HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 065-03 AlaCtySite15ANegDec RESOLUTION NO. 65 - 03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR PA 02-041, ALAMEDA COUNTY SITE 15A GENERAL PLAN AND
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority has requested approval of
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use designations for
Site 15A, an approximately 11.36 acre property located on the northeast comer of Dublin Boulevard
and Arnold Drive, from High Density Residential to Campus Office; and
WHEREAS, the project site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning framework for future
development of the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified a program EIR pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51-93, and Addendum dated August 22,
1994, hereafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "program EIR") which is available for review in the Planning
Department and is incorporated herein by reference. The program EIR was integral to the planning
process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives, and
areawide mitigation measures for developing Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and
related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation findings and a Mitigation
Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93), which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to
apply to development in Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potentially significant environmental impacts
that could not be avoided by mitigation and for which the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate site-specific impacts of the Site 15A
project to a greater level of detail than in the program EIR. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 2001 (SCH: 1991103064, attached as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference) and circulated it for public review from June 16, 2001 through July 16,
2001; and
WHEREAS, the City received ten letters commenting on the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
which letters are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Although not required by
CEQA, the City prepared written responses to the comments, which responses are attached as Exhibit C
and incorporated herein by reference. The responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of
the environmental issues raised in the comments; and
623895-1 1
WHEREAS, following the public review period, the original applicants withdrew from the
project whereupon the Surplus Property Authority as property owner determined to continue the
application review process for the General Plan and Specific Plan amendment portions of the application;
and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the property owner's actions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5
and determined that no recirculation of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was required because the
document analyzed the consequences of development pursuant to the requested land use changes; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public heating on the project on March 11, 2003 at
which time they reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all reports,
recommendations and testimony before them. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments (Resolutions 03-06 and 03-07, respectively, which are
incorporated herein by reference); and
WItEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendations, a staff
report, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
responses thereto, and all written and oral testimony at a duly noticed public heating on March 25, 2003;
and
WHEREAS, the Site 15A Mitigated Negative Declaration tiers from the Eastern Dublin EIR which
identified significant and unavoidable impacts for which the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations when it approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan. Pursuant to a recent court decision, the City Cotmcil must weigh the unavoidable impacts disclosed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR that are applicable to the Site 15A project against its benefits through a new
Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring Program, as required by CEQA, is contained in attached
Exhibit E; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of
proceedings for the project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza,
Dublin CA 94568.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds as follows.
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The Eastern Dublin EIR and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describe the impacts
of the project. As reflected in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed amendments would result
in future urban development but at a lesser scale than assumed and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
To the extent set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed amendments are within the
scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Project specific environmental effects have been analyzed in the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which determined that the project will not have a significant effect
on the environment with the application of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before
the City that the project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment.
623895-1 2
C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent
judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the proposed land use amendments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the City Council hereby adopts
the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA 02-041, Alameda County Site 15A, consisting of Exhibits A,
B and C, as described above and incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Site 15A project as set forth in Exhibit D, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring
Program set forth in Exhibit E, both of which exhibits are incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 2003.
AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
G:\CC-MTGSX2003-qtr2LApr\4-15-03Xreso-15a mit neg dec. DOC (Item 6.2)
623895-1 3
?INITIAL STUDY
'"' ', "".""' ,"Ci~':.of'Dublin
'"~ e'~' ': ' /~ ' '.~¥, "'": .....
' PA 0:0,029
CISCO SYS~S,.:~ iNC.
......... . ., '. ':'!J~: O.
June 2001'
EXHIBIT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
rNTRODUCT ON ......................................................... ,'2.:.' .... ...............
APPLICANTS/CONTACT PERSONS ..... , ......... ...; ..................... '-:.;i~L..; ..................... 1
PROJECT LOCATION AND CONTEXT ................... ; ................ 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..... :.i ........................ , ................................................................. 2
Specific Plan/General Plan Ar~endment ................................................................................. 3
Parcel Map .............................. . ............................................. . ................................................... 4
· ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY. AFFECTED ........ ; ................................. 10
DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY LEAD AGENCY): ~ .......................... .11
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, .......................... ,,.. ....... · · ......
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES .......... '. .............. , ................................................................. '22
ATTACHMENT TO INITIAL STUDY ................................................................... :~ .... 24
DISCUSSION OF CI~ECKLIST ................... ' ........................... ~ ....................................... 24
1. AESTHETICS ......... ~ ....... . ...............
3. Am. Quaz~rry ..................................................................
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................... ' ...................................... 7 ......... ' .... 25
-.. 5. CULTURAL'RESOURCES ' 27
GEOLOGY SoiLs ................................. - '
8. HYDROLOGY A_ND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................. 32
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................................... , ........... 34
10. MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................
.................................................................... 34
11. Noise .................................................................................................................................. 34
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................. 35
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
14. RECREATION .............................................................................................................. 36
' 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFiC ............................................. ; ................................... 38
Existing and Future Baseline Conditions ........................................................ : .........
Pm~vrNa rRomcrs ................................................................................................................ 4
EXISTING PLUS FUTURE BASE CONDITIONS WITH PROPOSED.PROJECT ........................... ' ".... 43
PI~OJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................ iiiii .... 44
16. UTILiTI]gS AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 47
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................., ....... 49
AGENCIES AND. ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ........... . ................................. 5o
REFERENCES ................................................... .....~ ................................................................ 5o
City of Dubl~n .Page ~
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200I
PA 00-029
,.. City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial. Study "
Introduction
This Initial Study h.as been preparedin accord with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses thc potential environmental impacts of implement, lng the
proposed project described below~ The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental
checklist and a brief explanation Of the envfronmental topics addressed in the checklist.
Applicants/Con:tact Persons
Cisco Systems, Inc. Alameda County Surplus Property Authority
I70 W. Tasman Drive 224 W. Winton Blvd. P,m 110
San Jose CA 95134 Hayward CA.94544
Attn: Mark Grieco Attn: Smart Cook
(408)'525 0946 (510) 670 6534
Brobeck, Plileger & Harrison, LLP
One Market Street
San Francisco CA 94105
Attn: James Andrew
(415) 442 1424
Project LOcation and Context
The project site is located on two parcels of land: the northerly portion of the site is identified as
Site 15 A of the Emerald Park development and is located on the northeast corner of Dublin
Boulevard and Arnold Drive. Sate 1SA encornpasses 11.36 net acres oflarid. The second portion of
the project area is located mediately south &the above location on the southeast comer of
Dublin Boulevard and proposed Arnold Road (Site 16A), and encompasses 14.59 net acres of
laud. Together, both sites contain 25.95 net acres of laud.
Both portions of the site are vacant, relatively flat and contain native and introduced species of
grasses but no trees.'
Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the project area in a regional context and Exhibit 2 shows the
detailed site location within the City of Dublin.
The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan area~ This Specific
Plan/General Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1994. for the purpose of directing long-
term 'land use, circulation, infrastructure and environmental protection for 3,302 acres of land
located east of the central portion of Dublin and north of the 1-580 freeway. At full build-out, the
Eastern Dublin ptan~g area would allow a range Of residential, commercial office, employment
and open space uses.
City of Dublin ~age I
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus ~rune 2001
t'.d 00-029
Property north of Site 15A has bee.~mCe~fly de~elbped with an office complex (Microdental.); ·
property to the east of Site 16A across Hacienda Drive has been developed'with a major
retail/entertainment complex .(H~ie..n~ Cro~sing~).an~ .th.. ~ site east and north of the. project site
(1 SA and 16A) has been appi~jved:.f~r m~'.~ei'~orpo~ie Headquarters complex. Property south
of the project site is currently vacant 6~t ~'~e~n approved for the Commerce One office
complex. Properties west of the project site are currently vaeaht, However, the Alameda County
Surplus Property Authority has requeSted approval of the Dublin Tran.~it
mixe;i:gse ~,i~ village pr0jeet.!oeate~ adjaeent:t.o, the Eastern Dubt~ BART station,or, lands
The Pra~c~'~:Pldj'iC~ ~i~(i~les a number'of ret'it,d ~d use app~i.cati0ns to allc~w the d'cx;e~b~men,
of a campus office complex for Cisco Systems, Inc. At full build-out, the campus would include
landscaping. The total amount of conStruction on the site would include a maximum of 862,000
square feet, which..~0u!d l~gely be~,professional and business office space, bu!~.W~h ,wo~:d:,,atso
i~aude kre'~ a'.eg~t~a to ri~krgh,.~'~'e..~..Opment and testing, light a~sembly..~u~.~.labo~atories.
Other uses and equipme..m wo~fld~c,l~d.e conference rooms, small rooftop sate)lite dishes.and
antennas, an employee cafetefia,?~m~i0~ee fitness center~ employee laundry pi. ak,up ~d.~p off
area, a small employee st°ie fo~ Sun'es and necessities, and an omsite ATM~...'Tw0:manelbY ·
diesel-power generators would also be installed. A number of temporary and permanent uses and
activities may also take place on the site, such as outdoor employee gatherings,,.oar!was~¢~ and a
volleyball/basketball court.
The site would accommodate approximately 3000 employees at full build out,
The proposed d~velopment plan indicates that Site 15A would contain two office buildings and a
small maintenance building totaling approximately 433,000 square feet. Site 15A would also
contain a parking structure. Site 16A, South of Dublin Bo~!le~ard,.would contain, two- office
b~!~g~ totaling, .approximately 429,000 square feet and wquld als0'c~ntain a parking.. ~cture.
The propo,sed buil~g heights .include a mix of 3 and 5 stories. Exhibit.4' shows the proposed site
layou/, and deh~ign, for sites 15A and 16A
L~dScaping vt.6nld include p!an~ng of new street tre~s al~)ng all abutting, s~reets. O~site
landscaPing'wduld include 6ne plaza .area on sJ..tes 15A and 16A, landscaPing with~, parking lots
and adjacent to buildings. Enhanced landscaping and a public art feature is proposed at the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. A distinct landscape theme is p!atme.d
atoflg the pi~et~' 6'fth~'C[Sco campus. OUtdoor recreational amenities are proposed to inchde a
volleyball / basketball court as welt as passive seating areas.
ProPos&t parking includes two multi-deck parking, s~uctures, one each on Sites ISA and 16A and
surface parking on both portions, of the project area. Access to the site would be prgvided by the
following driveways . .
. * Cefi!ral p~y-2 drives, one.fu!l'ck, ive anti1 i~ted drive'(right-in and'~ight,°ut, onty);
~' * An/6!d ~0ad.(¢xistin~)-I full drive north, of I~ubiinBoUl~vard
· Am61d Road (proposed)- 2 limited access drives.s°uth of Dublin Boulevard ~arking
strti6t~e exit arid access to loading' dock~; ..,..,..
City of Dublin .Page 2 .
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus .... June2001
PA 00-O29
· ..." * · Digital.Drive ~.r0posed)-2 driveS, I..full ckiYe' and 1 limited drive (right~fn.an~ tighf-out
· D.u~'li~ B~ule~ard~3. ~ted drive' on. the ne~"side o~..Dub~:Botfl~vard(rigt~-~ffi and
fight-out only)~:-and 3 !fruited aocess~dr~es (righMn only, fight-out-only and ~i.gh~4n.. and
· right,out only) onthe sou'th side of Dublin Boulevard...' "
Full project drives would be located mid-block, Limited access drives would be designed with
· raisexi me~tians,in the:~adjae~iit roaflWays to?c~u~el traffic..'.:
" .~.' ....... : !.:' '.',."' "',." '..~.i,
As pat~ of project de,~elopm~",nt~: t~e~sit~:Woul~be ~ear~ a~d"~a&d't0 aceommodate..~e
proposed buildings, parking lots, pedestrian walkways and related knprovemcntS and to a~sure
appropriate site drainage. The amount of grading is not known at thi~'~e bfft'~.001fl lie ~'gu!ated
sit~ ~r0m: atijo~g'Stre~ts.:' Adj ace~t.str~g,i~av~rb~.con~t~l or are P~0i~o~l:t0..,b~.. '
cons~t~d'~'fUll widt~ i~r'~the'..~East~ Da~lin..,Sp~effic Plar~/G~n~ral Plan.' ~':".- ." "'
Development of.the project would also include conslruction Of site lighting (including parldng lot
landscaping, walkway lighting and lighting near each building) and ideii~ifieafi~i~ Si~.-~A Master
Sign Program woifld:ne~d:-~o-"~e.prep'~d:~f0r..c~nsider~tion~by the City 0fDu~"~Pa~t."~ the
proposedproje-~t: · ~ ..... '. '"'
It is proposed that the four buildings be consWacted in phases. Each phase would !nc.!,u~de the
site impf0vements.' ....
-DeV~lop~en~:'0f th~ CiseO.~aefli~ will req~e~'t~e' ~pproval °f"fhe'follo~g relate~l aPPli6ations:
Specifi'e Pi~Ge~ef~ Pl~'~e~flme~it~ pD pt~edDeVef0pment rezoniiig'(S~ge 1' ~l.'~.), site
D~VelOpn~e~'t'Review (gDR) and a Developr~ent:Agre~ent. Th~' ~pplicant has a1~6'"~e~hested
approval of two Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps.
3~eci. fic Plan/General t~lan .4 mendment
The existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/Genera~ Plan designates site 15A bounded by Central
Parkway to the nort~ Dublin Boulevard to the south, Arnold Drive to the west and the proposed
Sybase project to the east (11.36 net acres) forHigh Density Residential uses permitting an
average of 821 dwelIings to be cons~cted. A portion of the Cisco project would not be consistent
with this land use classification. The property owner, the Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority, has therefore filed an application to amend.the Eastern DubIin Specific Plan/General
Plan to redesignate Site 15A from "High Density Residential" to "Campus Office."
The property to the south, Site 16A, would continue to have a'"Campus Office" land use
designation. Approximately 333,87g square feet of potential o~ce floor area would be transferred
from Site 16A to Site 15A. An additional 99,622 square feet of unused o~ce floor space within
the Emerald Park project would also be assigned to Site 1Sa. The "Campus Office" land use
designation on Sites 15A and 16A would therefore accommodate the square footage proposed for
the Cisco Systems project. No additional office space beyond that analyzed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR would be added. Exhibit 3 shows the proposed Specific Plum/General
Plan Amendment.
.PD-Planned Development Rezoning and Stage !.and 2 Development Plar~
City of Dublin : f'i~ge 3
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus ~r~ 2001
~'~4 00-029
Th.0. iapp!icant has also proposed a PD-Ptanned Development rezoning for Site~'.lSA and I~A.
Existing zoning for sites 1SA and 16A is Planned Developmem-Business Park..'~op0sed Zoning
for .b..0~.~!tes is PD-Planaed D,~velOpment~Campns Office. Thc proposed PD-Planned
Deve!opm~nt-will includ,~a De~,etopmcnt Plan.that.~wii1 eslablish standards-and regulations
governing the future use, devel0pm~nt,~; i~prOvement and maintenance ofthe:site, in accord with
Chapter'8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
As. pa_vt of the PD-Planned Development zoni~..application~, S~e"l,:.and Stage 2.~Development
Plan has been prepared for City approval describing in detail the proposed developm~mt program
for ~e,Giseo:.praject. De~s,.ol~the developmenI.plan:.~e~.des.c~ib~l, above, ...
· '; '':' ;:' "":? '" '!"": '-. : .... ..:" '' '". '
~gProval,. o£0 Site. Dev. elopment?evi .e..w;pemait:.~'~o required-as.part:of the entiflemeni., process
(.o..~ the.projeqh pursuant, to .Chapter..8..! 0~'of~the Dublin Zoning Ordinance..The pm'pose of Site
Deve!opmmt.Kev/ew .is. m pmmot~..ofderl.y,,.amactive ,and:~ha~onious de~elopment-~vithin the
City and to ensure ~ompliance with all applicable developmem regulations of:the Zoning ...
Ordinance.
A Develapm.e. nt .A. greemcm, is.required, unde~ -the..Eastern. Dubt~ Spec/fie Plan bet~.een the City of
Dublin, the current property owner-and the project developer. The Development Agreement-would
vest (or "lock in") City development approvals related to the project for a specified period of time.
Par ~a e i Ma. p'' ,', .... ..
TI/e appiiChnt has also ~e~luested approval of two Vesting Tentative i~ar~eI MaPs to'submviae the
block formed by Central Parkway, Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Drive into separate parcels of
re, cmO (Sk~. ISA), and to subdivide the block formed by Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive,
proRoYsed Arnold Raad md. proposed Digital'Drive'int0 's~pmte Parcels of~ecor4.(Site 16A).
~r appr0~'~t of each.Ve~ting Tentative Parcel Map, a fn~tal Parcel MaP. would be prepared,
approved by the City and recorded.
City of D~tblln . Page 4
Initial Stztdy/Cisco ~ysterr~ Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
San .DUblin Site
Pacific
Ocean
0 lOMiles Exh'i'bit 1.Regional Centext
~==~m====~ Cisco Project (PA 00-029)
City of.Dublin
Monterey
PLEASANTON
Exhibit 2-Site Location
.Ciseo Project (PA 00-029)
,' City °f Dublin
:H -
-- ~ .... :7~ ..... ~ .......... F~-,
....... ' ....
"
~ ............ ~...~'
. ~ ~ ..... ,... ...~,...
~ PART~R~IP~.
~ I
~ /
E SUM~ BUILDING SUM~RY
B~INC ~1 - 5 ~RS - 2SB,eaO ~ ' 8UILOIN~ ~3 - 5 ~ - 269,975 St .
