City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 Page 9 November 2003 f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat cor~e'rVation plan? (Source: 2,3,4) V, Cultural Eeso~rces. Would.~h.e project: a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeotogical resource pursuant to Sec. 15064,5 (Source: 2,3,4,5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or umque geologic feature? (Source: 2,3,4,5) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred oumide of a formal cemetery? (Source: 2,3,4,5) WI. 6eoio.gy and SoilS. Wouid fhe. project: Expose people or structures to potential .substantial adverse .effects, including the risk of loss, m~ury, or death involving: ,.,_. a) i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AIquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault (Source: 1,2,3,4) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 10 W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 November 2003 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the foss of topsoil? (Source: 1,2,3,4) 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 and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 1,2,3,4) 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: 2,3,4) ~ii; !HaZards :and HaZardous ~Ma~etia.!s. 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: 2,3,4,5) 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: 2,3,4,5) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2,3,4,5) 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: 3,4,5) 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: 2,3,4,5) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact X X No Impact X X X X X X X City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 Page 11 November 2003 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: 2,3,4,5) g) impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2,3,4,5) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildtand fires, including where wildfands are adiacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 2,3,4,5,6,7) ~/111, Hydrolegyand W~terQua:lity. 'WO~ld'the.PrOject; a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 3.4.5) b) Substantially deplete groundwater sueplies 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 levef which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Source: 3,4,5) 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: 3,4,5,7) 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: 2,3,4,5,7) 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: 3,4,5,6) City of Dublin Potentially LessThan Lessthan Np Significant Significant Significant impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X / x X X. X Page 12 W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 November 2003 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 3,4,5) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 3,4,5,6,7) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2,3,4,5,6,7) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of toss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a tevee or dam? (2,3,4,5,6) j) nundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (2,3,4,5) IX. ,Land Use:andPlanni~g, ,'Would :fhe pt!o jeer: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,7) b) Conflict with any applicabie 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? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5) a) Result in the toss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 2,3,4,5) b) Result in the toss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a iocal general Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With ,j impact Mitigation X X X X , X I X X X X City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Village Legacy Partners · PA 02-003 Page 13 November 2003 ~L Nois~, Would.~hepropos'alresult.,in a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of stanc~aras established in the general pian or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 2,3,4,5) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2,3,4,5) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (Source: 2,3,4,5) d) A sul~stantial temporary or periodic ncrease in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? (Source: 2,3,4,5) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two mites 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: 2,3,4,5) ¢'-' 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: 2,3,4,5,7) Xll..Populafi:on and:Heusing.. 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: 1,3,4,5,7) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: t,2,3,4,5,7) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 1,2) Potentially I Less ThanLessthan No SignificantI Significant Significant impact impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X × × City of Dublin Page !4 W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 November 2003 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 impactsl in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the pubtic services? (SOurces: 2,3,4,5,6) Fire protection? Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities b) Does the proiect include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,7) X~.'Transpo~ation and ~raffiC, Would.¢heprbject:. 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 votume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (Source: 2,3,4,5,6) 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? (Source: 2,3,4,5,7) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e~9. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (Source: 2,3,4,5,6) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5) X 'X X X X X City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Village -.Legacy Partners PA 02-003 Page 15 November 2003 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality ControI Board? (Source: 2,3,4,5,6) 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? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6) 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? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? '(S°urce: 1,2,3,4,5,6) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact impact' With Impact Mitigation .. X X X X × × 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? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,8) f) Be served by a landfilI with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (1,2,3,4,5,6) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to soled waste? (Source: 3,4,5,6,7) City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 page t6 November 2003 X¥l,.,ri/ian'datorY 'F.:indings of SighifiCanCe, a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the ~abitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or anima] 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 project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past proiects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adVerse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?. Potentially Less Than Lees than No Significant Significant Significant Impact impact With impact .Mitigation ........ l X X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. West Dublin BART Specific Plan (December 2000) 2. General Plan/General Plan EIR (1994 & Updated in 2003) 3. Dublin/Pleasanton BART Extension Project EIR prepared by BART (February 1990) 4. West Dublin/Pieasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project Supplemental EIR (March 2000) 5. Previous Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the Downtown Specific Plans (August 2000, revised December 2000) 6, Discussion/correspondence with City of Dublin staff or affected special districts 7. Other source (Development Plan, Field observations, Record Search, etc.) XVli, Earlier Analyses Eariier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately anatyzed in an eariier EIR or negative declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). a) Earlier analyses used. Identify eadier analyses and state where they are available for review. City of Dublin W. 'Du.blin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 Page 17 November 2003 Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information and mitigation measures contained'in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the ......Negative Declaration approved on December 19, 2000 by the Dublin City Council, Additionally, portions of the (' ~nvironmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this initial Study refer to environrnental information and mitigation measures contained in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, and certified in April 2002, to be built in close proximity to the site. in order to satisfy the City'S responsibilities as responsible agency under CEQA, staff prepared this initial study for the project that anatyzed the potential impacts of this specific project. This initial study has determined that the potentially significant effects of the project are adequately addressed in the recent project revisions and the mitigation measures incorporated Jn the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and the Site Development Review, Specific mitigation measures are noted in the text of the fofiowing Initial Study. Copies of document referenced here are available for public review at the City of Dublin Ptanning Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA O2-003 Page 18 November 2003 Attachment to Initial Study for the West Dublin Transit Village, Legacy Partners (PA-02-003) Discussion of Environmental Checklist I. Aesthetics Project a-d) imoac~s and Mitiqation Measures Significant impact on scenic vista, damage lo scenic resource, degrades visual character of the site or create light or glare? Construction of the proposed project would change the character Of the area from developed property with a warehouse/storage use within a oredominantty light industrial area to an urbanized area with office and residential development. A substantia amount of landscaping and pedestrian- oriented open spaces (approximately 32% of the site)would be included in the project. However, 'this site area is contained in the downtown urbanized portion of the City, and the introduction of the BART Transit Village development would entail construction of a multi-story hotel (eight stories), a residential complex (four to five stories) and associated parking, and a parking structure (five to six stories) for the station on. land that is currently undeveloped. Aesthetic impacts of constructing the project were addressed in both the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. However, this development should not obstruct views of surrounding hillsides and would be consistent with the commercial character of the area. As this is a less-than-significant effect, no mitigation measures are necessary. However, the design of the project must be consistent with the Design Guidelines incorporated in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, as a well-designed transit village would be an aesthetic asset to the Dublin downtown. The proposed plaza adiacent to the hotel and station, and the many pedestrian walkways and streetscape features of the Transit Village will further enhance the appearance and overall design of the project. As the adjacent t,580 corridor is designated a Scenic Highway in'the Dublin General Plan, the project must follow the City's guiding policy related to implementing a physical design that enhances a positive image of Dublin as seen by travelers on the highway. Staff review and evaluation of the design of the structures and the pedestrian connections have been performed 'with the assistance of an architect, and the proiect design is consistent with the City's policies related to design and should create a quality physical and structural environment. I[. Agricultural Resources Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation Measures a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use? The site has not been used for agricultural purposes in the past or present, and no Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement exists on the project site. It is located in an urbanized portion of the City, completely isolated from other agricultural resources within the region. Additionally, the site is not located on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The potential for impacts related to agricultural resources has been adequately assessed in previous environmental documents. Therefore, no adverse impacts to agricultural resources would result from the project and no additional mitigation measures are required. City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 Page 19 November 2003 III. Air Quality f,,,...P, roiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan ? The proposed project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, since the proposed number of dwelling units have been included in Dublin's planned growth as ;)ad of the West Dubfin BART Specific Plan and are permitted under the City's General Plan. Additionally, the proposed land uses are consistent with the ABAG growth projections for the City of Dublin. As a result, development of the proposed project would not conflict with the projections contained in the Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, such im ~acts would be less.than-sign/fica b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? Short-term construction impacts related to implementation of the project, including grading and excavation, could result in exceedance of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Adherence to mitigation measures listed in the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the project will reduce short-term air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures m nimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading and construction activities and also mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running order. Potential air quality impacts related to construction will be mitigated to a less-than-significant im pact with these measures, Similarly, potential air quality impacts related to vehicular traffic emissions on roadways of Reactive Organic Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide, both precursor indicators of smog, and stationary source emissions would not exceed regional air quality standards or thresholds. Additionally, approval of the proposed project would facilitaie the development of housing units close to the approved West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. which would substantially reduce automobile Travel on the local and regional roadways by providing a transportation alternative for commuters. The result would be a net reduction ~n regional emissions. Therefore this impact would be considered tess-than-significant. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? Generally such impacts are based on vehicular emission from future traffic within the sub-region as well as stationary sources. As discussed in ll.b. above, approval of the project would allow development of housing, office and commercial and uses near a major transit facility (BART) with pedestrian access directly to the station and retail/office uses nearby. The result would be a net reduction in cumulative rag/cna! emissions. Therefore, this impact would.be considered less-than-significant. d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? The land uses proposed for the site include residential and commercial/office land uses. As the development of the BART transit facility and housing units in the vicinity of the station would actually reduce cumulative regional emissions and reduce the number of vehicles on the. area roadways, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors. No' impact will occur and no further analysis is.necessary. tn sum air (:uality impacts associated with the project area nave been addressed in previous environmental documents, including the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village EIR and the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area. The proposed development of the West Dublin Transit Village ~s consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no additional mitigation measures are required. City of Dub/in W. Dublin Transit Village- Legacy Partners PA 02-003 Page 20 Novem her 2003 IV. Biological Resources Proiect I .mpacts and Mitiqation Measures Have a substantial adverse impact on special-status soecies noarian features, movement of fish or wildlife species or conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan? Potential impacts to rare, threatened or end angered species have been addressed in the West DubiinfPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR anc~ Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area for the project area as welt as in the original EIR for the BART extension project. The development of the project site would resu t in the loss of only a few acres of grassland habitat surrounding the existing warehouse building and truck parking areas. All biological habitat was assumed to be removed from the vicinity in the original E1R for the BART extension project, and no increase in biological resources on the site has occurred. Because of the geographic location of the site between the t-580 freeway corridor and light industrial/commercial development, it is highly unlikely that any special status species would locate on the site or use the site as mitigation or.movement corridor. Additionally, a recent review of the California Department of Fish and Game's CNDDB conducted in February 2000. and a site reconnaissance survey on March 16, 2000, confirmed that the biological resources existing on the site have not significantly changed since the site was originally developed for a industrial wareh:use- type use. Dublin Creek, which was once located adjacent to the alignment of the 1-580 freeway, is completely channelized in a concrete-lined channel. The concrete-lined channel does not provide habitat for any potential rare, threatened or endangered species. Therefore, any potential biological impacts of the project have been addressed, and no biological impacts would result from the development of the project. No mitigation measures are required. V, Cultural Resources Proiect impacts and Mitiqation Measures a-d) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic, archeological or paleontological resources or human remains? The Cultural Resources Technical Report for the DPX Project Woodward-Clyde Consulting, 1989) and the Archaefogical Survey Report for the Proposed Reconstruction of the 1-580/1-680 Interchange (Kelley, 1989) identified no known historic or cultural resources for the project area. Additionally, the site has been fully developed and improved for a warehouse use with underground utilities and municipal services. However, disturbance of unknown cultural resources, including disruption or destruction of subsurface ,prehistoric resources, and disruption to historic resources, may occur with the removal of vegetation and surface soils through development related excavation and grading activities. To reduce the potential degradation of unidentified cultural resources on the site, mitigation measures have been included in the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and incorporated into the project to reduce impacts to 'cultural resources to a level of tess-than-significance. These mitigation measures are those required by the CEQA Guidelines in the event that cultural, prehistoric or historic resource is discovered during site development or ground disturbance. Therefore, cultural resources impacts associated with the development of the project have been addressed in previous environmental documents and by the Conditions of Approval for the project, and no additional mitigation measures are required. VI. Geology and Soils City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 Page 21 November 2003 Proiect Impacts and Miti,qation Measures Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, .or landslide, substantial erosion, unstable soils or liquefaction? The 'West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village EIR and the original EIR for the BART extension project identify several potential impacts to soils and geology, including earthquake, ground shaking, and ground rupture, The site is relatively fiat and contains no areas of slope, and no impacts related to landslides and erosion have been identified. Mitigation measures such as final subsurface investigations, and appropriate structural and foundation design incorporated into the final engineered design will reduce soils and geologic impacts to a level of less,than- significance. Soils and geologic impacts associated with the project site have been addressed-in previous Geotechnical and soil investigation documents prepared by the Applicant's consultant and reviewed by the City. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and no addit, ionat mitigation measures are required. Vii. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Proiect Impacts and Miti,qation Measures a-g) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission of hazardous materials, listed as a hazardous materials site, interference with an emergency evacuation ~tan, subject to wildtand fires, or located'near a public or private airstriz)? No hazards related to transport of hazardous materials should occur with the development of the project as the transit village will serve only the residential tqous~ng and an office building, which are not associated with the transport or use of hazardous materials. The site of the proposed development contains an underground storage tank proposed for closure A Phase 1 Site Assessment was performed on the site for the project by Versar.,...-lnc. in order to determine the extent of soil and groundwater contamination on the site, if any, from an existing 3.500 gallon gasoline tank and a 10,000- gallon d,esel tank used for trucks in conjunction with the storage and moving warehouse use. The enwronmentai documents recommend no further field sampling prior To commencement of construction activities as no contaminants of a measure Level were found in the groundwater or soil. Since the project contains two primary access points, there would be no interference with an emergency access plan. The site is not ~n an area subject to wildiand fires, and lies outside the referral area for the Livermore Municipal Airport. The proposed project is consistent with previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and no additional mitigation measures are required. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation a-i) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, deplete groundwater resources, alter drainage patterns, effect surface or subsurface water quality, result in placing housing in a flood plain? Water and hydrologic impacts of development of the project have been addressed in the hydrological report for the project, Impacts reviewed included potential flooding, loss of groundwater recharge area, and. potential increases in surface water quality pollution. Since the proposed project will develop within the same /"'-., approximate area as the adjacent site assessed in the original EIR for the BART extension project, and construct stormwater drainage facilities and connections on the site connecting to larger drain pipes with a City of Dublin Page 22 W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 November 2003 greater capacity within the right-of-way for St. Patrick Way Jn accordance with the recommendations of the hydrological report, no new significant stormwater drainage impacts are anticipated: AdclitJonally, the Applicant/Developer will be coordinating with the adjacent site developer for the BART property to insure that al! stormwater and drainage facilities constructed Jn the area contain sufficient capacity to service the projected development of both of the sites and St. Patrick Way. Construction activities and operational site uses associated with the project could result in degradation of water quality in nearby surface water and reservoirs by reducing the quality of stormwater runoff. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and a Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed and implemented for the site, in accordance with the mitigation measures discussed in the SupplementaI EIR. The measures incorporated into the project and discussed in this section w/Ii reduce potential impacts to water and water quality to a level of less:than-significant. IX, Land Use and Planning Project impacts and Miti.qation a) Physically divide an established community?. The project is vacant and has been planned for similar uses associated with a BART Station since the original adoption of the Dublin General Plan in 1990. The adoption of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and related General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the subject property to Retail/Office for 3.7+ acres and High Density Residential (30 to 50 dwelling units per acre) for 3.5+ acres, to accommodate the future use of the land for a commercial type use and multi-family housing. At that time, a Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment were also approved which analyzed and evaluated the land use mix proposed in the Plan, including that proposed in the area of the future West Dublin BART Transit Village proposed by Jones Lang LaSalle Project and Development Management. Surrounding uses planned for the .area under the Specific Plan are mixed use (combination of residential and retail/commercial or office uses).and retail/commercial and office type uses. Adjacent to the southern property boundary is the 1-580 freeway corridor. Therefore, there would be no disruption of any established community. b) c) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? The proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies contained in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan, and with the projected land uses and land use designations of the Specific Plan as discussed in IX.a above. This project consists of a rezoning to implement the existing general plan designations On the 9.75+ acre site. No impacts are therefore anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required. Conflict with a habitaf conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NO such plan has been adopted within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, in which the West Dublin Transit Village project is located. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the proposed project. X, Mineral Resources Project impacts and M/tic, at/on a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? The site is not located in an area of aggregate resources. The West DublinlPteasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 Page 23 November 2003 EIR and the original EIR for the BART extension project do not indiCate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no impacts would occur. ~1. Noise Proiect_..!mpacts and Miti,qation a.f) Would the'project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established bY the General Plan or other applicable standard, expose people to groundbome Vibration, result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels? The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR addressed potential noise impacts of implementing the proposed the project on the adjacent site. Noise related impacts identified in the that EIR included exposure of future residents in the residential portion of the development and occupants of the hotel to increased levels of noise due to the proximity of the t-580 freeway corridor, and exposure of residents and occupants to construction noise from the BART Station and parking structure on the project site. The extension of St. Patrick Way would also contribute to ambient noise levels, but not to a significant level. Additionally, Legacy Partners submitted an acoustical analysis, prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, specifically for the Cot-O-Van site with their project application that also identified the 1-580 freeway corridor as the main source of noise emissions. Although the residential portion of the project will be somewhat shielded from the no~se generated by the freeway, the acoustical analysis recommends several mitigation measures related to building construction and installation of sound-rated windows to reduce the noise impacts to a less- than-significant level. The following mitigation measures incorporated in the design of the project will mitigate noise impacts to a level of tess-than-significant Incorporate sound-rated windows and exterior wails in the~residential units to reduce indoor levels to 45 dB as required by the City and State Provide an alternate means of ventilation for the units, such as active supply air systems or passive sound-line transfer data, to aliow residents to keep winciows closed but still have ventilation Configure the buildings to provide at least a 13 dB noise reduction with outdoor areas contained within the "core" of the complex Incorpdrate sound-rated windows and exterior walls in the office building to reduce indoor levels to 70 dB as required by the City and State Provide an alternate means of ventilation for the office units, such as active supply air systems or passive sound-line transfer data, to allow occupants to keep windows closed but still have ventilation. All construction vehicles or noise generating equipment should not be left idling while not in use, should be fitted with noise muffling devises, and used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Stationary noise-generating construction Should be ~ocated away from occu~)ied residential units. Adherence to site-specific mitigation measures contained in the acoustical analysis and those discussed above will reduce noise impacts to a tess-than-significanl level. XII. Population and Housing Proiect Impacts and Mitiaation City of Dublin VV. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA 02-003 Page 24 November 2003 a) induce substantial population gro~h in an area, either directly or indirect/y? Approval of the oroposed Weat Dublin Transit Village rezoning is substantially consistent with the existing, approved West Dublin BART S~ecific Plan and the Dublin General Plan for the site. The ~roject would add an additional 304-308 multi- family housing units to the City's housing unit stock, and introduce residential development to an area of predominantly retail/commercial and industrial development. However, this is consistent with the intent and land use designations in the Specific Plan and the General Plan. and is considered an appropriate land use given the location of the future West Dublin BART Station and the regional need to develop housing ~n proximity to transit facilities, The planned development also includes up to 23 units of affordable Inclusionary Housing to meet the goals and policies of the Dublin City Council and the lnctusionary Housing Ordinance, and would contribute in-lieu fees to meet the remainder of the Applicant/Developer's obligation for Inclusionary housing. The office use would also in consistent witht the land use designation of the property, and will provide em~loymem opportunities for many persons a/ready residing in Dublin, No impacts are therefore anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? The site is currently used as a storage and moving warehouse business, and no housing exists on the site Implementation of the proposed project would, therefore, displace neither housing units nor people, but would beneficially ~ncrease the opportunities for people to live in the downtown area and close to transit facilities. Xill. Public Services Proiect impacts and Miti,qation a-e) Potential impacts related to: fire protection, police protection, schools, maintenance, or so/id waste generation? The development of the West Dublin Transit Viltage will result in a slight increased demand for police and fire service, police service accessibility, fire response to the project area, minor financial impacts to local school districts, increased solid waste generation, and impacts to solid waste facilities, but not to a substantial or significant level. The Applicant/Developer.will be required to pay Fire Impact Fees and other fees related to the expansion of municipal and pubtic utility services at the time of building permit issuance to cover any increased cost to these services created by the development. The fees are intended to offset fire protection service costs incurred as a result of project implementation, Additionally, school and park impact fees will be required to cover any additional service costs. Adherence to these'mitigation measures will reduce public service impacts to a/ess-than-significant level. Potential public service impacts associated with the TranSit Village project were also addressed in the previously approved Negative'Declaration for the West Dub/in BART Specific Plan. The proposed rezoning of the site is consistent with previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin and no additional mitigation measures are required, XIV. Recreation Proiect Impacts and Mitigation a, b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or require the construct/on of new recreational facilities? Parks and recreation impacts of the project have been addressed during review of the project by the Parks and Recreation Department. A slight increased demand for park facilities is anticipated with the Transit Village project; however, it is not expected that future residents of the project would utilize the park facilities in the City such that substantial deterioration of the facilities would occur, tn accordance with City of Dublin regulations and policies, the project sponsor will be required to pay park impact fees to cover any City of Dublin W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners PA O2-O03 Page 25 November 2003 potential additional service costs related to the development. Additionally, a substantial amount of the internal area of the buiiding and the Courtyards have been designed for passive recreational use and relaxation by residents. The plaza and outdoor area between the residential development and the office building has been designed by the Applicant's architect to incorporate ptaces for pedestrians and leisurely activities. Additionally, grassy areas and landscaped areas around the office building were designed with the intent to provide ouotdoor areas for workers to enjoy at their leisure. Potential parks and recreation impacts associated with the project have, therefore, been addressed by the project or sufficient fees will be paid to provide these facilities within the City for the residents, and no impact related to recreational services would result. The proposed rezoning and subdivision of the site is consistent with previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and no mitigation measures are required. ×V. Transportation/Traffic ?roiect impacts and M/tic, at/on a-g) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic toad and street capacity, exceed LOS standards for CMA roadways, change of air traffic patterns, increase traffic safety hazard, provide for inadequate emergency vehicle access, inadequate parking, provide hazard or barrier to alternative transportation modes? Traffic and transportation impacts associated with the approval and implementation of the West Dublin BART Station and Transit Village project have been addressed in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR, and the Negative Declaration approved by the City Of Dublin for the West Dub/in BART Specific Plan. Specific impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR included impacts resulting from cumulative traffic growth in the region, to which the proposed project would contribute. In the Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Project Plus General Plan Buildout Scenario, the project would contribute to the' unacceptable operation of the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/G.oldei~, Gate Drive, Dublin Boutevard/Amador Plaza Road, Dubiin Boulevard/DoughterY Road, St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive, and San Ramon Road/t-580 interchange. Additionally, cumulative traffic growth in the region with the project would contribute to traffic volumes on roadway segments of Amador Plaza Road south, of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive exceeding their capacity. A project-specific traffic impact analysis was prepared to analyze the impacts of the change in land use with the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and General Plan amendment action (Omni-Means, 2000). The Omni- · Means report concluded that all traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed Specific Plan, which included implementation of the land uses proposed with this project, could be reduced to less-than-significant levels after a number of roadway improvements are completed in the vicinity of the project. The Applicant/Developer will be responsible fdr paying fees related to a portion of the cost of the extension of St. Patrick Way from. Golden Gate Drive .to Regional Street, and also dedicate land for the alignment of the roadway. Those improvements specifically relating to the development of the Transit Village project have been made conditions of the rezoning and parcel map approval, and will be addressed in the Development Agreement between the Applicant/Developer and the City, currently being prepared. in sum, potential traffic and transportation impacts associated with the project are being addressed based on previous environmental documents, including the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR, and the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the projected long-term traffic needs and improvements for the area. The proposed rezoning and parcelization is consistent City of Dubtin Page 26 W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners November 2003 PA 02-003 with previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dub/in', and with the mitigation measures incorporated into the project, the resulting impacts will be less.than-significant.. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems Project' Impacts and Mitigation a-g) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RW(DCB, require new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities, require new storm drain facilities, require additional water supplies, require new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, or require new solid waste facilities? Potential impacts of the Transit Village project were addressed in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR and the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Impacts addressed included impacts to the wastewater and wastewater treatment and disposal system, water system, over drafting of groundwater resources, additional water treatment ptant capacity needs, inducement of substantial population growth as a result of an expanded water system, and need for additional water storage facilities. The environmental analyses concluded that the project would incrementally increase the need for these services, but to a less-than-significant level. Adequate resource supplies and utility services are ava/table to the project site, and no mitigation measures are required. Some basic utility service fees, required of all construction within the City, may be required for connection to systems and facilities. Based on the above, potential utility impacts associated with the Transit Village project have therefore been addressed in previous environmental docu'ments, including theWest Dubiin/Pteasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR and Negative Declaration for the West Dub/in BART Specific Plan area. The proposed rezoning and parcelization of the site is consistent with previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin and no additional mitigation measures are required. XVIt. 