The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-034 SafewaySDR&CUP02-27-2001AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 27, 2001 SUBJECT: PA 00-034 Safeway Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit Prepared by Andy Byde, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project plans 2. Resolution transferring original heating jurisdiction to the- City Council 3. Draf[ Mitigated Negative Declazation, Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring program RECOMMENDATON: 1. Open public hearing and heaz Staff presentation. 2. Take testimony from the Applicant and the public. 3. Question Staff, Applicant and the public. 4. Close public hearing and deliberate. 5 Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of redeveloping the existing Shamrock Ford with a new 55,256 square foot grocery store, 10,743 square foot of retail, and an 18-pump fueling station with a 314 squaze foot kiosk. The proposed grocery store and fuel station would be open 24hours/7 days a week and would be staffed by a maximum of 100 employees during a normal shift. 266 surface parking spaces are proposed on the property, 226 pazking spaces aze required. BACKGROUND: The project site is located at the north east corner of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza. Currently the site is occupied by the Shamrock Ford service facility. The new and used car sales portion of the Shamrock Ford business relocated from this site to the former "AutoNation" site approximately one-year ago. The existing buildings on site were used for sales and service of new and used automobiles and total 32,949 square feet. The project site area is located within the Downtown Specific Plan area, adopted by the City Council in December of 2000. Planning Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission refer its hearing jurisdiction to the City Council, pursuant to Section 8.96.020.C.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The City Council indicated its concern about the design and vitality of development in the Downtown area of Dublin during its discussion of the proposed Downtown Specific Plan. The City Council has requested that they have approval authority over this project. Section 8.96.020.C.3, Referral to City Council, states that "At any point in the project review process the Planning Commission may transfer original hearing jurisdiction to the City Council at its discretion because of policy implications, unique or unusual circumstances, or the Copies To: Applicant Owner In-house Distribution Item No. magnitude of the project." Staff requests that the Planning Commission transfer original hearing jurisdiction on this project to the City Council due to City Council concerns about the magnitude of this project and its importance to the overall development of the Downtown area of the City of Dublin. ANALYSIS: Consistency with the Downtown Core Specific Plan, General Plan and Zoning The project lies within the Downtown Core Specific Plan azea with aRetail/Office designation. Retail/Office uses include a range of general retail uses, as well as professional, business, corporate, medical and dental buildings. Additionally, the site was designated as an "opportunity site," due to the fact that the known tenant (Shamrock Ford) was slated to vacate the property. The Specific Plan anticipated that opportunity sites could play a critical role in the transition of the area into a vital business/retail and pedestrian oriented urban place. The Specific Plan, designated the Retail/Office designation with a 79% floor area ratio (F.A.R.), the proposed project would consist of 28.8% F.A.R., and therefore would be consistent with the maximum allowable F.A.R.. Staff has reviewed the project and recommends that the Planning Commission find the project compatible with the Specific Plan, General Plan and the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance. Parking As stated above, the proposed project would provide 266 on-site parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires 1 pazking space per 300 square feet of gross area of retail space and requires 5 pazking spaces for a fuel service station (66,314/ 300=221+5=226), the project would be in excess of the requirements by 40 spaces or 15%. Circulation The proposed project will have two entrances along Dublin Boulevazd. The easterly most entrance along Dublin Blvd. is intended to provide access for large truck deliveries to the rear of the grocery store. A planter island extends north, in-front of the fuel station, which is intended to discourage vehicles from using this entrance to access the fuel station. The center entrance along Dublin Blvd. is designed to be the main entrance to the grocery store. This entrance will provide an attractively landscaped entry with enhanced pavement treatment and colored sidewalks in front on the proposed grocery store and retail space. Immediately south of the vehicle entrance is an enhanced pedestrian access, which includes a small plaza area as well as a location for a public art piece. Circulation: Fuel Center The intended circulation pattern for the fuel center is essentially in a clock-wise rotation. Vehicles will arrive at the center entrance point and be guided either, north to the grocery store, or east to the fuel center (appropriate striping patterns will be reviewed by the Department of Public Works) and exiting Dublin Boulevard. The center entrance along Dublin Blvd. contains aright-turn pocket which will allow vehicles to pull out of the travel lane and slow appropriately for access in to the shopping center. Additionally, in the unlikely event that vehicles back up beyond the entrance, the turn-pocket would provide vehicle storage area, outside of the travel lane. G:\PA#\2000\00-034\Planning Commission Staff Report 2-27.doc 2 Landscaping The preliminary landscape plan shows new street trees along Dublin Blvd. and Amador Plaza Rd., additionally it shows planter islands and tree wells throughout the pazking field. Just, south of the center entrance along Dublin Blvd, a heavily landscaped "plaza area" is shown along with an enhanced pedestrian connection to the front of the grocery store. Vazious planter pots will be used in front of the retail shops area. Design The proposed project is designed with two sets of towers along the grocery store frontage and a hierarchy of towers along the retail frontage. The design intent is more formal and traditional type of azchitecture, with an identifiable base, body, and cap. The retail buildings are articulated in such a way to give the appeazance of separate buildings and to provide a rhythm. The buildings have been designed with a variety of elements to create visual interest including metal awnings, columns, aluminum grid windows, the accents, and stone. Columns and towers aze provided on both the west and the south elevation been utilized over the grocery store to provide a design relationship to either side of the building. The proposed building colors consist of complementary rich earth tone colors which highlight the buildings undulation. The major tower elements of the building will be 42 feet tall and the pazapet of the main building will be 29 feet tall. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declazation has been prepared for the project, which focuses on land use compatibility, hazazds, aesthetics, and traffic in addition to all potential environmental factors normally considered in an Initial Study. A number of mitigation measures have been included within the document to ensure that identified environmental impacts can be reduced to levels of insignificance. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been circulated for public review. A copy of the Initial Study, on which the Mitigated Negative Declaration is based, is included as Attachment 3. Conclusion The proposed project is consistent with the Downtown Specific Core Plan, the General Plan and the C-2 zoning district. Parking for the project is consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements. The building is well designed and will be an attractive addition to the Dublin. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission take testimony from the Applicant and the public; question Staff, Applicant and the public; \;lose the public heazing and deliberate and: 1. Adopt a resolution referring the Planning Commission hearing jurisdiction to the City Council (Attachment 2) G:\PA#\2000\00-034\Planning Commission Staff Report 2-2Zdoc 3 GENERAL INFORMATION: Property Owner: Harry Brumley Autonation 110 S. E. 6'h Street, 17'h Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Applicant: Location: Existing Zoning: Brandon Farrell Safeway Inc. 5918 Stoneridge Mall Rd. Pleasanton, CA 94588 7499 Dublin Blvd. C-2 General Commercial General Plan Designation: Retail/Office .79 Maximum F.A.R. G:\PA#\2000\00-034\Planning Commission Staff Report 2-27.doc ~iuw .~Nw uw-rv aa~a n~a~u •uea au 3tlla~3lllgbV 3dIJ54NV1 ~NLlY~b115 ONItl33NYJN3 9NINNtl1G V~N21~j~1V~ ~.1N~~~ Va3WVlV N~19f14 8G5G-~0 ~ro mw roan fd~ m~oao ayes-cas-sxe xrd szzs-ne-s[s Otl0?J VZVId NOOVWV 1589 ' nw iMVlp va 'atltlaa inNtra 'asi ~In: 'aa •3nrn opvNw, oos ~ AVM3~V'S m 1~ otld ,o "' m1D~0 ~ ' D U I ` S a D I ~ O S S D ~ ~ `~ } N`d~d ~db~SdNV~ G-1 NNNdGLEiO „~e .a .,a ~ = i ,~ qq ~ 4 G ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 9 ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ Q y ~~ ~~~ a ~~~ ® ~ ti RqN, LG (~ ap_~2 C$ 89 F J `~ z U ~ 8 • ~ ~ viNaodnvn 'Nneno s !!! avoa vzv~d aoovwv x ~ame Nnena ~+~ ~ ~~.~ ~S61~ 3~OlS J~dM~~b'S U(~ ~~._ G~~ a ~ ~R» ~ ice'. ___~` ~- o -- -_ -- -- ~ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ ~n ~n _ _ I _ _ _ _ r_ _ ___ r _ _ _ _ __ _ ~ _ ~ry O~ 'Bo m .~ ~ - '_ N _ --- - _ a ' - _ _ ___ _- I ~~- _ _- ` -_ -- i _ . - __ __ _ __ o ~.r ~_€~ _ __ ~ ~, bB'I[Y ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ _ J I _ a ~~ _ o i o _ _ ~ o i §1 - ~~er-- ® ~ ---- ~' II «I !~ O O ~\ I I I of \ O~ 1 ~I w~ I ~I ~~ I p Q ® p ~} u ® o I I / ® JO p / jti 4 ~? ' ~ h p ~ _ O ~ ~ ~_ b©~nw T-_ ~~ ~~ J~ w r u dzz H d 9 Y 0 N ¢ u 0 1 P sa~evNanlaa ~ ,87 N J P N000 ~w Q N ~ o J Z 2 a N 3~ W° N N Q N Z„ a ,~ w~ ~< ~~ I ~ ~ ' ~ a ~ 3 k ~ F ~ ~ ~ i i V ~ sz s~ ~ s3 ~ M i J LL /U / e Q v' w f n / + W~ o ~o j P II a U ~~ / S N M ~ / U 1 A / A w / ~ M M Abt Bl A ~ Wo Y ~ / ~ U d_ v c 0 c 0 s o a mmka N D y U •o ~ I (1 N LJ- o 18'RO O ~ ~ u ~ ' a ~ ~ ~~,~ ~~ Z W % dtlOtl l2Yld WOV4YV F'OAIB Nf19f10 T' Q + Q ~°~s U U ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ES6l# SdOlS J,dM~~b'S Q A 2 3 ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ 3 1 '~ ~ y ~3~~~ ~-~ `~ i -~-~ ~s~~ '`~ 3~ ~~ ~~ III m Vo J 11yU1 o~ 4 , J ~ J ~~ `~~ U ~~ U J ~ ~~ w~ ~~o ~.~ 3 J ~~ 3~ 3 J < 2 (7 ~ }y1 ~ V ~- 0 tl z ~A ±~ wp N ~n m ~~ ~s~~ ~_ ~~ W 3 0 „, ~3V o N 2 ~_ w b 3V~ 1 3~ i4N 1Yp W V Y ~ . I I s i P 0 . a :~~ ~ W S Q Q Z ~ 2 ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~~ ~" ~~~3ti~$ ~o ~~a;~ W N o ~ j ~~ w *U ~ ~ ~ ° 3 i~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ G~ ~ ~ O U+U ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~~IOlS Jlb'M~~b'S Q 0 N N `~i I 4 Q n ' $ ...... 6 1 !, ~~#;~ itp6f i. F U gaa hg1 p1 !i gtatl ~313IE#1~' ~ N ! z r ~u 9!.•~f,' ai~ .,k~ C7 ,; - ~, I Q ~3 ~c~ W z ~ J ~; o ~~ Z Y Q a 3 O J ~ j ~ i O n 5.~ II ~ ~' ~ 0 0 ~; O Y I I N ~ 0 Z ~ N ~ w rn 2 \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z Z G ~ x ~ _ zz W ZI Q x ~ Q Y 0 I ' T~"NSO~Ia-.y ~^ ~f i ~ - - ~ X I ' ~ ~ c ~ I q ~ k e ~- `~ ~ ~ - ~ 1 N 2 i ro ~ . i d C* W ~ ~~o-s di r ~' ~ I - --~ ~ g ~ ~~ ~ m ~ 3 ~~ ~ fAf y~~ £ ~ 0 R ~ ~ ro.. j ~~ ~ U _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ _~ _ - .(.~ 1~~ P Z g Q a o ~ a _ ~~ ~ A c N o C ~ Y t n c m N t b ~ c L °' '= c °' = m 'y a ~ ~ ~ 3 p y .y a ~o c U ; d ~~ U w t ~ m Q N N O~ ,y v p, L_ NUJ i1 ~i@ il]11Q i~:iu~i~o~~~ Caii~~~UJ~~' f'~ 6~i!~!9i~1!~~ rte; T m d U N u j a N 'U a d n 0 c ro v 0 O U v _~ d X m ro S U ~ a ~ m a c v y a c 3 a ~ N ~ O ~ ~ ~ m Z N J N C ~ c a ~- ~ m a c C7 m ~ ~ o 0 ~C7 ~ N~ RESOLUTION NO.O1- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN TRANSFERING THE ORIGINAL HEARING JURISDICTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PA 00-034, SAFEWAY SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS, Brandon Farrell, on behalf of Safeway., Inc. has requested approval of a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to allow a new 55,256 square foot grocery store, 10,743 square foot of retail, and an 18-pump fueling station with a 314 square foot kiosk; and WHEREAS, Applicant/Developer has submitted a complete application for a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit which is available and on file in the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, Applicant/Developer has submitted project plans for a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for PA 00-034 dated received February 21, 2001, and a colors and materials board dated received February 21, 2001, and WHEREAS, the City prepazed an Initial Study to evaluate site-specific impacts of the project. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepazed a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project with the finding that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant impact in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent and because a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be adopted that mitigates any impacts of the project to a level of insignificance through the adoption of mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said applications on February 27, 2001; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission requesting that the original hearing jurisdiction be transferred to the City Council for PA 00-034; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby transfer the original heazing jurisdiction for this project to the City Council pursuant to Section 8.96.020.C.