Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttach 7 Sections 5.0-Apndx8.35.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project The California Environmental Quality Act requires identification and comparative analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the proposed Project which have the potential of achieving most of the Project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the Project. 5.1 Alternatives Identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR The Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for a General Plan Amendment encompassing approximately 6,920 acres of land and for a Specific Plan for 3,328 acres within the General Plan Amendment area. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (GPA/SP) proposed a variety of types and densities of housing, as well as employment- generating commercial, campus office and other land uses. Other portions of the planning area were designated schools, open space and other community facilities. Protection for natural features of the planning area, including riparian corridors and principal ridgelands, was provided through restrictive land use designations and policies. The land use plan reflected the Eastern Dublin Project objectives as set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR, Section 2.5. As required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified project alternatives that could eliminate or reduce significant impacts of the Eastern Dublin Project. The four identified alternatives included: No Project, Reduced Planning Area, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No Development. These are described below: No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative evaluated potential development of the GPA/SP area under the then-applicable Dublin General Plan for the unincorporated portion of the planning area under the Alameda County General Plan. Reduced Planning Area Alternative. The Reduced Planning Area Alternative evaluated development of the Specific Plan as proposed, but assumed development beyond the Specific Plan only to the Dublin Sphere of Influence boundary. The effect of HaLs alternative was to exclude Upper and Lower Doolan Canyon properties from the project. Reduced Land Use Intensifies Alternative. The Reduced Land Use Intensifies Alternative evaluated potential development of the entire GPA/SP area, but reduced some higher eraffic generating commercial uses in favor of increased residential dwellings. No Development. The No Development Alternative assumed no development would occur in the planning area other than agricultural, open space and similar land uses then in place. The Dublin City Council certified the Eastern Dublin EIR on May 10, 1993, under Resolution No. 51-93. The City Council found the No Project, Reduced Land Use Intensifies and No Development alternatives infeasible and then approved a modification of the Reduced Planning Area Alternative rather than the GPA/SP project IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR Page 83 City of Dublin November 2003 PA 02-034 as proposed (Resolution No. 53-93). This alternative was approved based on City Council findings that this alternative land use plan would reduce land use impacts, would not disrupt the Doolan Canyon community, would reduce growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands and would reduce traffic, infrastructure and noise impacts of the originally proposed Eastern Dublin Project. Even under this alternative project, however, significant unavoidable impacts would remain. Therefore, upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93). 5.2 Alternatives Identified in this Supplemental EIR The Initial Study prepared for this proposed Project (see Appendix8.1) identifies the potential for new or significantly intensified significant impacts beyond those previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. The potential for new or intensified significant impacts primarily derives from increased regional traffic using 1-580 and related effects on air quality. These and other impact areas are further discussed in Section 4. With identification of supplemental impacts, this DSEIR identifies new alternatives that could avoid or lessen these impacts. No Project and No Development alternatives are also discussed. Alternatives selected for analysis in this DSEIR include: Alternative 1: "No Project," which assumes development on the Project site under the existing Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan. Alternative 2: "No Development," which assumes the IKEA Project site would remain vacant. Alternative 3: Reduced intensity development. Alternative 4: Mixed-use development on the IKEA Project site. The following analysis compares the supplemental impacts of the IKEA Project to the potential impacts of the alternatives, and evaluates whether the alternatives would cause potentially significant impacts of their own. Since some of the Project supplemental impacts cannot be avoided even with mitigation, the following analysis also examines whether the alternatives would avoid the Project's significant unavoidable impacts. 5.3 Alternative 1: No Project The No Project Alternative assumes development on the Project site under the existing Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan. The existing land use designation on the site is Campus Office, which allows for construction of attractive, campus-like settings for office and related non-retail commercial uses that do not generate nuisances related to noise, odors or outdoor storage of materials. Floor area ratios for the Campus Office land use designation range from 0.25 to 0.75. The impacts of the existing Campus Office designation were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. A previous campus office development, Commerce One, was approved by the City of Dublin on the Project site but was later withdrawn by the applicant prior to construction; however, land use entitlements for the Commerce One project remain in effect. IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR City of Dublin PA 02-034 Page 84 November 2003 Air Quality. Campus Office development on the project site would generate approximately 20% more trips than General Commercial during P.M. weekday peak hours. The higher trip levels compared to the Project would also increase ozone precursor emissions to approximately 72 pounds/day for ROG, 70 pounds/day for NOX and 55 pounds/day for PM~0. Therefore, development of Campus Office uses under the No Project Alternative would not exceed the BAAQMD threshold and would not be significant and unavoidable on a project and cumulative level. Biological Resources. Under the No Project Alternative, Campus Office development would be expected to occur across the entire 27.54- acre site. Biological impacts anticipated with the development of Campus Office on the Project site were analyzed on a programmatic level in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The identified impacts included both cumulative impacts such as loss of open space character and the potential for site specific impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species. These are summarized in Section 4.2 of this document. Because Campus Office development under the No Project Alternative would result in development of the site to urban uses, the cumulative loss of open space character would be the same as for the Project. The site-specific biological assessment conducted as part of this DSEIR identified no special-status plants or animals on the Project site, so no biological resource impacts are anticipated for either the No Project Alternative or the proposed Project. Traffic and Circulation. As noted in Tables 4.3.7, 4.3.8 and 4.3.9, the proposed IKEA Project would improve performance at the study intersections as compared to the existing Campus Office land use designation during the weekday AM peak hour. Weekday PM peak hour impacts would be mixed; the IKEA Project causes increased V/C ratios at some locations but decreases the V/C ratio at others. While the IKEA Project and existing Campus Office land use designation would generate similar levels of traffic during the weekday PM peak hour, the trip distribution and assignment characteristics differ from one land use to the other. These differences explain the variance in intersection operations, which are documented in Tables 4.3.7, 4.3.8, and 4.3.9. Differences in Saturday peak hour impacts are more substantial with the IKEA Project increasing the V/C ratios at most study intersections. Table 5 in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix 8.7) compares the trip generation of the IKEA Project with the trip generation for a Campus-Office use on the site. Trip generation information for this type of Campus-office use was obtained from the traffic impact study prepared for the Commerce One office development. As shown, net new PM peak hour trips generated by the Campus-office use and the IKEA Project developments are similar (i.e., within 5 percent). During the AM peak hour, Campus Office would generate substantially more traffic than the IKEA Project, while the reverse is true for the Saturday peak hour. A significant and unavoidable cumulative impact would occur under both the No Project alternative and the proposed Project. 5.4 Alternative 2: No Development The purpose of this alternative is to compare the effects of approving the proposed Project against the existing physical character of the Project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the No Development Alternative for the entire GPA/SP planning area. The existing character of the site is vacant and is located near existing major commercial and IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR Page 85 City of Dublin November 2003 PA 02-034 office uses. Under the No Development alternative, no development would occur on the site. All impacts would be avoided, including the Project's significant contribution to mobile air pollution source emissions, traffic and other hnpacts identified in Section 4. Air Quality. No new vehicle trips and related emissions would occur. Any air quality impacts would be related to existing use of the property. Biological Resources. There would be no loss of open space character, and no impacts to biological resources as the site-specific survey of the site showed no existing sensitive resources. Traffic and Circulation. Under this alternative, there would be no traffic generation and no change in levels of service at nearby street intersections. Proposed access roads and other transportation improvements envisioned in the Project would not occur. None of the significant adverse impacts on the adjacent freeway system would occur, although significant cumulative Year 2025 impacts could still occur, since 2025 impacts are expected to occur even without development on the project site. 5.5 Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative This alternative assumes that the Project site would be developed with General Commercial development, however, such development would occur at a Floor Area Ratio of 0.25, near the minimum of the range for the General Commercial land use designations. At this land use intensity, a maximum of 299,475 square feet of commercial uses could be constructed. This intensity has been selected for analysis based on a potential for reduction of both significant regional traffic and cumulative air quality impacts as identified in Section 4. Under this alternative, approximately the same footprint of development would occur with the remainder of the Project site used for surface auto parking and landscaping. Land uses would include those uses permitted by the General Commercial land use designation as described in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, however, the square footage would be reduced by approximately one-third. Air Quality. Construction-related air quality impacts of the reduced intensity alternative would somewhat less and/or would occur over a shorter period of time than the proposed Project. Incremental carbon monoxide emission impacts of this alternative would be approximately 80% of the proposed Project and would not result in a significant project-level impact. Regional air quality emissions of this alternative, which are roughly proportional to daily trip generation, would be approximately 60% of those anticipated with the proposed Project and would not exceed the BAAQMD's threshold of significance. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less-than-significant. Biological Resources. Development of the site under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the same loss of open space character impact as the Project. The site- specific biological survey shows that no significant biological resources exist on the site, therefore there would be no impacts to biological resources from either the Reduced Intensity Alternative or the proposed Project. IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR City of Dublin PA 02-034 Page 86 November 2003 Traffic and Circulation. Under this alternative, daily weekday traffic generation would be approximately there would be approximately 25% less than the proposed build out of the Project. Similar to the Project, less-than-significan! impacts would result on local streets near the Project site. However, since even under a reduced project scenario, additional trips would be added to adjacent freeways. Significant and unavoidable cumulative Year 2025 impacts to adjacent freeways could still occur, since 2025 impacts are expected to occur even without development on the Project site. 5.4 Alternative 4: Mixed Use Development One potential method to achieve economically viable land uses on the site while reducing local and regional traffic impacts is a Mixed Use Development Alternative. In 2002, the City of Dublin approved a mixed-use development on 91 acres immediately to the west of the Project site, known as the Dublin Transit Center. The Transit Center includes development of a mix of campus office (2.0 million square feet), high-density residential (1500 units) and commercial (70,000 square feet) uses within the existing surface parking lot in the East Dublin BART station. A multi-story parking garage is also included in the Transit Center. Given the proximity of the Project site to the East Dublin BART station and bus transit opporhanities on nearby Dublin Boulevard, a mixed-use development on the Project site represents a feasible alternative to the proposed Project. Based on the amount of development approved within the Transit Center, a similar but smaller mixed-use development on the Project site could include up to 450 higher density apartment units, 600,000 square feet of office development and 21,000 square feet of commercial land use. Air Quality. Construction period impacts of this alternative would be somewhat greater than the proposed Project, although this impact could also be reduced to a less- than-significant level. The incremental carbon-monoxide impact, which would be proportional to peak-hour trip generation, would be similar to the proposed Project and would not result in a significant impact. The regional emissions of this alternative which are roughly proportional to daily trip generation, would be approximately 40% of those of the proposed IKEA project and would not exceed the BAAQMD level of significance and would therefore be a less-than-significant impact. Biological Resources. Development of the site under tee Mixed Use Development Alternative would result in the same loss of open space character impact as the Project. The site-specific biological survey shows that no significant biological resources exist on the site, therefore there would be no impacts to biological resources from either the Mixed Use Development Alternative or the proposed Project. Traffic and Circulation. A reduction of approximately 10,000 total daily vehicle trips associated with a mixed-use development compared to General Commercial or Campus Office uses would likely be realized due to the proximity of the West Dublin BART station and the ability of multiple uses on the project site to capture trips that would normally t-ravel on local streets near the site. This would represent a less-than- significant impact to local streets, similar to the proposed Project. However a mixed-use development project would still contribute new trips to the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR City of Dublin PA 02-034 Page 87 November 2003 which would result in significant and unavoidable regional cumulative conditions on these freeways in the Year 2025. By adding a residential component, the mixed use alterr..ative could potentially result in other impacts not associated with the proposed commercial IKEA project, including but not limited to increased levels of permanent noise, impacts to the local educational system, impacts to the City's parks and recreation system and a permanent increase of permanent population in a portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area where residential uses have not been anticipated. 5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative (the "No Development" alternative in this instance), the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The No Development Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would avoid all of the identified Project impacts and the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts. However, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, an environmentally superior alternative has been chosen from among the other alternatives. Compared to the other alternatives and based on the above discussions, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. This alternative, like all the alternatives other than No Development, would exceed BAAQMD thresholds for ozone precursors, however the level of emissions would be relatively lower than the other alternatives, representing the least contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. Like the other alternatives, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would contribute to Year 2025 significant unavoidable mainline freeway impacts, however its contribution would be the least. Furthermore, unlike the other alternatives, this alternative would reduce traffic impacts along adjacent arterial roadways. IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR City of Dublin PA 02-034 Page 88 November 2003 6.0 Required CEQA Discussion CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 mandates a discussiov of the following topics in an EIR in addition to those previously addressed: cumulative impacts, unavoidable significant adverse impacts, significant irreversible environmental changes and growth inducing impacts. These impacts are addressed in Section 4.