HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 3 Final Supplemental EIR for IKEA Project
(c ou
II(EA Project
J'inal Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2003092076
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
February 2004
Table of Content::;
Introduction.................. ....... ....... .... ........ ................................ ......... .... 2
Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR....................................... 2
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters.............. ..................................... 3
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses ........................................ 4
Appendix A............. ........... .......... ........... .............. .............. ........... ......22
Introduction
A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated November 2003
was prepared for this Project and distributed for public review in November 2003
through January 2004. The proposed Project involves the approval of an lKEA retail
center in the City of Dublin as well as related amendments to the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a PD-Planned Development rezoning and related Stage 1
and Stage 2 PD Development Plans, Site Development Eeview (SDR), a Tentative and
Parcel Maps and a Development Agreement. A full description of the proposed Project
is contained in the DSEIR document.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA
Guidelines, after completion of the Draft EIR, lead agencies are required to consult with
and obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction by
law over elements of the Project and to provide the gen~ral public with an opportunity
to comment on the Draft Supplemental ElR. Lead agencies are also required to respond
to substantive comments on environmental issues raised during the EIR review period.
As the lead agency for this Project, the City of Dublin hdd a 45-day public review
period between November 19, 2003 and January 2, 200(.
This Final EIR document (FEIR) contains all public comments received during the 45-
day public review process regarding the DSEIR and the City's responses to those
comments. Included within the document is an annotat~d copy of the comment letter,
identifying specific comments, followed by a response to that comment.
The FEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in
the DElR as well as revisions to the proposed Project.
Clarifications and Modifications to the DEIR
The following clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR are incorporated by
reference into the DSEIR document.
1. Page 4: Section 6 of the DSEIR is actually "Requir,~d CEQA Discussion" rather
than References as noted on this page.
2. Page 60: The reference to Table 5 in the traffic study (appended to the DSEIR)
should be changed to Table 6 of the traffic study.
3. Page 64: The Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound ramp improvement is anticipated
to be funded by local developers on a pro-rata share.
4. As requested by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the
discussion text in the Mitigation Measure columr corresponding to
Supplemental Impact TRA-3 on page 1-3 of the DSEIR is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Full mitigation not feasible. Project will be required to pay for its
proportionate share of impacts to 1-580 and 1-680, by payment of Tri-Valley
Transportation Development (TVID) Fees to corstruct planned freeway
improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, and interchange
improvements. The Project will be required to pay its proportionate share
Page 2
February 2004
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
toward public transportation improvements to r.elp reduce traffic on the
freeways and other roadways in the Tri-Valley m'ea, by payment of the
TYTD Fee to fund the West Dublin/Pleasanton HART Station Project."
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters
Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the 45-day public
comment period on the DEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other
interested parties.
Commenter
Federal Agencies
None
Date
State Agencies
2.1 State of California, Office of Planning 1/5/04
and Research
2.2* State of California, Department of 1/08/04
Transportation
Local Agencies
3.1 Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD)
3.2 Alameda County Congestion 12/23/03
Management Agency
3.3 Alameda County Flood Control and 12/30/03
Water Conservation District Zone 7
3.4 City of Livermore 12/30/03
Interested Persons/Organizations
4.1 Michael Durkee 12/30/03
* Although this letter was received after the close of the 45-d ay comment period, it has been
responded to in this FEIR.
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 3
February 2004
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 4
February 2004
S TAT E OF C A L I FOR N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Plannircg Unit
~'f ~...
...~~'\
i *~l'
~.'"~ .Il
"Jf,~OF"'~
Arnold
Schwarzenegger
Governor
lan Boel
Acting Deputy
Director
January 9, 2004
Andy Byde
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RECEiVED
.II\N 2 ) 2004
"l'lBLlN PLANNING
Letter 2.1
Subject: IKEAlRetail Center Development Project (PA 02-034)
SCH#: 2003092076
Dear Andy Byde:
The enclosed comment (s) on your Draft EIR was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end
of the state review period, which closed on January 2, 2004. We are'orwarding these comments to you
because they provideinfonnation or raise issues that should be addrei.sed in your final environmental
document.
The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments.
However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional conunenti into your final environmental
document and to consider them prior to taking [mal action on the proposed project.
Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the
environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, please refer to
the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number (2003092076) when contacling this office.
Sincerely,
--!:::::1 ~
Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
~ECEIVED
lAN 1 2 2004
. d400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIF ORNIA 95812-3044
'1UBLlN PLANNIN (916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
01108/0~ 14: 5.Q. F~_~102865513
SYSTEM®IONAL PLANNIN(; -> STATE CLEARINGHO I4J 001
S'I: ATE OF CALlFORNIA BU!llNESS 'l1l.ANSPORT A nON AND HOIlSING AGRNr.Y
AllNOLD SCJtWARLJ:N"P-nGl;:R GOY~
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 23660
O~,CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 286-5505
FAX (510) 286-5513
TTY (800) 735-2929
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
Letter 2.~!
Mr. Andy Byde
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
ill ~ J~N ~ ~: ~ rn ~
STATE CLEARING HOUSE
~lea..y ALA580780
-z'-ol.{ ALA-580-18.82
\ ccreSCH2003092076
January 8, 2004
Dear Mr. Byde:
DUBLIN IKEA .;... DRAFT SUPPLEMENTALENVIROriMENTAL IMP ACT
REPORT
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department)
in the environmental review process for the Dublin IKEA Project. The following
comments ar.e based on the Draft Supplemental Environuental Impact Report
(DSEIR).
Mitigation
1. Contrary to the DSEIR's assertion that, "Mitigation for impacts to these freeway 2.2.1
segments is not feasible since freeway improvements are not under the City of
Dublin's jurisdiction", as lead agency the City of Dublin is responsible for all
project mitigation, including roadway improvements on state highways.
Mitigation should be identified for any roadway mainline section or intersection
with insufficient capacity to maintain an acceptable Leve,' of Service (LOS) with
the addition of project-related and/or cu,mulative traffic. The project's fair share
contribution, fmancing, scheduling, implementation re~:ponsibilities and lead
agency monitoring should also be fully discussed for dl proposed mitigation
measures. Where additional roadway improvements are U(lt feasible, downscaling
the project, and phasing project components so that adequate mitigation coinCIdes
with each development phase should be explored. See thl: Transportation-related
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Guidelines (per Assembly Bill 1807)
enclosure that requires lead agencies to submit transportation-related mitigation
monitoring information to the Department. Page 67.
"Cal/ralls improves mobility acrOss California"
01708/04 14:50 FAX 5102865513
SYSTEM®IONAL PLANNING -> STATE CLEARINGHO 141002
Mr. Andy Byde
January 8, 2004
Page 2
2. Project-related significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to freeway 2.2.2
operations, i.e., the project's contribution to LOS degradation should be clearly
identified on Tables 4.3.12, 13. .
Trip Generation .
1. Since the Dublin IKEA will draw customers from the densely populated South 2.2.3
Bay Area, including San Jose, and locations to the east nch as Tracy, Stockton
and Sacramento as well as serving the immediate area, unless supporting
documentation showing a strong basis for assuming that Dublin IKEA will
generate 25 percent fewer weekday trips than the Emeryville store can be
provided, project trip generation estimates should be a4iusted upward to more
realistically reflect total project trips. The absence of an IKEA store in the fast-
growing region between Sacramento and Tracy strongly suggests that demand
from this area will be channeled to the Dublin store. Page ,50.
2. How well does actuaJ.trip generation from the Erileryville IK.EA store correlate to 2.2.4
trip generation estimates provided during that project's en'lironmentaI review?
Pass-by Rate Assumptions
Since furniture shopping usually involves transporting bulky items home from the 2.2.5
store, as well as considerable lead time for planning that 1ypically. precedes such
purchases, and given the paucity of data for pass-by rates applicable to furniture
stores, pass-by rates for this land use are likely negligible. Further, the Department
does not accept pass-by rates in excess of 15 percent without prior consultation and
sufficient data to support the estimated decrease in project trip generation. See the
Department's "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" at tbe website
link below. The Guide should be reviewed prior to initiating any traffic analysis
affecting state facilities.
http://www.dot.ca. gov/hCl/traffops/ developserv/ operati anal systems/reports/tis guide. p
df
Trip Distribution
Project trip distribution should be revised to show the vast majority of project trips 2.2.6
accessing the project site from Interstate 580 (1-580). For the majority of lKEA
customers, 1-580 is the faster and more efficient route for trips from all directions as
few southbound or northbound Interstate 680 (1-680) customers will prefer travelling
the slower local streets such as Dublin Boulevard or Las Posilas Boulevard with their
numerous controlled intersections and conflicting traffic movements. There is no
feasible alternative to the site for westbound and eastbound 1-580 customers. Page
61.
Level of Service
1. Intersection counts for the eXIstIng peak hour traffc volumes and ramp 2.2.7
intersection LOS do not appear to reflect current conditic,ns. If traffic count data
"Caltran.s Jmpl'oveJ: mobility across Ca/ifomia"
01/08/04 14:50 FAX 5102865513
SYSTEM®IONAL PLANNING.. STATE CLEARINGHO ~003
Mr. Andy Byde
January 8, 2004
Page 3
was obtained prior to ramp metering installation on eastbound 1-580, current
counts should be obtained and the data applied to an updated analysis of the
intersections. Exhibit 14, Page 81 and Table 4.3.1, Page 70.
2. Downstream effects of LOS F on 1-580 should be discussed. For example, since
the I~580 . segments between 1-680 and Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road to
Fallon Road both operate at LOS F, clarify how the segnents between these can
operate more efficiently at LOS D and LOS E as shown iI. Table 4.3.13. Page 79.
3. Clarify how the project's contribution of 16,100 Average Daily Trips (ADT), 460
AM peak hour trips (PHT), 880 PM PHT and 2,510 Saturday PHT decreases the
volume to capacity ratio in some areas. Page 65.
Right of Way
1. Of the ten design alternatives for the 1-580 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane (HOY)
projeCt currently under consideration, variation 2.2 represents the worst-case
right-of-way (ROW) impact to the lKEA project. The remaining nine alternatives
are not expected to impact the project. The HOV project :may impact the proposed
IKEA project a maximum distance of 12.378 meters from the existing state ROW
to the proposed new state ROW. The enclosed plan show. the approximate area of
2,772 square meters of potential impact to the IKEA prl)ject. Final HOV project
design has not been determined. See enclosed graphic, estimates and descriptions.
