HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttach 1 PA02-003 RESOLUTION NO. 04-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE LEGACY PARTNERS/AMB TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT
PA 02-003
WHEREAS, AMB/Legacy Partners submitted applications for a Ti'ansit Village project
consisting of a multi-story structure containing a maximum of 304 multi-family dwellings, a separate
multi-level approximately 150,500 square foot office building, and associated landscaping, parking and
small retail uses, on approximately 9.06 acres north of 1-580, on the existing Cor-O-Van Moving and
Storage warehouse site. The development includes applications for a PD Planned Development rezoning
and related Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review, and
Development Agreement. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is relatively flat and fully developed with a moving and storage
warehouse operation; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is in the Dublin downtown area and within the planning area for the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan is one of three downtown specific
plans approved by the City on December 19, 2000 and intended to improve the appearance, functionality,
and economic vitality of the downtown area, particularly in recognition of a planned BART station
adjacent to the Project site. (See Resolution 00-227, incorporated herein by reference). The Specific Plan
includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation
improvements and implementation programs to achieve the City's General Plan goals. The effects of
implementing the Specific Plan and related general plan amendments were reviewed in a Negative
Declaration which was properly circulated for public review and adopted by the City Council on
December 19, 2000 (See Resolution 00-227, incorporated herein by reference). The City subsequently
rezoned the Project site to PD Planned Development and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan on
June 4, 2002, based on the prior adopted Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration is available for
review in the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan was prepared as a self-mitigating plan. Upon adoption of the
Negative Declaration, the City found that the Specific Plan and associated actions would not have a
significant effect on the environment because mitigation was incorporated into the Plan as part of the Plan
implementation (Resolution 00-227). In this context, the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs
act as mitigations that must be included in subsequent implementing developments, such as the Project.
The Project is consistent with and implements the Specific Plan land uses, policies, standards, guidelines
and programs; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Stu. dy dated November 6, 2003 for the Project consistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and determined that the Project would not result in any significant
adverse impacts. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared a draft subsequent Mitigated
Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162 to examine how the Specific Plan
policies, standards and programs were included in the Project, and thus how prior adopted mitigation
established in the Specific Plan would be implemented. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from
November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The City received one comment letter on the Project, from
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, dated December 2, 2003. Although not required by CEQA, the
City prepared written responses to all the comments in a Responses to Comments document dated
February 10, 2004. The comment letter and responses are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein
by reference. The comment letter included a substantial amount of background materials that are on file
and available for review in the Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental
issues raised by the comments; and
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and determined that
no subsequent EIR-level review of the document was warranted, that the prior Negative Declaration and
the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identified and analyzed the Project's
environmental impacts, and that the comments and responses did not constitute or require substantial
revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. On these bases, the City determined that no recirculation
of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and
WHEREAS, a Staff report, dated February 24, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, and
the Project for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, the draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on February 24, 2004 at
which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses,
reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the
AMB/Legacy Partners Transit Village Project; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
comments and responses, and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is
the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PA
02-003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The Dublin Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration, comments received during the public review period, and the City's written responses to
comments prior to making a recommendation on the Project.
C. The prior Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration adequately describe the environmental impacts of the Project. On the basis of the whole
record before it, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that there is no
substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.
2
D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
E. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent
judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the AMB/Legacy Partners Transit Village
Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA 02-003, consisting of
Exhibits A and B above, and make all required findings.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February 2004 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chair
Planning Manager
G:paX2002\pa 02-003\PC-RESO MitNegDec
CiTY OF DUBLIN
100 O~vic Piaza, Dur)lin, Oalifomia 9456~i
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
November 6, 2003
Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca. L~'S
(Prepared pursuant to City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines)
Mitigated Negative Declaration For:
PA 02-003 Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan,
Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review, and Development Agreement
Description of Project:
A Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan,
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review and Development
Agreement for a mixed-use Transit Village near the future West Dublin BART
Station on the existing Cor-O-Van warehouse site. Ultimate development would
include a multi-story structure containing a maximum of 308 multi-family dwellings,
and a separate multi-level 150,000 square foot office building with associated
landscaping, parking and small retail uses.
Project Location:
6700 Golden Gate Drive
Name of Proponents:
Legacy Partners
Tom Jodry, Vice President
Acquisitions & Development
4000 East Third Ave., Suite 600
Foster City, CA 94904
Public Hearings: A public heating will be held before the Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 (tentative
date), at 7:00 P.M. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin.
I hereby find that the above project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the mitigation measures
incorporated in the project. Attached is a copy of the initial Study ("Environmental Information Form" and "Environmental
Checklist Form") documenting the reasons to support the above finding.
Dated: November 6, 2003 // ~anet Harbin, Sen'~r Planner
Date Published: November 9, 2003
Date Posted: November 10, 2003
Date Notice Mailed: November 10, 2003
Considered by:
on:
Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration:
Approved ~ Disapproved
Notice of Determination filed:
Resolution No.
g:\paO2-OO3\MitNegDec.
Area Code (925) · City Manager 833-6650 · City Council 833-6650 · Personnel 833-6605 · Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 83S-6640 · Public WorkstEngineenng 833-6630 · Parks & Community Services 833-6645 · Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 · Building inspection 833-6620 · Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE
LEGACY PARTNERS - AMB PROPERTY
PA 02-003
Cot-O-Van Site
6700 Golden Gate Dr.
Dublin, CA
ENVIRONMENTAL
INITIAL STUDY
Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan
Tentative Parcel Map
Site Development Review
Development Agreement
PA 02-003
Lead Agency: City of Dublin
November 6, 2003
INTRODUCTION
This initial study has been prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential
environmental effects of the proposed Legacy Partners' project in the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan area. The analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), and provide the City with adequate information for project review. This initial
study includes a project description, environmental checklist and discussion focused upon issues
identified in the checklist.
In summary, this Initial Study concludes that the project will not pose any significant adverse
environmental impacts. Additionally, with the policies and programs included in the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan, the mitigation measures incorporated in the project, and mitigation measures in
the Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review, required to
be implemented with development of the Project, no significant impacts will result. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared and distributed according to the CEQA Guidelines.
The Initial Study was prepared based upon the location of the project; Community
Development and Public Works staff review; field review; comments from City, County, local and
regional agencies; studies prepared by consultants; use of City Planning Documents; the CEQA Law
and Guidelines; and, City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is a transit-oriented, mixed-use project consisting of a maximum of 308 multi-
family units fronting on St. Patrick Way consisting of a total of 177,264 square feet with below-grade
parking and store front retail space on the ground level, and a four-stow 150,000 square foot office
building with surface parking adjacent to the Interstate 580 freeway corridor. The proposed project is
located on approximately 9.06 acres of land within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area and in
proximity to the future West Dublin BART Station, on property owned by AMB Properties. The site is
presently developed and utilized as the Cor-O-Van Moving and Storage warehouse site.
Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, and Site
Development Review, PA 02-003 to be considered for approval and adoption by the Dublin Planning
Commission and the Dublin City Council. The development plan for the project site is planned to include
high-density residential housing and office use near a future transit facility located within the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan area. This Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin on December 19, 2000
for the purpose of directing the land use, circulation, infrastructure and development for 71.40 acres of
land located in the central portion of Dublin, west of the 1-680 freeway and north of the 1-580 freeway. At
build-out over the next five to seven years, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area would allow the
development of a range of mixed-uses such as residential, commercial office, retail, employment and
public/quasi-public type uses.
Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the project area in the context of the larger City of Dublin, and Exhibit 2
depicts the project site in relation to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan.
Project Rezoning & Background
The proposed project involves a rezoning to a Planned Development Zoning District/Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review, and a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the property into
two separate parcels. With approval of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan in December 2000, the City
of Dublin approved a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the subject
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 2
November 2003
i ~ - NTERSTATE 580-
,~,~..~ ,,
i DOWNTOWN CORE SPECIFIC P~N AR~ '~ ?''
'% ',ii ,~ ;;,.
I EGEND ~.~
i ~ WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC P~N
~ .VIL~GE PARKWAY SPECIFIC P~N AR~
~.T.S.
DECEMBER 2000
LOCAL CONTEXT
I WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN C I T Y O F D U B L I N
EXHIBIT 2
property to Retail/Office for a portion of the site lying adjacent to the 1-580 and Mixed Use (a
combination of High Density Residential and Retail or Office development) for the larger portion of the
site. to accommodate small commercial/retail businesses and multi-family housing. At that time, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment were also
approved which analyzed and evaluated the land use mix proposed in the Plan, including that proposed
in the area of the West Dublin Transit Village by Legacy Partners. Subsequent to that, the City rezoned
the three Downtown Specific Plan areas to Planned Development (PD) zoning district and Stage 1
Development Plan, which requires approval of a Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2
Development Plan prior to actual development of any property. The Stage 2 Development Plan is more
specific to the site than a Stage 1 Development Plan in that it presents the ultimate development and
design layout, infrastructure and improvements for the property.
Tentative Parcel Map & Site Development Review
The applicant has submitted an application for a Tentative Parcel Map to divide the 9.06 acre property
into two (2) parcels to create separate building lots for the residential use and for the office use within
the area encompassed by the proposed Planned Development Zoning District. This would provide a
separate parcel for the each of the planned land uses.
It is anticipated that the residential property will be developed first and the office building would be the
second phase of the site development. The properties may be developed by separate entities in the
future. Grading activities would occur within the project area to accommodate planned land uses, roads
and utilities. A preliminary grading plan has been submitted as part of this application. Water, sewer and
recycled water services would be provided to the site by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) in
accord with DSRSD's Water Supply and Wastewater Collection System Master Plans. At the present
time, it is anticipated that water service for the project would be provided by Zone 7 of the Alameda
county Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Water service is available to the surrounding
properties and would be extended to serve this site; however, a new water service line may be required
prior to the extension of service to accommodate the intensity of the proposed development on this site,
and others in the surrounding area to be built-out within the near future.
Sewer service for the project would be accommodated through connection to the existing sewer system
owned and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which has existing lines in
the vicinity of the site and adequate capacity to service the planned development. When and where
available, recycled water from DSRSD would be used for irrigation purposes, reducing the need for
potable water.
The storm drain system for the development will be connected to the existing system of drainage
facilities owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation System. This system consists of underground pipes, box culverts and open channels that
flow southerly adjacent to 1-580. From there, stormwater runoff will be transported south into Alameda
County Flood Control District facilities.
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 3
November 2003
CITY OF DUBLIN
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed
project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief
explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist.
Applicant/Contact Person
Tom Jodry, Vice President
Acquisitions & Development
Legacy Partners
4000 East Third Ave., Suite 600
Foster City, CA 94404-4810
Project Location and Context
The proposed project is located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive on approximately 9.04 acres of land within
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area and in proximity to the future West Dublin BART Station, on
property owned by AMB Properties. The site is presently developed and utilized as the Cor-O-Van
Moving and Storage warehouse site and adjacent to a property owned by BART and planned for
residential and commercial use.
Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the project area in context of the larger City of Dublin, and Exhibit 2
depicts the project site in relation to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan.
The project site is located within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. This Specific Plan was
adopted by the City of Dublin on December 19, 2000 for the purpose of directing the land use,
circulation, infrastructure and development for 71.40 acres of land located in the central portion of
Dublin, west of the 1-680 freeway and noah of the 1-580 freeway. At build-out over the next five to seven
years, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area would allow the development of a range of residential,
commercial office, retail, employment and public/quasi-public uses.
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA O2-O03
Page 4
November 2003
I'-I-I
GOLDEN GATE DRIVE
i~'~! i'l I~,, DUBLIN TRANSITVILLACE
"~ !~ ~ ~ -gl DUBUN, AMB COMPANY CAUFORNIA
Land Use Development Plan
The overall land use development plan is oriented toward creating a Transit Village providing an
integration of transportation services, employment opportunities, services and housing within a section
of downtown Dublin that is both visible and accessible from the freeways and in close proximity to the
future BART station. The preliminary development plan for the Planned Development Zoning
District/Stage 2 rezoning indicates that the project sponsor proposes a maximum number of 308 multi-
family dwelling units (apartments) on 7.11 acres of the 9.06 acre property, with a density of
approximately 45 dwelling units per acre. A 150,000 square foot office building is proposed on
approximately 1.95 acres of the property immediately east of the residential development and adjacent
to the freeway. Parking for the development would be provided in surface lots and two levels under the
residential buildings. Pedestrian walkways and landscaping would be provided with the plan.
Grading activities would occur within the project area to accommodate planned land uses, roads and
utilities. A preliminary grading plan has been submitted as part of this application. Water, sewer and
recycled water services would be provided to the site by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) in
accord with DSRSD's Water Supply and Wastewater Collection System Master Plans. At the present
time, it is anticipated that water service for the project would be provided by Zone 7 of the Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Water service is available to the surrounding
.properties and would be extended to serve this site.
Sewer service for the project would be accommodated through new connection to the existing sewer
system owned and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which has existing
lines in the vicinity of the site and adequate capacity to service the planned development. When and
where available, recycled water from DSRSD would be used for irrigation purposes, reducing the need
for potable water.
The storm drain system for the development will be provided with a new connection to the existing
system of drainage facilities owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation System. This system consists of underground pipes, box culverts and open
channels that flow southerly adjacent to 1-580. From there, stormwater runoff will be transported south
into Alameda County Flood Control District facilities.
Exhibit 3 depicts the Proposed Planned Development Rezoning & Development Plan. Exhibit 4 shows
the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the project.
1. Project title:
PA 02-003 Legacy Partners/AMB - West Dublin Transit Village
Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan,
Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review, and Development
Agreement.
2. Project description:
Proposed Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning & Stage 2
Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site
Development Review and Development Agreement for a mixed-use
Transit Village near the future West Dublin BART Station. Ultimate
development would include a multi-stow apartment complex
containing a maximum of 308 multi-family dwellings, and a multi-
stow 150,000 square-foot office building, with associated
landscaping, parking and small retail uses.
city of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA O2-0O3
Page 5
November 2003
3. Lead agency:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
4. Contact person:
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
(925) 833-6610
5. Project location:
6700 Golden Gate Drive (generally located on Golden Gate Drive,
between St. Patrick Way and Interstate 580).
6. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 941-1500-046 & 941-1500-035
7. Project sponsor:
Legacy Partners
Tom Jodry, Vice President
4000 East Third Ave., Suite 600
Foster City, CA 94404-4810
8. General Plan designations: Retail/Office and High Density Residential
9. Zoning:
PD Planned District (Stage 1 Development Plan)
10. Specific Plan designations: (R) Residential & (O) Office
11. Surrounding land uses:
The project is adjacent to the future residential, commercial, and
West Dublin BART Station with an associated parking garage,
designated Residential, Commercial, and Public/Semi-Public
Facility on the General Plan. North and west of the site are
retail/commercial and office buildings, which are designated for
Retail/Office use on the General Plan. Adjacent to the southern
property boundary is the Interstate 580 freeway corridor.
12. Other public agency required approvals:
Final Maps (City of Dublin)
Grading and Building permits (City of Dublin)
Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board)
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 6
November 2003
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Aesthetics - Agricultural Resources Air Quality
- Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
- Hazards and Hazardous - Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning
Materials
- Mineral Resources X t Noise Population/Housing
- Public Services - t Recreation X Transportation/
I
Circulation
X !Utilities/Service - i Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance r
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
__ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and the previous
Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately address potential impacts and
mitigate any impacts to a less-than-significant level.
~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
incorporated into the project. A Mitigated Negative Beclaration will be prepared.
.... I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis, as described on the attached sheets. If the effect is a
"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," and Environmental Impact Report is
required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
__ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR.
Signatu Date:
Printee/l~E/mme: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner For:
November 6, 2003
City of Dublin, Community Development Dept.
City of Dublin
W, Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 7
November 2003
Environmental Impacts (Note: Soume of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to
determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist.
Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista? (Source: 1,2,3,4)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 2,3,4,5)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 1,2,3,4,5)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5)
II. Agricultural Resources. Would the project;
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as showing
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 2,4,5)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or
a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 2,4,5)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural
use? (Source: 2,4,5)
Ill. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinations). Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 3,4,5,6)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Source: 3,4,5,6)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant SignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
i x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 8
November 2003
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
(Source: 3,4,5)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Source: 3,4,5)
e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 3,4,5)
IV. Biological Resources. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2,3,4,5,7)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2,3,4,7)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other
means? (Source: 2,3,4,7)
d) interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2,3,4,5,7)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2,3,4)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 9
November 2003
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 2,3,4)
V. Cultural Resources. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,3,4,5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source:
2,3,4,5)
VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project:
a)
Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Prioto Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or
based on other known evidence of a known fault
(Source: 1,2,3,4)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 10
November 2003
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 1,2,3,4)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on-
and off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 1,2,3,4)
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste? (Source: 2,3,4)
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials
(Source: 2,3,4,5)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous into the environment?
(Source: 2,3,4,5)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Source: 2,3,4,5)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Source: 3,4,5)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such plan has not been adopted,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 2,3,4,5)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 11
November 2003
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 2,3,4,5)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 2,3,4,5,6,7)
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality, Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 3,4,5)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g. the production rate of existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted? (Source:
3,4,5)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the aeration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 3,4,5,7)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration
of a course or stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site? (Source: 2,3,4,5,7)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 3,4,5,6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 12
November 2003
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 3,4,5)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 3,4,5,6,7)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which impede or redirect flood flows?
(Source: 2,3,4,5,6,7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (2,3,4,5,6)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
(2,3,4,5)
IX. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1,2,3,4,5,7)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? (Source: 1,2)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(Source: 1,2,3,4,5)
X. Mineral Resources. Would theproject
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA O2-O03
Page 13
November 2003
Xl. Noise. Would the proposal result in
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing levels
without the project? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels without the project? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use .airport, would the project expose
people residing or working n the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels? (Source: 2,3,4,5,7)
XII. Population and Housing. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
(Source: 1,3,4,5,7)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,7)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 1,2)
Potentially t Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
[
X
X
I
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page !4
November 2003
XIII. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impactsl in order to maintain
acceptable service rations, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services? (Sources: 2,3,4,5,6)
Fire protection?
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 1,2,3,4,5,7)
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. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the County
Congestion Management Agency for designated
roads or highways? (Source: 2,3,4,5,6)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(Source: 2,3,4,5,7)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (Source: 2,3,4,5,6)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source:
1,2,3,4,5,6)
f') Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source:
1,2,3,4,5)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 15
November 2003
×VI, Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (Source: 2,3,4,5,6)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects? (Source:
1,2,3,4,5,6)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (Source:
1,2,3,4,5,6)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
i X
X
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments? (Source:
1,2,3,4,5,6)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (1,2,3,4,5,6)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (Source:
3,4,5,6,7)
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 16
November 2003
XVl, Mandatory Findings of Significance,
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustainin9 levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number of or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects
and the effects of probable future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
×
×
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
2.
3.
4.
5,
West Dublin BART Specific Plan (December 2000)
General Plan/General Plan EIR (1994 & Updated in 2003)
Dubiin/Pleasanton BART Extension Project EIR prepared by BART (February 1990)
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project Supplemental EIR (March 2000)
Previous Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the Downtown Specific Plans (August 2000, revised
December 2000)
Discussion/correspondence with City of Dublin staff or affected special districts
Other source (Development Plan, Field observations, Record Search, etc.)
XVlI. Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d).
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 17
November 2003
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to
environmental information and mitigation measures contained in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the
Negative Declaration approved on December 19, 2000 by the Dublin City Council. Additionally, portions of the
environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental
information and mitigation measures contained in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, and certified in April 2002, to be built in close proximity to the site.
in order to satisfy the City's responsibilities as responsible agency under CEQA, staff prepared this initial study for
the project that analyzed the potential impacts of this specific project. This initial study has determined that the
potentially significant effects of the project are adequately addressed in the recent project revisions and the
mitigation measures incorporated in the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and the Site
Development Review. Specific mitigation measures are noted in the text of the following initial Study.