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin Eli( discussions of growth inducing impacts and significant irreversible changes are unchanged by the proposed Project because the Project proposes urban non-residential uses similar to the intensity and character analyzed in the prior EIR. Therefore, this section summarizes the DSEIR findings regarding the Project's identified significant unavoidable and cumulative impacts, beyond those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. 6.1 Supplemental Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 as those which taken individually may be minor but, when combined with similar impacts associated with existing development, proposed development projects and planned but not built projects, have the potential to generate more substantial impacts. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be evaluated when they are significant and that the discussion describe the severity of the impacts and the estimated likelihood of their occurrence. Reasonably foreseeable development projects in the area were fully considered in the Eastern Dublin ELR as were associated cumulative impacts associated with the Eastern Dublin Project. Cumulative impacts addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR that are related to the impacts analyzed in this Supplement include. Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (Impact 3.3/A) · Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between 1-680 and Dougherty Road (Impact 3.3/B) · Cumulative degradation of 1-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (impact 3.3/C) · Cumulative degradation of 1-680 freeway operations north of 1-580 (impact 3.3/D) · Dust deposition soiling nuisance from construction activity (Impact 3.11/A) · Construction equipment/vehicle emission (Impact3.11/B) · Mobile source emissions of reactive organic gasses and oxides of nitrogen (Impact 3.11/c) · Stationary source emissions (Impact 3.11/E) The proposed Project would create significant cumulative impacts beyond those already identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, as follows: Supplemental Impact AQ-2: Project emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors. The number of increased vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would and resulting pollutants would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors. Adherence to mitigation IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR City of Dublin PA 02-034 Page 89 November 2003 measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Supplemental mitigation measures contained in this document will reduce this impact but not to a less-than significant level and his impact would be significant and unavoidable. Supplemental Impact AQ-3: Regional cumulative air quality impacts. Since the Proposed project, after mitigation, would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for Reactive Organic Gases and Nitrogen Oxides, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on regional air quality. Supplemental Impact TRA-3: Increase of Project related traffic on adjacent freeways. The proposed IKEA Development Project would add additional vehicles to already deficient conditions on adjacent freeway segments. This is considered a significant cumulative impact. 6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts in considering whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the anticipated unavoidable impacts, the adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable by the Lead Agency. To approve the project without significantly reducing or eliminating an adverse impact, the Lead Agency must make a Statement of Overriding Consideration supported by the information in the record. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Project, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.) Any approval of the current Project would hkewise require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable supplemental impacts identified in this DSEIR, i.e., supplemental impacts AQ-2, AQ-3, TRA-3. Pursuant to the recent Citizens for a Better Environment case, the Statement of Overriding Considerations would also be required to address the significant unavoidable impacts from the Eastern Dublin ELR that are related to the Project. Significant and unavoidable impacts identified in this Supplement are all cumulative impacts. These impacts were also previously identified as cumulatively significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR Page 90 City of Dublin November 2003 PA O2-034 7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted 7.1 Persons and Organizations EIR Preparers The following individuals participated in the preparation of this document. Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager) Malcolm Sproul, LSA Associates (biology) Donald Ballanti (air quality) Robert Rees, P.E., Fehr & Peers (traffic and transportation) Jane Maxwell, Blue Ox Associates (graphics) City of Dublin Staff Eddie Peabody, Jr. AICP, Community Development Director Jeri Ram, AICP, Planning Manager Andy Byde, Senior Planner Mike Stella, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer Ray Kuzbari, P.E., Traffic Engineer Applicant Consulting Team Doug Greenholz-IKEA Properties Randy Ackerman- Opus Southwest William Clarke-Consulting Planner Michael Durkee-Allen Matkins 7.2 References The following documents, in addition to those included in the Appendix, were used in the preparation of this DEIR. City, of Dublin Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, 1993, Wallace Roberts and Todd, as amended City of Dublin Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR, 1993, Wallace Roberts and Todd, including supplements City of Dublin, Eastern Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation EIR, 2002. IKEA Project Air Ouality Analysis, Donald Ballanti, October, 2003 IKEA Project Biological Reconnaissance, LSA Associates, October 2003 IKEA Retail Center Transportation Study, Fehr & Peers, August 2003 IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR City of Dublin PA 02-034 Page 91 November 2003 8.0 Appendices IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR City of Dublin PA 02-034 Page 92 November 2003 Appendix 8.1 IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR City of Dublin PA 02-034 Initial Study Page 93 November 2003 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to 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. The applicant proposes to change the land uses for the project site from office to commercial; however, the project maintains an urban intensity development plan generally consistent with the development patterns in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Thus, the Initial Study relies on a Program EIR certified by the City in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report," State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). That EIR, also known in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR," evaluated the following impacts: Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing, Traffic and Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage, Soils, Geology and Seismicity, Biological Resources, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Air Quality and Fiscal Considerations. Some of the potentially significant impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR apply to the proposed project and, therefore, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and are included in this Initial Study by reference. However, as indicated in the environmental checklist, conditions related to air quality, transportation and circulation, land use and biology may have substantially changed since the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. These topics will be addressed in a focused supplemental EIR. Applicants/Contact Persons Doug Greenholz IKEA Property, Inc. 3350 Brunnell Drive Oakland CA 94602 Project Location and Context The project site is located on the north side of the 1-580 freeway, between Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road and south of a new east-west connector road formerly called Digital Drive and renamed to Martinelli Drive south of Dublin Boulevard. Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the project site in context of the larger City of Dublin and Exhibit 2 depicts the project site in relation to Eastern Dublin. The topography of the site is relatively flat, but has a distinct slope to the south, towards the 1- 580 freeway. Two small structures are located on site and will remain. They are a Zone 7 water City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 2 September 2003 facility "turnout" structure located at the southwest comer of the site and a Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) water chlorination structure, which is immediately adjacent. The site is owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA). IKEA Property Inc. has entered into an agreement to purchase this site from ASCPA. Project background In'1993 the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which addressed long-term development of approximately 4,200 acres of land east of the central portion of Dublin. The entire project site is located in the westerly portion of that General Plan Amendment area and is also included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The proposed project would implement land uses and other programs included in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to the extent that it proposes urban-level non-residential development. The potential effects of changing the land use designations for the project site from Campus Office to General Commercial will be examined in this Initial Study. In February 2001, the City Council approved the Commerce One Project that allowed for the development of a four building, 780,000 square feet campus office complex on the site. This application is further described in Section XVII, Earlier Analysis. In August 2001 Alameda County Surplus Property Authority informed the City that Commerce One was no longer in contract with ASCPA to purchase the site. Project Description The proposed project involves construction of a retail commercial complex on a 27.54-acre site. The westerly portion of the site would include an IKEA home furnishing facility and the easterly portion of the site would include a Retail Center under separate ownership and management. These are described below. IKEA facility The westerly 14.34 acres of the site would be devoted to a two-story IKEA home furnishing facility that would sell a wide range of furniture and furnishing products in a 317,000 square foot building. The building would include approximately 217,000 square feet of retail sales, a 21,000 square foot restaurant, 62,000 square feet of warehouse space and 17,000 square feet of office space. The building would be elevated above grade with parking provided under the building at grad. The building would have a roof height of 51 feet and a maximum parapet height of approximately 70 feet and would be oriented eastward, toward the proposed Retail Center. The IKEA store would have a maximum peak employment of 400 employees and would be open to the public seven days per week during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday-Saturday, and 10:00 am through 8:00 pm on Sundays. A total of 1,130 on-site parking spaces would be provided, including 502 open, full size spaces, 567 spaces under the building, 20 handicapped accessible spaces, and 41 customer loading spaces. Landscaping would be provided within setbacks along adjacent streets and within the open parking area. City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 3 September 2003 Retail .Center The easterly portion of the project site, encompassing 13.2 acres of land, would be devoted to the Retail Center, consisting of multiple buildings totaling 137,000 square feet of floor area. Included within this total would be 27,400 square feet of potential restaurant floor space. A total of 665 parking spaces would be provided to serve the Retail Center. The proposed concept for the retail space is a "lifestyle center," which is a specialty retail center with small and medium sized tenants organized like a modified city block with a main street through the center of the project. No specific users or hours of operation have been identified for the Retail Center as of this writing. The Retail Center would have a different owner and would be developed separately from the IKEA store. There would be an estimated 400 employees for the Retail Center. Other actions Grading activities would occur on the site to accommodate planned buildings, roads and utility connections. Water, sewer and recycled water services would be provided by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) in accord with DSRSD's Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan. Sewer service for the project would be accommodated through connection to the existing sewer system owned and maintained by the DSRSD. When and where available, recycled water from DSRSD would be used for irrigation purposes, reducing the need for potable water. The project would also include placement of onsite business identification and directional signs. Requested entitlements The following applications have been filed with the City of Dublin: General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designate the 27.54-acre site as "CO-Campus Office." As part of this application, the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation would be changed to "General Commercial." Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development ("PD") Rezoning- The Stage 1 and 2 PD-Planned Development zoning would establish specific land use and development standards unique to the proposed retail use. As part of the PD rezoning, site-specific Planned Development Plans must be approved by the Dublin City Council. Site Development Review (SDR). An SDR application has been filed on the IKEA portion of the site to describe specific design, color, materials, parking and access, landscaping and signs for the IKEA store. The SDR application must be approved by the Dublin Planning Commission. An SDR approval will be required for the Retail Center before it could be constructed. Tentative and Final Parcel Maps: A Tentative Parcel Map would subdivide the entire 27.54 acre parcel into two parcels, one for the IKEA site and a second parcel for the Retail Center. The Tentative Parcel Map would be acted upon by the Dublin Planning Commission. City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 4 September 2003 Vesting Tentative and Final Map. A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map with multiple Final Maps would subdivide the IKEA property into four smaller parcels. The future owner of the Retail Center may also seek a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map in the future. Vesting Parcel Map(s) would be acted upon by the Planning Commission. Development Agreement. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that developers enter into development agreements prior to developing property. It is anticipated that two separate development agreements will be required, one for the IKEA store and one for the Retail Center. The development agreements would serve to "lock in" approved development on the project site for a specified number of years. City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 5 September 2003 Exhibit 1. Regional Context City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 6 September 2003 Exhibit 2. Site Location City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 7 September 2003 Exhibit 3. Proposed Site Plan City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 8 September 2003 1. Project description 2. Lead agency: 3. Contact person: 4. Project location: 5. Project contact person: Construction of a commercial complex to consist of an IKEA store (317,000 square feet of building area) and adjacent Retail Center (137,000 sq. ft. of building area) on a 27.54-acre site, including 1,795 on-site parking spaces, signs, landscaping and related site improvements. The project also includes an amendment to the General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation from Campus Office to General Commercial and other related land use entitlements. City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 Andy Byde, Senior Planner (925) 833-6610 Between 1-580 freeway and Martinelli Drive and between Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Doug Greenholz, IKEA Property, Inc. 6. General Plan/Specific Plan: Designation: Existing: CO-Campus Office Proposed: General Commercial 7. Proposed Zoning: Existing: PD-Campus Office Proposed: PD General Commercial 8. Other public agency required approvals: · General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (City of Dublin) · Stage 1 and 2 Planned Development Rezoning (City of Dublin) · Site Development Review (City of Dublin) · Tentative and Final Parcel Maps (entire site) (City of Dublin) · Tentative and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map with multiple Final Maps (IKEA site) (City of Dublin) · Development Agreement (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) 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. Cit~ of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 9 September 2003 - Aesthetics - Agricultural X Air Quality Resources X Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils - Hazards and Hydrology/Water - Land Use/Planning Hazardous Materials Quality Mineral Resources Noise - Population/Housing Public Services - Recreation X Transportation/ Circulation Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings Systems of Si~-rfificance 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 addresses potential impacts and mitigates 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 added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project may have a potentially significant or potentially significant unless mitigated 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. A focused supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. ~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. Signature: Date: Printed Name: For: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone) or in this case, there is no impact of the proposed project beyond that which was considered previously in the Eastern Dublin EIR and/or for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City Council at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. A "no City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 10 September 2003 2) 3) 4) impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 11 September 2003 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. 1. Aesthetics. WouM the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? (Source: 1, 2, 4) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1,2,4) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 2, 4) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 4) 2. 