2. Work that encroaches onto the ROW requires an encroachment permit that is
issued by the Department. To apply, a completed encroachment permit
application, environmental documentation, and five Ci) sets of plans, clearly
indicating State ROW, must be submitted to the address below. Traffic-related
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans during the
encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more
information: .
http://www.dot.ca. govlhq/traff{)ps/ developserv/permits/
Sean Nozzari, District Office Chief
Office ofPennits
California DOT, District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
"C a/lratlS improves mobility across CalifornIa"
2.2.8
2.2.9
2.2.10
2.2.11
\
01/08/04 14:51 FAX 5102865513
SYSTEM®IONAL PLANNING -> STATE CLEARINGHO ~004
Mr. Andy Byde
January 8. 2004
Page 4
Please fonvard a copy of the revised environmental documen:, staff report and the
City's transportation impact fee policy to the address below as soon as they are
available.
patricia Maurice, Associate Transportation Planner
Office of Transit and Community Planning, Mail Station IOD
California DOT, District 4
111 Grand Avenue
9akland, CA 94612-3717
Please feel free to call or email Patricia Maurice of my staff at (510) 622-1644 or
patricia maurice@dot.ca.l!ov with any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
~~
District Branch Chief
IGRJCEQA
Enclosure
c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse
"Ca/tralts improves mobility acroSS California"
DUBLIN
SAN RAMON
SERViCES
DISTRICT
7051 Dublin Bouievard
Dublin.Callionma94568
FAX: 925 829 1130
9258280515
December 9, 2003
Letter 3.1
City of Dublin - Community Development Department
Attn: Andy Byde, Senior Planner
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
SUBJECT:
Comments
RECEIVED
DEe 1 2 2003
DUBliN PlANNING
P A 02-34~ IKEA Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Byde:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above subject document. The D.ublin San
Ramon Services District has the following comments:
1. Page 6, Section 3.1- DSRSD operates a fluoridation facility at the southwest corner of 3.1.1
the site.
2. Exhibit 4 - The aerial photograph has Dublin Blvd labelec as Martenelli Way. 3.1.2
Thank you for consideration in this matter. If you have any questions regarding these comments
please contact me at (925) 875-2242.
'(
" STEVEN DEll ...
Assistant Engineer
SVD:mb
cc: Dave Requa
David Behrens
The Dublin San Ramon Services District is a. Public Entity
File: DP-02-281. 205-02, Chron
H:\ENCCEPJ',CEQA\lKEA SEIR CommcnlS,Qoc
ALAI'v1EDp. COUNTY
CONGESllON MAi'JAGEf\ 1ENT AGENCY
1333 BROADWAY. SUITE 220. OAKLAND. CA 94612. PHONE: 510) 836.2560. FAX: (510) 836-2185
. E-MAIL: mail@accma.ca.gov.WEBSITE.accma.ca.gov
Andy Byde
Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 3.2
RECEIVI;t'!
DEe 26 2003
DUBLIN PLANNING
SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR for the IKEAand Dublin
Retail Center Projects in the City of Dublin
Dear Mr. Byde:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Dublin's Draft Supplemental
ErR. (DSEIR) for the 14.34 acre lKEA project and '3.2 acre Dublin Retail Center
project. The project would allow approval and constl1lction of an IKEA retail store
totaling 317,000 square feet including retail sales, restaurant, warehouse and 1,130 on-
site parking spaces, and would include the Dublin Retail Center, consisting of up to
137,000 square feet of retail space and related uses on 13.2 acres ofland with 665 on-
site parking spaces. The project requires an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin General
Plan and Specific Plan, Stage 1 & 2 rezoning ~md Development Plans, Site
Development Review for the IKEA store, subdivision maps and a Development
Agreement. The project is located immediately north of the 1-580 Freeway, west of
Hacienda Boulevard, east of Arnold Road and south of nture Martinelli Drive.
The ACCMA has reviewed the DSEIR and respectfully submits the following
comments. These comments are consistent with the comments we made in response to
the NOP for tJ.'1e RDEIR on April 18, 20d3and to the GPA for IKEA Project on October
22,2003. Where possible, RDEIR page numbers are referenced.
· Page 67, First Paragraph: In the first sentence, refertnce to ACCMA standards for 3.2.1
the LOS monitoring program should be deleted. LCS Monitoring Element of the
Congestion Management Program (CMP) is applicable only for monitoring existing
conditions. This project is subject to the requireme!lts of the Land Use Analysis
Program of the CMP and for that element the Alameda County CMA does not have
a policy for determining a threshold of significance. Professional judgment should
be applied to determine the significance of project impacts.
· Page 68, Table 4.3.10 - CMA Trip Generation Assessment: In order to calculate the 3.2.2
net trips generated by the IKEA Project, trip generation estimated for the Campus I
Mr. Andy Byde
December 23,2003
Page 2
Office project was deducted from the IKEA Center tips generation estimation. This
could be done only if the Peak Hours used for both projects are the same. Page 57,
2nd paragraph of the report states that peak hours determined for the IKEA project
were 7:30 - 8:30 AM and 5:00 - 6:00 PM. Please confirm whether the Campus
Office project also used the above peak hours in its trip generation estimation.
. Page 76, Table 4.3.8 PM Peak Hour Conditions: 'fhis page is missing from the 3.2.3
report. This table is essential for understanding the Buildout PM. Peak Hour
Operations. Please incorporate it in the report.
. Page 78 - Tables 4.3.12 & 4.3.13 -Year 2025 Mainlirle Freeway Operations: Tables 3.2.4
4.3;12 & 4.3.13 show that the freeway capacity used :.n the DSEIR was 2300 pc/h/ln.
The adopted 2001 CMP of the CMA uses Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 1985
wherein freeway capacity is 2000 pclhlln. Therefore, these tables should be revised
using the HCM 1985 standards for freeway capacity lIS required by the 2001 CMP.
. Table 6, Appendix 8.7 - Traffic Impact Analysis: The analysis assumes the same ".4.5
percentage of pass-by traffic for both IKEA Store and the shopping center. Since the
IKEA Store generally is more of a trip destination than the shopping center, the
percentage of pass-by traffic assumed appears to be high. Therefore, please provide
supporting documentation for the pass-by traffic assumption for the IKEA Store. In
this regard, please compare the trip generation esdmation including the pass-by
traffic assumption used in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for IKEA,
Emeryville along with the actual traffic counts colle,;ted from lKEA,Emeryville for
this DSEIR.
. Responses to the following comments communicated through our letter of October
22, 2003 have not been incorporated in the DSEIR. Please incorporate them.
_ Potential impacts of the project on CMP transit levels of service must be analyzed. 3.2.6
(See 2001 CMP, Chapter 4). Transit service standards are 15-30 minute headways for
bus service and 3.75-15 minute headways for BART during peak hours. The analysis
should address the issue of transit funding as a mitigation measure in the context of the
CMA's policies as discussed above.
_ The DublinIPleasanton BART Station, which appears to be approximately one-quarter 3.2.7
mile from the proposed project site, is the site ofm approved Transit Village with [
proposed high density transit-oriented development, and has been the recipient of
funding for a parking structure to support the tran~:it village. The Alameda County
CMA is developing a policy to encourage transit-oriented development. How will the
design and location of the 454,000 square feet of retail, warehouse and related uses for
Ikea and the Dublin Retail Center and the 1,795 parking spaces on the 27.54 acre site
encourage transit and pedestrian use in the project area?
Mr. Andy Byde
December 23, 2003
Page 3
. The environmental document should provide inbrmation on how all of the 3.2.8
mitigation measures on the MTS will be funded. Regarding Supplemental Impact
TRA-3, mitigation measures identified, in page 67 (,fthe DSEIR, to contribute the
proportionate share towards regional freeway improyements should be incorporated
in the summary on Page 1-3.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DSEIR. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at 510/836-2560 ext. 24 if you require any additional information.
Sincerely,
~~
Saravana Suthanthira
Associate Transportation Planner
cc: Chron
file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Responses - 2003
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRIC;-
5997 ?ARKSIDE DRIVE .;l PLEASANTON. CALIFORNIA 94588-512" & PHONE (925)484-2600 '^' (925) 462-39,',
~~I'\
J41V -~.,~
btl& ()~ ~
December 30, 2003 VJV A <001
tq
Jlt4t~Q
Mr. Andy Byde, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Re: . Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR)
IKEA Project (pA 02-034)
Letter 3.3
Dear Mr. Byde:
Zone 7 has reviewed this CEQA document in the context of our mission to provide wholesale treated 3.3.1
water, non-pot3ble water for agriculture and irrigated 1:l1rt: flood protection, and groundwater and
stream managementin the Livermore-Amador Valley. We do not have any comments to the Draft
SEIR at this time. However, enclosed for your reference are copies of 1wo previous Zone 7 comment
letters (the first regarding the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation to the Draft SEIR, and the second
regarding a development review, dated October 23, 2003, and August ~:6, 2003, respectively). These
comments need to still be addressed.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. Please feel free to contact me at (925)
484-2600, ext. 400,jhoren@Zone7water.com, or Jack Fong at ext. 245 jfong@Zone7water.com, if
you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
r~ a- h
Jim Horen
Principal Engineer
Advance Planning
Fo>....
JPH:JF:jr
Enclosures
cc: Ed Cummings, Zone 7
John Mahoney, Zone 7
Y.K. ChaD, Zone 7
Jack Fong, Zone 7
P:AdvpWCEQAReferrals-IkeaProjeC!-DraftSEIR
---:-::-:-:::--"
ALA!V1ED,A. COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ,.cU'-JD WA--ER CONSERV.A.TrON DISTRICT
5997 PAR,;SIDE DRIVE e PLEASANTON. CALIFORNIA 94588-5127 ~ PHONE (925) 484-2600 FAX 1925) 4G2-3~'14.
October 23,2003
Mr_ A...'ldy Byde, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
R'" Initial Study and Notice ofPrepa.-a.tion (NaP) for a Dratt EIR
llceaIRetail Center Development Project (P A 02-034)
Zone 7 Referral No. 00-093D .
Dear WlI. Byde:
Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA documents in the context of onr responsibilities to provide
wholesale treated water, non-potable water for agriculture and irrigated tu:f, flood protection. and
groundwater and stream management in the Livermore-Amador Valley. Also, enclosed for YOllr
reference is our previous review letter dated August 26,2003 for TIcea Development (P A 02-034).. Our
comments are as follows:
1. Hydrology and Water Quality, Paragraph 8a., page 35.
The second paragraph states that development proj ects that reslllt in soil disturbance of at 3.3.2
least five acres ofland are required to submit a Notice ofIntell' to the State Water
ResoUl"ces Control Board. Please be advised that, as of March lO, 2003, the size threshold
for a NPDES General Construction Pemut is reduced from fivl~ acres to one acre of
disturbed land.