Copies of document referenced here are available for public review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, 100
Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours.
City of Dublin
Page 18
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA O2-003
November 2003
Attachment to Initial Study for the West Dublin Transit Village, Legacy Partners
(PA-02-003)
Discussion of Environmental Checklist
I, Aesthetics
Froiect
a-d)
impacts and Mitiqation Measures
Significant impact on scenic vista, damage to scenic resource, degrades visual character of the site or
create light or glare? Construction of the proposed project would change the character of the area from
developed property with a warehouse/storage use within a predominantly light industrial area to an
urbanized area with office and residential development. A substantial amount of landscaping and pedestrian-
oriented open spaces (approximately 32% of the site) would be included in the project. However, 'this site
area is contained in the downtown urbanized portion of the City, and the introduction of the BART Transit
Village development would entail construction of a multi-story hotel (eight stories), a residential complex
(four to five stories) and associated parking, and a parking structure (five to six stories) for the station on
land that is currently undeveloped. Aesthetic impacts of constructing the project were addressed in both the
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR and the Initial Study/Negative
Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. However, this development should not obstruct views
of surrounding hillsides and would be consistent with the commercial character of the area.
As this is a less-than-significant effect, no mitigation measures are necessary. However, the design of the
project must be consistent with the Design Guidelines incorporated in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan,
as a well-designed transit village would be an aesthetic asset to the Dublin downtown. The proposed plaza
adjacent to the hotel and station, and the many pedestrian walkways and streetscape features of the Transit
Village will further enhance the appearance and overall design of the project. As the adjacent 1-580 corridor
is designated a Scenic Highway in the Dublin General Plan, the project must follow the City's guiding policy
related to implementing a physical design that enhances a positive image of Dublin as seen by travelers on
the highway. Staff review and evaluation of the design of the structures and the pedestrian connections
have been performed with the assistance of an architect, and the project design is consistent with the City's
policies related to design and should create a quality physical and structural environment.
I1. Agricultural Resources
Proiect Impacts and Miticlation Measures
a-c)
Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use?
The site has not been used for agricultural purposes in the past or present, and no Williamson Act Land
Conservation Agreement exists on the project site. It is located in an urbanized portion of the City, completely
isolated from other agricultural resources within the region. Additionally, the site is not located on Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The potential for impacts related to agricultural
resources has been adequately assessed in previous environmental documents. Therefore, no adverse
impacts to agricultural resources would result from the project and no additional mitigation measures are
required.
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 19
November 2003
III. Air Quality
Proiect Impacts and M/tic!at/on Measures
a)
b)
c)
Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? The proposed project would not
conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, since the
proposed number of dwelling units have been included in Dublin's planned growth as part of the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan and are permitted under the City's General Plan. Additionally, the proposed land uses are
consistent with the ABAG growth projections for the City of Dublin. As a result, development of the proposed
project would not conflict with the projections contained in the Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, such
impacts would be less-than-sign/f/cant.
d,e)
Would the project violate any air quality standards? Short-term construction impacts related to implementation
of the project, including grading and excavation, could result in exceedance of air quality standards
established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Adherence to mitigation measures listed in the
Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the project will reduce short-term air quality
impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading
and construction activities and also mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running order.
Potential air quality impacts related to construction will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact with these
measures.
Similarly, potential air quality impacts related to vehicular traffic emissions on roadways of Reactive Organic
Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide, both precursor indicators of smog, and stationary source emissions would not
exceed, regional air quality standards or thresholds. Additionally, approval of the proposed project would
facilitate the development of housing units close to the approved West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, which
would substantially reduce automobile travel on the local and regional roadways by providing a transportation
alternative for commuters. The result would be a net reduction in regional emissions. Therefore, this impact
would be considered/ess-than-significant.
Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? Generally such impacts are based on
vehicular emission from future traffic within the sub-region as well as stationary sources. As discussed in ll.b.
above, approval of the project would allow development of housing, office and commercial land uses near a
major transit facility (BART) with pedestrian access directly to the station and retail/office uses nearby. The
result would be a net reduction in cumulative regional emissions. Therefore, this impact would be considered
less-than-significant.
Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? The land uses
proposed for the site include residential and commercial/office land uses. As tine development of the BART
transit facility and housing units in the vicinity of the station would actually reduce cumulative regional
emissions and reduce the number of vehicles on the area roadways, the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors. No impact will occur and no
further analysis is necessary.
In sum, air quality impacts associated with the project area have been addressed in previous environmental
documents, including the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village EIR and the Negative
Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area. The proposed development of the West Dublin
Transit Village is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no additional mitigation
measures are required.
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 20
November 2003
IV. Biological Resources
Proiect Impacts and Miti.qation Measures
Have a substantial adverse impact on special-status species riparian features, movement of fish or wildlife
species or conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan? Potential impacts to rare, threatened or endangered
species have been addressed in the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental
EtR and Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area for the project area as well as in
the original EIR for the BART extension project. The development of the project site would result in the toss of
only a few acres of grassland habitat surrounding the existing warehouse building and truck parking areas. All
biological habitat was assumed to be removed from the vicinity in the original EIR for the BART extension
project, and no increase in biological resources on the site has occurred. Because of the geographic location
of the site between the 1-580 freeway corridor and light industrial/commercial development, it is highly unlikely
that any special status species would locate on the site or use the site as mitigation or movement corridor.
Additionally, a recent review of the California Department of Fish and Game's CNDDB conducted in February
2000, and a site reconnaissance survey on March 16, 2000, confirmed that the biological resources existing
on the site have not significantly changed since the site was originally developed for a industrial warehouse-
type use. Dublin Creek, which was once located adjacent to the alignment of the 1-580 freeway, is completely
channelized in a concrete-lined channel. The concrete-lined channel does not provide habitat for any potential
rare, threatened or endangered species. Therefore, any potential biological impacts of the project have been
addressed, and no biological impacts would result from the development of the project. No mitigation
measures are required.
V, Cultural Resources
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation Measures
Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic, archeoiogical or paleontological resources or human
remains? The Cultural Resources Technical Report for the DPX Project (Woodward-Clyde Consulting, 1989)
and the Archaelogical Survey Report for the Proposed Reconstruction of the 1-580/I-680 Interchange (Kelley,
1989) identified no known historic or cultural resources for the project area. Additionally, the site has been
fully developed and improved for a warehouse use with underground utilities and municipal services.
However, disturbance of unknown cultural resources, including disruption or destruction of subsurface
prehistoric resources, and disruption to historic resources, may occur with the removal of vegetation and
surface soils through development related excavation and grading activities. To reduce the potential
degradation of unidentified cultural resources on the site, mitigation measures have been included in the
Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and incorporated into the project to reduce
impacts to cultural resources to a level of less-than-significance. These mitigation measures are those
required by the CEQA Guidelines in the event that cultural, prehistoric or historic resource is discovered during
site development or ground disturbance. Therefore, cultural resources impacts associated with the
development of the project have been addressed in previous environmental documents and by the Conditions
of Approval for the project, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
VI. Geology and Soils
City of Dublin
W, Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Par[ners
PA 02-003
Page 21
November 2003
Proiect impacts and Mitiqation Measures
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to
ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslide, substantial erosion, unstable soils or
liquefaction? The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village EIR and the original EIR for the
BART extension project identify several potential impacts to soils and geology, including earthquake, ground
shaking, and ground rupture. The site is relatively flat and contains no areas of slope, and no impacts related
to landslides and erosion have been identified.
Mitigation measures such as final subsurface investigations, and appropriate structural and foundation design
incorporated into the final engineered design will reduce soils and geologic impacts to a level of less-than-
significance. Soils and geologic impacts associated with the project site have been addressed in previous
Geotechnical and soil investigation documents prepared by the Applicant's consultant and reviewed by the
City. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan and environmental
documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation Measures
a-g)
Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission of hazardous
materials, listed as a hazardous materials site, interference with an emergency evacuation plan, subject to
wildtand fires, or located near a public or private airstrip? No hazards related to transport of hazardous
materials should occur with the development of the project as the transit village will serve only the residential
housing and an office building, which are not associated with the transport or use of hazardous materials. The
site of the proposed development contains an underground storage tank proposed for closure. A Phase 1 Site
Assessment was performed on the site for the project by Versar,-Inc. in order to determine the extent of soil
and groundwater contamination on the site, if any, from an existing 3,500 gallon gasoline tank and a 10,000-
gallon diesel tank used for trucks in conjunction with the storage and moving warehouse use. The
environmental documents recommend no further field sampling prior to commencement of construction
activities as no contaminants of a measure level were found in the groundwater or soil.
Since the project contains two primary access points, there would be no interference with an emergency
access plan. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires, and lies outside the referral area for the
Livermore Municipal Airport. The proposed project is consistent with previous actions and environmental
documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
Proiect Impacts and Mitiaation
a-i)
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, deplete groundwater resources, alter
drainage patterns, effect surface or subsurface water quality, result in placing housing in a flood plain? Water
and hydrologic impacts of development of the project have been addressed in the hydrological report for the
project. Impacts reviewed included potential flooding, loss of groundwater recharge area, and potential
increases in surface water quality pollution. Since the proposed project will develop within the same
approximate area as the adjacent site assessed in the original EIR for the BART extension project, and
construct stormwater drainage facilities and connections on the site connecting to larger drain pipes with a
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 22
November 2003
greater capacity within the right-of-way for St. Patrick Way in accordance with the recommendations of the
hydrological report, no new significant stormwater drainage impacts are anticipated. Additionally, the
Applicant/Developer will be coordinating with the adjacent site developer for the BART property to insure that
ali stormwater and drainage facilities constructed in the area contain sufficient capacity to service the projected
development of both of the sites and St. Patrick Way.
Construction activities and operational site uses associated with the project could result in degradation of
water quality in nearby surface water and reservoirs by reducing the quality of stormwater runoff. A Notice of
Intent (NOI) must be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed and implemented for the site, in accordance with the mitigation
measures discussed in the Supplemental EIR. The measures incorporated into the project and discussed in
this section will reduce potential impacts to water and water quality to a level of less-than-significant.
IX, Land Use and Planning
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
a)
Physically divide an established community?. The project is vacant and has been planned for similar uses
associated with a BART Station since the original adoption of the Dublin General Plan in 1990. The adoption
of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and related General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation on the subject property to Retail/Office for 3.7+ acres and High Density Residential (30 to 50
dwelling units per acre) for 3.5+ acres, to accommodate the future use of the land for a commercial type use
and multi-family housing. At that time, a Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan and the General Plan
Amendment were also approved which analyzed and evaluated the land use mix proposed in the Plan,
including tt~at proposed in the area of the future West Dublin BART Transit Village proposed by Jones Lang
LaSalle Project and Development Management. Surrounding uses planned for the area under the Specific
Plan are mixed use (combination of residential and retail/commercial or office uses) and retail/commercial and
office type uses. Adjacent to the southern property boundary is the 1-580 freeway corridor. Therefore, there
would be no disruption of any established community.
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? The proposed project would be consistent with
goals and policies contained in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan, and with the
projected land uses and land use designations of the Specific Plan as discussed in IX.a above. This project
consists of a rezoning to implement the existing general plan designations on the 9.75+ acre site. No impacts
are therefore anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required.
c)
Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No such plan has been
adopted within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, in which the West Dublin Transit Village project is
located. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan for the proposed project.
X, Mineral Resources
Proiect impacts and Mitiqation
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? The site is not located in
an area of aggregate resources. The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 23
November 2003
EIR and the original EIR for the BART extension project do not indicate that significant deposits of minerals
exist in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
XI. Noise
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
a-f) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise teve/s in excess of standards established by the
Genera/Plan or other appficable standard, expose people to groundbome vibration, result in permanent
increases in ambient noise levels? The West Dubiin/Pieasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Supplemental EIR addressed potential noise impacts of implementing the proposed the project on the
adjacent site. Noise related impacts identified in the that EIR included exposure of future residents in the
residential portion of the development and occupants of the hotel to increased levels of noise due to the
proximity of the t-580 freeway corridor, and exposure of residents and occupants to construction noise from
the BART Station and parking structure on the project site. The extension of St. Patrick Way would also
contribute to ambient noise levels, but not to a significant level.
Additionally, Legacy Partners submitted an acoustical analysis, prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates,
specifically for the Cor-O-Van site with their project application that also identified the 1-580 freeway corridor as
the main source of noise emissions. Although the residential portion of the project will be somewhat shielded
from the noise generated by the freeway, the acoustical analysis recommends several mitigation measures
related to building construction and installation of sound-rated windows to reduce the noise impacts to a less-
than-significant level~ The following mitigation measures incorporated in the design of the project will mitigate
noise impacts to a level of less-than-significant
· Incorporate sound-rated windows and exterior walls in the residential units to reduce indoor levels to 45 dB
as required by the City and State
· Provide an alternate means of ventilation for the units, such as active supply air systems or passive
sound-line transfer data, to allow residents to keep windows closed but still have ventilation
· Configure the buildings to provide at least a 13 dB noise reduction with outdoor areas contained within the
"core" of the complex
· Incorporate sound-rated windows and exterior walls in the office building to reduce indoor levels to 70 dB
as required by the City and State
· Provide an alternate means of ventilation for the office units, such as active supply air systems or passive
sound-line transfer data, to allow occupants to keep windows closed but still have ventilation.
· All construction vehicles or noise generating equipment should not be left idling while not in use, should be
fitted with noise muffling devises, and used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
· Stationary noise-generating construction should be located away from occupied residential units.
Adherence to site-specific mitigation measures contained in the acoustical analysis and those discussed
above will reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.
XII. Population and Housing
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 24
November 2003
a)
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?. Approval of the proposed Weat
Dublin Transit Village rezoning is substantially consistent with the existing, approved West Dublin BART
Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan for the site. The project would add an additional 304-308 multi-
family housing units to the City's housing unit stock, and introduce residential development to an area of
predominantly retail/commercial and industrial development. However, this is consistent with the intent and
land use designations in the Specific Plan and the General Plan, and is considered an appropriate land use
given the location of the future West Dublin BART Station and the regional need to develop housing in
proximity to transit facilities. The planned development also includes up to 23 units of affordable tnclusionary
Housing to meet the goals and policies of the Dublin City Council and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,
and would contribute in-lieu fees to meet the remainder of the Applicant/Developer's obligation for Inclusionary
housing. The office use would also in consistent witht the land use designation of the property, and will provide
employment opportunities for many persons already residing in Dublin. No impacts are therefore anticipated,
and no mitigation measures are required.
b)
Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? The site is currently used
as a storage and moving warehouse business, and no housing exists on the site. Implementation of the
proposed project would, therefore, displace neither housing units nor people, but would beneficially increase
the opportunities for people to live in the downtown area and close to transit facilities.
XIII. Public Services
Proiect impacts and Mitiqation
a-e) Potential impacts related to: fire protection, police protection, schools, maintenance, or solid waste
generation? The development of the West Dublin Transit Village will result in a slight increased demand for
police and fire service, police service accessibility, fire response to the project area, minor financial impacts to
local school districts, increased solid waste generation, and impacts to solid waste facilities, but not to a
substantial or significant level. The Applicant/Developer will be required to pay Fire Impact Fees and other
fees related to the expansion of municipal and public utility services at the time of building permit issuance to
cover any increased cost to these services created by the development. The fees are intended to offset fire
protection service costs incurred as a result of project implementation. Additionally, school and park impact
fees will be required to cover any additional service costs. Adherence to these mitigation measures wilt reduce
public service impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Potential public service impacts associated with the Transit Village project were also addressed in the
previously approved Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The proposed rezoning of
the site is consistent with previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin
and no additional mitigation measures are required.
XIV. Recreation
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
a, b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or require the construction of
new recreational facilities? Parks and recreation impacts of the project have been addressed during review of
the project by the Parks and Recreation Department. A slight increased demand for park facilities is anticipated
with the Transit Village project; however, it is not expected that future residents of the project would utilize the
park facilities in the City such that substantial deterioration of the facilities would occur. In accordance with City
of Dublin regulations and policies, the project sponsor will be required to pay park impact fees to cover any
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 25
November 2003
potential additional service costs related to the development. Additionally, a substantial amount of the internal
area of the building and the courtyards have been designed for passive recreational use and relaxation by
residents. The plaza and outdoor area between the residential development and the office building has been
designed by the Applicant's architect to incorporate places for pedestrians and leisurely activities. Additionally,
grassy areas and landscaped areas around the office building were designed with the intent to provide
ouotdoor areas for workers to enjoy at their leisure.
Potential parks and recreation impacts associated with the project have, therefore, been addressed by the
project or sufficient fees will be paid to provide these facilities within the City for the residents, and no impact
related to recreational services would result. The proposed rezoning and subdivision of the site is consistent
with previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and no mitigation
measures are required.
XV. Transportation/Traffic
Proiect Impacts and Mitiqation
a-g)
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity, exceed LOS
standards for CMA roadways, change of air traffic patterns, increase traffic safety hazard, provide for
inadequate emergency vehicle access, inadequate parking, provide hazard or barrier to alternative
transportation modes? Traffic and transportation impacts associated with the approval and implementation of
the West Dublin BART Station and Transit Village project have been addressed in the West DublintPleasanton
BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR, and the Negative Declaration approved by the City of
Dublin for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Specific impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR included
impacts resulting from cumulative traffic growth in the region, to which the proposed project would contribute.
In the Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Project Plus General Plan Buildout Scenario, the project would
contribute to the unacceptable operation of the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive, Dublin
BoulevardlAmador Plaza Road, Dublin Boulevard/Doughtery Road, St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive, and
San Ramon Road/I-580 interchange. Additionally, cumulative traffic growth in the region with the project would
contribute to traffic volumes on roadway segments of Amador Plaza Road south-of Dublin Boulevard and
Golden Gate Drive exceeding their capacity.
A project-specific traffic impact analysis was prepared to analyze the impacts of the change in land use with
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and General Plan amendment action (Omni-Means, 2000). The Omni-
Means report concluded that all traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed Specific Plan, which included
implementation of the land uses proposed with this project, could be reduced to less-than-significant levels
after a number of roadway improvements are completed in the vicinity of the project. The Applicant/Developer
will be responsible for paying fees related to a portion of the cost of the extension of St. Patrick Way from
Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street, and also dedicate land for the alignment of the roadway. Those
improvements specifically relating to the development of the Transit Village project have been made conditions
of the rezoning and parcel map approval, and wilt be addressed in the Development Agreement between the
Applicant/Developer and the City, currently being prepared.
In sum, potential traffic and transportation impacts associated with the project are being addressed based on
previous environmental documents, including the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Supplemental EIR, and the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the projected
tong-term traffic needs and improvements for the area. The proposed rezoning and parcelization is consistent
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 26
November 2003
with previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and with the mitigation
measures incorporated into the project, the resulting impacts will be tess-than-significant..
XVI, Utilities and Service Systems
Proiect-lmoacts and Mitiaation
a-g)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, require new or expanded water or wastewater
treatment facilities, require new storm drain facilities, require additional water supplies, require new or
expanded wastewater treatment facilities, or require new sofid waste facilities? Potential impacts of the Transit
Village project were addressed in the West Dublin/Pteasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental
EIR and the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Impacts addressed included
impacts to the wastewater and wastewater treatment and disposal system, water system, over drafting of
groundwater resources, additional water treatment plant capacity needs, inducement of substantial population
growth as a result of an expanded water system, and need for additional water storage facilities. The
environmental analyses concluded that the project would incrementally increase the need for these services,
but to a less-than-significant level. Adequate resource supplies and utility services are available to the project
site, and no mitigation measures are required. Some basic utility service fees, required of all construction
within the City, may be required for connection to systems and facilities.