~ ~94.97B SF - 5 L~
'E ~ ~ 52o,~o~ SF ~52,ooo SF '
~BUN
22.1000 ~R~ ~ P~KING REQUIR[~E~(e3J/i,O00 S~-522~AC[S P~KING REQUiREME~(a3.3/1,~ S~-524SP~ES
T ~R~ 6~,456 sr P~NI~SU~
14.5900 ~ ~ ~
TOTAL STRU~URED PKNGM~96 SP~ES-520,600~ TOTAL ~RUCTURED PKNG- 940
~D 701~ BUI~INg ~- 852.~0 ~F TOT~ ~RF~E PKNO- 51 SPIES TOTAL SU~E PKNG - 455 SPIES ....
.............. ' ......... '" -- ................. i ?---,., X i
. ) r · ;': _~L'.'~,~ ",. -.-J
., ..---- % ....
.... 'I ',
GUZZ~DO
PARINER~I~c.
.... ...........
TE SUMM~ BUILDINg
15.~ ~R~ · P~NO REOUIR~E~(~3.3/I,~S~-BB6 SP~ P~l~ R[~REME~(O~,J/I~SF)-Eg~ SP~ I,
RO~S
~6~,6~
- - ~V~ ~E 3
22,~ ~ ~
14,59~ ~a~ * "
~NI~ SU~M~AL
......
:OMBINED SitES 1SA ~ 16A TOTAL BULLDOG ~- 4~,OgO S; TOTAL BUI~ING ~ - 428.~5 SF
~TAL ~RU~URED PKNG-IJg6 SPACES-520.60~F TOTAL STRUCTUR~ PKNG-
Exhibit a-Proposed $.p,cific Plan/llenerai Plan Amendment.
.. Cisco Project (PA 00-029)
.. City o1~ Dubli~l
I. Project descriptiOn: .... Prpposed development 0fan 862,000 square foot office and
· · . research complex on 25.95 netacres of land, to include a
~"~:.i'..:: Specific Plan/General Plan Amendmem within the Hacienda
~ :. Gateway portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General
... Plan, a PD-Planned Development Stage 1 and Stage 2
Rezoning, a Site Development RevieW; a Development
Agreement and two Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps
· 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin ·
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94588
3. Contact person: Anne Kinney, AIcp Dublin Planning Departmem
(925) 833 6610
4. Project Ioeafion: North and south sides of Dublin Boulevard, east of Arnold
Road
5. Project sponsor: Ci'sco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose CA 95134
Attn: Mark Crrieco '
(408) 525 0946
6. General.Plan/Specific Plan Existing:
designations: High Density Residential (Site 15A)
CO-Cmpus Office (Site 16A)
Proposed: PD/CO-Campus Office (both. sites)
7. Zoning: Existing:
PD-Business Park (both sites)
_Propose& CO-Campus Office (both sites)
8. Other public agency required approvals:
Final Parcel Maps (City of Dublin)
Grading and Building permits (CiW of. Dublin)
Master Sign Program (City of Dublin) .
Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Boa/rd)
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
City of Dublin .Page 10
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
]~A 00-029
The environmental factors checked below would be potcntially affected by this project, ~n. volving
at lcas~ one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" before mitigation as indicated by the
chccklis~ and discussion on the following pages..
X ~esthetics " - 'Agricultural , X A.fi"Qu~ ·
ResourCes .
Biological ResourCes X Cultural KeS°urces X '] GeOlogY/Soils
-- Ha'.~ds 'and ..... HydrOlogy?~v~ater X Land UsC/planning
X Hazardous Materials X Quality
- ~ngral Resources X " lqoize ...... x PoPulatiOnfHoUSing
X' Pub[ii s~rviees . - Kecreation ....... 'X" Transportation/
Circulation
X Udl/ties/Se~i~e - Mandatb~ Findings
Systems of Si~ificanc~ ........
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation: ,
t find that the proposed proj~t co.uld not have a significant effect on the environment and a
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
X I find that although the pro'posed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a si~i~icant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A IVliti~ted Negative Declaration will be
prepared..
~ I find that although the proposed project may have a si~ificant effect on the envkTonment,
but atleast one effec~ 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based'on earlier
"potentially
analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a significanl impact" or
'~potcndally s~gnificant unless n~itigated." An Environmental Impact Report is requ/red, but
must only analyze.the effects that remain tO be addressed.
I find tha~ although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
the--~e will no(be' a significant effect in this case because ail potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier ELK pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigal~ed pursuant to that earlicz'EIK, including revisions or m~tigation measures that
are hnposed on thc proposed project.
I '
City of Dublin Page 1 l
Jnitial Study/Cisco 5Xfstems Campus June 2001
ava 00-029
Evaluation of Environmen i Impacts '
1-) A brief explanation is required-for all.answ~s .e,x...~pt. "no impact." 'ans~s that are.
adequately' ~uppormd by the information s°'~ce~'a lead agency cites in th~' p~en~esis
followi~g each. ftuestion. A "no impact'.~ an~w~ is,. ,adequate, ly support~l fi.the referenced
info~t~0n ~6U~ces show that the' ~pact Si~pl~ does not apply tO pr°j~cts tike'the one
involved (e. g~..the to'eot falls outside a fault ru rare zone' A "no im act" answer, should b
explained where it is based on proje'ci:~.6~ffi~ factors as well as genc~ factors~ (e.,g. the.
project wilt not expose sensitive receptors: t° pollutams, based 6n h project-specific
analysis) ........ .
2) All answers must take accoUnt .of the whole action,, including off-site'as well as OnLsite,
' cumtiiat~v~'as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct~ and cbnStructiOn: as:Well as
operational impacts..
$) "Potenti ,al!y Significant ImpaCt". is..approPrist~ if there is substantial cvi~i~'.~at au effect is
significant If there are one or inore !'potentially. significant impact" entries when the
deterro.~nation is made, an EII~ is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Si~ificant Unless M2~gation Incorporated" implies
elsewh~e the incorporation of mitigation measures has. r~duced a~:~ffe~, from :'potentially
significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly ~xplain h°w they,reduce :~e effect to a.!ess than. significant
level ........
City of Dublin " . page t2
In~ffal Smdy/C~=o Sy~en= Camlsus .Iun~ 200t
]~A 90-029
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of detenuination 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 ' Potentially Less Than Les'~"tha~ ..... No .....
'following the checklist. " SignifiCant Si~aiflcantSignificant Impa~
Impact With Impact
,, Mi~.._~on .........
I.' Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic X
vista? (Source: 2) .....
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees; rock X
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? (Source: 2)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual - X.
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (Source: 2, 6) .......
d) Create a new source of'substantial light or
glare which Woutd adversely affect day or . X
nighttime views in the area? (Source: 2, 6) ......
II. Agricultural Resources
Would the project: ..
i) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland
~ Farmland of Statewide Importance, as
showing on the maps prepared pursuant.to X
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources ..
Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (Source:
2) ,,,
b) Conflict with ex[sting zoning for agriculture
use, or a Williarnson Act contract? (Source: X
2) ....
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
.nature, could result in conversion of X
farmland to a non-agricultural use? (Source:
2) -
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: , . ~J~ . ....
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of X
the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2 ) ,
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air X
quality violation? (Source: 2)
City of Dublin }>age ]3
June 200i
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus
BA 00-029
PotentiallyLess Than Less than'- No
SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
e) Result in a eumulatively considerable net ,,,
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an X
applicable federal or state ambiem air quality
standard (including releas/ng emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ·
ozone precursors? (8ource:2)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ...... X
pollutant concentrations? (2)
e) Create objectionable odors? (Source:2) ........... X
IV. Biological ResourCes. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly through.habitat modifications, on
any.species identified as a candidate, X
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans', policies or regulations, or by
the California Department offish and Game
or the U.S. Fish and Wildidfe Service?
(Source:2, 6)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional X
plans, policies or regulations or by the
California Department offish and Game or
the U. S2 Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source:
.2)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X
(including but not limited to marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological imerruption or other
means?
(Source:2)
d) Interfere substantially w/th the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native X
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? (Source: 2)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree X
protection ordinances? (Source: 2)
Cio~ of Dubtin Page 14
Initial Study/Ciseo Systems Campua June 2001
]'.4 00~029
SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
f) ConfliCt with the provision of au adopted . .
Habitat Conservation P1a~ Natural X
Community. Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan? (Source: 2)
V. Cultural Resources. Would the project ....
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as X
defmed in Sec. 15064.5? (Source:2) '
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ..
significance of an archeological resource X
pursuant to Sec. 15064,5 (Source: 4)
¢) D/recfly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic" X
feature? (Source: 2)
d) Disturb any hman rema/ns, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? X
'(Source: 2)
VI. Geology and Soils. Would theproject
a) Expose people or structures m poten'dal
substantial adverse effects, including the risk X
of loss, injury, or death involving: ·
(Source:3)
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State X
Geologist or based on other known evidence
of a known faul~
ii) Strong seismic ground sha.kiug · x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including .....
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ..... X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X
topsoil? (Source 2,3)
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 X
on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefact/on or collapse (Source:
2.3)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 13-l-B of the Uniform Building Code X
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Source: 3)
City of Dublin 2age 15
Initial Study/Ciaco Systems Campus dune 2001
PA 00-029
PotentiallyLess Than Less than No
SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With Impact
_ Mitigation
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting ............ "
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater.disposal systems Where sewers X
are not available for the disposal of waste?
(Source: 3)
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ' "
environment' through the routine transport, X
use or disposal of'hazardous materlats
(Source: 2, 7, 9)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ........ '
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident.conditions involving the X
release of hazardous into the environment?
(Source:2, 7, 9 )
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ......
hazardous materials, substances, or waste X
within one-quarter mile of an existing or ·
proposed school? (Source: 2, 7, 9) .
d) Be located on a site which is '.m. eluded on a
list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant X
hazard to the public or the environment?
(Source: 2, 7, 9)
e) For a project located within an airport land ............. '~ ~
use plan or, where such plan has notbeen
adopted, would the project result in a safety X
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2, 7)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety 'X
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2, 7)
g) Impair implementation of or physically ........
interfere with the adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation X
plan?
(Source: 2, 7)
PotentiallyLess Than '"£'ess than No
SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact
· Impact With Impact
Mitigation
. City of Dublin , Page 16
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campu3 June 2001
PA 00-029
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving .
wildland fires, including where wildlands are X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(Source: 2, 7) .......
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the
project: .... .............
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X
discharge requirements? (Source: 2) ................
b) Substantially'deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net -
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the X '
local ~oundwater table level (e.g. the
production rate of existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted?
(Source: 2) ....
c) Substamially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the aeration of the course ora stream or X
fiver, in a manner which would result in .
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
s~te? (8ource: 7) ..........
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including through
the alteration of a course or stream or river, X
or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on-. or off-site? (Source: 2,
7) ............
e) Create or conffibute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or X
· provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?. (Source: 2, 7) ........
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X
quality? (2) ......
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary X
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (7) Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
City of Dublin t'age 17
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area '"
structures which impede or redirect flood X
flows? (7)
i) ExPOse people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, and'death involving X
flooding, including'flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? (7) -.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mud_flow? X
IX. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) .Physically divide an established community? X
(Source: l, 2) . .
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (iucluding but
not limited to the general plan, specific.plan, X
local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (1, 6)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat "'
conservation plan or natural community X
conservation plan? (1, 2, 7)
X. Mineral Resources. Would the 'project ' '
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ........
mineral resource that would be of value tO
the region and the residents of the state? X
(Source: 2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site X
delineated on a local general Plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source: 2)
XI. Noise. Would the proposal result in.. ......
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise .......... X "
levels in excess of standards established in
the general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
(Source: 2)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of X
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundbome noise levels? (Source: 2)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ' '" X
noise levels in the project vicinity above.
existing levels without the project? (Source:
2)
Potentially Less Than -Less' than"
Signfficant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
City of Dublin Page 18
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
d) A.substantiat'temporary or period/c increase ..............
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ..- X
· above levels without the project7 (Source: 2)
e) For a project located within an airport land
:.use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, withln two m/les ofapublic airport
or public USe ah'port, would the projec! X
expose people residing or w~)rking n the ..
project area to excessive noise levels ?
(Source: 2, 6) .....
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
a/rstrip, would.thc project expose people
residing or working in the project area to X
· excessive noise levels? (Source: 2, {5)
XII. Population and ltousing. Would theproject
a) Induc.e substantial population growth in an
area, either directly or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other X
iiffrastmcture)? (Source: 2)
b).Displace substantial numbers of existing
hoUSing, necessitating the construction of X
replacement housing elsewhere? (10)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the rePlacement of housing X
elsewhere? (Source:. 10)
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
govemmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant cnv/ronmcntal
impacts~ in order to maintain acceptable
service rations, 'response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services? (2, 7)
Fire protection? X
Police protection : 'X
Schools X
Parks X
Other public facilities X
PotentiallyLess Than Less than No
SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With. Impact
Mitigation
XIV. Recreation.'
City of Dublin Page ?9
Initial Stucly/Cisco Systems Campus June 200t
PA 00-029
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional facilities such that. X
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated
(Source: 7)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities ·
or require the cons~zacfion or expansion of X
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 7)
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. X
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads or congestion at
intersections)? (4)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the X
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways?(4)
c) Result in a change in ak traffic patterns, -
including either ar/increase in traffic levels X
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (2, 4)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as X
farm equipment?(4)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (4) X'
f).Result in inadequate parking capacity? (7) -~ - X'"
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative transportation X
(such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (7)
Potentially' Le's~'~h'anLess than
Significant SignificantSig-nifieantImpact
Impact With Impact
.... Mitigati on
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the --
project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality X
Control Board? (2) -~: .......................
City of Dublin Page 20
Initial Study/Cisco ~stems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
b) Require or result in the conslzuction of new ---
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the X
construction of which could caUSe
significant enviromnental effects? (2, 7)
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of X
which could cause significant environmental
effects? (7)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing water I' X
entitlements and resources, o; are new or
'expanded entitlements needed? (2)
e) Result in a determination by the wastemter
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate X
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments? (2)
· f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the X
project's solid waste disposal needs? (2)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes: X
and regulations related to solid waste? (2)
XVI. Mandator~ 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 fishor wildlife population to X
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.maj or
periods of California history or prehistory?
: Potentially' Less Than ' Less than No"
· ' SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact
'Impact With Impact
Ci{y of Dublin 2~tge 21
Initial ~tudy/Ciaeo SYstems Camt~us June 2001
PA 00-029
b) Does the project have impacts that are .....
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a X
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects · X
on human beings, either directly or.
indirectly?
Sources nscd to dctermkue potential environmental impact.s.
1. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General PIan (I 994)
2. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan EIK (1994)
3 Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Cisco Systems Site 9, Dublin CA, Lowney Associates
(December 2000)
4 Project Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Omni Means Associates (May 20.01)
6. Site Visit
7. Discussion with City of Dublin' staff or affected special districts
g. Other source
9. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil and Ground Water Quality Evaluation,
Cisco Systems Site 9, Dublin CA, Lowney Associates (November 2000)
XVII. Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program ElK, or other CEQA process,
one or more of the project's effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIK or negative
declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d) oft he CEQA Guidelines.'
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this
Initial StUdy refer to environmental information contained in the 1994 Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan Program Environmental Impact Repo~ (SCH 91103064). This
document is referred to in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR." Copies of this
document are available for.public review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, 100
Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours.
As part of the certification of the EIR, the DubIin City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of
certain community faciIities (natural gas, electric and teleph0ne service), regional air
quality, noise and visual.
· City of Dublir~ Page 22
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus Jzcae 2001
PA 00-029
The certified ElK contains a large nUmber of mitigation measures that'will be applied to
any development within thc project area, including the proposed project. Specific
mitigation measures arc noted in thc text of the following Initial Study.
City of Dublin 2~age 23
Initial Study/Ci$co Systems Camfi~ts June 2001
t>.4 00-029
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS: Potentially Significant
LS/M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation
LS: Less Than Significant Impact
N-I: No Impact (or no impact beyond the scope of impacts previously identified
and analyzed
1. Aesthetics
Enviroranental Se~dng
The project site is vacant and consists of generally flat land with a distinct but gentle siope from
north to south, towards the 1-580 freeway. The Eastern Dublin EIR classifies the project site as
"valley grasslands," which are located on the areas near 1-580 in the s~uth and southwest portion
of Eastern Dublin. None of the major visual features identified in the. Eastern Dublin ]EIR
(hillsides and ridges or watercourses) exist on the project site.
The project site is not located within a scenic corridor as identified in the General Plan or Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan.' The nearest scenic corridor to the project site is the 1-580 freeway.
Prqject Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. Approval and construction of the
proposed project would.convert an existing vacant site to an'urban use, specifically the
construction of 4 multi-story office buildings and related improvements, including parking
and landscaping. This potential impact was addressed in the Eastern. Dublin EtP,. (Impact
3.8C, Obscuring Natural Features and Impact 3.8F, Alteration of Visual Character of
Flattands) and it was determined that no mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level. Therefore, the EIR concluded this impact would be a potentially
significant irreversible change and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for
this impact. The impacts of the proposed project' with respect to scenic vistas are within the
scope of the impacts associated with the project covered by the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan EIR. for this project site. There is no impact beyond that identified and
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, therefore no additional discussion or analysis is
necessary
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highway? NI. The project site
is not located adjacent to the 1-580 Freeway, which is a st, ate-designated scenic highway, nor
is it located adjacent or near other local scenic mutes, including Tassajara Road or Fallen
Road. and is therefore not within a scenic corridor. No impacts are.therefore anticipated
since the site is not located near an identified s~enic corridor.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. This impact
was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and in an associated Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of development
anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR for this project site, therefore no
City of Dublin Page 24
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
.PA 00-029
additional discussion or analysis is necessary. The impacts of the proposed project with
respect to degradation of existing visual character and quality are within the scope of impacts
associated with the project covered by the Eastern Dublin EIR. There is no impact beyond
that identified and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIK.