2. Hydrology and Water Qualty, Paragraph 8d, page 36.
Mitigation for the creation of any new impervious areas within the Livennore-Amador 3.3.3
Valley is addressed through the collection of Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 drainage
fees. Zone 7's standard mitigation practice is to collect an SDA 7-1 fee on anynew
buildings, improvements (including but not limited to paving), or structures to be
constructed that substantially increase the imperviousness ofth,~ land surface.
The proposed proj ect will be con:i1ecting to 8.1'1. existing Zone 7 flood control facility (Line
G 2-1), a tributary to Chabot Canal. Hydraulic calculations for the proposed drairiage
system should be provided to Zone 7 to ensure that design floW; do not adversely impact
existing hydraulics downstream of the project
- . -
i"r'..G:. __~-:C;: ..;. }-G.C
October 23,2003
Page 2
3. Hydrology and Water Quality, Paragraph 8f: page 37.
The Proj ect Description, page 4, states that recycled wa:er services would be provided by 3.3.4
DSRSD in accordance with DSRSD's Eastern Dublin facilities Master Plan, when and
where available t6 reduce the need for potable water. TIle referenced paragraph does not
address the potential salt loading impacts over our main groundwater basin Zone 7
considers all applied water (rainwater is an exception), including both potable water and
recycled '!Vater, to contribute salt loadirig to the groundwater basin, and use of recycled
water requires mitigation of the associated impacts.
. The Groundwater Demineralization Project is the recommended project to accomplish
Zone 7's Salt Management Program's goal of non-degradation of our main groundwater
basin from the long-term buildup of salts. Zone 7 e:h.l'ect~ to complete the first phase of
this project in 2006. We request that the City support the Groundwater Demineralization
Proj ect in the Draft EIR as the appropriate mitigation for the proposed proj ecL Otherwise,
we request that the lead agency address the mitigation of any salt loading impacts of the
project should Zone 7' s future Groundwater Demineralization Project not be constructed
and placed into operation.' .
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document Please ::eel free to contact me at (925)
484-2600, ext. 400, jhoren@.zone7water.com, or Jack Fong at e:h.i. 245, jfong@zone7water.co:in, if
you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Jim Horen
Plincipal Engineer
Adva.'1ce Planning
JPH:JF:arr
cc: Dave Requa, DSRSD
Ed Cummings, Zone 7
J Ob11 Mahoney, Zone 7
Joe Seto, Zone 7
Mona Olmsted, Zone 7
Jack F ong, Zone 7
P:Advpln/CEQAReferrals-lkeaRetailCenter
JRN-02-2004 16:38 FROM:CITY OF DUBLIN 9258336628
12/30/2003 14:38 ZONE 7 WATER DISTRICT ~ 8336628
TO:510 5486123
P.OO9/013
NO. 400 0005
ALAMEDA COUNTY Fl.OCD CONTROL. AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
5~91 i'A.FtKSIC~ Ol'lll1~ ~ PlEIIS/l.NrON. CAliFORNIA 9A5SS-S121 . .'HOME (B:11;J 4~'2flllP '111I (i25l46~.2.14
August2c, 2003
:Mr. .AJJiiy Hyde. Semor Plam1& .
CO:G:lrIl'tlcity Development DepllrtmClD.~
City of Dublin
1 00 Civic:. Plaza.
Dublin, CA 94568
Su:R.IECl': lAE.A Development / (pA 01-(34)
. North of r...58(), IJatwcen A.rn.()ld R()R4 & [iacklflla Drl'/le, DrdJf.iJ;
ZO'M. 7 Ref""fliNo. OM}9JD
Dear Mr. :aj'de:
This lotto. i:i m re5l'oIlSfl to your :referral dated Allgus~ 2.,2003, regarrlSr:g the aforementio:led
project. Zone 7's sections submitted the foJ.!owing coniment!l:
Water SuppIyl
As p6I' our letter ofFebnta,'y 16,2001, pleaso idmti;ytbc cxistinB lo-inch wa.terli21e shown on 3.3.5
the PJ:o~ecl plans as a Zone 7 waterline, J:c. additiO!l, sheet c;...1.0 ofthep;an& appem to include
. the followmg two dIafting errors: 1) A manholo aDd branch pipeline wb;:cll. is COlltl.ee1Co'to Zone
. 7's lEi-inch watetlille. (These f!\Ciliti~ do not exiDt in the Eei~. 2) A ciZoc:t conr.,ection between
the Dew dsvclcpmeo.t'& pli!lDned 16.i:Jch waterline aDd. Zolle.2~~ 16-inch: waterline. (Direot
Cl)nnec:tions to the Zone 7 transmission sjlSte:ll1 arc lloul.lOVired). These drafting cr.rors are ci:rcl~
in rod ~ tho plans submitted ;or review. P1C,'l.l;tl revise. and res':1bmit the :ll:m.q fOT;fiuaI approval.
As befcre, valves l!I:d ctb~ nppurtaosnces that are locateci withio. the fui:ds of constrLlCtion rn'tlSt ~.3~6
oe clea;;ly lo,ated prior to construction. If any re.~u."'fa.cing 01' grading WOIk i$ parformcd.. these
appu..."tenoncos shaJ.1 be wed to grade at IlO cxpoo,so to Zone 7. AD. encrc~ont permit is
:.-equired waC;!). workiPg in doso prcxi::r:tit"'f to Zone 7 water facilities, Thin pcm'lit will have
Specific conditio~ for cons':1'UctiOtl axoumi a ZOIlQ 7 facility. The permit will become effective
'.lpOll :p~ymen.t of an application fee and any applicable inspection chexge;; zud the dcpORit of an
approved surety bond to Zone. 7,
P1CilSO COIl-tact Jaime Rios nt clctel:lSion 407 fol:' an en.croaclmlant peu;oit aad iiyou h.1VO my
g,u.estiO::lS :regarding: water ~ply issues.
DEC-3B-2083 81:44PM
TEL)925 462 3914
PA6E:005
I[))CITY or DUBLIN
i
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
/'.
I
I.
I
i
I
I
I
. i
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
;
I
I
I
R"~"
, I
I
JAN-02-2004 16:38 FROM:CITY OF DUBLIN 9258336628
12/30/2003 14:38 ZONE ? MATER DISTRICT -+ 8336628
TO:510 5486123
P.0
NO. 400
Mr. AodyByOe, Sc::liot P1a.:.-mer
Community DevelopmeI:.t Depa..."1:mcnt
City ofPublli1
August 26, 2003
Pago2
Groundwater Management:
Otr:records indi~ there aIe no water we1J1i Of mo~ w~l1s 'located witbi:n the projoct 3.3.7
bou:nd.:uies. If any woUF: are found within the project limits. l1ey should be roported to Zoo e 1.
Ally planned Dew well, /:loil boring or '1l'ell ~c1ion must be ]:e.ntlitted by lone 7 Wore
starting tho work: Tl1er~ are no fees for the ZJlno 7 drilling p=o;:i;.ta. Well pennit applicatiOllS
::an be Db~ainod by coatac-jng Wymll11 Hong at extension 2350:: can be dow:c.1caded from ow
web site at www.z.one7wate:r.com. .
FlOOd Coatrol:
DcVo]op:nents tbatinc.reaso impervious 8.J.-e2. are subject to Spco:a1 Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 3.3.8
draiJ]agc foes. !>l:ainAgc fees am ~ollOl:tecl by the gov~ ~c:y fur.::Jew' roads (Upon
application fo,; approval of vesting tcnf..mVCl or:final map) and bui.ld.inSA, driveways, etc. (upon
~lication for buildi%1g permit). There arc 00 Cl(iirtiIl~ Zone 7 .fl:IOd cor.trol.rac:litio&' at this
location. Sbould you hnYC ~y flood control related questions, 'p[.::a.seconta.c1 Clayton :Borchors
a.t e,,--tension 402.
Far futilre mbmittaIs at th,i$loc,ution, please refer to Zone 7 Re.fc::;:::u No. OQ..093D.
'-
if)'Ou have aoy que6tions. ple~' do nothesitat:: to contact the p:rson identified p&" aeCtio...
eODlmllc.fA or me at e7Cer"Sion 2~9.
Ve.."'YtruJ,y )'Dum.
~~.i~_
. r K. Koitt .
S or En~Cllt'
Advance Pla.1.tring
Euclosllto
JEK:CB~r
cc: Claytc>> Borchora. Zono 7,:F1ood Centrol
Jaime Ri09, Zone 7, Watc;r Supply
P:li'lood\Ref.rrtl!t120V'~\oO.P30 Jr&; j;l....Jopm"'" (I',oHJZ-O~4)4>c
DEC-30-2003 01:44PM
TEL)925 462 3~14
rD)ClTY OF DUBLIN
PAGE:006 R
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
1052 S Livermore Avenu~
Livermore CA 94550-4899
Ph (925) 960.4000
Fax (925) 960.4058
TDD (925) 960.4104
MAYOR I COUNCIL
Ph- 960.4010 . fax: 960-4025 .
CITY MANAGER
Ph 960.4040. Fax: 960-4045
CITY ATIORNEY
Ph 960.4150. F,x: 960-4180
RISK MANAGEMENT
Ph 960-4170; F,x: 960-4180
CITY CLERK
Ph 960-4200 . Fax 960-4205
COMlIfUl'oTIY
DEVELOPME!'!T
Ph: 960-4400. Fax: 960-4459
Bu.ilding Di,'ision
Ph: 960.44] 0 . Fax: 960.4419
Engint!t!ring Division
Ph. 960-4500 . Fax: 960-4505
HOr.4sing Dilision.
Pr. 960-4580. Fax: 960-4149
Planning Divisio"
Ph: 960-4450 . Fax 960-4459
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPME1''f
Ph 960-4140. Fax: 960-4]49
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Ph 9604300 . Fax' 960-4309
FIREDF.PARTMENT
4550 East Avenue
Ph: 454.2361 . Fax: 454-2367
LIBRARY
1000 S. Livennore Avenue
Ph. 373-5.500 . Fax: 373-5503
PERSONNEL
Ph 9604100 . Fax 960-4] 05
POllCE DEPARTMENT
1110 S. Livermore Avenue
Ph: 37].4900. Fax: 37]-4950
TDD 371-4982
PUBUC SERVICES
3500 Robertson Park Rd.
P:o. 960.8QOO . Fax: 960.8005
Airport Diyision
636 Terminal Circle
Ph 373-5280 . Fax: 373-5042
Golf Course Division
909 Clubhouse Dnve
?h: 373.5239 . Fa.'t" 373-5203
Maintenance Division
3500 Robertson Park Rd.
'10: 960.8020 . Fax 960.8025
Water Resources Division
101 W lack london Blvd
)h 960.8:00. Fax: 960.8105
CITY OF Ll'VERJVfORE
1849"
f:I~c~
J4N c;:1"~O
0118' . 0 5 2004
""Ii PL..4
. N"'ING
December 30, 2003
Andy Byde, . Senior Planner
City of Dublin - Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 3.4
RE: IKEA Development Project Draft Supplemental EIR
Dear Mr. Byde:
Thank you for the opportunity to review. the Dr1cft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the proposed IKEA Development Project The project includes a General
Plan/Specific Plan Amendment to provide for the development of a 317,000 square foot
IKEA building and a 137,000 square foot retail center located west of Hacienda Boulevard
and east of Arnold Drive in Dublin.