Based on the above, potential utility impacts associated with the Transit Village project have therefore been
addressed in previous environmental documents, including the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and
Transit Village Supplemental EIR and Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. The
proposed rezoning and parcelization of the site is consistent with previous actions and environmental
documentation approved by the City of Dublin and no additional mitigation measures are required.
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
ora fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No.
The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project w~l not have a significant adverse impact on overall
environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources with the implementation of mitigation
measures included in the Conditions of Approval for the project.
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current proiects and the effects of probable future projects). No,
although incremental increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of constructing this project,
including additional traffic, air emissions, light and glare, the project site lies within an area with an approved
specific plan.
c)
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial
Study.
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Pat[hers
PA 02-003
Page 27
November 2003
Initial Study Preparer
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study:
The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
CalTrans
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Dublin-San Ramon Services District
Livermore Dublin Disposal District
Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA)
References
West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Technical Appendices, prepared by City of Dublin, Community
Development Department, adopted December 19, 2000
Draft and Final Environmental impact Report for the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Proiect, prepared by the
Bay Area Rapid Transit District, September 1989 (adopted February 1990)
Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
and Transit Villaqe Proiect, prepared by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, November 2000 (adopted
April 2001)
Ne,qative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, Downtown Core Specific Plan, and the Villa,qe
Parkway Specific Plan, prepared by the City of Dublin, November 2001 (adopted December 2001)
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners
PA 02-003
Page 28
-November 2003
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
RICHARD T. DRURY
THOMAS A, ENSLOW
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
MARC D. JOSEPH
SUMA PEESAPATI
OF COUNSEL
THOMAS R, ADAMS
ANN BROADWELL
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
651 GATEWAY ROULEVARD, SUITE 900
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX: (650) 589-5062
rdrury@adamsbroadwell .corn
DEC n 2
1029 K STREET, SUITE 37
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209
December 2, 2003
VIA MESSENGER
Ms. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re:
Comments On The Initial Study And Mitigated Negative Declaration
For The West Dublin Transit Village Project, 6700 Golden Gate Drive
(PA 02-0O3)
Dear Ms. Harbin:
We are writing on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers Union Local 595, Sheetmetal Workers Union Local 104, and Plumbers and
Steamfitters Union Local 342 ("Unions") to comment on the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration ("ISND") prepared by the City of Dublin ("City")
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the West
Dublin Transit Village Project, located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Dublin,
California. Legacy Partners -AMB Property (the "Applicant") is requesting several
approvals from the City to construct the proposed project, including a planned
development district rezoning and stage 2 development plan, vesting tentative
parcel map, site development review and development agreement for a mixed-use
transit village near the future West Dublin BART station on the existing Cor-O-Van
warehouse site (collectively, "Project"). The development would include a multi-
story structure containing a maximum of 308 multi-family dwellings in a five-story
complex totaling 177,264 square feet with below-grade parking, and a separate
multi-level 150,000 square foot office building, and eight-story hotel, a six-stow
parking garage, and associated landscaping and retail,
The members of the Unions construct and maintain commercial, residential
and industrial projects, primarily in the vicinity of Alameda County. Union
members live in the communities that suffer the impacts of environmentally
detrimental projects, including Dublin. Union members breathe the same polluted
1519a-002
~ pr*~ted o,q recycled/;ag)er
December 2, 2003
Page 2
air that others breathe and suffer the same adverse health and safety impacts.
They are also concerned with sustainable land use and development in Dublin and
elsewhere in the County. Poorly planned and environmentally detrimental projects
may jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for
business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for
businesses to locate and people to live here. Continued degradation can, and has,
caused construction moratoria and other restrictions on growth in the County that,
in turn, reduce future employment opportunities. Union members are concerned
about projects that carry serious environmental risks without providing
countervailing employment and economic benefits to local workers and
communities. Therefore, the Unions and their members, have a strong interest in
enforcing environmental laws such as CEQA.
We are submitting the comment letter under protest since, as discussed more
fully below, we did not receive adec!uate notice of the ISND from the Cite ~'~
~~eck~._Also, the Ci~~9.vide all supporting documents for the
ISND durin~ the full comment period. F~nally, the Cit~faj!_e~ prQ~de fiS'~ce o~f~-~
the ISND through the State Clearinghouse ~~~.r_o_v~id~ the requiSite 30-
day comm~er~oi~Ff6~'~6'~ff, ments reqmred to be posted at the State
~~.'Y~~ we reserve the r~ght to supplement these comments at a
1/~ter date.
I. CEQA'S PURPOSE AND GOALS.
CEQA requires the lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report
(EIR) to analyze the Project's impacts and to propose feasible mitigation measures
or alternatives for any project for which there is a "fair argument" that the project
may have any adverse environmental impacts. Here, there is more than a "fair
argument" that the Project will have significant unmitigated adverse environmental~
impacts in numerous areas including traffic, air pollution, public health, water
pollution, utilities, and others. Thus, the City should have prepared an EIR to
propose measures to mitigate these impacts, or to issue statements of overriding
considerations for any impacts for which mitigation is infeasible. However, instead
or preparing an EIR, the City issued a mitigated negative decl,a, ration. A mitigated
negative declaration is only appropriate when all of the Project s impacts have been
mitigated to a level of insignificance. Since the Project will have significant
/
unmitigated impacts, an EIR rather than a mitigated negative declaration is
required.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 3
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision
makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a
project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. (hereinafter "CEQA Guidelines") § 15002(a)(1).) "Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR 'protects not
only the environment but also informed self-government.' [Citation.]" (Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564). The EIR has been
described as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public
and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached
ecological points of no return." (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port
Corem'rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 ("Berkeley Jets"); County oflnyo v.
Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810 [108 Cal. Rptr. 377].)
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental
damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA
Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344,
1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564
[276 Cal. Rptr. 410, 416]; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the
University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426, 436]).) The
EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information
about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to
"identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced."
Guidelines §15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment,
the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or
substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and
that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to
overriding concerns" specified in CEQA section 21081. (Guidelines, § 15092(b)(2)(A)
& (B).)
The City has not satisfied these purposes because it has prepared no EIR for
the Project. As discussed below, the negative declaration is legally and factually -~
untenable. The courts have required EIR's even for residential developments of 21 (/4~! t
homes, (see, Arviv Enterprises v. South Valley Area Pin. Comm. (2002) 101 Cal.
App. 4th 1333), and for 40-home residential developments whose only impact was
blocking the view from a park. (Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994)
29 Cal.App.4th 1597). In light of these cases, it is clear that an EIR is required for a
308-home residential development, with 150,000 square feet of office space and
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 4
retail space that will have a panoply of environmental impacts on air quality,
traffic, public health, water quality, noise, cumulative and other impacts.
We conducted a preliminary review of the current ISND for the Project with
the help of several technical experts, including Dr. Petra Pless and Dr. Phyllis Fox
(public health impacts, Exhibit A) and Tom Brohard, P.E. (transportation and
traffic impacts, Exhibit B).
II.
AN EIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT
CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to
prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the "fair argument" standard.
Under that standard, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial
evidence in th~ whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a
project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code §
21082.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of
California (1993) ("Laurel Heights H') 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of
Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75, 82; Quail Botanical, supra, at 1602.)
Under the "fair argument" standard, a negative declaration is improper, and
an EIR is required, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair
argument" that significant impacts may occur, even if other substantial evidence
supports the opposite conclusion. (Stanislaus Audubon v. County of Stanislaus
(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas
(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low
threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through
issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Citizens
Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.) As a
matter of law, "substantial evidence includes.., expert opinion." (Pub. Res. Code §
21080(e)(1); (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5).) An agency's decision not to require an
EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary. (Sierra
Club v. County of Sono~na, (1992)6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318.) Substantial evidence
supporting a fair argument that a project may have significant environmental
impacts can be provided by technical experts or members of the public. (CEQA
Guidelines § 15063(a)(3); Uhler v. City of Encinitas (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 795, 805;
Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 183, 199.)
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 5
Here, substantial evidence presented in this comment letter, and the
supporting technical comments, supports a fair argument that the Project will have
significant environmental impacts on traffic, public health, air quality, water
quality, and other resources. For these reasons, the City should withdraw the ISND
and prepare an EIR for the Project.
A. The Project will have Significant Unmitigated Adverse Traffic~
and Parking Impacts.
Traffic Engineer Tom Brohard concludes that the Project is likely to have
significant adverse traffic impacts on local and regional roadways. //
/
The ISND admits that:
"the project would contribute to the unacceptable operation of the
intersections of Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive, Dublin
Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road, Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road, St.
Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive, and San Ramon Road/I-580 interchange.
Additionally, cumulative traffic growth in the region with the project would/
contribute to traffic volumes on roadway segments of Amador Plaza Road
south of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive exceeding their capacity."
(ISND p. 26)
However, the ISND states that no EIR is required because these impacts
were allegedly analyzed and mitigated in prior CEQA documents - the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR, and the
Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. (Id.)
Mr. Brohard concludes that the mitigation measures in the prior
environmental review documents are insufficient to mitigate the traffic impacts of
the Project to a level of insignificance. (See Exhibit A.) Mr. Brohard also concludes
that the City failed to analyze numerous potentially significant parking and traffic
impacts. ~
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 6
Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That -~
The Project's Proposed Retail Uses Will Have Potentially
Significant Impacts On Traffic.
The City failed to assess potentially significant traffic impacts from the
Project's retail component. The May 22, 2002 Omni-Means Final Report regarding
transportation and parking impacts assumes for purposes of its analysis that the
Dublin Transit Village Project would contain "a 120,000 square foot office building
and 304 high density residential units." The May 14, 2003 Omni-Means Focused
Trip Generation Analysis/Parking Update for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village
assumes the project will now contain "150,420 square feet of office uses and 308
residential apartment uses." However, neither traffic study includes any trips
associated with the proposed storefront retail space. (Exhibit A.)
The City's failure to analyze potentially significant traffic impacts from the
Project's retail component is a major omission. The traffic studies are inconsistent
with the Project Description, since they ignore all vehicle trips to and from the
planned retail space. In turn, this omission understates traffic impacts at
intersections and on street segments that will occur from vehicle trips that will be
generated by the Project. (Exhibit A.)
The additional traffic from the store front retail space must be determined
and the total project traffic impacts must be identified and properly mitigated.
Without this information, there is a fair argument that the Project will result in
significant unmitigated traffic impacts.
2. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That
The Project's Proposed Retail Uses Will Have Potentially~
Significant Impacts On Parking.
/
Similarly, the City failed to analyze potentially significant parking impacts a~ 457
from the Project's retail component. The Project Description in the ISND includes
second building of 177,264 square feet with store front retail space. However, the
traffic studies do not include any parking associated with this store front retail
space. Thus, like the traffic studies, the parking studies are inconsistent with the
Project Description, since they ignore all parking associated with the planned retail
space. In turn, this understates off street parking generated by the project. (Exhibit
A.)
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 7
The City must determine the total parking requirements for the store front
retail space, analyze impacts from the Project parking, as proposed, and identify
mitigation. Without this information, there is a fair argument that the Project will
result in significant unmitigated parking impacts.
Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That ~:~/~
The Project Will Have Potentially Significant Impacts O
Traffic Due To Higher Traffic Trips.
No substantial evidence exists to support the City's use of trip reductions or
lower traffic rates in its traffic impact analyses. Since actual Project traffic trip
generation may be higher than analyzed, substantial evidence support a fair
argument that the Project may result in significant unmitigated traffic impacts.
The May 22, 2002 traffic study indicates a 15 percent reduction was applied
to office trips and a 25 percent reduction was applied to residential trips generated
by the project based upon proximity to the proposed BART Station. (See Exhibit A
citing Footnotes 3 and 4.) The May 14, 2003 traffic update also includes these trip
reductions. According to Mr. Brohard, "[t]hese reductions have not been supported
by any quantitative data to document their use." (Exhibit A.) In fact, Mr. Brohard
states that taking the reductions understates the number of vehicle trips to and
from the proposed project that will occur at intersections and on street segments if
the adjacent BART Station is not built. (Id.) 15 percent more office trips and 25
percent more residential trips constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair
argument that the Project may result in potentially significant traffic impacts.
In order to adequately evaluate reasonable worst case traffic impacts that
would occur if the adjacent BART Station is not constructed, no trip reductions for
transit should be applied to the proposed project. The City acknowledges that this
worst case analysis must be conducted, but was not. Both traffic studies analyze
parking impacts with and without the adjacent BART station. Thus, the total
traffic from the proposed project must be recalculated and the associated significant
project traffic impacts must be identified and properly mitigated.
In addition to the improper use of trip reductions, the City's traffic analyses
improperly apply lower trip rates to the 150,420 square feet of office uses.
According to Mr. Brohard, both of the traffic studies use the ITE Trip Generation 6
Edition Land Use Code 714, Corporate Headquarters Building, to forecast trips
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 8
from the office space component of the project, even though a corporate ~
headquarters building is only a single tenant office building. No evidence exists J
that the building will be a single tenant office building and, again, no substantial/
evidence exists to support the City's use of lower trip rates in its traffic impact ~
analyses.
Mr. Brohard provides substantial evidence in support of a fair argument th
the Project will result in significant unmitigated traffic impacts based on the actual
trip rates for a general office building. To conservatively and more accurately
forecast trips from the proposed Project, the traffic studies should have used ITE
Land Use Code 710, General Office Building. (Exhibit A.) These rates are
considerably higher than were used in the traffic studies and include average trip
rates per 1,000 square feet of 11.01 for weekday trips, 1.56 for a.m. peak hour trips,
and 1.49 for p.m. peak hour trips. Using these rates, a fair argument can be made
that The Project will result in potentially significant traffic impacts.
The total traffic from the proposed project must be recalculated using general~
office building trip rates and the associated project traffic impacts must be ~.,:~
identified and properly mitigated.
Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That
The Project Will Have Potentially Significant Traffic
Impacts From The Revised Access Plan.
e
Substantial evidence shows that the Project's revised access will result in
significant traffic impacts. The May 22, 2002 traffic study was based upon the
proposed project having three access points, including one shared access through \
the adjacent BART Station, directly connecting the proposed project to Golden Gate
Drive. According to the current site plan, three access points are now proposed on
St. Patrick Way within a total length of about 400 feet. While the May 14, 2003
traffic study indicates all vehicle access to the proposed project will now occur from
St. Patrick Way, the traffic study fails to fully analyze the resulting traffic
conditions at each of these three access points. (Exhibit A.)
According to Tom Brohard, many traffic conflicts will result from vehicles
entering and exiting these three access points within such a short distance. (Id.)
Further, the easterly two access points are proposed to be located on the inside of a
horizontal curve where sight distance will be extremely limited. (Id.) The traffic
study must evaluate consolidation of these three access points, as well as
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 9
measures to provide appropriate sight distance, traffic control, and
recommend
vehicle storage requirements based on expected queuing lengths at each of the
resulting access points on St. Patrick Way. (Id.) As proposed, substantial evidence/'
supports a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant and
unmitigated traffic access impacts.
Project Will Have Significant Cumulative Parking
5.
The
Impacts.
The ISND must evaluate the impacts from removing parking to mitigate
traffic impacts on Regional Street. According to the City, Regional Street will
operate at Level of Service F as a two lane collector street under cumulative plus
project traffic conditions. (Exhibit A citing May 22, 2002 Traffic Study, p. 27.) To
mitigate this significant impact, the traffic study states that "Regional Street may
require the removal of on street parallel parking to accommodate left turn pockets l
and/or a two way left turn lane at major driveways which would allow it to operate'
at Level of Service C." (Id.) Yet, the traffic study fails to analyze potentially ~
significant impacts associated with the removal of the on street parking itself. Th~
City must prepare a revised traffic study which identifies the associated impacts
and measures to mitigate these impacts.
The City Failed To Follow State Guidelines For
Preparing Traffic Studies.
According to Tom Brohard, with the 1-580 and 1-680 Freeways in the
immediate area, it is extremely important to address project traffic impacts at on
and off ramps as well as on the freeway mainlines, pursuant to State Guidelines.
(Exhibit A.) In this case, the two traffic studies for the proposed project omit the
evaluations required by Caltrans' "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies" issued in January 2001. Thus, additional study of project traffic impacts
on State highways must be made in accordance with the State's guidelines.
The City Improperly Omitted Analysis Of Other
Important Traffic and Safety Issues.
Mr. Brohard states that the City's traffic analyses contain numerous other
omissions with respect to potentially significant unmitigated traffic and related
safety impacts. The City failed to assess potentially significant impacts from
inadequate site distance at internal intersections, from construction, and from J
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 10
transit service. The studies also omit any discussion of bus stops and shelters and
the need for safe pedestrian crossings at St. Patrick Way to the commercial area.
Thus, the City must address these important issues in a revised analysis and
comprehensive EIR for the Project.
8. The City Improperly Omitted Analysis Of Traffic and~'
Safety Issues Related to a Possible Hotel.
As discussed below, the ISND states that the Project includes an 8-story
hotel. However, the traffic analysis includes no mention of the hotel and no traffi~
from the hotel. This is patently inadequate. The City must clarify the Project
Description, prepare an adequate traffic analysis of the entire project and re-
circulate the information and analysis in an EIR.
In sum, there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant
unmitigated adverse traffic and parking impacts. An EIR is required to analyze
these impacts and to propose mitigation measures.
The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Air Quality and
Public Health Impacts
Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That
The Project Will Have Significant Construction Air
Quality Impacts.
The ISND admits that the project's "construction impacts.., could result in
exceedance of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.' (ISND p. 20) However, the document concludes that
mitigation measures listed in the conditions of approval for the vesting tentative
tract map for the project will reduce construction impacts to less than significant
levels. (Id.) None of these measures are listed in the ISND for the Project.
/
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA /
Guidelines state:
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 11
"[a]lthough the impacts from construction related air pollutant
emissions are temporary in duration, such emissions can still represent a
significant air quality impact. In some cases, construction impacts may
represent the largest air quality impact associated with a proposed
project... Emissions from construction equipment engines also can
contribute to high localized concentrations of PMl O, as well as increased
emissions of ozone precursors and carbon dioxide.' (Id., p. 52)
The ISND fails to include any "quantification of emissions" whatsoever.
There is absolutely no attempt to quantify the particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, or
other emissions that will result from construction equipment and earth moving
during construction. Instead, the ISND merely makes a conclusory statement that
with the implementation of mitigation measures, construction emissions will
become less than significant. (ISND p. 20) However, without any quantification of
construction emissions at all, it is impossible to determine that the mitigation
measures proposed reduce those unknown impacts to insignificance.
The ISND's analysis is patently inadequate. The ISND must not only
identify the impacts, but must also provide "information about how adverse the
impacts will be." (Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange, 118 Cal.App.3d
818, 831 (1981).) The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant
only if ir produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the
finding. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (1990);
Sundstrum, supra.) The ISND makes absolutely no attempt to describe "how
adverse" construction impacts will be. In the absence of such an analysis, there can
be no assurance that the mitigation measures will reduce construction impacts to a
level of insignificance.
Contrary to the ISND's representations, the City has not required even the
standard mitigation measures required by the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan. Thus, the
Project is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan - yet another significant impact.
There are numerous mitigation measures required by the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan
that the ISND has failed to require, including the use of alternative fuel
construction equipment, use of cleaner fuels, particulate traps, and numerous other
measures. In addition, there are numerous mitigation measures suggested by the
California .Mr Resources Board that have not been imposed on the Project.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 12
Thus, the Project will have significant unmitigated construction impacts, and
an EIR is required to analyze these impacts and impose feasible mitigation.
ge
The Project Will Have Significant Cumulative Air
Impacts.
Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That
The ISND's cumulative impact analysis is patently inadequate. The ISND
compares the projected future emissions with the Project compared to the future
projected emissions without the Project. The ISND concludes that because the
Project is located near BART, more people will take public transportation, and the
Project will result "in a net reduction in cumulative regional emissions." (ISND p.
20.) However, this analysis turns the concept of cumulative impacts on its head.
The baseline environmental setting for CEQA review is always the existing
environment - not a hypothetical environmental setting that might possibly exist in
the future. A draft EIR "must include a description of the environment in the
vicinity of the project, as it exists before the commencement of the project, from both
a local and a regional perspective." (CEQA Guidelines § 15125; see also
Environmental Planning and Info. Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131
Cal.App.3d 350, 354 (1982); Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency
(2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 874.) Rather than using the actual environment as
the baseline, the ISND compares to the Project to a future hypothetical
environment that might exist in the future without the Proje~ct. CEQA prohibits
this type of conjecture.
By adding 308 residential units, an office building, a hotel and commercial
space to the site, the Project will clearly increase air pollution impacts from the
current baseline levels, which includes no development on the site~ In addition,
there are literally thousands of other residential and commercial developments
currently underway or planned for the City of Dublin. The cumulative impacts from
these Projects will clearly exceed significance thresholds when compared to the
proper current actual baseline levels. The ISND's conclusion that the cumulative
impacts of the Project will be negative is simply untenable.
CEQA section 21083 requires that the cumulative impact analysis consider
the Project together "with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects." "Cumulative impacts" are
defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 13
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." (CEQA
Guidelines § 15355(a).) "[I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a single
project or a number of separate projects." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(a).)
The importance of an adequate cumulative impacts analysis was recently
reaffirmed in Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency
(2009) ("CBE v. CRA") 103 Cai. App.4th at 116, where the court stated:
Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental
impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most
important environmental lessons that has been learned is that
environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small
sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but
assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other
sources with which they interact.
In this case the May 22, 2002 Omni-Means traffic analysis identifies no fewer
than twelve projects that are currently approved and pending, including thousands
of housing units, commercial development and numerous other projects. (ISND
May 22, 2002 Omni-Means Traffic Analysis, pp. 23-24) Clearly, the cumulative
impacts of these projects will be highly significant in terms of air quality, water
quality, traffic and other impacts. The City must prepare an EIR to analyze and
mitigate these cumulative impacts.
Furthermore, contrary to the statements in the ISND, the City's General
Plan is inconsistent with the most recent Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District. The ISND states that the Project and City's
General Plan are consistent with the 1997 Clean Air Plan. (ISND p. 20) However,
the most recent Clean .Mr Plan was adopted in 2001 by the BAAQMD. The General
Plan is inconsistent with the current Clean Air Plan, because it fails to include all
transportation control measures, and for other reasons.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide as follows:
For any project that does not individually have significant operation air
quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impacts should
be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local
general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quahty plan. (The
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 14
appropriate regional air quality plan for the Bay Area is the most recently
adopted Clean Air Plan.)...
For a project in a city or county with a general plan that is not consistent
with the Clean Air Plan, the cumulative impact analysis should consider the
combined impacts of the proposed project and past, present and reasonably
anticipated future projects. ("Reasonably anticipated future projects" should i
include, at a minimum, project of which the Lead Agency is aware based on
applications for permits and other land use entitlements, environmental
documents, and discussions with probable future developers.) A project
would have a significant cumulative impact if these combined impacts would'
exceed any of the thresholds established above for project operations. A
quantitative analysis of past, present and future projects would be required
as part of this determination...
. /
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, pp. 20-21 (emphasis added).
Since the City's General Plan is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan,
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines require a "quantitative" cumulative analysis of the
Project together with past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects.
Given the thousands of housing units planned for Dublin and other development,
the quantitative analysis will indicate that the cumulative air pollution impacts of
the Project far exceed relevant significance thresholds. Thus, an EIR is required to
quantify and disclose these cumulative impacts to the public and to propose feasible
mitigation measures.
Se
Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That
The Project Will Have Significant Diesel Exhaust
Impacts.
According to Dr. Petra Pless and Dr. Phyllis Fox, both experts in air quality
and health risk assessments, substantial evidence supports a fair argumentthat
the Project may result in potentially significant unmitigated public health impacts.
(Exhibit B.) Interstate 580 has an annual average daffy traffic volume ("AADqTM) of
188,000, counted at the 1-580/I-680 interchange, of which 6.8% or 12,728 are trucks.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 15
(CalTrans~, 12/00, p. 336.)
The CalTrans data indicate that 65% or 8,220 of these
trucks are heavy-heavy-duty five-axle trucks, which have the highest diesel exhaust
emissions. In addition, Dublin Boulevard, a major east-west arterial with six lanes,
would run along the northern end of the Project site and would additionally carry
diesel-fueled vehicles.
The ISND indicates that 308 multi-family residential units and a 150,000-
sqft office building would be located between 1-580 to the south and Dublin
Boulevard to the north. The office building would be immediately adjacent to the
north lane of 1-580. All of the buildings, including the multi-family residential
units, would be within less than half a mile of 1-580 and 1-680. (ISND, Exhibits 1
through 4.) Because of the location, one can reasonably anticipate very high
concentrations of diesel exhaust at the Project site resulting in significant health
impacts to residents and workers. However, the ISND did not recognize the public
health impacts of locating residential and commercial uses near these roadways.
The ISND claims that "[a]s the development of the BART transit facility and
housing units in the vicinity of the station would actually reduce cumulative
regional emissions and reduce the number of vehicles on the area roadways, the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations."
(ISND, p. 20.) Dr. Pless points out that this statement is invalid and incorrect for
two reasons. First, this conclusion is not supported by any quantitative analysis.
The CEQA documents that the ISND allegedly relies upon does not contain any
ambient air quality modeling for the operational phase of the Project nor do they
contain a health risk assessment regarding the impacts of diesel exhaust
particulate matter on residents and workers at the Project site. Thus, no
substantial evidence exists to support the City's claim that site-specific impacts are
not significant. Second, while the existence of public transportation facilities might.
reduce personal vehicle trips and thus total vehicle traffic counts on nearby
roadways, if such a facility is built, it will not reduce the number of trucks on these
roadways. Trucks are the chief contributor to vehicle exhaust particulate matter.
Diesel exhaust has been identified by the California Air Resources Board as a
toxic air contaminant and is identified by the State as a known human carcinogen.
Studies have demonstrated that children living near major roadways are exposed to
~ State of California, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation,
2001 Annual Average Daffy Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, Compiled by
Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems, December 2002.
1519a-002 t
December 2, 2003
Page 16
high levels of diesel exhaust and have poorer lung function than children living in
cleaner areas2.
Diesel exhaust has been officially recognized by the State of California as a
chemical that causes cancer in humans since October 19903. On August 27, 1998,
after extensive scientific review and public hearing, the California Air Resources
Board ("C.4RB") formally identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines
as a toxic air contaminant ("?AC"). Diesel exhaust is a serious public health
concern. It has been linked to a range of serious health problems including an
increase in respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. Fine
diesel particles are deposited deep in the lungs and can result in increased
respiratory symptoms and disease; decreased lung function, particularly in children
and individuals with asthma; alterations in lung tissue and respiratory tract
defense mechanisms; and premature death. (CARB 6/98.4)
CEQA requires analysis not only of direct impacts of the Project, but also
indirect impacts resulting from the placement of sensitive receptors near hazardous
conditions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") modified
its CEQA Guidelines in December 1999 (BAAQMD 12/99) to acknowledge the
impact of diesel exhaust. These Guidelines (p. 47) state with respect to diesel
exhaust 'that:
Because of the potential public health impacts, however, the District strongly
encourages Lead Agencies to consider the issue and address potential
impacts based on the best information available at the time the analysis is
prepared. Particular attention should be paid to projects that might result in
sensitive receptors being exposed to high levels of diesel exhaust. This applies
to situations where a new or modified source of emissions is proposed near
existing receptors and to new receptors locating near an existing source.
2 Pekkanen, et al., Effects of ultrafine and fine particles in urban air on peak expiratory flow among
children with asthmatic symptoms. Environ. Res (1997) 74(1):24-33
3 California Environmental Protection Agency, Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or
Reproductive Toxicity (Exhibit 5 to Fox Comments).
4 Cahfornia Air Resources Board (CARB), Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed
Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant, Staff Report, June 1998.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 17
The Project involves the placement of new receptors (residential and office
units) next to an existing source of diesel exhaust (the 1-580 freeway). However, the
ISND fails entirely to analyze this significant impact.
Dr. Fox and Dr. Pless prepared a health risk assessment to determine the
incremental increase in cancer risk from diesel exhaust that would result from
living and working at facilities provided by the Project. This analysis used standard
risk assessment procedures and default exposure assumptions outlined in guidance
provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB 10/02), the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA") (CAPCOA 10/935), the
Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") (DTSC 07/926), and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") (U.S EPA 12/89;? U.S EPA 6/958).
Dr. Fox and Ms. Pless estimate the increase in cancer risk for two cases: (1) a
resident of the multi-family units and (2) a worker at the commercial and retail
development. The health risk assessment indicates that diesel exhaust from 1-580
would increase the cancer risk to children in the multi-family units by 102 in one
million, to adult residents by 341 in one million, and to a worker in the retail and
commercial developments by 52 in one million. (Exhibit B, Tables I and 2.) These
risk levels exceed the District's significance threshold for toxic air contaminants of
ten in one million by up to 34 times (BAAQMD 12/99, p. 18) and are significant.
(Id.)
Actual impacts would likely be much higher. (Id.) Dr. Fox and Dr. Pless
based their assessment on data from 1-15, which has a daily truck count of 6,170,
about half of the trucks counted on 1-580, i.e. 12,728 trucks per day. (Id.) In
addition, their estimates only include diesel exhaust from 1-580. Diesel vehicles
that use other roadways, including the six-lane Dublin Boulevard, which would run
5 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ("CAPCOA"), Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program,
Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, October 1993.
6 Department of Toxic Substances Control, Supplemental Guidance for Human Health Multimedia
Risk Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities, July 1992.
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I,
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final, Report EPA/540/1-89/002,
December 1989.
s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Exposure Factors Handbook, Report EPA/600/P-95/002A,
June 1995.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 18
immediately to the north of the development, would increase these risks. The
estimates also do not consider any future increase in truck traffic along 1-580. (Id.)
In addition, the average diesel concentration (1.13 ~g/m3) used in the analysis
is a 24-hour average and includes the evening hours when concentrations are low.
(Id.) Workers would only be present roughly between 7 AM to 5 PM, when the
diesel exhaust emissions are highest. Finally, the risk assessments used actual
exposure times instead of a lifetime exposure duration. If a lifetime exposure
duration were used in the risk calculations, the cancer risks would be substantially
higher, increasing to 1193 in one million for child residents and to 91 in one million
for commercial workers - this is up to 119 times higher than the BAAQMD CEQA
significance threshold of ten in a million. (Id.)
As set forth in Exhibit B, there are many feasible mitigation measures
available to reduce the Project's potentially significant health impact. (Id.) These
impacts can be mitigated by locating people outside of the hazard zone, where
impacts are significant, by including a buffer or setback from 1-580. These impacts
can also be mitigated by designing buildings to maintain indoor air concentrations
below levels of concern. Limiting indoor concentrations of diesel exhaust could be
accomplished by minimizing outdoor air infiltration, limiting building ventilation
rates to the minimum required for comfortable habitation, and using air cleaning
devices. Windows could be designed to remain permanently closed, and all doors
could be designed to automatically close. The Project could also incorporate box and
bag filters, high-efficiency particulate air ("HEPA") filters, and ultra-low particulate
air ("ULPA") filters.
Clearly, an EIR is required to analyze this impact and to propose mitigation
measures.
4. The Project Will have Significant Heat Island Effects.
The Project will have significant "heat island" impacts. The "heat island
effect" is a meteorological phenomenon caused by urban surfaces, which absorb
more solar radiation and radiate that heat, increase local ambient temperatures.9
This can reasonably be expected to increase local ambient temperature and hence
9 B. Fishman, H. Akbari, H. Taha, Meso-Scale Climate Effects of High Albedo Surfaces at White
Sands, New Mexico. LBL Report 35056, 1994.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 19
local formation of ozone~°.'' The Project will involve large amounts of asphalt
parking lots, black rooftops, and road surfaces. In addition, there will be a
cumulative heat island impact from the large number of other developments in the
area. Nevertheless, the Project's heat island impacts are ignored entirely in the
ISND.
There are numerous feasible measures to reduce the Project's heat island /
impacts. These measures include the use of light-colored paving such as concrete
rather than asphalt, use of light-colored roofing materials, and other measures.
These feasible mitigation measures should be considered in an EIR.
C. The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Impacts on Public
Services
The Project will certainly create new demand for fire protection, police
services, schools, and other public services. The ISND fails to analyze these impact~
entirely. There is at least a "fair argument" that the Project's impacts on public
services will be significant, particularly when the cumulative impacts are
considered together with the thousands of new housing units planned for the City//
An EIR should be prepared to analyze this impact and propose mitigation.
D. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project
Will Result In Significant Impacts On Water Quality
The City Failed To Assess Significant Impacts on
Groundwater and Soils
Although the ISND states that the Project's water and hydrologic impacts
have been addressed in "the hydrological report," there is no evidence that a
hydrological report was prepared for the proposed Project site. According to the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans, including the West Dublin
Specific Plan:
In the event that subsurface excavation is proposed, adopted City
standards require that specific development projects, such as those
i!
~0 Taha, Haider. 1995." Ozone Air Quahty Implications of Large-Scale Albedo and Vegetation ;/
Modifications in the Los Angeles Basin ,' Atmospheric Environment, 31(11), pp. 1667-1676. Also
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBL-36890, Berkeley, CA.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 20
requiring underground parking structures, prepare a site-specific
hydrological analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis to determine
groundwater levels. (Negative Declaration, Downtown Specific Plans,
September 2, 2002, Revised December 14, 2000, p. 18.)
The purpose of this site-specific analysis is to assess potentially significant impacts
due to alterations in the direction of the groundwater. This is important since the
City is underlain by an extensive underground aquifer, which ranges in depth
between 15 and 500 feet.
Here, the Project proposes "below-grade parking." However, the record is
devoid of a "site-specific hydrological analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis
to determine groundwater levels," as required by the Negative Declaration for the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The City must perform the required analysis.
Without this information, the City has no evidence to support its conclusion that
impacts are less than significant.
2. Potential Pollution from new construction related
activity
The ISND admits that "construction activities and operation site uses
associated with the project could result in degradation of water quality in nearby
surface water and reservoirs by reducing the quality of stormwater runoff." (ISND
p. 23) As mitigation, the ISND states that a storm water pollution prevention plan
("SWPPP") will be prepared for the Project. (Id.) This is inadequate mitigation for
several reasons.
First, as discussed below, a SWPPP mitigates only construction phase
stormwater impacts, not operational impacts. Thus, the operational impacts
remain entirely unmitigated.
Second, the SWPPP should be incorporated in the ISND so that the public
can review it for adequacy. CEQA disallows deferring the formulation of mitigation
measures to post-approval studies. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B);
Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309.) An agency
may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses
"'meaningful information' reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance."
(Sundstrom at 308; see also Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of
Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal. App.3d 1011, 1028-29 (mitigation measures may be
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 21
deferred only "for kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible").) A
lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the record
shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved;
an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility
(Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727
(finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation because there was
no evidence that replacement water was available).) This approach helps "insure
the integrity of the process of decisionmaking by precluding stubborn problems or
serious criticism from being swept under the rug." (Concerned Citizens of Costa
Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935.)
Moreover, by deferring the development of specific mitigation measures, the
Applicant has effectively precluded public input into the development of those
measures. CEQA prohibits this approach. As explained by the Sundstrom court:
An EIR ... [is] subject to review by the public and interested agencies. This
requirement of"public and agency review" has been called "the strongest
assurance of the adequacy of the EIR." The final EIR must respond with
specificity to the "significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process."... Here, the hydrological studies envisioned by the
use permit would be exempt from this process of public and governmental
scrutiny. (Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 308.)
The ISND states that a SWPP will be developed at a later time. The
Regional Water Board does not review SWPPPs for adequacy but only requires that l
SWPPPs be prepared and kept on site. Thus, this "mitigation measure" in no way
ensures that adequate storm water measures will be adopted or implemented by the
Project. Nor does it allow the public to review any storm water plan for adequacy.
The applicant should develop an adequate stormwater mitigation plan and submit
it for public review through the EIR process to ensure its adequacy.
Se
Pesticides from Newly Landscaped Areas
a.
The Project may introduce significant amounts of pesticides and petroleum
hydrocarbons into receiving waters. The ISND includes no measures described to
address these ongoing sources of pollution.
Potential Pollution from Post-Construction Activity
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 22
The Project would increase the amount of landscaped area at the Project site,
particularly when considering the cumulative impacts of the numerous Dublin-area
projects. Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers would be applied in these areas. An
EIR must be prepared to analyze this impact and propose mitigation. ~
b. Pollutants From Increased Average Daily Traffic ~
\
The Project would increase average daily traffic above current levels. These~
trips would be distributed throughout roadways, outside of the immediate vicinity
of the Project. In addition, the large parking lot areas associated with the Project
will generate significant run-off.
Studies performed by CalTrans in California "indicate that higher AADT
[annual average daily trips] tends to result in higher pollutant concentrations in
runoff." (Exhibit C: Kayhanian et al.,~ p. 15.) Thus, an increase in trips over
roadways outside of the immediate Project area would increase pollutant loads from
these roadways.
Runoff from roadways contains very high concentrations of many
constituents. (Exhibit C: Kayhanian et al., Table 6.) The median concentrations of
copper, nickel, and zinc detected in storm water runoff from urban highways, for
example, exceed the U.S. EPA saltwater aquatic life criteria as reported in the
NURP study. (EPA 12/83,1~' Table 5-1.) Thus, it is likely that increased storm
water pollution from roadways impacted by the Project may result in significant
impacts.
This ISND does not account for the cumulative impact of these pollutants.
Thus, storm water pollution from roadways impacted by the Project and cumulative
impacts are significant unmitigated adverse environmental impacts that should be
analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be developed. __~?
~ M. Kayhanian, A. Singh, C. Suverkropp, and S. Borroum, The Impact of Annual Average Daffy
Traffic on Highway Runoff Pollutant Concentrations.
~2 U.S. EPA, Results of Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, v. 1, Final Report, PB84-185552,
December 1983.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 23
c. Mitigation Is Inadequate
The ISND contains absolutely no mitigation for post-construction run-off
pollution. The SWPPP applies only to the construction phase of the Project. The/
ISND proposes no mitigation at all for the operational phase of the Project. Thus, ~
the City should prepare an EIR to develop mitigation measures for the operation/
run-off impacts of the Project.
III. THE ISND FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT
The ISND fails to accurately describe the Project. A negative declaration
legally defective if it fails to accurately describe the proposed project. (Christward
Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180; CEQA Guidelines
§15071(a)). CEQA provides that before a Negative Declaration can be issued, the
initial study must "provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a
Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the
environment." (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(c)(5).) The courts have repeatedly held
that "an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an
informative and legally sufficient [CEQA document]." (County of lnyo v. City of Los
Angeles, (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.)
The project description must be accurate and consistent throughout an
environmental review document. (County oflnyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192.) Iris
impossible for the public to make informed comments on a project of unknown or
ever-changing proportions. "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify
the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project
may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit
against its environmental costs .... "(County oflnyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192-193.)