Create light or glare? LS/M. Construction of the proposed project would increase the
amount of light and glare due to new street lighting, parking lot fighting and building
secUrity lighting, tn some instances, the additional lighting could result in negative aesthetic
impacts through the "spill over" of unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties; streets and
other areaS that are not intended to be lighted. The following mitigation is therefore
"recommended to reduce spillover of lighting impacts to a level of tess-than-significant.
Similarly, extensive use of glass is proposed as one of the primary exterior materials for the
tv~0 buildings. Depending on the t~e of glaSs used, potential glare could result onto adjacent
sites and nearby roadways. Mitigation Measure 1 would also reduce potential glare impacts
to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure 1: Pole-mounted street lights shall be equipped with cut-off
lenses and oriented down toward interior streets to mi_v_imize unwanted light and'
glare Spill over. Building security lighting and other lights shall be directed
downward. All exterior glass panels shall be of non-glare manufacture.
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental Setting
The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the site is an "approximate urbanized area" and is therefore not
prime farmland.
Based on information contained in the EaStern Dublin EIR (Figure 3.1-C), no portion of the site is.
encumbered with a Williarnson Act Land Conservation Agreement contract.
Pro. ie. ct Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert flrime farmland to a
non-agricultural use? NI. The site waS previously used for governmental purposes and is not
identified as prime farmlands in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No impacts are therefore
. anticipated with regard to prime farmland or loss of agricultural production.
3. Air Quality'
Environmental Setting
Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal standards for
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other airborne pollutants,
including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter (PM-10) are not met in at
least a portion of the Basin. ' '
proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) l, Vould the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an.air quality plan? LS. The
proposed project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District, since the proposed amount of development has been
City of Dubtin i~age 25
Initial Study/Ci$co Systems Campus June 2001
2PA 00-029
included in Dublin's planned growth as part ofF. astern Dublin speCific plan/General Plan,
which.is the basis of the Clean Air Plan. Therefore,. such impacts would be less-than-
sign~cant.
b) Would the project'violate any air quality standards? LS. Short-term cons~ruotion impacts .
related to implementation oftt3e project, including grading and excavation~ could result in
exceedauees of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (Eastern Dublin EIP~ ImpactS 3.11/A and B). With adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.11/1.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.1 t/2.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIP,, short-term
project-level air quality impacts will' be. less-than-significant. These mitigation measures
minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading and construction activities and also
mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running order. With adherence to
these mitigation measures, project-level impacts would be less-thau-signifieant,'and no
additional analysis is required. The Eastern Dublin ELK concluded that potential cumulative
air quality impacts related to construction equipment could not be mitigated to a less-than-
significant impact and a Statement of O;verriding Considerations was adopted for this
impact.
Similarly, potential air quality cumulative impacts related to mobile source emissions of
Reactive Organic'Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide, both precursor indicators of smog, and
stationary source emissions were found to exceed regional air quality standards even with
mitigation measures, and were included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Eastern Dublin EIK Impacts 3.11/C and E). The air quality impacts of the proposed project
are within the scope of the project impacts covered by the Eastern Dublin ELK, for which a
Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopmd for long-term, cumulative impacts.
There are no additional impacts 'beyond those identified and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR, therefore no additional discussion or analysis is necessary.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air poltutants? N-I. The Eastern Dublin
EIR identifies Mobile Source Emissions and Stationary Source Emissions related to the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan as significant irreversible impacts. Generally 'such
impacts are based on vehicular emission from future traffic w/thin the sub-region as well as
from stationary sources. The air quality impacts of the proposed project are within the scope
of the project impacts covered by the Eastern Dublin EIK, for which a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted for long-term impacts. There are no additional
impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin ELK, therefore no
additional discussion or analysis is necessary.
al, e) Expose ~ensitive receptors to signi, ficant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors? NI. Proposed land uses include campus offices, which are not considered as sensitive
receptors. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to potential impacts to sensitive
receptors.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental' Setting
The Eastern Dublin ELK indicates the biological character of the Cisco site is "ruderal field,"
which is defined as a broad category of plant life closely related to man and consisting of native
and alien elements which occupy disturbed habitats. Ptant species typically consist of weeds,
City of Dublin ]'age 26
]nitial Study/Cisco Systems Campus 'June 200]
PA 00-029
thistles, mustards and grasses. Plant diversity is considered low even~though plant cover may be
high.
The Eaatera Dublin ELK identifies no known wetlands on the site nor the presence of rare,
threatened or endangered animal plant or animal species.
The site is substantially surrounded by urban development within the greater Eastern Dublin area.
Project Impacts and Mitigation MEasures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-stares species? NI. As
described in the Eastern Dublin EI~ no candidate, sensitive or special-status species exist on
the site. This has been confirmed by a site review conducted by City staff. Therefore, there
woUld be no impact. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure 3.7/20 of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan ELK requires all development projects to conduct preei)nstruction surveys within 60 days
prior to grading of a site to verify whether sensitive species are present.'So there would be no
impact to these biological resources beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan ELK.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? NI.
As described in the Eastern Dublin EIK, there are no wetlands or riparian features on or
adjaeen$ to the project site. There woUld therefore be no impacts to wetlands or riparian
habitats. Since there are no streams on the site, the project site.is not subjee~ to the City's
S~-eam' Preservation Plan.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wadlife species? NI.'The project site is
substantially surrounded by urban development and wa~ previously developed for
governmental uses. There are no stream courses on or near the site that could be used as a
wildlife migration con-idor.~ Therefore, no impacts are anticipated with regard to movement
of fish or wildlife species.
e, JO' Conflict with locat policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation _Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. No trees are
present on the site, and there are no impacts with regard to local tree preservation ordinances
or polieies. The site is not located w~flain the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plans.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
The Eastern Dublin area was surveyed in 19gg as part of the EaStern Dublin Specific Plan and
associated EtK. SeveraI potentially significant archeological resources were identified in the
Specific Plan area~ a number of which were located near the former Santa Rita Kehabilitation
Center. None of these sites have been recorded on the project site.
pr0iect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The site is vacant
and contains no historically significant resources. There would therefore be no impacts to
t~s~orical resources.
City of Dublin Page 2 7
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus ' Jzene 200 J
PA 00-029
b, c) Cause a si~bstantiai adverse' impact or destruction to archeologicat or paleontological
resources? LS/M. The site is located near the former Santa Kita Rehabilitation Center site
and development of the project could have an impact on subsurface' archeological and/or
paleontological resources. This would be a potentially significant impact. In the event that
such resources are encountered, the following mitigation measUre is reeor~mended to reduce
any potential impacts to areheological or paleontological impacts to a level ~ less-than-
Mitigation Measure 2: The possibilitY that undetected prehistoric:areheological
resources might exist on the property must be reco~nized and a contingency plan
shall be developed in conformity with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 to handle
discoveries during project construction. In the event any prehistoric material is
discovered, work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity of the site uatit a qualified
archeologist inspects the discovery, an&, if necessary, implements plans for further
evaluative testing and/Or retrieval of endangered materials.
d) Disturb any human resources? LS/M. A remote possibiiiry exists that human resources
could be uncovered on the site during construction activities. Actherence to Mitigation
Measure 2 would reduce such impacts to a level of less-than-significance.
6. Geology and Soils
[Note: Information for this section of the Initial Study is based on a geotechnieal investigation of
the site for the proposed project, prepared by Lowney Associates, December 2000, which is
incorporated herein by reference. A copy of this report eau be reviewed at the Dublin Planning
Department.]
Environmental Setting
This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and landform,
drainage and erosion and potential impacts to localized soil types.
Seismic '
The Ciseo site is a part of the 'San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically active regions
in nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presemee of several nearby significant faults,
including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Flayward Fault, and San Andreas Fault. The
likelihood of a major seismic event on one or more of these faults within the near future is
believed to be high. According to the report prepared by Lowney Associates, the project sites
(Sites 15A and 16A) are not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as identified by
the State of California.
A surface fault rupture study was prepared in the area by Kleinfelder Associates in 1999. No
evidence of fault-related disruption to the site soils was identified in this analysis. Based on this
and other recent geoteclmical information considered by Lowney Associates, a fault rapture on the
site is not anticipated.
Site SoiIs
The si~ is underlain by stiffto very sfiffand sandy clay to the maximum depth explored (80 feet
below ground surface). Near-surface soils are highly expansive. Test pits dug as part of the
geotechnical investigation found scattered fill material, primarily gravelly olay, as well as
City of Dublin Page 28
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2002
PA 00-029
abandoned utility lines and below-grade structures. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 9 to
20 feet from ground surface, although this may vary due to rainfall and other factors.
Landform and Topography
The site is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-Amador Valley. The
site is relatively
Drainage
Existing drainage on the site is generally sheet flow in a north to south direction.
.P/r.. qiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury
or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides?
.L$. The site is subject to ground shaking caused'by a number of regional faults identified
above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable in the Bay Area over the
next 30 years, buildings, utilities and bther improvements c°nstructed on the site would be
subject to damage caused by ground shaking.
Since the Cisco site is not located within an AlqUist-priolo Special Studies Zone, the
potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. Adherence to Mitigation Measures
MM 3.6/1.0 through 8.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will ensure that new structures
built on'the site will comply with generally recog~_ized seismic Safety standards so that
ground shaking impacts would be less4han- significant.
As part. of the project, the site is proposed to be graded to accommodate building pads, roads,
parking areas and other development areas. Grading would also occur to improve and control
site drainage. Mitigation Measures 3.6117.0-26.0 have been adopted as part of the Eastern
.Dublin Specific Plan EIR tO reduce pOtential geotechn~cal.'impacts to a level of tess-than-
significant. These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and
geotechnical reports and adherence to Uniform Building Code and other City requirements
for grading.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. Impacts 3.6/I<2 and L
of the Eastern Dublin EIR note that an impact of constructing all of the land uses identified
in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan would be an increase of erosion and
sedimentation caused by grading activities. Related Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and
3.6/28.0 require that project developers prepare and implement interim erosion plans as part
of grading permits. There are no grading impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and no further analysis is required. With adherence to these mitigation measUres,
potential erosion impacts will be less-than-significant.
c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result'in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3.6/A of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, the applicant's geotechnical consultant (Lowney
Associates) prepared a geotechnicai analysis of the site. Based on. the Lowney-Associates.
report, the site can support the type of project envisioned by the applicant. Expansive soils
were encountered on the site and recommendations made by the geologist, to include special
grading techniques and building foundation designs will be requ/red. No impact beyond
those addressed in the Eastern Dublin Spec[tic Plan EIK are anticipated and no further
review is necessary.
City of Dublin t~age 29
'Initial SmcIy/Cisco Systems campus June 2001
PA 00~029
With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 contained in the F. astem
Dublin EIK, potential lateral spreading and related soil hazards impacts to proposed
structures will be less-than-significant.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks f sewers are not available? NI. The
proposed development would be connected to a sanitary sewer system within streets adjacent
to the site. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks..
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
[Note: Information for this seotion 0fthe Initial Study is based on the Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment and Soft and Orotmd Water Quality Evaluation, prepared by Lowaey Associates,
November 2000, which is incorporated herein by reference. A copy of this report can be reviewed
at the Dublin Pla~n~ng Departmem.]
Er/vixonmental Se~_.~_~tg
The site is vacant and currently contains no structures. Previous use of the site was for a federal
government installation, which may have involved the use or storage of potentially hazardous
material: An environmental site assessment has been prepaxed for the project site to assess the
existence of hazardous materials from past uses of the property. The results of the assessment are
discussed below.
P. roje. et Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a-e) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release, or emission
of hazardous materials? LS/M. The proposed use of the site would include an office and
R&D/l~ght assembly complex for a high-technology firm. It is anticipated that limited
quantities of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would be transported to and from
the site and may be usegl as a part of on-going operations for the proposed facility. Use of
such materials would be regulated by federal, state and local agencies, including the
Alameda County Fire DeparUnent. Other minor quantities of potentially hazardous materials
would also be kept on the site, ia¢Iuding normal and customary mounts of lawn chemicals,
solvents and similar items used for building and grounds maintenance. With adherence to
applicable federal, state and local transport and use requirements, creation of a potentially
hazardous condition would be less-than-significant
The environmental site assessment prepared by Lowney Associates indicates that project was
part of an Army Base and Naval Hospital du_6ng World War II. Ali of the buildings mad
related structures were demolished between the late 1940s mad early 1950s. Facilities that
were previously located on Site 15A included barracks and two former diesel or gasoline
fueling stations. The underground tanks and piping have been removed from these former
facilities. Some heavy petroleum hydrocarbons were discovered in the area of one of the
former fueling stations on Site 15A dur{ng the environmental site assessment. In addition,
approximately 1,200 feet of merci pipe which were wrapped with tar paper containing small
amounts of asbestos were also discovered during the environmental site assessment. '
Mitigation Measure 3 would reduce potential health hazard impacts to a less than significant
level.
City of Dublin .Page 30
Initial Stzaiy/Cisco Systems Campus ~ June 2001
_P,~ 00-029
Mitigation Measure 3: Prior to the isSUmce cfa building permit, all of.the
· asbestos wrapped piping shall be removed and deposited off of Site 1 SA.
and the heavy petroleum hydrocarbons shall be removed to the extent required by
the appropriate regulatory agencies.
The 'environmental site assessment also-discovered an inactive 1,000 gallon' UST which
contained diesel, fuel or heating on Site 16A. The UST and contaminated soil were
excavated and removed during 2000. The Alameda County Health Care Services. Agency
has issued a No Further Action letter for the former 1,000 gallon UST, indicating that the
tank site poses no significant health hazard. A copy of the letter is on file with.the Planning
Department The environmental site assessment also discovered some deposits of incinerator
ash buried on a small area of Site t 6A. Mitigation Measure 4 would reduce potential health
hazard impacts tea less than sign.~cant level.
Mitigation Measure 4: Prior to the issuance cfa bUilding permit, all of the
incineratOr ash shall be excavated and.deposited off of Site 16A
A plume of groundwater with concentrations ofperchloroethylene (PCE) and other solvents
was also detected beneath portions of Sites 15A and 16A. The source of the PCE and
solvent contamination is believed to be a former laundry facility whiCh existed on Site 15B .
(refer to Exhibit 2 for site location) during the 1940s. A groundwater monitoring plan has
been subn~tted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board by Alameda County to monitor
groundwater concentrations of the contaminants. A Health Risk Assessment prepared by
Lowney Associates, dated November 2000 (and included withi~ the Emdronmental Site
Assessment referenced above) concluded that the PCE contaminated groundwater does not
pose an unacceptable risk to future office, maintenance or construction workers as levels of..
contaminants ate witbln the acceptable risk range established by the EPA National
Contingency Plan. With adherence to applicable federal and state ground water quality
standatds and requirements~ potential hazardous conditions would be lessthan sign~cant.
d) Is the site listed as a ~zardou~ materials site? LS/M. The site is not listed as a hazardous
materials site. With adherence to Mitigation Measures under (a-e) above, there would be
less-than-significant impacts regarding hazardous materials.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport Or private airstrip? NI.
The site is located northwesterly of the Livermore Municipal Airport but outside of any
safety or referral zone for this airpo~ No impacts are therefore anticipated regarding airport
safety issues.
g) Interference with an emergen~ evacuation plan? NI. Adequate emergency access has been
provided via proposed driveways on all adjoining streets. Due to the provision of adequate
access, there would be no impact wi~ regard to emergency evacuation plans.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of toss, injury Or death involving wildland
fires or where residences are intermixed with wildland$? NI. The project site is currently'a
vacant field and is subject to grassland fires during the dry portions of the year. However, the
long-term plan for the area is for urbanization. Development of the project site and the
surrounding area pursuant to the Eastern.Dublin Specific P1an'would include adding new
water lines for firefighting purposes as well as new fire stations and personnel. No impacts
are therefore anticipated.
Ciiy of Dublin ;Page 31
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus Ju~e 2001
P~ 00-029
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
The project site is generally fiat and comains no wetlands or riparian features. Site drainage is by
sheet flow to the south, towards the 1-580 freeway.
The City of Dubl'm has completed a master drainage and hydrology study for the Eastern Dublin
area. The City of Dublin Master Drainage Plan calls for the construction of both local and regional
drainage improvemefits to accommodate increased levels of stormwate~ runoff caused by adding
increased quantifies of impervious surfaces in the area, including buildings, parking lots,
driveways and sidewalks. Stormwater from the Eastern Dublin area generally flows to the south,
under the 1-580 freeway and into regional drainage facilities maintained by Alameda County Zone
7. The uJtimate disposal of stormwater runoffis Alameda Creek that drains into San Francisco
Bay. In accordance with the City's Master Drainage Plan, existing drainage facilities have been
upgraded and new facilities constructed within the Emerald Park DeVelopment area to
accommodate new development including the Cisco project.
According to information contained in the soils, Geology and Seismicity chapter of the Eastern
Dublin EIK, no portion of the site contains historic landslides or mudflows (See Figure 3.6-C).
The prOject site is not located within a 100-y.e~ flood hazard area according to the current FIRM
(Flood Insurance Rate Map) Flood Map for the East Dublin area.
Prqieet Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Violate any water quality standards or ~vaste discharge requirements? LS/M. Construction
of improvements anticipated as part of the Cisco project would necessitate grading and '
overcovering of the soil in order to construct building pads, utility connections and similar
features. The amount of gracing is not known at this time, however, proposed grading is
anticipated to increase the possibility of soil erosion imo creeks and other bodies of water, on
and offthe project site. This could be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5
will ensure that potential water quality impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure 5: The project developer shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), listing Best Management Practices to reduce construction
and post-construction activities to a less than significant level. Measures may
include, but shall not be limited to revegetation o£ graded areas, silt fencing, use of
biofilters (i.e. grassy swales) and other measures. The SWPPP shall conform to
standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Dublin
and shall be approved by the. City of Dublin Public Works Department prior to
issuance of grading permits.