The Draft Supplemental EIR acknowledges the :;ignificant and unavoidable cumulative
impact of the project on regional roadways inchlClingl-580. The Eastern Dublin EIR
included mitigation measures, such as developrr.ents' contribution of its proportionate
share towards roadway improvements and TSM programs to address, but not fully
mitigate, the cumulative transportation impact of the East Dublin Specific Plan, which
includes the project site. In addition to these mitigation measures, the proposed project
should be required to implement ramp metering of the westbound 1-580 on-ramps at
Hacienda Drive. We encourage the City of Dublin to implement ramp metering at all .
freeway interchanges within the City of DubIir to help increase traffic flow on the
freeways.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Susan Frost, Senior Planner
at (925) 960-4462
Sincerely,
~-1r~J:.r
Susan Frost
Senior Planner
cc: Marc Roberts, Community Development I:irector
Eric Brown, Planning Manager
Bob Vinn, Senior Transportation Engineer
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
attorneys 01 law
Allen Matkins
333 Bush Street 17th Floor San Fra lcisco California 94104-2806
telephone. 415837 1515 facsimile. 415 837 1516 www.allenmatkins.com
writ.... Michael Patrick Durkee ':.415 273 7455
file number. 14096-005lSF60392H.01 e. mdurkee@allenmatkins.com
December 30, 2003
VIA FAX (925.833.6628)
Andy Byde
Senior Planner
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340, 100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 4.1
Re: Comments Regarding IKEA Project Draft Supplemental Impact Report
Dear Mr. B yde:
On behalf of our client, IKEA, the Project Sponsor, thank you for this opportunity to
comment on the Draft Supplemental ElR ("DSElR"). We appreciate the excellent job City Staff
and the ElR Consultant have done on the DSElR, and we believe that it, in conjunction with the
original ElR it supplements, adequately addresses the potential di rect and indirect impacts of the
Project.
Our comments follow, each designated with a number (and letter where appropriate) for
ease of reference when responding.
1. First, it is important to note that neither the Commerce One development proposal
(approved earlier for this site) nor any other office development proposal would be viable on this
site for 10 years or more. The simple fact is that the current market supply of office space far
exceeds the market demand for office space, and will continue to :to so for well into the
foreseeable future. This is a scenario prevalent in the greater Bay Area,. not just the Tri- Valley
region. In fact, property owners within major Business Parks such as Hacienda Business Park
are actively converting office space uses to non-office uses becau:;e of this market glut and
"softness" for office space. In other words, office development of this site is simply not a viable
option at this time or some time to corne.
2. Second, as set forth in the SElR, we wish to point out that the Project would not
increase significant impacts over those anticipated from developII:ent of the Commerce One
project and area development, and in some cases the Project woul.:t actually lessen the impacts
anticipated from such office development.
! San Francisco Century City Los Angeles Orange County San Diego
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
attorneys at law
Andy Byde
Senior Planner
December 30,2003
Page 2
a. Traffic impacts in the weekday "AM Peak Hour" would be similar for
both the IKEA and Commerce One projects, but the IKEA Project would improve operations at 2
of the 18 key intersections studied over the Commerce One project. Weekend traffic impacts of
the IKEA Project are greater than the Commerce One project, but nonetheless, intersection
operations still would remain "acceptable" under City of Dublin c iteria at all times under the
IKEA Project. Overall AM and PM peak hour trips would decrease with the IKEA Project
compared to the Commerce One project, while cumulative interse;tion and freeway segment
conditions would be similar under both scenarios, with IKEA con1ributing less peak hour traffic
than Commerce One to these conditions.
b. Impacts to biological resources and constm;tion-related air quality
impacts would be identical for both the IKEA Project and the Commerce One proposal, because
the same area would be equally disturbed for the two projects.
C. While both the IKEA Project and Commerce One project would contribute
similarly to regional ozone levels, the IKEA Project would have p)tentially improved roadside
carbon monoxide concentrations compared with the Commerce One project, and the IKEA
Project would not result in any exceedance of carbon monoxide standards (whereas the
Commerce One project would).
3. Third and finally, we wish to underscore that the Project implements the City's
vision for the fiscal health and development of this area (as reflected in its General Plan, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and related land use regulations), and that the: benefits of the Project far
outweigh its impacts.
In addition to furthering the objectives identified in Section 3.4 of the DSEIR, the Project
promotes the City's goals and policies in the following manner:
a. The proposed development of an IKEA Store and Lifestyle Retail Center
will complement the existing range of retail opportunities in Easte:n Dublin. These uses will
provide a source of attractive, well priced home furnishings, pedestrian-oriented retail center,
and restaurant opportunities that will help establish Dublin as a center for destination shopping.
The Project will provide new shopping and restaurant opportunities not yet available in this part
of Dublin, within a short distance of existing retail opportunities, t1US leading to an increase of
shoppers for all businesses in the area. Additionally, the Project v.ill be within walking distance
from the higher density residential development existing and planned nearby.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
attorneys at law
Andy B yde
Senior Planner
December 30, 2003
Page 3
b. The Project will further the General Plan o1:jective for the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area of providing a broad range of non-residential uses, including retail commercial.
The General Plan's Guiding Policy for the Eastern Dublin Plannin.~ Area is to "encourage
development of a full range of commercial and employment generating uses that will meet the
needs of the City and the surrounding Tri-Valley areas." This ProJect provides a much needed
retail center for existing and planned future residents within the arproved distribution of
commercial land.
c. The primary Land Use Goal of the East Duhlin Specific Plan is to
"establish an attractive and vital community that provides a balanced and fully integrated range
of residential, commercial, employment, recreational, and social opportunities." Another Land
Use Goal is to serve "the shopping, entertainment and service needs of Dublin and the
surrounding area." This Project helps the City achieve these goals by providing a variety of
commercial, employment and social opportunities in a retail setting. A Policy supporting this
Goal is to "concentrate regionally oriented commercial uses south of Dublin Boulevard and near
freeway interchanges where convenient vehicular access will limit traffic impacts on the rest of
eastern Dublin."
The proximity of the Project site to the Highway 580 and Hacienda Drive interchange is
consistent with these goals and policies and facilitates efficient tralsportation. The Project will
provide a "destination retail" experience on a visually prominent ste accessible from major
regional traffic corridors. The site will be developed in a landscaped and "pedestrian-friendly"
fashion - - with restaurants and related leisure services - - to heighten the shopping experience
and further enhance the concept of "spending the day out shopping." The combination of the
IKEA store with the Lifestyle Retail Center will offer a shopping experience complementary to
the nearby Hacienda Crossings retail center and add to the range of retail and restaurant
opportunities available to the shopper in Dublin.
d. The Project will provide significant fiscal contributions to the City. There
will be a strong property tax income stream from the high value dfvelopments on the IKEA and
Lifestyle Retail Center sites. Further, and more importantly, both retail efforts will generate
substantial sales tax revenue to the City - - which would not be realized if the site is developed
with an office use - - while creating no greater impact on traffic, bJOlogy, air, or municipal
services (such as police and fire) than that presented by an office use such as Commerce One.
E:J
E:J
E:J
E:J
E:J
Andy Byde
Senior Planner
December 30, 2003
Page 4
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
attorneys at law
Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment.
MPD/mpd
cc: Doug Greenholz, IKEA
Randy Ackerman, Opus West
.-
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses
Page 4
February 2004
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Letter 2.1: State of California, Governors Office of Pl.anning and Research (OPR)
. Comment 2.1: The commenter notes that no state agencies have submitted
comments on the DSEIR. The DSEIR public comment period closed on
January 2, 2004.
Response: Comment acknowledged. No further response required.
Letter 2.2: State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
This comment letter was received well after the close 01 the public comment period.
Although CEQA does not require a written response, the City is including the
following in the interest of providing the decisionrnakers and the public with
information on the issues raised in the letter.
. Comment 2.2.1: Mitigation should be identified for any roadway mainline
section or intersection with insufficient capacity to maintain an acceptable LOS
with the addition of project-related and/ or cumulative traffic. The project's
fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities
and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed
mitigation measures. Where additional roadway improvements are not
feasible, downscaling the project should be explored. The commenter refers
to the Transportation-Related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Guidelines (per Assembly Bill 1807) that requireE lead agencies to submit
mitigation monitoring information to Caltrans.
Response: Pursuant to the discussion offered on page 67 of the DSEIR
regarding project requirements to address the project cumulative impact on
adjacent freeways, the project will be required to pay for its proportionate
share of cumulative impacts to 1-580 and 1-680, by payment of Tri-Valley
Transportation Development (TVTD) Fees to construct planned freeway
improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, and interchange
improvements. The project will be required to pay its proportionate share
toward public transportation improvements to telp reduce traffic on the
freeways and other roadways in the Tri-Valley crea, by payment of the
TYTD Fee to fund the West Dublin/Pleasanton HART Station project.
In addition, as explained in the DSEIR on pages :;5 and 56, the City of Dublin
has fee programs in place that require developers in Eastern Dublin to pay
for transportation improvements, including tho~;e regional improvements
identified in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR as mitigation measures. Similar to
other development projects in Eastern Dublin, the proposed project will
contribute a proportionate share to the construction of improvements and
mitigation measures along the 1-580 corridor. Such freeway-related
improvements and mitigation measures include:
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 5
February 2004
1. Construction of approximately 8.2 miles of HOV lanes on 1-580 from
Tassajara Road to Vasco Road. After addition of these HOV lanes, this
segment of 1-580 will have a total of four mi;:ed lanes and one HOV lane
in each direction. $8.0 million in TYTD Fee funds, to which the proposed
project will contribute a proportionate share, has been allocated to this
improvement. The Project Study Report has been completed and
approved by Caltrans. Several design alterr.atives are currently under
consideration for this improvement. The proposed HOV lanes will help
provide relief to traffic congestion on 1-580.