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENT2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27"' day of February, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Community Development Director G:\PAN\2000\00-034\PCSDRRES.doc CITY OF DUBLIN Environmental Checklist Initial Study 1. Project title: PA 00-034 Safeway Center SDR 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California, 94568 3. Contact person and phone number: Andy Byde, (925) 833-6610 4. Project location: Northeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. 5. Assessors Parcel Number: 941-0305-010 6. Project sponsor's name and address: Brandon Farrell Safeway Inc. 5918 Stoneridge Mall Road Pleasanton, CA 94588 7. General Plan designation: Retail/ Office (.25 to .40 F.A.R.) 8. Zoning: C-2(Retail Commercial). 9. Specific Plan designation: R/O (Retail/Office), Downtown Core Specific Plan 10. Description of project: Construction of a new Safeway supermazket, consisting of a one-story building with 55,256 square feet of floor area and 10,745 square feet of retail space attached to the supennazket. Site size is 5.25 acres. The supermazket would offer a full range of grocery, meat, bakery, beverage and sundry items. Sale of gasoline is also proposed that would occur on the southeast portion of the site. Nine (9) gas pump islands with two pump stations per islands (for a total of 18 fuel positions) would be constructed with. A small (314 sq. ft.) sales kiosk would be located along Dublin Boulevard associated with the gasoline sales portion of the proposal. Two lazge underground fuel storage tanks would also be constructed. AT'fAC~E~i~ The building would be located on the north side of the site, with parking and landscaping located on the southerly portion of the site. On-site parking would be provided for 226 vehicles, including a mix of full-size, compact and handicap-accessible spaces. A loading dock would be constructed at the rear of the Safeway building, with access provided for trucks and autos completely around the building. Multiple cart storage azeas would be provided in the parking lot. Access to the site would be provided by four driveways-two from Dublin Boulevazd and two from Amador Plaza Road. The building would be constructed of concrete block and would be of a contemporary design. Exterior materials along the building frontage (facing Dublin Boulevazd) would include split-face block, stucco and windows in aluminum frames. Architectural details would include a series of small towers to highlight the building corner and main entrance to the supermazket, awnings and trellises. Roof material would be concrete tile. Accessory buildings would face west, toward Amador Plaza Road, and would have a complementary design appeazance with the Safeway building. Landscaping would be installed along the perimeter of the site and within the parking lot. A design feature would be pedestrian pathway constructed of concrete from Dublin Boulevazd to the front entrance of the supermarket. Hours of operation for the Safeway store and gasoline sales azea would be 24 hours a day. The project would also include site grading to improve site drainage and extension of water, sewer, electrical and other utilities. Identification signs and lighting would also be installed. The applicant is requesting approval of Site Development Review, which is acted upon by the Dublin Planning Commission. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Surrounding land uses to the north include auto dealership, the I-680 freeway to the east, retail commercial uses to the south and east. The site is currently occupied by the Shamrock Ford service department, which has relocated its auto sales to another site in Eastern Dublin. Existing older buildings and other improvements associated with the former use will be removed to allow for the proposed retail use. The Dublin City Council recently adopted the Downtown Core Specific Plan, which includes this site and properties north and west of the site. The Specific Plan is intended to guide the development and redevelopment of properties lying north of Dublin Boulevard, west of the I-680 Freeway, south of Amador Valley Boulevazd into a more intensive and pedestrian-friendly area.. Incorporation by Reference City of Dublin rays c Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Starwazd Residential Project, City of Dublin, July,1998. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Shamrock Village Market Place, City of Dublin, December 2000. 1. Project description: Construction of a 55,256 square foot Safeway supermarket, 10, 745 square feet of accessory retail space a gasoline sales azea, parking and landscaping areas on a 5.94-acre site 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact person: Andy Byde, Associate Planner 4. Project location: The project site is located on the northeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road 5. Project sponsor: Brandon Farrell Safeway, Inc. 5918 Stoneridge Mall Road Pleasanton, CA 94588 6. General Plan designation: Retail/ Office (.25 to .40 F.A.R.) 7. Zoning: C-2 (General Commercial) 8 Other public agency required approvals: The following additional approvals are required: • Building and grading permits City of Dublin) • Encroachment permits (City of Dublin) • Water and sewer connections (DSRSD) • Permits to dispense gasoline (BAAQMD) • Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Boazd) 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. - I Land U Initial Study/Safeway Center PA #00-024 - Transportation/ - ~ I Public Services Circulation February 2001 - Population/Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities/Service S stems - Geotechnical - Energy/Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Hazards x Cultural Resources X Air Quality x Noise - Recreation - Mandatory Findings of Si ificance 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 a Negative Declaration will be prepazed. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. _ I 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 eaziier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EMIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that aze imposed on the proposed project. /~/~- Signature: Printed Name: y Byde, Associate Planner Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Date: ~-~~l©' For: City of Dublin 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on ,..~~._ Pnnc d Initial StudylSafeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declazation: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5) Earlier analyses maybe used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA processes, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declazation. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses aze discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). References to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the document in substantiated. A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form and lead agencies aze free to use different forms. City of Dublin rayo Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. I. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? (Source: 4) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 4) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 4) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 4) II. Agricultural Resources Would the project.• a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide hnportance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to anon-agricultural use? (Source: 1) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultura] use? (Source: 1, 4) III. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1 ) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 6) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (Source:l ) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (4) e) Create objectionable odors? (Source:4) IV. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source:4) 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 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 4) c) Have a substantial adverse impact or federally protected wetlands as defined b} Section 404 of the Clean Water Acs (including but not limited to marsh, vema: pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source:4) Initial Study/Safeway Center PA #00-024 X Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X Page 7 February 2001 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: 4) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 1) f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1, 6) V. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source:l, 4) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 1) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature? (Source: 1) d) Disturb any human remains, including those intened outside of a formal cemetery? (Source: 1) VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (Sourced, 2, 4) i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault ii) Strong seismic ground shaking iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? X X Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Safeway Center PA #00-024 February 8 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source 2, 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 on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse (1, 2} d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 5) 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: 5) VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 5, 6) b) Create a significant hazazd to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous into the environment? (Source:6 ) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazazdous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?(Source: 6) 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 hazazd to the public or the environment? (Source: 4, 6) 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: 4) X X X Potentially Significant Impact Less 11~an Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Safeway Center PA #00-024 Page 9 February 2001 f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazazd for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 4) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Plan? (Source: 5) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 5) IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 5) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater rechazge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Source: 6) 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- site7 (Source: 6) X X Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Safeway Center PA #00-024 rage i u February 2001 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or azeas, 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, 6) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 2, 7) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (6) g) Place housing within a 100-yeaz flood hazazd azea as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (6) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood flows? (6) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (6) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? 4 IX. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 4) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 4) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1, 4) X. Mineral Resources. Would the project X X X X Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 11 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: l) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1) XI. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of .other agencies? (1) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 1) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (1) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? (Source: 6) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels ? (Source: 1, 4) 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: 1, 4) XII. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (1) X X X X X Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X City of Dublin Initial StudylSafeway Center PA #00-024 February 2001 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 1) XIII. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (5, 6) Fire protection? Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities XIV. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 5) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources) XV. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (3) City of Dublin Initial StudylSafeway Center PA #00-024 X X X X X X X Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X February 2001 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways?(3) 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? (3) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves of dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as fazm equipment?