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 an/mai community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered p/ant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California h/story or prehistory? N o. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project w~i not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources with the implementation of mitigation measures included in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects).. No, although incremental increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of constructing this project, including additional traffic, air emissions, light and g/are, the project site lies within an area with an approved specific plan. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. City of Dub/in W. Dublin Transit Village -Legacy partners PA 02-003 Page 27 November 2003 DANIEL L. CARDOZO RICHARD T. DRURY THOMAS A. ENSLOW TANYA A. GULESSERIAN MARC D. JOSEPH SUMA PEESAPATI OF COUNSEL THOMAS R. ADAMS ANN BROADWELL ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94060 TEL: (650) 589-1660 FAX: (550) 589-5062 rdrury@adamsbrgadwell.com 1029 K STREET, SUITE 37 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 TEL: (916) 444-6201 FAX: (916) 444-6209 December 2, 2003 VIA MESSENGER Ms. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Comments On The Initial Study And Mitigated Negative Declaration For The West Dublin Trarzsit Village Pr0ject, 6700 Golden Gate Drive (PA 02-003) Dear Ms. Harbin: We are writing on behalf of the International Br0therhoQd of Electrica! Workers Union Local 595, Sheetmetal Workers Union Local 104, and Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342 ("Unions") to comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("ISND") prepared by the City of Dublin ("City") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the West Dublin Transit Village Project, located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Dublin, California. Legacy Partners -AMB Property (the "Applicant") is requesting several approvals from the City to construct the proposed project, including a planned development district rezoning and stage 2 development plan, vesting tentative parcel map, site development review and development agreement for a mixed-use transit village near the future West Dublin BART station on the existing Cor-O-Van warehouse site (collectively, "Project"). The development would include a multi- story structure containing a maximum of 308 multi-family dwellings in a five-story complex totaling 177,264 square feet with below-gra~eTar~ir~g,~a~z~d..a sgp..arate multi-level 150,000 square foot office building, ,and eight-story hotel, a six-story parking garage, and associated landscaping and"r'etait, The members of the Unions construct and maintain commerCial, residential and industrial projects, primarily in the vicinity of Alameda County. Union members live in the communities that suffer the impacts of environmentally detrimental projects, including Dublin. Union members breathe the same polluted 1519a-002 EXH gIT ~ pri~ted on recycled pa~er December 2, 2003 Page 2 air that others breathe and suffer the same adverse health and safety impacts. They are also concerned with sustainable land use and development in Dublin and elsewhere in the CounW. Poorly planned and environmentally detrimental projects may jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for businesses To locate and people to live here. Continued degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoria and other restrictions on growth in the County that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities. Union members are concerned about projects that carry Serious environmental risks without providing countervailing employment and economic benefits to local workers and communities. Therefore, the Unions and their members, have a strong interest in enforcing environmental laws such as CEQA. We are submitting the comment letter under protest since, as discussed more fully below, we~d_id not receive adequate notice of the ISND from the ~e "-5 repeat_~.c~r.a~-~. -~s~~d~ a~ supportin~ume~ts for the '~ , ~ -~ , - .~~--~~- ~. ~-., ~ -~,_ .~,~ ~ ISND d~m~he full comment oer~od. Finally, the Ci~~to ~ovi~ the IS~ through the State Clearinghouse and f~led~rovide the re~ui~i~O- ~¢~om~~~~ ~ be posted at the Stat~~'' ' ~ ~~se condiments at a ~er date.-~ I. CEQA'S PURPOSE AND GOALS. CEQA requires the lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) to analyze the Project's impacts and to propose feasible mitigation measures or alternatives for any project for which there is a "fair argument" that the project may have any adverse environmental impacts. Here, there is more than a "fair argument" that the Project will have significant unmitigated adverse environmental ~ impacts in numerous areas including traffic, air pollution, public health, water pollution, utilities, and others. Thus, the City should have prepared an EIR to propose measures to mitigate these impacts, or to issue statements of overriding considerations for any impacts for which mitigation is infeasible. However, instead or preparing an EIR, the City issued a mitigated negative declaration. A mitigated negative declaration is only appropriate when all of the Project's impacts have be.eh mitigated to a level of insignificance. Since the Project will have significant unmitigated impacts, an EIR rather than a mitigated negative declaration is required. " 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 3 CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. (hereinafter "CEQA Guidelines") § 15002(a)(1).) "Its purpose is To inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR 'protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.' [Citation.]" (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564). The EIR has been described as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to enVironmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Corem'rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 ("Berkeley Jets"); County of~_r~yo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810 [108 Cal. Rptr. 377].) Second, CEQA directs pubhc agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley;Jets, 91 cal. App: 4th 1344, 1354; CitiZens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 CaL3d 553, 564 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410, 416]; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n' v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426, 436]).) The EIR serves to provide public agencies and'the public in general with-information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." Guidelines §15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where fea~sible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns" specified in CEQA section 21081. (Guidelines, § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B).) The City has not satisfied these purposes because it has prepared no EIR for the Project. As discussed below, the negative declaration is legally and factually untenable. The courts have required EIR's even for residential developments of 21 homes, (see, Arviv Enterprises v. South Valley Area Pin. C&rnm. (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 1333), and for 40-home residential developments whose only impact was blocking the view from a park. (Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597). In light of these cases, it is clear that an EIR is required for a 308-home residential development, with 150,000 square feet of office space and 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 4 retail space that will have a panoply of environmental impacts on air quality, traffic, public health, water quality, noise, cumulative and other impacts. We conducted a preliminary review of the current ISND for the Project with the help of several technical experts, including Dr. Petra Pless and Dr. Phyllis Fox (public health impacts, Exhibit A) and Tom Brohard, P.E. (transportation and traffic impacts, Exhibit B). II. AN EIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT VVILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT CEQA contains a s~rong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the "fair argument" standard. Under that standard, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in th~' Whole record before the agency supports a fair argumen~ that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. l%s. Code § 21082.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California (1993) ("Laurel Heights II") 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. ~d?8, 75, 82; Quail Botanical, supra, at 1602.) Under the "fair argument" standard, a negative declaration is improper, and an EIR is required, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant impacts may occur, even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion. (StanisIaus Audubon v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through iSsuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.) As a matter of law, "substantial evidence includes.., expert opinion." (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5).) An agency's decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318.) Substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a project may have significant environmental impacts can be provided by technical experts or members of the public. (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(a)(3); Uhler v. City of Encinitas (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 795, 805; Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 183, 199.) 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 5 Here, substantial evidence presented in this comment letter, and the supporting technical comments, supports a fair argument that the Project will have significant environmental impacts on traffic, public health, air quality, water quality, and other resources. For these reasons, the City should withdraw the ISND and prepare an EIR for the Project. The Project will have Significant Unmitigated Adverse Traffic~ and Parking Impacts. }~ Traffic Engineer Tom Brohard concludes that the Project is likely to have significant adverse traffic impacts on local and regional roadways. The ISND admits that: "the project would contribute to the unacceptable operation of the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive, Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road, Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road, St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive, and San Ramon Road/I-580 interchange. Additionally, cumulative traffic growth in the region with the project would/ contribute to traffic volumes on roadway segments of Amador Plaza Road ! south of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive exceeding their capacity." ISND p. 26) However, the ISND states that no EIR is required because these impacts were allegedly analyzed and mitigated in prior CEQA documents - the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR, and the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. (Id.) " Mr. Brohard concludes that the mitigation measures in the prior ~ environmental review documents are insufficient to mitigate the traffic impacts of the Project To a level of insignificance. (See Exhibit A.) Mr. Brohard also concludes that the City failed to analyze numerous potentially significant parking and traffic impacts. 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 6 Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project's Proposed Retail Uses Will Have p°tentially Significant imPacts On Traffic. The City failed to assess potentially significant traffic impacts from the Project's retail component. The May 22, 2002 Omni-Means Final Report regarding transportation and parking impacts assumes for purposes of its analysis that the Dublin Transit Village Project would contain "a 120,000 square foot office building and 304 high densitY residential units." The May 14, 2003 Omni-Means Focused Trip Generation Analysis/Parking Update for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village assumes the project will now contain "150,420 square feet of office uses and 308 residential apartment uses." However, neither traffic study includes any trips associated with the proposed storefront retail space. (Exhibit A.) The City's failure to analyze potentially significant traffic impacts from the Project's retail component is a major omission. The traffic studies are inconsistent with the Project Description, sincethey ignore all vehicle trips to and from the planned retail space. In turn, this omission understates traffic impacts at intersections and on street segments that will occur from vehicle trips that will be generated by the Project. (Exhibit A.) The additional traffic from the store front retail space must be determined and the total project traffic impacts must be identified and properly mitigated. Without this information, there is a fair argument that the Project will result in significant unmitigated traffic impacts. 2. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That' ~ The Project's Proposed Retail Uses Will Have Potentially ~1 Significant Impacts On Parking. Similarly, the City failed to analyze potentially significant parking impacts from the Project's retail component. The Project Description in the ISND includes second building of 177,264 square feet with store front retail space. However, the traffic studies do not include any parking associated with this store front retail space. Thus, like the traffic studies, the parking studies are inconsistent with the Project Description, since they ignore all parking associated with the planned retail// space. In turn, this understates off street parking generated by the project. (Exhibit A.) 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 7 The City must determine the total parking requirements for the store fron~ retail space, analyze impacts from the Project parking, as proposed, and identify mitigation. Without this information, there is a fair argument that the Project will result in significant unmitigated parking impacts. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Potentially Significant Impacts Traffic Due To Higher Traffic Trips. No substantial evidence exists ~o support the City's use of trip reductions or lower traffic rates in its traffic impac~ analyses. Since actual Project ~raffic trip generation may be higher than analyzed, substantial evidence support a fair argument that the Project may result in significant unmitigated traffic impacts. The May 22, 2002 traffic study indicates a 15 percent reduction was applied to office trips and a 25 percent reduction was applied to residential trips generated by the projec~ based upon proximity to the proposed BART Station. (See Exhibit A citing Footnotes 3 and 4.) The May 14, 2003 traffic update also includes these trip reductions. According to Mr. Brohard, "[t]hese reductions have not been supported by any quantitative data ~o document their use." (Exhibit A.) In fact, Mr. Brohard states that taking the reductions understates the number of vehicle trips to and from the proposed project that will occur at intersections and on street segments if the adjacent BART Station is not built. (Id.) 15 percen~ more office trips and 25 percent more residential trips constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argumen~ that the Project may result in potentially significant Craffic impacts. In order to adequately evaluate reasonable worst case traffic impacts that would occur if the adjacent BART Station is not constructed, no trip reductions for transit should be applied ~o the proposed project. The City acknowledges that this worst case analysis must be conducted, but was not. Both traffic studies analyze parking impacts with and without the adjacent BART station. Thus, the total traffic from the proposed project must be recalculated and the associated significant projec~ traffic impacts must be identified and properly mitigated. In addition to the improper use of trip reductions, the City's traffic analyses improperly apply lower trip rates to the 150,420 square feet of office uses. According to Mr. Brohard, both of the traffic studies use the ITE Trip Generation 6th Edition Land Use Code 714, Corporate Headquarters Building, to forecast trips 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 8 from the office space component of the project, even though a corporate ~ headquarters building is only a single tenant office building. No evidence exists j that the building will be a single tenant office building and, again, no substantial/ evidence exists to support the City's use of lower trip rates in its traffic impact ~ analyses.. . . a~t Mr. Brohard provides substantial evidence in support of a fair argument th the Project will result in significant unmitigated traffic impacts based on the actual trip rates for a general office building. To conservatively and more accurately forecast trips from the proposed Project, the traffic studies should have used ITE Land Use Code 71'0, General Office Building. (Exhibit A.) These rates are considerabIy higher than were used in the traffic studies and include average trip rates per 1,000 square feet of 11.01 for weekday trips, 1.56 for a.m. peak hour trips, and 1.49 for p.m. peak hour trips. Using these rates, a fair argument can be made that the Project will result in potentially significant traffic impacts. The total traffic f~om the proposed Project must be recalculated using general office building trip rates and the associated project traffic impacts must be ~j identified and properly mitigated. 4. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That % The Project Will HaVe potentially significant Traffic ] Substantial evidence shoWs that the Project s revised access will result in ~ significant traffic impacts. The May 22, 2002 traffic study was based upon the \ proposed project having three access points, inclUding one shared access throug~h the adjacent BART Station, directly connecting the proposed project to Golden Gate Drive. According to the current site plan, three access points are now proposed on St. Patrick Way within a total length of about 400 feet. While the May 14, 2003 traffic study indicates all vehicle access to the proposed project will now occur from St. Patrick Way, the traffic study fails to fully analyze the resulting traffic conditions at each of these three access points. (Exhibit A.) According to Tom Brohard, many traffic conflicts will result from vehicles entering and exiting these three access points within such a short distance. (Id.) Further, the easterly two access points are proposed to be located on the inside of a horizontal curve where sight distance will be extremely limited. (Id.) The traffic study must evaluate consolidation of these three access points, as well as 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 recommend measures to provide appropriate sight distance, traffic control, and vehicle storage requirements based on expected queuing lengths at each of the resulting access points on St. Patrick Way. (Id.) As proposed, substantial evidence/ supports a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant and / unmitigated traffic access impacts. The Project Will Have Significant Cumulative Parking Impacts. The ISND must evaluate the impacts from removing Parking to mitigate traffic impacts on Regional Street. According to the City, Regional Street will operate at Level of Service F as a two lane cql!¢~or~stye.et .Mp4?y.qgm~!!at.~iv.e plus project traffic conditions. (Exhibit A citing May 22, 2002 Traffic Study, p. 27.) To mitigate this significant impact, the traffic study states that "Regional Street may require the removal of on street parallel parking to accommodate left turn pockets and/or a two way left turn lane at major driveways which would allow it to operate at Level of Service C." (Id.) Yet, the traffic study fails to analyze potentially significant impacts associated with the removal of the on street parking itself. Th~ City must prepare a revised traffic study which identifies the associated impacts and measures to mitigate these impacts. The City Failed To Follow State Guidelines For Preparing Traffic Studies. According to Tom Brohard, with the 1-580 and 1-680 Freeways in the immediate area, it is extremely important to address project traffic impacts at on and off ramps as well as on the freeway mainlines, pursuant to State Guidelines. (Exhibit A.) In this case, the two traffic studies for the proposed project omit the evaluations required by Caltrans' "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" issued in January 2001. Thus, additional study of project traffic impacts on State highways mhst be made in accordance with the State's guidelines. 7. The City Improperly Omitted Analysis Of Other Important Traffic and Safety Issues. Mr. Brohard states that the City's traffic analyses contain numerous other omissions with respect to potentially significant unmitigated traffic and related safety impacts. The City failed to assess potentially significant impacts from inadequate site distance at internal intersections, from construction, and from / 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 10 transit service. The studies also omit any discussion of bus stops and shelters and the need for safe pedestrian crossings at St. Patrick Way to the commercial area. Thus, the City must address these important issues in a revised analysis and comprehensive EIR for the Project. 8. The City Improperly Omitted Analysis Of Traffic and) Safety Issues Related to a Possible Hotel. As discussed below, the ISND states that the Project includes an 8-story hotel. However, the traffic analysis includes no mention of the hotel and no traffi/~ from the hotel. This is patently inadequate. The City must clarify the Project Description, prepare an adequate traffic analysis of the entire project and re- circulate the information and analysis in an EIR. In sum, there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant unmitigated adverse traffic and parking impacts. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts and to propose mitigation measures. B. The'Project Will HaVe Significant Adverse Air Quality and Public Health Impacts 1. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Significant Construction Air Quality Impacts. , , The ISND admits that the project s 'construction impacts.., could result exceedance of air qual?y standards established by the Bay Area Air Quahty Management District. (ISND p. 20) However, the document concludes that mitigation measures listed in the conditions of approVal for the vesting tentative tract map for the project Will reduce construction imPaCts to less than significant levels. (Id.) None of these measures are listed in the ISND for the Project. The BaY Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA'/ Guidelines state: i519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 11 "[a]lthough the impacts from construction related air pollutant emissions are temporary in duration, such emissions can still represent a significant air quality impact. In some cases, construction impacts may represent the largest air quality impact associated with a proposed project... Emissions from construction equipment engines also can contribute to high localized concentrations of PMl O, as well as increased emissions of ozone precursors and carbon dioxide.' (Id., p. 52) The ISND fails ro include any "quantification of emissions" whatsoever. ' There is absolutely no attempt To quantify the particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, or other emissions that will result from construction equipment and earth moving during construction. Instead, the ISND merely makes a conclusory statement that with the implementation of mitigation measures, construction emissions will become less than significant. (ISND p. 20) However, without any quantification of construction emissions ar all, it is impossible ro determine that the mitigation measures proposed reduce those unknown impacts to insignificance. The ISND's analysis is patently inadequate. The ISND must not only identify the impacts, but must also provide "information about how adverse the impacts will be." (Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange, 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 831 (1981).) The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (1990); Sundstrum, supra.) The ISND makes absolutely no attempt to describe "how adverse" construction impacts will be. In the absence of such an analysis, there can be no assurance that the mitigation measures will reduce construction impacts to a level' of insignificance. Contrary to the ISND's representations, the City has not required even the standard mitigation measures required by the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan. Thus, the Project is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan - yet another significant impact. There are numerous mitigation measures required by the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan that the ISND has failed to require, including the use of alternative fuel construction equipment, use of cleaner fuels, particulate traps, and numerous other measures. In addition, there are numerous mitigation measures suggested by the California Air Resources Board that have not been imposed on the Project. 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 12 Thus, the Project will have significant unmitigated construction impacts, and an EIR is required to analyze these impacts and impose feasible mitigation. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Significant Cumulative Air Impacts. The ISND's cumulative impact analysis is patently inadequate. The ISND compares the projected future emissions with the Project compared to the future projected emissions without the Project. The ISND concludes that because the Project is located near BART, more people will take public transportation, and the Project will result "in a net reduction in cumulative regional emissions." (ISND p. 20.) However, this analysis turns the concept of cumulative impacts on its head. The baseline environmental setting for CEQA review is always the existing environment - not a hypothetical environmental setting that might possibly exist in the future. A draft EIR "must include a description of the environment in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the commencement of the project, from both a local and a regional perspective." (CEQA Guidelines § 15125; see also Environmental Planning and In[o. Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354 (1982); Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 874.) Rather than using the actual environment as the basehne, the ISND compares to the Project to a future hypbthetical environment that might exist in the future without the Project. CEQA prohibits this type of conjecture. By adding 308 residential units, an office building, a hotel and commercial space to the site, the Project will clearly increase air po]2[ution impacts from the current baseline levels, which includes no development on the site: In addition, there are literally thousands of other residential and commercial developments currently underway or planned fo~ the City of Dublin. The cumulative impacts from these Projects will clearly exceed significance thresholds when compared to the proper current actual baseline levels. The ISND's conclusion that the cumulative impacts of the Project will be negative is simply untenable. CEQA section 21083 requires that the cumulative impact analysis consider the Project together "with the effects of past projects, the effects of other currenz projects, and Che effects of probable future projects." "Cumulative impacts" are defined as "two or-more individual effects which, when considered together, are 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 13 considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(a).) "[I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(a).) The importance of an adequate cumulative impacts analysis was recently reaffirmed in Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) ("CBE v. CRA") 103 Cai.App.4th at 116, where the court stated: Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of tl~e most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact. In this case the May 22, 2002 Omni-Means traffic analysis identifies no fewer than twelv~ projects that are currently approved and pending, including thousands of housing units, commercial development and numerous other projects. (ISND May 22, 2002 Omni-Means Traffic Analysis, pp. 23-24) Clearly, the cumulative impacts of these projects will be highly significan~ in terms of air quality, water quality, traffic and other impacts. The City must prepare an EIR to analyze and mitigate these cumulative impacts. Furthermore, contrary ~o the statements in the ISND, the City's General Ptan ~s inconsistent with the most recent Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The ISND sta~es that the Project and City's General Plan are consistent with the 1997 Clean Air Plan. (ISND p. 20) However, the most recent Clean Air Plan was adopted in 2001 by the BAAQMD. The General Plan4s inconsistent with the current Clean Air Plan, because it fails to include all transportation control measures, and for other reasons. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide as follows: For any project that does not individually have significant operation air quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impacts should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quahty plan. (The 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 14 appropriate regional air quahW plan for the Bay Area is the most re~kntly adopted Clean Air Plan.)... For a project in a city or county with a general plan that is not consistent with the Clean Air Plan, the cumulative impact analysis should consi~ler the combined impacts of the proposed project and past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects. ("Reasonably anticipated future projects" should include, at a minimum, project of which the Lead Agency is aware based on applications for permits and other land use entitlements, environmental documents, and discussions with probable future developers.) A project would have a significant cumulative impact if these combined impacts would exceed any of the thresholds established above for project operations. A quantitative analysis of past, present and-future projects would be required as part of this determination... BAAQ~D CEQA Guidelines, pp..20-21 (emphasis added). Since the City's General Plan is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines require a "quantitative"' cumulative analysis of the Project together with past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects. Given the thousands of housing units planned for Dublin and other development, the quantitative analysis wffl indicate that the cumulative air pollution impacts of the Project far exceed relevant significance thresholds. Thus, an EIR is required to quantify and disclose these cumulative impacts to the pubhc and to propose feasible mitigation measures. 3. SUbstantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Significant Diesel Exhaust / Impacts. According ko Dr. Petra Pless and Dr. Phylhs Fox, both experts in air quality \~ and health risk assessments, substantial evidence supports a fair argument~that the Project may result in potentially significant unmitigated public health impacts. (Exhibit B.) Interstate 580 has an annual a~erage daffy traffic volume ("AADT") of 188,000, counted at the 1-580/I-680 interchange, of which 6.8% or 12,728 are trucks. 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 15 ¢~,~./~/), (CalTrans~, 12/00, p. 336.) The CalTrans data indicate that 65% or 8,220 of these trucks are heavy-heavy-duty five-axle trucks, which have the highest diesel exhaust emissions. In addition, Dublin Boulevard, a major east-west arterial with six lanes, would run along the northern end of the Project site and would additionally carry diesel-fueled vehicles. The ISND indicates that 308 multi-family residential units and a 150,000- sqft office building would be located between 1-580 to the south and Dublin Boulevard to the north. The office building would be immediately adjacent to the north lane of 1-580. All of the buildings, including the multi-family residential units, would be within less than half a mile of 1-580 and 1-680. (ISND, Exhibits 1 through'4.) Because of the location, one can reasonably anticipate very high concentrations of diesel exhaust a~ the Project site resulting in significant health impacts to residents and workers. However, the ISND did not recognize the public health impacts of locating residential and commercial uses near these roadways. The ISND claims that "[a]s the development of the BART transit facility and housing units in the vicinity of the station would actually reduce cumulative regional emissions and reduce the number of vehicles on the area roadways, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations." (ISND, p. 20.) Dr. Pless points out that this statement is invalid and incorrect for two reasons. First, this conclusion is not supported by any quantitative analysis. The CEQA documents that the ISND allegedly relies upon does not contain any ambient air quality modeling for the operational phase of the Project nor do they contain a health risk assessment regarding the impacts of diesel exhaust particulat, e matter on:residents and workers at the Project site. Thus, no substantial evidence exists to support the City's claim that site-specific impacts are not significant. Second, while the existence of public transportation facilities might- reduce personal vehicle trips and thus total vehicle traffic counts on nearby roadways, if such a facility is built, it will not reduce the number of trucks on these roadways. Trucks are the chief contributor to vehicle exhaust particulate matter. Diesel exhaust has been identified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant and is identified by the State as a known human carcinogen. Studies have demonstrated that children living near major roadways are exposed to ~ State of California, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation, 2001 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, Compiled by Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems, December 2002. 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 16 high levels of diesel exhaust and have poorer lung function than children living in cleaner areas2. Diesel exhaust has been officially recognized by the State of Cahfornia as a chemical that causes cancer cn humans since October 1990s. On August 27, 1998, after extensive scientific review and public hearing, the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") formally identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant ("TAC'). Diesel exhaust is a serious public health concern. It has been linked to a range of serious health problems including an increase in respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. Fine diesel particles are deposited deep in the lungs and can result in increased respiratory symptoms and disease; decreased lung function, particularly irt children and individuals with asthma; alterations in lung tissue and respiratory tract defense.mechanisms; and premature death. (CARB 6/98.4) CEQA requires analysis not only of direct impacts of the Project, but also indirect impacts resulting from the placement of sensitive receptors near hazardous conditions. The Bay Area Air Quahty Management District ("BAAQMD') modified its CEQA Guidelines in December 1999 (BAAQMD 12/99) to acknowledge the impact of diesel exhaust. These Guidelines (p. 47) state with respect to diesel exhaust 'that: Because of the potential public health impacts, however, the District strongly encourages Lead Agencies to consider the issue and address potential impacts based on the best information available at the time the analysis is prepared. Particular attention should be paid to projects that might result in sensitive receptors being exposed to high levels of diesel exhaust~ This applies to situations where a new or modified source of emissions is proposed near existing receptors and to new receptors locating near an existing source. 2 Pekkanen, er al., Effects of ultrafine and fine particles in urban air on peak expiratory flow among children with asthmatic symptoms. Environ. Res (1997) 74(1):24-33 3 Cahfornia Environmental Protection Agency, ChemicalsILnown to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity (Exhibit 5 Do Fox Comments). 4 Cahfornia Air Resources Board (CARB), Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemakin¢~ Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant, Staff Report, June 1998. 1519a.002 December 2, 2003 Page 17 The Project involves the placement of new receptors (residential and office units) next to an existing source of diesel exhaust (the 1-580 fireeway). However, the ISND fails entirely to analyze this significant impact. Dr. Fox and Dr. Pless prepared a health risk assessment to determine the incremental increase in cancer risk from diesel exhaust ;hat would result from living and working a; facilities provided by the Project. This analysis used standard Initial Study Preparer Janet Harbin, Senior Planner Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this initial Study: The Bay Area Raoid Transit District (BART) CalTrar~s Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Regional Water Quality Control Board Dublin-San Ramon Services District Livermore Dublin Disposal District Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) References West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Technical Appendices,, prepared by City of Dublin Community Development Department adopted December 19, 2000 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Proiect, prepared by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, September 1989 (adopted February 1990) Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West DublintPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Proiect, prepared by the Bay Area'Rapid Transit District, November 2000 (adopted April 2001) Ne,qative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, Downtown Core Specific Plan, and the Villa,qe Parkway Specific Plan, prepared by the City of Dublin, November 2001 (adopted December 2001) December 2, 2003 Page 18 immediately to the north of the development, would increase these risks; The estimates also do not consider any future increase in truck traffic along 1-580. (Id.) In addition, the average diesel concentration (1.13 ~g/m3) used in the analysis is a 24-hour average and includes the evening hours when concentrations are low. (Id.) Workers would .only be present roughly between 7 AM to 5 PM, when the diesel exhaust emissions are highest. Finally, the risk assessments used actual exposure times instead of a lifetime exposure duration. If a lifetime exposure duration were used in the risk calculations, the cancer risks would be substantially higher, increasing to 1193 in one million for child residents and to 91 in one million for commercial workers - this is up to 119 times higher than the BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold of ten in a million. (Id.) As set forth in Exhibit B, there are many feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the Project's potentially significant health impact. (Id.) These impacts can be mitigated by locating people outside of the hazard zone, where impacts are significant, by including a buffer or setback from 1-580. These impacts can also be mitigated by designing buildings to maintain indoor air concentrations below levels of concern. Limiting indoor concentrations of diesel exhaust could be accomplished by minimizing outdoor air infiltration, limiting building ventilation rates to the minimum required for comfortable habitation, and using air cleaning devices. Windows could be designed to remain permanently closed, and all doors could be designed to automatically close. The Project could also incorporate box and bag'filters, high-efficiency particulate air ("HEPA") filters, and ultra-low particulate air ("ULPA") filters. Clearly, an EIR is required to analyze this impact and to propose mitigation measures. 