In County oflnyo, the lead agency first defined the project to include only the
extraction of groundwater from Owens Valley for export and use on city-owned land
in Inyo and Mono Counties. Then, the project was defined as "one part of the larger
operation of the Los Angeles Aqueduct System." And in yet another part of the
document, the project included the entire Los Angeles Aqueduct System. (Id. at
190.) The Court found the inconsistent project descriptions to be harmful because
"the inconsistency confused the public and commenting agencies, thus vitiating the
usefulness of the process "as a vehicle for intelligent public participation .... A
curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the
path of public input." (Id. at 197-198.)
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 24
In this case, the ISND contains an inadequate project description. The
Mitigated Ne,,gative Declaration Notice dated November 6, 2003 describes the project
as including a multi-story structure containing a maximum of 308 multi-use family
dwellings, and a separate multi-level 150,000 square f,o, ot office building with
associated landscaping, parking and small retail uses. Later in the ISND, the projectl
is described as ent~fi~ng construction of a multi-stow hotel (eight stories), a
residential complex (four to five stories) and associated parking, and a parking
structure (five to six stories). (ISND, p. 19.) However, nowhere else is this full
development potential discussed.
The City should prepare an EIR that accurately discloses the scope of the
proposed Project.
THE ISND FAILS TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
The ISND employs an inaccurate baseline, thereby skewing the impact
analysis. An accurate description of the environmental setting is important because
it establishes the baseline physical conditions against which a lead agency can
determine whether an impact is significant. The importance of having a stable,
finite, fixed baseline for purposes of an environmental analysis was recognized
decades ago. (County of lnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185.)
Today, the courts are clear that an environmental review document must focus on
impacts to the existing environment, not hypothetical situations. (County of Amador
Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cai.App.4th 931, 954.)
vs. El
A. The ISND Fails To Accurately Describe Traffic Baseline
Here, the ISND does not correctly describe the existing physical conditions
related to traffic. The ISND was published on November 9, 2003. Traffic counts for \~
the May 22, 2002 traffic study were made in January and February 2002. (ISND, p.
5.) However, according to Mr. Brohard in Exhibit A, shortly thereafter, a new
southbound on ramp to 1-680 at the end of St. Patrick Way was completed and
opened to traffic in about May 2002. Although traffic forecasts in the study were
adjusted to reflect the new on ramp based upon the Dubhn Downtown Specific Plan
prepared in 2000, actual traffic counts were not made and adjusted. (Exhibit A.)
Since the City prepared a revised traffic study for the Project in May 2003, actual
traffic counts should have been made at intersections and on roadway segments
near the proposed project and the new on ramp to verify the "adjustments" assumed
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 25
from the 2000 Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. Without this information, no ~
substantial evidence exists to support the City's conclusion that traffic impacts are
less than significant.
B. The ISND Fails To Accurately Describe The Existing Water ~
Quality Environment ~ ~
The ISND fails entirely to discuss the existing water quality environment. ~
The ISND does not discuss the location or quality of waters that will be affected by ]
the Project. Without an adequate discussion of the quality of receiving waters, it is/
not possible to adequately characterize the impacts of the Project. /
C. The ISND Fails To Accurately Describe The Existing Air
Quality Environment ~
The ISND fails entirely to discuss the existing air quality environment. The
ISND does not even discuss the fact that the Bay Area fails to attain state and
federal standards for ozone, and state standards for particulate matter. It also fails
to mention that the tri-valley region is one of the worst ozone "hot spots" in the Bay
Area. The court in Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, stated that the failure to
consider the Project's impacts in light of existing unacceptable ozone levels in the
area rendered the environmental analysis inadequate.
The City must revise the environmental analysis to accurately reflect the
environmental baseline. Without this baseline information, no substantial evidenc/
exists to support the City's findings that impacts are less than significant.
V. THE ISND FAILS TO DISCUSS INCONSISTENCIES W/TH THE .....
CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND APPLICABLE REGIONAL PLANS
CEQA requires the lead agency to analyze the impacts of a project in
reference to relevant planning documents, including the General Plan. (CEQA
Guidelines, App. G, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, Item 6.) An EIR must
discuss any inconsistencies that exist between a proposed project and any
applicable general plans and regional plans. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d).) This
discussion is mandatory under CEQA. The same analysis must be conducted when
a lead agency elects to use a negative declaration to evaluate the significant
environmental impacts that may be caused by a project. (CEQA Guidelines, App.
G.) The purpose of this requirement is to determine - in the context of a general
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 26
plan's policies, objectives and standards - whether a particular project will have a
significant impact on the environment. A project's impacts may be significant if
they are greater than those deemed acceptable in a general plan. (Gentry v. City of
Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1416.)
Despite this requirement, the ISND fails to identify or evaluate any of the
inconsistencies that exist between the Project and the currently applicable Bay
Area's Revised Ozone Attainment Plan, adopted in 2001. Instead, the ISND
compares the Project to the outdated 1997 Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD CEQA
guidance makes clear that the Project must be analyzed in light of the most recent
Clean Air Plan. The ISND fails to conduct this analysis.
If the analysis had been conducted, it would be clear that the Project is
inconsistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan. The Clean Air Plan requires the
implementation of construction air pollution control measures that are not required
of the Project, and also requires implementation of transportation control measures
that are not required for the Project. This inconsistency is itself a significant
adverse impacts requiring disclosure and review.
VI.
THE ISND IMPROPERLY PIECEMEALS THE ANALYSIS OF THE ..... ~.
PROJECT'S ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ) ~:~ .~?'- ~
CEQA mandates "that environmental considerations do not become submerged
by chopping a large project into many little ones -- each with a minimal potential
impact on the environment -- which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences."
(Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-84; City of Santee v. County of San
Diego, (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452). Before undertaking a project, the lead
agency must assess the environmental impacts of all reasonably foreseeable phases of
a project. (Laurel Heights I, supra, pp. 396-97 (EIR held inadequate for failure to
assess impacts of second phase of pharmacy school's occupancy of a new medical
research facility).) A public agency may not segment a large project into two or more
smaller projects in order to mask serious environmental consequences. As the Second
District very recently stated:
The CEQA process is intended to be a careful examination, fully open to the
public, of the environmental consequences of a given project, covering the
entire project, from start to finish.., the purpose of CEQA is not to generate
paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decision with
environmental consequences in mind.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 27
(Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles ("NRDC v. LA") (2002)_-~
103 Cal.App.4th 268.) ~
The ISND improperly piecemeals a single project into several smaller sub-
projects, each with comparatively limited environmental impacts. The Project is
actually part of a much larger BART expansion Project. Despite the larger nature of ~
the Project, the ISND analyzes only the 308 unit residential development, and ignores,/
other phases of the BART development.
CEQA prohibits such a "piecemeal" approach. (Kings County Farm Bureau v.
City of Hartford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720.) In fact, it was precisely such
piecemeahng that was rejected by the Second District in the NRDC v. LA case. In
that case, the Port of Los Angeles analyzed Phase 2 of a three phase project in a
negative declaration. The court held that an EIR was required to analyze the entire
three-phase project as a whole. (NRDC v. LA, supra, p. 284.) Similarly here, the City
must prepare an EIR to analyze the impacts of the entire project as a whole, rather
than analyzing each individual phase in a series of separate negative declarations.
THE ISND FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THE CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE PROJECT
In determining whether a project may have a significant impact on the
environment, the agency must consider the cumulative impacts of the project "when
viewed in connection with the effects of past project, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects." (CEQA § 21083(b).) As the
Court explained in a recent case:
Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full
environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a
vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has
been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally
from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant
when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions
when considered collectively with other sources with which they
interact.
(Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103
Cal.App.4th 98, 114-115.) A cumulative impact is an impact that is created as a
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 28
result of the project when evaluated together with other past and future projects
causing related impacts. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15355, 15130.) Even where a
current project would add only a small increment to the existing background levels,
the projects' effects may be cumulatively significant. (Los Angeles Unified School
District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1025-26.)
In this case, the City fails to analyze most of the cumulative impacts of the
project together with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
There are numerous other project currently planned or under construction in the
City of Dublin totally thousands of new residential units and commercial space. The
cumulative impact of these projects will be dramatic in terms of air quality, traffic,
water pollution, water usage, sewage, public services and virtually every other
impact. It is impossible to gauge the effects of the Project in a vacuum without
considering it together with the other development.
The discussion above and the expert comments submitted herewith discuss
the Project's cumulative impacts on air, water, traffic and other resources. CEQA
requires a mandatory finding of significance and an EIR must be prepared. Under
the Guidelines, an agency must find that a project may have a significant
environmental effect, and thus prepare and EIR, if, inter alia, the possible
environmental effects of the project are cumulatively considerable.
Code § 21083(b)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15065(c).)
VIII.
THE ISND FAILS TO IDENTIFY AND INCORPORATE ALL
EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS
A mitigated negative declaration may only be adopted if all significant
impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2);
CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b).) As discussed above, the Project will have numerous
significant impacts that are not mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, the
use of the mitigated negative declaration is legally improper and EIR is required.
'"Cumulative considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in Section 15130." (CEQA Guidelines
§ 15065(c).)
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 29
CEQA requires the City to adopt feasible mitigation measures that will
substantially lessen or avoid the Project's potentially significant environmental
impacts (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002, 21081(a)), and describe those mitigation
measures in the ISND. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4.)
A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or
feasibility. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d
692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation measure
because no record evidence existed that replacement water was available).)
"Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social
and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) Mitigation measures must
be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding
instruments. (Id. at § 15126.4(a)(2).)
In this case, there is no evidence proposed traffic mitigation measures are
feasible. (Exhibit A.) According to the traffic study, the Project will add traffic
through the intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, which will
operate at Level of Service F in the p.m. peak hour under future base conditions.
The traffic study indicates that significant improvements, including triple left turn
lanes in both the northbound and the westbound directions, are needed for this
intersection to operate at an acceptable Level of Service D. However, according to
Tom Brohard, these radical measures have historically been used at only a few
locations in highly urbanized California and on the Las Vegas Strip where
intersections are spaced further apart to accommodate the weaving movements that
occur downstream from the triple left turns. (Id.) Since the traffic studies do not
indicate whether there is sufficient spacing for this measure, no substantial
evidence exists that the measure is feasible.
There is also no evidence proposed traffic mitigation measures will reduce
impacts to less than significant. According to the City, the proposed project should
pay "fees related to a portion of the cost of the extension of St. Patrick Way from
Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street and also dedicate land for the alignment of
the roadway." (ISND, p. 26.) However, as set forth above and by Tom Brohard, the
amount of fees will increase when the actual number of daily project trips is
recalculated. (Id.) Other financial contributions toward needed future projects,
such as the required triple left turn lanes and other necessary significant
improvements at Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard must be required. Without
this information, there is no evidence that the project's impacts will be mitigated to
a less than significant level.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 30
Similarly, there is no evidence that parking mitigation measures will reduce
impacts to less than significant. According to the ISND, a parking management
plan must be prepared to mitigate parking impacts. Until this plan is prepared and
circulated to the public, there is no evidence that the plan will effectively reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the plan must be included in a
draft EIR, which must be prepared for the Project.
Finally, there is no evidence that traffic mitigation measures are fully
enforceable. While the traffic study recommends major improvements at the
intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, no programming of funds or
timetable for construction are presented to make sure they will be in place in a
timely manner. The costs and scheduling of necessary improvements together with
calculations of the developer's fair share contributions to other intersection and
roadway improvements need to be made, and a timetable developed for their
implementation. Thus, as proposed, there is a fair argument based on substantial
evidence in the record that significant traffic impacts remain unmitigated.
As discussed in the comments above, mitigation measures exist to reduce
many of the Project's significant impacts. These mitigation measures are feasible,
and in some cases required by regulatory agencies. An EIR must be prepared to
consider and impose these feasible mitigation measures.
IXe
THE CITY FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PUBLIC NOTICE AND -~
A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE ISND
Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA review process. Each
public agency is directed to provide for extensive formal and informal public
involvement to receive and evaluate public reaction to environmental issues related
to the agency's activities. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21083 and 21087; CEQA Guidelines §
15201; Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Assoc.
(1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936 (public holds privileged position in CEQA process based
on belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental
protection and on notions of democratic decision making); County oflnyo v. City of
Los ANgeles (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1185 (CEQA process must "be opened to
the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes
and effect of a consistently described project.").)
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 31
The City failed to provide adequate notice of intent to adopt the ISND,
pursuant to CEQA. Public Resources Code Section 21092.2 requires the City to
mail CEQA notices to any person who has filed with the City Clerk a written
request for such notices. The statute and the CEQA Guidelines explain that the
lead agency shall mail a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated
negative declaration to the last known name and address of all organizations and
individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to allow for at
least a 20 day pubhc the review period provided under CEQA Section 15105.
(CEQA Guidelines §§15072, 15105; Pub. Res. Code § 21091.)
In this case, the City failed to mail CEQA notice, pursuant to our May 6,
2003 letter to the City Clerk requesting that the City send us CEQA notices for all
projects for which the City was the responsible or lead agency. The City also failed
on numerous occasions to return or otherwise respond to telephone calls from our
office regarding our request for CEQA notices. The City's consistent lack of
response and failure to provide CEQA notice in this case does not constitute
substantial compliance with CEQA's notice requirements in Public Resources Code
Section 21092.2.
In addition, the City failed to comply with Public Resources Code Section
21092(b)(1) which requires that all documents referenced in the MND be available
for review and readily accessible during the entire comment period. This is
especially important, where, as here, the City fails to include environmental review
for the Project in one document. CEQA section 21092(b)(1) requires that the CEQA
notice for an EIR or negative declaration must include "the address where copies of
the draft EIR or negative declaration and all documents referenced therein are
available for review and readily accessible during the agency's normal working
hours." As noted by leading CEQA commentators, Remy and Thomas:
The above-referenced section [21092(b)(1)] requires the agency to notify the
public of the address at which "all documents referenced in a draft EIR [or
negative declaration]" can be found (and presumably read).., seems to
require agencies to make available for public review all documents on which
agency staff or consultants expressly rely in preparing a draft EIR [or
negative declaration]. In light of case law emphasizing the importance of
ensuring that the public can obtain and review documents on which agencies
rely for the environmental conclusions (see, e.g., Emmington v. $olano
County Redevel. Agency, 195 Cal.App.3d 491, 502-503 (1987)), agencies
should ensure that they comply literally with this requirement.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 32
Remy, Thomas and Moose, Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act, p.
293 (Solano Press, 1999). The courts have held that the failure to provide even a
few pages of a CEQA document for a portion of the CEQA review period invalidates
the entire CEQA process. (Ultramar v. South Coast Air Quality Man. Dist., 17
Cai.App.4th 689 (1993).)
In this case, we requested immediate access to the documents listed in the
ISND on November 19, 2003.TM On November 21, 2003, the City indicated to Zohary
Bassett of our office that the documents would not be accessible until Monday,
November 24, 2003. On November 21, 2003, we requested an extension of the
public comment period to provide a minimum of twenty days for public review and
comment after documents referenced in the ISND are properly provided, as
mandated by CEQA Section 21092(b)(1). (November 21, 2003 letter from
Gulesserian to Harbin incorporated by reference.) On November 24th, we copied
the documents, which were provided by the City. However, the City failed to
provide us with all exhibits referenced in the ISND (exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4) until
November 26, 2003.
Contrary to the City statements in the November 25, 2003 letter responding
to our request for an extension, the CiW did not respond to our request or otherwise
provide for immediate access to documents referenced in the ISND. Although
Zohary Bassett of our office called the CiW to arrange copying on November 19,
2003, she was informed by the City that the Senior Planner on the Project was
unavailable. Ms. Bassett was provided with no additional information as to the
availability of any documents. Even if the documents referenced in the ISND were
ready and made immediately accessible on November 19, 2003, as suggested by the
City, then the comment period deadline would be no earlier than December 9, 2003
to provide for at least a 20-day review. (Pub. Res. Code § 21091; CEQA Guidelines §
15105.) ~
In addition, to date, the City has still not provided all documents referenced
in the ISND for the project. For example, the City has not provided the
"hydrological report for the project," which is referenced and relied upon in the
hydrology and water quality section of the ISND. (ISND, p. 22.)
~4 On November 21, 2003, we also requested a copy of the City's General Plan Environmental Impact
Report CGP EIR"). To date, the City has not yet provided us with a copy or access to the GP EIR.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 33
The City has no reasonable basis to complain that an extension of the
comment period would make the comment period a "moving target." In this case,
the City failed to provide timely notice and access to documents, as required by
CEQA. These documents are specifically relied on by the City for the
environmental analysis for this project. Access to these documents is especially
critical when, as here, the City does not conduct environmental review and merely
issues a negative declaration for a project. Access to these is also especially critical
in this case, because the City relies on numerous other documents, letters and
memos for the supposed environmental analysis and findings for the Project. The
public has a statutory right to review public documents for the requisite time
period.
Consequently, these comments are submitted under protest, and we reserve
our right to submit supplemental comments, including additional consultant
comments, at a later time.
THE CITY FAILED TO PROVIDE NOTICE THROUGH THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE AND FAILED TO PROVIDE THE REQUISITE 30-
DAY COMMENT PERIOD FOR DOCUMENTS POSTED AT THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
CEQA requires a lead agency to submit proposed negative declarations to
the State Clearinghouse any time a state agency is "a responsible agency or a
trustee agency or will exercise jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by
the project." (CEQA Guidelines §§.15073(d), 15205.) This requirement insures that
all state agencies with responsibility over and concerned with the project will be
consulted. (CEQA Guidelines § 15205.)
In this case, the ISND recognizes that the Regional Water Quality Control
Board qualifies as responsible and/or trustee agencies triggering the duty to submit
the ISND to the State Clearinghouse. The Regional Board is both a responsible
agency and a trustee agency. A responsible agency typically has permitting
authority or approval over some aspect of the overall project for which a lead agency
is conducting CEQA review. The Regional Board is a "responsible" agency with
respect to this project because it has permitting authority over the SWPPP required
by the City as one of the mitigation measures to reduce hydrology and water quality
impacts. A trustee agency is an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a project, which are held in trust for the people of the State of
California. In addition to being a responsible agency due to its permitting authority
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 34
over the required SWPPP, the Regional Board is also a trustee agency due to the
fact that it has jurisdiction over water quality and the beneficial uses of waters of
the state, both of which are potentially affected by this Project.
By failing to submit the ISND to the State Clearinghouse, the City violated
a critical CEQA procedural requirement intended not only to alert concerned
responsible and trustee agencies when relevant projects are proposed, but to assist
the City in complying with CEQA by ensuring other State agencies with specific
expertise are consulted in the CEQA process.
XI. CONCLUSION
A negative declaration is not appropriate since substantial evidence in the
record supports a "fair argument" that the Project may have significant adverse
environmental impacts which have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Considerable expert opinion, admissions in the ISND, and other credible evidence
demonstrates that the proposed Project is hkely to cause significant impacts that
must be analyzed in an EIR. We urge the City to fulfill its responsibilities under
CEQA, prepare an EIR for the Project and circulate the document to the public for
review and comment. In this way, the City and the public can ensure that all
adverse impacts of the Project are mitigated to the full extent feasible and required
by law.