(3) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (3) f) Result in inadequate pazking capacity? (3) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (3) XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (5) 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? (5) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (5) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or aze new or expanded entitlements needed? (5) X X X X X X Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti anon Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X City of Dublin Page 14 Initial StudylSafeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 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? (5) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (5) g) Comply with federal, state and focal statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (5) XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the 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 projects, 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? X X X X Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Dublin General Plan 2. Starward Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 3 Project Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Omni Means 4. Site Visit 5. Discussion with City of Dublin staff or affected special districts 6. Other source XVII. Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier E1R or negative declazation, Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. This environmental analysis is based, in part, on a previous analyses prepared and approved by the City of Dublin in 1998 (File PA 98-013, Starward Drive Residential Project). A copy of previous environmental reports are available from the Dublin Planning Departrnent, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, during regular business hours. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on an eazlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "less than significant with mitigation incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which are incorporated or refined from the eazlier document and the extent to which they address site specific conditions for the project. City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 Attachment to Safeway Center Initial Study PA 00-020 Discussion of Checklist Legend PS: Potentially Significant LS/M: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated LS: Less Than Significant Impact NI: No Impact 1. Aesthetics. Environmental Setting The project site currently contains buildings which were constructed in approximately the 1960's and are somewhat in a state of disrepair. The project site is completely paved over with asphalt that is in marginal conditions. Additionally, the ornamental landscaping that exists on the site is has been poorly maintained. Environmental Imnacts a) Affect a scenic vista or view? LS. Given the current development that occupies the site, the proposed development would not result in a significant affect to existing vistas or view corridors. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? NI. The proposed project would be largely self contained with adequate landscaped buffering on all sides. Therefore, no negative aesthetic impacts would be created. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? LS. The proposed project would involve demolishing an automobile sales and service facility on the site and replacing it with a new Safeway supermarket and retail complex. Since the new facility would have a greater amount of landscaping that the current use and would be of quality construction, there would be ales-than- significant impact regazd with regazd to visual characteristics of the property. d) Create light or glare? LS. The proposed project would add additional exterior lighting in the project vicinity, including pazking lot and drive aisle lighting, security lighting and other light sources. However, the area is not adjacent to residential and any spill over of light is not anticipated to negatively affect other adjacent land uses. 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Settins City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 The project site is located with an urbanized portion of Dublin and has been developed with a commercial use for a number of years. There is no Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement in place on the property. Proiect hnnacts and Mitigation Measures a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a non- agricultural use? NI. No impacts are anticipated with regard to agricultural resources, since the site is urbanized and surrounding areas aze also urbanized.. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting The project site is located within the Tri-Valley area, a sheltered, inland azea surrounded by hills to the west, south and east. Most of the air flow into the southern portions of the Valley is accomplished through two gaps in the hills: the Hayward and Niles canyons. Local wind data show the frequent occurrence of low wind speed and cahn conditions (the latter approximately 23 percent of the time). These local limitations on the capacity for horizontal dispersion of air pollutants combined with the regional characteristic of restricted vertical dispersion give the area a high potential for regional air quality problems. Proiect Impacts a) Conflict with an applicable air quality plan? NI. The project would be consistent with the Dublin General Plan so there would be no conflict with implementation of an air quality plan. b) Violate an air quality standard? LS/M. Potential air quality impacts can be divided into short-term, construction related impacts and long-term operational impacts associated with the project. In terms of construction-related impacts, it is anticipated that the project would generate temporary increases in dust and particulate matter caused by site excavation and grading activities. Construction vehicle equipment on unpaved surfaces also generates dust as would wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. Generalized estimates of construction air emissions include approximately 1.2 tons of dust per acre per month of construction activity. About 45 percent of construction-related dust is composed of large particles which settle rapidly on nearby surfaces and are easily filtered by human breathing patterns. The remainder of dust consists of small particles (also known as PM10) and could constitute a more severe air quality impact, unless mitigated. The following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to reduce potential short-term, construction related impacts. Mitigation Measure 1: The following measures shall be incorporated into construction specifications and shall be followed by the project grading contractor: • All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust, Watering shall occur at least twice per day with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and at the completion of work for the day; Initial Study/Safeway Center PA #00-024 Page 18 February 2001 • All clearing, grading, earthmoving and excavation shall cease during periods of high winds greater than 20 mph over one hour; • All material transported off-site shall either be sufficiently watered or securely fastened to prevent escape of dust and debris; • All inactive portions of the construction site shall be planted and watered, if construction is accomplished in more than one phase; • On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph; • Unnecessary idling of construction equipment shall be avoided; • Equipment engines shall be maintained in proper working condition per manufacturers' specification. Construction of the proposed project will add additional vehicular traffic to this portion of Dublin as identified in the Transportation and Circulation section of this Initial Study. These additional vehicles will generate quantities of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gasses, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (PM10). However, the location of the proposed project near a major regional transportation Dublin Boulevazd) and the fact that the proposed project is considered an "infill" type project results in conformity with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clean Air Plan. c) Result in cumulatively considerable net increases in pollutants? LS. The would be consistent with the General Plan, so emissions of cumulative pollutants have been previously addressed. Less--than- significant impacts are therefore anticipated. d) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? IVI. The project would not add sensitive receptors to pollutants because the project would not result in additional residents in the azea of the project site. e) Create objectionable odors? LS. As a retail facility, less-than-significant significant objectionable odors are anticipated to be created. Limited amounts of odors maybe created from the loading dock and trash/recycle area at the rear of the proposed supermarket and from the gasoline dispensing facility, however, there azea not anticipated to be significant. Dispensing of gasoline and associated fumes will be limited through controls imposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District through issuance of appropriate permits. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The project site is occupied by an automotive sales and service structure on a site that is largely occupied, by buildings and paved area. Small landscaped planter exist along the Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road frontages. Planters contain turf and ornamental trees. ProLct Impacts a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not Zimited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds) NI. No special status species were observed at the project site location based on a field observation conducted by City staff in December, January 2000, and February 2001. No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to raze, threatened or endangered species. City of Dublin rage _i a Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 b) Have a substantial adverse impact on a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community? NI. The project lies in a substantially urbanized area, so there would be no impact on wetland. No bodies of water exit on the project site. c) Substantial affect on riparian or wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? NI. No wetland habitat exists on the project site so there would be no impacts with regard to on-site wetlands or wetland habitats. d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? NI. The site is substantially surrounded by existing development and the I-680 freeway to preclude movement by animals. No impacts are therefore anticipated. and no wildlife corridors have been observed on the site. e) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees). NI. A number of trees aze growing on the site, however these are limited to ornamental street trees located along project street frontages. Existing landscape trees aze proposed to be replaced with a an equivalent or greater number of on-site landscape trees. No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to tree species. f) Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan? NI. The site is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan area 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting Generally, Native American azcheological sites tend to be situated on broad midslope terraces and alluvial plains near former and existing water sources, so the possibility does exist of historic or azcheological artifacts, however, the possibility of identifying historic cultural resources on the site is low. Proiect Impacts a) Disturb historical resources? NI. The project site contains an auto sales and service facility that was constructed approximately 20 to 30 years ago and is not of historical significance. No impacts would result. b) Disturb archeological resources? LS/M. Constmction of the proposed project could disturb buried paleontological artifacts through grading and general site construction. This would be potentially significant impact. Adherence to the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant: Mitigation Measure 2: Should azcheological/paleontological artifacts or remains be discovered during construction of the project, work in the vicinity of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified azcheologist can evaluate the site and determine the significance of the find. Project personnel shall not collect or alter cultural resources. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422 (azcheological sites) and/or DPR 523 (historic resources). If human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. c) Disturb paleontological resources? LS/M. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3 would also reduce potential impacts to azcheological resources to a level of less than significance. City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 d) Disturb any human remains? LS/M. Any such potential impacts would be mitigated to a less-than- significant impact through Mitigation Measure 2. 