2. Construction of auxiliary lanes on 1-580 betw'~en Tassajara Road and
Airway Boulevard, and east of Airway BouIE~vard, as part of Mitigation
Measures 3.3/3.0 and 3.3/5.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, respectively. The
proposed project will contribute a proportionate share to the
construction of these auxiliary lanes by payi::1g a regional fee, which the
City of Dublin has implemented through thE' Eastern Dublin Traffic
Impact Fee (see Fee Programs discussion on pages 55 and 56 of the
DSEIR). Auxiliary lanes in the vicinity of the project site (i.e., between
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road) were recently constructed as part of the
Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road interchange improvement project,
which was sponsored and administered by the City of Dublin. The
proposed auxiliary lanes are not intended to increase mainline freeway
capacity per se, but will mitigate operational problems caused by
merging and diverging vehicles at the interchanges, thereby reducing
traffic congestion on 1-580.
3. The planned six-lane Dublin Boulevard extemion to connect existing
Dublin Boulevard with North Canyons Parkway in Livermore will carry
substantial volumes of 1-580 corridor traffic, providing relief to the
freeway itself. The Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, to which the
proposed project will contribute a proportio:1ate share, will fund this
extension.
The tables referenced in the comment are included in the DSEIR's cumulative
buildout analysis for year 2025 beginning on page 63. Cumulative freeway
conditions are discussed beginning at page 66. The DSEIR analysis and
conclusions are consistent with the Eastern Dublin EIR conclusions that even
with roadway and highway improvements, cumulative freeway impacts will
be significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93). As noted in the DSEIR,
"the proposed IKEA Project is expected to generate similar levels of freeway-
related traffic as compared to the previous forecasts in the Eastern Dublin
EIR." (p. 66). Further, adding the Project traffic to Year 2025 volumes would
not change the levels of service for AM or PM pE~ak hours (p. 67). Thus, future
cumulative traffic impacts for the freeways willl:e significant and
unavoidable with or without the Project. Downsizing the project as suggested
in the comment would not be expected to substantially reduce, let alone
avoid, Year 2025 cumulative freeway impacts. Sinilarly, phasing the Project
would not affect the DSEIR conclusions since the impact is identified for
cumulative buildout in 2025. Through the EasteDl Dublin EIR and the DSEIR,
Page 6
February 2004
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
the City has discussed feasible mitigations for reducing the identified freeway
impacts of the Project. No further analysis is required. The City notes that
because freeway impacts continue to be significant and unavoidable, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations will be :~equired for any Project
approval.
The commenter also directs the City to Caltrans' Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Guidelines, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1807. This bill is contained in
CEQA section 21081.7 and requires that transportation information that results
from specified project mitigation monitoring programs be submitted to the
regional transportation agency and to Caltrans. Any Project approval will
require the City to adopt a mitigation monitoring program; transportation
information resulting from the program will be ~;ubmitted as appropriate under
the statute.
. Comment 2.2.2: The project contribution to LOS degradation should be
clearly identified on Tables 4.3.12 and 4.3.13.
Response: As shown on Tables 4.3.12 and 4.3.13 of the DSEIR, the proposed
project would not degrade freeway LOS as compared to cumulative
conditions under the approved Campus Office designation. The incremental
changes to the V / C ratios on the study segment, were derived from Tables
4.3.12 and 4.3.13 and are listed below:
Year 2025 Mainline Freeway Impacts, IKEA Project Incremental V IC
Contribution
IKEA Project Incremental
Location V.' C Contribution
AM Peak PM Peak
Hour Hour
1-580,1-680 to Dougherty Road
Eastbound -0.013 +0.032
Westbound +0.014 +0.005
1-580, Dougherty Road to Hacienda
Drive
Eastbound -0.010 +0.019
Westbound +0.012 +0.002
1-580, Hacienda Drive to Tassaiara Road
Eastbound 0.00 -0.015
Westbound -0.026 +0.001
1-580, Tassaiara Road to Fallon Road
Eastbound +0.001 -0.018
Westbound -0.024 +0.002
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 7
February 2004
1-680, 1-580 to Alcosta Boulevard
Northbound +0.008 +0.003
Southbound -0.010 +0.017
1-680, 1-580 to Stoneridge Drive
Northbound -0.008 +0.021
Southbound +0.010 +0.003
. Comment 2.2.3: The commenter states that the I1CEA store in Dublin would
draw customers from the South Bay, including San Jose, and from locations
to the east such as Tracy, Stockton and Sacramerto, and that the assumption
that Dublin IKEA would generate 25% fewer we~kday trips than the
Emeryville store should be adjusted upward to reflect the market demand
potentials. The commenter requests that a comparison be made between the
actual trip generation from Emeryville IKEA and trip generation estimates
considered during the environmental review of ':hat project.
Response: Please see Comment 3.2.5 for a discussion of the trip generation
methodology used in the DSEIR. Designed to achieve a worst case analysis,
the DSEIR assumes 75% of the actual Emeryville trips during the AM and PM
peak hours even though sales projections sugged an approximately 61%
figure would be more appropriate. Furthermore, the Emeryville figures were
generated before the recent opening of the East Palo Alto store. As such, they
represent traffic when the Emeryville store was lhe only store in the Bay
Area, and do not reflect traffic that has likely sin:e been redirected to the new
store.
Trip distribution assumptions, shown on Figure ,5 of the traffic analysis
contained in the SDEIR Appendix, indicates hat nearly one half (46%) of the
anticipated patronage of the proposed IKEA faci:ity would originate either in
the South Bay / San Jose area or from the Central Valley. The remaining
visitors would originate either locally, within the Tri-Valley area (14%), or
would travel to and from the north on 1-680 (30%) or would travel to and
from the proposed site from the west using 1-580 (10%). Therefore, a
significant number of anticipated store visitors have been assumed from
either the San Jose Area or the Central Valley.
. Comment 2.2.4: How well does actual trip gene~ation from the Emeryville
IKEA store correlate to trip generation estimates provided during that
project's environmental review?
Response: The City of Dublin does not have the Emeryville environmental
review documents or traffic projections prepared before the store was
approved and opened. However, this informatic.n is not relevant to the
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 8
February 2004
current Project traffic analysis since the analysis is based on actual traffic
figures from the Emeryville store, not from projections.
. Comment 2.2.5: The pass-by trip rates for a stor'~ such as IKEA are likely
negligible. Caltrans does not accept pass-by trip rates in excess of 15%
without prior consultation with the Departmen:. The commenter refers to the
Department's "Guide for the Preparation of Tra'fic Impact Studies" for
review by project sponsors prior to initiating trdfic analyses affecting state
facilities.
Response: The City acknowledges that the referEnced Guide recommends
consultation for pass-by trips over 15%; howevEr the DSEIR discussion
establishes that this figure is not likely to be an accurate reflection of the
expected pass-by occurrences for the Project. The traffic analysis presented in
the DSEIR included an evaluation of pass-by rates for the Project and the
authors of the DSEIR believe that the rates stated in the document are
appropriate. Please see a detailed discussion of this topic under Response
3.2.5. The City's traffic engineer has reviewed both the DSEIR analysis and
traffic report, as well as this comment from Caltrans. Based on the analyses
and in his professional judgment, the pass-by rates in the DSEIR are
appropriate and reflect the different Project peak hours and pass-by
characteristics for weekends and weekdays, as discussed in Response 3.2.5.
Furthermore, the 34% pass-by trip rate used for the project analysis is
consistent with the lIE recommended practice for trip generation as outlined
in ITE Trip Generation Handbook (October 1998). The commenter's pass-by
figure does not appear to reflect either the documented traffic patterns of
other IKEA stores or the most current lIE recommendation. Pursuant to
CEQA, the City's analysis provides a more accurate estimate of the Project's
traffic generation and patterns than the comme:lter's figure, and thus a more
accurate identification of potential impacts and mitigation measures.
. Comment 2.2.6: Project trip distribution should be revised to show the
majority of project trips accessing the project from 1-580.
Response: Figures 7 A and 7B (Proposed Project Trip Assignment) of the traffic
study in Appendix 8.7 (Traffic Impact Analysis) of the DSEIR provide
information regarding project trip assignment. As can be derived from these
Figures, 86% of total project traffic was assigned to access the project via 1-
580, based on the project trip distribution listed on page 61 of the DSEIR,
including 76% of total project traffic using 1-580 and accessing the site via the
Hacienda Drive interchange which is immediately adjacent to the project site.
Based on the above trip assignment percentage~;, the DSEIR did assign the
majority of project trips to 1-580 to access the project site, and no revisions to
the project trip distribution are required or neCEssary. The traffic impact
conclusions and mitigation measures set forth in the DSEIR remain the same.
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 9
February 2004
. Comment 2.2.7: The intersection traffic counts used in the DSEIR do not
reflect traffic conditions with the current ramp metering in place on
eastbound 1-580. Traffic data and intersection analysis should be updated to
reflect ramp-metering conditions.
Response: As indicated on page 57 of the DSEIR, weekday AM and PM turning
movement counts were collected at the study intersections in February 2003,
and the traffic analysis was begun immediately hereafter. At that time, the
target date for implementing ramp metering on l~astbound 1-580 (i.e., at the
Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road/Santa
Rita Road interchanges) was unknown. As a result, it was not possible to
postpone or delay traffic studies indefinitely in the area in anticipation of
ramp metering activation at an undetermined fu':ure date.
Nonetheless, in an effort to recognize the potential for ramp metering effects
without delaying the project indefinitely, the trafJic analysis in the DSEIR did
take into consideration the effects of implementi:1.g ramp metering on
eastbound 1-580 during the weekday PM peak period, based on engineering
judgment and knowledge of the study area. For example, as indicated on
page 64 of the DSEIR, the traffic analysis assigned freeway-bound trips to the
closest proximity interchanges, while overall background traffic was re-
distributed more evenly among the interchanges to simulate anticipated
ramp metering effects on traffic patterns in the s1udy area.
Ramp metering was later activated on June 30, 2003 and traffic patterns in the
area were expected to change gradually over the summer months in reaction
to ramp metering. Under Pre-ramp metering ("before") conditions,
approximately 50% of the trips bound to eastbound 1-580 from the Dublin
side of the freeway used the Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road interchange to
bypass freeway congestion in this direction, as indicated on Exhibit 14 of the
DSEIR. City of Dublin staff conducted Post-ramp metering ("after"
condition) field observations in September and October 2003 and confirmed
that traffic patterns in the study area had changed in a manner consistent
with the trip modeling assumptions that were us~d in the analysis to simulate
the effects of ramp metering. For example, the "clfter" condition traffic flow
on 1-580 appeared to have improved during the PM peak period, and trips
have shifted more evenly among the three interchanges in the study area to
access eastbound 1-580 during this period.
Therefore, ramp-metering conditions were reflected adequately in the
intersection LOS analysis and no updated traffic data or additional analysis is
required. The traffic impact conclusions and mitgation measures set forth in
the DSEIR remain the same.