Sincerely,
Richard Toshiyuki Drury
RTD/TAG:bh
1519a-002
0
'LL [ BU!lelOl xoldmoo Xiols-oAU e ut.
sBu!II°~aP Xl!tUej-!llntu 80£ jo mnm~xmu
e gu!ut,uluoa oJnlonJls XJols-!llnm
e opnlou! plno~a luomdolo^op oq£,, leql
solels aoluommoD - (I 'ay I# luaumtoD
'~XOtAOI V0~tD POlelOJ pue SleAoadde Xlt,D aot,IaeO oql ql!A~ lUOlSt,suoa
oq Ol poJt,nboJ st. loo[Oad luoJano oq£ 'g00~ u! UeId uo!lmuomoIdmI odeaslooalg UA~OlUA~O(I oql Se qans 'paAoadde uooq osIe a^eq UeId au?odS oql ol polelOa slao.foJd UO!lmuomoidtut, aoqlo
'Ueld oUt?ods J~IV[I u!IqncI lsoNi oql moaj spJepuels jo ~ut,lst,suoo Ueid luomdoIoAOO I ogelS pomIoa e poldope pue luomdoloAOCI pauueld-(Id ol alt.s loo.foad oql pouozoa Xlt,D oql 'E00~
'17 oun£ uo 'sosXIeUe ltI~t oql jo ImOAOS U! possoJppe pue ~tI~t IeluomoIddns oql ut, pomnsse se~a olt,s lao[OJd aql jo luomdoloAO(i 'ol!s lao[OJd oql ol luoae[pe XlJodoJd oql aoj Ogellt,A l!streJ£
pue uo!lmS &IIV[I uHqno lSOA~ oql poAoadde pue ~tI~t Xd(I oql ol luomolddns e pou!lJoo ~[~IV[t 'I 00E Iudv uI 'oUs lao.foid oql Joj spaepuels pue sot,ot,iod luomdoloAOp pue 'sot,l!suolu!
luomdoloAop 'suo!leuSt,soposn pueI poldope qa!qax sluompuome ueid imouoi~ poleioJ pue Ueid au?ods £~IV[t ut,Iqno lsaAx oql ~ut,pnIau! 'sueId o§t,aods uaxoluaxop ooJql poAoadde ut,iqn(I jo
Xlt,D oql '000~ '6 [ aoqmoao(I uO 'olt,s loo[oJd luoJano oqlJo lseo XllOOat,p uo!lels J~IV[t e jo uot,larulsuoo oanlnj aoj pouueld leAoadde oq& 'oaotmaA!q pue uolueseoid 'uHqncI q~noaql ou!i
It,m J~IV[t oql jo uo!suolxo poAoadde puc (ltI~t Xd(I) loo[Oad uo!suolx~I uolueseaId/uHqn(I oql aoj }tI~t ue pouuaoo £~IV~t uaqax 0661 se >loeq aej se pou!mexo oJoax aop!JJOO 085-I oql ~UOle
smolled luomdoloAo(I 'loo.uoout, s! st,ql 'u!e~V 'Xaolst,q ~XmAOa ViD~tD Jo IeAoadde aoud ou seq oUs loo.foad oql leql otunsse ol aeodde sluotumoo oql 'aOAOOJOlN 'al!s oql Su!dOIOAOpOJ jo
slaedm! Ie!luolod oql ~uunseom aoj ou!loseq oql sea olt,s oql jo uot,lt,puoo podoioAOp ~u!ls!xo st,q£ 'osn pueI Iet,alsnpu! Su!ls!xo ue ql!ax leUOt,lmodo XIInJ puc 'poAed XllnJ 'podoloAOp XllnJ st,
ol!s loo.foad oqI 'lou st. 1I 'ltmoeA s! ol!s loo[o~d oql leql omnsse ol leodde sluommoo oqj~ 'Xlt,D mil oJojoq XIlUOxIno lao[oJd oql spuelsaopuns!m aoluommoa Oql leql JOllO| oql moJj sJeodde li
Sl~AoJddV JO!Jd pu~ punoJ3~l,~lt l~o[oJd
'JOllOI luommoo oql ut, post,m sonss! oql uo a!lqnd oql pue sao,4emuo!s?op oql ol uo!lmmoju! opt,Aold ol aXOlOq x!amm oql ut, sosuodsoJ Bu!pt,Aoad st, XI!D
oql 'ao^oaxoq 'ONIAI ue uo poll!mqns sluommoo ol puodsoJ ol XUD oql oamboJ lou soop V~)HD '((ININ) uo!lmeloo(I o^t,leSON PoleSt,UIN posodoad oql uo aolloI luomtuoo XlUO oql seax s!qj~
uo!l;mnpoJ;uI
~00~'0I~enJqoA
(£00~ '~ .t~qut~9~(l) 7V,L~I 773At(IVOIIIt $IVV(IV HOlg._4
NOIZV~IVTD3(I ,_~AI,[ VD3N (IzT, l VDLIIIf NO SZAJ._~IYIYO,_9 0.I
t O0-i[O Vd
A&H IdOHd ItlAIV - SH IN,LHVd ADVDllH
uot. sJsa p~3J~uf ~usunuoDo~sssuods~l :~71cl
· loo.foad uo!suolxo I}tVH u!Iqno lsoA~ oql ~oj ~II~ IeU!~!~o oql puu '(~tI3 Imuomolddns) s~oloo~!(l jo
PaeOH ~}tVH oql Xq 100E l!adv u! pmj!~oo '~tI3 leluomoIddns O~UlI!A l!SUml, pue uo!lulS ~tV{t uolueseOld/U!lqn(I lSOA5
u! passa~ppu su~ loo[o/d luqi '(i}tV[t) lo[als[(] l!sum~ p!dult uo~V Xe8 oql Xq pou~o ol!s luoae.fp, oql uo laa.fo~d olmudos u ol
gu!J~Ojo~ s! ~oluomtuoD 'I!Ulo~ puu ~u!duospuuI polu!aossu put~ 'o~mu~ ~u!~ud X~ols-x!s u 'ioloq ~IOl$-lq~I.O UU opniou! lou saop
X~odoad fll~V aql uo s~ou~ud Xou~oq Xq posodoad loo.fo~d oq£ 'uo!ld!~asop loo.foad oql solulss!m ~oluotumoD oq£ - asuotlsa~
'LL [ ~u!Imol xoldmoa X~ols-o~,U ~ u!
s~U!llO~P KI!tU"j-!lInm 80£ jo mnm~xutu
, ~u!u!uluoo o~nlan~ls X~ols-[llnm
~ opnlau! plno~ luomdoloAop oq&,, lull
soluls ~oluotutuoD - (I 'a) 1t4 lu~umtoo
,_~$NOd£3~l ~N~II4rlf OO
· ~ot^a~ V0~D POleloa ptm Slt~^oJddu Xl!D Jo!l~uo oql ql!~ luols!suoo
oq ol pa~!nboa s! loo.fo~d luoJ~na oq~ '~00~ u! UUld uo!lt~luomoidtuI oduaslooJ1S u~olu~oO oql su qons 'po^oJddu uooq osie a^uq UUld o~j!oodS oql ol poltqoa sloo.foJd uo!luluomoldm! Jaqlo
'utqd mJ!oods .I.~tVH u!Iqn(I lSaA~ oql moJj sp~upu,ls jo ~m. ls!suoa UUld luomdoio^a(i I o~IS poleIoJ u poldop, puu luotudoio^oG pouuuld-Od ol ol!s lao.foJd oql pouozo~ KI!D oql '~00~
'~ ounf uO 'sos~luuu }tI~ oql jo lmonos u! possoJppu ptm }tI~ [muomaIddns oql u! pomnsse s~ ol!s loo.foad oql jo luotudolo^OO 'ol!s loo.fo~d oql Ol luoau.fpu X~odoJd oql Joj o~ii!A
pu~ uo!l~lS ~ItVH u!IqnG lSOA~ oql ponoJddu pu~ ~tI~ XdO oql ol luomolddnS , po~!~oo £~tVfl 'I 00~ I!~dv uI 'al.ts loo.foJd oql aoj spwepums pu~ so!o!iod luotudolo^Op puu 'SO!l.tSUOlUt
luomdolo^op 'suo!luu~!sop osn puuI poldopu qo!q~ sluompuotu, uuid imouo~ polula~ puu U~id mj!aodS £~tVfl u!Iqno lSOA~ oql Bu!pnIou! 'suuId a~!aods u~olu~op oorql po^o~dd, u!iqnO j~
Xl!D oql '000~ '6 [ ~oqtuoao(l uO 'ol!s 1,o.fo~d luoJ~na oql jo lsuo XllooJ!p uo!lt~ls I~IVfl ~ jo uo!lomlsuoa oanlnj ~oj pouuuid lU^oaddt~ aq~L 'oaotmo^!q puu uoluusuold 'u!lqnO q~nozql OU!l
[t.m I~tV[t oqljo uo!suolxo po^o~ddu puu (~I~ XdO) loo.fO~d uo!suolx~ uoltmSUOld/U!iqn(i oql Joj ~tI~ u~ pmg!~oa ~tVfl uoq~ 066I su ~oeq ~uj su pou!tuuxo oJa~ ~op!J~OO 08g-I oql ~uoIu
small, d luotudolono(I 'looaaoou! s! s!ql 'u.m~V 'XJols!q ~otnoJ V0~O ~o iu^o~dd~ Joud ou suq ol!s loo.fo~d oql luql atunssu ol ~eodde sluommoa oql 'Jo^ooJo}~ 'ol!s aql ~u!doIonopoJ jo
sloe&u! iu!luolod aql ~uunsuom ~oj ou!iosuq oql su~ ol!s oql jo uo!l!puoo podoio^ap ~u!ls!xo s!q£ 'osn puuI l~!~lsnpu! ~u!ls!xo tm ql!~ Ieuo!w~odo XIInJ ptre 'po^~d XilnJ 'padoionop Alinj s~
ol!s lao.fo~d aq~ 'lou s! lI 'luuoun s! ol!s loo.fo~d oql l~ql omnssu ol ~uoddu sluotutuoo oq£ 'Xl!D oql o~ojoq ~IluoJ~na loo.foJd oql spums~apuns!m Joluommoo oql wql Jollo| oql moJj sJuodd, ,i
SlgAoJddv JO.IJd pug pllllOJg>lag~[ laO[OJd
'JolloI luomtuoo oql u! pos!m sonss! oql uo o!iqnd oql pue s~o~umuo!s!aop oql ol uo[lmmoju! op!Aosd ol ~OlOq xplmu oql m sosuodsoJ ~u!p!AoJd s! Xl!D
oql 'Jono~oq '(INI~ u~ uo poll!mqns sluotumoo ol puodsoa ol ~I!D oql oJ~nboJ lou soop V0~D '(ONI~) uo!lusuIOOO a^!lU~ON polu~!l!l~ posodoJd oql uo Jo~oI luommoo ~Iuo oql su~ s!q~
uo!DnpoJluI
~00Z'0If~JgnJqod
(£00~ '~ ~qtu39~(l) 7V ~[~I 77~tAt(IVO~l~I ~HV(IV IfO~I~4
A[OI, I VtIWID2I(I 3AIZ VD~IA[ (I~I, I VDIJIIf NO g.[A[3lflf OO 0.[ ~I£NOd£3H
gO0-'iO Vd
A&H~IdOHd fllAIV - S~t~IN.LItVd ADV~D~tq
u°!sz~n P~gZmu-lu~utuwDols~suods~t :~t71.g
LEGACY PARTNERS - AMB PROPERTY
PA 02-003
FILE: ResponsestoComment_merged version
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FROM ADAMS BROADWEL£ ET AL (December 2, 2003)
February l0,2004
Introduction
This was the only comment letter on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). CEQA does not require the City to respond to comments submitted on an MND, however, the
City is providing responses in the matrix below to provide information to the decisionmakers and the public on the issues raised in the comment letter.
Project Background and Prior Approvals
It appears from the letter that the commenter misunderstands the Project currently before the City. The comments appear to assume that the Project site is vacant. It is not. The Project site
is fully developed, fully paved, and fully operational with an existing industrial land use. This existing developed condition of the site was the baseline for measuring the potential impacts
of redeveloping the site. Moreover, the comments appear to assume that the Project site has no prior approval or CEQA review history. Again, this is incorrect. Development patterns
along the 1-580 corridor were examined as far back as 1990 when BART certified an EIR for the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project (DPX EIR) and approved extension of the BART rail
line through Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. The approval planned for future construction of a BART station directly east of the current Project site. On December 19, 2000, the City
of Dublin approved three downtown specific plans, including the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and related general plan amendments which adopted land use designations, development
intensities, and development policies and standards for the Project site. In April 2001, BART certified a Supplement to the DPX EIR and approved the West Dublin BART Station and
Transit Village for the property adjacent to the Project site. Development of the Project site was assumed in the Supplemental EIR and addressed in several of the EIR analyses. On June 4,
2002, the City rezoned the Project site to PD-Planned Development and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan consisting of standards from the West Dublin BART Specific Plan.
Other implementation projects related to the Specific Plan have also been approved, such as the Downtown Streetscape Implementation Plan in 2002. The current Project is required to be
consistent with the earlier City approvals and related CEQA review.
COMMENT RESPONSE
Comment (41 (p. 1) - Commenter states
that "The development would include a
multi-story structure containing a
maximum of 308 multi-family dwellings
in a five-story complex totaling 177,
Response - The Commenter misstates the project description. The project proposed by Legacy Partners on the AMB property
does not include an eight-story hotel, a six-story parking garage, and associated landscaping and retail. Commenter is referring
to a separate project on the adjacent site owned by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). That project was addressed in
the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR, certified in April 2001 by the BART Board
of Directors (Supplemental EIR), and the original EIR for the West Dublin BART extension project.
264 square feet with below grade
parking, and a separate multi-level
150,000 square foot office building, and
eight-story hotel, a six-story parking
garage, and associated landscaping and
retail." Commenter is also concerned
that the proposed project carries serious
environmental risks without providing
countervailing employment and
economic benefits to local workers and
communities.
Comment #2 (p. 2) - Commenter states
that comment letter is submitted under
protest because the City did not provide:
a) adequate notice of the ISND after
repeated requests; b) all supporting
documents during the full comment
period; and, c) notice through the State
Clearinghouse for the requisite 30-day
comment period for posting at the State
Clearinghouse.
The City is aware of the environmental consequences of the project inasmuch as it has been the subject of numerous prior
approvals and related CEQA review. Although the current Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) appears to be the first
document the Commenter has addressed, the project was analyzed in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Negative Declaration
(Specific Plan ND) when the City approved the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and related general plan amendments in
December 2000. The West Dublin BART area was described as a regional landmark with a "high-intensity mixed-use area,
capitalizing on regional transit linkages provided by both the BART line and supported by nearby freeways, 1-580 and 1-680."
(West Dublin BART Specific Plan § 5.1 ). The Specific Plan contained extensive Urban Design Guidelines (§ 6.0), and
addressed Infrastructure Maintenance (§ 7.0), including a list of programmed roadway and other improvements (§ 8.10).
Implementation of the Specific Plan explicitly contemplated review of private development plans (§ 8.1). The City adopted a
Negative Declaration, upon approval of the Specific Plan, finding that development in compliance with the Specific Plan
standards and programs would be less than significant. The proposed development was also assumed in the cumulative analysis
in the BART Supplemental EIR. Development of the Project with the proposed type and extent of uses was again reviewed by
the City when it rezoned the site to the PD-Planned Development zoning district and adopted a Stage 1 Development Plan on
June 4, 2002. The Project is now requesting the last of its required discretionary approvals. Contrary to the Commenter's
assertion, none of the City's reviews has identified serious environmental risks; in fact, the Project comes close to qualifying for
several of CEQA's infill exemptions. The statutes of limitations have long since passed for Commenter to challenge the prior
approvals and CEQA reviews which the current Project implements. Nor is it appropriate to consider employment and
economic benefits in the Project's environmental review. The city notes, however, that the Project will provide both jobs and
housing in the community within walking distance of a planned BART station.
Response - As stated in the City of Dublin November 25, 2003 letter to Tanya Gulesserian at Adams Broadwell Joseph and
Cardozo, the Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was published and the document was
available to the public for review on November 10, 2003. Zohary Bassett, a legal assistant for Ms. Gulesserian, visited City
offices on November 12, 2003 and reviewed the notice in the City's files on that date. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and
the documents referenced in the MND were available to her at that time for review or copying. The commenter acknowledged
in a November 21, 2003 letter to Janet Harbin, the Project Manager for the City of Dublin, that the firm was aware that the
MND was available on November 12, 2003. The commenter requested a copy of this particular MND only once, and the
document was immediately copied and given to her for review. Additionally, at the commenter's request in a letter dated
November 21, 2003, the comment period for the document, which was to end on November 30, 2003 (20 days), was extended
for two additional days to December 2, 2003.
In Ms. Gulesserian's November 21, 2003 letter to the City, she referred to a May 6, 2003 letter which requested that CEQA
notices for all projects for which the City was a responsible or lead agency be provided to the firm, and that the City did not
comply with this request on numerous occasions. According to the City Clerk's Office, a request was made to the law office to
provide more specific information and clarify exactly what information was wanted for review, as the language in the letter was
2
very broad and unclear. At that time, the City Clerk's office also suggested the law office check our website periodically or
subscribe to our agenda service to assist with their research for project information. From this communication, the City later
received a request for access to specific development project files from the law office, which was provided.
In regard to the request faxed to the City on November 19, 2003 requesting access to the background documents referenced in
the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the West Dublin Transit Village Project under the Public Records Act, the four lengthy
documents were ready and made immediately accessible on that day, as Ms. Gulesserian's legal assistant, Zohary Bassett, had
requested. The letter stated that the City could call if there were any questions about the request; otherwise, Ms. Bassett would
contact the project manager regarding arrangements to copy the documents. The project manager notified the support staff in
the office that day (November 19th) that the documents were ready for immediate copying, if Ms. Bassett should call.
Ms. Bassett did not call until late on Friday, November 21, 2003, to discuss arrangements for a copy service to come to City
offices and copy the background documents. On Monday morning, November 24, 2003, the copying service arrived at about
10:30 am and began copying the documents. While the documents were being copied, Ms. Bassett called and left a message that
the copying service would be in either Monday or Tuesday to make the copies.
Inasmuch as the background documents referenced in the MND were available for public inspection since November 10th (the
date of the Notice of Intent for the MND), the City believed that extension of the comment period based on the date of Ms.
Gulesserian's request to review such documents was unreasonable. To date, the only letter received in response to the notice of
availability of the environmental document was that received from Ms. Gulesserian's firm.
'Ms. Bassett also requested during a later telephone conversation on November 24, 2003 that the Environmental Impact Report
for the Dublin General Plan, which was not referenced in the MND, be provided to the copy service while they were in the City
offices. This document was prepared in 1984 at the time of City incorporation, and required some research to locate.
Additionally, many changes and subsequent environmental documents have been adopted since that date by the City. The City's
letter of November 25, 2003 responded to this additional request stating it would be available by December 10th for copying and
review. Ms Bassett was notified prior to December l0th that the document was available; however, to-date, no one from the law
office has not followed-up with City of Dublin staff to copy or review the document. The MND was not provided to State
Clearinghouse for posting as no State agency is responsible for issuance of permits or approval of entitlements. The project is
also not considered one of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance requiring State agency review under CEQA
Guidelines Sec. 15206 as it contains less than 500 housing units (Sec. 15206(b)(2)(A)), and less than 250,000 square feet of
office space with less than 1,000 employees (Sec. 15206(b)(2)(C)).
Although not required by CEQA Statutes or Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project to
address the various prior environmental documents and previous actions applicable to the project site. The draft MND also
addresses effects on traffic with previous mitigation measures/SP programs and standards incorporated into the project,
Comment #3 (p. 2~ Section I) -
Commenter states that there is "more
than a fair argument that the Project will
have significant unmitigated adverse
environmental impacts in numerous
areas including traffic air pollution,
public health, water pollution, utilities,
and others". Additionally, the
commenter suggests that the City should
have prepared an EIR for the project to
propose mitigation of those impacts, or
issued a statement of overriding
considerations for which mitigation is
infeasible. The commenter concludes
that the MND issued by the City was
inappropriate.