Specific development projects containing five acres or more are also required to
obtain a Notice of Intent from tl~e State Water Resources Control Board prior To
Commencement of grading.
b) . Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? LS. Although
the currently vacant site would be converted to an urban'use, this impact has been addressed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.5/Z) and Mitigation Measure 3.5/49.0 adopted as part of
C~y of Dublin ' Page 32
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus june 2001"
~A 00~029
the EIK. This Mitigation Measure requires thc project to adhere to applicable City poli¢ies
and ordinances regarding water quality and to comply w.i.'th the Nationzl Pollution Disposal
Elimination System 0qPDES) permit There are no groundwater impacts beyond that
addressed in thc Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and no further analysis is required. With
adherence to this mitigation measure, groundwater impacts would be less-than-significant.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? LS. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR acknowledges
that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would change existing natural
drainage patterns on individual sites. In this instariee, proposed changes would include
grading and re-contouring much of'the site and filling surface drainage swales with
underground pipes and culxrerts to accommodate storm water runoff. The overall direction of
stormwater flow in a southwesterly direction will not significantly change however.
Based on preliminary hydrological information prepared by the applicant's engineer, the
quantity and rate of stormwater flow from the site is consistent with the City's master
drainage plan for Eastern Dublin so that potential impacts would be less-than-significant.
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site?
LB. Construction of the project would not significantly change drainage patterns within the
site area. Existing surface drainage flows would be slightly altered due to anticipated site
grading. Drainage would be routed through newly constructed underground pipes, culverts
and similar facilities. A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted by the applicant,
indicating that storm drain improvements would be consmicted to connect with existing and
planned drainage improvements within the Eastern Dublin area. This would b.e considered a
' less-than-significant impact. In addition, the site lies above the 100-year flood elevation so
no significant site flooding is anticipated. ..
e) Create stormwater 'runoff that wguM exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts ofpolluted runoff?.. LS. Construction of on-site improvements is
anticipated to lead to greater quantities of storm water runoff. According to the Dublin
Public Works. Department, the mount of stormwater runoff anticipated to be generated from
the site would be consistent with the approved Master Drainage Plan for the Eastern Dublin
area, so there would be less-than-significant impacts related to increases in stormwater
runoff.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS/M. Refer to the analysis and mitigation measure
under "a," above.
g) Place housing within a. JOO-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance 1rate
Map? NI. The proposed project does not include a housing component, so there would be no
impacts with regard, to placing housing within a 100-year flood plain:
h, i) 2Place within a I O0-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? Nt. The proposed project is not located within a 100-year flood
hazard area. Since the project would be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Master Drainage
Plan, there would be no impacts regarding redirection of flood flows.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? 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 Iow
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Camp.us June 2001
PA 00-029
since no historic landslides or mudflows have been identified on. the site (see Figure 3.6-c of
the Eastern Dublin ERR).
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Setting
The project site is site is presently regulated by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan.
The Specific Plau designates Site 15A for High Density Residential and Site I6A for Campus
Office.
Refer to the Project Description £or a discussion of both the requirements 0£the existing Specific
Plan/General Plan and proposed amendments to the Plan.
Proiec~ Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Physically divide an established community? NL The project is vacant and is located in an
area planned for and developing with similar land uses to the project. Therefore there Would
be no disruption of any established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land us,e plan, policy or regulation adopted to avoid or mitigate
an environmental effect? NI. The proposed project would be consistent with environmental
· goals and policies comained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. No impacts
would therefore result-with regard to consistency with applicable land use plans and policies.
c) Conflict with. a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No
such plan has been adopted within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan area. There
would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan for the proposed project.
10. Mineral ReSources
Environmental Setting
The si~c contains no known mineral resources.
Proiect Impacts and Mfifigafion Measures
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources?
The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the
site, so no impacts would occur.
I1. Noise
EnvirOnmental Settin~
Major sources of noise, on and adjacent to the project site include distant noise generated by
vehicles passing Eastern Dublin planning area on I-5 80, traffic sources on Tassajara Road and
from aircraft flyovers.
Based on Figure 3. I 0 B contained in the Eastern Dublin ErR, alt or a portion of the project site
would be subject to significant long-term noise exposure, defined as 60 decibels CNEL for
City of Dublin Page 34
Inifia! Study/Cisco SYStems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
exterior noise for residential land uses. The Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies
"normally acceptable" noise levels for non-residential uses as 70 dBA or less.
ProjeCt Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: LS. Operation of the proposed'
project would be subject'to the General Plan noise standard of 70 dBA or less. Residential
uses are subject to more stringent noise standards. However, the proposed project does not
include any residential uses. With adherence to the'General Plan noise standards, operational
impacts of the project relaied to increases in permanent noise levels would be less-than-
significant.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration Or groundborne noise levels? LS.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in long:term increases in
groundborne vibration, since office uses would not generate groundborne vibration or noise.
Therefore, this impact would be considered 'iess4han-significant
c) Substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise l~v¢ls? NI. Impact 3.10/B identified in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ELK identified future exposure of housing within the
Plarming Area to future roadway noise as significant and unavoidable. Future traffic
generated by the proposed Cisco project would contribute to this condition. However, the
impacts of the proposed project with respect to increases in permanent noise levels are
within the scope of the impacts associated with the project covered by the Eastern Dublin
EIK. The type and intensity' of developmen~ proposed as part of the Cisco project, and the
noise generated and associated impacts on residential uses have been identified and analyzed -
. in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ELK; no new impacts would occur.
d) Substantial temportrr2 or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? LS. Construction of the proposed office complex would
increase short-term noise levels during the construction period for the project. Mitigation
Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 contained ha the Eastern Dublin ELK would require individual
project builders to prepare const~ction noise management plans to minimize noise to
existing and future housing as well as adhere to consmaction hour limitations. Therefore,
short-term construction noise impacts would be considered less-than-significant.
e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? NI. The project site would not be affected by Livermore Municipal
ALrport due to the fact that the airport is located approximately two miles southeasterly of
the project. The project site lies outside the ah-port referral.are.a. No impacts are.therefore
anticipated.
12. Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
Recent information regarding population and housing in Dublin has been published in Project~ons
2000, published by ~e 3~ssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). According to ABAG,
Dublin's population (including the sphere of influence) was 26,300 in 1995 and was projected to
be 31,500 in 2000. The estimaxed population for Dublin is anticipa~:d to be 50,500 in 2010 and
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200I
P~ 00-029
66,600 in 2020. By way of cornparis0n, the State Department of Finance has determine, d that
Dublin's population was 32,500 as of January 1,2000.
The adopted Eastern DubI'.m Specific Plan/General Plan anticipates au ultimate Population Of
12,458 dwelling units in the Eastern Dublin planning area at.full buildout of.all land uses within
the planning area. The Specific Piton/General Plan also calls for a maximum of 9,737,000 square
feet of commercial, office and industrial uses at full buildout'ofthe Plan.
.p. roiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. The
proposed project is consistent with the type and scale of development anticipated in the
approved Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. The proposed amendment to the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan would reconfigure office and residential land uses
to be. more responsive to market demand. The potential to increase sUbstantial popatation
growth weuld be considered a less-than-significant since no new non-residential floor area
would be added to the Specific Plan area.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NL The
site is vacant. Implementation of the proposed project would therefore displace neither
· housing units or people. No impacts are therefore anticipated in regard to population
displacement.'
13. Public Services
Environmental Settine
o Fire Protection. Fire protection services is provided by the Alameda County Fire
Department, which contrac~ with the City of Dublin for fire suppression, fire
prevention, education, inspection services and hazardous material control to the
community.
o Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by Alameda County
Sheriff Department, which contracts to the. City of Dublin for 24-hour security
patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime suppression
and traffic safety.
o Schools. The Dublin Unified School District 0DUSD) provides educational services
to the City of Dublin.
o Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the
responsibility ofthe City of Dublin Public Works Depaztrnent.
o Solid Waste Service: Livennore Dublin Disposal Company.
Environmental Iml~aets and Mitigation Measures
a) Fire protection? LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase demand for f~re
and emergency services by increasing the amount of permanent daytime population on the
site. This impact was previously addressed in the Eastern Dubtin EIR. Features which would
be incorporated into the project as part of existing City ordinances, and development.
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
requirements and to assist in reducing impacts would include installation of on-site fire
.. protection measures such ss ~e sprinklers,' installation of new fire hydrants and meeting
minimum fire flow requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire
Code.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0-13.0 .contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR address
increased demand for fire and emergency services based on new development envisioned in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. These mitigation measures relate to funding
new fire facilities in eastern Dublin,' ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for fire
suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazarits. The proposed project is required to
comply with applicable programs and standards implementing previously adopted mitigation
measures. With such compliance and normal City fire protection requirements, impacts
mimed to frre protection would be less-than-significant.
b) Police protection? LS. Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be
expected should the project be approved and consmtcted. Impacts would generally include
increases in commercial and auto burglary and theft. This increase in calls for service would
be off-set through adherence to City of Dublin safety requirements from the Police
Department, including the non-residential security ordinance. As a condition ofproject
approval, the Dublin Police Department requires that alt new developments prepare a Master
Security Plan to ensure that private on-site security programs are consistent with police
.protection operations.
The project developer will also be required to adhere to applicable Mitigation Measures
3.4/1.0-5.0 set forth in Eastern Dublin EIR2 These measures deal with establishing funding
mechanisms for additional police personnel and facilities and require the inclusion of.
security provisions into individual development projects. With adherence to previously
adopted mitigation measures and normal City.requirements, including preparation of a
Master Security Plan, impacts related to police protection would be less-than-significant.
c) Schools? LS. The proposed project involves the development of an office complex. Since
this is a non-residential land use, minor and less-than-significant impacts are anticipated
with regard to impacts to local schools. The project developer will .be required to pay
necessary per square foot fees to the Dublin Unified School District to off-set any indirect
impacts that could result from secondary inducement of future employees moving into the
District to work within the office complex.
d) .Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. Approval a~d construction of the
project would incrementally increase the long-term maintenance demand for roads and other
public facilities. HoWever, such additional maintenance demands will be offset by additional
City fees and property tax revenues accruing to the City of Dublin. Less-than-significant
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are needed.
e) Solid waste gen,ration? LS. Approval of the project and construction oft. he office complex
would incrementally increase generation of solid waste. The Eastern Dublin EIR requires
adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0-40.0. These measures require the preparation of a
solid waste management plan and assurances that adequate solid waste landfill capacity
exists prior to approval of individual development projects. Less-than-significant impacts
would therefore result with regard to generation of solid waste.
City of Dublin ' Page 37
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus J~me 2001
.PA 00-029
14. Recreation
Enviroranental Setting
The project site is currently vacant and .contains n° parks or other recreational amenities.
?roi eot Imvaets and, M~igafion Measures
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI. The
proposed General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment wo.uld not result ~ new
'residences being constructed within the Eastern Dublin area. Therefore, no impact would
result to neighborhood or regional park facilities.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? NI. The prOPosed project does not include residential development, so there would
be no impact on City park or recreational facilities. The preliminary site.plan for the pr. ojeet
does include on-site recreational facilities for use by employees.
15. Transportation/Traffic
[This section is based on a traffic analysis for the project prepared by Omni-Means, Transportation
Consultants, May, 2001, whichis incorporated herein by reference. The full text of the'traffic
analysis is on file in the City of Dublin Publie Works Department.]
Environmental Setting
Existing Transportation Network
The project site fs served by a number of regional freeways and Sub-regional amrial and collector
roadways, shown on Exhibit 2 and including:
Interstate 580, an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such
as Livermore and Tracy to the east and .Oakland, San Francisco and other cities to.the west.
In the vicinity of the project, Interstate 580 carries between 169,000 and 187,000 veI~eles
per day. Interchanges near the project site include Dougherty/Hopyard Road, Hacienda
Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rim Road and Fallon Road/E1 Charro Road.
Dougherty I~oad is a two-lace rural road with its northern section located in Contra Costa
County. Dougherty Road has four lanes betWeen the Alameda County/Contra Costa
County border and Dublin Boulevard and six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and I-Sg0.
South ofi-580, it continues with six lanes as Hopyard Road in Pleasanton. Average Daily
Traffic is approximately 43,500 south of Dublin Boulevard.
Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial roadway in the City of Dublin. It contains
four lanes largely fronted by retail mad commercial uses west of Dougherty Road. Between
Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is a two-lane road with an
exception between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Creek, where, it is a four lane road.
Average Da/[y Tragfic varies from approximately 29,300 vehicles east of San Ramon Road
and Interstate 680 to 5,300 vehicles west of Tassajara Road.
City of Dublin 2~age 38
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
P~4 00-O29
Ha¢iencla Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to I-5 $0. It contains six lanes
south ofi-580 and four lanes north ofi-580, extending as far north as Dublin Boulevard.
As part of the Santa Pdta Business Center, Hacienda Drive has been extendeii northward to
Gleason Drive as a three-lane roadway. Between 1-580 and Dublin~ the existing vehicle
coUnt is' approximately 11 ~300.
,,lrnold Road is a north-south two-lane road parallel to and west.of Hacienda Drive. It
currently connects Glcason Drive and existing Dublin Boulevard(future Central'Parkway).
This road is being extended southward to Dublin Boulevard (ultimate alignment) The
existing average daily traffic flow on Arnold Drive is approximately 3,500 vehicles per
day.'
Gleason Drive is aa east.west'two-lane road parallel to and north of Dublin Boulevard. It
serves the Santa Kita Kehabilitation Center, Federal Correctional Institute and existing
developments along G1eason Drive. Gleason Dri~ve connects Tassajara P,.oad with Arnold
Koad and carries between 5,100 vehicles per day (west ofTassajara Koad) to
approximately 1,000 vehicles per day (west of Hacienda Drive). Portions of Gieason Drive
. are being widened to four lanes.
Tassajara Road is a two-laae rural' road conneeting Santa Kita Koad at 1-580 to the south
and continuing north to the Town of Danville. North of Contra Costa County tine, it is
named Camino Tassajara and is used primarily for local traffic in the Tassajara Valley,
with some through traffic. The average daily traffic volume on Tassajara Koad is
approximately 16,800 vehicles south of Dublin Boulevard, 9,900 vehicles per day between
Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive and 7,500 vehicles per day north of Gleason Drive.
This road is currently being widened to four lanes from 1-580 to North Dublin Ranch
Boulevard.
Santa Rita Road is a six-lane divided urban arterial roadway from the I-$80 interchange
south to Yalley Boulevard. It serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda
Business Park and provides access to downtown Plcasanton.
Existing Intersection Operations
The traffic analysis prepared by Omni Means found that existing intersections ne~ the project site
currently operate at acceptable i~vels of service, defined by the City of Dublin ~ Level Of Service
"D" or better. This analysis included counts of existing traffic at major intersections near the
proposed project as well as intersections throughout the Eastern Dublin area..
Existing and Future Baseline Conditions
Future base conditions represent existing traffic plus anticipated traffic generated by approved and
pending projects (reasonably foreseeable development in the area). Future base waffle conditions
do not include traffic volumes generated by the proposed Cisco Systems development. In addition,
future base traffic conditions assume currently planned or funded roadway modifications would be
in place. Planned roadway improvements include' capital improvement programs (CIP) apprc~ved
by the City Council or bonded by p~oject developers. '
Current and planned roadway anci intersection improvements fo~ the proj eot stUdy area include the
following:
Roadways
City of Dublin Page $9
Initial Srudy/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
Dublin Boulevard Widening: Dublin Boulevard is currently being widened to six travel lanes
between. Scarlett Drive and Hacienda Drive~ The roadway is also planned to be widened to six
lanes between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive.
Tassajam Road Widening: Tassajara Road is currently being widened to four travel lanes.between
1-580 and north of Gleason Drive.
Central Parkway Extension: Central Parkway is currently being extended between Arnold Road
and Hacienda Drive and will include two traveI lanes. Central Parkway is currently closed
through traffic at Tassajara Creek.
Arnold Road Extension: Arnold Road would be.extended in a southerly direction from DUblin
Boulevard to just north oft-580. The roadway width will vary from four travel lanes to two travel
lanes depending on the segment.
The Boulevard: The Boulevard would be a new east-West §treet constructed between Dublin
Boulevard and 1-580~ The Boulevard roadway segment between the southerly extension of Arnold
Road and Hacienda Drive would be constructed as pm-'t of approved and pending development.
Intersectiofis
Dublin/DeMareus: The northbound approach of DeMareus Boulevard would be improved to
include one (1) left-m~ lane and one (1) right, mm lane.
Dublin/Iron Horse: The northbound approach of Iron Horse Parkway.would be improved to
include one (I) left-mm lane and one (I) right-turn lane.
Hacienda/Central: The northbound approach of Hacienda Drive would be improved to include one
(1) left-turn lane, two (2) through lanes, and one right-turn lane (two left-turn lanes are currently in
place but not being USed). The eastbound and westbound Central Parkway approaches would each
have one (1) left-turn lane, one (1) through lane, and one (1) right-turn lane.
Haeiends/Dublin: The northbound approach of Hacienda Drive would be improved to include
three (3) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound
approach of Dublin Boulevard would be improved io include two (2) Ieft4urn lanes, Wvo (2)
through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. (The additional through-lane is in place but not being
used).
Hacienda/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp: The eastbound off-ramp approach would be improvvafl to
include two (2) left-mm lanes, and two (2) fight-mm lanes.