. Comment 2.2.8: Discuss the downstream effects of LOS F on 1-580; for
example, clarify how certain 1-580 segments will operate at LOS F while other
segments will operate at LOS D and E as shown in Table 4.3.13.
Page 10
February 2004
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Response: The LOS analysis reported on Table 4.2.13 of the DSEIR is based on
the volume-to-capacity ratio for freeway segments in the vicinity of the
project during the PM peak hour under year 2025 traffic conditions. The year
2025 traffic volumes were based on the Tri-Valley Transportation Model
(TVTM). The PM peak hour LOS on 1-580 is pro;ected to be F on the
eastbound segments from 1-680 to Dougherty Road and from Tassajara Road
to Fallon Road in year 2025. The table shows that the intermediate segments
of eastbound 1-580 between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road would
operate at LOS D or E at Buildout with or without the Project. The more
efficient LOS projected for these intermediate segments can be explained as
follows:
(1) The intermediate segments have higher thnughput capacity in the
eastbound direction than the outer segments, as the intermediate
segments consist of 5 to 6 eastbound lanes compared to 4 lanes for the
outer segments.
(2) Eastbound traffic volumes during the PM peak hour are projected to be
lower on the intermediate segments based ,In the TYTM model because
the model predicts that a portion of freewa:r traffic would exit the
freeway at the Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road interchange and use
Dublin Boulevard, Stoneridge Drive and other parallel surface streets as
alternate cut-through routes to bypass freeNay congestion. Some of
this cut-through traffic would re-enter the freeway at the Fallon Road/ EI
Charro Road interchange with the anticipated extensions of Dublin
Boulevard and Stoneridge Drive to Fallon Road.
. Comment 2.2.9: Clarify how the proposed project would cause the V /C ratio
to decrease at some locations.
Response: The Project site is currently designated for Campus Office uses in
the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which uses were assumed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The DSEIR examines how the current proposal to
change the land use designations to General Commercial and develop the
IKEA project would change the traffic analysis and assumptions in the prior
EIR. As explained on page 65 of the DSEIR, the IKEA project would generate
fewer trips during the weekday AM peak hour c.s compared to the existing
Campus Office designation. During the weekday PM peak hour, the IKEA
project and the existing Campus Office designation would generate similar
levels of traffic; however, the trip distribution and assignment characteristics
differ due to differences in land uses. As a result, the IKEA project would
have mixed incremental impacts during the PM peak hour by increasing the
V / C ratio at some locations and decreasing this ratio at other locations.
For example, as explained on page 61 of the DSEIR, the regional trip
distribution for the proposed project was derived from primary trade areas
established by IKEA Property, Inc. and consistec of 75% of the trips accessing
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 11
February 2004
the project site from the west (via 1-580 and 1-680), 11% accessing the site
from the east (via 1-580), and 14% of the trips ori~~nating within the Tri-Valley
area using surface streets. In contrast, the trip distribution for office trips
based on previous traffic studies conducted for office developments in the
area, such as Commerce One, Transit Center and Sybase, indicates that 33%
of the trips would access the office site from the west (via 1-580 and 1-680),
25% would access the site from the east (via I-58e), and 42% of the trips would
use surface streets within the Tri-Valley area. As a result of these differences
in trip distribution characteristics, the percentagE assignments of total project
trips to individual routes and intersection movements in the study area differ
between the existing Campus Office designation and the proposed IKEA
project.
. Comment 2.2.10: Ten designs are presently being considered by Caltrans for
the widening of 1-580, one of which (variation 2.2) would impact
approximately 2,772 square meters of the Project property to increase the
future right-of-way of the 1-580 freeway.
Response: The City acknowledges the comments and supports the
construction of additional capacity for 1-580, however neither the City nor the
Project applicant has any control over the ultimate right of way design
adopted by Caltrans for the 1-580 HOV lane. Moreover, as noted by the
commentator, only one of the 10 design alternatives would effect the
property and that is the "worse-case" right of wa y scenario.
In the event that Caltrans determines that it needs to condemn any portion of
the Project property, it will have the legal authority to do so and will be
required to proceed in the manner proscribed by law.
. Comment 2.2.11: Work that encroaches on the ROW requires an
encroachment permit from Caltrans. Traffic-related mitigation measures will
be incorporated into the construction plans during the permit process.
Response: Comment regarding the need for encroachment permits for work
in the ROW is acknowledged. If and when an encroachment permit is needed,
the Project applicant will submit an application for this permit.
Letter 3.1: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
. Comment 3.1.1: DSRSD operates a fluoridation facility at the southwest
corner of the site.
Response: Comment acknowledged. This is a statement of fact, not a
comment on an environmental topic, therefore no further response is
necessary.
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 12
February 2004
. Comment 3.1.2: The aerial photograph (Exhibit 4) has Dublin Boulevard
labeled as Martinelli Way.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Exhibit 4 is:lereby corrected by
reference to note that the east-west roadway on the north side of the site is
named Martinelli Way. Dublin Boulevard is loca:ed to the north of Martinelli
Way.
Letter 3.2: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
. Comment 3.2.1: In the first sentence on page 67 the reference to ACCMA
standards for the LOS monitoring program shodd be deleted. The
monitoring standards are used by the ACCMA for existing conditions. The
ACCMA does not have a policy for determining a threshold of significance.
Professional judgment should be applied to determine the significance of
project impacts.
Response: It is acknowledged that ACCMA does not have a policy for
determining a threshold of significance. However, the ACCMA standards,
established for the purpose of monitoring existing LOS conditions are also
appropriate for assessing the project's potentiallraffic impacts, and are used
in this EIR as standards of significance based on the City of Dublin's
professional judgment.
. Comment 3.2.2: Table 4.3.10, on page 68, the trip generation estimate for the
previous campus office project was deducted from the proposed IKEA center
trip generation. This could be done only if the P'~ak hours for the uses were
the same. Page 57 of the DSEIR notes that the peak hours for the IKEA
Project were determined to be 7:30-8:30 am and 5:00 -6:00 pm. Please confirm
whether the campus office project also used the same peak hours for
determining trip generation.
Response: It appears that the cornmenter misinterpreted the above AM and
PM peak hours as being the peak hours for the ]KEA project. Intersection
turning movement counts were collected in the :;tudy area during the AM
and PM peak periods. The peak hours of 7:30 to 8:30 AM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM
represent the highest traffic volume hours during the peak period traffic
counts, as explained on pages 56 and 57 of the DSEIR under the section
entitled "Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations", including the
explanation offered in the 2nd paragraph on page 57.
For the purpose of analyzing Project traffic impacts, it is common practice to
use the weekday AM and PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic,
determined by the intersection turning movemEnt counts, as the appropriate
hours for peak hour trip generation from the pr'Jposed Project. As such, it
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 13
February 2004
was assumed that the peak hour trip generation for the IKEA and Campus
Office projects would occur during the peak hours of 7:30 to 8:30 AM and 5:00
to 6:00 PM, which represents the worst-case scenario for analysis of project
traffic impacts on adjacent streets.
. Comment 3.2.3: Page 76, Table 4.3.8, PM Peak Hour Conditions, is missing.
Response: This table is included in the Final EIR in Appendix A. However, the
same information contained in Table 4.3.8 is also available in Table 8B of the
traffic study listed in Appendix 8.7 (Traffic Impact Analysis) of the DSEIR
which was circulated for a 45-day period.
. Comment 3.2.4: Pages 78-79, Tables 4.3.12 and 4.:3.13, Year 2025 Mainline
Freeway Operations, show that freeway capacity used in the DSEIR was 2300
pc/h/ln. The 2001 CMP uses the Highway capacty manual standard of 2000
pc/h/ln. These tables should therefore be revised using the HCM standards
as required by the CMP.
Response: The 2,300 pc/h/ln freeway capacity used in the DSEIR is based on
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 standards for basic freeway
segments. According to HCM 2000, Chapter 23, Exhibit 23-2 (LOS Criteria for
Basic Freeway Segments), the maximum service flow rate for freeways
ranges from 2,250 to 2,400 pc/h/ln, depending on the estimated free flow
speed. Based on the physical characteristics of the 1-580 and 1-680 freeway
segments that were analyzed in the DSEIR, the free flow speed for these
freeway segments was estimated at 60 mph. Acc:>rding to HCM 2000, the
maximum service flow rate corresponding to thi:; free flow speed is 2,300
pc/h/ln.
The City of Dublin respects ACCMA's decision to use HCM 1985 standards
for the 2001 CMP. However, the HCM has undergone periodic updates since
1985 based on new research studies and updated traffic analysis
methodologies. In the recent EIRs for the Dublin Transit Center and East
Dublin Property Owners (ED PO) developments, a freeway capacity of 2,300
pc/h/ln was used for the above freeway segments and was accepted by
Caltrans. Moreover, in order to be consistent wil:h previous EIR studies in
Dublin, The DSEIR used the same capacity of 2,300 pc/h/ln based on the
latest, nationally accepted HCM standards for 1: asic freeway segment
analysis.
. Therefore, no additional analysis is required and the traffic impact conclusions
and mitigation measures set forth in the DSEIR remain the same.
. Comment 3.2.5: Table 6 in Appendix 8.7 assume~; the same percentage of
pass-by traffic for both the IKEA center and the ~hopping center. Since the
IKEA store is generally more of a trip generatior. than the shopping center,
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 14
February 2004
the percentage of pass-by trips appears to be high. Please provide supporting
documentation for the pass-by trips. Also, please compare trip generation
estimations including pass-by traffic assumption:; used in the traffic analysis
for the IKEA facility in Emeryville along with thE~ actual traffic counts
collected from the Emeryville IKEA.
Response: Trip generation assumptions for the IKEA store, shopping center
and restaurant are discussed in detail in the "Trip Generation" section on
pages 20 and 21 of the traffic study listed in Appendix 8.7 (Traffic Impact
Analysis) of the DSEIR. Trip generation and pas~,-by trip assumptions are also
explained on Tables 5 and 6 of the traffic study.
The commenter's assertion that the IKEA store i, more of a primary trip
destination than the shopping center is only trUE' during weekends. For
example, the pass-by trip percentage for the IKEA store on Saturday was
assumed to be zero, compared to 26% for the shopping center, as shown on
Table 6 of the traffic study in Appendix 8.7 of the DSEIR. However, during
the weekday PM peak hour, the IKEA store pas~:-by trip percentage is
expected to be comparable to that for the shopp:ng center [i.e., about 34%
based on lIE Trip Generation Handbook (October 1998) and knowledge of the
Project area]. This is due to their combined locaton and the close proximity of
the Project site to both Dublin Boulevard and I-5~0, which carry significant
volumes of local and regional pass-through traffIC during the PM peak
commute period. The IKEA store and the shopping center are expected to
attract an equal percentage of about 34% pass-by trips from Dublin
Boulevard and 1-580 during this period. Some of these trips could be attracted
simultaneously to both the IKEA store and the shopping center due to their
combined location.