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: 1, 2) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: l, 2) 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? (1, 2) 3. 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: 2) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2) PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Stucly/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 12 September 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? (2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 2) e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2,5) 4. 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 stares 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) 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) 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) 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) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 2) 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 Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 13 September 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: 1, 2) 5. 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: 2) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Soume: 2) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resoume or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source: 2) 6. 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-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault (Source: 2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (2) iv) Landslides? (2) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (25) 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 similar hazards (Source: 2) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2) Potentially Less Than Less than No Sigaaificant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitisation X X X X X X x X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 14 September 2003 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, 5) 7. 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, 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, 5) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2, 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: 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) 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, 5) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2) 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 Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 15 September 2003 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) 8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2) b) Substant/ally 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 permim have been granted? (Source: 2) 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: 2) 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) e) Create or contribute nmoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff'?. (Source: 2) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2) 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: 2) 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 Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 16 September 2003 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2) 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) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (2) 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 2, 4) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, 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? (1, 2, 4) 10. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 2) 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) 11. 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) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Source: 2) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels m the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (Source: 2) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Sig~tificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 1 / September 2003 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? (Source:2) 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) 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) 12. 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, 2) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (2, 4) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 4, 5) 13. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse: physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 1, 2) Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X X X Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 18 September 2003 14. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2) 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: 2) 15. 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)? (2) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (2) 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? (2) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (2) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (2) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (2) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (1) 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project X X X X X X X X X PotentiallyLess Than Less than No SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 19 September 2003 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2) 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? (2, 5) c) Require or result in the consmaction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (5) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (2) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (2) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (2) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (2) 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. X X X X X X X Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 20 September 2003 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Source 1. City of Dublin General Plan (Revised through November 5, 2002) 2. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, City of Dublin (June {5, 1998) 3. Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (including the Draft and Final EIRs, Addenda, etc.) 4. Site Visit 5. Other Source These documents are available for review during normal business hours at: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. This Initial Study is being prepared to determine whether the Eastern Dublin EIR previously certified by the City may be used to evaluate the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA O2-O34 Page 21 September 2003 Section 15063 (c)(7). The Eastem Dublin EIR is available for review during normal business hours at the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan areas in which this Project is located. It was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (GPAJSP), the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts including but not limited to: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (hatural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual. The Council also adopted mitigation findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program to ensure that the mitigation measures would be implemented through subsequent planning and development projects in Eastern Dublin. Many of the mitigation measures apply to this project and/or project site and are referenced in the text of this Initial Study. The project proposes to amend the existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations from Campus Office to General Commercial and to develop a retail commercial complex on the approximately 27 acre project site. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study examines whether the proposed land use changes and the related development project could result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study also identifies changes in circumstances since certification of the previous EIR that could require additional environmental analysis. Such changes in circumstances include, but are not limited to: 1) the potential presence on the project site of species added to the California and/or Federal Endangered or Threatened Species Lists but not identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR; 2) potential changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may also affect air quality in the project area. As reflected in the following checklist and discussions, this Initial Study determines that additional review will be required for potential air quality, traffic and biology impacts. All other potential impacts of the Project are within the scope of the previous project and analysis in the Eastern Dublin EIR or are otherwise less than significant. As noted earlier, the City of Dublin previously reviewed a campus office development on this proposed project site. This was a proposal submitted by Commerce One to develop approximately 780,000 square feet of office space, a five-story parking garage and related site improvements. The Dublin City Council found the project within the scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approved a Planned Development Stage 1 and 2 rezoning for the Commerce One Development on January 16, 2001 (reference City file PA 00-015). This project was later withdrawn by the project applicant and was not constructed. Legend PS: LS: Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist Potentially Significant Less Than Significant; or Less Than Significant due to the City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 22 September 2003 previously adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR No Impact; or No Additional Impact beyond that which was previously identified in the Eastern Dublin 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project site is vacant and contains no rock outcroppings, significant stands of vegetation or other features with significant aesthetic qualities. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not classify the project area as containing visually sensitive resources (Fig. 3.8-H). The 1-580 freeway from the 880 Freeway to the easterly Alameda County line, is designated as a Scenic Route in the County Scenic Route Element of the General Plan, which has also been adopted by the City of Dublin by reference in the Dublin General Plan. Travelers along 1-580 would have long distance views of the Diablo Range and medium distance views of hills located north of Dublin. Program 6Q of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan says that the "the City of Dublin should officially adopt Tassajara Road, 1-580 and Fallon Road as designated scenic corridors, adopt a set of scenic corridor policies and establish review procedures and standards for projects within the scenic corridor viewshed." In 1996, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document prepared by David Gates & Associates. This document contains more detailed policies that allow future development as envisioned in the Specific Plan while maintaining the visual character of natural features within the area. Such implementing polices are in addition to all other goals and polices contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista ? LS. Approval and construction of the proposed project would alter the character of existing scenic vistas and could obscure important sightlines by adding new buildings and signs adjacent to the 1-580 freeway. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts, 3.8/B, 3.8/C, 3.8/F, 3.8/H, 3.8/1 and 3.8/J). Related Mitigation Measures applicable to the proposed project and/or site include: 3.8/2.0, 3.8/3.0, 3.8/7.0, 3.8/7.1, 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8.1 (pages 3.8-4 through 3.8-9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR). Mitigation measures encourage preservation of the natural landscape, preservation of the natural beauty of the hills, and preservation of views to the northerly hills. The proposed project is located in Scenic Corridor Zone 1 as identified in the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document. Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies state that properties within Scenic Corridor Zone 1, are subject to three specific standards, Standard 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1. Standard 1.1. Standard 1.1 states that from the three designated Viewpoints in Zone 1 (shown in Figure 12 of the Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document) maintain a generally City of Dublin Initial Study/lKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 23 September 2003 uninterrupted view to significant natural resource. Within the project area, the significant natural resource identified in Figure 12, is Tassajara Creek. Tassajara Creek, and the view cone identified in Figure 12, are approximately 2,400 feet to the west. Therefore the project complies with Standard 1.1 because it will not have a visual impact to Tassajara Creek or the view cone identified to protect the visual resource associated with the Creek. Standard 1.2. Standard 1.2 of the Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards document states that structures generally within 700 feet of the Scenic Corridor (identified as 1-580) should be allowed to obstruct the views of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands from 1-580 for not more than approximately 50% of the developed frontage. The Visually Sensitive Ridgelands as identified in the Scenic Corridor Policies are the Ridgelands located to the east of Fallon Road, within the area know as the Eastern Dublin Property Owners project, which was recently annexed to the City in 2002. The Visually Sensitive Ridgelands are approximately 3 miles to the east. The acute view angle (approximately 12 degrees) restricts the ability for the driver on westbound 1-580 to view the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands, 3 miles to the east. Additionally, the view of the Visually Sensitive Ridgelands for eastbound 1-580 drivers is obscured by the existing BART station and raised tracks. Moreover, the total frontages of the project site is approximately 1,320 feet, the project proposes to construct 600 feet of building facing the frontage of 1-580 (320 feet for the proposed IKEA portion and 280 feet for the proposed Retail Center, of which 160 feet of the Retail Center is setback a minimum of 250 feet from 1-580). Therefore, the proposed project complies with Standard 1.2 because it will not have a visual impact on Visually Sensitive Ridgelands or have more than 50% view obstruction of the developed frontage. Standard 2.1. Standard 2.1 states that architecture visible from the Scenic Corridors should complement the local environment. The local environment includes the Hacienda Crossings shopping center to the east, the proposed Transit Center high-density project to the west, and various large office buildings constructed mud/or proposed to the north. The existing local environment is characterized as a "built environment." Landscaping has been incorporated into the project to enhance and soften the IKEA building; various corridors have been incorporated into the design of the Retail Center. The proposed project has been found to be consistent with the local environment. Additionally, landscaping and view corridors have been incorporated to ensure compliance with this standard; therefore the project is consistent with Standard 2.1. The adopted Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies will continue to apply to the project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highways? LS. Development of the project site will alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes in Eastern Dublin. Interstate 580 has been designated as a scenic corridor by Alameda County and the City of Dublin. This potential impact (Impact 3.8/J) was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Mitigation Measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8.1 (page 3.8-9) encourage the City to adopt certain roads as scenic corridors, and encourage the City to require detailed visual analyses with development project applications (i.e., Stage 2 PD-Planned Development applications). Additionally, Policies City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 24 September 2003 6-30 and 6-31 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provide guidance for areas of the project visible from a scenic corridor. The required visual analysis was submitted with the PD rezoning application and shows that the project is consistent with the Scenic Corridor policies and standards as identified in subsection "a," above and would therefore be less-than-significant. Impacts on scenic highways were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no further analysis is required. Standard 2.1. Standard 2.1 states that architecture visible from the Scenic Corridors should complement the local environment. The local environment includes the Hacienda Crossings shopping center to the east, the proposed Transit Center high-density project to the west, and various large office buildings constructed and/or proposed to the north. The existing local environment is characterized as a "built environment." Landscaping has been incorporated into the project to enhance and soften the IKEA building; various corridors have been incorporated into the design of the Retail Center. The proposed project has been found to be consistent with the local environment. Additionally, landscaping and view corridors have been incorporated to ensure compliance with this standard; therefore the project is consistent with Standard 2.1. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.8/B-Alteration of Rural/Open Space Visual Character and Impact 3.8/F-Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands). Development of the project area would alter the existing rural and open space qualities and alter the existing visual character of valley grasses and agricultural fields The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that no mitigation measures could be identified to either fully or partially reduce this impact on flatlands to a less than significant level. Therefore, the EIR concluded this impact would be a potentially significant unavoidable impact and an irreversible change and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this impact. The proposed project would reduce the scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area but would not change the level or intensity of impact since the flatlands along 1-580 would still be developed for urban uses. Impacts on the existing visual character of the project site were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no further analysis is required. d) Create light or glare ? LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase the zmount of light and glare due to new street lighting and building security lighting. In some instances the additional lighting could result in perceived negative aesthetic impacts through the "spill over" of unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties that are not intended to be lighted. The anticipated light and glare generated by the proposed project would not be unique or different from other development projects within the City or the Eastern Dublin planning area. Furthermore, similar lighting either exists or would be installed in the future on neighboring properties with approved or potential development projects. The City of Dublin has adopted regulations which limit the mount of "spill- oveflighting and standard conditions of approval limit potential light and glare impacts. The City' s zoning ordinance, adopted site development review guidelines, and conditions of approval become part of the project, if approved and the project would have impacts that are less-than- significant City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 25 September 2003 Because light and glare created by the proposed project would be typical of development elsewhere in the City, and due to standard City regulations, light and glare impacts would be less-than-significant. 