TaSsajaraq-580 Westbound off-ramp: The westbound off-ramp approach would be improved to
include two (2) left-mm lanes and two (2) right-mm lanes.
Tassajara/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp/Pimlic0: The eastbound off-ramp approach would be widened
and re-striped to include two (2) left-mm lanes, one (1) through lane, and a free right-turn lane.
The westbound Pimlico Drive approach would be' improved to include two (2) left-mm lanes and
two (2) right-mm lanes. The northbound Santa Kita Road approach would be improved to include
· four (4) lanes, with the two left most lanes leading to the overpass, the second right most lane
leading to the overpass or 1-580 eastbound on-ramp, and the right most lane leading to Pimlico
Drive or the t-580 eastbound on-ramp.
City of Dublin .page 40
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200I
_PA 00-029
Future Base Methodology ·
Traffic projections for existing and future base conditions ha~e been taken directly from the study
perfomaed for the adjacent proposed Dublin Transit Center (Omni-Means, January 26, 2001),
incorporated herein by reference. The existing plus future base scenario contained projects which
' were approved (under construction, built but not occupied, or unbuilt with final approval) or
pending (currently proposed or in approval process). At the time 'of the Dublin Transit Center
traffic study, the Ciseo Systems development was considered a "pending project". Therefore, for
the purposes of this focused traf:fie analysis for the Cisco project.previous trips assigned to the
Cisco System development were removed from the existing plus future base scenariO. For existing
plus future base conditions, the following approved and Pending projects, were assumed:
Ap~rgved ~roieets:
c) Hacienda Crossings (Opus): 469,000 square foot retail center (partially occupied)
o Villas at Santa Rita: 324 apartments
c~. Santa Rita Property Sites 1 lA and 1lB (Summerhill and Jefferson Residential
Development): 368 apartments and 341 single family homes
o Casterson: 106 single family homes.
c) Creekside Business Park III (Opus): 590,000 square feet office development
o General Motors: 75,660 square feet of new automobiles and service.
o Dublin Ranch Phase 1 Residential Development: 847 single family homes
o Tassajara Meadows Residential Development: 96 single family homes
c) Emerald Glen Residential Development: 143 single family homes and 152 townhomes
c) KolI Dublin Corporate Center: 590,000 square feet of office space, 100,000 square feet of
hotel and 7,000 square feet of retail
o Yarra Yaxra Residential Development: 251 single family homes
c~ Dublin RanckAxea G Development: 1,426 apartments mad 230,000 square feet of
commercial development
· .. o Dublin Ranch Area A Residential Development: 562 single family homes and 18 hole golf
COU. TSC
o Emerald Glen Village Apartments Development: 390 apartments and 132,235 square feet
o~' commercial development
o Sybase Dublin Headquarters: 420,000 square feet of office space
o Marriott Hotel Project: 214.hotel rooms
o Commerce One Office Project: 760,000 square feet office of space
o Downtown Dublin Spec!ftc Plans: Multiple use project with commercial, residential, and
transit uses (please see referenced document below),
In addition to specific approved projects in the City of Dublin, City of pleaSanton approved
development was also considered. Based on the City of P!easanton travel demand forecasting
model,.approved Pleasanton projects are expected to generate 9,661 AM peak hour.trips and
10,584 PM peak hour trips. AM and PM peak hour t~affic volumes from the above projects in
Dublin'and Pleasanton were taken ~om a recent traffic study conducted by TJKM Transportation
Consultants (TJKM Transportation Consultants, Final: ia. Traffic Study for the Proposed Marriott
Hotel, City of Dublin, October 25, 2000.)
Pending Proiects
City of. Dublin Page 41
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200]
PA 00-029
o Proposed'Silveria Residential Project: 214 single family home. s.(currently under review by
the City of Dublin)
o There-location of the Camp Parks main gate would also occur within the next five years.
Based on discussions with Camp P~ks stuff, it is anticipated that a new roadway/gate
connection will occur at the Dublin~eMarcus intersection to form the north leg of the
intersection (the roadway is currently under construction)..Various militm'y activities
related to the facility are expected to be most concentrated on the weekends when
reservists report for training duties. In addition, Summer weekends would be most active
with possible convoys coming to/from the Camp Parks area.
With weekend Camp Parks activity expected to generate the most intense Waffle volumes,
existing and future base peak hour weekday volumes would experience lesser increases in
traffic volumes related to the re-location Of the Camp' Parks main gate. However, peak
period vehicle counts were conducted at the Camp Parks gates to quantify weekday traffic
that would tmusfer to the Dublin/DeMarcus intersection.~ Peak hour volumes related to
Camp Parks have been added to the DUblin~)eMarcus intersection to account for increased
traffic volumes at this location.
For a complete description of the location and AM and PM peak hour trips of the pending Silveria
residential project, please refer to the following transportation study on file with the City of
Dublin:
TJKM Transportation Consultants, Final: A Traffic Study for the Proposed Kesidential
Development on Silveria ProPerty on Tassajara Road, City of Dublin, Kevised: October
25, 2000.
For a description of the location and AM and PMpeak hour trips of the approved Downtown
Dublin Specific Plans proj eot, please refer to the following traffic study on rite with the City of
Dublin:
Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, Consultants Report of the Trmasportation Impacts for
the Proposed Village Parkway, Downtown Core, and West BART Station Specific Plans,
City of Dublin~ Final Draft Report, September 25, 2000.
Approved and pending proj eot trips were added to existing AM and PM intersection volumes to
create a future base Year 2005 scenario.
Existing plus Future Base Conditions Without Proposed Project
With future base traffic added to existing volumes, AM and PM intersection LOS have been
Calculated and are shown in Table 2. With future b~e volumes, calculated intersection LOS
contain the planned circulation improvements for roadways and intersections in the study area
listed in Existing and Future Baseline Conditions above. The Dublin/Dougherty intersection
would experience significant Congestion during the AM and PM peak hours. A portion of the
Dublin/Doughtery intersection knprovements is part of the Eastern.Dublin Traffic Impact Fee
program adopted by the City of Dublin. The City is currently updating the Eastern Dublin'Traffic
Impact Fee program to include additional improvements at the Dublin/Doughtery intersection.
With these planned improvements the DublinfDoughtery intersection LOS would improve from
~Ornni-Means Engineers & Planners, Peak period counts at the 5th Street and 8th Street Camp Parks
Gates at Dougherty Road, January 24, 2001.
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study/Ciaco Systems Camj~us June 2001
2A 00-029
LOS D (0.86~ to LOS B (0.70) dm-Lng the AM p~ak hour and from LOSF <1.I0) to LOS D (0.82)
during the PM peak hour.- "·
Exist!ng plus Future Base Conditions With Proposed Project
With'proposed project traffic added to existing plus futt~e.base volumes, study inter.section LOS
have been re-calculated and are shown in Table 3.'As calculated, all twemy study intersections
would.Operate at acceptable levelS-of-service with plodded circulation improvements for existing
plus future base conditions.
· Table 2. Existing Plus Future Base Intersection Level-of-Service (LOS)
AM and PM Peak Hour
' InterseCtion Exis'~ag~ ,,, Existing + Future Base
AM . PM AM PM
1. DoUgherty/Scarle~ ..... - -- -
2. Doughdiky/Dublin .... B 0.65 D 0.81 D 0.~'6 'F
BO. 70 'D0.82
3'i Doughe~ry/I-580-WB of-ramp A 0.5~" A 0.52 B 0.68 A 0.5~
4. Hopyard/I:580 EB Off-ramp A 0.56 B 0.62 A 0.57 B 0.64
'5. Dublin/Scarlett C 2~4 F 50+
61Dublin~eMareus' A 0.53 .... B 0.64 A 0.45 A 0146
7. Dtiblin/kon Horse A 0.29 B 0.61 ,~"0.27 A 0.37
8. Dliblin/hxnold C'"J 8.'1" E 39.5 A 0,37 . B 0.62
9. Arnold/Central .... A 0.22 A 0.38
10. Hacienda/Gleason B i0~7 A 9.8 A' 0.24 A 0.14
i12 Hacienda/Central A ~'5~"" A 0.38' B 0.64. C0.72
:i2. HaCienda/Dublin "' A0,37 . "'X 0.;~2 A 0.34 A 0.71
13. Hacien'i:la/The Boul~vard -- ' ....... -- A t).34 A 0.55 ....
-i4. Haciendafl-580 WB off-ramp ......... X-'6~27 A 0.'15' : D 0.82 __ .4. 0:~8
~5~ HaCienda/I:580 EB °ff-ramp A"0'.5'0' A 0.33 D 0.89 B 0.65
16. TaSsajara/Gleason C 24.9 ' E 44.2 A 0.57 B0.62
17. Tassajara/Centrai .... '""A- 0.49 B 0.6~
i"~'. Tassaj~a/Dubtin A 0..42 .......... B 0.69 A 0,53 B 0".'64
]9. Tassajara/I-580 WB off-ramp '~"6.36 ...... A 0.35 ...... A 0.49 A 0.60
-20. Santa Rita/L580 EB off- ...... A0760 B 0.70 B 0.66 ...... D0.87
ramp/Pimlico ......
('0 SignalizeU intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
methodology. LOS for unsignalized intersections is based on 1998 Highway Capacity Manual and
represents average delay in seconds for stop-sign controlled minor street traffic.
(2) D~e to planned roadway improvements, some study intersections' LOS may improve from existing
conditions. This is particularly true along Dublin Boulevard where the roadway would be widened
from two to six travel .lanes between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive.
(3) Based on Dublin Transit Center Draft Report by omni-Means Engineers & Planners, January 26,
2001. .
(4) The Dougherty/Scarlett, Arnold/Central, and Hacienda/The Boulevard intersections currently do not
exist. Central Parkway is .currently closed off between Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek.
These intersections will be analyzed in future base and proposed project conditions. The
Dougherty/Scarlett intersection is not expected to exist under existing plus future base conditions.
(5) Italicized type indicates LOS after implementation of traffic improvements noted in this report.
City of Dublin ~age 43
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200t
PA 00-029
Prqieet Impacts and Mitigation Measures
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? LS/M.
The traffic analysisi..which analyzed the impacts of the Specific Plan/General Plan
amendment and development of the proposed Cisco office development, concludes that
implementation of the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact with
regard to anticipated project traffic The traffic analysis included determining traffic
generation of the proposed project, distributing this traffic on adjacent roadways' and adding
the proposed project related traffic to existing, future base and cumulative traffic volumes.
Trip generation and distribution
Based on discussions with City of Dublin Transportation maff and Alameda County
Development Agency staff, daily' and peak hour trip generation for the proposed Cisco
Systems development have been calculated, Project trip generation has been based on ITE
research for corp0mte headquarters office uses. In reviewing studies of transit ridership of
people working near BART and traffic studies prepared for other East Bay BART Stations,
Omni-Means in conjunction with City and County Staff determined that it is appropriate to
reduce these trip generation rmes by 15% to account for proximity to the East Dublin BART
station. The proposed Cisco Systems project would generate.5,615 daily trips with 1,070 AM
peak hour trips and 1,010 PM peak hour trips.
Overall vehicle trip distribution for Proposed office use has been based on l~revious
transportation studies conducted in the study area. Based on other office development in the
study area, proposed project trip disu'ibudon would be estimated as follows:
Hacienda Drive to/from the south: 55%
Hacienda Drive to/from the north: ' 3%
Dublin Boulevard to/from the east: 10%
Dublin Boulevard to/from the west: 30%
Arnold DriVe to/from the north: 2%
Total: 100%
Project impacts
Anticipated traffic associated with the approval and development of the proposed Cis¢o
proj.'e~ have been analyzed in conjunction with impacts related to existing and future base
projects. The results of this analysis is shown on Table 3, below.
Table 3. Existing Plus project Plus Future Base Intersection Level-of-Service (LOS) AM
and PM Peak Hour
Intersection Existing + Future Base ...... Existing + Fii~ui'e-BaSe +
................ ~ Pr'oje. c.t
AM PM AM PM
1. Dougherty/Scarl~it'-' .- . ...2 - 2.. ..... ._
2. Dougherty/Dublin " B (5170 D 0.82" C 0.¢3' D 0.86
3. Dougherty/I-580-WB off-ramp B (5.68 A 0.5'9 B 0.68 A 0.60
4. Hopya.,r.,.~. 7580..E.B""off-ramp A 0_..57 i B'i'.0..64 . .,A, 0.57 B 0.64
City of Dublin Page 44
Jnitial Study/C isco Systems Campus June 2001
~vA 00-029
5. Dublin/fl~lott ....... A'0.30 A 0.39 A 0.3'6 A 0.44 .....
.... 6~ ~ul~iln/DeMa.rcus ......... A 0.45 ...... A 0.46 A 0~51 ..... A 0.5!
'7. Dublin/Iron HdrSe ..... X 0.27 .... A 0.37 A 0.32 A 0.42
i'."Dublin/Am0'i'd A 0.37 t3 0.62 ' A 0.43 C 0.75
9. Amold/Cen~ ' A 0.22 A 0'.'34 ..... A 0.22' ,k 0.58
10. Hacier//ia/Oleason ..... ~, 0.24 A 0:14 A 0~26" A 0'.15 .....
~ 1. HaCienda/Central ....... B 0.64 ...... C 0.72 G 0,7'5 D 0.83
121" Ha~iencla/Dubli~ .......... A 0.54 '" C 0.71" A 0160 ...... (2 0'74
I3. Haciend~The,Boul~vard .. .... A 0.34..... A 0'.55' A 0.4i A 0.59
'f4. I-Iaciendaft25~0 WB off-rauip D 0.82. A 0,15 D-~).82 A 0.44"
'15. Hacienda/I-'5'80 EB off-ramp D 0.89 B 0.'65' D 0.89 B'0.~'~ ......
16. Tassaj'a~Oleason ".' A 0.57 B 0.~2 "' A 0.59 B 0.65
-~7. TaSsaj'am/central "' A"0.49 B 0.'6'1 A 0.51 B 0.62
18. Tassajara/Dublin · ' A 0.53'" B 0164 '" A 0.52[ B 0.65
'i'~. Tassajarafl-580 WB off-__ramp A 0.2~ fi~ 0.60 ""A 0.49 A 0.60
20. Santa Pdta/I-S80 EB off- B 0.66 D 0.87 B 0.66 D 0.87
ram, p./Pi'mlico .......... ...
(1)' Signalized intersection LOS is based on Contra.Costa TransPortation Authority (CCTA) methodology.
LOS for unsignalized intersections is based on 1998 Highway Capac/ty Manual and represents average
delay in seconds for stop-sign controlled minor street traffic.
(2) The DoughertylScarlett intersection is not expected to exist under existing plus futura base conditions
~ith proposed project traffic added to existing plus future base.volumes, smdy. intersecfi.°n LOS ~
have been re-calculated and are shown in Table 3. As calculatect, traffic would increase ar most o~
the intersections, however all twenty study intersections would operate at aCceptable levels-of-
service with Planned circulation improvemems for existing plus future base conditions.
However, this additional traffic to adjacent streets includes an increase to an estimated 555
southbound right-mm vehicles from Arnold Road onto Dublin Boulevard during the PM peak
hour and 935 northbound left-mm vehicles from Hacienda onto Dublin during the AM peak hour.
This increase in vehicular trips would result in congestion of specific mm movements related to
ingress and egress m the project site, This is a poten.tially significant impact beca~usefi.t w. oul. d, .
reduce the operating capacity of the intersections and may increase me numr~er et samry mcmems
due to obstruction of vehicles traveling through the intersections as vehicles que.ue up wa/ting to
make roms. The following mi.'tigation measures are recommended to .reduce project ~mpaets to a
less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure 6: The project developer shall construct the following traffic
and transportation improvements in the vicinity of the project:
o ' Dublin/Arnold intersection: a separate right-mmlane for the southbound
Arnold Drive approach.
o Hacienda/Dublin intersection: restripe the northbound Hacienda Drive
approach to include a third left-mm lane.
o Right-turn lanes to altproject driveways .
o Cisco Systems.dccess/The Boulevard improvements, to include: Eastbound
approaCh: 1 left-turn lane; Westbound approach: 1 right-tur~, lane;
Southbound approach: 1 left-mm lane, 1 through/right-tm'n lane.
City of Dublin J° age 45
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
Mitigation Measure 7:' Commerce One is responsible for constructing the
· ' following traffic and tr~spormtion improvements in the vicinity of the Cisco
project site. These improvements are also necessary for Ciseo to gain access to
their site~ In the event that these improvements are not constructed by Commerce
One, Cisco shall be responsible for constructing the following traffic and,
transportation improvements:
o -Arnold Drive/The Boulevard improvements, to include Eastbound approach: 1
left-turn lane, 1 through lane, I through/fight-turn lane; Westbound
approach:2 left-mm lanes, 2 through lanes, l right-turn lane; Northbound
approach: 1' left-mm lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/fight-turn lane, and 1
right mm lane; Southbound approach:l left-mm lane, ,1 through lane, 1
through/right-mm lane.
o The' Boulevard/Hacienda Drive improvements; to include: Eastbound
approach: 1 left-mm lane, 1 through/right-mm lane, 2 right-mm lanes;
Westbound approach: 2 left-mm lanes, 1 through/right-mm lane; Northbound
approach:3 left-mm lanes, 3 through lanes; 1 right-mm- lane; Southbound
approach:2 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes, t shared through/right-mm.lane
o Roadway segment improvements on Arnold drive between Dublin Boulevard
and .The Boulevard (future): Four (4) travel lanes [two in each direction]; The
Boulevard between Arnold Road and' Commerce One Mid-Block Access
(future): Six (6) lravel lanes [three in the westbound direction and three in the
eastbound direction]; The Boulevard between Commerce One Mid-Block
Access and Hacienda Drive (future): Six (6) travel lanes [three in each
direction].