The City also notes that the DSEIR analysis took a conservative approach to
estimating trip generation for the IKEA store. For example, during the PM
peak hour, it was assumed that IKEA Dublin would generate 75% of actual
trips generated by lKEA Emeryville, even though IKEA Dublin is expected to
generate about 61% of the sales at IKEA EmeryvilIe. Moreover, the actual trip
counts for IKEA EmeryvilIe were collected when this store was the only IKEA
store in the Bay area. IKEA Emeryville sales and trip generation are expected
to drop with the recent opening of IKEA East Palo Alto and the possible
opening of IKEA Dublin in the near future. The :onservative trip generation
assumptions used in the DSEIR were developed for the purpose of analyzing
the "worst-case scenario" traffic impacts on the adjacent roadway system
from the IKEA store.
In sum, trip generation estimates for the IKEA s:ore were calculated based on
extensive empirical data, knowledge of the ProjEd area, application of
professional judgment, and use of conservative assumptions. As such, no
additional analysis of trip generation estimates for the Emeryville IKEA store
is required or necessary. Pass-by and destination assumptions in the analyses
reflect the different traffic patterns for weekend and PM weekday traffic.
Page 15
February 2004
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
. Comment 3.2.6: Please discuss the potential impacts of the Project on CMP
transit levels of service. Transit service standards are 15-30 minute headways
for bus service and 3.75-15 minutes for BART duJing peak hours. The analysis
should discuss funding of transit as a mitigation in the context of CMA
policies discussed above.
Response: Information provided by BART official:; indicates that the AM peak
load factor at the Eastern Dublin/Pleasanton BART station was 1.25 as of rnid-
December 2003 (source: personal communication, Janice Lee, BART, 1/9/04),
which is consistent with BART standards for acceptable operations. This load
factor allows each rider a seat with room for standees. The maximum load
factor is considered 1.35 during peak hour periods. The anticipated peak hour
use of BART by IKEA patrons is considered very low, since the great majority
of BART patrons purchase furniture and other large items, which are not
transportable on BART. Therefore, impacts to th(, BART are considered less-
than-significant.
In regard to Bus service, local and Tri-valley bus service is provided by
WHEELS. According to the WHEELS staff, the IKEA site is served by Route
12, a trunk line that provides service from the Ea,tern Dublin/ Pleasanton
BART station to Livermore, north and south of the 1-580 freeway, the ACE
station and returns to the BART station. Ridership on Route 12 is considered
"moderate" by WHEELS staff (source: Cyrus Sheik, route planner 1/7/04).
The Project site is also served by Route 1, a local route, that provides bus
service from the Eastern Dublin/Pleasanton BAFT station, the Alameda
County East County Government Center, Rose Pavilion in Pleasanton and
back to the BART station. According to WHEELS staff, ridership on Route 1 is
considered "low." Overall, given the moderate to low ridership, approval and
implementation of the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant
impact on the WHEELS bus system.
The City of Dublin has conditioned the proposec Project to provide a bus
stop on Martinelli Way, so future bus ridership to the IKEA center could be
facilitated.
. Comment 3.2.7: The Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, which appears to be
approximately one-quarter mile from the Project site is the site of the Dublin
Transit Center and has been the recipient of funding for a parking structure
to support a transit village. The Alameda County CMA is developing a policy
to encourage transit-oriented development. How will the design and location
of the IKEA facility, other supporting retail and parking encourage transit
and pedestrian use in the Project area?
Response: Although the proposed Project may nct be viewed as a transit-
oriented type Project, the City of Dublin complies with the proposed CMA
policy of encouraging transit oriented develop)nent through the approval of
the Dublin Transit Center in late 2002, which includes up to 1500 high density
Page 16
February 2004
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
housing units, 2.0 million square feet of office space and 70,000 square feet of
retail commercial in immediate proximity to BART and transit hub facilities.
The Dublin Transit Center also includes a multi-:;tory parking garage to
accommodate BART users and Transit Center users.
The City of Dublin also adopted the Western Dublin BART Specific Plan to
encourage a mix of high-density housing, office, retail, lodging and other
pedestrian-oriented uses adjacent to this planned BART station. This Specific
Plan would comply with the proposed CMA policy as well.
. Comment 3.2.8: The environmental document should provide information
on how the mitigation measures on the MTS wit be funded. Regarding
Supplemental Impact TRA-3, mitigation meaSUrES identified in the DSEIR
regarding funding of regional freeway improvements should be
incorporated in the summary on page 1-3.
Response: Supplemental Mitigation SM- TRA-2 is:he only traffic mitigation
measure identified in the DSEIR. This mitigatior measure involves installing
geometric improvements on the southbound ap::Jroach of the Dublin
Boulevard/ Arnold Road intersection (Dublin BOJ.levard is on the MTS).
Project developers are required to contribute their proportionate share
toward funding this improvement.
Pages 64 and 65 of the DSEIR provide information regarding the funding of
future roadway improvements planned within the study area.
As requested by the commenter, the text in the Mitigation Measure column
corresponding to Supplemental Impact TRA-3 on page 1-3 of the DSEIR is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"Full mitigation not feasible. Project will be required to pay for its
proportionate share of impacts to 1-580 and 1-680, by payment of Tri-Valley
Transportation Development (TYTD) Fees to construct planned freeway
improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary limes, and interchange
improvements. The Project will be required to pay its proportionate share
toward public transportation improvements to help reduce traffic on the
freeways and other roadways in the Tri-Valley area, by payment of the
TVTD Fee to fund the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Project."
Letter 3.3: Zone 7 Alameda County Flood Control and. Water Conservation
District (Zone 7)
. Comment 3.3.1: Zone 7 has no comments on the DSEIR at this time,
although Zone 7 believes that earlier comments submitted to the City of
Dublin responding to the Notice of Preparation needs to be addressed.
Page 17
February 2004
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Response: Comment acknowledged that Zone 7 has no comments on the
environmental document. Please see responses to) other NOP comments
below.
. Comment 3.3.2: The Initial Study notes that disturbance of land of at least 5
acres are required to submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB). As of March 10, 2003 the threshold of size has been
reduced to one acre.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Since the proposed Project would disturb
approximately 27 acres of land, a Notice of Intent will be required to be filed
with the SWRCB.
. Comment 3.3.3: Mitigation for the creation of new impervious surfaces
would be provided through the collection of Special Drainage Area 7-1
drainage fees. Fees are collected by Zone 7 for new buildings, paving and
other impervious surfaces.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Payment of irainage fees have been
made a condition of Project approval by the City of Dublin.
. Comment 3.3.4: The Project Description for the proposed Project does not
address potential salt loading impacts on Zone 7' s main groundwater basin.
All applied water in the basin, except for rainwater, contributes to salt loading
in the groundwater basin and use of recycled water requires mitigation for
this impact. Zone 7 recommends implementation of the Groundwater
Demineralization Project to minimize salt loading impacts. City support of
the Groundwater Demineralization Project is requested.
Response: Salt loading in the main basin is a regio:lal issue that is being
addressed by both DERW A (for recycled water in Dublin and San Ramon)
and by Zone 7 (for South Bay Aqueduct water being imported for irrigation
in Livermore, Dublin and Pleasanton). DERW A is working in cooperation
with Alameda County Water District (ACWD) to reduce salt loading in
ACWD basins in Fremont.
The City of Dublin supports the actions of Zone? to address salt loading
impacts on the main groundwater basin.
. Comment 3.3.5: Zone 7 requests that an existing 16-inch water line be shown
on Project plans as a Zone 7 water line. Two othE'r details are shown on
Project plans that may be in error, including a manhole and branch pipeline
which are not shown on Zone 7 facility maps and a proposed direct
connection between IKEA water lines and the 16..inch Zone 7 water line.
Page 18
February 2004
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Direct connections with Zone 7 facilities for new development Projects are
not permitted.
Response: Identified engineering design and dralting errors have been
referred to the City of Dublin Engineering Department and to the
developer's civil engineer to be corrected prior to approval of the
infrastructure plans by the City of Dublin.
. Comment 3.3.6: Zone 7 requests that water valves and other appurtenances
located within the limits of construction must be clearly located prior to
construction. An encroachment permit must be :lbtained when working near
Zone 7 facilities.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Although tHs is not an environmental
comment, the need to identify Zone 7 facilities on all construction plans and
the requirement to obtain an encroachment pennit has been communicated
to the Project developer for implementation.
. Comment 3.3.7:Zone 7 records indicate that no water wells or monitoring
wells are located on the Project site. If these are found, they should be
reported to Zone 7. Future wells or soil borings are only allowed with
permits issued by Zone 7.
Response: Comment acknowledged. The City of Dublin or project
contractor(s) will report any water wells to ZOnE' 7 staff and will obtain
permits for new wells or soil borings.
. Comment 3.3.8: Developments that increase impervious surfaces are subject
to special drainage fees, which are collected by the governing agency. There
are no Zone 7 flood control facilities on the Project site.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Zone 7 will be collected by the City of
Dublin from the project developer as a condition of project approval and
forwarded to Zone 7.
Letter 3.4: City of Livermore
. Comment: The DSEIR acknowledges significant and unavoidable impacts on
regional roads, including 1-580. The Eastern Dub.in EIR includes traffic and
transportation mitigation measures to partially mitigate such impacts. The
City of Livermore requests that the City of Dublin require a ramp metering
system on the westbound 1-580 ramp at Hacienda. Ramp metering systems
are also encouraged for all other 1-580 ramps wi:hin Dublin.
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 19
February 2004
Response: The issue of implementing ramp meteJ'ing at all freeway
interchanges along the 1-580 corridor within the Tri-Valley area is a regional
issue that requires a cooperative effort among tr.e cities of Dublin, Livermore
and Pleasanton to manage traffic flow in this corridor more efficiently and
equitably. These three cities, as well as other outlying jurisdictions to the east,
including San Joaquin County communities, all ~hare the responsibility of
contributing trips to 1-580.
In Year 2025, traffic flow on westbound 1-580 is projected to operate at level
of service E or F from Hacienda Drive to 1-680 during the AM and PM peak
hours, as shown on Tables 4.3.12 and 4.3.13 of the DSEIR. Based on recent
field observations, traffic backups on westbounc 1-580 tend to occur during
the peak hours from Hacienda Drive to the 1-680 interchange primarily
because of the bottleneck created by the weaving segment between
Dougherty Road and 1-680, whereby mainline traffic is forced to slow down
considerably due to a conflict between vehicles diverging from mainline to
reach the connector ramps to 1-680 and vehicles merging the opposite way to
join the mainline freeway after entering westbound 1-580 from Dougherty
Road/Hopyard Road.