4. The Project Will have Significant Heat Island Effects. ~ The Project will have significant "heat island" impacts. The "heat island effect" is a meteorological phenomenon caused by urban surfaces, which absorb more solar radiation and radiate that heat, increase local ambient temperatures.9 This can reasonably be expected to increase local ambient temperature and hence // s B. Fishman, H. Akbari, H. Taha, Meso-Scale Chmate Effects of High Albedo Surfaces at White Sands, New Mexico. LBL Report 35056, 1994. 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 19 local formation of ozone~°.'' The Project will involve large amounts of asphalt parking lots, black rooftops, and road surfaces. In addition, there will be a '/ cumulative heat island impact {rom the large number of other developments in the~ area. Nevertheless, the Project s heat island impacts are ignored entirely in the ISND. / There are numerous feasible measures to reduce the Project's heat island / impacts. These measures include the use of light-colored paving such as concrete rather than asphalt, use of light-colored roofing materials, and other measures. These feasible mitigation measures should be considered in an EIB. C. The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Impacts on Public '~x1 Services ~ The Project will certainly create new demand for fire protection, police services, schools, and other public services. The ISND fails to analyze these impacts entirely. There is at least a "fair argument" that the Project's impacts on public services will be significant, particularly when the cumulative impacts are / considered together with the thousan'ds of new housing units planned for the City/ An EIR should be prepared to analyze this impact and propose mitigation. // D. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Result In Significant Impacts On Water Quality The City Failed To Assess Significant Impacts on Groundwater and Soils Although the ISND states that the Project's water and hydrologic impacts have been addressed in "the hydrological report," there is no evidence that a hydrological report was prepared for the proposed Project site. According to the Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans, including the West Dublin Specific Plan: In the event that subsurface excavation is proposed, adopted City / standards require that specific development projects, such as those [ / l0 Taha, Haider. 1995." Ozone Air Quahty Implications of Large-Scale Albedo and Vegetation / Modifications in the Los Angeles Basin ," Atmospheric Environment, 31(11), pp. 1667-1676. Also Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBL-36890, Berkeley, CA. i519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 20 requiring underground parking structures, prepare a site-specific hydrological analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis to determine groundwater levels. (Negative Declaration, Downtown Specific Plans, September 2, 2002, Revised December 14, 2000, p. 18.) The purpose of this site-specific analysis is to assess potentially significant impacts due to alterations in the direction of the groundwater. This is important since the City is underlain by an extensive underground aquifer, which ranges in depth between 15 and 500 feet. Here, the Project proposes "below-grade parking." However, the record is devoid of a "site-specific hydrological analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis to determine groundwater levels," as required by the Negative Declaration for the. West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The City must perform the required analys~s. Without this information, the City has no evidence to support its conclusion that impacts are less than significant. Potential Pollution from new construction related activity The ISND admits that "construction activities and operation site uses associated with the project could result in degradation of water quality in nearby surface water and reservoirs by reducing the qualiW of stormwater runoff." (ISND p. 23) As mitigation, the ISND states that a storm water pollution prevention plan ("SWPPP") will be prepared for the Project. (Id.) This is inadequate mitigation for several reasons. First, as discussed below, a SWPPP mitigates only construction phase stormwater impacts, not operational impacts. Thus, the operational impacts rem ain entirely unmitigated. Second, the SWPPP should be incorporated in the ISND so that the public can review it for adequacy. CEQA disallows deferring the formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sur~dstrom v. County'o£Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309.) An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses "'meaningful information' reasonably justifying an expectation of comphance." (S~r~dstrom at 308; see also Sacramer~to Old City Associatior~ v. City Co~zr~cil of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal. App.3d 1011, 1028-29 (mitigation measures may be 1§19a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 21 deferred only "for kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible").) A lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved; an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility (Kings County _Farm Bureau v. City of Hartford (1990) 221 Cal.App. Yd 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation because there was no evidence that replacement water was available).) This approach helps "insure the integrity of the process of decisionmaking by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug." (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32r~d Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cefl. Yd 929, 935.) Moreover, by deferring the development of specific mitigation measures, the Applicant has effectively precluded public input into the development of those measures. CEQA prohibits this approach. As explained by the Sundstrom court: An EIR ... [is] subject to review by the pul~hc and interested agencies. This requirement of "public and agency review" has been called "the strongest assurance of the adequacy of the EIR." The final EIR must respond with specificity to the "significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process."... Here, the hydrological studies envisioned by the use permit would be exempt from this process of public and governmental scrutiny. (Sur~dstrom, 202 Cal.App. Yd at 308.) The ISND states that a SWPP will be developed at a later time. The Regional Water Board does not review SWPPPs for adequacy but only requires that SWPPPs be prepared and kept on site. Thus, this "mitigation measure" in no way ensures that adequate storm water measures will be adopted or implemented by the Project. Nor does it allow the public to review any storm water plan for adequacy. The applicant should develop an adequate stormwater mitigation plan and submit it for public review through the EIR process to ensure its adequacy. ~ 3. Potential Pollution from Post-Construction Activity - a. Pesticides from Newly Landscaped Areas The Project may introduce significant amounts of pesticides and petroleum hydrocarbons into receiving waters. The ISND includes ~o measures described to address these ongoing sources of pollution. 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 22 The Project would increase the amount of landscaped area ar the Project site, particularly when considering the cumulative impacts of the numerous Dublin-area projects. Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers would be applied in these areas. An EIR must be prepared To analyze this impact and propose mitigation. / b. Pollutants From Increased Average Daily Traffic The Project would increase average daily traffic above cra'rent levels. These trips would be distributed throughout roadways, outside of the immediate vicinity of the Project. In addition, the large parking lot areas associated with the Project will generate significant run-off. Studies performed by CalTrans in California "indicate that higher AAI)T [annual average daily trips] tends to result in higher pollutant concentrations in runoff." (Exhibit C: Kayhanian et al.,ii p. 15.) Thus, an increase in trips over roadways outside of the immediate Project area would increase pollutant loads from these roadways. Runoff from roadways contains very high concentrations of many constituents. (Exhibit C: Kayhanian et al., Table 6.) The median concentrations of copper, nickel, and zinc detected in storm water runoff from urban highways, for example, exceed the U.S. EPA saltwater aquatic life criteria as reported in the NURP study. (EPA 12/83, ~2 Table 5-1.) Thus, it is hkely that increased storm water pollution from roadways impacted by the Project may result in significant impacts. This ISND does not account for the cumulative impact of these pollutants. Thus, storm water pollution from roadways impacted by the Project and cumulative impacts are significant unmitigated adverse environmental impacts that should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be developed. ~ M. Kayhanian, A. Singh, C. Suverkropp, and S. Borroum, The Impact of Annual Average Daily Traffic on Highway Runoff Pollutant Concentrations. ~2 U.S. EPA, Results of Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. v. 1. Final Report, PB84-185552, December 1983. 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 23 c. Mitication Is Inadequate The ISND contains absolutely no mitigation for post-construction run-off poliution.The SWPPP apphes' ~ly to the ~°nstruction Phase of the ProjeCt. The ISND proposes no mitigation at all for the operational phase of the Project. Thus, the City should prepare an EIR to develop mitigation measures for the operation run-off impacts of the Project. III. TIlE ISND FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE TIlE PROJECT The ISND fails to accurately describe the Project. A negative declaration legally defective if it fails to accurately describe the proposed project. (Christ~vard M~nisiry u. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180; CEQA Guidelines that before a Negative Declaration can be issued, the §1507!(a)). CEQA provides ~tial study must "provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effec~ on the environment." (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(c)(5).) The courts have repeatedly held that "an accurate, stable and finite project description is the s~n¢ qua non of an informative and legally sufficient [CEQA document]." (Courrty o/Inyo u. City of Los An~eI¢s, (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.) The project description must be accurate and consistent throughout an environmental review document. (County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d a~ 192.) It is impossible for the public to make informed comments on a project of unknown or ever-changing proportions. "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental costs .... "(County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192-193.) In County of Inyo, the lead agency first defined the project to include only the extraction of groundwater from Owens Valley for export and use on city-owned land in Inyo and Mono Counties. Then, the project was defined as "one part of the larger operation of the Los Angeles Aqueduct System." And in yet another p art of the document, the project included the entire Los Angeles Aqueduct System. (Id. at 190.) The Court found the inconsistent project descriptions to be harmful because "the inconsistency confused the public and commenting agencies, thus vitiating the usefulness of the process "as a vehicle for intelligent public participation .... A curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input." (Id. at 197-198.) 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 24 In this case, the ISND contains an inadequate project description. The Mitigated Negative Declaration Notice dated November 6, 2003 describes the project as including "a multi-story strUcture containing a maximum of 308 multi-use family dwellings, and a separate multi-level 150,000 square foot office building with associated landscaping, parking and small retail uses." Later in the ISND, the project is described as entailing construction of a multi-story hotel (eight stories), a residential complex (four to five stories) and associated parking, and a parking structure (five to six stories). (ISND, p. 19.) However, nowhere else is this full development potential discussed. The City should prepare an EIR that accurately discloses the scope of the proposed Project. IV. THE ISND FAILS TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF TI-IE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE The ISND employs an inaccurate basehne, thereby skewing the impact analysis. An accurate description of the environmental setting is important because it establishes the baseline physical conditions against which a lead agency can determine whether an impact is significant. The importance of having a stable, finite, fixed basehne for purposes of an environmental analysis was recognized decades ago. (County o/ Ir~yo v. City o/Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185.) Today, the courts are clear that an environmental review document must focus on impacts ~o the existing environment, not hypothetical situations. (County o/Amador/ vs. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cai.App.4th 931, 954.) A. The ISND Fails To Accurately Describe Traffic Baseline ~ \ Here, the ISND does not correctly describe the existing physical conditions related to traffic. The ISND was published on November 9, 2003, Traffic counts for the May 22, 2002 traffic study were made in January and February 2002. (ISND, p. 5.) However, according to Mr. Brohard in Exhibit A, shortly thereafter, a new southbound on ramp to 1-680 at the end of St. Patrick Way was completed and opened to traffic in about May 2002. Although traffic forecasts in the study were adjusted to reflect the new on ramp based upon the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan prepared in 2000, actual traffic counts were not made and adjusted. (Exhibit A.) Since the City prepared a revised traffic study for the Project in May 2003, actual traffic counts should have been made at intersections and on roadway segments near the proposed project and the new on ramp to verify the "adjustments" assumed 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 25 from the 2000 Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. Without this information, no substantial evidence exists to support the City's conclusion that traffic impacts are less than significant. The ISND Fails To Accurately Describe The Existing Water Quality Environment The ISND fails entirely to discuss the existing wa~er quality environment. The ISND does not discuss the location or qualiW of waters that will be affected by the ProjecT. Without an adequate discussion of the quality of receiving waters, it is not possible to adequately characterize the impacts of the Project. C. The ISND Fails To Accurately Describe The Existing Air Quality Environment The ISND fails entirely to discuss the existing air quality environment. The ISND does not even discuss the fact that the Bay Area fails to attain state' and federal standards for ozone, and state standards for particulate matter. It also fails to mention ~hat the tri-valley region is one of the worst ozone "hot spots" in the Bay Area. The court in Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, stated that the failure to consider the Project's impacts in light of existing unacceptable ozone levels in the area rendered the environmental analysis inadequate. The City must revise the environmental analysis to accurately reflect the environmental baseline. Without this baseline information, no Substantial evidenc~~ exists to support the City's findings that impacts are less than significant. TI-IE ISND FAILS TO DISCUSS INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND APPLICABLE REGIONAL PLANS CEQA requires the lead agency to analyze the impacts of a project in reference to relevant planning documents, including the General Plan. (CEQA Guidelines, App. G, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, Item 6.) An EIR must discuss any inconsistencies that exist between a proposed project and any applicable general plans and regional plans. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d).) This discussion is mandatory under CEQA. The same analysis must be conducted when a lead agency elects to use a negative declaration to evaluate the significant environmental impacts that may be caused by a project. (CEQA Guidelines, App. G.) The purpose of this requirement is to determine - in the context of a general 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 26 plan's policies, objectives and standards - whether a particular project will have a significant impact on the environment. A project's impacts may be significant if they are greater than those deemed acceptable in a general plan. (Ge~rtr3 u. City of girurrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1416.) Despite this requirement, the ISND fails to identify or evaluate any of the inconsistencies that exist between the Project and the currently applicable Bay Area's Revised Ozone Attainment Plan, adOpted in 2001. Instead, the ISND compares the Project to the outdated 1997 Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD CEQA guidance makes clear that the Project must be analyzed in light of the most recent Clean Air Plan. The ISND fails to conduct this analysis. If the analysis had been conducted, it would be clear that the Project is inconsistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan. The Clean Air Plan requires the implementation of construction air pollution control measures that are not required of the Project, and also requires implementation of transportation control measures that are not required for the Project. This inconsistency is itself a significant adverse impacts requiring disclosure and review. VI. 'THE ISND IMPROPERLY PIECEMEALS THE ANALYSIS OF THE ~'~ PROJECT'S ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CEQA mandates "that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones -- each with a minimal potential impaCt on the environment -- which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." (Bozur~g v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-84; City of Santee v. Cour~ty of San Diego, (1989) 214 Cal. Ap~p.3d 1438, 1452). Before undertaking a project, the lead agency must assess the environmental impacts of all reasonably foreseeable phases of a project. (Laurel Heights I, supra, pp. 396-97 (EIR held inadequate for failure to assess impacts of second phase of pharmacy school's occupancy of a new medical research facility).) A pubhc agency may not segment a large project into two or more smaller projects in order to mask serious environmental consequences. As the Second District very recently stated: The CEQA process is intended to be a careful examination, fully open to the public, of the environmental consequences of a given project, covering the entire project, from start to finish.., the purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decision with environmental consequences in mind. 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 27 (Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles ("NRDC v. LA") (2002)~ 7~ (~ 103 Cal. App.4th 268.) ~ The ISND improperly piecemeals a single project into several smaller sub- projects, each with comparatively limited environmental impacts. The Project is actually part of a much larger BART expansion Project. Despite the larger nature of the Project, the ISND analyzes only the 308 unit residential development, and ignores other phases of the BART development. CEQA prohibits such a "piecemear' approach. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hartford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720.) In fact, it was precisely such piecemeahng that was rejected by the Second District in the NRDC v. LA case. In that case, the Port of Los Angeles analyzed Phase 2 of a three phase project in a negative declaration. The court held that an EIR was required to analyze the entire three-phase project as a whole. (NRDC v. LA, supra, p. 284.) Similarly here, the City must prepare an EIR to analyze the impacts of the entire project as a whole, rather than analyzing each individual phase in a series of separate negative declarations. In determining whether a project may have a significant impact on the environment, the agency must consider the cumulative impacts of'the project "when viewed in connection with the effects of past project, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects." (CEQA § 21083(b).) As the Court explained in a recent case: THE ISND FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THE CUMULATIVE ~,~ IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE PROJECT Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear inslg~ffican~ when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact. (COmmunities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114-115.) A cumulative impact is an impact that is created as a 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 28 result of'the project when evaluated together with other past and future projects causing related impacts. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15355, 15130.) Even where a current project would add only a small increment to the existing background levels, the projects' effects may be cumulatively significant. (Los Angeles Ur~ified School District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1019, 1025-26.) In this case, the City fails to analyze most of the cumulative impacts of the project together with other past, present and reasonablY' foreseeable future projects. There are numerous other project currently planned or under construction in the City of Dublin totally thousands of new residential units and commercial space. The cumulative impact of these projects will be dramatic in terms of air quality, traffic, water pollution, water usage, sewage, public services and virtually every other impact. It is impossible to gauge the effects of the Project in a vacuum without considering it together with the other development. The discussion above and the expert comments submitted herewith discuss the Project's cumulative impacts on air, water, traffic and other resources. CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance and an EIR must be prepared. Under the Guidelines, an agency must find that a project may have a significant ~ environmental effect, and thus prepare and EIR, fi, inter alia, the possible ,,~ environmental effects of the project are cumulatively considerable.~3 (Pub. Res. // Code § 21083(b)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15065(c).) VIII. TI-IE ISND FAILS TO IDENTIFY AND INCORPORATE ALL EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS A mitigated negative declaration may only be adopted if all significant impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b).) As discussed above, the Project will have numerous significant impacts that are not mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, the use of the mitigated negative declaration is legally improper and EIR is required. '"Cumulative considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in Section 15130." (CEQA Guidelines § ~5065(c).) 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 29 CEQA requires the City to adop~ feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen or avoid the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002, 21081(a)), and describe those mitigation measures in the ISND. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4.) A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibihW. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation measure because no record evidence existed that replacement water was available).) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into accoun~ economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments. (~rd. at § 15126.4(a)(2).) In this case, there is no evidence proposed traffic mitigation measures are feasible. (Exhibit A.) According to the traffic study, the Project will add traffic through the intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, which will operate at Level of Service F in the p.m. peak hour under future base conditions. The traffic study indicates that significant improvements, including triple left ~urn lanes in both the northbound and the westbound directions, are needed for this intersection to operate at an acceptable Level of Service D. However, according to Tom Brohard, these radical measures have historically been used at only a few locations in highly urbanized California and on the Las Vegas Strip where intersections are spaced further apart ~o accommodate the weaving movements that occur downstream from the triple left turns. (Id.) Since the traffic s~udies do not indicate whether there is sufficient spacing for this measure, no substantial evidence exists that the measure is feasible. 'I'here is also no evidence proposed traffic mitigation measures will reduce impacts ~o less than significant. According to the City, the proposed project should pay "fees related to a portion of the cost of the extension of St. Patrick Way from Golden Gate Drive ro Regional Street and also dedicate land for the alignment of the roadway." (ISND, p. 26.) However, as set forth above and by Tom Brohard, the amount of fees will increase when the actual number of daily project trips ~s recalculated. (Id.) Other financial contributions toward needed future projects, such as the required triple left turn lanes and other necessary significant ~mprovemen~s ar DougherW Road and Dublin Boulevard must be required. Without this information, there is no evidence that the project's impacts will be mitigated To a less than significant level. 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 30 Similarly, there is no evidence that parking mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant. According to the ISND, a parking management plan must be prepared to mitigate parking impacts. Until this plan is prepared and circulated to the public, there is no evidence that the plan will effectively reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the plan must be included in a draft EIR, which must be prepared for the Project. Finally, there is no evidence that traffic mitigation measures are fully enforceable. While the traffic study recommends major improvements at the intersection of Dou gherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, no programming of funds or timetable for construction are presented to make sure they will be in place in a timely manner. The costs and scheduling of necessary improvements together with calculations of the developer's fair share contributions to other intersection and roadway improvements need to be made, and a timetable developed for their implementation. Thus, as proposed, there is a fair argument based on substantial evidence in the record that significant traffic impacts remain unmitigated. As discussed in the comments above, mitigation measures exist to reduce many of the Project's significant impacts. These mitigation measures are feasible, and in some cases required by regulatory agencies. An EIR must be prepared to consider and impose these feasible mitigation measures. THE CITY FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PUBLIC NOTICE AND A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE ISND Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA review process. Each public agency is directed to provide for extensive formal and informal public involvement to receive and evaluate public reaction to environmental issues related to the agency's activities. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21083 and 21087; CEQA Guidelines § 15201; Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Assoc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936 (public holds privileged position in CEQA process based on belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental protection and on notions of democratic decision making); County ofInyo v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1185 (CEQA process must "be opened to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes and effect of a consistently described project.").) 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 31 The City failed to provide adequate notice of intent to adopt the ISND, pursuant to CEQA. Public Resources Code Section 21092.2 requires the City to mail CEQA notices To any person who has filed with the City Clerk a written request for such notices. The statute and the CEQA Guidelines explain that the lead agency shall mail a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to allow for at least a 20 day public the review period provided under CEQA Section 15105. (CEQA Guidelines §§15072, 15105; Pub. Res. Code § 21091.) In this case, the City failed to mail CEQA notice, pursuant To our May 6, 2003 letter to the City Clerk requesting that the City send us CEQA notices for all projects for which the City was the responsible or lead agency. The City also failed on numerous occasions to return or otherwise respond to telephone calls from our office regarding our request for CEQA notices. The City's consistent lack of response and failure to provide CEQA notice in this Case does not constitute substantial compliance with CEQA's notice requirements in Pubhc l~esources Code Section 21092.2. -In addition, the City failed to comply with Public Resources Code Section 21092(b)(1) which requires that all documents referenced in the MND be available for review and readily accessible during the entire comment period. This is especially important, where, as here, the City fails to include environmental review for the Projec~ in one document. CEQA section 21092(b)(1) requires that the CEQA notice for an EIR or negative declaration must include "the address where copies of the draft EIR or negative declaration and all documents referenced therein are available for review and readily accessible during the agency's normal working hours." As noted by leading CEQA commentators, Remy and Thomas: The above-referenced section [21092(b)(1)] requires the agency to notify the public of the address at which "all documents referenced in a draft EIR [or negative declaration]" can be found (and presumably read).., seems to require agencies to make available for public review all documents on which agency staff or consultants expressly rely in preparing a draft EIR [or negative declaration]. In light of case law emphasizing the importance of ensuring that the public can obtain and review documents on which agencies rely for the environmental conclusions (see, e.g., Emmington v. Solano County Redevel. Agency, 195 Cal.App.3d 491,502-503 (1987)), agencies should ensure that they comply literally with this reqmrement. 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 32 Remy, Thomas and Moose, Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act, p. 293 (Solano Press, 1999). The courts have held that the failure to provide even a few pages of a CEQA document for a portion of the CEQA review period invalidates the entire CEQA process. (Ultramar v. South Coast Air Quality Man. Dist., 17 Cai.App.4th 689 (1993).) In this case, we requested immediate access to the documents listed in the ISND on November 19, 2003.14 On November 21, 2003, the City indicated to Zohaw Bassett of our office that the documents would not be accessible until Monday, November 24, 2003. On November 21, 2003, we requested an extension of the public comment period to provide a minimum of twenty days for public review and comment after documents referenced in the ISND are properly provided, as mandated by CEQA Section 21092(b)(1). (November 21, 2003 letter from Gulesserian to Harbin incorporated by reference.) On November 24th, we copied the documents, which were provided by the City. However, the City failed to provide us with all exhibits referenced in the ISND (exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4) until November 26, 2003. Contrary to the City statements in the November 25, 2003 letter responding to our request for an extension, the CiW did not respond to our request or otherwise provide for immediate access to documents referenced in the ISND. Although Zohary Bassett of our office called the City to arrange copying on November 19, 2003, she was informed by the City that the Senior Planner on the Project was unavailable. Ms. Bassett was provided with no additional information as to the availability of any documents. Even if the documents referenced in the ISND were ready and made immediately accessible on November 19, 2003, as suggested by the City, then the comment period deadline would be no earlier than December 9, 2003 to provide for at least a 20-day review. (Pub. Res. Code § 21091; CEQA Guidelines § 15105.) , In addition, to date, the City has still not provided all documents referenced in the ISND for the project. For example, the City has not provided the "hydrological report for the project," which is referenced and relied upon in the hydrology and water quality section of the ISND. (ISND, p. 22.) ¢4 On November 21, 2003, we also requested a copy of the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report ("GP EIR"). To date, the City has not yet provided us with a copy or access to the GP EIR. 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 33 The City has no reasonable basis ro complain that an extension of the comment period would make the comment period a "moving target." In this case, the City failed to provide timely notice and access to documents, as required by CEQA. These documents are specifically relied on by the City for the environmental analysis for this project. Access to these documents is especially critical when, as here, the City does no~ conduct environmental review and merely issues a negative declaration for a project. Access to these is also especially critical in this case, because the City relies on numerous other documents, letters and memos for the supposed environmental analysis and findings for the Project. The public has a statutory right ¢o review public documents for the requisite time period. Consequently, these comments are submitted under protest, and we reserve our right ~o submit supplemental comments, including additional consultant comments, at a later time. Ko THE CITY FAILED TO PROVIDE NOTICE THROUGH THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND FAILED TO PROVIDE THE REQUISITE 30- DAY COMMENT PERIOD FOR DOCUMENTS POSTED AT THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE CEQA requires a lead agency ~o submit proposed negative declarations to the State Clearinghouse any time a state agency is "a responsible agency or a trustee agency or will exercise jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project." (CEQA Guidelines §§A5073(d), 15205.) This requirement insures that all state agencies with responsibiliW over and concerned with the project will be consulted. (CEQA Guidelines § 15205.) In this case, the ISND recognizes that the Regional Water Quality Control Board qualifies as responsible and/or ~rus~ee agencies triggering the duty to submit the ISND to the State Clearinghouse. The Regional Board is both a responsible agency and a trustee agency. A responsible agency typically has permitting authority or approval over some aspect of the overall project for which a lead agency is conducting CEQA review. The Regional Board is a "responsible" agency with respect to this project because it has permitting authority over the SWPPP required by the City as one of the mitigation measures to reduce hydrology and water quality impacts. A trustee agency is an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project, which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. In addition to being a responsible agency due to its permitting authority 1519a-002 December 2, 2003 Page 34 over the required SWPPP, the Regional Board is also a trustee agency due to the fact that it has jurisdiction over water quahty and the beneficial uses of waters of the state, both of which are potentially affected by this Project. By failing to submit the ISND to the State Clearinghouse, the City violated a critical CEQA procedUral requirement intended not only to alert concerned responsible and trustee agencies when relevant projects are proposed, but to assist the City in complying with CEQA by ensuring other State agencies with specific expertise are consulted in the CEQA process. XI. CONCLUSION A negative declaration is not appropriate since substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that the Project may have significant adverse environmental impacts which have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Considerable expert opinion, admissions in the ISND, and other credible evidence demonstrates that the proposed Project is hkely to cause significant impacts that must be analyzed in an EIR. We urge the City to fulfill its responsibilities under CEQA, prepare an EIR for the Project and circulate the document to the public for review and commenT. In this way, the City and the public can ensure that ali adverse impacts of the Project are mitigated to the full extent feasible and required by law. Sincerely, Tanya gl. Gulesserian Richard Toshiyuki Drury RTD/TAG:bh 1519a-002 ~ Ea '5' ? 0 ~ ORDINANCE NO. -04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTY TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 9.06 ACRES AT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE PA 02-003 WHEREAS, AMB Property Incorporated requests approval of a Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning Stage 2 Development Plan for a project consisting of 304 multi-family dwelling units, approximately 1,000 square feet of neighborhood retail, and 150,500 square feet of retail/office space, surface parking, landscaping and related improvements on approximately 9.06 acres of land within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area at 6700 Golden Gate Drive, generally located near the northwest comer of Golden Gate Drive and Interstate 580; and WHEREAS, a completed application for the requested action is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Project site is in the Dublin downtown area and within the planning area for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan is one of three downtown specific plans approved by the City on December 19, 2000 and intended to improve the appearance, functionality, and economic vitality of the downtown area, particularly in recognition of a planned BART station adjacent to the Project site. (See Resolution 00-227, incorporated herein by reference). The effects of implementing the Specific Plan and related general plan amendments were reviewed in a Negative Declaration which was properly circulated for public review and adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000 (See Resolution 00-227, incorporated herein by reference). The City subsequently rezoned the Project site to PD Planned Development and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan On June 4, 2002, based on the prior adopted Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration is available for review in the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan was prepared as a self-mitigating plan. Upon adoption of the Negative Declaration, the City found that the Specific Plan and associated actions would not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation was incorporated into the Plan as part of the Plan implementation (Resolution 00-227). In this context, the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs act as mitigations that must be included in subsequent implementing developments, such as the Project. The Project is consistent with and implements the Specific Plan land uses, policies, standards, guidelines and programs; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated November 6, 2003 for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and determined that the Project would not result in any slgmficant adverse impacts. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A of Attachment 1 to the Staff report and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments in a Responses to Comments document dated February 10, 2004. The comment letter and responses are attached as Exhibit B to Attachment 1 of the Staff report, and incorporated herein by reference; and ATTACHMENT 2 WHEREAS, the responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and determined that no subsequent EIR-level review of the document was warranted, that the prior Negative Declaration and the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identified and analyzed the Project's environmental impacts, and that the comments and responses did not constitute or require substantial revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Planned Development rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan for the project, and all related reports, studies, environmental documents, including comments and responses and recommended the said project to the City Council on February 24, 2004; and WHEREAS, a Staff report, dated April 20, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Staff report, the PD Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on April 20, 2004 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the AMB Property, Inc. West Dublin Transit Village Project; and WHEREAS, a Stage 2 Development Plan has been submitted to the City as required by Section 8,32.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and , ~ WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on said application on April 20, 2004; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the City Council recommending approval of the Planned Development District Rezoning/Stage Development Plan prepared by Staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed planned Development District Rezoning/Stage 2 Development Plan: A. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning (PA 02-003) is consistent with the general provisions, intent and purpose of Section 8.32.010 (Planned Development Zoning District) of the previously adopted Stage 1 Development Plan and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan which designates this area as Mixed Use (MU) and Office (O), in that the project would result in development with the land uses allowed by said designation, and will contribute towards implementation of said Plan; and B. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning is consistent with the general provisions, intent and purpose of the Dublin General Plan, as amended, which designates this area as Mixed Use and ATTACHMENT 2 Retail/Office, in that the project would result in development with the land uses allowed by said designation, and will contribute towards implementation of said Plan which is focused on transit-oriented development; and C. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the PD Planned Development Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning will be appropriate for the subject property in terms of providing land use provisions which set forth the purpose and applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses, and Development Standards which will be compatible with existing and proposed residential, business, public/semi-public and light industrial uses in the immediate vicinity; and D. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the PD Planned Development Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance in that it contains all information required by Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and accomplishes the objectives of Section 8.32.010, A through H, of the Zoning Ordinance; and E. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning will provide an environment that will enhance development of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area; and F. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning will provide efficient use of the land pursuant to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan according to the coordinated site plan and circulation system; and G. The Planned Development District Rezoning will not have a substantial adverse effect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement as all applicable regulations will be satisfied; and H. The Planned Development District Rezoning will not overburden public services as all agencies .. must commit to the availability of public services prior to the issuance of building permits as required by the West Dublin BART Specific Plan policies and mitigation measures; and I. The Planned Development District Rezoning and accompanying Stage 2 Development Plan, will create an attractive, efficient, and safe environment; and J. The Planned Development District Rezoning will benefit the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare by providing multi-family housing, retail and office uses in close proximity to the future BART Station and at a prime location in the City; and K. The Planned Development District Rezoning and accompanying Stage 2 Development Plan will be compatible with and enhance the general development, economic development and vitality of the transit-oriented West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City of Dublin City Council does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the following property ("the Property") to a Planned Development (PD) Zoning District: ATTACHMENT 2 Approximately 9.06 acres of land located in an incorporated area of Alameda County in the City of Dublin within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area at 6700 Golden Gate Drive, generally located near the northwest comer of Golden Gate Drive and Interstate 580 (APN: 941-1580-047-02). A map of the rezoning area is shown below: SECTION 2. The regulations of the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan for the Project Area (Exhibits A-1 & A-2, hereto attached) which are hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. SECTION 3. Except as provided in the Stage 2 Development Plan, the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 20th day of April 2004, by the following votes: AYES: ATTACHMENT 2 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk GSPA#L2002\02-003\CC-PDord2.doc ATTACHMENT 2 EXHIBIT A. REZONING/DEVELOPMENT PLAN - AMB PROPERTY INCORPORATED (PA 02-003) WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE This is a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for Legacy Partners West Dublin Transit Village PA 02-003, located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive south of Dublin Boulevard, and generally located near the northwest corner of Golden Gate Drive and Interstate 580 on 9.06 acres (APN 941-1580-047-02). This Development Plan meets all of the requirements for Stage 2 review of the project. This Development Plan includes Site, Architectural, Circulation, and Landscape Plans, other plans and exhibits dated received January 2, 2004, labeled Exhibit A-2 to the Ordinance approving this Development Plan (City Council Ordinance No. -00), and on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. The Planned Development District allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and provisions of Section 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. Zoning: PD Planned Development Zoning District. This is a mixed-use zoning district which provides for retail commercial, service, office and multi-family residential uses. Permitted Uses: The following'are permitted uses in this PD / C-N / R-M Planned Development (Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-Family Residential) Zoning District: a. Local-serving retail uses including but not limited to: Grocery Food Store General Merchandise Store. Discount/Warehouse Retail Store. Clothing/Fashion Store. Shoe Store. Home Furnishing Store. Office Supply Store. Home Appliance/Electronics Store. Home Improvement Store. Music Store. Hobby/Special Interest Store. Gifts/Specialty Store. Jewelry and Cosmetic Store. Drug Store. Auto Parts Store. Toy Store. Book Store. Pet Supplies Store (Including In-Store Veterinary Clinic). Sporting Goods Store. + Similar Uses that sell goods based on price and quality of a neighborhood retail character. 1 EXHIBIT A, Office and service establishments including, but not limited to, the following: Bank/Savings and Loan. Real Estate/Title Office. Legal. Travel Agent. Accounting. Medical and Dental. Optometrist. Architect. Employment Agency. Hair/Beauty Salon. Cleaner and Dryer Shoe Repair. Key Shop. Tailor. Athletic Club. Formal Wear/Rental. Other Administrative and Professional Office. Technology Access Center. Tele-Commuting Center Eating, drinking and entertainment establishments including, but not limited to, the following: Restaurant (full-service, sit-down) Restaurant (convenience: Delicatessen, Bakery, Ice Cream Shop, Sandwich Shop) Outdoor Seating Wine or Liquor Bar with On-Sale Liquor License. Micro-Brewery. Specialty Food. Video Arcade/Rentals. do Multi-family residential and associated uses including, but not limited to, the following: Accessory structures and uses Home occupations (per Chapter 8.64) Multi-family dwelling Multi-story parking structure Private recreatiOn facility/small (for tenants use only Rental / Management Office Conditional Uses: The following are conditional uses in this PD / C-N / R-M Planned Development (Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-Family Residential) Zoning District: Community, Religious and Charitable Institutional Facilities. Public Facilities and Uses. Veterinary Office. Recycling Center. In-Patient and Out-Patient Health Facilities as Licensed by the State 2 e Se Department of Health Services. Daycare Center Gas Station. Automobile Sales. Automobile Service. Hotel/Motel. Outdoor Food Vendors (by Zoning Administrator) Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements: Except as specifically modified by the provisions of this PD District Rezoning/Development Plan, all applicable general requirements and procedures of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to the land uses designated in this PD District. Site Plan & Architecture: See attached site plans and building elevations contained in Exhibit A-2, Development Plan. This development plan applies to approximately 9.06 acres shown on this plan. Any modifications to the project shall be substantially consistent with these plans and of equal or superior materials and design quality. Density: The maximum sqUare footage/number of dwelling units of the proposed development under this Development Plan (as shown on the site plan, Exhibit A-2) are as follows: Office 3.28 acres Net (Approximate) 3.28 acres Gross FAR .28 Neighborhood Commercial Included in the Multi-Family Residential .02 acres gross 1,000 Sq. Ft. building area (Approximate) FAR - According to Standards established by the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Multi-Family Residential 4.45 acres Net (Approximate) 5.8 acres Gross 304 Units 34 Du/Ac. Phasing Plan: Project is anticipated to be built in two phases. Both phases may be constructed at as one phase, if market conditions permit. Neighborhood Commercial Development Standards: Development Standards Neighborhood Commercial Minimum Parcel Size N/A Parcel Depth N/A 3 Parcel Width N/A Minimum building setback from face of 12'-0'']'2 curb Building Height 50'-0" Maximum commercial floor area ratio As provided for in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan 1. The setback zones shall be fully landscaped with both hardscape (private sidewalks and other hard surfaced areas) and softscape (trees, shrubs, grotmd cover, etc.). The setback includes a 10-foot wide sidewalk as required by the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Exceptions to above setback requirements are the following: a. Architectural projections, (such as columns, fireplaces, bay windows, window seats, second floor overhangs, balconies, decks, porches, building facades at entries), planters and planter boxes may encroach up to a maximum of two feet into the required setback. b. Freestanding signage must be permitted under a Master Sign Program. c. Outdoor seating areas may encroach up to a maximum of four feet into the required setback. The number of parking spaces required for the uses shall be in compliance with the parking provisions in this Development Plan and the project Site Plan, contained in Exhibit A-2. ge Multi-Family Residential Development Standards: Development Standards Multi-Family Residential Lot Size N/A Minimum building setback from face of 12'-0"1'2 · · , curb - St. Patrick Way Minimum Private Open Space 100 s.f. patio w/a 10' min. dimension or 50 s.f. deck with a min. Dimension of 5' Common Open Space Maximum Building Height Maximum Stories Required Parking Maximum residential unit density 50 s.f. of common open space per dwelling unit. The minimum dimension of any space satisfying this standard is 10'. This common open space shall be improved for either passive or active use by the residents. 75'-0" 4 stories A reduction of 15% in the total supply as required by the Zoning Ordinance is permitted in conjunction with shared parking for uses 34 units/acre as calculated based on the adopted Development Agreement The setback zones shall be fully landscaped with both hardscape (private sidewalks and other hard surfaced areas) and softscape (trees, shrubs, ground cover, etc.) 4 10. Exceptions to above setback requirements are the following: a. Architectural projections, (such as columns, fireplaces, bay windows, window seats, second floor overhangs, balconies, decks, porches, building facades at entries) and planter boxes may encroach up to a maximum of two feet into the required setback. b. Freestanding signage as permitted in the Master Sign Program. c. Decel lanes required by the City of Dublin at the entrances to the site. Parking/Garage and Loading: Parking/Garage and Loading shall be provided in accordance with the parking reduction study, and as shown on the Site Plan (Exhibit A-2). The number of parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with sections 7 and 8 above. Architectural Design Guidelines, Concepts & Themes: Implementation of the following architectural design standards is required. Architecture associated with a specific corporate entity is not permitted. As an exception, corporate architecture may be considered if it is consistent with the design and intent of the Design Guidelines of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, as shown on the Elevations in Exhibit A-2, and the following general design concepts. Unique and consistent architecture that is in keeping with the urban transit-oriented theme of the project shall be a requirement for all structures on the project site. The basic design concepts below shall also be followed: Concept and Character: The architecture shall complement the style of the surrounding buildings and landscaping in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. Common design elements from the surrounding buildings in the Specific Plan area Shall be incorporated into the individual building design. .The goal for the development is to evoke the feeling of an urban transit village and pedestrian friendly environment as opposed to a suburban office and retail center or apartment complex. "Corporate Themes" shall be discouraged and the urban transit-oriented theme of the project shall be a requirement for all structures on the project site. Form and Massing: · Building design shall employ varied forms to break down the scale of larger buildings to appear as if there are several smaller buildings that may have evolved over time instead of one large building built all at once. · Building design shall provide for transitional spaces such as trellises, arcades, pergolas, courtyards, and decorative paving, etc. between indoor and outdoor areas. · Wall planes shall provide variations in thickness and offsets to avoid the look of large open expanses of blank wall. Building Height: · Building heights will vary throughout the project. Refer to Sections 7 & 8 above for height limits in this district. Building Entries: · Primary building entries shall be Visible from the street. 5 Landscaping shall be designed to highlight the entry. Enhanced paving is encouraged at the building entries. A strong connection between the street and sidewalk and the building entry shall be provided. Pedestrians shall be able to access the building entry from the public sidewalk without having to walk between parked cars. Fenestration: · Openings in walls for windows and or doors shall be recessed into building walls to provide an enhanced level of detail. · Individual punched openings are encouraged instead of continuous lengths of storefront or windows. · Metal storefront and window frames shall be primed and painted to match the approved palette of colors for the center. Materials: · The primary wall surface material shall be exterior cement plaster or EIFS finish system when finished to match plaSter. · Wall accents shall be ceramic tile and/or precast concrete medallions. · Cornice molding caps shall be cement plaster, GFRC or EIFS. The finish shall match the exterior wall finish. · Sheet metal flashing shall be painted to match the adjacent surface. ' · Decorative columns shall be precast concrete or GFRC. · Trellis elements shall be metal or wood. · Decorative brackets at cornice shall be painted or stained wood. · Awnings shall be of approved fabric vCith painted metal frames. C° ior3" ~ind Textures: · The color and texture of building materials shall complement surrounding buildings in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. · Colors and textures shall be as shown on the approved color and material board (on file at the Dublin Planning Division of the Community Development Department) for the West Dublin Transit Village. Minor variations are acceptable provided that they are in keeping with the spirit of the overal[Design Guidelines. Roof Forms and Materials: · Flat roof forms with parapets are the primary roof forms for the West Dublin Transit Village. · Accent elements such as comer towers or entry features is encouraged. These features may have metal roofs. The roofing shall match the approved roofing for the West Dublin Transit Village. · Decorative cornice molding is encouraged at parapet walls. 11. Landscaping Plan: Refer to attached conceptual landscape plan included in Exhibit A-2, Development Plan, Sheets L-1 through L-6. 12. Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance: Applicant/Developer shall comply with the provisions of the City Inclusionary Zoning Regulations through the approval and execution of an Affordable 6 Housing Agreement prior to Final Map approval. A minimum of 3 8 affordable units within the High Density (multi-family) residential area, which equals 7.5% of the total number for units within the project site. These dwelling units will be for-rent apartment units. The remaining percentage of the affordable housing requirement may be met through the payment of in-lieu fees if approved by the City Council. An agreement between the City and the Developer will be prepared to facilitate meeting the affordable housing requirement. The City Council will be the authority in determining how the applicant will be required to meet this housing need. 13. Compliance with related Planning Approvals: The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all the related Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map conditions of approval for PA 02-003. G\paL2002\pa 02-003~DEVPIan 7 STAGE 1+2 DEVELOPMENT l0 SEPTEMBER 2003 PLAN DRAW1NG INDEX: A-3 A-I~ L-2 L-¢ L-6 JAN 0 2 2004. DUBLIN TR 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA ANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT NO: 4056,5 ST. PATRICK WAY DEDICATION SITE - 51,097 SQ. FT. ASSUMED PROPERTY L/NE COMMERCIAL SITE TRASH INTERSTATE ,580 PROPOSED SITE (RESIDENTIAL & OFFICE) - 335,957 SQ. FT. BART PROPERTY FRONTAGE DEDICATION SITE -8,010 SQ. FT. -- MONUMENT SIGN SITE INFO AND PROJECT MATRIX SITE ACREAGE EX-1 DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE 10 SEPTEMBER 2003 PROJECT NO: 405.~5 I "\ , ~ ~/ /1 t SITE INFO AND PROJECT MATRIX- PARKING EX-2 1": 1 6'-0" DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE 10 SEP'I'EMBER 2003 PROJECT NO: 40565 PEDESTRIAN PATH OF TRAVEL TO N BART EX-3 NO1 TO SCALE DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE 23 D£CEMB[R 2003 PROJECT NO: 4056,5 ARIAL N PHOTO P-1 NOT 1'0 ~CALE DUBLIN TRANSIT 67D0 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE 10 SEPTEM. BER 2003 PROJECI NO: 40565 , .r" . ~ _ N - LOT B " /' .[ l:~.l F--'~ : ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ..... ~., "~]. ~~~~1i ~[ dlL~-- ~ : j m- ,, · .. ~,~ "- ~ ~ · ~ 'u ..... 7, i,I I , * ' w '.' ~Z~ ~m~O0 · . ~ ~mm ~ C.2 /~--PARCEL THREE-SA PARCEL TWO FARCEL 2 PARCEL LOT B PARCEL I PM 4224 (143 M 6) P(~llLII~ LF~L= 5E5 PAI~ItI~ 'LLrV~= 48.5 I -- FF 5t LOT C .,": ' \,,% Ii ~ LI.I n,On, C ~ ~ ' i ~.__ ~ c : ~ : c i ~o,,, ~ ~ ~ :. ' *ES DENT~ ; ~ : ~ · ~ j ~ : ~ ; 374SPACES + 6 MOTORCYCLE PARKING ', ] '~ ~ c : ..... ~ -~---~---i ~.- ~ ~ ~ $--:. ~ ..... ]-~ + -~ ..~ ..... b. ~-~-- k- -e .... ~- ! .... r-.-~. : -~-'~ .... ~ -~ ...... ~.~-', ...... ~-~--' -~ , .... i I ~j ~ : ; i: I i i I ~ ...... .................. ': ._ &__X~[ __2_ _~::~ _~ L.~._.~": c ~ i i*J J J'~-~;~S ' ~m , ~ i ---~:c ~ '. 4~ = . . ..... , ..... ~ : ~J ' * i ~ ~,, ~m :F-:.'P":m m? ~ j ;i J ~ · , :i_ I ' ~ :, i : ~ i . ..... : ---. * : : : c'-. .-c,_.. ' ~[ ~; .:EXE j ......i:~ ' .:P,.:.' ?.. *:~'i' ;.<;_.: : '.'u:' * ';--"* .... '* '. i ~ ,,.~, ~ I ..-"'~'..' ~, :. I n ~ * ' · *:1 * ' ::'~ [;~. *:* ~ h : !:', ! ~i , I~: * i* ~' '~'t: ' ~I * · -~ ~ i : i~""~ll c-L_, .... * RESIDENTIAL PARKI N6 - BASEMENT LEVEL A, 1 10 SEPTEMBER 2003 DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE PROJECT NO: 4056~ . 73 SP^C~$ + 7~MOIORC¥CI_[ : j DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE i GRADIE N LEVEL A.2 I"= 16-U' 14 MARCH 2003 PROJECT NO: 40565 DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE 'r','~,CAq ,~V~,S A.3 1"= 16'-~' 2: SEPTEMBER 2003 PROJECT NO: 40565 ' ! 'ii DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA ':i klR 1'O ~OF, TYP. ELEVATOR SHAFT, TYP. NOTE: ALL FLAT ROOFING SHALL HAVE LIC-;-H? REFLECTING AND ENERGY SAVING QUALITIES. TYPICAL AT ALL BUILDINGS. ,. BALCONY BELOW, TYP. VILLAGE ROOF A.4 10 SEPTEMBER 2003 PROJECT NO: 4D565 SITE TRASH ENCLOSURE ! OFFICE - GRADE LEVEL A.$ DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE 6700 GOLDEN G^TE DRIVE DIJ BLI N, CALIFORNIA 10 SEPTEMBER 2003 PROJECT NO: 40565 OFFICE- SECOND TO FOURTH LEVELS A.6 t'= I 6' -0" t0 SEPTEMBER 2003 DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN. CALIFORNIA VILLAGE PROJECT NO: 40565 OFFICE - FIFTH LEVEL DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLI FI, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE 1.0 ,SEPTEMBER 2003 PROJECT NO: 40565 ! ! C~,~ ~ BI EC; PM~NT SCREE~ OF ROOF BELC W / ~LOW EQUIPMENT SCREEf UVEI;f) . BALCONY BE~gW ELEVATOR "~fAFI'$ ENERGY SHALL AND I' i! i i!i~lJl'i :-_~ I · OFFICE-ROOF A.8 i"= DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 10 SEPTEMBER 20,03 PROJECT NO: 40565 SECOND FLOOR GROUND FLOOR i i :'J-Li J C RESIDENTIAL-SOUTH ELEVATION 1": 16'-0" DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE 10 SEPIEMBER 2003 PROJECT NO: 40565 SECOND FLOOR GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL-WEST ELEVATION DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE 10 SEPTEMBER 2003 PROJECT NO: 4056.5 SECOND FLOOR GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL-NORTH ELEVATION 'P'= 1 6'-0" DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DR!VE DUBL1N, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE ]0 SEPTEMBER 2{}03 PROJECT NO: 40565 SECOND FLOOR GROUND FLOOR RES DENTIAL-EAST ELEVATION ,~ A.12 1"= 1 6'-0" DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE t0 SEPTEMBER 2003 PROJECT NO: 4C, 5.~5 NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION OFFICE-ELEVATIONS A.13 1": SEPTEMBER 2.003 DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA VILLAGE PROJECT NO: 4056,5 UNiT C 2 BEDROOM / 2 BATH (.1,025 SQFT) UNit D 3 BEDROOM / 2 BATH (+1,275 SQFT) DUBLIN TRANSIT 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA t'~'-0' UNIT A STUDIO (+555 SQFT) UNiT B I BEDROOM / 1 BATH (+695 SQFT) TYPICAL l': 16'-0" VILLAGE lO SEPTEMBER 2003 PROJECT NO: 40565 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA ,~-~, FJI'I,~ E :ST, m ~ TEmPOrARY ACCES TO SI'. PA'i~C~ W ~ ~ PARCEL 1~[OR TO PARCEL LAND~C.,AFE C.,ON.D'I"I~UCTION ~ 5["r'~ 'F:~I.GHI'N~ PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING PLAN CA.~DgCC1 & .~kSSOCL~TES, 10 SEPT~ER 2 0 0 3 PODIUM DETAIL PLAN 10 SEPIT/v~BER 2003 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 40565 CAI~DUCC1 tk ASSOCIATE~, INC, N® VILLAGE PARK DETAIL' PLAN 1 o SEPTS~BSR 2 0 0 3 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 40565 CARDUCCI & ASSOCIATES, INC, i TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 40565 ~CA~DUCCi & ASSOCIATES. ~C. l0 SEP~MBER 20 03 TREES SH~UDS S~.ASSES SHRUSS 'F:'EL~DAN' LI~HT LIGHT LIGHT 'VAOANT, E' Dr_"NOH DESIGN ©ON6F:PT iDOLLAP-D LIGHT ~'ETO~C-,KEY' LI~ 4X4 P A V"Z--F~.G Hir_~ TEd, In LOFT ,.." I=~iHOi~.OIAL OAS? ARCH!TECTURAL FEATURES IMAGE BOARD 2003 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 4O565 CARD'JCCI & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ . '~ ~s..: ~' :: .~ s ~:'.~ :-.: . :~ ~. · .: ~. ~..:~...~ : .-~ ~D~.~: ,. TREE SURVEY PLAN 6700 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 40565 [I15A~LANTIC AVENUE ALAMEDA, CALLFORNiA 945DI 10 SEPTEMBER 2003 ATTACHMENT 3 DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER ORDINANCE NO. -04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND AMB PROPERTY CORPORATION (PA 02-003) The Dublin City Council does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. RECITALS A. The proposed AMB Property Corporation's West Dublin Transit Village project (PA 02- 003) is located within the boundaries of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") in an area which is designated on the General Plan Land Use Element and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Land Use Map as Mixed Use and Office. An application has been filed by AMB Property, Inc. to change the approximately 9.06-acres site occupied by the Cor-O-Van warehouse business to Planned Development (PD). B. This project is within the scope of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and General Plan, for which a Negative Declaration was prepared for the Specific Plan, and approved by the Dublin City Council on December 19, 2000. An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the AMB Property/Legacy Partners project, herein after called the AMB Property project. That initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan, the Responses to Comments prepared and dated February 10, 2004, and updated April 20, 2004, adequately describes the total project for the purposes of CEQA. The analysis indicated that no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures are required for the AMB Property project that were not addressed in the Negative Declaration as certified by the City Council (Resolution 00-227). Further, that analysis found that the project is in conformity with the West Dublin BART Specific Plan/General Plan. C. AMB Property, Inc. has filed an application requesting approval of a development agreement for the West Dublin Transit Village project. E. A Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and AMB Property, Inc. has been presented to the City Council, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to Attachment 4 of the a~genda statement. F. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the Planning Commission on February 24, 2004, for which public notice was given as provided by law. Go Agreement. The Planning Commission has made its recommendation for approval of the Development H. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on April 20, 2004, for which public notice was given as provided by law. J. The City Council has considered the recommendation Of the Planning Commission at the February 24, 2004 meeting, including the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all comments received in writing and all testimony received at the public hearing in making its determination on the project. ATTACHMENT 4 SectiOn 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THEREFORE, on the basis of (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Dublin's General Plan, (c) the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, (d) the Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan, (e) the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, (f) the Responses to Comments on the MND, and (g) the Agenda Statement, and' on the basis of specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general plan uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan, as amended by the West Dublin BART General Plan Specific Plan in that (a) the General Plan and Specific Plan land use for the site is currently Mixed Use and Office, which allows development of the West Dublin Transit Village. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation of Mixed Use and Office, (b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan with respect to provision of infrastructure and public services, and (c) the Development Agreement includes provisions relating to financing, construction and maintenance of public facilities and similar provisions set forth in the Specific Plan. 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and' the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located in that project approvals include a Planned Development Rezoning/Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map adopted specifically for the West Dublin Transit Village project. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good, sound land use policies in that the West Dublin Transit Village project will imPlement land use guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan and General Plan. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in that the project will proceed in accordance with all the program and policies of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan and is consistent with the planned development of a transit- oriented mixed use project intended for the Specific Plan area. Section 3. APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A of Attachment 4 to the Staff Report) and authorizes the Mayor to sign it on the City's behalf. Section 4. RECORDATION Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is executed by the Mayor, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. Section 5: EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) 2 public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of Dublin, on the 20th day of April 2004 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk G;\paX2002\02-003\CC-DAord RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 (Space Above This Line Reserved For Recorder's Use) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND AMB PROPERTY CORPORATION wc-86560 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE 2 EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM ....................................................... 5 Section 2.01 Effective Date .......................................................................... 5 Section 2.02 Term ......................................................................................... 5 ARTICLE 3 STANDARDS, LAWS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROJECT .................................................................................... 5 Section 3.01 Vested Right to Develop .......................................................... 5 Section 3.02 Permitted Uses Vested by This Agreement ............................. 5 Section 3.03 Applicable Law ........................................................................ 6 Section 3.04 Rules regarding Design and Construction of Public Improvements .......................................................................... 6 Section 3.05 Building Standards ................................................................... 6 Section 3.06 Processing of Subsequent Approvals ....................................... 6 Section 3.07 Moratorium Not Applicable ..................................................... 6 Section 3.08 Life of Subdivision Maps, Development Approvals, and Permits ..................................................................................... 7 Section 3.09 State and Federal Law .............................................................. 7 Section 3.10 Timing of Project Construction and Completion ..................... 7 Section 3.11 Nothing in this Agreement shall exempt Developer from completing work required by a subdivision agreement, road improvement agreement, or similar agreement ................................................................................. 8 ARTICLE 4 SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED OR REVISED FEES, ASSESSMENTS AND TAXES .......................................................... 8 Section 4.01 Developer's Payment of City Fees .......................................... 8 Section 4.02 Revised Application Fees ........................................................ 9 Section 4.03 New Taxes ............................................................................... 9 Section 4.04 Assessments ............................................................................. 9 Section 4.05 Vote on Future Assessments and Fees ..................................... 9 ARTICLE 5 COMPLETION OF ST., PATRICK WAY EXTENSION ................... 9 Section 5.01 Introduction .............................................................................. 9 Section 5.02 Developer's Obligation to Develop St. Patrick Way Extension in Conjunction with the Project ............................ 10 wc-86560 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Section 5.03 City's Right to Elect to Construct Portions of St. Patrick Way ........................................................................................ 13 ARTICLE 6 ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER ........................ 15 Section 6.01 Storm Drain ............................................................................ 15 Section 6.02 Egress Easement for BART ................................................... 15 ARTICLE 7 ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF CITY ...................................... 15 Section 7.01 Availability of Public Services .............................................. 15 ARTICLE 8 AMENDMENT .................................................................................. 16 Section 8.01 Amendment of This Agreement ............................................. 16 ARTICLE 9 ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE .................................. 16 Section 9.01 Right to Assign ...................................................................... 16 Section 9.02 Approval and Notice of Sale, Transfer or Assignment .......... 16 Section 9.03 Effect of Sale, Transfer or Assignment .................................. 17 Section 9.04 Permitted Transfer, Purchase or Assignment ......................... 17 ARTICLE 10 COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE ...... 17 Section 10.01 Cooperation ............................................................................ 17 ARTICLE 11 DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION ..................................... 18 Section 11.01 Defaults .................................................................................. 18 Section 11.02 Termination ................................................................... : ........ 18 Section 11.03 Annual Review ....................................................................... 18 Section 11.04 Enforced Delay; Extension of Time Performance ................. 19 Section 11.05 Legal Action ........................................................................... 20 Section 11.06 Indemnification and Waiver .................................................. 20 ARTICLE 12 NO AGENCY, JOINT VENTURE,-OR PARTNERSHIP ................ 20 ARTICLE 13 MISCELLANEOUS .......................................................................... 21 Section 13.01 Section 13.02 Section 13.03 Section 13.04 Section 13.05 Incorporation of Recitals and Introductory Paragraph ........... 21 Severability ............................................................................ 21 Other Necessary Act .............................................................. 21 Construction ........................................................................... 21 California Law ....................................................................... 21 wc-86560 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Section 13.06 Section 13.07 Section 13.08 Section 13.09 Section 13.10 Section 13.11 Attorneys' Fees ...................................................................... 21 Hold Harmless ....................................................................... 22 Agreement Runs with the Land ............................................. 22 Notices ................................................................................... 22 Entire Agreement, Counterparts and Exhibits ....................... 23 Recordation of Development Agreement .............................. 