6. Soils and Geology Environmental Setting The site lies within the San Ramon Valley, a short distance south of the Dougherty Hills. According to historic geologic studies in the area, the site is underlain by poorly consolidated, non-marine deposit sedimentary rocks of the Tassajaza Formation. The geotechnical investigation report prepazed for the project indicates that the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (1982). There are no mapped faults which aze known to traverse the site. The closest potentially active fault is the Calaveras, which is located approximately 400 feet to the west. The Haywazd and San Andreas faults lie approximately 8 and 26 miles, respectively, southwest of the site. Although the site is located in close proximity to the designated seismic Special Studies Zone for the Calaveras fault, trenching on adjacent sites, closer to the fault, and to the northwest (Starwazd Drive Residential Project) revealed no traces of possible faulting. Proiect Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts related to ground rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides or similar hazards? LS/M. The site as well as the encompassing region is subject to severe ground shaking from a number of active and potentially active faults in the greater Bay Area, including the Haywazd fault, San Andreas fault and Calaveras fault. Additionally, structures which aze located within 9 miles of Type A faults and 6 miles within Type B faults should incorporate into the structural design, building practices that address neaz fault motions. Mitigation Measure 3: The following measures shall be followed in the design of the proposed retail project to ensure that aless-than-significant impact would result with regazd to seismic groundshaking: (a) Adherence to all requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), including the Neaz-Source factors contained in Tables 16-5 through 16-U and the seismic coefficients from Tables 16-Q and 16-R. Alternatively, structural designs that account for the types of near source effects attributed to near fault motions that exceed the design requirements of the 1997 UBC maybe utilized. (b)All subsequent construction plans should incorporate the recommendations of a geotechnical investigation. A registered Professional Engineer should design the grading and foundation plans. A Registered Geotechnical Engineer should stamp and sign the grading and foundation plans certifying that they conform to the recommendations contained in the final geotechnical investigation. b) Is the site subject to erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions? L/SM. The site, as it presently exists, is essentially flat. However, grading is proposed to provide for future building pads, and parking lots and to improve site drainage. Without appropriate mitigation, City of Dublin rage n Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 erosion could result from the site grading and then flow into nearby storm drains, thus degrading surface water quality. The following mitigation measure is proposed to limit impacts related to water-borne erosion. Mitigation Measure 4: The project developer shall prepare and the City shall approve an Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for implementation to cover project construction and post-construction operation of the proposed retain center. The plan should be prepared in accordance with City of Dublin and RWQCB design standards using Best Management Practices and shall be approved by the City of Dublin Public Works Director prior to issuance eof a grading permit. The plan, at a minimum, should include the following: • All disturbed areas should be immediately revegetated or otherwise protected from both wind and water erosion upon completion of grading activities; • Stormwater runoff should be collected into stable drainage channels from small drainage basins to prevent the build up of lazge, potentially erosive stormwater flows, including, if feasible, biofilter swales; • Specific measures to control erosion from stockpiled earth material; • Runoff should be directed away from all azeas disturbed by construction; • Sediment ponds or siltation basins should be used to trap eroded soils prior to discharge into off-site drainage culverts or channels; • Major site development work involving excavation and earth moving for construction shall be done during the dry season, except as maybe approved by the Public Works Director. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4 will reduce potential erosion impacts to ales-than-significant level. c,d) Be located on unstable or expansive soils, landsliding or collapse? L/SM. Surficial soils on the adjacent site have been identified as having a high expansive potential. These soils generally tend to shrink, crack and become hard when dry, and expand and become softer when wet. Expansive soils have the potential to damage building foundations and other improvements if specific construction techniques are not followed. The final geotechnical report submitted for the project should recommend appropriate construction techniques to ensure that any negative effects of expansive soils can be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measure 5: All subsequent construction plans should incorporate the recommendations of a geotechnical investigation. A registered Professional Engineer should design the grading and foundation plans. A Registered Geotechnical Engineer should stamp and sign the grading and foundation plans certifying that they conform to the recommendations contained in the final geotechnical investigation. Enforcement of provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code and recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared for the project will serve to reduce potential impacts of seismic ground failure to ales-than-significant level. The site is essentially flat with less than 1 % of slope over the entire site, therefore, any potential impacts from landslides or mudflows would be considered less-than-significant. Initial StudylSafeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 e) Have soils capable of supporting septic systems? NI. The project would connect to the local sewer system operated by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts related to septic systems. 7. Hazards Proiect Impacts a,b) Create a significant hazard to the public through transport, use or disposal of hazardous material or risk of upset involving release of hazardous material? LS. The proposed Safeway and/or other retail establishments may store and small quantities of motor oil, garden chemicals, household cleaners or similar type of materials than are considered hazardous in sufficient concentrations. The applicant and future site users will be required as part of the storage of those materials to file a hazazdous material management plan (HMMP) with the Alameda County Environmental Health Services (EHS). Enforcement of EHS's requirements of the HMMP will assure that the material aze stored in a safe manner and reduce the risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances to ales-than-significant level. Similarly, if one of the future tenants of the adjacent retail shops is occupied by a dry cleaning establishment, which is a permitted land use per the Zoning District, it would be operated in accord with permits issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, County Environmental Health Department and Alameda County Fire Department, so that ales-than-significant impact would therefore result. c) Emit hazardous materials? LS. The applicant will be required as part of the storage of those materials to file a hazardous material management plan (HMMP) with the Alameda County Environrental Health Services (EHS). As a result of the HMMP, the project would result in a less-than-significant exposure of people to potential health hazards. e) Be located on a hazardous materials site? LS/M. The project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials site as identified in Government Code Section 65962.5, however, since the site has been used an auto dealer, there could be minor amounts of substances in the soil, such as gasoline or solvents. The following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 6: The project developer shall submit a Phase I and Phase lI Enviromnental Site Assessment prepared by a qualified REA for the site prior to issuance of a grading permit, indicating the site contains less-than-significant levels of hazardous materials. If potentially significant materials are identified, a remediation plans shall be prepared and approved by appropriate local regulatory agencies prior to commencement of grading. e,f)) Is the project located near a public or private airstrip? NI. The site is not located neaz a public or private airstrip. So there would be no impacts with regazd to aircraft safety. ~ Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? NI. No adopted or foreseeable emergency evacuation plan would be interfered with by the proposed project. Access to and from the project site would be provided by four driveways to ensure that no blockage of the site would during emergency conditions. No impacts are therefore anticipated. City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 h) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? NI. Construction of the proposed project would add steel frame structures and other related improvements, including new landscaping. All structures will be built in conformity with provisions of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code to minimize fire hazard. Landscaped areas will be permanently irrigated to ensure that plant material will not be flammable. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Settin¢ No surface water exists on the site. The entire Tri-Valley azea is underlain by an extensive underground aquifer. The aquifer ranges in depth between 15 and 500 feet but is no longer used as the primary source of domestic water in the area. Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirement? NI. Future project tenants would rely on water currently supplied by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) for water supplies and wastewater treatment also provided by DSRSD. No water quality or wastewater quality standards aze being violated nor will approval of the proposed Safeway result in violation of such standard. No impacts would therefore result. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge areas?: NI. Water to the proposed project would be supplied by DSRSD, relying on long-term contracts for imported water to the site. There would therefore be no impacts to groundwater supplies. c-e) Changes to absorption rates or contribute to runoff exceeding the capacity of stormwater drainage systems ? LS. Currently, an insignificant portion of the site contains pervious surfaces, with negligible amounts of storm water percolating into the groundwater table. The azeas of landscaping containing pervious surface would be increased on the site. Therefore, development of the proposed project actually result in absorption rates being increased slightly because of the increase in pervious surfaces. Existing drainage systems in the azea have been deemed adequate to accommodate stormwater runoff from the site. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore expected with regard to drainage. f) Substantially degrade surface water quality? LS/M. It is likely that initial storm water flows after a lengthy dry season (also known as "first flush" flows) may add pollutants into the storm water channel, including but not limited to grease, oil, fertilizers and other organic and inorganic material. Typically, subsequent flows generally contain fewer amounts of pollutant material. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local govenunents in the County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. In 1994, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that define watershed protection goals, minimum non-point source pollution controls for site planning and post construction activities. Watershed protection City Of DUblln rayc a-r Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Control Plan, which relied on Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit pollutant contact with stormwater runoff at its source and remove such pollutants prior to being transported into receiving waters. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4, requiring the preparation of a SWPPP, would reduce surface water quality pollution to alevel ofless-than-significance. Since the site contains more than five acres of land, the project developer will be required to file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure compliance with the NPDES permit g-i) .Exposure of people or property to flood hazard? LS/M. The project site lies within Zone AE, with a base flood elevation of 335 as identified on the applicable Flood Insurance Rate Map published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Community Panel No. 060705 OOOIA, dated 1997. The following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 7: The finished floor of the building must be excess of one-foot above the base flood elevation. Additionally, a California licensed land surveyor, must survey the finished floor elevation and certify that it is one-foot above the base flood elevation. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudfiows? NI. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low since no historic landslides or mudflows have been identified on the site. 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The project site is located on the northeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road and has been developed for an auto sales and service facility. The property is substantially covered with impervious surfaces (except for the minimal landscaped areas). Land use north of the site includes Dublin Honda sales and service facility, the I-680 elevated freeway has been constructed east of the site and retail commercial uses have been built south ad west of the project site The Dublin General Plan designates the project site as "Retail/Office, which permits a wide range of commercial, service and office uses. Site zoning is C-2 (General Commercial), that would permit the type and intensity of land use proposed as part of the project. The City of Dublin has also recently adopted a Downtown Core Specific Plan to encourage and guide the development and redevelopment of properties north of the planned Western Dublin BART station. The Downtown Core Specific Plan designates the project site as R/O (RetaiUOffice), a land use designation that would permit the proposed retail commercial center. City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 Proiect Impacts a) Disruption of physical arrangement of an established community? NI. No residential uses are located immediately adjacent to the site and therefore the project would not disrupt any physical arrangement of the community. b) Conflict with general plan designation and zoning? NI. The Dublin General Plan designates the site as Retail Office" which allows .25 to .40 F.A.R. The proposed project would result in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 28.8%, consistent with General Plan density F.A.R. ranges. No impacts would therefore result and the project would be in compliance with all applicable land use regulatory programs adopted by the City. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan? NI. The City of Dublin has adopted no other city-wide or specific environmental plans or policies which would affect this project. No impacts would therefore result. 10. Mineral Resources, Environmental Setting The Conservation Element of the Dublin General Plan does not reference any significant mineral resources on the project site or in the area of the project. Proiect Impacts a-c) Result in the loss of a known mineral resources? NI. The proposed project would not affect existing with energy goals, policies or other programs established in the General Plan regarding use of minerals. The General Plan does not indicate the project site contains significant quantities of regionally or state significant mineral deposits. 11. Noise Environmental Settine The General Plan identifies that the conditionally acceptable outdoor Ldn noise levels are between 60 and 70 dBA for residential areas, while commercial and industrial azeas have a maximum noise level of 75- 80dBA. Noise measurements are expressed in decibels ("dB"), which is the standazd measure of sound pressure. Filters aze used with some noise measuring equipment to suppress frequency ranges that the human eaz cannot readily detect. The "A" filter is used for such measurements. All noise levels discussed herein are "A-filtered" or "A-weighted" decibels ("dBA"). The average dBA during a specified measurement period, typically one hour, is expressed as the "Leq," or equivalent noise level. The average dBA during a 24-hour period is expressed as the "Ldn," or day-night noise level. Since the site is currently used as an automobile sales and service facility, there are existing noise generators on the site, including vehicle traffic and noise associated with auto repair and delivery trucks. The project site is also impacted with noise from nearby I-680 to the east. Project Impacts a-d) Increases in existing noise levels or exposure of people to excessive noise levels LS. Increases in noise levels can be expected should the project be approved and constructed. Short-term noise City of Dublin _ Page 26 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 would occur during project construction, while long-term operational noise would be associated with increased vehiculaz traffic to the site, consisting of site visitors and employees, as well as delivery trucks. There would also be long-term noise associated with mechanical operations of the retail uses. Since there aze no residential land uses adjacent to or near the project site that would be affected by increased noise (both short- and long-term), this impact would be less-than-significant. e,f) Expose people or property to excessive airport noise levels? NI. The site is not located neaz a public or private airstrip and there would be no impact from aircraft generated noise. 12. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The City population as of January 1, 1996 was estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 26,267. Significant population growth is anticipated for the community based on planned residential growth in East Dublin Specific Plan Area, where the City has approved a specific plan calling for residential growth. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the total population of Dublin is expected to 49,400 by the year 2005 and 58,900 in the year 2010. Proiect Impacts a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NI. The project site is identified as an "infill" site with current water and sewer service and therefore is not be considered a growth inducing project. No impacts are therefore anticipated with regazd to growth inducement. b,c) Displacement of existing housing, especially affordable housing? NI. The project site is presently occupied with commercial development and no housing units are located in the vicinity and therefore none would be displaced. No impacts would therefore result. 13. Public Services. Environmental Settin¢ The project site is served by the following service providers: • Fire Protection. Fire protection is provided by the Alameda County Fire Department, under contract to the City of Dublin, which provides structural fire suppression, rescue, hazardous materials control and public education services. • Police Protection. Police protection is provided by the Dublin Police Department which is headquartered in the Civic Center. The Department, which maintains a sworn staff of 31 officers, performs a range of public safety services including patrol, investigation, traffic safety and public education. • Schools. Educational facilities aze provided by the Dublin Unified School District which operates kindergarten through high school services within the community. Schools which would serve the project include Dublin High School (grades 9-12) and Wells Middle School (graded 6-8). Grades K-5 could be served by one of three elementary schools within the District. City of Dublin raye c ~ Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 Maintenance. The City of Dublin provides public facility maintenance, including roads, parks, street trees and other public facilities. Dublin's Civic Center is located at 100 Civic Plaza. Other ¢overnmental services. Other governmental services are provided by the City of Dublin including community development and building services and related governmental services. Library service is provided by the Alameda County Library with supplemental funding by the City of Dublin. Environmental Impacts a) Fire protection? LS. According to representatives of the Fire Department, the proposed project lies near the existing fire station located at 9399 Fircrest in Dublin. A typical response time of under five minutes is anticipated. As part of the site development review process, specific fire protection requirements will be imposed on the development to ensure compliance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. Based upon discussions between the applicant and Fire Department officials, the project has been modified to provide minimum taming radii and aisle widths for emergency equipment. b) Police protection? LS. The Police Department has indicated an ability to provide safety and security services to the proposed project. Conditions of approval would be attached to project review to ensure compliance with the City's Security Ordinance. c) Schools? NI. The proposed project would not involve residential construction that would generate school-aged children. No impacts are therefore anticipated.. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. The project represents an insignificant increase in area population and vehicles. e) Other governmental services? LS. The project would represent incremental increases in the demand for general governmental services. Payment of the sales and property tax as well as other fees and taxes would offset any impacts caused by the project. 14. Recreation. Environmental Setting City parks closest to the project site include Stagecoach Park, Alamo Creek Park, both neighborhood parks and Dublin Sports Grounds, a community park. The project site itself contains no parks of other recreational facilities. Proiect Impacts a, b) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities or affect existing recreational opportunities? IVI. The construction of the proposed project would not add demand for parks and recreational facilities since no residential dwellings would be built. No impacts to recreational facilities is therefore anticipated. City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 15. Transportation/Circulation [Note: The following section is based on an analysis of the traffic and transportation performed by Omni Means, transportation consultants.] Environmental. Setting Existing street networks Streets that provide access into and around the project site include Dublin Boulevazd, Amador Plaza Road, Amador Valley Boulevazd, Village Parkway, Golden Gate Drive, Regional Street, Starward Drive, and Donohue Drive. A new onramp to northbound I-680 and a new offramp from southbound I-680 also serve the project area. A brief description of each roadway follows: Dublin Boulevard is a major arterial street that extends in an east-west direction across the City of Dublin. Dublin Boulevard consists of six travel lanes west of Village Parkway with raised medians, providing access to adjacent retail areas as well as serving through trips across the City. Dublin Boulevard would provide direct access to the project via driveways on the north side of the street. Amador Plaza Road extends in a north-south direction between St. Patrick Way and Amador Valley Boulevard. North of Dublin Boulevard (and adjacent to the project site) Amador Plaza Road consists of two travel lanes and atwo-way-]eft-turn lane. The roadway would provide direct access to the project site via two driveways on the east side. Amador Valley Boulevard is located north of the project site and extends in an east-west direction. Between Village Parkway and San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard has four travel lanes with raised landscaped medians and is a major arterial street. East of Village Pazkway and west of San Ramon Road, the roadway narrows to two travel lanes. Village Parkway extends in a north-south direction east of the project site. A major arterial street with four travel lanes and a raised landscaped median, Village Parkway provides access to commercial-retail areas just north of Dublin Boulevazd and residential areas north of Amador Valley Boulevard. Golden Gate Drive is a short, two lane roadway that extends south from Dublin Boulevard providing access to commercial areas and I-680 via St. Patrick Way. Regional Street extends in a north-south direction west of the project site. The roadway has two travel lanes with atwo-way left-turn lane and it provides access to commercial-retail areas. Donohue Drive is oriented in a north-south direction, extending north from Amador Valley Boulevard and provides access to residential aeeas. Starward Drive extends north from Amador Valley Boulevard and consists of two lanes serving residential areas. City of Dublin Page 29 Initial StudyiSafeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 Interstate 680 is a six lane freeway oriented in a north-south direction extending through Alameda and Contra Costa County serving such communities as Dublin, Pleasanton, and San Ramon. Recently completed freeway ramps provide directional access to the proposed project site. A northbound onramp is located on Village Parkway south of Dublin Boulevard, and a southbound offramp is located on Amador Plaza Road south of Dublin Boulevard connecting at St. Patrick Way. Interstate 580 is a multi-lane freeway oriented in an east-west direction serving such cities as Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Hayward, and Oakland. Within the project vicinity, freeway on/off ramps are located west of the project site at San Ramon Road. Level-of-Service concept Level-of-Service (LOS) is the primary indicator for traffic operation performance at intersections: The resulting calculations are expressed by LOS ratings which range from LOS "A" to "F". The range describes increasing traffic demand, delays, and deterioration of services. LOS "A" represents free-flow conditions with little or no delay. LOS "E" characterizes extremely unstable flow conditions with volumes at or neaz the designed capacity. Motorists aze likely to experience major delays (40 to 60 seconds) crossing an intersection. Minor incidents may lead to forced flow conditions (LOS "F") with operating volumes substantially below capacity. The LOS definitions for signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in the Appendix. At signalized intersections, LOS is determined by calculating the volume of conflicting traffic movements at an intersection during one hour and dividing that total by the capacity designed to accommodate those turning movements, identified as the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio. For this study, the signalized intersections' peak hour LOS have been calculated using the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology. This methodology uses a variation of the Circulaz 212 Planning Method with operational capacities. At stop controlled intersections, the LOS definitions reflect delays (measured in seconds of delay) experienced by the approaches that must stop or yield to other traffic. Thus, while a specific turning movement may experience delays, the intersection may operate at a better LOS overall. Typically, the greatest delays are experienced by vehicles attempting to turn left or travel straight across the major street from the minor streets or driveways. For this study, unsignalized intersection LOS has been calculated using methodology established by the Transportation Reseazch Board as outlined in their Highway Capacity Manual. Study intersections The existing traffic conditions were evaluated in order to establish a baseline from which future base conditions could be analyzed. In conjunction with Dublin City