It may seem logical to meter the Hacienda DriVE westbound on-ramps at this
time to help reduce traffic congestion on westbound 1-580. However, if the
City of Dublin did implement ramp metering at a single location such as
Hacienda Drive, a portion of the traffic that would otherwise use this
interchange to access the freeway would now snift to downtown Dublin to
access the freeway via the Dougherty Road and San Ramon Road
interchanges in order to avoid traffic backups caused by the meters at the
Hacienda Drive interchange. This, in turn, would result in unacceptable
increases in traffic volumes at downtown interSEctions, which are highly
congested during the commute peak periods. Moreover, by shifting trips to
the Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road westbound on-ramps, the severity of
the (bottleneck) weaving segment, described above, would likely intensify
and overall traffic conditions on westbound I-58) could worsen during the
peak periods.
Caltrans and the cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton should work
cooperatively on a ramp metering plan for the 1.580 corridor that can be
implemented in all three cities, while allowing any negative impacts from
ramp metering on the adjoining surface streets and intersections to be
distributed equitably among all three cities. The plan should ensure that
vehicle queues and delays from metered ramps do not impose a
disproportionate or excessive burden on any pa~ticular community or group
of trip-makers.
Based on the above, ramp metering of westbound 1-580 on-ramps at a single
location such as Hacienda Drive (i.e., without cO:lsideration to
implementation of a multi-jurisdictional, corride,r-wide ramp metering
approach) could have adverse impacts on traffic conditions in downtown
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 20
February 2004
Dublin and on the freeway, and is not required as a mitigation measure of the
proposed project.
Letter 4.1: Michael Durkee (Allen Matkins Leek Gamble & Mallory)
. Comment: Comments are provided in the letter regarding a comparison of
the proposed IKEA Project with the previous Commerce One project on the
same site, that the proposed IKEA Project wouk not result in a significant
traffic increase over the Commerce One project and that the proposed lKEA
Project assists in implementing the City's vision for fiscal health and
development of the area as reflected in the Eastern Dublin General Plan,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and similar documents.
Response: Comments acknowledged. The comm~nter provides opinions
regarding the merits of the proposed Project and not environmental issues.
No further response is therefore required.
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Page 21
February 2004
IKEA Final EIR PA 02-034
City of Dublin
Appendix A
Table 4.3.8
Page 22
February 2004
,~
.. !l
"0 "_
e .e-
El e";:
e ~
e 0
..
co::
en
o
..J
""
=
o
:I:
..:.:
<ll
Q)
i:l..
~
i:l..
'" tIl
..=i~ 0
i:l.o e.. ....l
-..-
=u !."
9 <'';:
"O\OJ'- -
:;::v2: '"
=...- \OJ
l'Q- 0
2:
....~
u
Q)
'0
""
i:l..
Q)
=
o
Q)
u
""
Q)
E
E
o
U
't:l
=
<ll
....
u
Q)
'0
""
i:l..
..c::
....
.....
~
en
o
..J
....
=
o
't:l
-
'S
l:Q
ct5
<"i
..,,;
Q)
:c
<ll
E-<
"" e
~ 0
= -.:::
"u =
U_.I>
<>",S
\OJ C
~ (3
'"
..=t
i:l.o'C
Igu
I' <
:=!\OJ
'S::':
l'Q-
'" ~
=.-
-.....
i:l.o.....
_0
=",
9=
"00..
:;::e
=..
l'Qu
'"
e
,~
v
I~
I]
I
I
(588 g
000 d
,
tIl
o
....l
u Cl Cl \OJ
'"
\OJ
o
2:
o C"I 00 t--.
0000000-.
ci ci ci d
tIl
o
....l
Cl Cl Cl \OJ
'"
\OJ
o
2:
....... N 00 t--.
00 00 00 0-.
ci 0 ci d
"0
'"
o
C>:
'"
""
'"
'ro
'"
'"
'"
r-
-
o..l "0
o ~
f:: ~
z :;
o 0
u co
o..l .5
~ :g
~ Cl
V) ~ N
"0 "0
'" '"
o 0
C>: co::
e '"
.~ ~
'"
'"
'"
...
'--
0..
E
'"
.z
'0
"0
C
::l
o
-B
'"
(])
~
o
00
~
OJ
>
t"O 'c
1: Cl
'" '"
Cfl "0
- C
0.. OJ
E '0
'" '"
J: ~
'0 "0
"0 ~
C >
::l (])
o :;
-B 0
'" co
~ .5
~ :n
~ 8
M ..qi
c
",g~
...-
bI).....
'.c '..0
.- e
e ..
"0
0'-
Z
(5 881:; ;
ci 0 d d d
I + + I
Cl < co co \OJ
0\ 0 0 N =>
00 1J") r-.... \0 =>
o c5 ci ci ~
Cl < co <( ~
o 0 Lr) Ll) ~
0\ I.!) \0 U") =>
ci 0 !O 0 ~
i
I
~ I ~
8 !.;:::
!o ~
~ i~ ~
(]) (]) I C ~
~ ~ I'~ ~ ]
'" _IX .5 -
0.. -... ro: .....
1!Eg.E'O
(]) "" t:; <( C
'0 .z I ~ ~ ~
:to~~:O
~ I -... J,...,
C l-g ~ g:
::l::l 3: (])
~ I] :;
"1:i ~ it) ~ c8
:E :: i m .:: .::
~ ?35 :~ 1:: :0
2: ~ '~ :* 8
u-:i ...0 t--.: oci a\
-
>,
'"
3:
..
"Oc
e ..
=-
oe
.1>""
..c=
--
=..!.
o..c
tIl]
""
Ci
'"
'"
=
'" '"
o 0
c3 d
, +
~ ~
.- N
o =>
c3 d
< u Cl u < \OJ
0\ ....... ~ r-.... tr) tI')
~ r-.... 00 r-.... I.!) O"l
ci ci ci 0 ci d
<( co Cl u <( \OJ
N 0\ Lt) CJ'I \0 It)
d 6 ~ ~ d ci
"0
'"
o
co::
"0
'0
C
~
-
.-
""
>,
'"
~
(])
>
.;:::
"0
...
o
C
] '5
... <(
'" ~
2: i::':
"0
'"
o
co::
"0
'0
C
~
-
>,
'"
3:
>,
'"
~
~
...
'" (])
i:l.o >
Q.J 'j:
~ Cl
o _
X OJ
C ;::
~ B
-.:?
"0 "0
... ...
'" '"
> >
(]) (])
:; :;
o c
co i:O
.:: .S ~
:c :c "'C
=' :J e
Cl Cl (j)
"0
'"
o
co::
>,
t::
(])
..c
bI)
::l
o
Cl
-
(])
>
.;:::
Cl
g ~ ~ ;! ~ ~
c
o
..t:~
...-
bI).....
'.c '':::
.- e
SOl
"0
0'-
Z
"0
'"
o
co::
~
...
OJ
..c
bO
::l
o
Cl
-
"0
...
'"
>
(])
:;
o
co
.5
:E
::l
Ci
I
8 8
o 0
<( co
'" a-
U') '"
ci ci
<( co
'" a-
U') '"
o 0
"0
'"
a
"0
ii3
>,
0..
o
X
_o..l
0..0
~ f::
.! ~
~ 0
~ u
,:: Q"
gO""
.<:> f-< 0
t) tn t::
ill >- '5
~ ~ ~
..!. ~ :=:
t--.: oci o.J N
~ ....... 'l:( .......
"0
'"
o
C>:
~
...
1
bO
::l
o
Cl
-
0..
E
'"
""
""
'0
co
3:
o
00
~
...
.e
Ol
u
:c
Ol
>
Q;
0.
'"
"0
C
o
C,)
Ol
'"
."
l\i
.>2
c
'5
~
.e
Ol
c
'5
(;
C,)
C,)
01
c
o
~
1::
o
0.
'"
c
01
~
~
c
~
~
'(3
l'tl
g-
o
""'
~
.c::
.Ql
J::
Ol
.s
.9
Ol
c
'5
(;
C,)
C,)
01
C
o
ti
Ol
'"
Q;
.5
-0
C
8
~
c:
.Q
U
Ol
'"
Q;
.5
Ol
.s
o
~
aJ
o
is..
0.
01
~
C,)
01
Ql
Q
'"
'E
Ol
E
Ql
>
o
E Qj'
ca C3
~ ~
o?:, '5 >
. _ ~ Ci;
,2 .e Co
Ca ~ (J) en
c '(3 0 "C
Ql 01 C
U c.. .~ 0
tn <tI - U
~ 6 Q> !
rn .~ >.
C,)~Ql 01
'-enE 0_
-g0.2 E ~
.-....J 0 ~
Q)~> (J) e
-;50Q) C "E
owCi; 0 0
-(/)"O "C U
'ti5OQ) ~ Q)
'x ..J 5 jg g>
~TiSar Q) Q)
0Q)~.~ ~
~~(i) ID ~
QlOlUJ '" 0
o 0.0 _ "0 C?
-OO::!: 0 Ol 0
1::0- - en 0
O-tn<liQ).ro C\J
+::'OtnC[;F:".c (;)
UQ)Q)O-(J)CI.l ':;:,
~ t5 c+:: C(J)'-O='
~ Q) Q) 0 0 .,.... (J) 0 ~'
Ql c..;:: ~ ~ .0 0 <(
'Ext5~U<(-lC\J _
-Q)WQ)Q)I-c: ~(f)
,(f)::::c~()o"E""
~ I::W,-~();: <tI ~
~.Q-'O I::-~ OQ..
U t5 0 (1)'- U) (f)OO
:= Q) tn,~"C ~ .....cclj
a.~~(ij~::)$o""
a.Q)=:Jc:="O~m~
<<S-tnC)<tIQ)'-
-.E <tI'- I:: 0 ~~u..
..!t I ~ ~.!2'e.9 Ol Qi
~,'O"::::;:::I(/)a..Cf.)a:~
o~"6 . 5
ZclD~ N en
.-
Ol
Cl
01
Q;
>
01
"0
c
01
'"
c
o
'U
Ol
'"
Q;
.5
+
co
"0
Q)
.~
(ij
c
Ol
'(ij
Ol
.s
Q
N
-
Q
~
~
co
.-
.-
"0
'"
o
co::
"0
g
~
-
'"
""
>,
'"
~
'"
>
.;:::
"0