24 List of Exhibits Exhibit A- 1: Exhibit A-2: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Legal Description of Project Site Diagram of Project Site St. Patrick Way Right of Way Diagram Parking Diagram Egress Easement to St. Patrick Way wc-86560 111 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into as of ,2004 by and between AMB Property Corporation, a Maryland corporation ("Developer"), and the City of Dublin, a municipal corporation ("City"), pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. City and Developer are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as a "Party" and collectively referred to as the "Parties." RECITALS A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and, pursuant thereto' City has enacted Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code, entitled Development Agreements Regulations (collectively the "Development Agreement Statute"). B. The Development Agreement Statute authorizes City to enter into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish development rights in such property. This Development Agreement has been processed, considered and executed in accordance with these laws. C. Developer has a legal interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 9.07 acres located in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, as more particularly described in Exhibit A-1 attached hereto, and as diagrammed in Exhibit A-2 attached hereto (the "Project Site"). The Project Site is currently improved with an approximately 204,000 sq. ft. industrial warehouse building (the "Industrial Warehouse"). D. On December 19, 2000, the City Council, following months of public hearings, studies, and adoption of a Negative Declaration in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., approved the following planning entitlements covering an approximately 70 acre planning area proximate to Downtown Dublin, 1-580 and 1-680 and the proposed West Dublin BART station (the "West Dublin Planning Area"). A primary purpose of this extensive planning effort undertaken by City was to encourage the redevelopment of existing uses, such as the Industrial Warehouse, to higher intensity mixed uses such as higher intensity residential development and commercial office buildings. The Project Site is located in a central portion of the West Dublin Planning Area. General Plan Amendment. Following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council, by Resolution 228-00, approved certain general plan amendments which added a Mixed Use land use wc-86560 designation covering the Project Site and increased the FAR for office development within the West Dublin Planning Area (the "General Plan Amendment"). West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council at a duly noticed public heating, adopted Resolution No. 227-00 approving the West Dublin BART Specific Plan (the "Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan designates the Project Site as an opportunity site for Mixed Use (MU) and Office (O) development. E. In furtherance of the General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan, Developer has applied for, and City has approved various land Use approvals in connection with the development of the Project, including for 1) Planned Development Rezone (Ordinance No. __.) ("PD Rezone"), 2) general provisions for the PD Rezone including Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans (City Council Resolution No. ), 3) Site Development Review (City Council Resolution No. __), and 4) Vesting Parcel Map (. Resolution No. __) covering the Project Site (collectively the "Project Approvals"). F. The Project Approvals propose the mixed use development of the Project Site for approximately 310 multi-family residential units and a five-story, approximately 150,000 square foot office building, together with associated supporting retail, parking, and landscaping (the "Project"). G. City has determined that the Project presents substantial public benefits and opportunities which are advanced by City and Developer entering into this Agreement. This Agreement will, among other things, (1) provide for the redevelopment of the older, Industrial Warehouse improvement on the Project Site to higher density multiple family housing development and commercial uses; (2) expand City's tax base, provide jobs, and stimulate downtown redevelopment in furtherance of goals and policies set forth in the General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan; (3) help to implement City's vision for the Project Site as smart growth transit village as set forth in the Specific Plan; (4) provide a variety of needed housing, including affordable housing and/or funds in furtherance of affordable housing opportunities; (5) provide visual benefits by enhancing the image of Dublin from Interstate 580 and 680 viewsheds; (6) provide public infrastructure, including the dedication of property necessary for and construction of a key new arterial street improvements to St. Patrick Way; (7) reduce uncertainties in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Project; and (8) otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Statute was enacted. H. In order to further City's goal of creating a smart growth transit village surrounding the future West Dublin BART Station (the "BART Station"), it is the intention of the Parties that the design of the Project and the development on the adjacent parcel owned by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (the "BART Parcel") include wc-86560 internal pedestrian circulation plans to facilitate pedestrian access between the Project and the BART Station. I. In exchange for the benefits to City described in the preceding Recital, together with the other public benefits that will result from the development of the Project, Developer will receive by this Agreement assurances that it may proceed with the Project in accordance with the "Applicable Law" (defined below), and therefore desires to enter into this Agreement. J. The City Council, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing, has found that this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and with the Specific Plan and has conducted all necessary proceedings in accordance with City's rules and regulations for the approval of this Agreement. K. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express a Development Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project subject to conditions set forth herein. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, covenants and provisions set forth herein, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS "Administrative Agreement Amendment" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 8.01(b) of this Agreement. "Agreement" shall have that meaning set forth in the introductory paragraph of this Agreement. "Annual Review" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 11.03(a) of this Agreement. "Applicable Law" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 3.03 of this Agreement. "Authorizations" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 5.03(d) of this Agreement. "BART Parcel" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital H of this Agreement. "BART Station" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital H of this Agreement. "City" shall have that meaning set forth in the introductory paragraph of this Agreement. wc-86560 3 "City Fees" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 4.01 of this Agreement. "Default Notice" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 11.01 of this Agreement. "Developer" shall have that meaning set forth in the introductory paragraph of this Agreement. "Development Agreement Statute" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital A Of this Agreement. "Effective Date" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.01 of this Agreement. "General Plan Amendment" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital D of this Agreement. "Improvement Completion Notice" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 5.02(c)(2) of this Agreement. "Industrial Warehouse" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital C of this Agreement. "Notice of Election" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 5.03 of this Agreement. "Parties" shall have that meaning set forth in the introductory paragraph of this Agreement. "PD Rezone" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital E of this Agreement. "Project" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital F of this Agreement. "Project Approvals" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital E of this Agreement. "Project Site" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital C of this Agreement. "Proposed Assignment Notice" shall have that meeting set forth in Section 9.01 of this Agreement. "Punch List" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 5.02(c)(2) of this Agreement. "Purchaser" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.04 of this Agreement. "Specific Plan" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital D of this Agreement. wc-86560 4 "St. Patrick Way Extension" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 5.01 of this Agreement. "St. Patrick Way Improvements" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 5.02(c)(1) of this Agreement. "Storm Drain" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.01 of this Agreement. "Subsequent Approvals" shall mean such other land use approvals, entitlements, and permits, including amendments to Project Approvals (but excluding the Project Approvals), that are approved by City after the Effective Date and that authorize the development of the Project Site. "Term" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.02 of this Agreement. "Transferee" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.01 of this Agreement. "West Dublin Planning Area" shall have that meaning set forth in Recital D of this Agreement. "Western Improvements" shall have that meaning set forth in Section 5.03(e) of this Agreement. ARTICLE 2 EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM Section 2.01 Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date the ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective (the "Effective Date"). Section 2.02 Term. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall commence upon the Effective Date and continue for a period of ten (10) years unless otherwise terminated, extended, or modified by the terms of this Agreement. ARTICLE 3 STANDARDS, LAWS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE PROJECT Section 3.01 Vested Right to Develop. Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Project on the Project Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued), the Subsequent Approvals, if any (as and when issued), and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement. Section 3.02 Permitted Uses Vested by This Agreement. The permitted uses of the Project Site, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk, and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and the location of on-site and off-site public wc-86560 5 improvements; the general location of public utilities (operated by City); and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Project, shall be those in effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement. The Parties understand that the Project Approvals approve development at a density and intensity of development and building height (i) below the maximum 331 dwelling units permitted on the Project Site by the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, (ii) below the maximum 1.0 FAR permitted by the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for nonresidential development on the Project Site, and (iii) below the eight (8) story maximum height designated in the General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan. These maximum development standards set forth in the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan shall during the Term of this Agreement be vested elements applicable to the Project Site. However, nothing in this Section shall be deemed to eliminate or diminish the requirement of Developer to obtain any required Subsequent Approvals. City acknowledges that when calculating the maximum FAR permitted on the Project Site, such calculation shall be based upon the size of the Project Site as of the Effective Date, exclusive of any future dedications to City. Section 3.03 Applicable Law. The rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications applicable to the Project Site (the "Applicable Law"), including those rules, regulations, official policies, standards, and specifications (including City ordinances and resolutions) governing permitted uses, building locations, timing of construction, densities, design, heights, fees, exactions, and taxes, shall be those in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement, unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement and the Project Approvals. Section 3.04 Rules regarding Design and Construction of Public Improvements. The ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to public improvements to be constructed by Developer shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable permit approval for the public improvement. Section 3.05 Building Standards. The Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the City of Dublin Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Fire Codes, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, or other construction permits for the Project. Section 3.06 Processing of Subsequent Approvals. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use permit or authorization for the Project, provided, however, that City's actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements that are expressly set forth in this Agreement. In particular, City acknowledges that the terms of SectiOns 3.01 and 3.02 contain certain limitations that prevent City from considering subsequently enacted land use regulations in passing on a Subsequent Approval that might otherwise be applicable. wc-86560 6 Section 3.07 Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the evem an ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether by action of City, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium, a limit on the rate of development, or a voter-approval requirement which affects the Project on all or any part of the Property, City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement, the Project Approvals, or the Subsequent Approvals, if any, during the term of this Agreement unless the building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined in Government Code Section 8558. Section 3.08 Life of Subdivision Maps~ Development Approvals~ and Permits. The term of any subdivision map or any other map, permit, rezoning, or other land use entitlement approved as a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval, that would otherwise terminate, shall automatically be extended for the longer of the duration of this Agreement or the term otherwise applicable to such Project Approval or Subsequent Approval if this Agreement is no longer in effect. Section 3.09 State and Federal Law. As provided in California Government Code Section 65869.5, this Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Project Site of changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies, to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by City, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment of the Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code. Section 3.10 Timing of Project Construction and Completion. (a) Timing of Development. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, City and Developer expressly agree that there is no requirement that Developer initiate or complete development of the Project or any particular phase of the Project within any particular period of time, and City shall not impose such a requirement on any Project Approval. The Parties acknowledge that Developer cannot at this time predict when or the rate at which or the order in which phases will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the control of Developer, such as market orientation and demand, interest rates, competition, and other similar factors. (b) Initiatives Restricting Timing of Development Inapplicable. In light of the foregoing and except as set forth in Section 3.11 of this Agreement, the Parties agree that Developer shall be able to develop in wc~86560 accordance with Developer's own time schedule as such schedule may exist from t/me to time, and Developer shall determine which part of the Project Site to develop first, and at Developer's chosen schedule. In particular, and not in limitation of any of the foregoing, since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the Parties therein to consider and expressly provide for the timing of development resulted in a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such Parties' agreement, it is the Parties' desire to avoid that result by acknowledging that Developer shall have the right to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment. Section 3.11 Nothing in this Agreement shall exempt Developer from completing work required by a subdivision agreement, road improvement agreement, or similar agreement. ARTICLE 4 SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED OR REVISED FEES, ASSESSMENTS AND TAXES Section 4.01 Developer's Payment of City Fees. Notwithstanding any vested rights it may acquire pursuant to this agreement or the vesting parcel map, Developer shall pay the development impact fees ("City Fees") in the amount in effect as of the time when the fees would otherwise be payable. Provided, however, Developer shall not be subject to City Fees that were not in existence on the Effective Date of this Agreement. Specifically, the Parties agree as follows: (a) Public Facilities Fee. Developer shall pay a Public Facilities Fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 214-02, including any future amendments to such fee. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. (b) School Impact Fees. School impact fees shall be paid by Developer in accordance with Government Code Section 53080 and the agreement between Developer's predecessor in interest and the Dublin Unified School District regarding payment of mitigation fees. (c) Fire Facilities Fee. Developer shall pay a fire facilities fee established by City of Dublin Resolution No. 12-03 including any future amendments to such fee. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the fee in effect at time of building permit issuance. (d) Tri-Valle¥ Transportation Development Impact Fee. Developer shall pay the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee in the amount and at the times set fOrth in City of Dublin Resolution No. 89-98 or any wc-86560 subsequent resolution which revises such fee. Developer will pay such fees no later than the time of issuance of building permits and in the amount of the feein effect at time of building permit issuance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer also agrees to pay, to the extent applicable, any fee adopted subsequent to the Effective Date pursuant to Resolution No. 173-01 ["A Resolution Expressing the City's Intent to Adopt Development Fee to Mitigate the Impacts of Non-Residential Development on the Affordability of Housing in the City of Dublin"], dated October 2, 2001. Developer shall not be subject to any traffic fees or traffic-related exactions or dedication requirements other than as specifically set forth in the Project Approvals or this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, Developer preserves its right to challenge updates to existing City Fees or to challenge any new fees adopted by City to which the Developer, pursuant to this Agreement, is subject. Section 4.02 Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. Section 4.03 New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the Project provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. Section 4.04 Assessments. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from assessments levied against it by City pursuant to any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services that benefit the Property. Section 4.05 Vote on Future Assessments and Fees. In the event that any assessment, fee or charge which is applicable to the Property is subject to Article XIIID of the Constitution and Developer does not return its ballot, Developer agrees, on behalf of itself and its successors, that City may count Developer's ballot as affirmatively voting in favor of such assessment, fee or charge. ARTICLE 5 COMPLETION OF ST. PATRICK WAY EXTENSION. Section 5,01 Introduction. The Specific Plan provides for the construction of an extension of St. Patrick Way between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street, within the right of way described in Ordinance No. 19-03 and as shown on Exhibit B ("the St. Patrick Way Extension"). As an inducement to City entering into this Agreement, Developer desires to complete the entirety of the St. Patrick 9 wc-86560 Way Extension as part of the Project. Completion of the eastern third of the St. Patrick Way Extension is necessary to serve other anticipated development to the immediate east of the Project Site that may or may not take place prior to development of the Project Site. As set forth in detail in this Article, the parties, through the comPletion of the St. Patrick Way Extension, intend to facilitate the development of the Project Site and the properties to Project Site's east. In general, the parties intend that (a) if development of the Project commences prior to the completion of any portion of the St. Patrick Way Extension, Developer shall complete the construction of the St. Patrick Way Extension in conjunction with the development of the Project; and (b) if Developer has not yet commenced construction of the St. Patrick Way Extension, the City may elect to construct all or a portion of the St. Patrick Way Extension, all pursuant to the terms set forth in this Article. Section 5.02 Developer's Obligation to Develop St. Patrick Way Extension in Conjunction with the Pro. iect. As more particularly described in this Section, if at the time Developer proceeds with development of the Project the entirety of the St. Patrick Way Extension has not been completed, Developer shall provide a substantial portion of the right of way necessary to construct St. Patrick Way to City .and shall construct the St. Patrick Way improvements as set forth in this Section. (a) Developer's Provision of Right of Way. Developer's obligations to provide the property for the St. Patrick Way right of way are as follows: (1) Area 4A. Developer shall dedicate Area 4A (as identified on Exhibit B) to City for a portion of the future St. Patrick Way. (2) Area 4B. Developer shall sell Area 4B (as identified on Exhibit B) to City at the price set forth in Section 5.02(b)(3) of this Agreement for a portion of the future St. Patrick Way. (3) Areas 6 and 6-West. Developer shall sell Areas 6 and 6- West (as identified on Exhibit B) in fee simple to City at the price set forth in Section 5.02(b)(3) of this Agreement. (4) Areas 1, 2, 3, and 5. Developer shall undertake good faith efforts to negotiate the sale of Areas 1, 2, 3, and 5 (as identified on Exhibit B) from the respective third-party property owners directly to City. All costs associated with acquiring Areas 1, 2, and 5, whether by negotiated sale from the third-party to City, or condemnation by City (as set forth in Section 5.02(b)(1) of this Agreement), shall be borne by Developer. All costs associated with acquiring Area 3, whether by negotiated sale from the third- party owner to City or condemnation by City (as set forth in Section 5.02(b)(1) of this Agreement), shall be borne by City. City shall have the right to approve the purchase price of Area 3, except 10 wc-86560 that City shall approve the purchase price if it does not exceed the property's fair market value, as determined by an appraiser mutually chosen by City and Developer. The costs of such an appraisal shall be borne equally by the Parties. All dedications by Developer to City pursuant to this Section 5.02 of this Agreement shall be made on the final parcel or subdivision map or pursuant to separate grant deed prior to the commencement of construction of the residential or office portion of the Project, whichever is the first to occur. Developer shall deliver grant deeds for land or right of way that City will purchase directly from Developer pursuant to this Section prior to the commencement of construction of the residential or office portion of the Project, whichever is the first to occur. (b) City's Obligations with Respect to Acquisition of St. Patrick Right of Way. City shall have the following obligations with respect to the acquisition of right of way for the St. Patrick Way Extension: (1) Potential Condemnation of Areas 1, 2, 3, and 5. In the event Developer, despite reasonable efforts, cannot successfully negotiate City's acquisition of Areas 1, 2, 3, and 5 (as identified on Exhibit B), City shall use its eminent domain authority to acquire such property. In the event City acquires Areas 1, 2, or 5 pursuant to its eminent domain power, all costs of acquisition, including appraisal fees, attorneys' fees and expert witness fees, shall be paid by Developer and at no cost to City. The cost of City' s acquisition of Area 3 pursuant to its eminent domain power, if any, shall be borne by City. (2) Rights of Entry for Construction of St. Patrick Way. Upon request by Developer, City shall promptly issue to Developer and any contractors or subcontractors designated by Developer a license or similar right of access across Areas 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, and 6-West, if such lands are acquired or otherwise controlled by City, to facilitate the construction of the St. Patrick Way Improvements. Any such right of access granted by City shall remain in effect until City's acceptance of the St. Patrick Way Improvements. (3) Payment for Areas 4B, 6, and 6-West. City shall pay Developer thirteen dollars ($13) per square foot for Developer's granting of Areas 4B, 6, and 6-West to City. Payment shall be made to Developer upon City's acceptance of the St. Patrick Way Improvements as set forth in Section 5.02(c)(2) of this Agreement. (4) Payment for Area 3. In the event Developer successfully negotiates the sale of Area 3 from the third-party property owner wc-86560 11 directly to City pursuant to Section 5.02(a)(4) of this Agreement, City shall pay the purchase price directly to the third-party property owner. (c) Construction and Acceptance of St. Patrick Way Improvements; Payment. (1) Construction by Developer. Developer shall commence constmctiOn of St. Patrick Way and the related improvements, including a mai or storm drain line within St. Patrick Way, pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer (the "St. Patrick Way Improvements"), concurrently with commencing construction of the residential or office portion of the Project, whichever is the first to occur. The roadway shall be completed and useable prior to any occupancy of the Project. As used herein, "St. Patrick Way Improvements" may refer to the construction of the entirety of St. Patrick Way and related improvements or to a portion thereof in the event City elects to construct a portion of St. Patrick Way pursuant to Section 5.03 of this Agreement. (2) Acceptance by City. Immediately upon receipt of written notice from Developer that the St. Patrick Way Improvements are complete and that Developer is prepared to dedicate such improvements to City (the "Improvement Completion Notice"), City staff shall diligently inspect the St. Patrick Way Improvements and determine whether to (a) recommend to the City Council that it accept such improvements or (b) provide Developer with a punch list of specific deficiencies to correct before City will accept the St. Patrick Way Improvements (the "Punch List"). Any such deficiencies shall be limited to those necessary to complete the St. Patrick Way Improvements to City standards. In no event shall City staff take more than sixty (60) days from its receipt of the Improvement Completion Notice to determine whether to recommend acceptance of the St. Patrick Way Improvements to the City Council or to provide the Punch List to Developer. In the event City staff recommends acceptance of the St. Patrick Way Improvements to the City Council, the City Council shall promptly consider whether to accept such improvements. The City Council may refuse to accept the St. Patrick Way Improvements only if it finds that such improvements have not been constructed substantially in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. (3) Payment by City. Within thirty (30) days of City's acceptance of the St. Patrick Way Improvements constructed by Developer, City shall reimburse Developer for all costs incurred by Developer in constructing that portion of the St. Patrick Way wc-86560 12 Improvements lying within Areas 3, 4B, 6, and 6-West, provided that following City approval of the plans for the St. Patrick Way Improvements, Developer shall solicit bids from three (3) contractors to construct such improvements. Upon Developer entering into a construction contract, Developer and the City Engineer shall meet and confer in good faith to reasonably allocate the actual costs to complete such improvements among the Parties on a proportionate basis based upon each Party's respective share of the entire cost of the St. Patrick Way Improvements as set forth in this Agreement. Section 5.03 City's Right to Elect to Construct Portions of St. Patrick Way. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, City may, at any time prior to the commencement of construction of the St. Patrick Way Improvements by Developer, elect to construct, at its sole cost, those portions of the St. Patrick Way Improvements within Area 3, Area 4B, Area 6, and Area 6- West. Upon such election, which shall be noticed in writing pursuant to Section 13.09 of this Agreement (the "Notice of Election"), the Parties shall have the following obligations. (a) Acquisition of Areas 2 and 3. If Developer has not previously negotiated the sale of Areas 2 and 3 to City pursuant to 5.02(a)(4), City shall acquire Areas 2 and 3 from the third-party owner, for use in connection with the St. Patrick Way Improvements and Developer shall have no further obligation to negotiate the acquisition of Areas 2 and 3 as otherwise required by Section 5.02(a)(4) of this Agreement. (b) Dedication of Areas 4B, 6, and 6-West. Provided City has acquired Area 2 and Area 3 as set forth above, Developer shall dedicate Area 4B, Area 6, and Area 6-West (as identified on Exhibit B) to City, subject to any payment by City required by Section 5.03(c), for use as a portion of the future St. Patrick Way. Developer shall deliver a grant deed to City within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice of Election or within thirty (30) days of City's acquisition of both Area 2 and Area 3, whichever is the later to occur. (c) Payments to City for Acquisition of Area 2. If at the time that City issues the Notice of Election, the City has already acquired Area 2 pursuant to Section 5.02(a)(4) and at no cost to the City, the City shall make the payments required by Section 5.02(b)(3) to compensate Developer for the dedication of Areas 4B, 6, and 6-West. In the event that City is required to condemn or negotiate the purchase of Area 2 pursuant to Section 5.03(a), Developer shall pay to the City the difference, if any, between the City's cost of acquiring Area 2 and the costs the City would have been required to pay to compensate Developer for the dedication of Areas 4B, 6, and 6-West pursuant to Section 5.02(b)(3). For example, if the cost of acquiring Area 2 is $650,000 and if the cost of acquiring Areas wc-86560 13 wc-86560 4B, 6, and 6-West at $13 per square foot is $300,000, Developer would pay City $350,000. Any payment required by Developer pursuant to this subsection shall be made prior to issuance of the first building permit in the Project. (d) Developer's Temporary Parking and Access Rights. Provided City has acquired Areas 2, 3, 4B, 6, and 6-West as set forth above, City shall promptly grant Developer a license or similar right to utilize on a temporary basis (i) Area 2 for vehicle and pedestrian ingress to and egress from the Project Site and for passenger car and truck parking associated with the Industrial Warehouse (as shown on Exhibit C); (ii) Area 6 West (as identified on Exhibit B) for ingress to and egress from the Project Site; and (iii) portions of Areas 3 and 4B for passenger car parking (as shown on Exhibit C) ("the Authorizations"). During the term of this Agreement, the Authorizations shall continue in effect but shall terminate upon Developer providing City with written notice that it is ready to commence construction of the residential or office portion of the Project or the issuance of the first building permit for the Project, whichever comes first. The Authorizations shall be of no further force and effect upon the termination of this Agreement, unless Developer has made the payment required by subsection (c) of this Section, in which case the Authorizations shall continue until such time as the City Council determines that the use of the lands is necessary for public roadway or other public purposes. If, after the termination of this Agreement, the City Council determines that the use of the lands subject to the Authorizations is necessary for public roadway or other public purposes, the Authorizations shall terminate, and Developer shall be entitled to no compensation for any loss of the right to use the lands subject to the Authorizations. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the provisions of this subsection shall survive the termination of this Agreement, and City may exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire any rights Developer may acquire pursuant to this subsection. (e) City's Right to Construct Entirety of St. Patrick Way Extension. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, in the event that City has completed a portion of the St. Patrick Way Extension pursuant.to this Section 5.03, City may complete those portions of the St. Patrick Way Extension outside of Areas 3, 4B, 6, and 6-West ("the Western Improvements") provided that it compensates Developer for the acquisition of the necessary right of way from Developer, including any rights developer obtains pursuant to this Agreement. By agreeing to this provision, Developer does not waive any right to severance damages or damages for loss of business good will that it may incur in the event that City condenms the right of way for the Western Improvements. In the event that City does construct the Western Improvements pursuant to this subsection 5.03(e), Developer agrees to pay to City, prior to the issuance of the first building permit issued to Developer in the Project, an amount 14 equal to the City's costs of acquiring the right of way for the Western Improvements (but specifically excluding any compensation to Developer associated with severance damages or damages for loss of business good will) and all of the City's cost of constructing the Western Improvements. If the construction of the Western Improvements is part of a larger City project, upon City awarding a construction contract for such project, Developer and the City Engineer shall meet and confer in good faith to reasonably allocate the costs of construction between the Western Improvements and the remainder of the project. (f) Developer's Continuing Obligation to Complete Remainder of St. Patrick Way Extension. In the event that the City elects to complete a portion of the St. Patrick Way Extension pursuant to this Section 5.03, Developer shall remain obligated to dedicate land for and construct the portion of St. Patrick Way Extension remaining incomplete. The terms of Section 5.02, to the extent then applicable, shall continue to apply. ARTICLE 6 ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER Section 6.01 Storm Drain. In the event development of the BART Parcel necessitates the relocation of the storm drain crossing the BART Parcel (the "Storm Drain"), which serves to drain the Project Site and several neighboring parcels, Developer shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice from City, contribute up to thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) to City or BART, as appropriate, toward the cost of relocating the Storm Drain. Provided, however, that Developer shall have no obligation to contribute any funds toward the cost of relocating the Storm Drain until any such relocation has been completed and accepted by City. This provision shall survive termination of this Agreement. Section 6.02 Egress Easement for BART. Developer and the developer of the BART Parcel have agreed in concept to a shared driveway to serve both the Project and anticipated development on the BART Parcel. In the event development of the BART Parcel precedes development of the Project, and the BART project approvals .necessitate vehicular and pedestrian egress across Developer's property for access to the proposed shared driveway to St. Patrick Way, Developer shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice from City, grant to the owner of the BART Parcel a private non-exclusive egress easement across a portion of the Property (depicted on Exhibit D) to allow a temporary driveway connection to be constructed and utilized. The shared driveway is illustrated on Exhibit D and the precise location of the easement is subject to refinement during final design. Developer shall have no obligation to grant an easement that wouldinhibit or obstruct the continued use and operation of the Industrial Warehouse. Developer shall not bear any of the costs associated with the preparation, execution, and recordation of the easement document. wc-86560 15 ARTICLE 7 ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF CITY Section 7.01 Availability of Public Services. To the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with its authority, and at no cost to City, City shall cooperate with Developer in Developer's efforts to reserve such capacity for sewer, water, and other public services and to obtain related permits and approvals from other governmental or quasi-governmental entities as may be necessary to serve the Project. ARTICLE 8 AMENDMENT Section 8.01 Amendment of This Agreement. (a) Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended from time to time, in whole or in part, by mutual written consent of the Parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute. (b) Administrative Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement that does not relate to (i) the Term of this Agreement, (ii) permitted uses of the Project Site, (iii) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land, (iv) conditions, terms, restrictions, or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, (v) the density or intensity of use of the Project Site or the maximum height or size of proposed buildings, or (vi) monetary contributions by Developer, shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before the Parties may execute an amendment hereto. Such amendment may be approved by the City Manager. (c) Amendment Exemptions. No amendment of a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall require an amendment to this Agreement. Instead, any such Subsequent Approvals automatically shall be vested pursuant to Section 3.01 of this Agreement. ARTICLE 9 ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE Section 9.01 Right to Assign. Developer may wish to sell, transfer or assign all or portions of its Property to other developers (each such other developer is referred to as a "Transferee"). In connection with any such sale, transfer or assignment to a Transferee, Developer may sell, transfer or assign to such Transferee any or all rights, interests and obligations of Developer arising hereunder and that pertain to the portion of the Property being sold or transferred, to such Transferee, provided, however, that: no such transfer, sale or assignment of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without prior written notice to City (the "Proposed Assignment Notice") and approval by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. wc-86560 16 Section 9.02 Approval and Notice of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. The City Manager shall consider and decide on any transfer, sale or assignment within ten (10) days following City's receipt of the Proposed Assignment Notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications and other information are provided to the City Manager to enable the City Manager to determine whether thc proposed Transferee can perform the Developer's obligations hereunder. The City Manager may' refuse to give his consent only if, in light of the proposed transfcree's reputation and financial resources, such transferee would not in City's reasonable opinion be able to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by such transferee. Developer may appeal the City Manager' s determination to the City Council. In the event thc City Manager has not notified Developer of his or her decision regarding the proposed transfer, sale or assignment within ten (10) days of City's receipt of the Proposed Assignment Notice, provided the City Manager has received all necessary documents, Developer may deliver a subsequent Proposed Assignment Notice. If the City Manager has not notified Developer of his or her decision within ten (10) days of the City' s receipt of the subsequent Proposed Assignment Notice, the City Manager shall be deemed to have approved such proposed transfer, sale or assignment. Notice of any such approved sale, transfer or assignment (which includes a description of all rights, interests and obligations that have been transferred and those which have been retained by Developer) shall be recorded in the official records of Alameda County, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, concurrently with such sale, transfer or assignment. Section 9.03 Effect of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. Developer shall be released from any obligations hereunder sold, transferred or assigned to a Transferee pursuant to Section 9.01 of this Agreement, provided that: a) such sale, transfer or assignment has been approved by the City Manager pursuant to Section 9.01 of this Agreement; and b) such obligations are expressly assumed by Transferee and provided that such Transferee shall be subject to all the provisions. Section 9.04 Permitted Transfer, Purchase or Assignment. The sale or other transfer of any interest in the Property to a purchaser ("Purchaser") pursuant to the exercise of any right or remedy under a deed of trust encumbering Developer's interest in the Property shall not require City Manager approval pursuant to the provision of Section 9.01 of this Agreement. Any subsequent transfer,' sale or assignment by the Purchaser to a subsequent transferee, 'purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to the provisions of Section 9.01 of this Agreement. ~ ARTICLE 10 COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE Section 10.01 Cooperation. (a) In the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any person not a party to this Agreement challenging the validity of any provision of the Agreement or any Project wc-86560 ' 17 Approval or Subsequent Approval, the Parties shall cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement, the Project Approvals, or the Subsequent Approvals, if any, the Parties shall cooperate in defending such action. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by City in defense of any such action or other proceeding. Developer's obligation to pay for City's legal counsel shall not extend to fees incurred on appeal unless otherwise authorized by Developer. (b) The Parties agree that this Section shall constitute a separate agreement entered into concurrently, and that if any other provision of this Agreement, or the Agreement as a whole, is invalidated, rendered null, or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Parties agree to be bound by the terms of this Section, which shall survive such invalidation, nullification or setting aside. ARTICLE 11 DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION Section 11.01 Defaults. Any failure by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement, which failure continues uncured for a period of thirty (30) days following written notice of such failure from the other party (unless such period is extended by mutual written consent), shall constitute a default under this Agreement. Any notice given pursuant to the preceding sentence ("Default Notice") shall specify the nature of the alleged failure and, where appropriate, the manner in which said failure satisfactorily may be cured. If the nature of the alleged failure is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such 30-day period, then the commencement of the cure within such time period, and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure thereafter, shall be deemed to be a cure within such 30-day period. Upon the occurrence of a default under this Agreement, the non-defaulting party may institute legal proceedings to enforce the terms of this Agreement or, in the event of a material default, terminate this Agreement. If the default is cured, then no default shall exist and the noticing party shall take no further action. Section 11.02 Termination. If City elects to consider terminating this Agreement due to a material default of Developer, then City shall give a notice of intent to terminate this Agreement and the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council at a duly noticed and conducted public hearing. Developer shall have the right to offer written and oral evidence prior to or at the time of said public hearings. If the City Council determines that a material default has occurred and is continuing, and elects to terminate this Agreement, City shall give written notice of termination of this Agreement to Developer by certified mall and this Agreement shall thereby be terminated sixty (60) days thereafter; provided, however, that if Developer files an action to wc-86560 18 challenge City' s termination of this Agreement within such sixty-day period, then this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until a trial court has affirmed City's termination of this Agreement and all appeals have been exhausted (or the time for requesting any and all appellate review has expired). Section 11.03 Annual Review. (a) Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be July 15, 2004 and each July 15 thereafter (the "Annual Review"). (b) Initiation of Review. City's Community Development Director shall initiate the Annual Review, as required under Section 8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56 of the City Municipal Code, by giving to Developer thirty (30) days' written notice that City intends to undertake such review. The Annual Review shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms of this Agreement pursuant to California Government Code SeCtion 65865.1 Developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Director prior to the hearing on the Annual Review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the Community Development Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of the Development Agreement. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon Developer. (c) Notice. City shall use its best efforts to deposit in the mail and fax to Developer at least five (5) days prior to any Annual Review a copy of all staff reports and related exhibits to be used or relied upon in conducting the review concerning Developer's performance hereunder. Developer shall be permitted an opportunity to respond to City's evaluation of Developer's performance, either orally at a public hearing or in a written statement, at Developer's election. Such response shall be made to the Community Development Director. (d) Costs. The costs incurred by City in connection with the Annual Review shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the schedule of fees in effect at the time of review. (e) Estoppel Certificate. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice from the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties, (b) thiS Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the knowledge of the certifying party the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be wc-86560 19 agreed to by the Parties. City Manager of City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer. Should the party receiving the request not execute and return such certificate within the applicable period, this shall not be deemed to be a default, provided that such party shall be deemed to have certified that the statements in clauses (a) through (c) of this Section are true, and any party may rely on such deemed certification. Section 11.04 Enforced Delay; Extension of Time Performance. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, neither party shall be deemed to be in default where delays in performance or failures to perform are due to, and a necessary outcome of, war, terrorism, insurrection, strikeS or other labor disturbances, walk-outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, judicial decisions, or similar basis for executed performance which is not within the reasonable control of the party to be excused. Litigation attacking the validity of this Agreement or any of the Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals, or any permit, ordinance, entitlement or other action of a governmental agency other than City necessary for the development of the Project pursuant to this Agreement, or Developer's inability to obtain materials, power, or public facilities (such as water or sewer service) to the Project, shall be deemed to create an excusable delay as to Developer. Upon the request of either party hereto, an extension of time for the performance of any obligation whose performance has been so prevented or delayed will be memorialized in writing. The term of such extension shall be equal to the period of the excusable delay, or longer, as may mutually agreed upon. Section 11.05 Legal Action. Either party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, recover damages for any default, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties, or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall damages be awarded against City upon an event of default or upon termination of this agreement. Section 11.06 Indemnification and Waiver. Developer shall defend City, its officers, employees and officials, against any claims or actions (including declaratory or injunctive relief) concerning the bidding on the contract for the construction of the St. Patrick Way Improvements on Developer's property or on Areas 1, 2, 3, and 5, whether owned by City or not, or the payment of wages pursuant to such contract, and shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any damages, charges, fees or penalties that may be awarded or imposed against City and/or Developer in connection with, or on account of, the bidding for the contract for the construction of the St. Patrick Way Improvements or the payment of wages pursuant to such contract. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event City constructs those portions of the St. Patrick Way Improvements within Areas 3, 4B, 6, and 6-West pursuant to Section 5.03 of this Agreement, the foregoing wc-86560 20 provisions of this Section 11.06 shall not apply to any contracts related to such construction. ARTICLE 12 NO AGENCY, JOINT VENTURE, OR PARTNERSHIP It is specifically understood and agreed to by and between the Parties that: (i) the subject development is a private development; (ii) City has no interest or responsibilities for, or duty to, third parties concerning any improvements until such time, and only until such time, that City accepts the same pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement or in connection with the various Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals; (iii) Developer shall have full power over and exclusive control of the Project herein described, subject only to the limitations and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals, and Applicable Law; and (iv) City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of agency relationship, joint venture or partnership between City and Developer and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as creating any such relationship between City and Developer. ARTICLE 13 MISCELLANEOUS Section 13,01 Incorporation of Recitals and IntroductorY Paragraph. The Recitals contained in this Agreement, and the introductory paragraph preceding the Recitals, are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. Section 13.02 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a particular situation, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement to other situations, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any material provision of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to a particular situation, is held to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, either City or Developer may (in their sole and absolute discretion) terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to the Other party. Section 13.03 Other Necessary Act. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals, and this Agreement and to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder, including but not limited to any and all such instruments as may be necessary to grant Developer a reasonable right of access across any City-owned property so that Developer may construct the St. Patrick Way Improvements. wc-86560 21 Section 13.04 Construction. This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both City and Developer, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. Section 13.05 California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Section 13.06 Attorneys' Fees. In any legal action or other proceeding brought by either party to enforce or interpret a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and any other costs incurred in that proceeding in addition to any other relief to which it is entitled. Section 13.07 Hold Harmless. Developer shall hold City and its elected and appointed officers, agents, employees, and representatives harmless from claims, costs, and liabilities for any personal injury, death, or property damage which is a result of the construction of the Project, or of operations performed under this Agreement by Developer or by Developer's contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, whether such operations were performed by Developer or any of Developer's contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to mean that Developer shall hold City harmless from any claims of personal injury, death or property damage arising from, or alleged to arise from, any act, failure to act, on the part of City, its elected and appointed representatives, offices, agents and employees. Section 13.08 Agreement Runs with the Land. All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring all or a portion of the Project Site, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Project Site hereunder (a) is for the benefit of the Project Site and is a burden upon the Project Site, (b) runs with the Project Site, and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of the Project Site or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such property. Section 13.09 Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing. Such notices shall be given to the Parties at their addresses set forth below: wc-86560 22 If to City, to: With Copies to: If to Developer, to: With Copies to: Richard C. Ambrose City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94569 Telephone: (925) 833-6650 Facsimile: (925) 833-6651 Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson 555 12th Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94607 Attn: John Bakker Telephone: (510) 808-2000 Facsimile: (510) 444-1108 AMB Property Corporation Pier 1, Bay 1 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attn: Luis Belmonte Telephone: (415) 733-9404 Facsimile: (415) 394-9000 Morrison & Foerster m, 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 450 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Attn: David A. Gold Telephone: (925) 295-3300 Telephone: (925) 946-9912 A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the expiration of forty-eight (48) hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also be given by overnight courier which shall be deemed given the following day or by facsimile transmission which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt. Section 13.10 Entire Agreement, Counterparts and Exhibits. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and counterpart signature pages may be assembled to form a single original document. This Agreement consists of pages and exhibits which constitute in full, the final and exclusive understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements of the Parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of City and the Developer. wc-86560 23 The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein for all purposes: Exhibit A-I: Legal Description of Project Site Exhibit A-2: Diagram of Project Site Exhibit B: St. Patrick Way Right of Way Diagram Exhibit C: Parking Diagram Exhibit D: Egress Easement to St. Patrick Way Section 13.11 Recordation of Development Agreement. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65868.5, no later than ten (10) days after City enters into this Agreement, the City Clerk shall record an executed copy of this Agreement in the Official Records of the County of Alameda. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by and between Developer and City as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF DUBLIN, AMB PROPERTY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation a Maryland corporation Mayor Name: ~2_~c?(~6 .,~,~,j, ~/r~ ~ 7~'~ ,~-~_, ATTEST: By: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attorney wc-86560 24 COUN ~ _ (_/]5 ~ ~ On ./~./~t~/~ ~ , 2~4, before me,~F)~D ~ ~~t~ ~ ~ ~ the unde;si~¢d n~ publ~ in ~d f~r.s~d C~unty ~S~ate, ~er~n~l~ ;p~e~e~ ~ /~ person~ly ~own to me [or] proved to me on the basis of satisfacto~ evidence to be the person(s) whose nme~ is/~e subscribed m the wit~n instrument ~d ac~owledged to me that he/~/t~ executed the sine in ~s~/t~ au~orized capacity(~) ~d that by his~r/t~ signature(~) on the instrument, the person(~ or the enfity(ies) upon beh~f of whch the person(~) acted executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~~ Commission # 1353305 z ~ (~'~.~"~,'~}~1 Notary Public - California >z STATE OF ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) On ,2004, before me, undersigned notary public in and for said County and State, personally appeared the personally known to me [or] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s) or the entity(ies) upon behalf of which the person(s) acted executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires on wc-86560 STATE OF ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) On ,2004, before me, undersigned notary public in and for said County and State, personally appeared the personally known to me [or] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s) or the entity(ies) upon behalf of which the person(s) acted executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires on STATE OF ) ) COUNTY OF ) On ,2004, before me, undersigned notary public in and for said County and State, personally appeared the personally known to me [or] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s) or the entity(ies) upon behalf of which the person(s) acted executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires on wc-86560 Exhibit A-1 Legal Description of Project Site (see attached) Page 1 Order No. 150214 DESCRIPTION CITY OF DUBLIN PARCEL ONE: PARCEL E OF PARCEL MAP 4224, FILED FEBRUARY 6, 1984, IN BOOK 143 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 6, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THAT PORTION CONVEYED IN THE DEED FROM PETER B. BEDFORD AND KIRSTEN N. BEDFORD, HUSBAND AND WIFE, TO MOTOR LODGE ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, RECORDED FEBRUARY 21, 1984, SERIES NO. 84-33062, ALAMEDA COt3NTY RECORDS, MORE PARTI~Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERN COR19ER OF PARCEL C OF PARCEL MAP 1307, FILED JANUARY 29, 1976, IN BOOK 89 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 8, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERN LIN~ OF SAID PARCEL C, NORTH 69° 08' 15" EAST, 239.05 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE, SOUTH 20° 51' 45" EAST, 183.49 FEET TO THE SOUTHERN LINE OF PARCEL E (143 PM 6); THENCE ALONG THE LAST MENTIONED LINE, SOUTH 61° 24' 22" WEST, 9.66 FEET; SOI3TH 78° 18' 18" WEST, 160.61 FEET; AND SOUTH 76° 24' 44" WEST, 67.63 FEET TO THE WESTERN LINE OF SAID PARCEL E (143 PM 6); THENCE ALONG THE LAST MENTIONED LINE, NORTH 20° 51' 45" WEST, 149.83 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL TWO: EASEMENT GRANTED TO BAYDALE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, IN THE "GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR JOINT USE ACCESS", RECORDED JANUARY 21, 1976, REEL 4233, IMAGE 390, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS FOLLOWS: AN ACCESS EASEMENT, NOT TO BE EXCLUSIVE, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS THEREFORE, FOR THE JOINT BENEFIT OF THE GRANTOR AND GRANTEE IN, OVER, ALONG AND ACROSS THAT CERTAIN LAND SITUATED IN THE TOWNSHIP OF PLEASANTON, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERN LINE OF REGIONAL STREET, BEING THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL i IN THE DEED FROM MOTEL INTERSTATE SYSTEMS, INC., TO THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, RECORDED MARCH 8, 1971, IN REEL 2802, AT IMAGE 484, RECORDER'S SERIES NO. 71-26256, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERN LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM BAYDALE,INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, TO AMFAC MERCHANDISING CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, FORMERLY RHODES WESTERN, INC., A CORPORATION, RECORDED APRIL 12, 1972, IN REEL 3104, AT IMAGE 883, RECORDER'S SERIES NO. 72-47311, OFFICIAL' RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THENCE THROUGH A PORTION OF THE LAST NAMED PARCEL OF LAND AND ALONG THE LAST NAMED NORTHWESTERN LINE, NORTH 69° 08' 15" EAST, 329.29 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHEASTERN LINE OF LAST NAMED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 20° 51' 45" EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG A LINE LYING 40 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE ABOVE NAMIgD NORTHWESTERN LINE, SOUTH 69° 08' 15" WEST, 329.29 FEET, TO THE NORTHEASTERN LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1 TO THE COUNTY OF A3_~kMEDA, SERIES NO. 71-26256; THENCE ALONG THE LAST NAMED LINE, NORTH 20° 51' 45" WEST, 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. p~,~ 2 Order No. '150214 DESCRIPTION RESERVING UNTO GRANTOR, THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES GRANTED TO GRANTEE BY THIS DESCRIPTION OVER THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND. PARCEL THREE: NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OF TRUCKS AND AUTOMOBILES, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, AS CREATED, DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT OF EASEMENTS AND RELATED AGREEMENTS BETWEEN LIBERTY HOUSE PROPERTIES, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND KI DUBLIN BOULEVARD, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, RECORDED OCTOBER 4, 1994, SERIES NO. 94-323681, UPON THE TERMS, CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE II THEREIN, OVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY~ IDENTIFIED HE~ER AS PARCELS THREE A, THREE B, THREE C: PARCEL THREE A: BEING A PORTION OF LOT C, AS SAID LOT C IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP NO. 4224 RECORDED FEBRUARY 6, 1984, IN BOOK 143 OF MAPS, PAGE 6, IN THE OFFICE OFT HE COLTNTYRECORDER OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AT BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT C; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, ALONG THE WESTERN LINE OF SAID LOT C, NORTH 20° 51' 45" WEST, 25.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERN LINE, NORTH 69° 08' 15" EAST, 237.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53° 24' 20" EAST, 221.29 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERN LINE OF SAID LOT C; THENCE ALONG SAID F2X~TERN LINE, THE FOLLOWING THREE {3) COURSES: 1) SOUTH 20° 51' 45" EAST, 28.66 FEET; 2) ALONG A TANGENT 34.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35° 57' 02", AN ARC LENGTH OF 21.33 FEET; AND 3) ALONG A REVERSE 50.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, FROM WHICH THE CENTER OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 74° 54' 43" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44° 01' 37", AN ARC LENGTH OF 38.42 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT C; THENCE FROM SAID SOLTTHEA~TERN CORNER, ALONG THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SAID LOT C, SOUTH 69° 08' 15" WEST, 434.50 FEET TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCELS THREE B AND THREE C: BEING A PORTION OF LOT B, AS SAID LOT B IS SHOWN AND SO DESIGNATED ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP NO. 4224, RECORDED FEBRUARY 6, 1984, IN BOOK 143 OF I~3~PS, AT PAGE 6, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, COMPRISED OF TWO (2) PARCELS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, AND IDENTIFIED AS PARCELS THREE B AND THREE C: Page 3 DESCRIPTION Order No. 150214 PARCEL THREE B COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT B; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF CO~[ENCEMENT, ALONG THE WESTERN LINE OF SAID LOT B, NORTH 20° 51' 45" WEST, 20.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, LEAVING SAID WESTERN LINE, NORTH 69° 08' 15" EAST, 21.00 FEET; THENCE SOI3TH 20° 51' 45" EAST, 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SAID LOT B; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERN LINE, NORTH 69° 08' 15" EAST, 25.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERN LINE, NORTH 20° 51' 45" WEST, 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 69° 08 15" EAST, 84.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65° 51 45" EAST, 21.21 FEET; THENCE NORTH 69° 08 15" EAST, 160.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33° 35 59" EAST, 25.81 FEET; THENCE NORTH 69° 08 15" EAST, 80.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 20° 51 45" EAST, 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTHERN LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERN LINE, NORTH 69° 08' 15" EAST, 80.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOIJTHERN LINE, NORTH 20° 51' 45" WEST, 45.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 69° 08' 15" WEST THENCE SOUTH 33° 35' 59" WEST THENCE SOUTH 69° 08' 15" WEST THENCE SOUTH 86° 07' 42" WEST THENCE SOUTH 74° 19' 55" WEST THENCE SOUTH 69° 08' 15" WEST 172.60 FEET; 27.53 FEET; 120.00 FEET; 37.64 FEET; 55.23 FEET; 80.00 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID WESTERN LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERN LINE, SOUTH 20° 51' 45" EAST, 25.00 FEET TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL THREE C: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT B; Page 4 DESCRIPTION Order No. 150214 THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF COMMENCEMENT, ALONG THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SAID LOT B, SOUTH 69° 08' 15" WEST, 108.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, LEAVING SAID SOUTHERN LINE, NORTH 20° 51' 45" WEST, 45.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 69° 08' 15" EAST, 17.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 58° 26' 23" EAST, 92.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERN LINE OF SAID LOT B; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERN LINE, SOUTH 20° 51' 45" EAST, 25.00 FEET; TI{ENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERN LINE, SOUTh{ 57° 29' 22" WEST, 85.04 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 20° 51' 45" EAST, 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTHERN LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOtFfHERN LINE, SOUTH 69° 08' 15" WEST, 25.00 FEET TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING° PARCEL FOUR: NON-EXCLUSIVE RECIPROCAL UTILITY EASEMENTS, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, AS CREATED, DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT OF EASEMENTS AND RELATED AGREEMENTS BETWEEN LIBERTY HOUSE PROPERTIES, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND KI DUBLIN BOULEVARD, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, RECORDED OCTOBER 4, 1994, SERIES NO. 94-323681, I/PON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN SAID INSTRUMENT, AT ARTICLE III THEREOF. PARCEL FIVE: AN EASEMENT TO ERECT, INSTALL, MAINTAIN, REPAIR i~=ND REPLACE MONUMENT SIGNS APPURTENANT TO PARCEL ONE, AS CREATED, DEFINED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT OF EASEMENTS AND RELATED AGREEMENTS BETWEEN LIBERTY HOUSE PROPERTIES, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND KI DUBLIN BOULEVARD INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, RECORDED OCTOBER 4, 1994, SERIES NO. 94-323681, UPON THE TERMS, CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN AT ARTICLE IV THEREOF~ ASSESSOR' S PARCEL NO. 941-1500-047-02 Exhibit A-2 Diagram of Project Site (see attached) Exhibit B St. Patrick Way Right of Way Diagram (see attached) .!.~J3~i.1.$ -IYN©I ~3~1 3^1~!(3 ~J_l.¥~ N3O-IC~ / / Exhibit C Parking Diagram (see attached) Exhibit D Egress Easement to St. Patrick Way (see attached) PST ATTACHMENTS 5,6,7,8,9, & 10 PERTAINING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS, STAFF REPORT & MINUTES HAVE BEEN ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.1 AMB PROPERTY INCORPORATED -WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE LIST OF PROJECT-RELATED STUDIES & INFORMATION (Informational) The following is a list of the technical studies and information prepared for background and support documents for the AMB Property, Inc. West Dublin BART Transit Village Project: 1) West Dublin BART Specific Plan · Adopted by Dublin City Council on December 19, 2000 2) Negative Declaration fOr Downtown Specific Plans · Approved by the Dublin City Council on December 19, 2000 3) West DublinfPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2000 · Certified by BART Board April 2001 4) Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Legacy Partners/AMB Property, Inc. dated November 6, 2003, and circulated for public review from November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The following studies and reports support the environmental analysis of the Project and are included in Binder 2 of Attachment 3 of Agenda Item 6.2: Traffic Reports/Studies - Omni-Means a. Final Report: Transportation and Parking Impacts for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village 5/22/02 b. Focus Trip Generation Rate/Parking Update for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village 5/14/03 ' · Acoustical Analysis/Report - Charles Salter Associates a. Environmental Noise Study 10/28/02 · Geotechnical Investigation- Treadwell & Rollo a. Preliminary Report 4/8/02 Hydraulic Analysis - Kier & Wright a. Investigation Letter 5/3/02 b. Dublin Storm Drain Plan (1971) Will Serve Letter - Dublin/San Ramon Service District 8/27/03 a. Sanitary Sewer Line Upsizing b. Location Map for Potable Water/Fire Lines Environmental Investigative Reports - Versar a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment b. Documentation for Closure of Underground Storage Tank 1/11/01 · Air Quality Report - Tetra Tech EM Inc. a. Preliminary Letter Report 4/2/04 G52002\02-003La~MB List of StudiesInfo ATTACHMENT · Responses to Late Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration On February 20, 2004, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (Adams Broadwell) submitted a 16- page letter with extensive attachments asserting to contain supplemental comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the AMB project. This submittal was long after the end of the public review and comment period on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as after release of the staff report for the February 24, 2004 Planning Commission hearing on the Project. Adams Broadwell previously submitted extensive comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration by way of a letter, again with extensive attachments, dated December 2, 2003. These comments were submitted within the public review and comment period; although not required to respond to comments on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City prepared written responses in the interest of providing information on the issues raised. Although identified by the commentor as supplemental comments, the February 20, 2004 comments are simply late comments to which the City is not required to respond. However, in the interests of providing information to the public and decisionmakers on the issues raised once again by the commentor, the City has prepared brief responses to the recent comments. No other comments have been received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and no comments from anyone other than Adams Broadwell. The following terminology shall be used for the purposes of these responses: "MND" for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, "Project" for the current AMB project as described in the staff report and elsewhere in the record, "RTC" for the February 10, 2004 matrix containing responses to Adams Broadwell's previous comments. Comment 1. Supplemental comments on the MND should be addressed separately from the December 3, 2003 comments. Response 1. The comments were submitted to the City on February 20, 2004 long after the close of the public comment period on the MND. CEQA does not require written responses to comments on a Mitigated Negative Declaration or to comments submitted after the close of the public review and comment period. Nevertheless, the City is providing brief responses to the issues raised in the late comments for the benefit of the public and the City Council. Comment Z The City should prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Project because there is a fair argument of potential significant effects on the environment. Response 2. Much of the comment is virtually identical to comments in the December 2, 2003 letter. See RTCs 3, 4, and 5 which explain that the commentor incorrectly applies the fair argument standard to the Project. Instead of the fair argument standard, the Project is subject to the CEQA Guidelines § 15162 standard, i.e., whether the Project will cause any new or more severe significant impacts than identified in the prior CEQA reviews. As noted in the RTC and throughout the record for this Project, substantial evidence supports the City's decision to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the § 15162 standard. Comment 3. Construction exhaust and fugitive dust will cause significant air quality impacts that have not been addressed or mitigated. 687665-1 1 ATTACHMENT 12. Response 3. See RTCs 14 and 16 which address the City's standard requirement for a construction management plan. The plans must be submitted pdor to issuance of a grading permit and must identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) tailored to the Project to control construction emissions. This standard condition is reflected in both the prior Specific Plan Negative Declaration (p. 19) and the Project MND (p. 20). Staff reviewed the consultant's report submitted with the comment letter; however, the report does not consider the effect of the City's standard requirement for construction management plans, which is applicable to all projects, including the AMB project. Staff also reviewed an air quality report submitted by the applicant which addresses construction emissions and concludes that Project construction emissions will be less than significant with the City's standard requirements. (Preliminary Letter Report for the Air Quality Analysis at the West Dublin Transit Village Project, Tetra Tech EM Inc., April 2, 2004, hereafter, "Letter Report", attached as Exhibit A). Upon review of the materials cited above, the City respectfully disagrees with the commentor's consultant and concludes that air quality has been adequately analyzed and that no significant construction air quality impacts will occur with implementation of the standard construction management plan requirements. Comment 4. Operation of the Project will increase air quality emissions because any additional housing will increase emissions. Response 4. The commentor may be confusing the Project site with the adjacent BART property which is vacant. By contrast, the Project site is fully developed and operational with high-volume, high-frequency vehicular and truck traffic, and related high emissions. These existing conditions are the baseline from which the Project impacts are measured. As reflected in the prior CEQA reviews and RTC 17, the Project is consistent with applicable air quality plans, and with its transit focus, may contribute to a reduction in emissions. The Project's operational impacts are also compared to the existing operations on a quantitative and qualitative level in the above mentioned Letter Report, which concludes that the Project will not have a significant air quality effect. Upon review of the materials cited above, the City respectfully disagrees with the commentor's consultant and concludes that operational air quality has been adequately analyzed and that no significant air quality impacts will occur with implementation of the Project, and that emissions may well be reduced from current levels. Comment 5. The Project will result in cumulative air quality impacts. Response 5. See RTC 17 which updates the MND discussion of Project compliance with the applicable Clean Air Plan. As reflected in the prior CEQA reviews, RTC 17, and the above mentioned Letter Report, substantial evidence supports the City's conclusion that the Project will not have the potentia for a significant contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. Comment 6. The Project requires additional evaluation and monitoring for hazardous materials effects on groundwater. The Project has not submitted a site-specific hydrological report for the proposed underground parking. Response 6. The commentor attempts to craft an argument from several disparate sources, but mischaracterizes the referenced BART SEIR analysis, ignores the City's standard requirements for geotechnical reporting prior to issuance of grading permits, and ignores the preliminary reports already submitted for the Project. 687665-1 2 'BART SEIR. The commentor asserts that the Project MND discounts the survey of reported hazardous materials sites data in the BART Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR was prepared for the adjacent BART property; its survey identifies many hazardous materials sites within the vicinity of that property. Contrary to the suggestion in the comment, 6700 Golden Gate Drive, the Project site, is among the remediated sites. (Draft SEIR pp. 4.7-5, -6). After Phase A and Phase B Preliminary Site Assessments, the Draft SEIR determined that no field sampling was required for the Project site. (Draft SEIR pp. 4.7-8 to -10). Similarly, Impact 4.7-1 did not identify potentially significant impacts for the remediated sites, such as the Project site. (Draft SEIR pp. 4.7-12, -13). Instead, it identified potential impacts only for the sites for which pollution characterization had not been Completed.