Cumulative traffic impacts. ~
The Eastern Dublin ElK analyzed cumulative traffic from potential development in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The City of Dublin has adopted a Traffic Impaat Fee
program wklch requires developers to contribute their 'fair-share' of sub-regional traffic
improvements required for new development within the Eastern Dublin area. The Ciseo
project is within Ge scope and level of development and impazts assumed within the
Specific Plan and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIK for the site and area and is required to
participate in ~e Eastern Dublin Traffic ImPact Fee Program.
For the purposes of this Initial Study, anticipated cumulative impacts,were further assessed
based on the proposed Cisco project and projects identified in the Dublin Transit Center
traffic study.
Intersections near the project site with the exception oft_he Dublin/Dougherty Road
intersection would generally operate at satisfactory levels during morning and evening peak
hours. Under cumulative conditions, with the addition of both future and project traffic, total
future traffic would contribute to the need for sub-regional traffic improvemen~ within the .
Eastern Dublin area. A portion of the Dublin/Dougherty Road intersection improvements is
an Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee project. The City is. currently updating the Eastern
Dublin Traffic ImPact Fee program to include additional improvements at the
Dublin/Doughtery intersection to accommodate anticipated traffic demand. With these
planned improvements, the Dublin/Doughtery intersection would operate at an acceptable
level-of-service for cumulative total future traffic. All new development projects within the
Eastern Dublin area including Cisco are required to make a 'fair share' contribution to the
Traffic Impact Fee project prior to the issuance cfa building permiz. Therefore, no
City of Dublin Page 46
]nitiaI Study/Cisco Systems Campus Jzrne 2002
PA 00-029
cumulative impact beyond that identified"in the Eastern Dublin EIR would occur as a result
of the.project and no further mitigafi0n i§¥equired.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the C~unty CMA
for designated roads)? LS. ]Based on the ixfformation contained in the Omni-Means
analysis, Tassajam Road and Dublin Boulevard which are CMA desi'gnated roads will not
exceed the minimum Level of Service E established, by the Alameda County Congestion'
Management AgencY. Impacts to CMA-designated facilities would therefore be less4han-
significant.
c) Change in a change' of air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project would have no impact
on air waffle patterns, since it involves office development and is located outside of the
Livermore'Airport general referral area.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or .incompatible use? N.I. Approval of
the proposed project wo. uld add new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian
travel Ways where none em'really exist. Increases in safety incidents may occur due to the
volume of vehicles and pedestrians using nearby roads and other eixeulation features. The
proposed on-site circulation and access for the project (refer to Exhibit 4, Proposed Site Plan,
15A and 16A) has been designed to adequate~ and s. afely ~strib.ute proje.et?d,tr ~a~fic ~fl~ws
per recommendations' of the Omn~ Means tragic stuay as aeemea appropriate oy me
Engineer. The City's site development reyiew process ensures that the proposed development
' meets alt City standards relating to safety h..azar~s~, desi .gn f?atures, on-site, circulation and
access. No impacts axe anticipated as a result oxthis project.
e) Resultin inadequate emergency access? LS. The current need for emergency access is low,
since there are no current residents or visitors on the site. Construction of the proposed office
complex on the site would increase the need for emergency services and evacuation in the
event of an emergency. If adequate access is not provided, excessive lengths oftirae would
be needed for emergency vehicles to serve the new development.' Since the proposed. site
development plan indicates that drive.ways meeting City. design requirements would be
provided to Arnold Road, Central Parkway, Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive, potential
impacts relating to inadequate emergency access would be less-than-significant.
f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. Parking for the proposed office complex woUld comply
with the minimum number of on-site parking spaces required by City's parking ordinance.
The most recent Cis¢o site plan shows a total of 2,842 on-site spaces beLng provided whbreas
the Code requites 2,446 spaces. Thus, there would be a surplus of 3 96 spaces. Bus service is
a~so available to the area as is a BART station southwesterly of the site to encourage non-
auto usage. Since the proposed site plan would comply with City standard, no' impact is
antieipateck. · ·
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Cisco development
would include on-site bicycle parking as well as connections between proposed' buildings
and nearby streets. No impacts to pedestrian or bicycle access is therefore anticipated.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
City of Dublin Page 47
June 2001
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus
PA 00-029
The project site is serVed.by the following service providers:
oSewage treatment and local water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District and
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distric~ Zone 7.
o Regional water supply and distribution: Alameda Coumy Flood Control and Water
. Conservation District, Zone 7
o Storm drainage: City of Dublin/Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, Zone 7.
Environmental Imt~acts and Mitigation Measures
a) Exceed wastewater.treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. The reg/onal wastewater
treatment plant is currently operating in compliance with local, state and federal water
quality standards according to DSRSD staff. The addition of wastewater flows from the
project would not cause the plant,to exceed such standards. Mitigation measures 3.5/1.0
through 22.0 comained in the eastern Dublin EIR deal with wastewater treatment collection,
treatment and disposal, With these adopted mitigation measures potential wastewater'
impacts of the project would be less-than-significa~.t.
b) Require new Water or wa.steWater treatment facilities or expansion of eXisting facilities? LS.
Existing water and sewer lines would need to be extended into the site from the west. Such
extensions.have been planned as part of the East Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan and have
been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Less-than-significant impacts would therefore
result. The project developer will also be required to eon.form m adopted Mitigation
Measures 2.5/24.0 through 43.0d in the Eastern Dublin EIR, as applicable, regarding water
service
e) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. The project developer has indicated that new on-
site drainage facilities would be constructed as part of project construction. The City's Public
Works Departmem has indicated that the proposed drainage system is generally acceptable
and overall drainage from the site would be accommodated by existing or planned local and.
regional ~. ~nage facilities. A tess-than-significant impact would therefore result. The
project developer will also be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through
52.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin El'R, as applicable, regarding drainage.
d) .Are.sufficient wate_r supplies available? .LS. Approval of the Proposed proj eot and
~mplementation of new office and R&D space under the auspices of the Specific
Plan/Genera/Plan Amendment would result, in an increased demand for water for domestic
and irrigation purposes. The proposed project and impacts, however, are within the building
projections contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan and analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIX; increased water demand could be accommodated by DSRSD and Zone
7 facilities and long-term supplies. Recycled water would be supplied to the site for
irrigation by DSRSD. The project developer would be required to provide any local
extensions and connections to nearby facilities. This conclusion is based on information
contained ir/the Eastern Dublin E~[R. Less-than-significant impacts would therefore result.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the pr°P osed project? LS. Approval of the proposed
Specific PlardGeneral Plan Amendment and construction of new offices space would
increase the demand for wastewater treatment over present conditions. Presemty, the site is
City of Dublin Page
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Camp~ June 2001
1~,~ 00-029'
"vacant and there is no demand for wastewater treatment'service. DSI~gD staff has indicated
that the local wastewater treatment Plant has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project.
I, ess-than-,ignificant impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to wastewater treatment.
e, f) Solid waste disposal? LS. Cormtmction of proposed office uses under the auspices of an "
approved Specific Plan Amendment/General Plan Amendment would incrementally increas~
generation of solid waste. Over the long term, the mount of solid waste roaching landfill
would decrease as statewid¢ regulations mandating increased recycling, take effect.
Info~mation contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the solid waste hauler can
accommodate'this project. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated with
regard to solid waste disposal. The project developer must also adhere to Mitigation
Measures 3.4/37.0 through 40.0, as applicable, contained .in the Eastern Dublin EIR
regarding solid waste disposal.
g) . Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid Waste ? NI. The
City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would ensure that developers of individual projects
constructed under the auspices of an amended Specific Plan and General Plan would adhere
to federal, state and local solid waste regulations.
17, Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the l~roject have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,, substantially .
reduce the habitat of a.fsh or wildlife species, cause a fsh or wildlife population t° drop
'below self-sustaining, levels, threaten to eliminate ap!ant or animal comrmmi~, reduce the
number of or restrict the range ora rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
impOrtant examples of the major periods of California history or prehiswr~? Ne. The
precedktg analysis indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse
impact on overall environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources
with the implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the Initial Study.
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 com~ecti0n with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No, although incremental
increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of constructing this project, including
additional traffic, air emissions, light m~d glare, short term noise emissions, the project site
lies within an area with an approved specific plan. In co~mection with the Specific Plan
approval, cumulative impacts were identified and mitigated or overridden. The project's
cumulative impacts are within the scope of the cumulative impacts associated with the
project covered by the Eastern Dublin E~R. No additional cmutative impacts are identified
in this Initial Study.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in
the course of preparing this Initial Study.
City of Dublin Page 49
' June 200I
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Carnjeus
PA 00-029
initial Study Preparer
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
An=e Kinney, AICP, Associate Planner
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The. following agencies and organ~_afions were contacted in ~e course offs Initial S~udy:
Eddie Peabody Jr., AICP, Communiv/Development Director
Kevin Van KaV0wk, Senior Civil Engineer
Ray Kuzbar~, Tra~c Engineer
Rose Macias, Dublin Police Deparmaent
Ed Landani. Alameda County Fire Department
George Niekelson, P.E., Omni~Means, Tra~c and Circulation analysis'
P~ter Galloway, Onmi-Me .~, Traffic and Ckculation
References
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace
Roberts and Todd, 1994.
Geotechnical Feasibility. Study, CiscoSystems Site 9.., Dublin CA, LoWney
Associates, December 2000
..F,0cused Traffic Circulation Analysis for the Cisco Systems Prqject, Omni-Mear~s
Engineers and Planners, MaY 2001:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil and C-round Water Quality
Evatuatiom Cisco Systems Site 9, Dublin CA, Lowney Associates, November 2000
City of D~blin Page 50
Initial Smdy/Cisco Systems Campus June 2002
PA 00-029
Not___joe of Completion & Enviro 1entel Document Transmittal I [
Mail to: State Clearingh°UXd, P.O. 2~ox $044, Sacramento, CA 958J2-3044 SCH g' q/- /0 30 4
(916) 445-0613 ~tate, ctearingho~e~opr, ca. gov
Ce~ A~nc~ ~ Y~ OA ~'~ Contac Pemon: ~ ~t~
Str~tAdd~$: I00 ~V¢~ ~ Phone: ~- ~$~-g6 tO
Ctty:.~.~ ~ Zip:_ qCE96 Count: ~ ~R
Proje~ Location:'
County: _~ ~~ CiyNearest ~mmunl~: ~ g~
Cross Streets: ~F~,, ~ * 3ua~ ~v~ ~ ~or~ ~pC~e: ~6 Tot~Acr~: g~
~se~fs Pamei No. :q~ -~- ~ 4 le - 6 Semen: T~. Range: Base:
Within 2 Uiles: StYe H~;. i-E~ WAe~ays: ~ ~ ·
Ai~: ~~&~ ~lways: ~ools:
Document Type:
' CEO. A: ~ NOP- 12 Supplement/Subsequent EtR (Prior SCH No,), NEPA: Q NO/ Q Joint Document
Q Ek Q Final Document
erlY Cons
g Dec 12 Other Q Draft ElS
E3 Draft EIR ~ FONSI [3 Other
Local Action Type:
~ G~em[ Plan Update Q Specific Plan i:~"Rezone. 12 Annexation
l;~,"Ganeral Plan Amendment .Q Master Plan 12 Prezone Q Redevelopment
[3 General Plan Element Gl~'Planned Unit Development' Q Use Permit ~3 Coastal Permit
~ Commun~ Plan ~3/"'SIte Plan ~3;Y'[.and Division (Subdivision, etc.) ~ Other $~-,-~-'~ PJ~"'"' ·
Development Type: Q Water Facilities: Type MGD
~ Residential: Units. 'Acres Q Transportation: Type
1:[2/ Office: Units ~3., ~O0 Acres__ ~ Employees :~t O00 Q Mining: Minera/
~ Commercial Units Acme Employees. 0 Power; Type~ Watts,
~ Industrial: Unfts Acres Employees Q Waste Treatment: Type
Et Educational Q Hazardous Waste: Type
~3 Recreational Q Other,
Funding (approx.): Federal $. State $, Total $
Project Issues Discussed in Document:
~ ^estheticWisual. 12 FloodPlain/Flooding Q Schools/Universities I:E"'WaterQuality
Q Agricultural Lan/~ Q Forest Land/Fire Hazard [3 Septic Systems O Water Supply/Groundwater
G~' Air Oualiht / ~ Geologic/Seismic gl'Sewer Capacity Q Wetland/PJparian
G[~* Amheotogic. al'/Historical Q Minerals ~ $oif Erosion/Compaction/Grading [::3 Wildlife
O Co~statT_.~'ne Q Noise [:;~'Solid Waste O Growth Inducing
~ Drainage/Absorption D Population/Housing Balance i:~"Toxic/Hazardous ~ Land Us.e
n Ec~omidJobs [A,' Public ServicesEacltities I~"Traffic/Cimulation Q CumuiativeEffects
Q Fiscal Q Recreation/Parks O Vegetation Et Other
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:
I~.eviewin~l A~encies Checklist F°rm A continued
) ~ Document sent by lead agency
Resources Agency .X = Document sent by SCH
-------- Boating & Waterways '/'~ Suggested ~[stribution
Colorado River Board
Conservation Environmental Protection Agency
~ Fish & Game Air Resources Board
__ Fores~ & Fire Protection California Waste Management E~oard
~ Office of Historic Preservation SWRCB:.CIean Waier Grants
Parks & Recreation SWRCB: Delta Unit
Reclamation ~ard SWRCB: Water Quality
~ S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission SWRCB: Water Rights
__ Water Resources (DWR) Regional WQCB #
Business, Transportation & Housing Youth & Adult Corrections
__ Aerona~cs Corrections
· California Highway Patrol independent Commissions & Offices
Housing & Community Development Energy Commission
__ Food & Welfare Native American Heritage Commission
Health & Welfare Public Utilities Commission
~ Health Services Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State & COnsumer Services State Lands Commission
__ General Services Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Other
Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency)
Starting Date ~[Id~l0 I Ending Date
Lead Agency {Complete if appiicable): For SCH Use Only:
Consulting Firm: Date Received at SCH
Address: Date Review Starts
City/State/Zip: Date to Agencies
Contact: Date to SCH
Phone: Clearance Date
Notes:
Applicant:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
Governor's Office of Planning and Research · ~ *~
State Clearinghouse
G~ay Davis Steve Nissen
· -' DIRECTOR
July 25, 2001
. City of Dubli~
100 Civic Plaza
· Dublin,, CA 94568.
Subject: PA#00-029 C~sco ~ysterm, Inc. C .amPus Office Complex
SCH~: 1991103064
Dear Anne Kinney:
The enclosed comment (s) on your Negative Declaration was (wvre) received by the Slate Clearinghouse
after thc erd of the state review period, which closed on July 17, 2001. We. are forwarding these comments
to you b~cause they provide ixfformatlon or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental
document.
The Califomia Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies io respond to late comv_~¢nls..
However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional commen~s into your final environmental
document and to consid~ them prior to taking final action on the proposed.project
Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you. have any questions concerning the
environmenlal review process. If you have a question regarding the above.named project, please refer to
the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number.(1991103064) when contacting tiffs office.
Sincerely,
Senior Planner, State ¢l,aringhouse.
cc: Resources Agency
I40o TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SAC~MENTO, CALIFORNIA '95812~304~ 'k~-j, ' """. ':'-. ;'~'
~-~-o6~ ~x0I~-~3-~o~ ~.o~.~,.~ov/~N~O~.~ EXHIBIT
q
..... GRAY DAVIS, Governs,,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION · ..
P. O. BOX' 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
(510) 286-4444
TDD (510) 286-4454
Ju]y l 1, 2001
ALA-S80-I8.82
File #ALAS80694
SCH g91-103064
Ms. Anne Kinney
Associate. Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
.... t~ublin;"CA- 94568 ......................
Dear Ms. Kinney:
Cisco S3(.stems Campus Office Complex - Initial Study & Negafi.e Declaration
Thank you for including the California Deparanent of Transportation in the environmental review
process for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the. Initial StudY and Negative
Declaration, .and have the. following comments to offer.
We are concerned about the additiOnal traffic volumes to Interstate 580 0[-580) and would like to
study this in greater detail, Please provide us a copy of the traffic analysis for the project prepared
· by Omni-Means, Transportation Consultants, dated May 2001.
Some specific concerns we have:'
1. What are the project impacts to the ramps at Dougherty Road/I-580 and Hacienda Drige~-580
during peak commute, horn? Will the project cause a. backup of. traffic, there during peak
hours?
2.. For the eastbound off-ramps, are extra left-mm or auxiliary lanes going to be needed? The
onramps should also be addressed.
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding .this letter, please call Paul
Svedersky of my staff at (510) 622-1639.
Sincerely,
I-IARRY Y. YAHATA
District Director
YEAN C. R. FINNEY
Distil'ct Branch Chief JBL
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD OONTROL AND WATER.CONSERVATION DISTRICT
· 5997 PARKStDE DRIVE ~ P~EASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-5127 ~ PHON~ [92'5) 484-2600 FAX (925) 462-3914
Ms. Anne Kinney , ·
Associate Planner
Planning Department.
City of Dublin
100 CiviC Plaza
· Dublin~..CA...94568 .......................................................................... ' .....
Initial Study and Draft Mitlgated )Vegative Dedaration
for Proposed Cisco Systems Campus Office Complex
Dear Ms. Kinney:
Zone ? received the referenced.document on June 18, 2001. Our comments below relate tO Zone
?'s responsibilities for water supply, flood protection, and groundwater management in the
Livermore-Amador Valley.