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting Although, historically this area was used for grazing, dry-land fanning, and other non-intensive agricultural endeavors, the project site has not been used for any such activities for more than 50 years. The project site is in an area that the Eastern Dublin EIR characterizes as farmland "of local importance" (Figure 3. l-B). This is defined as those farmlands which contribute to the local production of food, feed, fiber, forage and oilseed crops (p. 3.1-2). Despite this characterization, the Eastern Dublin EIR considered the discontinuation of agricultural uses as an insignificant impact due to the high percentage of Williamson Act contracts which were non-renewed and the limited value of the non-prime soils. Portions of the soils within the project area were identified as Class I or Class II soils in the Eastern Dublin EIR, however, the project area has not been used for agricultural purposes for a number of years. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? LS. Impact 3.1/F of the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed conversion of non-urban lands, such as the project site. Although the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies portions of the project site as containing Class I or Class II Prime Agricultural Soils, the site has not been used for agricultural uses for a number of years and is substantially surrounded by urbanized lands or properties where urban development has been approved but not yet constructed. The project is consistent with the urban intensity uses assumed in the prior EIR. The Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan also provide for long-term protection of future agricultural operations on lands designated for Rural Residential and Open Space within the Eastern Dublin planning area. Consistent with the Eastern Dublin EIR, Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to conversion of prime agricultural land, and no further analysis is required. b) Conflict with existing ;:oning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? NI. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. No impacts will therefore result. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 26 September 2003 Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other airborne pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter (PM-10) are not met in at least a portion of the Basin. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan ? PS. Impact 3.11/E of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified increased stationary source air emissions from the project area that would remain significant on a cumulative level even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 and 13.0. The prior EIR also assumed increased development in other areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, and related commutes to the Bay Area, and identified cumulative air quality impacts as Significant and Unavoidable. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these two impacts. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, development and commutes from the east have increased as expected, but commute patterns along 1-580 may be different than expected as commuters cut through nearby Dublin streets to avoid the freeway. In addition, based on the applicants traffic study, the project may contribute to further degradation of anticipated LOS F conditions on 1-580. Since automobile traffic is the primary source of pollutants for which the Basin is in non-compliance, the potential for supplemental traffic impacts could also contribute to emissions exceeding Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact and will be assessed in a focused Supplemental EIK The potential impacts of changing from office to commercial uses will also be assessed. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? PS. For the reasons noted above, the project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact and will be assessed in a focused Supplemental EIR. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants ? PS. For the reasons noted in a), the project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact and will assessed in a focused Supplemental EIR. d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? NI. Development of the project area with urban uses will create emissions from a variety of stationary (non-vehicular) sources such as evaporative emissions from paints and cleaning products, etc. The project does not propose resident/al development and no residential development is existing or planned adjacent to the project. Nor are there any other nearby sensitive receptors that could be exposed to stationary or vehicular source pollutants from the project. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with respect to sensitive receptors. The potential for supplemental cumulative air quality impacts is addressed in c) above. City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 27 September 2003 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting Figure 3.7-A of the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the project area was historically dominated by dry-farming rotational cropland and non-native grasslands. The project site is now a vacant site predominantly covered with non-native grasses and other native and non-native mderal vegetation. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified twelve special status plant species, seventeen special status amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species, and ten special status invertebrate species which could potentially occur within the entire Eastern Dublin planning area (Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-2, pp. 3-7.19-21. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, new special status species not addressed in the prior EIR have been identified and may occur on the project site which could be potentially significant. A focused Supplemental EIR will be prepared to analyze whether the project could result in new significant impacts related to these species. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies to protect special status species (Policies 6-17 and 6-20). The proposed project would adhere to the Specific Plan policies and all previously adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? NI. Figure 3.7-B of the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies no potential riparian habitat and springs on the project site based upon the location of intermittent streams, seeps, etc., therefore, no impacts are anticipated. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? PS. As noted above, a focused Supplemental EIR will be prepared to examine whether listed species not addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR could occur on the project site. The focused Supplemental EIR will also examine the potential for movement impacts on the species. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances: NI. No trees grow on the project site, so no impacts exist with respect to conflicts with tree protection ordinances or similar regulations. Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans ? City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Oenter PA 02-034 Page 28 September 2003 NI. There are no Habitat Conservation Plan areas or Natural Community Conservation Plans located on the project site. No impacts would therefore result. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting Chapter 3.9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR addresses the potential impacts on cultural resources which may be located within the project area. A field inspection of the entire Eastern Dublin area was performed in 1988. Three potential pre-historic sites (two of them isolated locales) and two historic sites were identified within the EDSP area (see pp. 3.9-4 - 3.9-6 of the Eastern Dublin EIR). Maps of these sites were not included in the EIR to protect them from possible vandalism. The Eastern Dublin EIR mandated additional project-level archeological surveys. None of these sites are located on the IKEA project site. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The project site is vacant and contains no historic structures. No impacts are therefore anticipated. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources ? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these resources as pre-historic cultural resources. Three potential pre-historic sites were identified by the EIR within the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7) that require subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic resources and would apply to the project as may be appropriate. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25) requiring research of archaeological resources prior to construction and determination of the significance and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction. The previous EIR adequately addresses potential impacts to these resources. Adopted Mitigation Measures will continue to apply to this project and will be implemented through conditions of approval to reduce impacts to archeological or paleontological impacts to a less-than-significant level. There are no impacts beyond those previously identified and analyzed in the Easter Dublin EIR. Cib/of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 29 September 2003 d) Disturb any human resources? L$. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could be uncovered on the site during construction activities. Implicit in the mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies is the potential for discovery of human resources near or within the identified pre-historic and historic sites. With implementation of the previously adopted mitigation measures (Mitigation Measurer 3.9/1.0 -12) and adherence to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies relating to cultural resources (Policies 6-24 and 6-25), as appropriate, potential impacts to human resources would be less-than-significant and have been adequately addressed. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Adopted Mitigation Measures will continue to apply to this project and will be implemented through conditions of approval. Therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and landforms, drainage and erosion and the potential impacts of localized soil types. It further identifies related impacts and mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and whether the prior analysis is adequate for the current project. Seismic The project area is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically active regions in the nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby significant faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault and San Andreas Fault (pp. 3.6-1 - 3.6-2 and Figures 3.6-A and 3.6-B). The likelihood of a major seismic event on one or more of these faults within the near future is believed to be high. However, no active faults are known to traverse the project site and the site is not identified as located within an Earthquake Safety Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone) as determined by the California Division of Mines and Geology. A second thrust fault system has been inferred in the Coast Ranges of the Bay Area that may be seismically active. A belt of faults and folds has been mapped in sedimentary rocks south of Mount Diablo, including one identified as the "leading edge-blind thrust, Mount Diablo Domain." Further investigation of this inferred fault has concluded that the risk of ground rupture from this inferred fault is low within the project area. The potential for on-site faulting will be addressed in the site-specific geotechnical report for the proposed project. Site Geology and Soils Site soils are identified as "undifferentiated alluvial deposits" on Figure 3.6-C of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Landforms and Topography The project area is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-Amador Valley. Much of the property is flat with a distinct slope to the south. Grading spoils from City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 30 September 2003 construction on adjacent lands have been deposited on the site which creates minor topographic relief. Drainage Existing drainage patterns on the site is in a sheet flow pattern to the south. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure or landslides? LS. Similar to many areas of California, the site could be subject to ground shaking caused by the regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable in the Bay Area over the next 30 years, buildings, utilities and other improvements constructed in the project area would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking. However, since the project area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the primary and secondary effects of ground-shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) and mitigation measure 3.6/1. requiring modem seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major structural damage and loss of life. These design standards are reflected in current building standards and would be required for issuance of building permits by the City of Dublin for the proposed project. Mitigation measures 3.6/2.0, 4.0, 5.0. 6.0.7.0 and 8.0 will be implemented, as appropriate to the project site, to reduce the secondary effects of ground-shaking and require stabilization of unstable landforms where possible or restriction of improvements from unstable landforms; utilization of properly engineered retention structures and fill; design of roads and infrastructure to accommodate potential settlement; and completion of design-level geotechnical investigations (pp. 3.6-8 through 3.6-9). Adherence to Mitigation Measures MM 3.6/1.0 through 8.0 will ensure that new structures and infrastructure built within the project area will comply with generally recognized seismic safety standards. The applicant for development of the property has commissioned a soils and geotechnical report to conform with adopted mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and policies set forth in the EDSP. Development plans submitted for the project reflect the report's recommendations. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Adopted Mitigation Measures will continue to apply to this project. Therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS, The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that development would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities (Impact 3.6/K). Long-term impacts could City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 31 September 2003 result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing vegetation (Impact 3.6/L). Related Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 (pp. 3.6-14 - 3.6-15) require the preparation and implementation of erosion control measures to be utilized on a short-term and long-term basis. In addition to these measures, the project would be subject to erosion control and water quality control measures required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and implemented by the City of Dublin. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43), which requires that new development be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of construction activities. Erosion impacts are adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no further analysis is required c, d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or will result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Portions of the project area are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell potential that has the potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Impact 3.6/1-I). The proposed project will be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 (pp. 3.6-11-12) requiring appropriate structural foundations and other techniques to overcome shrink- swell effects. The applicant's geotechnical report contains recommendations for implementing these mitigations through project design and construction. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Adopted Mitigation Measures will continue to apply to this project. Therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. All new development within the project area would be connected to a public sanitary sewer system and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District which serves all of the City of Dublin. No septic systems are proposed within the project area. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The site contains open grasslands. Historically, the project site has been used for agriculture and most recently has been used by United States Army, as part of Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) but was decommissioned and transferred to the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority in the mid-1980's. Based upon the results of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments performed on the property, there is a possibility of encountering contaminated soil and/or other potentially hazardous material remaining from previous site uses. However based on information received by the Alameda County Health Services Agency: Environmental Protection Department, incinerator debris and ash were discovered during environmental studies north of the subject property within the public right-of-way of Martinelli Drive and the property north of Martinelli Drive. The waste was removed from both properties City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 32 September 2003 and are now considered "clean closed" with respect to this contaminant. Policy 11-1 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that prior to the issuance of building permits for sites in the project area, site-specific environmental site assessments are required. As part of the normal review process for development of the site, the City of Dublin will require the applicant to obtain a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the property. If applicable, remediation measures would be recommended as part of the Phase II analysis and required to be completed, prior to development, in accordance with State law. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, b) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission of hazardous materials? LS. Proposed uses of the project area would include commercial and retail uses. Only minor less-than-significant quantfies of potentially hazardous materials such as lawn chemicals, household solvents, etc., would be associated with the majority of the proposed uses. With the expected minimal use of hazardous materials and the requirement for adhering to a hazardous materials business plan, this impact is less-than-significant c) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? LS. None of the parcels comprising the project area have been listed as a hazardous materials site. As noted above, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments have been completed for the property. Levels of petroleum-based products typical of agricultural uses have been discovered but these levels are less-than-significant Remediation measures, if needed, would be recommended and completed in accordance with appropriate regulatory agencies. This impact is considered to be less-than-significant. d) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip ? LS. The project site is located within the General Referral Area of the Livermore Municipal Airport, as shown on Figure 3.1/D of the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City of Dublin will refer the proposed development plan to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission to ensure all airport height and safety issues will be addressed. The project appears to comply with applicable Airport Land Use Plan standards, therefore, this is considered a less-than-significant impact. e) Represent a safety hazard to persons if located within two miles ora private airstrip? LS. The project is not located within two miles of a private airstrip. No impacts are therefore anticipated. f) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? LS. There is no adopted emergency evacuation plan for the project area. The proposed project would provide vehicular access on three frontages of the project site and pedestrian access on all four sides to allow for emergency evacuation. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated. City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 33 September 2003 g) Impair implementation of or physicaIly interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan ? NI. The proposed project would not block any potential emergency evacuation routes, including Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road or Martinelli Drive. No impacts are therefore anticipated. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands ? · NI. The proposed project would be located within an urbanized area with fire protection systems installed as required by the Dublin Fire Department. No impacts are therefore anticipated. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting The project area is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San Francisco Bay. The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ("Zone 7"). The project site is not located within a 100-year flood plain (reference Flood Insurance Rate Map, CP # 060705 0002 B, September, 1997) Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. Site grading (cut and fill) would occur to construct driveways, parking lots, building pads, utilities connections and similar improvements. Proposed grading could increase the potential of erosion and increase the amount of sediments carried by storm water mn-off into bodies of water, on and off the project site. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA) along with mitigation measures 3.5/44.0 - 46.0, 47.0, 49.0, 51.0 and 52.0 that require: drainage facilities to minimize any increased potential for erosion; preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each development prior to development (Stage 2 PD-Planned Development) approval; facilities and management practices which protect and enhance water quality; specific water quality investigations which address water quantity and quality of mn-off; and community-based programs to educate local residents and business on methods to reduce non-point sources of pollutants. The mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed project as appropriate. Additionally, development of individual parcels within the project area will be required by City ordinance to prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), implementing Best Management Practices that reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction and post-construction activities. These measures can include revegetation of graded areas, silt fencing and use of biofilters within parks and other landscaped areas. These individual SWPPPs City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 34 September 2003 must conform to standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Dublin and shall be approved by the City of Dublin prior to issuance of grading permits. Both agencies monitor construction and post-construction activities according to the SWPPP and adjustments are made during project construction as necessary to erosion control methods and water quality protection as field conditions warrant. Specific development projects containing five acres of more are also required to submit a Notice of Intent from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to commencement of grading. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies, which reflect the mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR listed above. Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X (pp. 133-134) address the potential for erosion and changes in water quality, storm water mn-off and storm drainage due to development of the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR and applicable requirements for project-specific SWPPPs adequately address potential water quality impacts of the project. No further analysis is required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lower the local groundwater table ? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the project area is located in an area of minimal groundwater recharge stating that groundwater reserves and the majority of the Tri-Valley's groundwater resources are in the Central Basin, south of the project area. Mitigation Measure 3.5/50.0 notes that Zone 7 supports on-going groundwater recharge programs for the Central Basin. Water for the proposed project would be supplied by DSRSD, so that there would be no depletion of groundwater resources. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that development of the area could have an impact on local groundwater resources and groundwater recharge due to an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces within the project site, (Impact 3.5/Z). With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 (pages 3.5-26), this impact is less- than-significant. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including stream courses, such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. Development of the project site would change existing natural drainage patterns in the area. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would increase stormwater runoff from the site due to construction and post-construction activities and thereby increase the potential for erosion. These impacts and related mitigations have been identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA) in relation to item "a" above. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies and programs (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9S through 9X, pp. 133- 134) addressing potential erosion. The Eastern Dublin adequately analyzes potential erosion impacts. The adopted Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site ? LS. Construction of new commercial square footage and parking areas would change drainage patterns within the project area. This impact was identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 35 September 2003 3.5Y) along with Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0, 46.0, and 47.0 that require drainage facilities to minimize flooding; preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each development prior to development approval; and construction of facilities to alleviate potential downstream flooding due to project development; The Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addresses potential drainage and flooding impacts. The adopted Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. Construction and operation of the project could lead to greater quantities of stormwater runoff and could include pollutants in the runoff. These potential impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA) along with mitigation measures 3.5/44.0, 46.0, 47.0, 49.0, 51.0, and 52.0, described in item a) above. Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented through the project and would ensure that project design and improvements are adequate for runoff and do not degrade water quality. The Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addresses drainage capacity for the project. The adopted Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS. Construction activities related to development of the project site and post-construction activities could degrade water quality resulting in additional sedimentation and potential pollutants in on-site or down-stream waters. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA) and related mitigation measures 3.5/44.049.0, 51.0 and 52.0, as described in item a) above. Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented through the project in that the City will require preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prior to the issuance of project grading plans. The Eastern Dublin adequately addressed potential water quality impacts for the project. The adopted Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. g, i) Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or expose people or structures to a significant risk due to flooding or failure of a levee or dam ? NI. The proposed project does not include construction of residential land uses, so there would be no impact with regard to placing housing within a 100-year flood plain. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood plain. City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 36 September 2003 h) Place within a l O0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flow ? NI. As noted in the response to "g" above, the project site is not located within a lO0-year flood plain, so there would be no impacts with impedance or redirection of flood waters. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows ? LS. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche or tsunami. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low because the project site is generally flat. Therefore, any potential impacts from the project will be less than significant. 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The project site is located within the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan planning area. An amendment has been requested to these documents, changing the land use designation from Campus Office to a General Commercial land use designation. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Physically divide an established community ? NI. The project site is composed of a single parcel not separated by freeways, or arterial roadways. No impacts are therefore anticipated. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation ? NI. The proposed project includes a change of the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation as well as a PD rezoning request appropriate to the proposed development. The project as proposed will have no impacts related to land use plan, policy or regulation conflicts. Potential physical impacts on the environment from development of the retail commercial center are addressed in the appropriate checklist discussions, e.g., biology, traffic and circulation, and similar topics. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan ? NI. No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan has been adopted by the City or other agency that includes the project site. No impact would therefore occur. 10. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The subject area currently contains no known mineral resources. City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 37 September 2003 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources ? NI. There are no known significant mineral resources located within the project area. Development of the project as proposed would have no impact on mineral resources. 11. Noise Environmental Setting The major source of noise on and adjacent to the project site is from vehicles traveling on the 1- 580 freeway, immediately south of the site. Figure 3.10-B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the project site as subject to future exterior noise levels in excess of 70 dbA CNEL. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, d) WouM the project expose persons to generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard or to substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels? LS. The project site is subject to severe noise levels from the 1-580 freeway. However, the proposed project would include general commercial land uses, not residential, resulting in less- than-significant impacts regarding significant noise levels. Section 3.10 of the Eastern Dublin EIR identified exterior noise levels in excess of 60 dba (CNEL) as significant for residential uses. The Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies an exterior noise level of up to 70 dBA (CNEL as acceptable and up to 75 as conditionally acceptable. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS. Groundbome vibrations could be caused by vehicular traffic along the 1-580 Freeway and within driveways and parking areasof development areas. Since future development is commercial in nature, less-than-significant impacts are anticipated. c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels ? NI. Development of the project site with urban-type uses will introduce noise to the project area where no noise generating noise uses presently exist. However, any new noise levels on the project site would be less than presently exists from the adjacent 1-580 Freeway, and in any case, there are no current noise sensitive uses that could be affected by project noise. There would therefore be no impacts with regard to permanent noise increases on the site Expose people residing or working within two miles ora public airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels? NI. There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the proposed project, therefore, no impact would result. City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 38 September 2003 12. Population and Housing Environmental Setting Data from Projections 2002, published by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), expects the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region to add approximately 1,230,340 new residents by the year 2020. This represents an increase of about 16 percent over the 20-year forecast period from 2000-2020. ABAG expects approximately 428,351 new households in the region by year 2020. ABAG estimates that Dublin's populatioa (including its Sphere of Influence) was 30,007 in the year 2000 and is projected to grow to 57,900 by 2020. ABAG estimates that the increase in new households will create a demand for at least 20,000 new dwellings each year. The City of Dublin is expected to provide 21,290 dwellings by the year 2020. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated that the Eastern Dublin area would create 12,458 new dwelling units (Table 3.2-5, page 3.2-7), generating a new resident population of 27,794. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. Development of the retail commercial complex will not induce substantial population ~owth beyond that analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The project site was proposed for urban level development of a similar nature and somewhat greater intensity in the Eastern Dublin GPA and SP. The Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addresses growth inducement issues and no further analysis is required. b, c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. The project area contains no residences that would be displaced to accommodate the proposed project, no impact is expected. 13. Public Services Environmental Setting Fire Protection. Fire protection service to the project site is provided by the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD), under contract to the City of Dublin. Police Protection. Dublin Police Services provides police and security services to the project site. Dublin Police Services is under contract with the Alameda County SheriWs office: the City of Dublin owns the department's facilities and equipment but the personnel are employed by the City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 39 September 2003 Sheriff's Office. Police and security protection includes 24 hour security patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime suppression and traffic safety. Schools. Public educational services to the project area are provided by the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other public facilities within the project area is the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works Department. Solid Waste Service. Solid waste service is provided by the Livermore/Dublin Disposal Company. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed urban development of a similar nature and intensity to that proposed by the Project. It addressed the impacts of development of the project area on services and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the identified impacts to a less than significant level As reflected below, the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addressed public services impacts and no additional analysis is required. a) Fire protection ? LS. High intensity non-residential development proposed for the site was evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The EIR identified demand for fire services and fire response to outlying areas as significant impacts (IM 3.4/C and 3.4/E) and identified mitigation measures (MM 3.4/6.0 - MM3.4/11) that require construction of new facilities timed to coincide with development; require appropriate funding mechanisms for capital improvements; identify and acquire new fire station sites; and incorporate fn'e safety measures into project design. These mitigation measures would apply to the site under both the existing Campus Office and the proposed General Commercial land use designations. Appropriate fire protection measures, as required by the Eastern Dublin EIR, will be imposed on the proposed project through the project review process implemented by the City of Dublin. Fire protection impacts are adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The adopted Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project. The Dublin Fire Department has reviewed proposed project plans and have indicated it has the ability to provide fire and emergency rescue services to the proposed project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b) Police protection ? LS. Demand for police services and police services accessibility were considered significant impacts in the Eastern Dublin EIR (IM 3.4/A and 3.4/B). Related mitigation measures (MM 3.4/1.0 - MM3.4/5.0) include provision of additional personnel and facilities; coordination of development timing so services can be expanded; and incorporation of police department recommendations into project design to ensure that adequate safety and security provisions have been considered as part of the proposed project. City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 40 September 2003 Police protection impacts are adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The adopted Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project. The Dublin Police Department has reviewed proposed project plans and have indicated it has the ability to provide police services to the proposed project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. c) Schools? NI. The proposed project involves approval and construction of non-residential land uses on the site which would not contribute children to local schools. Also, project developers will be required to pay non-residential school impact fees to offset any indirect impacts to local schools. Therefore, there would be no impact on Dublin Unified School District facilities. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. New facilities are proposed to be constructed in the project area, including Martinelli Drive to the north and a portion of Arnold Road to the west. All such roads and public facilities would be constructed by the project developers. Maintenance of these facilities was anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR and considered a significant impact (IM 3.12/A and 3.12/B). Adopted mitigation measures (MM 3.12/1.0-8.0) encourage development agreements; adoption by the City of an area of benefit ordinance; creation of Special Assessment of Mello Roos Community Facilities Districts; City evaluation of Marks-Roos bond pooling; and consideration of City-wide developer and builder impact fees. Pursuant to these mitigation measures and related Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and programs, the project includes a Development Agreement request, and would be subject to the City's adopted public facilities fees. The Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addresses public facilities impacts. The adopted Mitigation Measures and Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the project. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. 14. Recreation Environmental Setting Since the project area is not currently developed with urban uses the area contains no parks or other recreational facilities. Nearby community and regional parks include Emerald Glen Park, a 50-acre city park now being developed by the City of Dublin immediately west of Tassajara Road, and two community parks slated for development elsewhere in the Eastern Dublin area. The combined area of the two community parks is 126 acres. Each of these parks would allow for organized sports activities and individual sports as well as for passive recreation. Numerous neighborhood parks and neighborhood squares have been included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan planning areas. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks ? City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 41 September 2003 LS. Pursuant to the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, the City has adopted a parks impact fee program. The project will be required to participate in this program thus implementing previously adopted mitigations for potential parks and recreation impacts. The Eastern Dublin EIR adequately addresses park facility impacts. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? NI. The project includes no park or recreation facilities, and any such facilities that could be needed would be addressed through payment of City fees. No impacts would therefore result. 15. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the traffic and transportation impacts of development of the project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified impacts to a less than significant level. Preliminary traffic analyses indicates there could be the potential for additional transportation/traffic impacts beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, including potential changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the traffic and transportation impacts of development of the project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified impacts to a less than significant level. Due to increased urban development in the Tri-Valley area and beyond which may impact roadways within the project area, there could be the potential for additional transportation/traffic impacts, including potential changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities. a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project area with Campus Office land uses, and adopted mitigation measures to address the impacts thereof. However, retail uses could result in different peak hour impacts, and changes in Th-Valley commute patterns in addition to the anticipated project traffic, may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. These impacts could include traffic impacts within the project area, or at nearby intersections, or on freeways, roads, etc. which project traffic may use. This topic will be addressed in a focused Supplemental EIR. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads ? City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 42 September 2003 PS. As noted above, the construction of retail floor space on the project site was not anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and could result in different peak hour traffic impacts than originally considered. Potential impacts of proposed development on regional freeways and local roadways in conjunction with changing commute patterns and traffic intensities unrelated to the project may also cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. This topic will be addressed in a focused Supplemental EIR. c) Change in air traffic patterns ? NI. Development of the project area is not expected to create a change in air traffic patterns at the airport and hence would have no impact on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. Approval of the proposed project and future development of the site would add new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Municipal Code contain design standards intended to assure that access to and from a development site, and circulation within the site, will be safe and efficient. Since project facilities will be required to be constructed to these design standards, e) Result in inadequate emergency access? LS. Construction of new commercial development on the project area will provide frontage and other roadway improvements to accommodate project traffic and pedestrian demand. These improvements are also expected to provide adequate emergency access. Specific buildings proposed as part of the project will be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure that emergency access provisions of the Uniform Fire Code and other applicable safety codes will be met. f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. Parking for IKEA project is proposed at 3.5 spaces per 1,000 feet of gross floor area, this exceeds the City's Zoning Ordinance requirement for Furniture Store/large appliance stores at 1 space per 400 square feet of gross floor area. Additionally, specific projects within the Retail Center will be reviewed by the City of Dublin at the time such specific development proposals are submitted to ensure consistency with City parking requirements. Based on compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance, no impact is anticipated. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs for alternative transportation ? NI. The proposed development projects would be designed with sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, bus facilities and bicycle routes to minimize potential hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists and to support these alternative transportation modes. In accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, bicycle routes and pedestrian trails are included as part of the proposed project. The City and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have standards by which bus mm-outs, bicycle paths, trails and sidewalks must be planned and constructed. LAVTA has indicated that a bus stop will be required along the north and south side of Martinelli Drive. The project as designed can accommodate the requested bus stop. Project developers in accordance with City and LAVTA requirements will install the bus stop. These improvements will be confirmed at the time each individual development project is reviewed by the City. No impacts are therefore anticipated. City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 43 September 2003 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting Water and Sewer. The project area lies within the service area of Dublin San Ramon Services District area that provides both domestic and recycled (non-potable) water for irrigation purposes. The District also provides sewer collection services via a series of sewer trunks and mains and treatment services at a central wastewater treatment plant located in Pleasanton. Storrnwater Drainage. The City of Dublin provides and maintains locai storm drain pipes and related facilities. Regional drainage channels and related facilities are provided and maintained by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (Zone 7). Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures The General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR require adequate water and sewer services for new urban development. DSRSD, as the service provider for both water and sewer, has adopted an Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan based on the General Plan land uses and densities. Demand for water and sewer services for the proposed commercial uses would be similar or less than the demand associated with a development scenario under Campus Office land use designation specified in the General Plan and would thus be within the assumptions of the Eastern Dublin EIR as well as the DSRSD master plan. Consistent with the adopted plans and mitigation measures, DSRSD provided the City with a will-serve letter for water and sewer service to the Project. The letter is attached to this Initial Study. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/?) as a potentially significant impact Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0-31.0, which requires improvement to the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees. Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures3.5/4.34.0-38.0. These mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact. City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 44 September 2003 Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.51.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 noted an impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer demand from the proposed Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility is presently being constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity as a potentially significant impact, all of which could be reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/8.0 and 9.0. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB ? LS. A letter has been received from DSRSD indicating that adequate wastewater treatment plan capacity exists within DSRSD wastewater treatment facilities to accommodate the incremental amount of untreated effluent resulting from development of the proposed project, so there would be a less-than-significant impact with regard to wastewater treatment requirements. A copy of the will serve letter is attached to this Initial Study. Therefore, no new impacts above and beyond that addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated with approval and implementation of the proposed project and no new analysis is needed. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? LS. As noted above, a "will serve" letter has been submitted to the City of Dublin regarding the ability of DSRSD to provide water and wastewater services. A copy of the will serve letter is attached to this Initial Study. Therefore, no new impacts above and beyond that addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated with approval and implementation of the proposed project and no new analysis is needed. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. See response to 8 "e," Hydrology. d) Are sufficient water supplies available ? LS. Based on the "will serve" letter provided to the City of Dublin (attached), adequate water supplies can be provided to the proposed project by DSRSD. Therefore, no new impacts above and beyond that addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated with approval and implementation of the proposed project and no new analysis is needed. e) Adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed project? City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 45 September 2003 LS.. Based on the "will serve" letter provided to the City of Dublin (attached), adequate wastewater treatment capacity can be provided to the proposed project by DSRSD. Therefore, no new impacts above and beyond that addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated with approval and implementation of the proposed project and no new analysis is needed. f) Solid waste disposal? LS. Development of the project as proposed could incrementally increase the generation of solid waste. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. (Impacts 3.4/0 and 3.4/P). Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0-40.0 have been adopted which require preparation of a sold waste management plan for the Eastern Dublin area, revisions to the City of Dublin recycling plans to include new development anticipated in Eastern Dublin and related activities. Based on the adopted mitigation measures, a less-than-significant impact is anticipated for the proposed project and no new impacts above and beyond that addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR are anticipated with approval and implementation of the proposed project. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would ensure that developers of individual projects constructed in the project area would adhere to federal, state and local solid waste regulations; therefore, no impact would result. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range ora rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory ? YES. Please refer to the discussion in the Air Quality, Biological Resources and Transportation sections above. 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 possible future projects.) YES. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the cumulative impacts of development of the project area within its evaluation of the overall Eastern Dublin planning area. To the extent that potential impacts will be addressed in a focused Supplemental EIR, related cumulative impacts should also be examined as appropriate. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly ? City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 46 September 2003 YES. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed potentially significant adverse impacts of development on the Project site through its evaluation of the proposed Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. This Initial Study identifies certain potentially significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR that will be addressed in a focused Supplemental EIR. Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney References Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994' Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, June 6, 1998 City of Dublin General Plan, revised November 5, 2002 IKEA, application submittal package to City of Dublin, July 2003 Projections 2002, Association of Bay Area Governments, December 1999 Persons/Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Document City of Dublin Public Works Department Planning Department Fire Department Police Department Other agencies Dublin San Rarnon Services District Project applicant IKEA development staff City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 47 September 2003 DSRSD "Will Serve" Letter City of Dublin Initial Study/IKEA & Retail Center PA 02-034 Page 48 September 2003 SEP-10-~00~ 09:4~ FROM:CITY SAN RAMON DISTRICT OF DUBLIN P.001xO~2 7051 Dublin ~blL,-A, Ca~orn~a 94~68 FAX: 92.5 82.= Jttly30,2002 lenn/fer Heywood BKF Bngbe~rs 540 PHc= Aveaaue Redwood City, CA 94063 S~bject: "Wilt S~rv~" L~t~-r far BZEA Proj eot, Dublin CA Pm-=:1 2. of Pm~l Map 7714 Dea:Ms. He~ood: In response to your request, this letter addresses the infonnatioa you zequested regarding th=. above referenced project. For all District sen, ices, please =otc the £ollowing: Sanitary Sewer Capacities axe availablc for yo~ project and are sold on a ~t-zomu, ~t s~ b~s. Co~cfion of s~t~ s~ pipe~e o~ite ~d o~tc is ~u o~'s :¢~o~ili~. Desi~ and ~ation of~e~ faciEd~ ~.~I ~o~ to ~s~ct Sta~d~ P~ced~ ~ Sp~c~cafiom. ~e o~ m~t ob~ a con~cfi~ p~t faz ~e ~afi~ or.ese fa~Sfi~s ~m ~e D~ 0nsite smim~ $~ facilities =d s~ces ~. ~s ~oject ~y co~t ~o ~ s~t~ s~ m~ on ~ Blv~ or ~old ~ Potable Water Thc District wLll be abI= to provide potable water for n~ use ~d a ~ of 4,500 g~o~ p~ ~utc ~m) ~ ~c ~te, ~e ~flow req~ ~ be v~ d~g proje~ de~ ~d co ed Di ct b ed on late reeo fi of D~m~t. Conslruction of water services a~d the o~ite and offsite water distribution system are the owner's reapor~ibili~. Design and i=stallation of these faeilkies shall conform to Distrizt Standard Procedures a~d Specifications. The owner mus~ obtain a constructio~ pem~t for the installation offaese facilities from th~ District. Onsite water di~ribution fazilities and water services '~o this project may connect lo exb~dng water rnsins on Dublin Blvd., Arnold l~d_ and Hacienda Dr, I-I:~ENGDIa?T~I~t!R/vHT~DEvL?