Comment #4 (p. 4, Section I) - The
courts have determined that EIR's
should be prepared for certain
residential projects with as few as 21
homes in some cases. It is clear to the
Commenter that an EIR should be
required for a project of this size and
particularly relative to the improvement and extension of St. Patrick Way. Additionally, the MND addresses and summarizes
the findings and related mitigation measures/SP standards and programs related to traffic, noise, air quality and water quality,
public health and safety, and public services and utilities.
Response- Commenter misstates the legal standard under CEQA for the Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162,
a supplemental EIR may only be required under specified circumstances. These circumstances include changes to the project or
circumstances, or new information since the prior review, which shows new or substantially more severe significant impacts
than identified in the prior document. No such impacts have been identified for the Project. Consistent with CEQA, an ND was
adopted by the City when the general plan and specific plan designations, and development policies and standards were
approved for the Project site in 2000. The ND was further relied on when the City adopted the current PD-Planned
Development zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan in 2002. The Project is exactly that contemplated in the 2000 approvals
and the 2002 rezoning. It complies with all previously adopted standards and programs. Conditions in the Specific Plan area
are similarly unchanged from those anticipated in the previous approvals. Commenter has provided no substantial evidence of
new or more severe significant impacts. All impacts from redevelopment of the site have been fully identified and analyzed in
the prior ND and current subsequent MND; no further analysis is required.
The Initial Study for the project and the draft MND fully analyzed any potential adverse environmental impacts of the
development related to traffic, air and water pollution, public health and safety, and public services, and utilities. This project
was anticipated prior to the General Plan Amendment adopted in conjunction with the West Dublin Specific Plan which changed
the land use on the project site from Light Industrial to Mixed-Use and Retail/Office, and included a Negative Declaration for
the land use changes for the site. See Response # 1 regarding previous approvals and CEQA reviews for the Project.
It should also be noted that the Legacy Partners' project is proposed on a fully developed and improved light industrial
property. The existing improvements on the site will be upgraded and improved with the new development through the
expansion of utility services and the planned roadway improvements programmed in the Specific Plan and based on previously
approved City Capital Improvement Plans. The project proposes to implement the land use plans established in 2000 when the
General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and subsequent zoning (2002) was approved. It is unclear why the Commenter did not
raise concerns during the prior approvals and CEQA processing.
Response: Contrary to the comment, the project has received an extensive amount of CEQA review in past environmental
documents. Prepared and adopted as a "self-mitigating" document, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan included policies,
programs, improvements and standards applicable to all implementing projects, including the current Project. As reflected in the
2000 general plan amendment and specific plan approvals and the 2002 zoning approval, compliance with the specific plan
standards ensures that the Project will have no significant impacts. The Project fully complies with all assumptions in the prior
approvals; no significant impacts are anticipated and no new mitigation measures are proposed. All project environmental
information, data and mitigation measures/standards incorporated into the project to reduce impacts have been fully disclosed in
land use mix.
Comment #5 (p. 4, Sec. II) - An EIR is
required because substantial evidence
supports a fair argument, or presumption
in favor, that the project will have
significant effects on the environment
and requires the agency to prepare an
EIR.
Comment #6 (p. 5, Sec. II.A) - The
project will have a significant
unmitigated impact on regional and
local traffic.
Comment #7 (p. 5, Sec. II.A) - An EIR
is required for the project as it will have
significant unmitigated impacts on
traffic and parking.
Comment #8 (p. 6, Sec. II.A.1) - "The
City failed to assess potentially
significant traffic impacts from the
Project's retail component."
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, with references and documentation of analyses from previous environmental documents
(see discussion in Response #1 and #3 above). The site is presently developed with a light industrial land use, generally
considered a more intense use than the mixed-use (residential and retail) and office use now proposed with the project. The site
will be redeveloped in accordance with the City's General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and adopted PD Zoning, and
preparation of an EIR is unwarranted.
Response - There is no substantial evidence in the record that the preparation of an EIR is required for the project (see
Responses #1, #3 and #4 above). CEQA Guidelines, Section 15151 does allow for differences of opinion between technical
experts to the extent the Commenters consultants disagree with the City's analyses. Through these responses, the City examines
the Commenter's assertions and explains why they do not change the City's CEQA conclusions.
Response - The City's prior and current CEQA reviews show the Project will not have significant traffic impacts. See
Response #1 regarding prior reviews and approvals. See Responses #8 through # 15 below regarding the Project's traffic
impacts.
Response - As noted in Response # 6 above, the Project will not have significant traffic impacts therefore no EIR is required.
See Responses # 9 and #12 regarding Project parking.
Response - The Mitigated Negative Declaration describes the Project as including "small retail uses," such as a local deli or dry
cleaners. The retail component of the Project is expected to be a maximum of 1,000 sq.ft, total, serving local needs only and
generating only foot traffic (see Floor Plan in Project Plans).
Even if the extremely high ITE shopping center trip equation is used, 1,000 sq.ft, of retail space would generate only 30 PM
peak hour one-way trips or about 15 customers. The project's maximum 308 dwelling units and 150,000 sq.ft, of office (with
about 400 employees) space would represent an on-site population which could readily generate 15 customers such that all of
the retail trips would be internal. The location, small amount and limited neighborhood type of retail uses would make these
businesses unlikely destination points/trips; patrons would reasonably be expected from the residents of the residential area or
from the Project's office uses.
Comment #9 (pp. 7-8, Sec. II.A.2) -
"[T]he City failed to analyze potentially
significant parking impacts from the
Project's retail component."
Comment #10 (pp. 7-8, Sec. II.A.3.) -
"No substantial evidence exists to
support the City's use of trip reductions
or lower traffic rates in its traffic impact
analyses .... In order to adequately
evaluate reasonable worst case traffic
impacts that would occur if the adjacent
BART Station is not constructed, no trip
reductions for transit should be applied
to the proposed project."
Comment #11 (pp. 8-9, Sec. II.A.4) -
"Substantial evidence shows that the
Projects' revised access will result in
significant traffic impacts."
Response - The Mitigated Negative Declaration describes the Project as including "small retail uses." The retail component of
the Project is expected to be local serving only and to generate only foot traffic. However, overflow parking for the office and
small retail uses will be available in the parking structure for the residential development during normal work hours, when least
used by the residents of the residential dwelling units. Under these circumstances, the Project's retail component will generate
no parking impact, and the City is not requiring additional parking for the retail uses.
Response - Traffic and parking studies have analyzed the Project both with and without the BART station. If the BART station
was not constructed, the overall traffic generated in the project area would decline, further reducing potential traffic impacts.
Two traffic and parking studies have been prepared for the project, the Final Report: Transportation and Parking Impacts for
the Proposed Dublin Transit Village (dated May 22, 2002), and Focused Trip Generation Rate/Parking Update for the
Proposed Dublin Transit Village (dated May 14, 2003) by Omni-Means for the project, and are on file with the City's
Community Development Department, Planning Division. These two studies contain the supporting data for the analysis of the
transit village project.
Additionally, the use of trip reductions for the project's residential and office components are based on research conducted by
the University of California (Robert Cervero, University of California Berkeley, Development Ridership Data for BART,
November 1993). This research involves actual surveys of transit use by developments in close proximity to BART stations.
These reductions were outlined in the Dublin Transit Center EIR which is also on file with the City's Planning Division of the
Community Development Department. The Dublin Transit Center is proposed for the BART station area in the eastem portion
of Dublin, and has similar characteristics to the proposed transit village as it is located close to a transit facility and contains a
mix of land uses such as residential, retail commercial and office uses.
The use of the ITE "Corporate Headquarters Office" trip rates was consistent with the analyses conducted for the Dublin Transit
Center project. Use of the ITE average rates for "General Office" would result in only 10 extra trips during either the AM or
PM peak commute hours. An additional 10 trips would have no measurable effects on the West Dublin Transit Village Project
traffic analysis and would require no additional mitigations.
Response - The project's driveway operations have been assessed relative to sight distance and Level of Service (LOS). This
assessment reflects the latest project site plan and is contained in the Final Report: Transportation and Parking Impacts for the
Proposed Dublin Transit Village (dated May 22, 2002), and updated in the Focused Trip Generation Rate/Parking Update for
the Proposed Dublin Transit Village (dated May 14, 2003) by Omni-Means, on file with the City's Community Development
Department, Planning Division. These two studies contain the sight distance analysis and the supporting data for the assessment
of the project. A worst case assessment has considered the cumulative traffic flows on St. Patrick Way. Based on these data,
the project's three driveways on St. Patrick Way would all operate at LOS "B" or better during both the AM and PM peak hours.
Delays for vehicles exiting the project driveways would be minimal.
Comment #12 (p. 9, Sec. LA.5) - "The
ISND must evaluate the impacts from
removing parking to mitigate traffic
impacts on Regional Street."
Comment #13 (p. 9, Section II.A.6) -
"[A]dditional study of project traffic
impacts on State highways must be
made in accordance with the State's
guidelines."
Adequate sight distance at each driveway is included in the detailed design for the project. More specifically, design details
such as the location of building comers, landscaping and curb parking have been incorporated in the project. After careful
analysis, the final resulting site plan combines the accessways for both the residential and commercial development proposed by
BART with that of the transit village project to minimize curb cuts. With regard to curb parking, parking along the project's
frontage on the southerly side of St. Patrick Way will be prohibited within 50 feet of each driveway to improve sight distance.
An analysis of the specific AM and PM peak hour driveway volumes indicates that inbound vehicle queues will not be
significant. Each of the westbound left-turn lanes at the three driveways has been designed with 75 feet of left-turn storage.
These lanes would be ample for the projected inbound turn volumes. Clearly, these minimal storage requirements could be
accommodated within the 400 foot project frontage on St. Patrick Way.
Response - The original traffic study indicated that with cumulative traffic growth plus the project trips, Regional Street would
carry daily volumes in excess of a two-lane street's capacity. However, this condition was only projected to occur near Regional
Street's intersection with Dublin Boulevard. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the associated Negative Declaration
avoid this condition as they include future widening of Regional Street to four lanes with a two-way left-turn lane between
Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way as planned improvements to be constructed by the City if the alignment of St. Patrick
Way is extended to Regional Street. Therefore, the impact and the proposed mitigation have been analyzed in a previous
environmental review and approval. The City notes that the project applicant has included construction and dedication of the
planned extension of St. Patrick Way to Regional Street in the Project, which exceeds the their fair share contribution to these
improvements.
Based on a field review of current conditions, curb parking is prohibited along Regional Street (south of Dublin Boulevard) for
distances of about 300 feet on the east side of the street and 360 feet on the west side of the street. The added turn lanes
referenced in the project's traffic study could be restriped in this 300-360 foot segment of Regional Street without any removal
of curb parking. Even if all curb parking were removed from Regional Street between Dublin Boulevard and the planned St.
Patrick Way connection, a total of only 13-14 potential spaces would be eliminated. Since the various area developments have
ample parking on site, the loss of 13-14 curb spaces would not measurably impact parking conditions. It is also noted that curb
parking would be available on the southerly side of St. Patrick Way, along the street frontage of the project site.
Response - Impacts to freeway on-ramps and off-ramps were previously analyzed in the original traffic study, referenced in
Responses 10 and 11. The 1-680 and 1-580 freeway conditions were also evaluated in a supplemental analysis conducted for the
West Dublin BAR T Specific Plan (letter from Omni-Means Engineers/Planners to Ray Kuzbari, City Traffic Engineer, City of
Dublin West BART and Downtown Core Specific Plans: Response to Comments From Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency, dated October 3, 2002), supporting the basis for the development and implementation of the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan. That supplemental analysis included 1-580 freeway segments between San Ramon Road/Foothill Road
Comment #14 (pp 9-10~ Section II.A. 7 -
"The City failed to assess potentially
significant impacts from inadequate site
distance at internal intersections, from
construction, and from transit service.
The [traffic] studies also omit any
discussion of bus stops and shelters and
the need for safe pedestrian crossings at
St. Patrick Way to the commercial
area."
and Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road. The 1-680 study segments were between Alcosta Boulevard and Stoneridge Drive. Thus,
extensive analysis of the roadway network and impacts to freeway segments and ramps has been performed and is reflected in
several documents which addressed traffic for the project. Furthermore, the studies followed all applicable state guidelines.
Both mainline, segments and ramp conditions have been adequately analyzed for the project; therefore, no further analysis is
required.
Response - The comments on project's driveway operations have been addressed in Rest~onse #I I. Because the residential and
office components of the development are expected to be phased, construction impacts would be spread over a somewhat longer
time frame. It is expected that the residential component would be constructed first.
The most intense construction traffic would be expected during the framing portion of the residential project. Up to 100
construction workers could be on site, generating 100 inbound trips in the AM and 100 outbound trips in the PM (assuming
minimal ride sharing). It is anticipated that construction workers would travel to/from 1-580 via San Ramon Road and to/from 1-
680 via the ramps at St Patrick Way and Village Parkway. Because construction workers arrive and depart earlier than the
typical AM and PM peak commute hours, the actual effects of these construction worker trips would be minimal and would not
impact existing or future projected traffic in the area.
Additionally, the City has certain established standard requirements which must be met prior to the on set of construction. The
established standard requirement related to this comment is that the Developer must submit a construction management plan to
address traffic, air quality impacts and other issues that could cause adverse effects during the course of construction. (See, e.g.,
Specific Plan ND items III.f, and V.a). This plan must be based on Best Management Practices (BMP) which are standard to all
well-planned construction and engineering projects. Within the context of the construction management plan for the Legacy
Partners project, the City requires a construction traffic management plan to ensure safe and convenient traffic flows in the
project vicinity. Therefore, as this is a basic submittal standard for any construction/development project proposed in Dublin, a
construction management plan for traffic and air quality will be submitted with the Applicant/Developer's request for building
permits to ensure compliance with established standards.
With respect to transit, the City's standard conditions of approval applicable to all projects, including this Project, require the
developer to cooperate with LAVTA to provide convenient access to public transit. This project is within the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan area and was planned as part of the implementation of this Specific Plan. The adjacent BART project
contains a parking garage and has provided for bus access directly through the garage. The proposed project is within walking
distance (via low volume internal roadways) of the BART garage. Because of this, the Project includes an uninterrupted walking
path through the Project site to the adjacent BART site. The applicant and BART have discussed continuing this walkway to the
BART Station. The project would, therefore, have enhanced transit access.
The City carefully reviewed the analyses of the Commenter's traffic consultant, and respectfully disagrees with their
conclusions, as reflected in the above responses. Through these Reponses, the City has identified the points of disagreement and
explained why the City has not revised the conclusions in the MND. As noted, the project has been previously analyzed in
connection with the general plan amendment, specific plan adoption and rezoning approvals. Together with the Project's
updated traffic analysis, the prior ND and the Project MND adequately summarize and analyze the project traffic-related
impacts. No further analysis is required.
Comment #15 (p. 10, Sec. II.A.8) -
"[T]he ISND states that the Project
includes an 8-story hotel. However, the
traffic analysis includes no mention of
the hotel and no traffic from the hotel."
Comment #16 (pp. 10-12, Sec. ILB. 1) -
Response - The hotel is not part of the Project. The Initial Study states that the hotel is part of an adjacent development (,gee
Response #1, above.)
Response - As stated in Response # 14, the City has certain established standard requirements which must be met prior to the
"[T]he ISND concludes that mitigation
measures listed in the conditions of
approval for the vesting tentative tract
map for the project will reduce
construction impacts to less than
significant levels. None of these
measures are listed in the ISND for the
Project .... The ISND fails to include
any 'quantification of emissions'
whatsoever .... [W]ithout any
quantification of construction emissions
at all, it is impossible to determine that
the mitigation measures proposed
reduce those unknown impacts to
insignificance .... The ISND makes
absolutely no attempt to describe 'how
adverse' construction impacts will be.
In the absence of such an analysis, there
can be no assurance that the mitigation
measures will reduce construction
impacts to a level of insignificance."
onset of construction. The established standard requirement related to this comment is that the Developer must submit a
construction management plan to address traffic, air quality impacts and other issues that could cause adverse effects during the
course of construction. This plan must be based on Best Management Practices (BMP) which are standard to all well-planned
construction and engineering projects. Please also refer to Pages 19-20 of the Specific Plan ND and Page 20 of the Project
MND, which thoroughly address the effects of the Project on air quality.
As all projects must follow BMP (Best Management Practices) to ensure that air and water pollution are kept to a minimum
during construction, these measures are incorporated into the construction program for the Project. In accordance with City of
Dublin and RWQCB design standards, and the Clean Air Act and the California Air Resources Control Board's San Francisco
Bay Area Ozone State Implementation Plan (approved November 1,2001, and updated May 7, 2003) under which the City
operates, the construction program will be approved by the Dublin Public Works Director prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Pursuant to the City's standard conditions, the construction plan normally includes the following provisions to ensure no
impacts relative to air quality occur during project construction, and is tailored to the actual development in the project's
individual plan:
Existing vegetated areas should be left undisturbed until construction of improvements on each portion of the
development site is actually ready to commence;
· All disturbed areas should be immediately revegetated or otherwise protected from both wind and water erosion
upon the completion of grading activities;
· Stormwater runoff should be collected into stable drainage channels, from small drainage basins, to prevent the
buildup of large, potentially erosive stormwater flows;
9
Comment #17 (pp. 12-14~ Sec. II.B. 2) -
The commenter states that there is
substantial evidence supporting a fair
argument that the project will have
significant cumulative air impacts.
"Rather than using the actual
environment as the baseline, the ISND
compares to [sic] the Project to a future
hypothetical environment that might
exist in the future without the Project ....
By adding 308 residential units, an
office building, a hotel and commercial
space to the site, the Project will clearly
increase air pollution impacts from the
current baseline levels, which includes
no development on the site."
Specific measures should be implemented to control erosion from stockpiled earth and exposed soil, such as
watering all construction areas at least twice daily;
· Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials;
· Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) stablizers to all unpaved access areas, roadways, parking
and staging areas.
· Sweep all paved surface areas on the construction site daily.
· Sweep all streets daily if visible soil material is transported on to adjacent public or private streets.
· Limit traffic speed to 15 mph on unpaved roads and areas.
· Runoff should be directed away from all areas disturbed by construction;
· Any sediment ponds or siltation basins should be used to trap eroded soils before runoff is discharged into on-site
or offsite drainage culverts and channels;
Additionally, to the extent possible, all major site development work for a project involving excavation and earth moving is
required to be scheduled during the dry season. The Specific Plan ND estimates the amount of construction dust for the projects
encompassed by the Plan, and notes that the City requires a Construction Impact Reduction Plan for new construction.
Response - The Commentor incorrectly states there is no development on the site. The existing use for the site includes the
existing Cor-O-Van warehouse and moving and storage operation, with trucking/transportation-based operations that operate
almost continuously. The Project will replace the existing uses. In responding to this comment, the City examined the existing
air quality impacts of the existing uses on the site against the proposed uses defined in the ISND, updated the analysis based on
the project's conformance with the California Air Resources Control Board's San Francisco Bay Area Ozone State
Implementation Plan (approved November 1, 2001, and updated May 7, 2003) and the BAAQMD 2001 Clean Air Plan, and
determined that impacts of the proposed development were less than significant because the Project uses were assumed in, and
are consistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan.
The MND conclusion is further supported by the BART Supplemental EIR analysis for the adjacent vacant site. The potential
for regional air quality impacts were identified as less than significant in the BART Supplemental EIR (Impact 4.4-4). The
cumulative impact discussion of air quality in the Supplemental EIR, which assumed development of the proposed Project and
the BART project, found a less than significant impact because the BART project would result in a net decrease in regional
emissions (p. 6-23). Air quality was further discussed in the City's Specific Plan ND. This project is consistent with the
previous development assumptions, environmental reviews, and adopted land uses; there is no evidence of substantial impacts.