staff, it was determined that the following intersections would be evaluated during the PM peak period (4:00-6:00 p.m.) in order to determine the highest peak hour volumes. ~ Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Intersection Level of Service Analysis, TJKM Transportation Consultants, Pleasanton, CA. City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 1. Amador Valley Boulevard /San Ramon Road 2. Amador Valley Boulevard / Starwazd Drive 3. Amador Valley Boulevard / Donohue Drive 4. Amador Valley Boulevard / Amador Plaza Road 5. Amador Valley Boulevard /Village Parkway 6. Dublin Boulevazd /San Ramon Road 7. Dublin Boulevard /Regional Street 8. Dublin Boulevard /Golden Gate Drive 9. Dublin Boulevard / Amador Plaza Road 10. Dublin Boulevard /Village Pazkway 11. Amador Plaza Road / I-680 Ramps - St. Patrick Way (future) The existing volumes used for this study were also used in a previous study by Omni-Means titled Consultant's Report of the Transportation Impacts for the Proposed Village Parkway Downtown Core and West BART Station Specifc Plans, City of Dublin, Final Draft Report, September, 2000, (hereafter referred to as the "Dublin Downtown Specific Plan" report), except for the intersections of Dublin Boulevazd/Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway. These two intersections were recounted after the opening of a northbound onramp to I-680 at Village Parkway and a southbound offramp from I-680 at Amador Plaza Road in order to identify possible traffic flow changes. The existing volumes utilized in the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan report were obtained from several sources, including the City of Dublin, previous transportation studies conducted in the study area, and counts conducted by Omni-Means Engineers and Planners. Existing intersection operating conditions As shown on the following table, all of the study intersections function efficiently under existing conditions. Of the signalized intersections, Amador Valley Boulevazd/Village Pazkway operates at LOS "B" while the remainder are operating at LOS "A" during the PM peak hour. The unsignalized intersection of Amador Valley Boulevazd/Starwazd Drive operates at LOS "C" for the southbound Starward Drive approach. This intersection was also analyzed for possible traffic signal installation. Caltrans' peak hour signal warrants identify a minimum threshold volume of 100 vehicles is needed at the stop controlled approach (one approach lane) in order to qualify for signalization. The Starward Drive PM peak hour approach volume is 92 vehicles, therefore the intersection does not meet the minimum volume threshold for signalization with existing volumes. (Signal warrant worksheets are provided in the Appendix of the complete traffic report.) City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 Table I Existing Iutersection Level-of-Service PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS, V/C L Amador Valley/San Ramon A 0.59 2. Amador Valley/Starward C 18 sec.* 3. Amador Valley/Donohue A 0.40 4. Amador Valley/Amador Plaza A 0.54 5. Amador Va1leyNillage Parkway B 0.69 6. Dublin/San Ramon A 0.58 7. Dublin/Regional A 0.48 8. Dublin/Golden Gate A 0.40 9. Dublin/Amador Plaza A 0.58 10. Dublin/Village Parkway A 0.57 Signalized intersection LOS based on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology. Unsignalized LOS based on Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual methodology. * LOS and delay refer to outbound traffic from Starward Drive. Future base conditions Future base traffic erowth The future base conditions represent the anticipated traffic growth generated by approved developments that would affect traffic volumes within the study area. The future base scenario for this study has been based upon the recent analyses conducted by Omni-Means for the proposed Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. For the future base scenario, the Dublin Specific Plan report calculated the anticipated volumes generated from 16 approved developments then added them to the existing volumes. The developments include residential, offices, and commercial businesses. A complete description of the projects and methodology is listed in the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan report. Planned circulation improvements The future base analysis also took into consideration planned roadway alterations/improvements expected to be implemented within the timeframe of the approved developments. These future roadway City of Dublin rage ac Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 modifications have been identified by City staff and aze described in the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan report. The following roadway modifications were assumed to be implemented for the future base conditions analysis: I-680 southbound onramy: In addition to the recently completed I-680 southbound offramp to Amador Plaza Road at St. Patrick Way, a southbound onramp (under construction) from the Amador Plaza Road - St. Patrick Way intersection will exist. Dublin Boulevard widening: The segment of Dublin Boulevazd between Village Pazkway and Sierra Court is planned to be widened from four lanes to six lanes. Dublin Boulevard/Villaee Parkway intersection: For the westbound Dublin Boulevard approach a second left-turn lane is planned, resulting in two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. For the eastbound Dublin Blvd. approach, a separate right-turn lane will be installed, resulting in two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Dublin Boulevazd/Amador Plaza Road intersection: On Dublin Boulevard, the westbound approach is planned to be restriped to include two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right- turn lane. Amador Vallev Boulevazd/Starwazd Drive: The anticipated improvements include the removal of the existing delineators/cones on the southbound Starward Drive approach and restriping the approach to include one shared through/left-turn lane and one right-turn lane. Future base intersection operating conditions Using the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan report's methodology, the trip generation and distribution of the PM peak hour vehicle trips from the approved developments were added to the existing volumes in order to form the future base scenario. The future base volumes reflect added trips from the approved developments as well as redistributed existing trips as a result of the new I-680 off-ramp at Village Parkway and the on/off--ramps at Amador Plaza Road. For the intersections of Dublin Boulevazd/Amador Plaza Road and Dublin BoulevazdNillage Parkway, the existing volume counts were conducted after the northbound and southbound off-ramps were open, but before the southbound on-ramp was operational. Therefore, the redistribution of existing trips was modified accordingly at Dublin/Amador Plaza and Dublin/Village Parkway. The future base volumes aze shown in Figure 3 of the full Traffic Report. The peak hour level of service for each study intersection was calculated and is shown in Table 2. Under future base conditions, the LOS would change at five intersections compared to existing conditions, but ten of the eleven intersections would continue to operate at LOS "C" or better during the PM peak hour. The intersections of Amador Valley/Donohue, Amador Valley/Amador Plaza, Dublin/Regional, and Dublin/Golden Gate would continue to operate at LOS "A". The intersections of Amador Valley/San Ramon and Dublin/Village Pazkway would change from LOS "A" to LOS "B". The intersection of Dublin/San Ramon would change from LOS A" to LOS "C". And the intersection of Amador Va1leyNillage Parkway would change from LOS "B" to LOS "C" during the PM peak hour. City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 The intersection of Dublin Boulevazd/Amador Plaza Road would experience the lazgest change in operating conditions, going from LOS "A" to LOS "D" (V/C = 0.83) during the PM peak hour. The unsignalized intersection of Amador Valley Boulevazd/Starwazd Drive would continue to operate at LOS "C" for the southbound approach (with the Starward Drive restriping). The intersection was analyzed for peak hour signal warrants under the future base scenario. It would not meet the minimum threshold volume required for the stop controlled approaches. The I-680 southbound onramp via Amador Plaza - St. Patrick Way is expected to be operational under future base conditions. Due to the intersection's proximity to the project site, it was included for study in the future base analysis. As a signalized intersection, .it would operate at LOS "A" during the PM peak hour. Table 2 Existing vs. Future Base Intersection Level-of-Service PM Peak Hour Existing Future Base Intersection LOS, V/C LOS, V/C 1. Amador Valley/San Ramon A 0.59 B 0.62 2. Amador Valley/Starwazd C 18.2 sec.* C 16.5 sec.* 3. Amador Valley/Donohue A 0.40 A 0.45 4. Amador Valley/Amador Plaza A 0.54 A 0.57 5. Amador Valley/Village Pazkway B 0.69 C 0.76 6. Dublin/San Ramon A 0.58 C 0.78 7. Dublin/Regional A 0.48 A 0.54 8. Dublin/Golden Gate A 0.40 A 0.48 9. Dublin/Amador Plaza A 0.58 D 0.83 10. Dublin/Village Parkway A 0.57 B 0.63 11. Amador Plaza/I-680 SB - St. Patrick Way - -- A 0.37 Signalized intersection LOS based on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology. Unsignalized LOS based on Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual methodology. * LOS and delay refer to outbound traffic from Starwazd Drive. Initial Study/Safeway Center PA #00-024 Page 34 February 2001 Significance Criteria Based upon General Plan policies, an intersection impact is considered significant if it causes the overall intersection LOS, or a movement LOS in the intersection, to fall below LOS D. Project hnnacts a) Increased vehicle trips or traj~c congestion? LS/Iv1. Approval and construction of the proposed project would increase vehicle trips and traffic congestion in the local roadway network, both in the short term and under long-term cumulative conditions. There would also be potentially significant impacts regarding vehicle queuing at intersections near the project site. Following is a summary of trip generation and distribution of project traffic and impacts of the proposed project Trip Generation The project's daily and PM peak hour trip generation has been based upon Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation research. The trip generation rates are based on ITE's average trip rates corresponding to the project's land uses. The gross number of trips for each project component were calculated, then deduction factors for shared trips and pass-by trips were applied. The project trip generation is shown in Table 3. The proposed project's supermarket and specialty retail space was calculated to generate 664 gross PM peak hour trips (336 in, 328 out). A characteristic of commercial/retail businesses is "pass-by" trips, whereby a portion of the project's trips actually represent existing traffic that is already "passing by" the project site and is diverted into the site from other primary trip purposes. Reseazch based upon ITE data for pass-by trips indicates that an average of 36% of the trips would be pass-by for a project of this size, resulting in 425 PM peak hour trips (215 in, 210 out) distributed onto the outlying street network and intersections. Because there is ; an existing automobile dealership (Shamrock Ford) on the project site, the proposed project's net increase in new vehicle trips would represent the difference between the existing trips already generated at the site and those from the proposed development. Using ITE data, the automobile dealership was calculated to generate 92 PM peak hour trips (37 in, 55 out). Subtracting these trips from the proposed project's trip generation results in 333 net new PM peak hour vehicle trips (178 in, 155 out) for the supermazket/retail portion of the project. The gasoline station was calculated to generate 262 gross PM peak hour trips (134 in, 128 out). Research by Safeway Stores Incorporated from other Safeway supermazket/gasoline centers has found that approximately 20% of their service station customers are also Safeway shoppers. Based upon this data, the gasoline station trips were reduced by 20%, resulting in 210 PM peak hour trips (107 in, 103 out). Also, ITE research for pass-by trips at gasoline stations indicates that an average of 42% of the trips would be pass-by, resulting in 122 net new PM peak hour trips (62 in, 60 out). The sum of the supermarket/retail trips and the gasoline station trips was calculated to be 455 total new trips (240 in, 215 out) during the PM peak hour to be distributed onto the outlying street network and intersections. The pass-by trips are incorporated at the project driveways. City of Dublin Page 35 Initial StudylSafeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 Significance Criteria Based upon General Plan policies, an intersection impact is considered significant if it causes the overall intersection LOS, or a movement LO5 in the intersection; to fall below LOS D. Proiect Impacts a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? LS/M. Approval and construction of the proposed project would increase vehicle trips and traffic congestion in the local roadway network, both in the short term and under long-term cumulative conditions. There would also be potentially significant impacts regazding vehicle queuing at intersections near the project site. Following is a summary of trip generation and distribution of project traffic and impacts of the proposed project Trip Generation The project's daily and PM peak hour trip generation has been based upon Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation research. The