~ The related mitigation measure required field sampling, which the analysis had specified was not required for the Project site. As further noted in the Project MND, a site-specific Phase 1 Environmental Assessment to determine the extent of soil and groundwater contamination on the site found no measurable contaminants. The Draft SEIR, the Project MND and studies submitted for the Project support the City's determination that no further analysis is required for potential hazardous materials impacts. Geotechnical Testing. The commentor reiterates prior comments regarding a statement in the Project MND that a hydrological report had been prepared. Response to Comment 21 clarifies staff's erroneous advice on this matter; however, it also clarifies the reports submitted by the Project in compliance with the Specific Plan ND. Groundwater levels in the area of the proposed below grade parking are addressed in the Preliminary Geotechnical investigation for the · Project, as cited in RTC 21. The prior and current Project environmental reviews, the BART SEIR, and the Project plans and reports and other materials in the record support the City's determination that Project has complied with the Specific Plan ND requirements. The City's Public Works staff has reviewed the report from the commentor's consultant and the reports submitted by the Project and other related materials in the record, and respectfully disagrees with the commentor's consultant that additional CEQA review is required. Comment 7. Even with a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), the Project may exceed applicable Basin Plan water quality limits. The Project may cause significant water quality impacts from pesticides and increased traffic. Response 7. See RTCs 22 and 23 regarding the City as permittee under the Clean Water Act, and the City's standard requirements to ensure compliance with its water quality permits. Project- t The commentor states that the City admits groundwater contamination is a potentially significant impact in this area, then refers to discussion in the Initial Study for the BART SEIR. (p. 8, third full paragraph). First, the SEIR was prepared for and certified by BART, not the City. The City was a responsible agency under CEQA. Second, statements like the referenced one in an Initial Study are not conclusions. In the CECA process, the Initial Study for an EIR identifies subjects to be further addressed in the EIR (or SEIR, in the case of the BART project). The potential for contamination was in fact further addressed in the SEIR, which found no potential for significant impacts on the Project site, as described above. 687665-1 3 specific SWPPPs allow a particular project to tailor a pollution prevention program to that project. As reflected in RTC 22, the City identifies certain minimum measures; additional measures may be ~ncluded in a prog ram as necessary and effective to attain compliance with water quality standards. The City's Public Works staff reviews proposed SWPPPs to ensure compliance with applicable standards. See also RTCs 23 and 24, which address the relationship between pesticide management, pollution from Project traffic, and the City's water quality permits. The City also notes that none of the issues raised in this, or any other of the commentor's letters, is a new issue that was not, or could not have been raised at the numerous previous headngs and approvals related to the Project. Many of the issues are long-standing, well-recognized issues, common to land development. Some of the issues, like water quality, often involve the City as a permittee as well as a regulator. The City's regulatory process, in turn, is designed to ensure that development projects, and thus the City, comply with applicable federal and state standards. Comment 8. There is no evidence that water, sewer and storm drain services are adequate. Response 8, The Specific Plan, the Specific Plan ND, and the Project MND all anticipated development of the type and extent proposed by the Project; the Project does not include any application to change the General Plan or Specific Plan to increase previously planned density. The City is in receipt of a letter dated August 27 2003 from the Dublin San Ramon Services District, which states that existing sewer mains cannot accept additional sewer discharges from any expanded use on the site. In addition, the letter states that the water lines in the project area may also need to be extended or upsized depending on the fire flow requirements and final configuration of the project. Consequently, project infrastructure designs have incorporated both sewer and water improvements necessary for the successful service of the project. Like any development project, the Project is required to construct the ~mprovements necessary to. provide service to it, as reflected in the City's standard- conditions of approval. In this case, the developer ~s not only providing utility, roadway and other required improvements, but is also providing roadway improvements above and beyond those necessary for the Proiect pursuant to the development agreement negotiated between the City and the developer, as described in the staff reports. Comment 9. The Project has numerous significant impacts which'are not mitigated to a level of insignificance. Response 9. For discussion of diesel exhaust, construction and operational emissions, see RTC 14, 16, 17, 18, and ResponseS 3 and 4 above (including the referenced Letter Report). For discussion of water quality, see RTC 21, 22, 23, and Responses 6 and 7 above. The Project MND reflects the requirements and intent of a SWPPP that continue to apply with this Project approval; the City's standard development conditions require that detailed measures included in the SWPPP be identified and approved prior to grading permits. Comment 10. The City should prepare an EIR to address the impacts identified by the commentor, Response 10. No subsequent EIR is required for this Project. The commentor consistently fails to recognize the prior CEOA reviews and land use approvals related to the Project, and the role of adopted City standards and conditions in the CEQA process. While this may the commentor's first 687665-1 4 review of the Project, it has been before the City and the public in various stages of planning, review, and approval since at least 2000. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan was intended to be a self-mitigating plan, whereby "mitigating" plans, programs and improvements were included in the document itself. Further, the Specific Plan was adopted as. the Stage 1 Development Plan in 2002 when the Project site was rezoned to PD-Planned Development. (Ordinance 10-02, June 18, 2002). As such, it is a regulatory document whose requirements apply to all projects within the PD district, including the Project. Similarly, other City standard requirements and standard conditions of approval apply to the Project as well. To the extent that standard requirements apply to a project, address environmental issues reflected in the CEQA environmental checklist, and resolve those issues, se parate mitigation measures need not be identified in subsequent environmental reviews. City staff from various departments have reviewed the Project applications, commemor's comments on the MND, these late comments, and all accompanying consultant reports. After such review, staff have not identified any necessary mitigation measures beyond adopted City standards and those previously established through incorporation in the Specific Plan. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15162~ the previous Specific Plan ND and the subsequent MND for the Project are adequate to describe and analyze the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The commentor also consistently fails to recognize that the Project site is fully developed and operational. Many of the comments state or assume that the Project site is vacant. It is not. To the extent that the potential for significant environmental impacts is measured against the existing conditions of the site, many of the commentor's assertions regarding potential impacts are simply incorrect because they are founded on incorrect assumptions. Attachments Exhibit A: Preliminary Letter Report for the Air Quality Analysis at the West Dublin Transit Village Project, Tetra Tech EM Inc., April 2, 2004 687665-1 5 DAN1EL L. CARDOZO RICHARD T. DRURY THOMAS A, ENSLOW TANYA A, GULESSERIAN MARC D, JOSEPH SUMA PEESAPATI OF COUNSEL THOMAS R. ADAMS ANN BROADWELL ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94080 TEL: (650} 589-1660 FAX: (650) 589-5062 [gulesserian@ adamsbroadwell.com SACRAMENTO OFFICE · 1225 8th STREET. SUITE 550 SACRAMENTO, CA 95514-4810 TEL: (916) 444-6201 FAX: {916) 444-6209 February 20, 2004 VIA HAND - DELIVERY Ms. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Supplemental Comments On The Initial Study And Mitigated Negative Dec]~ration For The West Dublin Transit Village Project, 6700 Golden Gate Drive (PA 02-003) Dear Ms. Harbin: We are writing on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104, and Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342 ("Unions") to submit supplemental comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("ISND") prepared by the City of Dublin ("City"), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), for the West Dublin Transit Village Project, located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in ! Dublin, California. The attached supplemental comments were prepared by atmospheric scientist, Schuyler Fishman, M.S. and Richard Roll/ns, P.E., of the Watershed Advisory Group. These comments supplement the issues addressed in our December 2, 2003 comment letter to the City and should be addressed separately. The members of the Unions construct and maintain commercial, residential and industrial projects, primarily in the vicinity of Alameda County. Union members live in the communities that suffer the impacts of environmentally .detrimental projects, including Dublin. Union members breathe the same polluted air that others breathe and suffer the sam~ adverse health and safety impacts. They are also concerned with sustainable land use and development in Dublin and elsewhere in the County. Poorly planned and environmentally detrimental projects 1519a-007 RECEIVED FEI 0 Iill ltll lid 131 ~klkll[~lt~- ~ printed on recycled paper February 20, 2004 Page 2 may jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and bY making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live here. Continued degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoria and other restrictions on growth in the CounW that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities. Union members are concerned about projects that carry serious environmental risks without providing countervailing employment and economic benefits ~o local workers and communities. Therefore, the Unions and theirmembers have a strong interest in enforcing environmental laws such as CEQA. In sum, the City's ISND fails to evaluate significant adverse impacts to air quality, surface and ground water quality and public services. The City must set aside the ISND and prepare a draft EIR with the required analysis and with a11 feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant. The City must then circulate the draft EIR to the public and the decisionmakers to enable an informed decision on the Project. AN EIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAH SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT As explained in our December 2, 2003 comment letter, CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the "fair argument" standard. Under that standard, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the env~onmen~. (Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass% v. Regents o/the Ur~iversity of California (1993) ('Z, aurel PIeight~ II') 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75, 82.) Under the "fair argument" standard, a negative declaration is improper, and an EIR is required, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant impacts may occur, even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion. (Star~isZaus Audubon v. Couniy of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Bo~ar~cal Gardens v. C~iy of Enc~rdtas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597 (emphasis added).) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" fa. voting environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. i§19a-007 If February 20, 2004 Page 3 (Citizens Action to Serve All StUdents v. Thorntey (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.) As a matter of law, "substantial evidence includes.., expert opinion." (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(9(5).) Here, substantial evidence presented in this supplemental comment letter, and the supporting expert comments, supports a fair argument that the Project will have significant environmental impacts on air quality, surface and ground water quality, and public services. For these reasons, the City should withdraw the ISND and prepare an EIR for the Project. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That the Project Will Have Significant Adverse Air Quality Impacts. 1. Construction Exhaust Will Cause Significant Air Quality Impacts As we explained in our December 2, 2003 comment letter, the ISND admits that the project's "construction impacts.., could result in exceedance of air quarry standards established by the Bay Area Air QualiW Management District." (ISND p. 20) However, the ISND concludes that mitigation measures listed in the conditions of approval for the vesting tentative tract map for the project will reduce construction impacts to less than significant levels. (Id.) .None of these measures are listed in the ISND for the Project. Thus, the ISND admits that the Project may result in significant air qualiW impacts during construction, but provides no evidence of mitigation measures to reduce this impact. The ISND also fails to include any "quantification of emissions" or analysis whatsoever. Instead, the ISND merely makes a conclusory statement that with the implementation of some unidentified mitigation measures, construction emissions will become less than significant. (ISND p. 20) To the .contrary, without any quantification of construction emissions, it is impossible to determine whether any mitigation measures would hypothetically reduce those unknown impacts to insignificant. As explained in the attached commenzs from Schuyler Fishman, M.S. (Exhibit 1), both the exhaust from construction equipment used to build the Project and fugitive dust emissions from Project construction will cause significant, unmitigated impacts to air quality and public health. The ISND fails to address or sufficiently mitigate these impacts as required by CEQA. 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 4 To address the ISND's deficient analysis, we estlmated diesel emissions from' the Project and found that ROG, NOx, and CO emissions from construction exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") threshold of 80 lbs/day. (See Exhibit 1.) Project emissions exceed both the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District ("SMAQMD") significance threshol~ for NO× ,,a, nd ROd (SS lb/day) and South Coast Air Quality Management,[r;~'~ District (SCAQMI) ) construction emission significance thresholds of 75 lb/day for ROG, and 100 lbs/day for NOx. Therefore, these impacts are significant and must be mitigated. Moreover, both NOx and ROG are ozone precursors and would form ozone downwind-of the Project site. The Bay Area currently exceeds state ozone standards. By contributing to this existing significant problem, the Project would cause a significant ozone impact as well. The City of Dublin failed to quantify these emissions in the ISND. The City also failed to specify any mitigation'to reduce thi,~ impact to tess than significant, as described below in Section II of this comment letter. In sum, both the exhaust from construction equipment used to build the Project and fugitive dust emissions from Project construction will cause significant, unmitigated impacts to air quality and public health. Thus, the City must set aside the ISND and prepare an EIR. ~ 2. Project Operation Will Cause Significant Air Quality Impacts The ISND states that operational and area source emissions "would not exceed regional air quality standards or thresholds.'/(ISND, p, 20.) However, the ISND does not quantify operational impacts for this project. The iSNDS merely claims that the project will result in a "net reduction in regional emissions." (Id.) The logic of this statement is faulW, as explained in Exhibit 1. Any additional housing units in the Bay Area will result in an increase in emissions. As demonstrated in Exhibit 1, this development will have a significant impact - even' with the mitigation measures built into a transit-oriented development. As explained by Ms. Fishman, M.S., the Project would cause an increase in' air quality emissions from several sources once constructed and occupied. Those 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 5 sources include increased vehicular emissions, street sweeping, garbage pick-up, landscape maintenance, and more. To address the ISND's deficient analysis, we estimated the emissions from these sources. The results show that the emissions of ROG, NOx and CO from Project operation are significant and must be mitigated. ~ (Exhibit 1.) In Section II of this comment letter~ we describe the ISND's failure to t ~ require feasible mitigation measures in violation of CEQA. In sum, operation of the Project will cause significant, unmitigated impacts air quality and Public health. The ISND fails to address or sufficiently mitigate these impacts as required by CEQA. Bm Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Result In Significant Cumulative Air Impacts. The ISND claims that because the Project is included in the City's General Plan and consistent with Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG") population projections, its air quality impacts are less than significant. (ISM]3, p. 20) According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, "cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project wi,th the local general plan ~d o~he general plan with the regional air quality plan, the 2001 Clean Air Plan~ ~ (' CAP ). ~ If the general plan is not consistent with the CAP, then the cumulative impact analysis should consider all the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The CEQA guidelines also state that if the Project's impact is individually significant, as determined in Comment I.A. above, then the project would also be determined to have a significant cumulative impact. Because it was published in 2000, the West Dublin Specific Plan could not be consistent with the 2001 CAP. The Draft Supplemental Enviromraental Impact Report for the West Dublin Transit Village ("DSEIR") uses specific software, called. "URBEMIS7G," to estimate the cumulative air quality impact of all the developments in the Transit Village. (See, Exhibit 13 This software' is outdated and underestimates the area and source emissions. Therefore, the tSND must conduct cumulative air quality analysis that includes all the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. ~ Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD"), BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996, Revised December 1999 ("BAAQMD 12/99"), p. 19. 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 6 However, even the oUtdated analysis present in the West Dublin Bart Specific Plan indicates that cumulative ~rnpacts for the entire project will contribute 18.08 tons/year.¢ These emissions exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the Project in combination with the total build-out of the West Dublin Transit Village will result in a significant cumulative impact, irregardIess of its consistency with the Clean Air Plan, and all feasible mitigation measures should be included. CJ Substantial EvidenCe Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have significant Adverse Impacts on Water Quality. The Project May Cause Hazardous Chemicals To Leach From Soil and Groundwater At' the Project Site Into. Surface Waters Richard Rolhns, P.E., of the Watershed Advisory GroUp, analyzed the Project and concluded that there is more than a "fair argument" that the Project may cause significant contamination of local surface and ground waters. (See, EZh~bit 2.) a, Site History According to the Versar Inc. November 8, 2000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ("Phase I ESA"), the Project site has historically been used for agricultural fields and commercial or light industrial purposes. A 10,000,gallon diesel underground storage tank and a 3,500-gallon gasoline underground storage tank formerly existed at the site. Numerous gasoline spills of unspecified status occurred on surrounding properties and MTBE contamination is present. (Phase I ESA, pp. 13-14.) The ISNI) discounts the likelihood that 11 environmental releases within 0.5 mile of the site will affect site groundwater during construction and once the below ground garage is completed. According to Mr. Rollins, the Phase I ESA and the ISND provide no reliable evidence upon which to base these conclusions. 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact l~eport for the West Dublin/Pleasanton. BART Station and Transit Village ProjeCt, SCH 2000042058, Prepared by EDAW for the City of Dublin, November 2000. 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 7 Draft Supplemental Enviro~xmentaI Impact Report for The November 2000 the West Dublin/Pl,e, asanton BART Station and Transit Village Project prepared by~ EDAW ("BART EIR') indicate~ that groundwater °ccur,,s at depths as shallow as 8 feet. (See, Exhibit 2.) The BART EIB also states that groundwater flows within the Dublin/Pleasanton area have been in a south to southwest direction, although review of some groundwate, r reports indicates a flow to the east (Bechtel Environmental, Inc. 1990).' (Id.) The BART EIR indicates over 60 occurrences of hazardous materials releases are within 1.25 miles of the proposed BART Station and Transit V~,lage. (See, Exhibit 2, citing BART EIR, pp. 4.7-1-10.) According to the BART EIR s recommendation for Phase 2 Site Assessments, the Project site requires additional evaluation and monitoring. (Id.) The City conducted no analysis to determine the location or direction of groundwater flow at the Project site. Thus, further evaluation is necessary in order to determine the existing environment and assess the impacts based on that information. b. Significanl .Water Quality Impacts According to water quality expert, Ricixard l~ollins, P.E., significant ' are likely to occur during construction and operation of the Project that must be assessed in an EIR. There are several lines of evidence that support this conclusion. First, the Project's proposal to develop underground parking requires a sit~ specific hydrological report and further analysis in an EIR, which is circulated to the public and decisionmakers for review. (ISND, pp. 2 and 5.) The City's senior planner, Janet Harbin, has specifically stated: "[i]n the event that subsurface excavation is proposed, ' adopted ~ity standards require that specific development projects, such as those requiring underground parking structures, prepare a site-specific hydrological analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis to determine groundwater levels..." (Revised Draft Negative Declaration for Downtown Specific Plans - DoWntown Core Specific Plan, West Dublin Bart Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan, December 14, 2000, pp. 18). As per City standards, the ISND recognizes that a hydrOlogical analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis is required. In fact, the ISND states that water and hydrologic impacts of the proposed Project "have been addressed in 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 8 the hydrological report for the project." (See Exhibit 8, p. 22.) However, this study does not exist. When asked to provide the hydrology report referred to on page 22 of the ISND, Ms. Harbin responded as follows: "In preparing the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, I erroneously mentioned that a hydrological report was prepared for the site." (Exhibit 4, p. 1.) Thus, the City failed to follow "adopted City standards" and its own requirement from previous environmental review documents that a hydrological analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis be performed to determine groundwater levels and impacts. Second, according to Mr. Rollins, once excavat'ion for a below ground 'garage - begins, dewatering will likely be required. (Se~, Exhibit 2.) Once completed, pumping of water from the excavation will hkely be needed to maintain the garage in a dry condition. According to Mr. Rollins, in an area with an indeterminate groundwater flow direction, groundwater may migrate towards the pumping under the garage locally modifying the groundwater flow direction toward the garage. (Id.) This may have the effect of carrying contaminants toward the proposed project and eventually discharging the contaminated groundwater to the Storm drainage system. (Id.) This is a potentially significant environmental impact not addressed by the ISND. The City must set aside the ISND and evaluate this issue in an EIR. Third, the City admits in other environmental review documents for related projects that groundwater contamination is a potentially significant impact in this area. According to the Initial Study for West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village prepared by EDAW on April 11, 2000 ("BART IS"), "[s]ubsurface excavation of groundwater contaminants could result in the vertical and/or lateral migration of groundwater contaminants as well as expose the public and workers to potential hazards. This is a potentially significant impact... ," with similar circumstances, that was addressed in the BART EIR. Fourth, in December 18, 2000 letter to John H. Rennels, Jr. of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Barbara Cook of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control commented on the Supplemental EIR for the West Dublin Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village that "[w]hile groundwater and soil 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 9 sampling has been identified as a mitigation measure for this project, without ', historical information, it is not clear how the appropriate chemical analyses and sample locations will be selected, or whether residential land use is appropriate for the property." (Exhibit 2 (emphasis added).) This question is not considered in the ISND and should be addressed in an EItL In sum, the City failed to conduct any reliable analysis of groundwater at the Project site before reviewing the proposal for underground parking. This analysis must be conducted and circulated to the public for review'. The City must set aside the ISND, conduct the required studies and assess the potentially significant water quality imp acts in an EIR. 2. The Project May Cause Significant Water Quality Impacts From New Construction Related Activity Mr. Rollins concluded that even if the applicant completes a s~orm water pollution prevention plan ("SWPPP") for the construction phase of the Project, discharges from Project construction activity may exceed limits established in the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan by 4 to 14%. (Exhibit 2, p. 5.) Mr. Rollins prepared the following table based on several studies analyzing construction runoff emissions. The applicable San Francisco Basin Plan Limits for each parameter are indicated in the BP Limits column. The mean is an average of sampling results from 15 highway construction sites throughout California from 1998 to 2000. The Mean/BPLim column indicates the ratio of the mean of the discharge concentrations divided by the allowable BP limit. 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 11 3. The Project May Cause Significant Water Quality February 20, 2004 Page 10 Table 1: Statistical Summary of Construction Site Storm Water Mean BP Limits Constituent Units Minimum Maximum (b) (a) Copper Total ug/L 3.8 128 32.07 6.5 Lead Total ug/L I 291 44.35 3.2 Zinc Total ug/L '6.9 609 140.86 23 Diazinon (d) ug/L 0.02 2.4 0.41 · 0.1 Mean;BPLim (¢) 4.9 13.9 6.1 4.1 a) Applicable Basin Plan Limits b) A value equal to one half of reporting limit was used when reported as non-detect c) Ratio of Mean to Allowable Basin Plan Levels d) Diazinon Limit from USEPA Draft Ambien~ Water Quality Limit for Diazinon, Aug. 2000 Based on these facts,'Mr. Rolhns concludes that even if a construction SWPP is prepared for the Project, stormwater runoff pollution from the Project maY still be a ~ significant adverse environmental impact, as such runoff may exceed applicable significant levels. (See, Exhibit 2, p. 5.) In addition, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board has [ .~;f recently proposed implementing C8]ffornia Toxics Rule (CTR) limits for many of the ~ pollutants in San Francisco Bay. Thi~ inclusion of CTR limits in the Basin Plan may occur before occupancy of this project and the new limits should be taken into account in the determination of any potential environmental impact. Finally, Alameda Creek and South San Fr~ancisco Bay are both impaired for diazinon, which is commonly found in construction site discharges. This Project will discharge through the storm drainage system to Dublin Creek or other tributaries to Alameda Creek. Contributing to further impairment of receiving waters is specifically prohibited by the California Construction Storm Water Discharge Permit. This Project has not proposed mitigation or monitoring to verify that this provision of the Permit is not violated. February 20, 2004 Page 12 Table 2: Statistical Summary of CalTrans Highway Runoff (1997-1999) Mean BP Limits Constituent Units Minimum Maximum (b) (a) (c) Copper Total ug/L 2.1 770 50.25 6.5 7.7 Lead Total ug/L 1.1 1530 120.83 3.2 37.8 Zinc Total ug/L 11 2400 231.99 23 10.1 Diazinon (d) ug/L 0.04 2.4 0.65 0.1 6.5 a) Applicable Basin Plan Limits b) A value equal to one half of reporting limit was used when reported as non-detect MeargBPLim c) Ratio of Mean to Allowable Basin Plan Levels d) Diazinon Limit from USEPA Draft Ambient Water Quality Limit for Diazinon, Aug. 2000 Mr. Rollins concluded that the increased pollution from the Project's storm water runoff from roadways may result in significant impacts to receiving waters and potentially contribute to the further impairment of Alameda Creek and South San Francisco Bay. These significant water quality impacts from the ongoing operation of the Project must be evaluated in an EIR.' Feasible mitigation measures are described in Section II of this comment letter. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Impacts On Public Services The ISND's discussion and analysis of the Project's impa~ts 'on public services is inadequate. Substantial evidence shows that the Project will result in a significant adverse impact on water, sewer and storm drain services. Therefore, the' City must prepare an EIR that evaluates these impacts and proposes feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less than significant. First, the City provides no evidence that adequate sewer service is available for the proposed Project. According to the Dublin San Ramon Services District, "thC existing sewer main behind Orchard Supply...is at capacity and cannot take additional sewer discharges from any expanded use development project without upsizing the pipes..." (See Exhibit 2, pp. 7-8, citing Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District to Ronnie Warner of Orix Real Estate Equities (September 23, 2003); see also Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District to Legacy Partners 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 13 concerning 6700 Golden Gate Drive (August 27, 2003). Project's impact on existing sewer services and circulate this information to the public and decisionmakers in an EIR before Project review and approval. Second, the City provides no evidence that adequate water service is available for the proposed Project. According to the Dublin San Ramon Services District, "The existing water lines in this area may also need to be extended or upsized..." (See Exhibit 2, pp. 7-8, citing Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District to Ronnie Warner of Orix Real Estate Equities (September 23, 2003); see also, Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District to Legacy Partners concerning 6700 Golden Gate Drive (August 27, 2003).) The ISND also mentions - without conducting any analysis of Project or growth inducing impacts - that a new water service line may be needed. (ISND, p. 3.) Clearly, the ISND is inadequate. The City must evaluate the. i Finally, the ISND includes no information as to adequacy .of the storm drainage system to convey or treat contaminated storm water or ground water pumped from the underground garage and no information as to whether sufficient treatment capacity is available for the additional wastewater from these projects. The City must prepare an EIR to evaluate the Project's impacts on the pubhc water supply and sewer and storm drain system. Without any analysis, the ISND is clearly inadequate. II. THE ISND FAILS TO DESCRIBE OR REQUIRE ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. A mitigated negative declaration may only be adopted if all significant impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b).) As discussed in these supplemental comments, the Project will have numerous significant impacts that are not mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, the use of the mitigated negative declaration is legally improper, and an EIR is required. CEQA requires the City to adopt feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen or avoid the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002, 21081(a)) and describe those mitigation measures in the ISND. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4.) A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 14 feasibility. (Kings County Farm ~Bureau v. City of Har~forcl (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation measure because no record evidence existed that replacement water was available).) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments. (Id. at § 15126.4(a)(2).) The City's vague references to unidentified mitigation measures in other documents do not satisfy CEQA's mandates. A. The ISND Fails To Mitigate Significant Operational Air Quality Impacts The City of Dublin failed to quantify the Project's construction diesel exhaust emissions in the ISND. As described above, air quality expert, Schuyler Fishman, estimated diesel emissions from the Project and found that ROG, NOx, and CO emissions from construction exceed the B~QMD threshold of 80 lbs/day. (See, Exhibit 13 Therefore, these impacts are significant and must be mitigated. The City- failed to specify and determine whether any mitigation measures will reduce the impacts from diesel exhaust emissions to less than significant. In fact, the only source of air quality-mitigation proposed in the ISND are the measures listed in Table 2 of the BAAQMD CEQA guidelines, and none of these measures address emissions from construction equipment exhaust. These emissions, as demonstrated in Exhibit 1, exceed relevant thresholds 'and require all feasible construction mitigation. Finally, there are many feasible mitigation measures for these emissions, which are presented in Exhibit 1, and which must be required of the proposed Project. B. The ISND Fails To Mitigate Significant Operational Air Quality Impacts The ISND suggests that mitigation measures will reduce significant operational air quality impacts, but proposes no actual measures in the document. As Schuyler Fishman noted in Section I, emissions of ROG, NOx and CO from Project operation are significant and remain unmitigated. '(Exhibit 1.) We provide numerous examples of feasible mitigation measures that can be incorporated in the 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 15 Project to reduce operational air quality impacts in this case. (Id.) The Project, at a m/nimum, must include all feasible area mitigation measures as I/sted in Exhibit 1. C. The ISND Fails To Mitigate Significant Water Quality Impacts Mr. Rollins provides substantial evidence that measures discussed in the ISND do not mitigate impacts from the types of pollutants likely to be present at this site. Specifically, the ISND's proposed mitigation measures, which are already required by the State Water Resources Control Board's General Construction Storm Water Permit, do not address any measures to minimize and mitigate release of historical industrial pollutants that may be present at the site and would likely be released by the Project to the storm drain system, Alameda Creek, and ultimately South San Francisco Bay. (See, Exhibit 2, p. 7.) Further, the ISND proPoses no mitigation for significant Water quality impacts ~rom additional vehicle trips per day, increased use of pesticides on landscaping, or contaminationthat is likely to be present in groundwater discharged from dewatering pumps in the below grade parking structure. (See Id.) As indicated above, these are all significant impacts attributable to this project which should be evaluated through the EIR process. According to Mr. Rollins, a variety of mitigation measures exist for such impacts, including sand filtration, constructed wetland filtering, and other measures. The City must also require a mitigation measure implementation and monitoring plan. Mr. Roll/ns states that the current standard for design of a greenfield or urbanized site is the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan ("SUSMP') For Los Angeles CounW and Cities in Los Angeles County, recently adopted by the Los Angeles .Regional Water QualiW Control Board. The SUSIVIP requires infiltration or treatment of 80 percent of annual runoff plus a maximum peak runoff flow rates plus specific design requirements for categories of occupancy such as restaurants, commercial, parking, etc. Tkis is a feasible mitigation measure that must be required for the Project. 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 16 III. CONCLUSION The ISND fails to satisfy CEQA's fundamental mandates of informing the public and decision makers of the potentially significant efivironmental impacts of a project and feasible measures to mitigate those impacts to less than significant. The City should set aside the ISND and prepare an EIR to address the significant ~mpacts described above, in the attached documents and in our December 2, 2003 comment letter and circulate the draft EIR for public review. Sincerely, Tanya A. Gulesserian TAG:bh Attachments cc: City of Dublin Planning Commission 1519a-007 I I I DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village. Project SC.H 2000042058 November 2000 4.