The prior reviews and the current MND adequately address the project's potential contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.
As noted elsewhere in these Responses, it does not appear that the Commenter raised any concerns about the adequacy of the
prior environmental reviews on land use changes approved at the time. The current project implements the prior approvals and is
subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures/SP standards and City standard conditions, as appropriate. No additional
10
Comment #18 (pp. 14-18, Sec. II.B. 3) -
"All of the [Project] buildings, including
the multi-family residential units, would
be within less than half a mile of 1-580
and 1-680. Because of the location, one
can reasonably anticipate very high
concentrations of diesel exhaust at the
Project site resulting in significant
health impacts to residents and workers.
However, the ISND did not recognize
the public health impacts of locating
residential and commercial uses near
these roadways .... The ISND claims
that '[a]s the development of the BART
transit facility and housing units in the
vicinity of the station would actually
reduce cumulative regional emissions
and reduce the number of vehicles on
the area roadways, the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to significant
pollutant concentrations.' Dr. Pless
points out that this statement is invalid
and incorrect for two reasons. First, this
conclusion is not supported by any
quantitative analysis. The CEQA
documents that the ISND allegedly
relies upon does [sic] not contain any
ambient air quality modeling for the
operational phase of the Project nor do
they contain a health risk assessment
regarding the impacts of diesel exhaust
particulate matter on residents and
workers at the Project site .... Second,
while the existence of public
analysis is required beyond the proposed MND and no additional mitigations are required.
Response - Ambient air quality is determined by a variety of factors, including but not limited to, traffic congestion/pollutant
sources, air flow/topography and meteorology. The Project site was adjacent to 1-580 when the Specific Plan was adopted and
truck traffic was common then, however diesel exhaust was not identified by any commenter as a significant impact. The
Project is consistent with applicable air quality plans and no impacts related to diesel exhaust are anticipated. This conclusion is
supported by the air quality analysis in the BART Supplemental EIR, in which neither of the regulatory agencies mentioned in
the comment (i.e., California Air Resources Board, BAAQMD) identified diesel exhaust as a potential impact even though
CARB had already adopted their new diesel exhaust control measures (p. 4.4-6). Furthermore, the Project will replace the fully
operational Cor-O-Van warehouse and moving and storage operation. This is a trucking and transportation-heavy use, so any
diesel concentrations on the Project site would be reduced as the existing use is eliminated.
11
transportation facilities might reduce
personal vehicle trips and thus total
vehicle traffic counts on nearby
roadways, if such a facility is built, it
will not reduce the number of trucks on
these roadways."
Comment #19 (pp. 18-19~ Sec. ILB. 4) -
The project will have significant '.'heat
Island" effects which occur when urban
surfaces absorb solar energy and then
release the heat into the atmosphere.
Comment #20 (p. 19, Sec. II.C) - The
Commenter states that, "The Project will
have significant adverse impacts on
Public Services," as it will create new
demand for fire protection, police
services, schools, and other public
services. These impacts are not
analyzed entirely in the environmental
documentation, and in particular,
cumulative impacts have not been fully
evaluated in the context of other recent
projects. It is the Commenter's opinion
that an EIR should be prepared for the
project.
Response - The project is expected to reduce rather than increase any existing heat island effects. The project will have less
building coverage, less paving, and substantially more landscaping than the existing industrial development. When examining
the impacts to human inhabitants of the site pre- and post-construction of the proposed project, the living environment would
actually improve significantly. The site is currently covered with either pavement or rooftop under the present use. The
proposed project incorporates areas of courtyard landscaping and design aesthetics that reduce heat island effects on the site. In
comparing the current site configuration with the proposed project, it was determined that the new project is significantly
superior in attenuating impacts like heat island effects because it incorporates landscaping throughout the site where there
currently is none. Much of the residential parking is under the building, so pavement areas are reduced (normally, large
expanses of blacktop), and new roofs will be light colored. Additionally, with the architectural design of the buildings, much
shadowing would occur within the vegetated internal courtyard spaces and between buildings, reducing the heat absorption and
temperature in those areas. Therefore, the proposed project greatly improves the relevant environmental conditions of the site,
and there is no potential for significant heat island effects with this project, and no further review is required.
Response - The Initial Study prepared for the Legacy Partner's project evaluated the need for new or additional public services
resulting f¥om the development of the site for residential and commercial land uses. Potential public service impacts associated
with this project were addressed in the previously approved Specific Plan Negative Declaration prepared for the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan and related general plan amendment. Neither the Specific Plan ND nor the Project MND identifies the
potential for significant project or cumulative public services impacts. As noted in the Specific Plan ND, the Specific Plan area
is an already urbanized area with sufficient service capacity to support planned development (p. 36). This conclusion is further
supported by the BART Supplemental EIR whose cumulative analyses assumed buildout of the Specific Plan area but also
identified no significant cumulative public services impacts as policies and programs applicable thought the area would ensure
that adequate facilities and funding mechanisms will be established to support development (See, e.g. draft Supplemental EIR,
pp. 6-23 to 6-26).
The development will result in only a slight increased demand for police and fire service, police service accessibility, fire
response to the project area, minor financial impacts to local school districts, increased solid waste generation, and impacts to
solid waste facilities, but not to a substantial or significant level. The agencies responsible for the provision of these services
have responded to the project development plans, and provided input on various issues relative to implementation of the project.
Any comments received from these agencies have been incorporated in the project. The Applicant/Developer will be required to
12
Comment #21 (pp. 19-20~ Sec. ILD. 1) -
The Commenter states that the Project's
groundwater, soil and hydrological
impacts have not been addressed, and
there is no evidence that a hydrological
report has been prepared for the
development.
pay Fire Impact Fees and other fees related to the expansion of municipal and public utility service, such as increased capacity
of stormwater lines, at the time of building permit issuance to cover any increased cost to these services created by the
development. The fees are intended to offset fire protection service costs and other costs of providing services to the project
area. The developer has incorporated into the project construction of the extension of St. Patrick Way, which is discussed in the
Responses to Comments related to traffic and transportation. Additionally, school and park impact fees will be required to cover
any additional service costs. Compliance with these measures incorporated in the project (and reflected in the Conditions of
Approval and Development Agreement between the City and the property owner, AMB Properties) ensures that public service
impacts will be less-than-significant. No additional analysis and no additional mitigation measures are required.
Response - As discussed in a letter to Ms. Gulesserian from the City of Dublin dated December 4, 2003, the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project erroneously mentioned that a hydrological report was prepared for the site. The
Applicant did not submit such a report as the site is fully developed, including impervious coverage and drainage facilities. A
hydrology report is not necessary at this stage of the project as drainage will be improved with the development through the
reduction in impervious coverage on the site. The Applicant/Developer will be installing a substantial amount of landscaping
and various paving types in the project which will allow the drainage facilities to work more efficiently.
The site is presently developed with an industrial use, and is covered with concrete and paved areas, which provided a greater
amount of impervious coverage and stormwater drainage than the development proposed.
Additionally, prior to issuance of building permits to construct the project, the Applicant/Developer will be required to submit
calculations and soil information to the Director of Public Works and to the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) for
approval. This will ensure that any improved drainage facilities are of sufficient capacity to service the development and other
development proposed for the area. The Applicant/Developer will be required by the City and DSRSD to contribute a fair-share
portion of the cost of any facility expansion serving the development. With this information, the project record is hereby
corrected.
In regard to the groundwater level and the below-grade parking, a geotechnical and soils evaluation, Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation, Dublin Transit Village, was prepared for the project site by Treadwell & Rollo dated April 8, 2002, and amended
by a letter dated February 3, 2003. The Geotechnical Engineer will be required to certify that the project design conforms to the
report recommendations prior to issuance of a Grading/Sitework Permit or Building Permit. All report recommendations are
required to be followed during the course of grading and construction. Additionally, a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment was
prepared for the site, as previously discussed, which assessed groundwater levels specifically for the site. Prior to the issuance of
any grading permit or building permit, the Applicant/Developer will be required to submit a detailed report related to the
structural specifications and site-specific evaluation for the below-grade parking component of the project. The preliminary
analyses, the environmental assessment and various reviews completed for this stage of the project fulfills the criteria and the
requirements outlined in the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan in regard to hydrological,
Geotechnical and soils analyses for the environmental review of the project, and supports the City's conclusion that the impacts
13
Comment #22 (pp. 20-21, Sec. II.D. 2) -
The Commenter states that the ISND
admits potential degradation of water
quality from construction related
activity and operational uses associated
with the Project.
Comment #23 (pp. 21-22, Sec. II.D. 3. a)
- The Commenter asserts that the Project
may introduce significant amounts of
pesticides and petroleum hydrocarbons
into receiving waters. "The ISND
includes no measures described to
address these ongoing sources of
of the project are less than significant.
Response - See Response #23 below regarding the City's Clean Water Act permit. Additionally, as with all new construction
projects, the Public Works Department requires that all projects follow BMP (Best Management Practices) to ensure that air and
water pollution are kept to a minimum during construction. These measures are to be incorporated into the construction
program for the Project, in accordance with City of Dublin and RWQCB design standards, and shall be approved by the Dublin
Public Works Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. At a minimum, the Program will include the following specific
provisions:
· Existing vegetated areas should be left undisturbed until construction of improvements on each portion of the
development site is actually ready to commence;
· All disturbed areas should be immediately revegetated or otherwise protected from both wind and water erosion
upon the completion of grading activities;
· Stormwater runoff should be collected into stable drainage channels, from small drainage basins, to prevent the
buildup of large, potentially erosive stormwater flows;
· Specific measures should be implemented to control erosion from stockpiled earth and exposed soil;
· Runoff should be directed away from all areas disturbed by construction;
· Any sediment ponds or siltation basins should be used to trap eroded soils before runoff is discharged into on-site
or offsite drainage culverts and channels;
· To the extent possible, major site development work involving excavation and earth moving shall be scheduled
during the dry season; and
· Parking lot sweeping program
With the standard requirements incorporated into the project, construction and operational water quality impacts will be less
than significant. This conclusion is supported by the water quality discussion in the BART Supplemental EIR. Impact 4.2-4 in
the Supplemental EIR states that with normal City grading processes and mitigation measure 4.2-2, water quality impacts for the BART
project will not be significant. The City's standard requirements for SWPPPs and BMPs are essentially the same as the programs described
in MM 4.2-2. See Response #24 for additional discussion of the Project's surface runoff controls.
Response - The City of Dublin is permitted under the Clean Water Act as a member agency to the Alameda County-Wide
NPDES Permit (Permit No. CAS0029831). As a permitted agency, the City works within the community to reduce or eliminate
the use of pesticides through a pesticide management program. In addition, public education efforts emphasize limiting the use
of herbicides and fertilizers to insure minimization of use through optimal, appropriate use of products for these purposes. In
general, the use of pesticides for maintenance of the landscaping in the development area will be kept to a minimum. These and
other pollution prevention measures will be included in the required Project SWPPP, consistent with the previous Specific Plan
ND, and the MND for the project.
14
pollution."
Comment #24 (p. 22, Sec. II.D.3. b) -
The Commenter states, "The Project
would increase average daily traffic
above current levels. These trips would
be distributed throughout roadways,
outside of the immediate vicinity of the
Project. In addition, the large parking
lot areas associated with the Project will
generate significant run-off .... This
ISND does not account for the
cumulative impact of these pollutants."
Comment #25 (p. 23, Sec. II.D. 3. c) -
"The ISND contains absolutely no
mitigation for post-construction run-off
pollution."
Comment #26 (pp. 23-24~ Sec III) -
The Commenter states that the ISND
does not accurately describe the Project
because it does not include the multi-
story hotel, additional residential
structure, and the BART parking
structure in the Project description.
Comment #27 (pp. 24-25~ Sec. 1V.A) -
"[T]he ISND does not correctly describe
the existing physical conditions related
to traffic."
Response - The City of Dublin is permitted under the Clean Water Act as a member agency to the Alameda County-Wide
NPDES Permit (Permit No. CAS0029831). As a permitted agency, the City works within the community to reduce or eliminate
stormwater pollution. For on-site vehicle pollution impacts, the project has incorporated a treatment control (grassy swale) that
will filter pollutants for the office portion of the project. In addition, the residential portion of the project incorporates covered
parking as a source control measure. These and other pollution prevention measures will be included in the required Project
SWPPP, consistent with the previous Specific Plan ND, and the MND for the project. These measures are part of the City's
existing Stormwater mm~agement program, and ensure that stormwater impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan,
including the Project, will be less than significant. Further, as noted in Response #21, the Project will reduce the amount of
impervious coverage on the site, and thus, will result in less run-off than the current industrial warehouse use.
Response - The required SWPPP for the Project will include BMPs, such as the minimum practices described in Response #22
above, that address both construction and post-construction stormwater quality impacts. The Project design, such as the grassy
swales and covered parking, also provides post-construction runoff controls. These program and design features are consistent
with the discussions and mitigations/standards of prior approvals and related CEQA reviews.
Response - As discussed in Response #1, above, the project which is the subject of the MND and Initial Study does not include
these components. The Commenter is confusing the description of the development proposed on the adjacent site owned by the
BART District with that proposed for the AMB property. The project description in the environmental documentation for the
Legacy Partners' project is complete and accurate.
Response - The comment from Mr. Brohard refers to changes in traffic patterns since the 1-680 northbound on-ramp was
opened. The original traffic study was completed prior to the opening of this on-ramp (the 1-680 southbound off-ramp was
open), and the study therefore projected the on-ramp volumes. The original study projected that with existing volumes rerouted
and added trips from approved development in the area, the 1-680 northbound on-ramp would carry 587 vehicles during the AM
peak hour and 669 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Recent counts at this intersection indicate that currently, the on-ramp
carries 259 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 360 vehicles during the PM peak hour. The added trips from approved but not
yet built developments would add minimally (10-15 peak hour trips) to these on-ramp volumes. Clearly, the on-ramp
projections contained in the original study are conservatively high, providing a "worst case" assessment of traffic flow
conditions. No further analysis is required.
15
Comment #28 (p. 2& Sec IV.B) - "The
ISND fails entirely to discuss the
existing water quality environment."
Comment #29 (p. 25~ Sec. IV. C) -
"[T]he ISND fails to identify or evaluate
any of the inconsistencies that exist
between the Project and the currently
applicable Bay Area's Revised Ozone
Attainment Plan, adopted in 2001.
Instead, the ISND compares the Project
to the outdated 1997 Clean Air Plan."
Comment #30 (p. 2& Sec. IO - The
ISND fails to discuss inconsistencies
with the City's General Plan and
applicable regional plans.
Comment #31 (p. 26~ Sec. IO - "[T]he
ISND fails to identify or evaluate any of
the inconsistencies that exist between
the Project and the currently applicable
Bay Area's Revised Ozone Attainment
Plan, adopted in 2001. Instead, the
ISND compares the Project to the
outdated 1997 Clean Air Plan... This
inconsistency is itself a significant
adverse impact[s] requiring disclosure
and review."
Response -See Responses #21 through #25 for discussion of water quality issues and related references to prior and current
CEQA reviews.
Response - See Response #17 updating the analysis for the Project with respect to applicable Clean Air Plans. Also, as stated in
the Specific Plan ND the City of Dublin requires the approval and implementation of a Construction Impact Reduction Plan as a
standard condition of approval for new construction projects. The Plan must include measures that minimize the creation of
fugitive dust during grading through the application of water to graded areas and that minimize grading and construction
activities during periods of high winds, and also mandates that construction equipment be kept in proper running order.
Response - The Initial Study for the project and the draft MND fully analyzed any potential adverse environmental impacts of
the development related to traffic, air and water pollution, public health and services, and utilities. Background staff reports
show that this project is exactly what was contemplated for the site when the City adopted the West Dublin BART Specific Plan
and related General Plan amendments in December of 2000 and changed the land use on the site from Light Industrial to Mixed-
Use. The Specific Plan ND addressed the land use changes and development standards that are being implemented through the
current Project. Additionally, the changes to land use proposed by the Specific Plan and the cumulative impacts were included
in the analyses in the BART Supplemental EIR as it evaluated the BART project assuming implementation of the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan, and the level of resulting cumulative impacts.
Response - See Responses #16 through #19, and #29 above regarding air quality analyses.
Comment #32 (pp. 26-27~ Sec. I0 - The Response - As discussed in Responses #1 and #26, above, the project which is the subject of the MND and Initial Study does
Commenter asserts that "the ISND not, and is not required to include the entire BART expansion project; the Project is an individual implementing project as
16
improperly piecemeals the analysis of
the Project's adverse environmental
impacts," as the subject project is
actually part of the larger BART
expansion project.
Comment #33 (pp. 2 7-287 Sec. VII) -
The Commenter asserts that the ISND
inadequately analyzed the cumulative
impacts of the project.
Comment #34 (pp. 28-307 Sec. VIII) -
"[T]here is no evidence proposed traffic
mitigation measures are feasible ....
There is also no evidence proposed
traffic mitigation measures will reduce
impacts to less than significant ....
Similarly, there is no evidence that
parking mitigation measures will reduce
impacts to less than significant ....
Finally, there is no evidence that traffic
mitigation measures are fully
enforceable."
Comment #35 (pp. 30-337 Sec IX) - The
Commenter asserts that the City failed
to provide adequate Public Notice and
opportunity to comment on the
environmental document (Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration.
anticipated in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Development on the adjacent BART property would similarly be a
separate individual implementing project. The project description in the environmental documentation for the Legacy Partners'
project is for one project and evaluates the residential, commercial, and office components of the project completely and
adequately. The Project implements prior City approvals at general and specific plan and zoning levels which anticipated
individual subsequent development projects, and was properly reviewed in the Specific Plan ND and Project's subsequent
MND, pursuant to CEQA guidelines § 15162.
Response - Please refer to Responses #20, #24 and #30 for discussion regarding the cumulative impact analysis for the project.
Cumulative impacts were adequately addressed through the Specific Plan ND and the Project MND.
Response - All of the mitigation measures have been "tested" as to their feasibility and are regularly applied as appropriate on
development projects in the City. The City of Dublin has consistently enforced mitigation requirements for developments - a
number of traffic mitigations have already been constructed. The project's traffic study demonstrates that the mitigation
measures do reduce impacts to less than significant levels in the judgment of the City's traffic engineer.
The planned intersection improvements at Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard are included as a CIP project in the City of
Dublin's 5-year CIP program. Construction of these improvements is scheduled to start in fiscal year 2005/06. This project is
funded by fair-share contributions made by developers toward implementing these improvements. The project will include
design improvements to accommodate the operations of the northbound and westbound triple left-turn lanes at the Dougherty
Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection.
The traffic study's shared parking analysis indicates that the overall parking supply would be satisfactory for the peak shared
parking demand of the residential and office components. The Project reflects mitigations/Specific Plan standards that were
programmed into the Specific Plan and have been incorporated into the Project. The mitigation improvements are appropriate
and feasible. No further analysis or mitigation is required.
Response - Please refer to Response #2 for discussion regarding the review period for the environmental documents for the
project. The review period for the MND was 22 days with the extended review period of two additional days. CEQA
Guidelines require a minimal 20-day review period for a MND or ND, and therefore, the review period was adequate for the
environmental document for the project.
Comment #36 (pp. 33-347 Section X) - Response - The RWQCB is not a trustee agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15386. The RWQCB is not a
17
"[T]he ISND recognized that the
Regional Water Quality Control Board
qualifies as responsible and/or trustee
agencies triggering the duty to submit
the ISND to the State Clearinghouse.
The Regional Board is both a
responsible agency and a trustee
agency."
responsible agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 as the City has received a RWQCB permit and the RWQCB
has no discretionary authority over the Project.
G :12OO21P NO2-OO31R esponsestoCommenL merged version
18