trip generation rates are based on ITE's average trip rates corresponding to the project's land uses. The gross number of trips for each project component were calculated, then deduction factors for shazed trips and pass-by trips were applied. The project trip generation is shown in Table 3. The proposed project's supermazket and specialty retail space was calculated to generate 664 gross PM peak hour trips (336 in, 328 out). A chazacteristic of commercial/retail businesses is "pass-by" trips, whereby a portion of the project's trips actually represent existing traffic that is already "passing by" the project site and is diverted into the site from other primary trip purposes. Research based upon ITE data for pass-by trips indicates that an average of 36% of the trips would be pass-by for a project of this size, resulting in 425 PM peak hour trips (215 in, 210 out) distributed onto the outlying street network and intersections. Because there is an existing automobile dealership (Shamrock Ford) on the project site, the proposed project's net increase in new vehicle trips would represent the difference between the existing trips already generated at the site and those from the proposed development. Using ITE data, the automobile dealership was calculated to generate 92 PM peak hour trips (37 in, 55 out). Subtracting these trips from the proposed project's trip generation results in 333 net new PM peak hour vehicle trips (178 in, 155 out) for the supermazket/retail portion of the project. The gasoline station was calculated to generate 262 gross PM peak hour trips (134 in, 128 out). Research by Safeway Stores Incorporated from other Safeway supermazket/gasoline centers has found that approximately 20% of their service station customers aze also Safeway shoppers. Based upon this data, the gasoline station trips were reduced by 20%, resulting in 210 PM peak hour trips (107 in, 103 out). Also, ITE research for pass-by trips at gasoline stations indicates that an average of 42% of the trips would bepass-by, resulting in 122 net new PM peak hour trips (62 in, 60 out). The sum of the supennazket/retail trips and the gasoline station trips was calculated to be 455 total new trips (240 in, 215 out) during the PM peak hour to be distributed onto the outlying street network and intersections. The pass-by trips are incorporated at the project driveways. City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 Project trip distribution Supermarket centers tend to generate most new trips from the local residential and employment areas during the weekday peak, therefore the project's vehicle distribution has been based primarily upon the proximity to these areas. Consideration was also given to data from previous transportation studies for similaz projects in the study area existing traffic flows within the study area, and nearby intersections, as well as freeway access. The directional distribution percentages at the boundaries of the study area have been estimated as follows: Dublin Boulevazd to/from the east 15% Dublin Boulevazd to/from the west 10% Village Parkway to/from the north 15% Amador Valley Road to/from the east 15% Amador Valley Road to/from the west 5% San Ramon Road to/from the north 15% San Ramon Road to/from the south 10% Starwazd Drive to/from the north 5% Donohue Drive to/from the north 5% I-580/I-680 to/from the south 5% Total: 100% Project effects on intersection operation With the addition of the project trips the LOS at nine intersections would remain unchanged from future base conditions, although V/C ratios would increase, and ten intersections would continue to operate at LOS "C" or better. The intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road would change from LOS "A" to LOS "B" during the PM peak hour. The intersection of Dublin Boulevazd/Amador Plaza Road would continue to operate at LOS "D" during the PM peak hour, with the V/C ratio increasing from 0.83 to 0.86. The unsignalized intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard/Starwazd Drive would continue to operate at LOS "C". The PM peak hour volumes would remain under the minimum threshold volumes required for peak hour traffic signal warrants. Therefore, there would be less-than-significant impacts with regazd to operation of existing intersections near the project site. The project site plan indicates the westbound approach to the Dublin/Amador Plaza intersection would be reconfigured to add a separate right-tum lane. The LOS was recalculated assuming a separate right-turn lane with two through lanes and two left-turn lanes to determine if there would be any changes in the operating conditions. Even with a separate right-turn lane the intersection would continue to operate at LOS "D" (V/C = 0.86). However, sepazating the right-turning traffic from through traffic to the extent possible could be helpful as it would facilitate the efficiency of westbound through traffic on Dublin Boulevard through the intersection and enhance driveway access safety for the proposed project. City of Dublin rage so Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 Table 3 Future Base, and Future Base + Project Intersection LOS PM Peak $our Future Base F.B. + Project Intersection PM LOS PM LOS 1. Amador Valley/San Ramon B 0.62 B 0.64 2. Amador Valley/Starwazd C 16.5 sec.* C 18.2 sec.* 3. Amador Valley/Donohue A 0.45 A 0.47 4. Amador Valley/Amador Plaza A 0.57 B 0.64 5. Amador Valley/Village Parkway C 0.76 C 0.79 6. Dublin/San Ramon C 0.78 C 0.80 7. Dublin/Regional A 0.54 A 0.56 8. Dublin/Golden Gate A 0.48 A 0.50 9. Dublin/Amador Plaza D 0.83 D 0.86 10. Dublin/Village Parkway B 0.63 B 0.64 1 1. Amador Plaza/I-680 SB - St. Patrick Way A 0.37 A 0.37 Signalized intersection LOS based on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology. Unsignalized LOS based on Transportation Research Boazd, Highway Capacity Manual methodology. * LOS and delay refer to outbound traffic from Starward Drive. Intersection levels-of-service that are listed in "bold" represent changes from future base LOS conditions. Project access and on-site circulation The proposed project site is located on the northeast corner of the Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road intersection. Two driveways would front Dublin Boulevard and two would front Amador Plaza Road. The Dublin Boulevazd driveways would be limited to only right-turns in and out because of a raised median along Dublin Boulevard. Of the two driveways fronting Amador Plaza Road, the southern driveway would experience most of the project traffic. The northern driveway would be located just north of the building pad, which is essentially behind the building, and would provide access for delivery trucks for the supermarket and to 17 pazking spaces serving the retail businesses. The southern Amador Plaza Road driveway's peak hour volumes were analyzed in order to calculate the level of service. The driveway intersection was calculated to operate at LOS "B" (applies to the stop controlled westbound approach) during the PM peak hour. The entering southbound left-turn volume was also analyzed to determine the anticipated storage requirements City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 for queued vehicles. With an estimated volume of 122 peak hour vehicles, a storage length of 100- 125 feet would be adequate. There is currently atwo-way left-turn lane extending the length of Amador Plaza Road between Dublin Boulevazd and Amador Valley Boulevard, therefore adequate storage length already exists. It is noted that a driveway exists on the west side of Amador Plaza Road just north of the project's southern driveway which provides access to the shopping center on the west side. It is not a primary driveway, but left-toms in and out may be blocked at times by queued southbound vehicles turning left into the project site during the PM peak hour. Also, the southbound Amador Plaza Road approach volumes to Dublin Boulevard were analyzed to determine storage length needs for the future base + project scenario. The southbound left-turn volume has been calculated to be 252 vehicles. Using a coordination cycle length of 120 seconds (estimated), the left-turn storage requirement has been calculated as follows: 3,600 seconds per hour / 120 seconds per cycle = 30 cycles per hour; (252 vehicles per hour / 30 cycles per hour) x 0.75 of cycle = 6-7 left-tom vehicles during the red interval. 6-7 left-turn vehicles x 1.5 (random arrival rate) = 9-11 vehicle storage requirement; 9-11 LT vehicles x 25 feet per vehicle = 225-275 feet length required. The site plan indicates a distance of approximately 180 feet between Dublin Boulevard and the southern driveway, which indicates the queued vehicles could block vehicles turning left out of the project driveway. This would be a significant impact and the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 8: The southbound Amador Plaza Road approach to Dublin Boulevazd could be restriped to include two left-turn lanes and athrough/right-turn lane. With these geometries, the calculated maximum vehicle queue lengths per lane would be approximately 125-150 feet (5-6 cars per lane) for the left-tom lanes, and 100-150 feet (4-6 caz lengths) for the through/right-tom lane. The Dublin Boulevazd/Amador Plaza Road intersection would operate at LOS "C" (v/c = 0.79) with these geometries. The eastbound Dublin Boulevard left-turning volumes were also analyzed for storage length needs. In the future base scenario, the peak hour left-tom volume would be approximately 111 vehicles, equating to a storage need of 100-125 feet of storage length. With the added project traffic, the left-turn volume would be approximately 193 vehicles, equating to 175-200 feet of required storage. The length of the existing left-turn lane is approximately 210 feet plus a 45 feet taper, therefore the storage length would be adequate. Another issue examined is the proposed location of the onsite gasoline station. It would be located adjacent to Dublin Boulevazd just west of the eastern driveway. It is anticipated that this driveway would serve almost all of the gasoline station's inbound trips plus approximately half of the Safeway's Dublin Boulevard trips. The proximity of the gasoline station to the driveway could result in occasional queues of gas station customers' vehicles blocking the driveway at peak times. This would be considered a significant impact and the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure 9: The gasoline sales azea shall be managed so that gasoline tanker trucks enter the project site from the western Dublin Boulevard driveway and tom east within the project site so that the truck is facing east while stopped at the gas station. Trucks shall exit by turning north and circling west around the backside of the Safeway building and leaving the City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 project site from the northern Amador Plaza Road driveway. It is recommended that a sign be posted visible to the tanker truck pazking/refilling azea that indicates the direction of the exit route. Cumulative Traffic Growth Methodolo~y The methodology used to generate the cumulative scenario traffic volumes for this study mirrors that used for the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan report. The cumulative volumes reflect the anticipated traffic volumes resulting from the 16 approved individual developments, plus the trips resulting from development of the downtown core specific plan and the west Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The vehicle trip increases from these projects reflect essentially all of the growth anticipated within the study azea. In addition to the roadway improvements outlined for the future base scenario, the cumulative scenario analysis has assumed an extension of St. Patrick Way from its cun•ent terminus at Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street and serving the proposed west Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The calculated Safeway Center project trips were then added to the cumulative volumes. Cumulative effects on intersection operation With traffic growth associated with the cumulative scenario, two intersections would experience significant congestion during the PM peak hour. The intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive would operate at LOS "E" (0.91) without the project and LOS "E" (0.93) with added project trips. The intersection of Dublin Boulevatd/Amador Plaza Road would operate at LOS "F" (1.09) without the project trips and at LOS "F" (1.12) with the project trips. However, this would not be considered a significant impact because as a result of the additional trips generated by the project, none of the intersections studied by the traffic consultant (or any other foreseeable intersections) would drop below LOS D. Likewise, the intersections which will operate below D (based on the Cumulative Analysis, See table 4), would not be further significantly impacted by the additional trips generated by the project (see the following table). Table 4 Cumulative Intersection Level-of-Service PM Peak Hour LOS - V/C Intersection 1. Amador Valley/San Ramon 2. Amador Valley/Starward 3. Amador Valley/Donohue Initial Study/Safeway Center PA #00-024 Cumulative Mitigated LOS V/C LOS V/C B 0.69 C 17.8 sec.* A 0.56 Cumulative + Project" LOS V/C C 0.71 C 19.9 sec.* A 0.58 Mitigated LOS V/C Page 39 February 2001 4. Amador Valley/Amador Plaza B 0.65 C 0.72 5. Amador Valley/Village Pkwy. D 0.84 D 0.87 6. Dublin/San Ramon D 0.89 D 0.90 7. Dublin/Regional C 0.79 D 0.81 8. Dublin/Golden Gate E 0.91 C 0.80 E 0.93 D 0.82 9. Dublin/Amador Plaza F 1.09 C 0.79 F 1.12 D 0.81 10. Dublin/Village Pazkway C 0.73 C 0.73 11. Amador Plaza/I-680 ramps A 0.45 A 0.46 Signalized intersection LOS based on the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology. Unsignalized LOS based on Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual methodology. * LOS and delay refer to outbound traffic from Starward Drive. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, the LOS established by the CMA for designated roadways? LS. Cumulative regional traffic impacts relating to routes of regional significance have been addressed in the traffic analysis prepared for the Downtown Core Specific Plan. All cumulative traffic impacts can be mitigated to a level ofless-than-signifcance. c) Result in a change of air traffic patterns? NI. The project involves construction of a Safeway shopping center and would have no impact on air traffic patterns. d) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g, farm equipment)? PS/M. The traffic study recommends the following mitigation measure to ensure that no public safety hazards would be created. Mitigation Measure 10: The entrance along Dublin Boulevard into center project entrance and the North Bound Amador Plaza Road should include aright-turn deceleration lane . e) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? NI. Primary access is provided from two points along Amador Plaza Road and two points along Dublin Boulevard so no impacts would result. f) Insufficient parla'ng capacity onsite or offsite? NI. According to the site plan, the project would provide 286 on-site parking spaces (221 standard, 57 compact, 7 handicap). This complies with the parking code requirement of 220 spaces. On-street parking is currently allowed on the east side of Amador Plaza Road beginning approximately 360 feet north of Dublin Boulevard. The site plan indicates the project frontage would extend approximately 500 feet north from the intersection. The site plan does not indicate if street parking would be allowed. If it were not, then some City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 existing on-street parking spaces may be eliminated by the project. There would therefore be no impacts regarding provision of parking. g) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? NI. The project is consistent with General Plan policies, additionally, the Dublin Zoning Code requires that bicycle racks to be constructed on-site. No impacts would result. 15. Utilities and Service Systems. Environmental Settine The project site is served by the following service providers: • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: Pacific Bell • Water supply and sewage treatment: Dublin San Ramon Services District • Storm drainage: City of Dublin • Solid waste disposal: Dublin-Livermore Disposal Company Environmental Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? NI. The additional amount of increased sewage generation would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant operated by DSRSD. No impacts would therefore result. b) Local or regional water treatment or distribution systems? LS. According to representatives of DSRSD, water mains exist on the periphery of the site which could provide adequate water volumes and pressures for domestic and fire fighting purposes to the proposed project. DSRSD purchases water on a wholesale basis from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District and provides water service to residences and businesses within its service azea. Although some increased demand for water would result, the increase would be less-than- signifcant. c) Storm water drainage? LS. This topic was previously addressed in Section 8, Water. d) Local or regional water supplies? LS. DSRSD staff indicate that adequate long term water supplies aze available from Zone 7 and other sources to serve the proposed project. e) Adequate wastewater treatment capacity? LS. According to representatives of DSRSD, adequate capacity exists to accommodate anticipated sewer flows from the proposed project. Untreated effluent would be transported to DSRSD's Regional Treatment Plant in Pleasanton for treatment prior to being dischazged into the East Bay Dischazge Authority's outfall line for eventual disposal City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 into San Francisco Bay. DSRSD officials indicate that adequate capacity exists within the regional treatment facility to accommodate this project. f) Solid waste disposal? LS. The City of Dublin contracts with Livermore-Dublin Disposal Company to collect solid waste from households and businesses and transport it to the Altamont Landfill, located in eastern Alameda County. The Landfill currently has an anticipated capacity until the yeaz 2005 and plans aze underway to extend landfill capacity for an additiona150 years. Although approval of the proposed project will incrementally increase the amount of solid waste, any such increases would be less-than-significant because the existing facility would be able to be accommodated given the existing solid waste facilities and resources. XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? NI. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources. As discussed in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not have the potential to significantly degrade the identified resources. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 1`lI. The project represents an example of infill, higher density commercial development which will be sited near a major regional transportation corridor and would not impact long-term environmental goals. As discussed in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project aze considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). LS. Although incremental increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of constructing this project, including additional traffic air emissions, light and glare and need for public services and utilities, the project site lies within an already urbanized azea and sufficient capacity exists within service systems to support the additional population anticipated associated with the project. As discussed in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable: d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? NI. Although potential safety impacts exist in the vicinity of the, adequate mitigation measures are proposed to reduce such potential impacts to levels of insignificance. As discussed in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Safeway Center February 2001 PA #00-024 Initial Study Preparer Andy Byde, Associate Planner Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Eddie Peabody Jr., AICP, Community Development Director Dennis Carrington, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Stella, P.E., Associate Engineer Ray Kuzbari, P.E., Associate Traffic Engineer Kevin Van Katwyk P.E., Senior Engineer Jim Ferdinand, Fire Department Rose Macias, Police Department Dublin-San Ramon Services District Bruce Webb, Engineer References Dublin General Plan, Revised September 1992 Dublin General Plan Housing Element, June, 1990 Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Adopted September 1997 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Starward Drive Residential Proiect City of Dublin, July,1998 Traffic Study of the Proposed Shamrock Mazketplace Shopping Center Expansion Omni-Means, September, 2000 Start at the Source, 1999 Edition, BASSMAA ~~~' ~ ~~ Februa 2001 Initial Study/Safeway Center rY PA #00-024 on 0 w Q~ en ~L w G 0 k O i+ 0~0 :: R w C6 O 0 O Y ~i .; W C r. w .~ U .j.i Y W O c 0 U U N N a ',^ .3 T 0 O b b C U C bA O a C .~ R. OA G O 8 o ~ bD N ~~ C o ~ O ~ `+" ;~ N ~ ~a k W M V W . R Q ~ ~ C t# w i i+ ~ k O c. L^, '~ d s o ~ H r 0 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ C ~ C C C .~ 'O o ~ k . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q O bD O V ~ b0 ~ ~ 'b ~ c ;~ ~ .3 b ,~ m p. ~ N ' ~ bD ~ `° r il ~ pq k ~ « + 3 v ~ N 'b ~',~ a ~ 3 . ° °~ b ~ a ~° ~ " ~ °, .o U ~ y O ~ _ ~ 7 O ~ ~ U ~ oq ~ U ~ y . .k p~ U O ~ .~ W •~' cC ~' ~ O Ica ~d ye s • ° ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ 3 , Q y U U ~ ~.~ ~ ? L Q y , O ~ ~+ O L 3 ~ ^' c ~ y >, ~ X N o i tom ~ y o O ,~ ~ .-. ~ ~ o, Q o ~ ~ o „'+" ~ y .~ a ~ w ,~ ^ ., a . ~ ~ ^ b •.^, ~ . ,b o U a, ~ .., ~ ~ _ ~ O il ~ ^ 6i L b s. O. G cO N y a vi U c C k O ~ .b ~ N b ~ U 'b . p U. ~ fL U 0 U 4 ~ •~' y '.+ y •~ ~ ~ O rn bD y., p p c3 N . r' 'y y O U O w td w ~O C N O y > `^~ y -~ C O A ,O Y .Si y F 'O O J ,x ~ ~ Oq ~ ~ O C: ~ U tC U o ~ 3 ~ ~ o °' o ~ a ~ ¢. a . a i a o m y U U y ~ A Oq ~ Y ~ 4 O .~ .d b~A ~' a ~ °'i Y ' ~ c n :c 3 ~ U U ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ c ,", •3 R, o •~ a • w '~ y ~ N ~"~ ~ ~ a o is `~ a ~ ~ = b ~ ~ c 'o ~ °' ~ cd ^ • i ~ ~ ~ U ~ y L N -+ • •--~ U cd C "~" ~r q ~ ~ w 0 N C Y U ~+ d N V a Q ~ ~ ~ ro o o N U . U.N ~ ~ Y ~ C ~ O w ~ cu P, O ~ U ^ b ~ 'p ~ y ~ O W ~ a ~ o ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ U ro ~ ~ a N y p' O R3 V ~ `--' ~~ U ': W ~ N r'i ~ (r (~ ~ Fy Q ~ U .~ ~ ,-r+. a ~ ~ U Q .~ ,C y ~ o ~ c = O ~ b 'o ~ w ~ O a ~ o o i ~ a ~sb ~~~ b .b ° ' ~ -~y O O O ~ i O ~ ~ V . '" U O C0 U O + 0-' ~ A 0 0 0l 5 F . V1 W ~ y ^~~'y'j ~~ .~ ~' h .a ~ V ~ ~ p Y ~ ~ ~ O ~^ y ~"~ ~ ti M C V ~ Q) yD (~ G ~ O ~ ../ j fC ~V Yom. 0 w h Oy iy ~ ~l . N Y V ¢1 Q ~ ~ ~ U ., ~+:+ C $ •ou 3 o ~ oN fl ~ bA ~~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ V h ~ O C~ N F ~ .V. ~ o •~ O •p O o a -o v ~ ~ ~~~ -~~ L '~ .=y .~, °' 3 a~ 0 y d a ,. V b i' "' O 0 3 H ~ ~ ~~ a b •~ •v`~'a' `D~ ~ a aoo U _ ~ b0yb O 'O ~ ~ ~ .~Ha ~ ~ .~ r~ C ~ }' U , ~ y V Y ~ 1G V 4+ ~ .O 1'q ~ R C. Y :..i W x' r ~ O ~ ~ 'b D1 viw O •~ ~ w Y V , O ~Y r ~ V +.. 4'" V cYd X 7 p W U w , J W ~ V O +"~ ~~ ~ ~ .y V aU . ~ ~ ~ '° ~ ~ z•~ ~ •~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ w~ L V p ~ N ~ ^. bD b id O ~ y o~+ r' .+ cC w V y ~ V V ~ 4 y ^ ~ ~ C VL'~ Qy F y y ' ~.+ Q O iVi ~ ~ ~' .. ,. N 'b ~ ~ a i% O 'c ~ O ~ n c ~ o ~ '". o $ ° bra ~ •a ~ ° •~ °A ~. w •~ ti ^ O 00 ~ C ~ CC ~ « ~ ~ ~ bq a T ..V. O N ~ ~~ q S .' "' N b ~ A ti > ~ N FI b Y ~ ~ ~ V O w .Y y V N ~ Uq U.y ~~ O "' b oA ~ U OM ~ L7a U ,.d ~ ~ c ~ ~ =' ~ '~ 0 0 ~~ a o ^ ~ U a v c ~~ ~ c C ~ o o ~ 0 ~ V . [} ~y V ~ ~ ~ b ti V 0 N ~ ~ 'v, .~ w V ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ y ~ '~ 0 a Q ~ H H n w o w ° U U ~ ~ U C ~ .Y. O _ ~ ~ s . O N ~ W y ~ , U` P W.. . O~ G, . . ~ h s'x, ,.+ C ~~ 3 ~ =' • ~ U ~ ~ a :~ Q a° ~w o .G .~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ • ~~ ; ~ o~~ .U ~ '~ ~ •3 p ^ ~ ° ~~ a~ L? ~ °+~' ou P. a"i ° ' cOa A ~ ~ .b ° /`^°n ~ y o •C cOn ~ Y a ~ ~ y a4 ~ O ~ V O N ~~ A ~ N b ^ A y N •Y ~~ cd O b 3 ~ w. 7 p a R ~ GL U LL a? ~ N ~ ~ ~ C .~ ++ b C U ~,~ U ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~b ° .o p ~ E^ -o . ~ ~ o on - w . b a. 0.C ^ y C U N ~ 7 .D ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ON UU~ i U ~ s ..0. -' O pp U CL > C ~ A CL .~ ti ° ~ N }v i ~ ~ 'O .-. iC y C ' ~ U y U ~ U y C v1 y b U ~ V O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ '~"' w w W ~ ~ C +~.+ s.i N Q .~ f3 N ~O 3a ' 3 ~ ; ~ y ~ ° ~ `" ~~ ~ ~ ° . , U, cG a wivw o °'. ~ , to b o • `3° 0.5c i ab • c °W ~ w " U ~b ~ 3 c ~ a,' o .~ .d ~ Ll ~ ~ ti s • ~ R. .. U-, ^ ~ A cUi ° p ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ A U -~ ~ x O ~ U y °' B . H 3 ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ a o ° b = o ~ A = vi ~ W y ~ ~ • a c a~ "' Ll, U O U U A vi ~*" ~ .U+ n O y O vi C. s. ~ ~ .d .b O , P. . O ,A U y ,-. O y O O, rn y ~ ~ ~ rn O O ~" .. 3 ~ ° N ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ,~ ~ Ow U 'O iO o 0 ~ ~ ~ ° ~ a' o a v ~ ~ ~ Q 6 b v ~ ~ U ° ~ ~ ~. o ° o ° `~° ~ Q ° ~ ~ U '.% 'O bq ~ ~ '~ ~ '_' Ow sue. ~ O ~ Q O O U w O G~. r b0 ~,' ti y q .-. a p ^ w ^ ' ~ . 0 ~ a bq V] w U V] CG U ~ C. W cd w ° ^b O id Q. ~ 0 U bA cC ~ U w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w C 0 0 0 ~ `N' v C y ~ C Y ~ G ~ ~~ . G' s o ro b ~ N ° `~ ~ ~ ~ ° c° ~ ~ ~ w° ~ ~ ~ a w° ~ n°a ~ N~ ~' ~ y N ran •~ y ~ ti• 7 y N ti '~ ~' ~ y c . N ti ~.. y ~ ~,. P] ~ U` ' W . , C7 P. W . ~ Ca P, CY1 . ~ W Cr G7 . . 0 P. F, ao . ~. ~ ~ O ~ ~~~ ro °p y O U p 3~ ~3 ~ ~~~ ~ b~ 3 aQ W Q q a a Q ry~1 a . ° ° ~ ro ~ ~ a ~ 3 ~ h ~ a °U ~ LL ro ~ ~ ... O iC b ~ N w W N ~ ~ y y c ~ }• ~ 'b y n ^C N U '9 U + ~ G d~ ~ O N ro O bA E ,Y' ,p •N ~ ~ b ~ . o~ ~ Y ro ° o ~ ^ ~ °~ ,~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ x ~ ro ~ ro y .o o a i Y 0. V b o • ° ro u~ is >, ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ^~ .~ :: ti ~ c° o a~ ~ Y ° o " a ~ ~ ~ ° ~ a 'o ~ ° ° a ~ ~ •3 c ~ N ~ x Q~ ~ a ~ ro y .o ~ • ~ $ ~ a. 3 '~ ~ c ~ . ~ ° ~ ~ ° ,~ ° a o a ~ ~ y o ~ ~ 0 ~ o L1 w ro p F O ro > O Q ~ . N 0. p i .. s. ,~ ~ ~ y , m ~ O ~ ° ..~'. i~ O ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U N f1' O LQ ~~ ~ ~n .y CL `n ~ p "O Q O . ~ 'b O ¢• ^ ^ N ~ • U O y ~ ~ ~ ~ c tl ~ ~ cd ~ 3 c t- W ~ 'O O ~ ~ > ~ L C ° id v, U ~ 1. ti b ~ id a i ~ ~ fi ~ y . y •b a~ N "~ b i G a i p . . ~'O ro 7 0 O , o .C «+ i ti ~ ~ O .~ t-L S U d v ~ rn O C 'O O b0 ro y O O b 0 p N N E vi U ~ .. 0.~ ,~ ro ~ +. b^ ~ 7 h ~ °o ° F' ~ ~ ro ~ ~ H ~ ~ H ~ ? ° o N ~ F. ° ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ a i ~ ~ b ro ~ ro .~ w ro z ~ _ U~ N N b LL y i.i h 'b a r.+ p N ~~ ° ro ~ w o o C o ro •~ ° c. d ~ o .~ ro a+ O ~ ~ .~ ~ o O ~ ~ ro o ao ..+ ~ o ~ ro o ro CC U N CQ O ~ O R ~ ~ ~ O ~ 7 ~ r N ~ •-U U bll ~ N ~ . . i . • ~ pp C ~D O 'O ro b ~ '% . ~ ~~w Y-o C k,] ~ v ~ ~ O O O ~ O ~ ° O •~ b ~ ,a ,~ ~ ~ p C [ ~ .~. N c G i3 ~ CL bD C R N ~ '^ CyC ~ ~ C) N ° y ~ R A ~ N ~ b0 ° b0 G ' R .-~ 7 i bU U ~ y '~ ~ bL C'. ~". bA ...~ U R. ~ b0 ~ :.= N ~ ~ y fem. ~ pp N y~ U ti~ T~ r W ~ ~ ro ~^~I O t°y N c~ N "" ~ ~ ~ c~C O ~ O ~ ro 4: ~~"r.'I O pq • 0.i ~ ~ E L Oq O Y /y Q .' .+ > U ~ . bD Oa w G . .~ CL C. G+. t-.