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 4.7.1 EX~STING CONDITIONS The discussion of public health and safety issues within the project area was developed through a review of existing environmental records to identify agency listings of sources of hazardous materials which might affect the project area as well as a review of the Prelkninary Site AssessmentS conducted on the project site (Bechtel Environmental, Inc., 1990 and 1991). GENERAL GEOLOGIC AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS The proposed project is located in the Amador Valley region of northern Alameda County, within the California Coast Ranges Physiographic Province. The project area comi~ts of deep, geologically recent alluvial deposits containing gravel, sand, silt, and day. The reported depth to the water table is in'the range of8 to 19 feet (Bechtel Environmental, Inc., 1990). Groundwater occurs at depths as shallow as~8 feet Historically, groundwater flows within the Dublin/Pleasanton area have been in a south to southwest direction, although a review of some. groundwater reports indicates a flow to the east (Bechtel Environmental, Inc., 1990). ~ OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASES AND REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS A database search was conducted on May 9, 2000, for known sites with potential or existing hazardous materials within a 1.25 mile radius of the center of the project site (VISTAinfo). The databases are based on records kept by federal, state, and local agencies that are responsible for recordh~ incidents of contamination and permitting transfer, storage, or disposal facilities that handle hazardous materials. Individual sites can occur on several lists and are sometimes repeated under different names, fi. summary of the primary listings is presented below. REVIEW OF FEDERALLY REPORTI~D DATA National Priorities List of Superfund Sites The National Priorities List of Supeffund Sites (lql)L) is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) database of hazardous waste sites currently identified and targeted for deanup action under the Supeffund Program. The NPL database was last updated in lanuary 2000. A search of the National Priorities List identified no Superfund sites within the search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project area. San Frondsco Boy Area Rapid Trcmsit District West Dubiin/Pleasonton BART Station and Transit Village EDAW 4.7-1 Public Health and Safely Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Mandated as part of the 1980 Superfund Act, the Comprehemive Environmental Response, Compemation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database is an EPA compilation of sites identified as known or suspect abandoned, inactive, or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that may require cleanup. A search of the CERCLIS database, which was last updated in October 1999, identified one site within the search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project site. The following location was listed: · 7035 Commerce Circle (Pleasanton), lqudepore Corporation. Further information on the above site was provided by the regional leaking underground storage tank information system (LUSTIS) database, which is discussed below. i ! ! ! !I Emergency Response Notification System Thc Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is an EPA database of reported releases of oil and other hazardous substances. A search of the EB2qS database, which was last updated in August 1999~ identified one site within the search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project site, The following location was listed: 6900 Amador Plaza Road (Dublin), Montgomery Ward. The above site is located approximately 0.23 mile north of the central portion of the project site. According to the information presented in the ERlqS database, 12,500 gallons of unleaded gasoline were spilled on November 25, 1988. No information is available pertaining to the extent of contamination at this site. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) is an EPA database which includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Identification on this list docs not necessarily indicate that a violation of a hazardous waste regulation has occurred. The RCRIS database was last updated in December 1999. A search of the RCRIS database identified ten sites within the search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project site that are registered under RCRA as small generators of hazardous waste. RCRA small generators are facilities EDAW Public Health and Safety 4.7-2 Son Francisco Bay Area Rapid Trans~l District West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village that generate less than 1,000 kg per month of non-acutely hazardous wastes. The following locafom were listed: i i' I ! i ! i · 1388 · 6401 . 6429 · 7100 · 7544 · 6956 · 5940 · 7192 Stoneridge Mall (Pleasanton), Expressly Portraits, Inc. Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Gallucd Body and Paint Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Dub/ha Auto Regional St (Dublin), Grand Auto, Inc. Dublin Bird (Dublin), Crown Chevrolet Amador Plaza Blvd (Dublin), Martinizing Dry Clearfing Stonefidge Mall ]Kd (I'lcasanmn), Stoneridge Motor, Inc. Regional St (Dublin), Wolf Camera No. 989 7201 ]Kegional St (Dublin), P, ite Aid No. 5936 7099 Amador Plaza Blvd (Dublin), Dublin Honda None of thc above sites, which are all located less than 3/8 mile from the project site, are currently undergoing "correcU've actions." A ~correctiv¢ action order" is issued pursna_nt to RC1LA Section 3008 (h) in the event of a release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment from a ]KCRA fadlity. ~ of C~if~rnia ~ Environmental Data CAL-SITES Database The GAL-SITES database is comp/led by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cai-EPA) and includes known and potential hazardous waste sites as well as sites targeted for dean-up. A search of the CAL-SITES database, which was last updated ~ October 1999, identified one location within a search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project area. The following location was Listed: · 2035 Commerce Cirde (Pleasanton), Nudepore Corporation. The above site, which is located approximately 0.7 mile east of the project site, is a former annual workplan site and has subsequendy been referred to the Regional Water Quality Contro! Board. No additional information is available. San Fmndsco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dislrid Wesl Oublin/Pleasanlon BART Stol'ion and Transil Village EDAW 4.7-3 Public Health and Sa~eV COKTESE Database The CORTESE database is compiled by Cai-EPA and the Office of Environmental Protection, Office of Hazardous Materials, and identifies potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites throughout the State of California pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. These hazardous waste sites include public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with known underground storage tanks (USTs) having a reportable release, and solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration. The CORTESE database was last updated in April 1998. A search of the CORTEGE database identified thirteen sites within a search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project site. The following locations were listed: 6900 Amador Plaza (Dublin), Montgomery'Ward' 7007 San B. amon Valley (Dublin), Chevron #95542 7240 Dublin Bird (Dublin), Chevron ~92582 6300 Clark (Dublin), Lucky Stores 7850 Amador Valley Bird (Dublin), Uno~ai 7840 Amador Valley BI,rd (Dublin), Exxon 6973 Village Parkway (Dublin), Corwood Car Wash 11555 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Hexel 7400 Amador Valley BI.vd (Dublin), Dodge Property 7375 Amador Valley Blvd (Dublin)~ Unocal 6207 Sierra Ct (Dublin), Old Herald News Building 7194 Village Parkway (Dublin), Oil Changers #301 7191 Village Parkway (Dublin), BP Oil Facility #11116 Further information on most of the above sites was provided by the ieaking underground storage tank information system (LLISTIS) database, which is discussed below. In addition, the CORTESE database indicated that the Montgomery Ward incident consisted of a leaking gasoline tank; however, this site was not listed in the LuSTIs database. No additional information regarding this inddent was provided except that a leak monitoring system is currently present at the site in order to detect the presence of future gasoline leaks. Toxic Pit List Thc Toxic Pit database is compiled by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and identifies sites which are subject to the Toxic Pit Cleanup Act. The database contains sites suspected EDAW Public Health and Safely 4.7-4 San Frandsco Bay Area RaPid Transit Distrk~ Wes! Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village of containing hazardous substances where cleanup has not been completed. A search of the Toxic Pit database, which was last updated in February 1995, identified no sites within a search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project area. Leaking Underground StOrage Tank Information System Database The I_r. xking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUSTIS) database is compiled by the SWRCB and contains an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) statewide. A search of the LUSTIS database, which was last updated in January 2000, identified 24 leaking tanks (three repeats) within a search radius of 1.25 miles. Of the reported leaking tanks, 12 were also listed on thc COI~TESE database, although two of these sites were listed with differing addresses. The following locations'were listed: 7099 6300 7850 7840 '6841 6973 7667 6700 Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Bedford Properties 6850 Regional St (Dublin), Transamcrica Tide Company 7575 Dublin Bird (Dublin), Montgomery Ward 7499 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Shamrock Ford 7420 Dublin Bird (Dublin), Chevron 4P92582 7007 San 1Lamon t~d (Dubtin),Chevron ~95542 Amador Flaza Rd (Dublin), Dublin Honda Clark (Dublin), Lucky Stores Amador Valley Bird (Dublin), Unocal Amador Valley Bird (Dublin), Exxon Village Parkway (Dublin), Continental Baking Company Village Parkway (Dublin), Corwood Car Wash Amador Valley Blvd (Dublin), Amador Valley Medical Clinic 7608 Amador Valley Bird (Dublin), Target 11555 .Dublin Bird (Dublin), Hexel 7400 Amador Valley Bird (Dublin)~ Dutch Pride Dairy 7375 Amador Valley i~d (Dublin) Unocal 6207 Sierra Ct (Dublin), Old Herald News Building 7043 Commerce (Pleasanton), Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. 7194 Village Parkway (Dublin), Oil Changers #301 7197 Village Parkway (Dublin), BI' Oil Facility #11116 According to the LUSTIS database,.remediation of 14 of these inddents has already been completed, and the cases have consequently been closed. The incidents occurring at the BP Oil Facility #11116 San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit Distrid West Dublin/Pleosanton I~ART Slation and Transit Village EDAW 4.7-5 Public Health and Safety and the Chevron Station #92582 are currently undergoing pollution characterization studies to determine the extent of contain/nation at the site. In both of the aforementioned incidents~ groundwater has been affected; however~ no additional information was available. The incidents occurring at Oil Changers #301 and TOnocal (7850 Amador Valley) both involved gasoline leaks and Preliminary Site Assessments (PSAs) are currently underway at both locations. The Chevron ~95542 incident consisted of gasoline leaks, and a remediation plan is currently being developed. The Lucky Store incident consisted of gasoline leaks affecting soll only. Ln_formation provided in the LUSTI$ database /ndicates that the gasoline leaks are currently being conftrmed on-site; therefore~ no enforcement has been taken as of yet for the Lucky Store incident. The I-Iexel incident involved leaks of miscellaneous motor vehicle fuels, and the storage tank on the site has subsequently been dosed. No additional information was available. Underground Storage Tanks Database The Underground Storage Tanks Database (UST) database is compiled by the SWKCB and lists registered underground storage tanks. USTs are regulated under Subtitle 1 of RCRA. Identification on this list does not necessarily indicate that a hazardous waste inddent or release has ocoarred. The IfST database was last updated in lanuary 1994..A search of the LIST database identified I8 (three repeats) underground storage tanks sites within a 0.5 mile radius from the central portion of the project area. Ofthese sites, 9 are listed on the LTJSTIS database as leaking tanks. The following locations were listed: 1500 Stoneridge Mall (Pleasanton), JC Penney Store #389 6511 Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Intemational Clinical Laboratory 6511 Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Micro Bio Science 6700 Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Unisource Corporation 7100 1Kegional St (DubLin), Grand Auto, Inc. 7544 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Crown Chevrolet 7575 Dublin Btvd (Dublin), Montgomery Ward 7499 Dublin Bird (Dublin), Sharrmock l:ord 6900 Amador Plaza (Dublin), Montgomery Ward 7420 Dublin Bird (Dublin), Chevron #92582 7007 San 1Ramon Valley (]2hlbJin), Chevron #9554.2 7240 Dublin Bird (Dublin), Dublin Auto Wash 7099 Amador Plaza Rd (Dublin)~ Dublin Honda 6300 Clark Ave (Dublin), American Stores Company Data Center 11599 Dublin Blvd (Pleasanton), Cop Canyon Meadows Booster El)AW Public Health and Safely 4.7-6 San Frondsco Bay Area Rapid Transit District West Dublin/Pieasanton BART Station and Tronsi! Village As previously noted, all of these registered USTs are located less than 0,S mile from the central portion of the project site. Of these sites, 18 are located within 3/8 (0.375) mile from the project site. The registered UST in closest proximity to the proposed project site is located at the JC Penney Store #389, appro~rnateiy 0.12 miles southeast of the central portion of the project area. .Review of LoeMly _R~ported.Environmentd Data San Francisco Bay Fuel Leaks List The San Frandsco Bay Fuel Leaks List (SFBFL) is compiled by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Region #2 (San 'Francisco Bay) and identifies incidents of fuel leaks within its jurisdiction. A search of the SFBFL database, which was last updated in January 2000, identified 26 leaking tanks (three repeats) within a search radius of 1.25 males. 21 of these reported fuel leaks were also listed in the LUSTIS database as state leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) and discussed above. Therefore, this discussion will focus on the two remaining regional LUSTs located at the following sites: 7544 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Crown Chewolet 7035 Commerce Cir (Dublin), Nudepore Corporation The Crown Chevrolet incident consisted of leaks of miscellaneous motor vehicle fuels, md.the storage rank has subsequendy been dosed. The Nuclepore Corporation incident also involved leaks of miscellaneous motor vehicle fuels for which no enforcement action has been taken as of yet. The Nudepore incident is currently an active case of the'San Francisco Bay Regional Water (2uality Cor~trol Board. No additional information was available for either listed site. Review of Technical Documents for the DPX Project A Geology/seismology and Hazardous Materials Technical Report was prepared for the DPX Project by Woodward-Clyde Consultants in September 1989. The Hazardous Materials section of this report focused on the results of a visual site inspection of the DPX project area, including the project site and a search of readily available agency records at the EPA, the State Depaxcment of Health Services (DHS), and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Based on information provided by the database searches for the Geology/Seismology and Hazardous Materials Technical l~eport, the following locations within the project vidnity were identified as potential sites of concern for hazardous material contamination:' San Frandsm Bay Area Rapid Transit District West Oublin/Pleosantun BART Station and Transit Village El)AW 4.74 Public Health and Sabt,/ 6401 Golden Gate Dr (Dubt/n), Gallucci Body and Paint 7544 Dublin Bird (Dublin), Crown Chevrolet 6850 Regional St (Dublin), Transamerica Title Company The Itazardous Materials Technical Report concluded that further investigation was required to define the areas of contamination and determine means of avoiding, containing, or cleaning up these sites prior to commencement of construction activities. This report recommended the completion of a Preliminary Site Assessment for the DPX project. Review of Preliminary Site Assessments for the DPX Project ~hme A Prdiminary $it~ _A~sses. mte~t: Based on recommendations of the Hazardous Materials Technical' lkeport for the DPX ~ a Phase A Preliminary Site Assessment was completed for the DPX Project by Bechtel Environmental, Inc. in December 1990. This report focused on the collection and evaluation of information on past operations within the project area involving hazardous materials, which may have contaminated a site and would therefore pose a potential hazard m human health or the enviroment Upon further review of agency records and more-detailed visual site impemom, the-following locations.near the vicim'ty of the project site were found to pose a potential human health or environmental hazard related to hazardous material contamination: -" Thc corridor adjacent to the Hey, el property on Dublin Boulevard west of Donlan Boulevard in Dublin; North parking lot (currently referred to as ~Dublin parcel") in the following areas: Llnisource Warehouse parcel; north end of lot near Crown Chevrolet at 7544 Dublin Blvd and Montgomery Ward at 7575 Dublin Bird; and cast end of lot adjacent to Gateway Plaza auto shops and Enea Business Park; North of 1-580/I-680 interchange in Dublin near thc Chevron Station at 7420 Dublin Boulevard and Lucky Stores at 6300 Clark Avenue; South of 1-580/1-680 interchange in Pleasanton near Nuctepore Corporation at 7035 Commerce Circle. 4 The Montgomery Ward site was of primary concern within this section of the DPX Project area. Leaking underground storage tanks were reported in November 1983 at this auto maintenance/gasoline dispensing facility located within 0.25 mile north of the proposed project site. The tanks have El)AW Publk I~eolth end Safely 4.7-8 San Frandsco Bay Area Rapid Tronsil Oistrid West Dublin/Pleasanton BAgT Station and Transit Village I subsequently been removed and the gasoline dispensing operation has ceased, thereby removing the source of contamination. However, soil contamination was observed to a depth of 20 feet from the surface. 'Contamination was also identified in the groundwater located at 8 to 12 feet from the surface. Bechtel Environmental, Inc. concluded that there is a potential for groundwater migration of contaminants toward the project site. However, the ~?lSTAinfo report conducted for the project site indicated that remediafion of the Montgomery Ward site has been completed, and it is no longer an active case of the SWRCB. L, fformation for the remaining sites was not available for review. Based on the findings of the Phase A Site Assessment, suffident evidence was prevalent to recommend a Phase B Site ASsessment for selected areas of concern within the DPX project area. This Phase B Site Assessment would further define areas of potential contamination that could be encountered during excavation and construction activities for the DPX project. Phase B Si~e A~essment A Phase B Site Assessment was prepared for the DPX Project by Bechtel Environmental, Inc. in April 1991. · .. The main objective of the Phase B Site Assessment was to finalize a lis{ of sites recommended .for the field sampling and testing program, through which the presence or absence of contaminated soil or groundwater within the DPX Project area would be confirmed. Based on thc results of this assessment, the following sites located within the vicinity of the proposed West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village were recommended for monitoring' and/or field sampling prior to the commencement of project-related construction activities: Undeveloped parcel at south end of Golden Gate Drive in Dublin Area north and east of the Dublin parcel, adjacent to auto shops on Golden Gate Drive, Enea tketail Plaza Business Center, and thc Smith-Klinc Labs (now thc Micro Bio Science Laboratory) In addition, the Phase B Site Assessment recommended that some lower priority sites within the DPX' Project area undergo monitoring during construction activities. Field sampling of potential soil or groundwater contamination was not necessary for these locations, but Bechtel Environmental, Inc. concluded that past operatiom at these sites involving hazardous wastes warranted monitoring during construction activities. The following is a list of sites recommended for construction monitoring near the proposed project site: San Frandsco Boy Area Rapid Tronsil Dislritt Wes! Oublin/Pleasantan BART Station and Transit Village DAW 4.7-9 Public Health and Sa['e~y 7544 Dublin Boulevard (Dublin), Crown Chevrolet Golden Gate Drive (Dublin), Unisource Warehouse (now C_or-O-Van Warehouse) 6511 Golden Gate Drive (Dublin), Smith-Kline Laboratory (now Quest Diagnostics) RL'LEV~T GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND PROGRAMS City of Dublin The following City of Dublin General Plan Seismic Safety and Safety Policies are relevant to the discussion of public health and safety: Policy 8.2.4-A: Maintain and enhance ability to regulate use, transport, and storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take appropriate action during emergencies. Policy 8.2.4-B: policy 8.2.4-C: C~y of ~asan~on Implement the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, when it is approved by the State. ' .... Adopt an ordinance to regulate handling, trampori, and storage of hazardous. materials and hazardous waste. The following City of Pleasanton General Plan Public Safety and Air Quality goals, polities, and programs are relevant to the discussion of public health and safety: Policy 5: Review proposed projects for their potential to generate hazardous air pollutants. Program 5.1: Include the Fire Department's hazardous materials spedalist in staff review procedures for proposed land uses which may handle, store, or transport lead, mercury, vinyl chloride, benzene, asbestos, beryllim, and other hazardous materials. Program 5.2: Require uses which urili?e hazardous materials to submit emergency response plans for possible spills, leaks, or other accidental emissions of hazardous materials. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dish'id 4 4 Publk Health and 4.7-10 West Dublin/Ptensanton BART Station and Transit Village mil I I ! I I ! Program 5.3: Update and implement the City's hazardous materials response program for acddental emissions of hazardous materials. Goal 5: To minimize the risks to life and property due to potential exposure to hazardous materials. Policy 16: Program 16.1: Regulate the transportation, delivery, use, and storage of hazardous materials within the City limits. Enforce the provisions of the City's Hazardous Materials Storage Permit Ordinance. Program 16.3: Expand the Fire Deparunent's automated data system ro speed identification of hazardous materials and users in the event of an emergency. Policy 17: Ensure that hazardous materials and potential contamination are remediated prior to development. Program 17.1: Require a sim-specific soils report for new development where there is a history of prior industrial or agricultural land use activiries. 4.7.2 ENVmO~AL IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project would have a significmt impact on public health and safety if it would: Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; or Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; San Frencisco Bay Area Rapid lransit Dish'id West Dublin/Pleasanlon BART Station and Irons'il Village EDAW 4.7-11 Public Health and SQieIy PROJECT IMPACI'S r Impact t Potential Human Expostwe to Soil Contaminants. The proposed project would be located ~ithin an area that has numerous reported incidents o/hazardous materials contamination. Project construction could potentially expose constraction workers and sensitive receptors to hazardous materials in the area. Site residents and hotel occupants could also be exposed to soil contaminants, both identified and unidenti~ed, in the project ~dcinity. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Multiple sites located within the vicinity of the proposed project have the potential to contaminate the soils or shallow groundwater in the local area. Although most of the reported leaking underground storage tanks listed in the LUSTIS database have been remediated, pollution characterization has yet to be completed at some sites within close proximity to the project site. l~or example, the extent of contamination resulting from the Crown Chevrolet inddent at 7544 Dublin Boulevard has yet to be determined. The Phase B Site Assessment for the DPX Project recommended field sampling downgradient of the site to detect the presence of potential contamination resulting from the leaking rank at this location, likewise, the Chevron incident at 7420 Dublin Boulevard, which affected both soil'and groundwarer~ has not been completely remediated; some contaminated soil is still present at the sire. Thc Phase B Site Asscssmmt also recommended field samplin[ at this location, although it was known as the BP Oil Station at that time. The extent of contamination resulting from the Chevron incident at 7007 San Kamon Road has ~ not been dctcrmined as of yet_ A remecliation plan for this site is currently being developed, but thc cxrcnr of groundwater contamination is not certain at this timc. This site is not mentioned in thc Phase B Site Assessment for the DPX Project. Thc extent of pollmant concamimtion ar two additional sites, the Unocal Station ar 7850 Amador Valley Boulevard and thc BP Oil Facility at 7191 Village Parkway, is uncertain ar this time. However, these sites arc both.located morc than 0.5 mile north of the project site, so less potential cxists for these inddents to contaminate the soils and groundwater within the vicinity of the pr°posed project. .i "1 Construction activity assodated with the proposed project could expose workers or sensitive receptors to hazardous materials through the excavation of potentially contaminated soil or groundwater. Potential exists for the soil and groundwater at the project site to be contaminated as a result of the leaking storage tanks reported in the project vicinity and discussed above. Construction work could also result in the accidental spillage of materials to soils or water. Because there are numerous registered generators of hazardous wastes and underground storage tanks within the vic/nity of the project site, the potential exists for construction workers to encounter previously unidentified areas of contamination during excavation. Potential also exists for long-term exposure of hazardous wastes to EDAV~ Son Frandsco Bay Area Roi)id Transit District Public Heallh and Safeh/ 4.7-12 tNe~t Dublin/Pleasanton BART Slalion and Transit ViJlage m i ! ! ! the residents that would occupy the proposed residential buiiding as well as guests of the proposed hotel. These sensitive receptors could potentially be exposed to contaminated soil as well as to acddental spills or leaks of hazardous wastes from nearby sources. Also, biological resources could be degraded by exposure to hazardous materials. The uptake of contaminants by plant roots can bioaccumulate in wildlife, adversely affecting the health of individual spedes. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. 4,7.3 MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are necessary to midgate public health and safety impacts to a less- than-significant level: PotenffaI Human Exposure to Soil Contaminants. In order to determine the extent of soil and Eroundwater contarninaffon on the site, field sttmpling pffor to the commencement of construction acffviffes shail be conducted. Tl~'s sampling shall be consistent with the field sampling for the project site outlined in the Field Investigation Work Plan prepared for the DPX Project (Bechtel Environmental, Inc., 1991) and shall consist of soil borings and groundwater monitoring wells located throughout the project site. In addiffon, a Health and Safe~y Plan shall be developed that outlines safety procedures to follow in the event of accidental spi~s or the unearthing of contaminated soil or groundwater during constmcffon activities. Tlds Health and Safe~ Plan shall also be consistent with the safety guidelines'set forth in the Field Investigab'on Wor~ Plan. If contaminants are idenfffied on the site, a remediaffon plan shah be developed consistent with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Remediation of any site contaminants shall be completed prior to the issuance of building .permits for the proposed project, consistent with applicable reszzlations. 4.7.4 LEV~ OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Following implementation of the mitigation measures discussed above, impacts on public health and safety would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. San Franfisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Districl West Oublin/Pieasanlon BART Stofion and Tronsil Village EDAW 4.7.13 Public Hea~lh and Safety Tetra Tech EM inc. 135 Main Street, Suite 1800 * San Francisco, CA April 2, 2004 94105 · (415) 543-4880 · FAX (415) 543-5480 Mr. Luis Betmonte Executive Vice President A.MB Property Corporation Pier 1, Bay 1 San Francisco, CA 94111 Subject: Preliminary Letter Report for the Air Quality Analysis at the West Dublin Transit Village Project Dear Mr. Be[monte: In response to your request, this letter presents the results of Tetra Tech EM Inc.'s (TtEMI) air quality analysis for AMB's West Dublin Transit Village Project. This work is related to the development of a new mixed use residential and commerciaI development (Project) on the site that is currently referred to as the Cor-O-Van warehouse at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Dublin, California. The primary focus of the analysis is (1) comparing the air emissions from the existing tracking warehouse operations (the baseline for the purpose of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis) with the future operations of the Project, and (2) reviewing and analyzing the level of significance that air emissions during the construction phase of the Project will have on .the surrounding environment. Comparison of Existing (Baseline) Air Emissions and Future Project Air Emissions A large commercial warehouse currently occupies the site identified for development. This warehouse, referred to as the Cor-O-Van site, currently has several tenants and four primary sources of air emissions. These four emissions sources are (1) the idling heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDD) utilizing the 19 loading docks on the north side of the warehouse, (2) the large air emissions vents on the west side of the building, (3) the mobile traffic sources in and around the facility and (4) stationary air emissions related to on-going warehouse operations. Based on preliminary emissions estimates, the idling HDD vehicles utilizing the 19 loading docks constitute a large source of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions. Based upon our on-site observations at the warehouse, HDD vehicles spend a significant portion of time idling adjacent to the warehouse prior to actually utilizing the loading docks. This is a common industry practice. DPM is a complex mixture of fine particulate that contains 47 identified Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) such as benzene, arsenic, formaldehyde and cyanide compounds (CARB/OEHHA 2002) and is currently the most significant air pollutant in terms of human health risk due to exposure in the State of California (CARB 2000). Other emissions generated by idling vehicles include Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Both of these pollutants are ozone pre-cursors because they contribute to "smog" or ground-level ozone through secondary photochemical reactions. Idling vehicles produce significantly more pollution than accelerating vehicles as the engines are operating at less efficient combustion rates than during normal operations. Also, due to atmospheric phenomena, idling vehicle emissions do not mix well vertically into the atmosphere in the same way as air emissions from moving vehicles. Because of this reduction in atmospheric mixing, greater emissions result from idling vehicles than from moving vehicles. Consequently, sensitive receptors such as individuals at residences, schools and commercial operations are exposed to higher levels o£toxic emissions with idling vehicles. ~t,~~ed An d is reoyciabie Mr. Luis Belmonte April 2, 2004 Page { PAGE } of 4 The Airborne Express facility currently oPerating on the west side of the Cor-O-Van site is a large volume throughput airmail and freight operations. The on-site fleet consists of 8 HDD straight truck/tractor trailer vehicles and 77 small vans'operating six days per week. 400 truck departures occurred over a recent five- day period with 1,540 departUres occurring over a recent twenty-day period (Airborne Express 2004). The mobile source emissions from the high frequency of vehicle departures is enhanced by the high Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as Airborne Express trucks and vans service all parts of the San Francisco Bay Area. The Project would replace the existing Cor-O-Van Warehouse operations with approximately 308 multifamily units, 175,000 square feet of below ground parking and retail space and 150,000 square feet of general office space. Primary air emissions from the Project would be automobile and small truck traffic from the residential and commemial activities. HDD idling would be almost completely eliminated based on the new land use scenario. The estimated Project trip generation would be 2,157 daily trips with 251 AM peak trips and 278 PM peak hour trips (Omni-Means 2003). Previously completed air quality studies focused on the increase of localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) concentrations near roadways and in the proposed underground parking structures using earlier traffic estimates. Based on mobile source traffic and air quality modeling (CALINE4 and CAL3QHC) for the Project, the increase in CO would be below both the t-hour and 8-hour CO thresholds (EDAW 2000) and not considered a significant environmental impact. Emission of other ozone pre-cursor pollutants such as NOx and ROG varies based upon the future vehicle fleet mix for the residents and workers at the Project and the BART patrons. The proximity of the Project site to the future West Dublin BART station may result in a regional net reduction in the ozone pre-cursor air emissions due to Project residents and workers traveling by BART instead of by automobiles. On a qualitative level, the net emissions from the two different land use scenarios, the existing warehouse and the Project, are characteristically quite different. While the overall number of trips to and from the area will likely increase with the Project, the net toxic emissions from each trip and other operations activities on the local and regional air quality will be reduced. California's Clean Fuels program ensures that the most clean burning gasoline in the United States will.be utilized in all the vehicles traveling to and from the Project. The co-location of a BART station will also significantly reduce both the frequency of trips and the VMT for trips into and out of the Project area. Finally, the type of exhaust emitted from the HDDs and the larger gasoline-using vehicles in the existing warehouse land use has a much greater negative impact on the local and regional air quality from a toxics standpoint when compared to the Project. DPM is a known carcinogen and the current activities, particularly vehicle idling, are greater contributors to human health impacts on local sensitive human receptors than are smaller vehicles traveling to and from the site..In summary, the development of the Project will result in a net reduction in toxic air emissions, which will have a positive effect on local and regional air quality. Potential Air Emissions During the Construction Phase of the Project There are twO air pollutants of primary concern that will arise during the construction phase of the Project. These two pollutants are the short-term DPM emissions due to HDD vehicles utilized for construction and fugitive dust emissions, specifically the PM 10 (that is, particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) fraction, that will be released to the atmosphere due to construction activities and exposed soils. Other short-term emissions would include. NOx, ROG, and CO due to construction vehicle 6perations. Mr. Luis Belmonte April 2, 2004 Page { PAGE } of 4 As discussed previously, DPM emissions have been identified as a significant source of TACs by the CARB (CARB 2000). From a human health prospective the major concern is exposure over a long duration to these TACs. Because the construction phase of the Project is short term by nature, the exposure duration will not create an exposure scenario that leads to significant human health impacts on local sensitive human receptors. It should also be noted that once the construction phase is completed, DPM emissions will be almost completely eliminated because of the elimination of the loading docks and the HDD idling sources: The mitigation measures set forth in the City of Dublin's conditions of approval for the Project will reduce air quality impacts from the Project to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include requiring the construction of the Project to conform to a Construction Impact Reduction Plan. The Plan requires, in part, that no construction equipment be left idling when not in use, the watering of the construction site at regular intervals during ail grading activity, and the prompt replanting or repaving of ali exposed surfaces. In summary, the Project will provide a net reduction in DPM emissions and the construction-related PM10 emissions will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the required construction impact plans. Conclusions The development of a "transit village" is consistent with state and local governments' environmental goals to reduce VMT and provide "jobs-housing balance". Specifically, the Project meets the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan requirement that development be transit-friendly (BAAQMD 2000). By co-locating residential and commercial land-uses with a new BART station, the Project may result in a net reduction in regional air pollution. With the transformation of the area from an industrial/commercial land use that is accessible exclusively by highways and surface streets to a mixed residential/business office/retail land use that is accessible by public transportation, the Project will reduce the level of TAC emissions from the HDD idling sources. The elimination of these high impact pollution sources will have a net positive impact on local human health. Construct/on related emissions will be mitigated to a less than significant level due to required mitigation measures. Local receptors such as schools, businesses and residences will encounter fewer emissions from the Project than from the current warehouse operations. In conclusion, with.the development of the Project there wilt clearly be a reduction in local toxic air ~=missions and there may also be a net benefit to the overall regional air quality. If you have any questions regarding this analysis please contact me at (415) 222-8309. Best regards, Chris Easter Environmental Scientist Mr. Luis Be[monte April 2, 2004 Page { PAGE } of 4 References Airborne Express 2004, "Technical Memorandum on Trucking Volume", March 10. Bay Area Air quality Management District (BAAQMD) 1999, "BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines", December 1999. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (CARB/OEHHA) 2002, "Executive Summary for the Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant". April 22 1998, revised 2002. California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2000, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles." October. City of Dub lin 2003, "Mitigated Negative Declaration for West Dub lin Transit Village", November 6. EDAW 2000, "Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project" November. Omni-Means 2003, "Focused Trip Generation Analysis/Parking Update for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village" George Nicketson, P.E. May 14.