The proposed .project is for a large office complex located on two parcels adjacent tO both Arnold
R~oad and Dublin Boulevard. The project site is located within the. area covered· by the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan.
We have the following comments:
1. Page 17. "T~. Hydrology and Water Quality"
The' Environmental' checklist and attachment to the Initial Study does.not discuss the
potential salt balance impacts due to irrigating landscaping areas with recycled water.
There is reference~ however, to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. If mitigation
measures are not 'covered in that reference, pleaSe.be advised that the EIR for the DSRSD
and EBMUD Kecy¢led Water Authority (DERWA) does.' However, the iI~itial stiady doe's
not mak. e any reference to the DERWA ElK. Please note that it is our understanding that
DERWA has not cbmpleted its obligation for mitigation measures that alloW irrigation
with recycled'water in easter~ Dublin. Specifically, there is a requirement to build a Water
. quality monitoring station in Tassajara Creek to monitor for pre-project quantity' and
quality, and to share in the' salt loading reduction in the Main Basin.
RECEIVED
JUL z 0 2001
DUBLIN pL.Ant~IU~
Ms. Anne Kinney
~uly 16, 2001
Page 2
2. Page 3Z "8. Hydrology and Water Quality"
a. Under''Environmentat Setting," second paragraph, Zone 7 Should be referenc~ as
"Zone 7 Water· Agency," instead of"Alameda County Zone 7.
b. Under'~roject Impacts and Mitigation Measures," for Items "c," "d," and "e" of
............................ . ........ PotentiaL.Impac~sand Mittgation. Measur. es,_...~t..should.be not ed.that..the ....................................
mitigation of impacts to flood control facilities downstream of the proposed
project is handled'through the eollegtion .of appropriate drainage fees through,
Zone 7's~ Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 Program. 'Also~ we request that
hydraulic ealoulations be sent to Zone 7 lot"review, .prior to ¢onstruotion.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. Please feel free to call me at (925)
484-2600, ext. 400, Or Jaok Fong at ext. 245~ if you have any questions.
Principal Engineer
Advance Planning Set'don
cc: Ed Cummings
John Mahoney
David Lunn
Diana Gaines.
Matt Katen
Jack Fong ' '
Cna.or Lrw, uo
~*~ : JUL
sur,~c guly'16, 2001
~o~ s. ~ *,~ DUBLIN P~NING
Anne Kinney, '~sociate Planner
~oa / co~ Ci~. of Dublin
37~'149
~s: STanZa. F~ a~s~l 100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
~'a'~ A~EY
~, ~o. ~= ~=~ RE: Cisco' Systems Campus Office Complex Draft Mitigated Negative
c~ c~ Declaration
Ph: ~7~1~0. F~
co~wrv Dear Ms. Kinney:
,~ a~s.sz~, ~= s~3.szs~ The Ci~ of Live~ore appreciates ~e Oppofluni~ to' provide ~mments on the
,~ ~.*s~.~ ~ Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for the Cisco Systems Campus
~: a~.~-~ ~B Office Complex. The proposed projem would involve'the construction of up to
~~- . 862,000 square feet of professional and business offices, research and
,~: ~.s~o0. r.= ~.~ development, light assembly and misted 'uses, along with parking facilities aqd
sco~omc lands~ping. The project includes amendment to the EastDublin Specific'
' OE~P~
P~:,~.so~s. ~ ~t~ Plan/General ~an, rezoning, site development review; development
agreement, and parcel map. The project site includes ~o par~is located east
,~:ava.s~so.~ s~s~.z~s of Arnold Drive and nodh and south of Dublin Boulevard.
F~ ~)=,,u~ The City of Livermore offers the following specific comments on the MND:
45.50 ]~t
P~: 45G2~61 * F~x; 454-236?
].m~u~Y . Air. Quality (page 26, second full Paragraph). The MND indicates that the air
~ooo s. u~,~. ,-,.~ quality .impacts anticipated from the proposed project are within the scope
P~: 3?~.ssoo.r~: 373.ss03 of the project impacts covered by the 1994 East Dublin EIR. However, no
Psaso~,. analysis 'is provided to support this conclusion. 'The air quality impacts
?~.; 373-5105.F~: 37~.5055 cumulative changes in land uses, traffic generation and traffic patterns,
Poucs ~r.~-m~r particularly' due to the loss of a large' number of residential units in close
1].:I0 $. Li~m]omAv~ae 'proximity to employment areas, are not addressed in the MND.
Pb: 371~e90~ * Fax: S71-4950 '
TDD 371-/.982
ru~ucs]~c~.s . Population/Housing (page 35). The proposed project woUld include
~o ~o~.~.~.,a. the elimination of 821 average dwelling units currently planned-f°r
Ph: 573-5270,, Fsx: 375-5317 '
~.o,,~,~., site 15A. The.MND does not address the potential effect this loss of
~6~.~ c~ residential units would have on the jobs/housing balance within
Ph: 373-5280 * Fax:. ~75.5042 ·
· c.~r~.~z..~,. Dublin or the Tri-Valley area. Given that the residential units would
909 Clubhou~ Drive
,~ s,~2a~, r~ 3~.~203 be high density, the MND should also address the losS of potentially
. ~,,.~.,,~. z,,.,.., affordable u nits.
3500 Robe. moa park Rtl.
P]~: 372.-5220, Fax.: 373-5033
.',.~ a.~-.. ~..'.~. RECEIVED
101 W.
~'~: a~a.~0.~,,: ~a.~ JUL 1 8 Z001
DUBLIN PLANNING
Anne Kinney, Associate Planner
· July 16, 2001' "
Page Two
· Transportation/Traffic (page 41). The MND indicates that the t~'affic '
projections for existing and future base conditions have been taken directly
-from the study prepared for the adjacent proposed Dublin Transit Center.
However, the Dublin Transit Center is not listed as a pending project included
in the traffic analysis on page 42. if the Dublin Transit Center is not included
in the traffic analysis as a pending project, then the cumulative traffic impacts
in Table 2 (Existing PlUs Future BaSe intersection. LOS) and Table 3 (Existing
Thank you .again for the opportunity to provide these comments, Please contact me if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Susan Frost
Senior Planner
cc: Eric Brown, Planning Manager
THf::: CITY OF __ ~ _ _ _
pL£ASANTON,o
June 28, 2001
Eddie Peabody, Jr.
Director of Community Development
City of Dubtin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA. 94568
Dear Mr. Peabody: -.,
The "Cisco Systems Notice o£Publi¢ Review of Mitigated Negative Declaration" has been forwarded to
our office for review and comment. Our primary concerns are to assure.that development is in concert
with previous agreements regarding the reimb~sement of funds for freeway interchange construction,
and the timely completion of ~reeway interchange mitigations to assure that both Dublin and PIcasanton
General Plan development is accommodated.
The notice states "traffic impacts on the street system will be less than significant with mitigation." '
The Study.Report indicates that the existing, plus approved, plus projected traffic can be accommodated
at acceptable levels of service, with planned mitigations, -with the exception of Dougherty Road
improvements that will be included in an Updated Eastern Dublin Traffic'Impact Fee Program.
Our interchange agreement requires Dublin to improve the interchanges at Hacienda and Santa
Pdta/Tassajara to be adequate.to meet our mutual buildout demands. Traffic projections or-.these
"Buildout" needs indicate that widening of the Hacienda overpass for the northbound lanes is required.
The Study Report indicates a major orientation of trips to and from Cisco are via the I-Sg0 Hacienda
Interchange. Our concern is that if these impacts are not ultimately mitigated, traffic will back up
restricting access to Pleasanton.
We appreciate the opporturdty to continue working with Your st~ff and timt of the Public Works
Department to' assure mutual satisfactory results in terms of our traffic needs.
~ .mmdSu A. Lure ' JUL 0 2 2001
Dir¢~,-~-- of Public Works ·. . '[~U[~I, JN PLANNING-
c: .t, Lee Thomson, Brian Sw'ffL, Deborah Acosta 1V~Keehan
C:\datakLUMkDublinEIK.doc .: , .
PUBLIC WORKS ,. p.O. BOX:520, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802
hxlministration Engineering Traffic Inspection Operations Service Center
200 Old Berna} Ave. ' 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave, 20$-E Main Street 3333 Busch Road
(925) 931-5648 (925} 931-5650 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931 ~5680 (925) 931-5500
Fax: 931-5479 Fax: 931-5479 Fax: 931-5479 Fax: 931-5484 Fax: 931-5595
. Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission'.
224 W. Winton AvenUe, Room 151 '
Hayward, cA 94544
July 5, 2001
'Anne Kinney, AICP
Associate Planner
City of' Dublin
t 00 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Kirmey:
Thank you for your referral of the above project. Staffhas reviewed the document and has determined
that this project is not located within any of the Referral Areas (i.e., Height, Noise, Safety, or General) for
the Livermore Municipal Airport. This project, as del'meal, will create no hazard to air navigation in the
vicinity of the airport, and is not an incompatible land use in its proximity to the airport.
Thank you for this referral, and please do not hesitate to call me 'if you have any questions regarding this
letter.
Cindy Horvath
ALUC Staff
c: James Sorensen, Alameda County Planning Director, ALUC Administrative Officer'
Parks & Community Services Department
" .MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 5, 2001
TO: Anne Kinney, Associate Planner .
............. .FROM.'. .................. Diane..- .'Lowart¥.P-arl~s&..Community'-S err-ices' Direct°r~ .............~ .............................................
SUBJECT: Environmental Review for cisco systems Campus Office Complex'CPA # 00-029)
I have completed my review of'the Draft Mitigated Nogafive Declaration for the proposexl Ciseo
Systems .Campus Office Complex and have one comment. On Page 38, Section 14. Recreation, you
slate that the project will .not ir/crease the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks nor require the
construction of recreational facilities. I would like to point Out that in the 1996 Public Facilities Fee
Justification Studyl we allocate the cost of eertain, publlc facilities to both residential and non-residential
land uses. Thus, non-residential projects actually contribute fees towards thc construction of community
parks, community buildings, aquatic center, library and civic center. Employee impact o£ facilities is
weighted as follows:
Community Parks - 15% ..
Community Buildings - 5%
Aquatic Center- 5%
Library - 22%
Civic Center- 25%
We justified as part of our Fee Study that employees do have minimal impacts, on parks and recreation
facilities.
Please 'let me know if you have questions related to this issue or if you need further information.
·. . ~.
~c~ July ~, 200t "
Director'
~tt Wilii~
s~,~o, Plmg D~ent
soo. ~,~ Ci~ of Dub~
~~ 100 Ci~c
~yo~ S~CT: C'o~ents 0n ~er~ pl~ ~~ent pA 00-029, Cisao. Sy~ems,
~eg~ ~omsen
~r M. the C~'ofDub~
Diree~r
' P~ gfiyder
De~
ctv of
~uncilmember
~,, wo,.~,s~. T~ you for ~e oppo~g to ~ment on t-he City of Dub~'s ~ner~
~,~,.~ ~en~ent (GPA) t0 .remove residenfi~ .uses ~d spread
o~o~**~ l~d ~m for Sites 1SA ~d 16A of~e ~b~ ~n~ ~1~ ~d E~tem Dubl~
~*~ Pi~. Over, l; the amoum of office square footage would n~t exceed what is ~ently
~unci[member . ·
~o~, the PI~s md residenti~ ~'d be remov0d.
~ of ~t'
~.~ ~ B~scd on o~ r~ew o~ thc GPA ~d b~. on dis~s~ion ~ you~ th~'ACC~
~s.~ cogent 'becaUSe thc project does not. a~pe~ tO meet
~ gm~at~g 100 'or more'pm. Pe~ hour tdPs. over b~e~e Conditions. Th~efore
Ma~or .. ·
.~o~ ~ ' exempt ~om the.Lind Use ~ysi~ ~o~m of tM C~.
Ci~ of ~oie
Councilmember
ro~ W~ga, On¢~'ag~, th~ you for. the Oppo~W' to ~o~i. PieCe do not
~eo~s~ me ~you requke ~difion~ ~omation. I c~'be r~ehed at 5t0/8a6~2s60 cm.
Coun'cilmember
5U~n ~oggs
cieo~ O~.d ~mcerely.
~uncilmember
~W of ~e~ont
'~uncitmem~r '
M~=~t~,~=~ 'Beth Wal~as
S e~or
PI~
Mayor
Tom Pico
cc: '~e: C~ - En~ro m~ ~ew 0p~ons - Responses - 2001
Ma~or
M~rk~re~h ' ' '" ' "" ·" "" '" ' '
Dennis ~ ~ay
1~33 BRC;AD'vWLY, SUITE 220 - OAKLAND,. Ck 94612 · PHONE: (510) 8S6~2560 · FA2~: (5'10) 836-~185
E-/ViA/L mail@accma.ca.go¥ - 'WEB SITE: accma, cagov
cc ' PA 00- = Dublin BI, northeast Dublin Office Tech,
029 @ Amotd Dr..& .& Research
Dublin BI~ southwest , Campus
' between Hacienda ..
... BI, & Arnold
Comments - Cisco Office'Campus, Dublin:
WHEELS currently operates the Route 10 & 12 along Dublin Boulevard. 'There
are no .bus stops t bus pull outs on Dublin 'Blvd.. between Hacienda and Dublin
Couct-;-..which..isa.:big.gap,~..This. is aneppertunity.,te..pmvide-.safe-and..conv~ '.~n~.
service to passengers working shopping and committing to BART. We are
request bus'pullouts on Dublin Blvd., Digital Dr., Central, Arnold and Hacienda.
Long range we could .have several configurations of routing,depending on the
demand in ~he .next few years. With the spaciousness of these developments
bus. dders may .have to cross large parking areas as well as set backs form the
street to reach their destination, Bus stops need to be as convenient as. posSible..
Of 'course we wouid like shelters benches and trash receptacles at these
locations.
Livermore Amador Valley *TranSit Authority ..
' 1362 Rutan Court, Sufie 100, Livermore, CA 94550 · 925.455.7555 FAX 925.443.1375
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Edwin F. Lowry, Director
700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 200
~/inston H, Hickox ' Berkeley, Califomia 94710-2721 .' . Gray'Davis
~gency Secretary Gov'ern0r
;alifomia Environmental
Protection Agency'
Ms.
Anne
Kinney
Dub,,n. CA 945cj6 - L STAT~ CLEARIN~.~H0'USE . ~_~.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment .on 'the Negative Declaration and Initial Study
for the Cisco Systems Campu~ Office Oomple× (PA # 00-029). As you may 'be aware, ·
the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC-) oversees the cleanup of
sites, where 'hazardous substances have been released pursuan~ to th-e California
Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8. As a potential Resburce Agency,
DTSC is submitting comments to ensure that the environmental documentation
prepared for this pro]eot to address the California i::t~¥ironmental Quality Act (CEQA)
adequately addresses any required remedJation activities that may be required to
address any hazardous substances release.-
Page 31 ,.Mitigation Measure 4, identify the "other solvents" detected beneath portions
of Sites 15A and 16A.
DTSC can help your.agency in overseeing characterization' and cleanup activities
through our Voluntary Cle~n~Jp Program. A fa~ sh. eet describing this program is
enclosed. -We are aware that projects such as this one are typically on a compressed
schedule, and to use the available review time efficiently, we request that DTSC be
included in. any meetings where issues abou[ our statutory authority are disctJssed.
In the near future,. DTSC will be administering the $85 million Urban Cleanup Loan.
Program, which will provide Iow-interest loans to. investigate and blean'up hazardous
materials at'properties where redevelopment is likely, to have ~Lbeneficial impact to a
community. The program is composed of two main components: Iow interest loans of
up to $100,000 to conduct preliminary endangerment assessments of underutilized.
properties; and loans of up to $2.5 million for the cleanup or removal, of hazardous.
materials also at underutilized urban properties. These Joans are available to
developers, businesses, schools, and local governments. A fact-sheet regarding this
program is attached for your information,
The energy challenge facing California is real Every Californian needs to take immediate action to re'duce energy consumption. '
For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web,,~te at vvww. dtsc, ca, gcv. .
(~ Prin~ed on RecYcted Paper
-"/0 c OCiL° '
Ms. Anne Kinney
July 17, 2001.
Page 2
Please contact Claude Jemis°n at (510) 540-3838 if you have any questions or would
like t ,c~'schedule .a meeting. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Sinc~rely, ·
' ~- Barbara J. Cook, P.E.i Chief
Northern California - Coastal Cleanup
Operations Branch
'Enclosures
cc: without enclosures
-Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse.
P.O. Box 3044.
Sacramento, California '95812-3044
Guenther Moskat
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
p.O. Box 806 '
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
~m p~N~ : State Clearinghouse .. ' '
Gr~y Da~ " Steve N~sen
GOVerNOR
J~y 18, 2001
Aline Kinney'
City of Dublin
1 O0 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
S/ib,,f~'f'P~#.OO:O29'C~e~ sync'; I~;' C~tts':Offie~ Co~I~×
SCH#: 1991103064
Dear Anne Kinney:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for
review. On the enclosed Docum,nt Details Rcpor~ please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state
agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed, on July 17, 200I, and the commen~ from
the msponcling agency (les.) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not.in order, please notify the
State Clearinghouse immediately. Please .refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in
future corresp0ndonce so.that we may. respond promptly..
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the Cslifomia Public Resources Code states that: . '
"A responsible' or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of thc agency or which are
required to be carded out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
· specific documentation.'.'.
These comments ute forwarded for use in preparing your'final environmental docummt. ShoUld you need
more information or Clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact tho
cm~m~ent/ng agency directly,
This lc~ter acknowledges that you have complied with tho State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the Calif0mia Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State
Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613if you have any questions regarding the environmental review 'process.
Sincerely,
Terry Roberts
Senior Planner, ~tate Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENTH STREET ILO. BOX 3044 SACKAMENTO~ CALIFOKNIA 95812-3044
916-445-0613 FAX ~I6-323-3018 ~/~/,O?R.CA,GOV/C/EARINGHOUSE.HTM£
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base "7 ~ '
SCH~. ' 1991103064
ProjeCt 13tie PA~0-029 Cisco'Systerns, Inc. Campus 'Office COmplex
LeadAgenCY Dublin, City of . . *'
* .Type Neg. Negative Declaration · ' *' ."
Description. Amendment to General Plan/Specific Plan to reC°nfigure land uses and. add campus office as a
permitted, use.
Lead Agency Contact
Name , Anne Kinney
*Agency City of Dublin
Phone 925-833-6610 Fax
small
Address t00 Civic Plaza
Project Location
County, Alameda
City Dublin .
Region
Cross Streets Arnold Drive, Dublin Boulevard & Hacienda
Parcel No, 986-5:26'-1,14-6
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways 1-580
Airports Livermore'
Railways
Waterways
Schools
Land Use Project ~tte Is vacant and planned and zoned for need.use of residential & office.
Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Air Quality; Archaeclogic-Historic; Drainage/Absorption; Geologic/Seismic; Public
Services; Sewer Capacity.; Soil Ei-osion/ComPaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous;
Tmffic/Cimulatio. n; Water Quality; Landuse
: Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game; Region 3; Office of
.Agencies Historic Preservation; Depaffrnent of Parks and Recreation; Csltrans, DiviSion of Aeronautics;
California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Department of Housing and Communit~ Development;
*" Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native
.American Heritage Commission; State Lands COmmission
Date Receive. d 06118/2001 * Start of Review 06/18/2001 End of Review .07/17/2001
t,l,~,=. ~l-~r~l~e ;,-, ~lof= R=$rle rz=e~ Ill frnrn in~l~qni~anf tnfnrmnfinn nrnvltted hv lead aclencv.
0~/lS/01 (19:tl FAX 5102865513 TRANS PLANNING B .. ~00i/0'01
ST OF' I ORNIA-.--~USINESS. TRANSPORTA~I~ ~NO HgusINS ~CY ..... . ....
DEPARTME~ OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O, BOX 23660
OA~D, C~ 9462~660
(510) 2B6-4~4
TDD (5!0} 28~4454
July 11, 2001 ~A-580-I 8.82
~ File ~A580694
Ms, Anne ~ey I
' ~s~atePlanner [ tr~'i · ~ TO01 t
De~ Ms.
CJseo Sy~te~ Cmpn~ ~fiee Complex- lnifi~ Smd5 & Negative De, ration
~ank you for inclu~ng ~e California ~pa~e:t of Tms~afion in ~e enviroment~ nview
process for the a~ve-refemnced proj~t. We have review~ the I~fi~ Study md Negative
D~l~ion. md have the following co~en~ to offer.
We m concerned about ~e ad~fion~. ~affic volumes to ~rsmte 580 (I-580) and wo~d ~ke to
study ~hs in greater ~t~l.'- Please provide us a copy of the traffic analysis ~or ~e project
by ~-Means. Tr~spo~afion Con~ulmnB, dated May 2~1.
Some sp~ifie concerns we have:
1. ~at afc the proj~t impacts m the rmps m Doughty Ro~-580 ~d Hacien~ Dfive~-580
during peak co~e ho~s~ Will ~e proj~t cause a b~p of ~affic ther~.d~ng
hour?
2. Foz ~e ca,bound off-traps, ~e ex~ lea,tm or auxiti.~ lan~ going to ~ ne~d?
onrmpS should ~so be ad&essed.
Should you zeq~re fu~her infomafion or have ~y ques~ons mg~ag this letter, ple~e c~l Pa~
. Svedem~ of my st~f at (510) 622-1639.
Si:cemlT,
~Y Y. YA~TA
Dis~ct
BY ~~~
District Brach Chief
· IO~CEQA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
· '. ' 951 Tum,r'Court, ROom 100 '
HaYWard, CA 945.45-2698 '
(510) 670-6601
FAX (510) 670-5269
July 12, 200.1 -"
Anne Ktnn~, AICP
Assooiate.Plamaer
City 0f~' '
Piing D~mt
100 Ci~C PI~
~, CA 94~68
D~ Ms. ~inn~y:
Subj~t: .. ~fiM Study ~d ~ ~gat~ N~gafiv~ D~l~on for C~ Sy~
C~p~ O~o~ CompI~
Ref~ence is made to your mnkrnittal of June 13, 2001, of the Initia! Study and Dm~
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Cisco Systems Campus Office Complex, located in the'
vicinity of Dublin'Boulevard and Arnold Drive.
We have reviewed the submitted documents and have no comments to offer at this dine.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study and Dmf~ Ivh'tigated Negative
Declaration for this Project. If you have any questions, please call me at (510) 670-6613.
Andrew Otsuka
Development Services Department
TO SERVE AND PREkqERVE OUR COMMUNITY
Draft 1/17/03
City of Dublin
Site 15A Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment
File PA 00-029
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Responses to Comments
Office of Planning and Research (June 26, 2001)
Comment: Acknowledges receipt of Response: None required.
document and date of comment period.
Department of Toxics Substance Control DTSC) (June 27, 2001)
DTSC has determined that additional Response: The City of Dublin will refer
review of future developmefit proposals on additional project information to DTSC at
the project site are required, the time such information is submitted to
the City. The adopted Eastern Dublin EIK
requires applicant preparation of Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments as part of
individual development applications. To
date, the previous Cisco Systems
application for a Stage 1 Planned
Development approval on this site has been
withdrawn, so there is no pending
development.
EXHIBIT-. [-.'C
Caltrans (July 11, 200D
1) What are the project impacts to the Response: As indicated in the MND, and
Dougherty Roadfl-580 and Hacienda based on the traffic study conducted by Omni-
Drivefl-580 during peak commute hours? Means for the Cisco project, the addition of
'Will the project cause a back-up during Cisco traffic to existing plus future base
peak hours? volumes would allow the 1-580 ramp
intersections at D0ugherty/Hopyard Road, ~
· Hacienda Drive, and Tassajara/Santa Rita
Road to continue operating at acceptable
levels-of-service with .planned circulation
improvements. Additional improvements
would be required at certain ramp intersections
as a result of added traffic from the proposed
Dublin Transit Center project. Such
improvements can be found in the July 200I
DEIR for the Dublin Transit Center as part of
Mitigation Measure 4.11- I (b),
Dougherty/Dublin intersection, and Mitigation
Measure 4.1 lq(c), Hacienda~I-580 Westbound
Off-Ramp.
2) For the eastbound off-ramps, are extra Response: See above response.
left-mm or auxiliary lanes going to be
needed? On-ramps should a also be
addressed.
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACClV A) (July 9, 2001)
ACCMA has no comment on the proposal, Response: Comment acknowledged. No
since it would not meet Tier 1 requirements additional analysis is required at this time.
and is exempt from the Land Use Analysis
portion of the CMP.
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (July 16,
2001)
1)The Initial Study does not discuss Response: Impacts and mitigations for salt
potential salt balance impacts due to loading related to development projects in
irrigation, although reference is made to the Eastern DUblin are addressed in the Eastern
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. If DUblin Specific Plan/General Plan EIR
appropriate mitigation is not included in (Impact 3.5/20.0), and related Mitigation
the EDSP EIR, they are included in the Measure 3.5/20, that requires to incorporate
East Bay Municipal Utility District salt mitigation into their individual
DERWA EIR. The DERWA EIR notes that projects. Future project developers will be
there is a requirement to build a water charged impact fees to mitigate salt loading
quality monitoring station in Tassajara impacts.
Creek and to share in the salt loading
reduction in the Main Basin..
Page 2
2) In the Environmental Setting Section of Response: Comment acknowledged. The
the Hydrology and Water Quality recommended change is hereby made by
discussion, "Zone 7 Water Agency" should reference in the Initial Study document.
be used instead of "Alameda County Zone
3) Items c, d and e under Hydrology and Response: Comment acknowledged. No
Water Quality Project Impacts and additional analysis is required at this time.
Mitigation Measures, it is noted that
mitigation of impacts to downstream flood
control facilities is through.collection of
appropriate drainage fees to Zone .7.
4) Zone 7 requests that hydraulic Response: Zone 7's request has been
calculations be sent to Zone 7 for review transmitted to the Dublin Public Works
prior to construction Department for compliance.
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (July' 5~ 2001)
The ALUC has determined that the Response: Comment acknowledged. No
proposed projeet site does not lie within additional analysis is required at this time.
any airport Referral Area., The proposed
project would therefore not result in any
hazard to air navigation.
WHEELS (Livermore-Amador Valley Transportation Authority) (need a date),
WHEELS requests bus pullouts on Dublin Response: This request has been forwarded
Boulevard, Digital Drive, Central, Arnold to the Dublin Public Works Department for
and Hacienda since there are no current bus consideration.
stops or pullouts on Dublin Boulevard
between Hacienda and Dublin Court.
Ci~ of Dublin Parks & Community Services Department (July 5, 2001)
The Mitigated Negative Declaration notes Response: Comment noted. Future office
that the City of Dublin assumes use of City uses that are constructed on the.project site
parks and recreation facilities by non- will be subject to payment of the City .0. f
residential land uses for collection of the Dublin Public Facilities Fee, so that any
Public Facilities Fee. impacts to City parks would be less-than-
, significant.
_Cit~ of Livermore (July 18, 2001)
I) No analysis is provided to conclude that Response: Since residential units proposed
the proposed project is within the scope of to be "lost" as part of this application will
the 1994 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, be located within the proposed Dublin
particularly due to loss of residential units. Transit Center. The 1994 EDSP EIR
inclUded a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for regional, cumulative air
quality impacts.
Page 3
2) The proposed project would include the Response: The eastern Dublin EIR
loss of high density residential dwellings, analyzed the potential, for urbanizing a
The environmental document'does not large, defined planning area and identified
address effects on thdjobs/housing balance impacts as noted in the Initial
or the loss of potentially affordable units Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
project site is within the Eastern Dublin
planning area and proposes urban
development, as a somewhat lesser extent
that assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIP~ for
both Campus Office and residential land
uses. The Eastern Dublin GPA/SP planned
for residential land uses on Site 15.4, but
did not assume development that has
Subsequently approved at the adjacent
Dublin Transit Center. The Transit Center
project was approved for up to 1500 high
density residences planned around the
existing BART station and bus transit hub.
This, the residential opportunities on Site
15A would be shifted to the Transit Center
to better complement transit opportunities.
3) The transportation and Traffic Section of Response: The Existing Plus Future Base
the environmental document does not list conditions are intended for near-term future
the Transit Center as a pending project, so conditions due to approved and pending
that cumulative traffic analyses have been projects that are consistent with the City of
underestimated. Dublin General Plan. The Dublin Transit
Center project is a longer-term project and is
not currently included in the Dublin General
Plan. Approval of this project will require a
General Plan Amendment. As a result, the
Dublin Transit Center project was/ncluded in
the traffic analysis under Cumulative
conditions (see the Cumulative traffic impacts
section on page 46 of the MND) to cover long-
term future conditions.
Page 4
City of Pleasanton (June 28, 2001)
The interchange agreement requires Dublin. Response The need to widen the Hacienda
to improve the interchange at hacienda and Drive overpass to include three exclusive
Santa Rita/Tassaj ara to. be adequate to meet northbound through lanes will be triggered by
mutual buildout demands. Traffic the Dublin Transit Center project, based on the
projections for buildout conditions indicate traffic study conducted by Omni-Means for
that widening of the Hacienda overpass for this project. This improvement is well
the northbound lanes is required. If impacts documented in the July 2001 Draft
of the proposed project are not ultimately Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
Dublin Transit Center, as part of Mitigation
mitigated, then traffic will back up into Measure 4.11-1(c), HaciendafI-580 Westbound
Pleasanton. Off-Ramp. Hence, the Dublin Transit Cen~er
project would have a significant impact on this
intersection and would be responsible for
consmacting the above improvement.
Page 5
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted
a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as
significant and unavoidable. (P, esolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.) The City Council carefullyeonsidered
each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval &the Eastern
Dubtin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council is currently considering the
Site I5A project on Alameda County Surplus Property Authority property in Eastern Dublin. The Site
15A project proposes to amend the land use designations for the site from High Density Residential to
Campus Office. Tiering from the Eastern Dublin E]R, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for
the Site 15A project, proposing additional mitigations applicable to potential future development on Site
15A. Although the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land
use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, pursuant to a recent court decision, the City Council
hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the Site 15A project. ~
The City Couneii believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR that are applicable to Site 15A will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted
with the original approval and by mitigation measures adopted through the Site 15A approval to be
implemented with future development approvals. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes tha!
the implementation of the project can'ies with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified
in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified
adverse or potentially adverse impacts for Site 15A have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are
specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval oi~the
Project.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant environmental
impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Site
15A project.
Land Use Impact 3.1/1:. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and.Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/B,
Alteration of P, ural/Open Space Character and 3.8/F, Alteration o£Visual Character of Flatlands:
Although considerable development has occurred in the Site 15A area, the project site is vacant and has
some open space character. Future development of Site 15A will contribute to the cumulative loss of
open space land.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/F. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: The
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Site 15A and the Dublin Transit Center EIR update cumulative
impacts to the 1-580.and 1-680 freeways from development in Eastern Dublin. While city street and
interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned improvements, transportation, demand
management, the I-5g0 Smart Corridor program and other similar measures, mainline freeway impacts
continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Etl~. Future development on
Site 15A will contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-P, enewable Natural Resources and
Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased
~ "..,public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite/ts significant
unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources...A.qency 103. CaLApp. 4· 98, __
(2002).
623896--1
I
EXHIBIT .1
Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System: Future development of Site 15A
will contribute to increased energy consumption.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Crround Shaking, Primary Effects: Even with
seismic design, furore development on Site 15A could be subject to damage from large earthquakes.
Air Quality Impacts 3.1 l/A, B, C, E: Future development of Site 1SA will contribute to cumulative dust
deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source emissions.
3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern
Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future
development on Site 15A against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are
outweighed by the benefits of the Site 15A project as further set forth below.
Site 1SA is a relatively unconstrained parcel whose future development would further the urbanization of
Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern
Dublin approvals. Future development would contribute to an urban presence in the area, and would
provide the potential for approximately 1500 new jobs as well as construction jobs, in an area convenient
to major transit facilities. Site 15A is also convenient to existing and future housing in Dublin, and could
substantially increase property tax revenues.
623896-1 2
Site
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
March 2003
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Responsibility Schedule
Mitigation Measure 1: Pole-m0unted street Dublin Public Dublin Public Street
lights shall be equipped with cut-off lenses Works Works improvement
and oriented down toward interior streets Department; Department; drawings (for
to minimize unwanted light and glare spill Dublin Planning Dublin Planning slxeet lights);
over. Building security lighting and other Division Division plan checks for
lights shall be directed downward. All individual
exterior glass panels shall be of non-glare buildings prior'
manufacture, to issuance of
building permits
(building
lighting)
~n
x
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Responsibility Schedule
Mitigation Measure 2: The possibility that Project Dublin Planning During project
undetected prehistoric archeological developer Division construction
resources might exist on the property must
be recognized and a contingency plan shall
be developed in conformity with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 to handle
discoveries during project construction. In
the event any prehistoric material is
discovered, work shall be halted in the
immediate vicinity o£ the site until a
qualified archeologist inspects the
discovery, and, ff necessary, impIements
pIans for further evaluative testing and/or
retrieval of endangered materials.
Mitigation Measure 3: Prior to the issuance Project Dublin Public Prior to issuance
of a building permit, all of the asbestos developer Works of building
wrapped piping shall be removed and Department permit
deposited off of Site 15A, and .the heavy
petroleum hydrocarbons shall be removed
to the extent required by the appropriate
regulatory agencies.
Site 15A GPNSPA Application Page 2 ~
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ~
City of Dublin ~
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Responsibility Schedule
Mitigation Measure 4: Prior to the issuance Project City of Dublin Prior to issuance
of a building permit, all of the incinerator developer Public Works of grading
ash shall be excavated and deposited off of Department permit
Site 16A.
Mitigation Measure 5: The project Project City of Dublin Prior to issuance
developer shall prepare a Stormwater developer Public Works of grading
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), listing Department permit
Best Management Practices to reduce
construction and. post-construction
activities to a less-than-significant level.
Measures may include, but are not limited
to, revegetation of graded areas, silt
fencing, use of biofilters (i.e. grassy swales),
and other measures. The SWPPP shall
conform to standards adopted by the
Regional Water Qualioty Control Board and
City of Dublin and shall be approved by the
City of Dublin Public Works Department
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Site 15A GPA/SPA Application Page 3 ~-d
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ~
City of Dublin
Mitigation MeasUre Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility ResPonsibility Schedule
Mitigation Measure 6: The project Project City of Dublin Prior to
developer shall constxuct the following developer Public Works occupancy of
traffic and transportation improvements in Department first building
the vicinity of the project:
Dublin/Arnold intersection: a separate
fight-turn lane for the southbound
Arnold Drive approach;
Hacienda/Dublin intersection: re-
stripe the northbound Hacienda
Drive approach to include a third
left-turn lane;
Right-turn lanes to ali project
driveways;
Cisco Systems Access/The Boulevard
improvements, to include:
Eastbound approach: 1 left-turn lane;
Westbound approach: 1 right-turn
lane; Southbound approach: 1 left-
turn lane, 1 through/right-turn Iane.
Site 15A GPNSPA Application Page 4 0.~
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Ci~, of Dublin . .~.)