~_COM 1 ~lK.EA~'kea Will St/mil= H~'ywood OF DUBLIN T0:510 548SiB3 The Dis~ will be able to provide recycled wa~cr ~e your project si'~e. Dis~ct Ordinance 280 and the City of Dublin's Water E/~cient Lmdscap¢ Ordinance calls for irmtallation ofrecycl~ water inigat/on systems to allow for thc usc of r¢cyctecI warm'. T~e owner's contractor may tap hato existing recy~l=d water mains on Dublin Blvt The crnsi~e rccy~.lcd.water/n'igation system shall be cles/gned and installed in conformem:c to D/s~"ict Recycled Water Use' Guidol/ne~, as amended. The owner must obtain a cons~a'~ction permit for the/nstalIafion of these fac/t/ties.. from ~e D/sE.ct If you have additional questions or concerns, please do ~ot hes//ate to cml. me ~t (925) 551-7230,' ex~ !24. ' S~c~ely, ~ ~ CC: P, hodora Biagh~ Ken.Petcrson David Requa C-'"nron~ile: DP-02-281 Fi: =~GDSPT~ERM1TSXD;-VLPM'NT~I~D_COM l'~...~\~kc~ W{':l Serve.do; Appendix 8.2 Notice of Preparation IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR City of Dublin PA 02-034 Page 94 November 2003 CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http://www, ci,d ublin.ca, us Notice of Preparation/Notice of Scoping Meeting To: Distribution List (see attached) Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Notice of Seeping Meeting ~...'~' . .... Date: September 22, 2003 Lead Agency: C~t~ of Dublin Planning Department ] O0 Civic Plaza Dublin; CA 94568 Contact: Andy Byd¢, Senior Planner, Planning Department, (925) The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the propoSed scope and content of the Environmental ImPact Report:for the project identified below. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency when considering follow-on permits or other approvals for this project. Proj eot Title: IKEA/Remil Center development project (PA 02-034) Project Location: Immediately north of the 1-580 Freeway, west of HaCienda Boulevard, east of A.mold Road and south of future Martinelli Drive (APN 986-0005-040) Project Description: Approval and construction of (1) an IKEA retail store totaling 317,000 square feet on 14.34 acres of land, including retail sales, restaurant, warehouse and 1,130 on- site parking spaces; and (2)the Dublin Retail Center, consisting of up to 137,000 square feet ofretail space and related uses on 13.20 acres of land with 665 on-site parking spaces. The project also includes site grading, installation of landscaping and utility connections. Requested land use entitlements include an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan, Stage 1 & 2 rezoning and Development Plans, Site Development Review, a Tentative Parcel Map, a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and a Development Agreement. The attached Initial Study identifies potential environmental effects anticipated to be discussed in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Scoping Meeting A Seeping Meeting for this project will be held at 3 PM on Thursday, October 16, 2003, in the Regional Room of the Dublin Civic Center. 100 Ci-~iC Plaza. Dublin. ' Area CoO'e (925) · City Manager 833-6650 · City Council 833-6650 · Personnel 833-6605 · Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 - Parks & Community Services 833-8645 · Police 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 · Building Inspection 833-6620 · Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 Printed on Recycted Paper i NOTICE OF PREPARATION DISTRIBUTION LIST Ikea Project September 2003 California State Clearinghouse-'Terry Roberts (send 15 copies) - ,~ Dublin San Ramon Services District (Greg Taylor) * Dublin Unified School DiStrict-John Sugiyama/Kim McNeeley LAVTA - Austin O'Deli Zone 7, ACFC&WCD -Yan Kee Chan Alameda County Planning Department- Buzz Sorenson Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County - Pat Cashman Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission PG&E Pacific Bell Comcast Cable Livermore Dublin Disposal Service - Dan Borges City of Pleasanton Planning Department City of Livermore Planning Department LAVVVMA--Vivian Housen California Regional Water Quality Control Board---San Francisco Bay Region Bay Area Air Quality Management District Alameda County Congestion Management Agency City Departments Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director Melissa Morton, City Engineer Chris Foss, Economic Development Director ENDORSED FILED /%A, MEDA COUNTY Appendix 8.3 Responses to Initial Study IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR City of Dublin PA 02-034 Page 95 November 2003 STATE OF CALIFOR.N'[A--BUSINESS~ TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510) 286-5505 FAX (510) 286-5513 TTY (800) 735-2929 GP~Y DAVIS Governor Flex your power/ Be energy efficient/ October 22, 2003 Mr. ~ndy Syde City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 ALA580780 ALA-580-18.82 SCH2003092076 Dear Mr. Byde: DUBLIN IKEA - NOTICE OF PREPARATION Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the early stages of the environmental review process for the Dublin IKEA Project. The following comments are based on the Notice of Preparation. Traffic Analysis Please include the information detailed below m the Traffic Study to ensure that project-related impacts to State roadway facilities are thoroughly assessed. We encourage the City to coordinate preparation of the study with our office, and we would appreciate the oppommity to review the scope of work. The Department's "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" should be reviewed prior to initiating any traffic analysis for the project; it is available at the following website: http ://www.d~t.ca.g~ v/hq/traff~ps/ deve~pserv /~perati ~na~s~stems/rep~rts/tisRuide.pdf The Traffic Study should '~-iclude: 1. Site plan clearly showing project access in relation to nearby state roadways. Ingress and egress for all project components should be clearly identified. State Right-of-Way (ROW) should be clearly identified. Project-related trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used to develop this information should be detailed in the study, and should be supported with appropriate documentation. Average Daily Traffic, AM and PM peak hour volumes and levels of service (LOS) on all significantly affected roadways, including crossroads and controlled intersections for existing, existing plus project, cumulative and cumulative plus project scenarios. "Caltran~ improves mobility across California" ~ECEIVI~D Mr. Andy Byde October 22, 2003 Page 2 Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generating developments, both existing and future, that would affect study area roadways and intersections. The analysis should clearly identify the project's contribution to area traffic and degradation to existing and cumulative levels of service. Lastly, the Department's LOS threshold, which is the transition between LOS C and D, and is explained in detail in the Guide for Traffic Studies, should be applied to all state facilities. Schematic illustration of traffic conditions including the project site and study area roadways, trip distribution percentages and volumes as well as intersection geometrics, i.e., lane configurations, for the scenarios described above. The project site building potential as identified in the City's General Plan. The project's consistency with both the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's Congestion Management Plan should be evaluated. Mitigation should be identified for any roadway mainline section or intersection with insufficient capacity to maintain an acceptable LOS with the addition of project-related and/or cumulative traffic. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should also be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Special attention should be given to the following trip-reducing measures: Encouraging mixed-use, · Maximizing density through offering bonuses and/or credits, · Coordinating with LAVTA and BART to increase transit/rail use by expanding routes and emphasizing express service to regional rail stations, and by providing bus shelters with seating at any future bus pullouts, · Providing transit information to all furore employees and patrons of the project, and · Encouraging bicycle- and pedestrian-fi-iendly design. While the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) may not be the preferred LOS methodology, it should be used for analyzing impacts to state facilities, particularly where previous analysis employing alternative methodologies has identified impacts. The residual level of service, assun-dng mitigation has been implemented, should also be anal~ed with HCM 2000. Please forward a copy of the Traffic Study, including Technical Appendices, the environmental document, staff report and the City's transportation impact fee policy to the address below as soon as they are available. Patricia Maurice, Associate Transportation Planner Office of Transit and Community Planning, Mail Station 1 OD California DOT, District 4 111 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94612-3717 "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Andy Byde October 22, 2003 Page 3 Right of Way Work that encroaches onto the ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans, clearly indicating State ROW, must be submitted to the address below. Traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. Sean Nozzari, District Office Chief Office of Permits California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Please feel free to call or email Patricia Maurice of my staff at (510) 622-1644 or patricia maurice _(~,dot.ca. gov with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse "Caltran$ improves mobility across Cal~forn~a" ~.,ONGES"TqON ~V'IANAGEME.,NFT- AGENGY 1333 BROADWAY, SUITE 220 · OAKLAND, CA 94612 · PHONE: (510) 836-2560 o FAX: (510) 836-2185 E-MAiL: mail@ac~ma.ca.gov · WEB SITE: accma.ca.gov October 22, 2003 Andy Byde Senior Planner Planning Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dubli~ CA 94568 SUBJECT: Comments on the General Plan Amendment for the IKEA and Dublin Retail Center Projects m the City of Dublin Dear Mr. Byde: Thank you for the opporttmity to comment on the City of Dublin's General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the 14.34 acre IKEA project and 13.2 acre Dublin Retail Center project. The project would allow approval and construction of an IKEA retail store totaling 317,000 square feet including retail sales, restaurant, warehouse and 1,130 on-site parking spaces, and would include the Dublin Retail Center, consisting of up to 137,000 square feet of retail space and related uses on 13.2 acres of land with 665 on-site parking spaces. The project requires an Amendment to the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan, Stage 1 & 2 rezoning and Development Plans, Site Development Review, and Tentative Parcel Map, A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and a Development Agreement. The project is located immediately north of the 1-580 Freeway, west of Hacienda Boulevard, cast of Arnold Road and south of future Martinelli Drive. The ACCMA respectfully submits the following comments: The City of Dublin adopted Resolution 120-92 on September 28, 1992 establishing guidelines for reviewing the impacts of local land use decisions consistent with the Alameda County Congestion Management Program (CMl>). Based on our rc~icw of the GPA and the land uses that are being considered, thc proposed project appears to generate at least 100 p.m. peak hour trips over baseline conditions. If this is thc case, thc CMP Land Use Analysis Program requires the City to conduct a traffic analysis of the project using the Countywide Transportation Demand Model for Year 2005 conditions. Please note the following paragraph as it discusses the responsibility for modeling. The Countywide Model has been updated to Projections 2002 for base years 2010 and 2025. The CMA Board amended the CMP on March 26~, 1998 so that local jurisdictions are now responsible for conducting the model runs themselves or through a consultant. The Countywide model is available to the local jurisdictions for this purpose. The City of Dublin has not yet returned a signed a Countywide Model Agreement to the ACCMA. Before the model can be released to you or your consultant, the agreement must be signed by the City RECEIVED OCT ~ $ [003 ~UBLIN PLANNING Mr. Andy Byde October 22, 2003 Page 2 and the ACCMA and a letter must be submitted to the ACCMA requesting use of the model and describing the project. A copy of a sample letter agreement is available upon request Potential impacts of the project on the Metropohtan Transportation System (MRS) need to be addressed. (See 2001 Congestion Management Program (CMP)). The analysis should address all potential impacts of the project on the MTS roadway and transit systems. These include 1-580, 1-680, SR-84, Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road/Foothill Boulevard, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road, Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, as well as BART and LAVTA. Potential impacts of the project must be addressed for 2010 and 2025 conditions. Please note that the ACCMA does not have a pohcy for determining a threshold of si~tmificance. Rather, it is expected that professional judgment will be apphed to determine project level impacts. The CMA requests that there be a discussion on the proposed funding sources of the transportation mitigation measures identified in the environmental documentation. The CMP estabhshes a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (See 2001 CMP) that assigns priorities for funding roadway and transit projects throughout Alameda County. The improvements called for in the analysis should be consistent with the CMP CIP. Cdven the limited resources at the state and federal levels, it would be speculative to assume funding of an improvement unless it is consistent with the project funding priorities established in the Capital Improvement Program of the CMP, the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), or the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Therefore, we are requesting that the environmental documentation include a financial program for all roadway and transit improvements. The adequacy of any project mitigation measures should be discussed. On February 25, 1993 the CMA Board adopted three criteria for evaluating the adequacy of DEIR project mitigation measures: Project mitigation measures must be adequate to sustain CMP service standards for roadways and transit; Project mitigation measures must be fully funded to be considered adequate; Project rm'tigation roeasures that rely on state or federal funds directed by or influenced by the CMA must be consistent w/th the project funding priorities established in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) section ofthe CMP orthe Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). It would be helpful to indicate in the analysis the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures relative to these criteria. In particular, the analysis should detail when proposed roadway or transit route improvements are expected to be coropleted, how they will be fimded, and what would be the effect on LOS ffonly the funded portions of these projects were assumed to be built prior to project completion. Potential impacts of the project on CMP transit levels of service must be aha ~lyzed. (See 2001 CMP, Chapter 4). Transit service standards axe 15-30 minute headways for bus service and 3.75-15 minute headways for BART during peak hours. The analysis should Mr. Andy Byde October 22, 2003 Page 3 address the issue of transit funding as a mitigation measure in the context of the CMA's pohcies as discussed above. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, which appears to be approximately one-quarter mile fxom the proposed project site, is the site of an approved Transit Village with proposed high density transit-oriented development, and has been the recipient of funding for a parking structure to support the transit village. The Alameda County CMA is developing a policy to encourage mit-oriented development. How will the design and location of the 454,000 square feet of retail, warehouse and related uses for Ikea and the Dublin Retail Center and the 1,795 parking spaces on the 27.54 acre site encourage transit and pedestrian use in the project area? The analysis should consider demand-rehted ~taategies that are designed to reduce the need for new roadway facilities over the long term and to make the most efficient use of existing facilities (see 2001 CMP, Chapter 5). The analysis could consider the use of TDM measures, in conjunction with roadway and transit improvements, as a means of attaining acceptable levels of service. Whenever possible, mechanisms that encourage fidesharing, flexfirne, transit, bicycling, telecommuting and other means of reducing peak hour traffic trips should be considered. Street layout and design strategies would foster pedestrian and bicycle connections and transit-friendly site design should also be considered. The Site Design Guidelines Checklist may be useful during the review of the development proposal. A copy of the checklist is enclosed. We have been asked to inform you about the success of the Financial Incentives Program and the Guaranteed Ride Home Program, both of which are supported by the ACCMA. Employee oriented financial incentive programs, such as parking cashout programs, have proven to be successful in encouraging solo drivers to choose other commute alternatives. We would like you to consider applying the Financial Incentive Program as part of the conditions of approval and/or developer agreements as a way to reduce congestion. The Guaranteed Ride Home Program, sponsored by the ACCMA, ensures that any earpooler or transit rider at participating worksites can get home in case of an emergency. The Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan was approved by the ACCMA Board on June 28, 2001. The analysis should consider oppommifies to promote countywide bicycle routes identified in the Plan through the project development review process. For projects adjacent to state roadway facilities, the analysis should address noise impacts of the project. If the analysis finds an impact, then mitigation measures (i.e., soundwalls) should be incorporated as part of the conditions of approval of the proposed project. It should not be assumed that federal or state funding is available. Mr. Andy Byde October 22, 2003 Page 4 Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this GPA. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 5 I0/836-2560 ext. 13 ffyou require additional information. Sincerely, Diane Stark Senior Transportation Planner Chron file: CMP - Environmental Review Opinions - Responses - 2003 BAY AREA MANAGEMENT D [ s T R I C T ALAMEDA COUNTY Roberta Cooper Scott Haggerty (Chairperson) Nate Miley Shelia Young CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Mark DeSaulnier Mark Ross Gayle Uilkema (Secreta~) MARIN COUNTY Harold C. Brown, Jr. NAPA COUNTY Brad Wagenknecht SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY Willie Brown, Jr. Chris Daly Jake McGolddck SAN MATEO COUNTY Jerry Hill Marland Townsend (Vice-Chairperson) SANTA CLARA COUNTY Liz Kniss Patrick Kwok Julia Miller Dena Mossar SOLAN O COUNTY John F. Silva SONOMA COUNTY Tim Smith Pamela Torliatt William C. Norton EXECUTIVE OFFICER/APCO Andy Byde Sen/or Planner, Planning Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 October 22, 2003 Subject: IKEA/Retail Center Development Dear Mr. Byde: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) staff have received your agency's Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEER) for the IK A/Retail Center Development project. The project proposes to change the land use designations for the project site from Campus Office to General Commercial. The proposed project includes the development of 1) a 317,000 square foot IKEA retail store; 2) the Dublin Retail Center which would consist of up to 137,000 square feet of additional retail uses; and 3) 1,795 on-site parking spaces on a 27.54 acre site in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. We agree with the NOP's conclusion that the DEER should analyze the project's potential impacts upon air quality. The.DEIR should indicate that the Bay Area is currently a nonattainment area for federal and state ambient air quality standards for 1 hour ozone and state standards for particulate matter. The air quality, standards are set at levels to prOtect pubhc health and welfare. Toxic air contaminants are also an area of serious concern in the Bay Area. Any project wkich exposes sensitive receptors or the general pubhc to substantial levels of criteria air pollutants or toxic air contaminants would be deemed to have a significant impact and would need to be properly mitigated. As general background for readers, the DEER should discuss the health effects of air pollution and the contribution of mobile and stationary sources to air pollution emissions. The DEIR should analyze the potential in_,pacts on ~ quality from project construction and project operation at buildout. If significant air quality impacts are identified, the DEIR must include all feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. Without mitigation, a commercial project of this size is likely to have significant air quality impacts through an increase in motor vehicle traffic. Throughout the Bay Area, communities are reconsidering the desirability of building large-scale auto-oriented developments on greenfield sites. For example, as part of the Regional Agencies Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project, Alameda County residents recently expressed a preference for more infill and mixed use development that provides a range of travel options. We believe that through land use decisions that support transit, walking and cycling, Bay Area cities can help to reduce the rate of increase in vehicle miles traveled and improve local and regional air quality. 939 ELLtS STREET · SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94109 · 415.771.6000 · wwu,.baaqmd, go; Mt. Andy Byde -2- October 22, 2003 We have concerns about the suitability of this site for auto-oriented retail and commercial land uses. According to the map of the project area, the Dublin Pleasanton BART station/Dublin Transit Center and a number of Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) bus lines are located adjacent to the proposed project site. The City should consider whether the subject property might be better utilized for transit-oriented development rather than as an auto-oriented shopping center. If significant air quality impacts are identified, the DEIR should include all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the air quality impacts. If they cannot be reduced to a level less than significant, alternatives should be identified that would not result in significant ak quality impacts. We encourage the City to consider a project alternative that locates equivalent commercial space on in-fill properties in already urbanized areas of Dublin. If the City determines that the proposed retail land uses cannot be accommodated at a different location, decides not to propose different land uses for .this site, and still finds significant air quality impacts from vehicle trips generated by the project, then we urge the City to require the project sponsor to scale back the size of the project or to substantially mitigate the air quality impacts by reducing vehicle trips. District staff encourage the City to require the implementation of specific and comprehensive mitigation measures as part of the conditions of project approval. We suggest that the City encourage the project sponsors to include the following physical improvements to the project that will help to promote transportation alternatives to the single- occupant vehicle: safe, convenient public walkways/trails; bicycle parking; and linkages to local and regional bike/pedestrian networks. In addition, the City can further reduce vehicle trips by incorporating as many appropriate programmatic transportation demand management (TDM) measures as possible, including: transit subsidies such as the Commuter Check program for employees; guaranteed ride home program; flexible work schedules; bicycle and pedestrian incentive programs; and others listed in our guidance document, BA,dQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (1999), mentioned below. Such measures promote transportation alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle, which help to mitigate the proj cot's air quality impacts. We are concerned about the project's design with respect to on-site parking. An over- supply of parking is one of the reasons why people do not consider alternatives to the single- occupant vehicle. We recommend that the City reduce the number of parking spaces and implement a parking cash-out program. Parking cash-out requires employers to provide transit and/or ridesharing subsidies to non-driver employees in amounts equivalent to the value of subsidized parking, thereby encouraging those who would normally drive alone to consider a commute alternative. The DEIR should also evaluate potential nuisance impacts, such as exposure to odors and dust that could result from project implementation. Odors and dust may not necessarily cause physical harm, but can still be unpleasant and can motivate citizen complaints. Air quality problems arise when sources of ak pollution and sensitive receptors are located near one another. Mr. Andy Byde -3- October 22, 2003 Particulate matter (PM) is a pollutant of concern for both nuisance and health-related reasons. PM larger than ten microns is more likely to be a public nuisance than a serious health hazard. On the other hand, research has demonstrated a correlation between high levels of fine PM and increased mortality rates and high incidences of chronic respiratory illness. The DEIR should evaluate potential impacts and propose appropriate mitigation measures. For more details on our agency's guidance regarding environmental review, we recommend that the City refer to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (1999). The document provides information on best practices for assessing and mitigating air quality impacts related to projects and plans, including construction emissions, land use/design measures, project operations, motor vehicles, nuisance impacts and more. If you do not akeady have a copy of our guidelines, we recommend that you obtain a copy by calling our Public Information Division at (415) 7494900 or downloading the online version from the District's web site at http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/CEQA/ceqaguide.asp. If you have any questions regardhug these comments, please contact Suzanne Bourguignon, Environmental Planner, at (415) 749-5093. Sincerely, WN:SB BAAQMD Director Roberta Cooper BAAQMI) Director Scott Haggerty BAAQMD Director Nate Miley BAAQMD Director Shelia Young Executive Officer/APCO ADMINISTRATION BUiLDiN~ 1052 S LivcrmoreAvcnu¢ Livennorc. CA 94550-4899 Ph: (925) 960-4000 Fax (925) 960-4058 TDD (925) 9613-4104 MAYOR / COUNCIL Pk: 960-4010 · Fax 960-~25 CITY MANAGER Ph: 960-4040 . Fax: 960-4045 crfY ATTORNEY Ph: 960-4150 · Fax: 960-41110 RISK MA.NAG~ENT Ph 960-4170 o Fax: 960-4180 CITY CLERK Pk 960-4200 · Fax 960-4205 COMMLrNII'Y DEVELOPM. K'~Fr Ph: 960-4aX~0 , Fax: 960-4a59 Buil.~in~ Di~ion Ph 960--'~10 . Fax: Engineering Divi.tion Ph~ 960-4500 .. Fax: 960-4505 Housing Diviaon Pb. 960-458(1 . Fax: 960-4t49 Planning Diviaion Pk: 960-0,450 ,, Fax: 960-4,459 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Ph: 960-4140 · Fax: 960-4149 FINANCE DEPARTMENT Ph 960-4300 ,, Fax: 960-4309 FIRE DF. PARTM ENT a550 East Aveuue Ph a54-236] . Fax' 454-2367 LIBRARY ] 000 S. Livermor¢ Avenue Pk 373-5500 * Fax: 373-5503 P F..R~OI~'NEL PI~: 960-4100 · Fax 960--4105 POLICE DEPARTM II10 S Livermm'¢Avenu¢ Ph: 371-4900 ,, Fax: 371-4950 T'DD 371.4982 PUBLIC SERVICES 3500 P. obcrtson Park Rd. Pk 960-8000 · Fax: 960-8005 Air~ort Division 636 Terminal Circle Ph 373-5280 . Fax: 373-5042 GMf Course Division 909 Clubhouse Drive Ph: 373-5239 * Fax: 373-5203 Maintenance Divi~on 3500 gobertaon Park Rd Ph: 960-8020 o Fax: 960-8025 Prater Reaourc~ Div~ion [0l W..lack Lc~don Bird Ph 960-8100 · Fax 960-8105 CITY or LIVERMORE 'q/dine Country Since 1849" October 22, 2003 Andy Byde, Senior Planner City of Dublin Planning Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Notice of Preparation for the IKEA/Retail Center Development Dear Mr. Byde, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the above referenced project. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should consider the traffic impacts of over 450,000 square feet of retail and related uses on the existing and proposed subregional roadway system including 1-580 and the Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway connection. The potential impacts to the E1 Charro Road and Ainvay Boulevard interchanges and intersections along North Canyons Parkway are of concern to the City of Livc~more. Air quality impacts resulting from increased traffic and traffic congestion should also be considered in the Draft EIR. Please forward two copie~ of the Draft EIR when completed to Susan Frost, Senior Planner, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore, CA 94550. If you have any questions, please contact Susan Frost at (925) 960-4450. Sincerely, Susan Frost Senior Planner CC.' Marc Roberts, Community Development Director Eric Brown, Planning Manager RECI;;IV;D OCT 2 7 ZOO3 DUBLIN PLANNING DANIELL. 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 PROF~C:S$1ONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 65~ GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 TEL: (650) 589-1660 FAX: (650) 589-5062 zbassett~aclamsbroadwel[.com October 21, 2003 SACRAMENTO OFFICE 1029 K STREET. SUITE 37 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 TEL: (916) 444-6201 FAX: (916) 444-6209 RECEIVED OCT 1 7 ?.003 '!UBUN PLANNING Via Facsimile and By U.S. Mail Andy Byde City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dub]in, CA 94568 Kay Keck City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: CEQA Notice - IKEA/Retail Center Development Proiect Dear Mr. Byde and Ms. Keck: We axe writing on behalf of the Plumbers and Steemfitters Union Local 342, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 595, and the Sheetmetal Workers Local 104 with respect to the IKEA/Retail Center Development Project (PA 02-034) ("Project") to request mailed notice of the availab;dity of the Draft Environmental Impact Report or any environmental review document, such as an Environmental Impact Report CEIR"), Negative Declaration ("ND") or Exemption, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, as well as a copy of the EIR when it is made available for public review. We also request mailed notice of any and all hearings and/or actions related to the Project. These requests are made pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.2 and Government Code Section 65092, which require local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency's governing body. 1410p-01 ~'~ p~nted oD mcyciecf paper October 21, 2003 Page 2 Please send the above requested items to our South San Francisco Office as follows: Zohary Bassett Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 651 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 900 South San Francisco, CA 94038 Please call me at (650) 589-1660 if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. CC: Richard Drury Sincerely, ary Bassett~ ~ecialist 1410p-01 ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 5997 F'ARKSIDE DRIVE $ PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-5127' $ PHONe (925) 484-2600 FAX (925) 462-3914 October 23, 2003 Mr. Andy Byde, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft EIR Ikea/Retail Center Development Project (PA 02-034) Zone 7 Referral No. 00-093D Dear Mr. Byde: Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA documents in the context of our responsibilities to provide wholesale treated water, non-potable water for agriculture and irrigated tuff, flood protection, and groundwater and stream management in the Liv~tmore-Amador Valley. Also, enclosed for your reference is our previous review letter dated August 26, 2003 for lkea Development (PA 02-034). Our comments are as follows: 1. Hydrology and Water Quality, Paragraph 8a, page 35. The second paragraph states that development projects that result in soil disturbance of at least five acres of land are required to submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board. Please be advised that, as of March 10, 2003, the size threshold for a NPDES General Construction Permit is reduced fi:om five acres to one acre of disturbed land. 2. Hydrology and Water Quality, Paragraph 8d, page 36. Mitigation for the creation of any new impervious areas within the Livermore-Amador Valley is addressed through the collection of Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 drainage fees. Zone 7's standard mitigation practice is to collect an SDA 7-1 fee on any new buildings, improvements (including but not limited to paving), or structures to be constructed that substantially increase the imperviousness of the land surface. The proposed project will be connecting to an existing Zone 7 flood control facility (Line G 2-1), a tributary to Chabot Canal. Hydraulic calculations for the proposed drainage system should be provided to Zone 7 to ensure that design flows do not adversely impact existing hydraulics downstream of the project. Mr. Andy ]3yde October 23, 2003 Page 2 3. Hydrology and Water Quality, Paragraph 8f; page 37. The Project Description, page 4, states that recycled water services would be provided by DSRSD in accordance w/th DSRSD's Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan, when and where available to reduce the need for potable water. The referenced paragraph does not address the potential salt loading impacts over om' ma/n groundwater basin. Zone 7 considers all applied water (rainwater is an exception), including both potable water and recycled water, to contribute salt loading to the groundwater basin, and use of recycled water requires mitigation of the associated impacts. The Groundwater Demineralization Project is the recommended project to accomplish Zone 7's Salt Management Program' s goal of non-degradation of our main groundwater basin fi:om the long-term buildup of salts. Zone 7 expects to complete the fast phase of this project m 2006. We request that the City support the Groundwater Demineralization Project in the Dm~ EIR as the appropriate mitigation for the proposed project. Otherwise, we request that the lead agency address the mitigation of any salt loading impacts of the project should Zone 7's furore Groundwater Demineralization Project not be consmacted and placed into operation. We appreciate the oppommity to comment on this document. Please feel flee to contact me at (925) 484-2600, ext. 400, jhoren~_~zone7water, com, or Jack Fong at ext. 245, jfong~zone7water, com, if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Jim Horen Principal Engineer Advance Planning CC' Dave Requa, DSRSD Ed Cummings, Zone 7 John Mahoney, Zone 7 Joe Seto, Zone 7 Mona Olmsted, Zone 7 Jack Fong, Zone 7 P~.Advpl~CEQARefermls-lkeaRetailCenter ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 5997 PARKSiDE DRIVE PL[ASANTON, CALIFORN[A 94588-5127 August 26, 2003 (925} 484-2600 ~^x(925) 482-3914 Mr. Andy Byte, Sen/or Planner Community Development Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 SUBJECT: Dear Mr. Byde: IKEA Development / (PA 02-034) · North ofi-580, Between ArnoldRoad & Hacienda Drive, Dublin Zone 7 Referral No. 00-093D This letter is in response to your referral dated Au~oust 2, 2003, regarding the aforementioned project. Zone 7's sections submitted the following comments: Water Supply: As per our letter of February 16, 2001, please identify the existing 16-inch waterline shown on the project plans as a Zone 7 waterline. In addition, sheet C-4.0 of the plans appears to include the following two drafting errors: l) A manhole and branch pipeline which is connected to Zone 7's 16-inch waterline. (These facilities do not exist in the field). 2) A direct connection bet-ween the new development's planned 16-inch waterline and Zone..T.s 16-inch waterline. (Direct connections to the Zone 7 lzansmission system are not. allSwed). These drafting e-u-ors are circled in red on the plans submitted for review. Please revise and resubmit the plans for final approval. As before, valves and other appurtenances that are located within the limits of construction must be clearly located prior to construct/on. If any resurfacing or grading work is performed, these appurtenances shall be fa/set to grade at no expense to Zone 7. An encroachment pen-nit is required when working in close proxhnity to Zone 7 water facilities. This permit will have specific conditions for construction around a Zone 7 facility. The permit wiil become effective upon payment of an application fee and. any applicable inspection charges and the deposit of an approved surety bond to Zone 7. Please contact Jaime Rios at extension 407 for an encroachment permit and if you have any questions regarding water supply issues. Mr. Andy Byde, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Dublin August 26, 2003 Page 2 Groundwater Management: Our records indicate there are no water wells or monitoring wells located within the project boundaries, l.f any wells are found within the project limits, they should be reported to Zone 7. Any planned new well, soil boring or well destruction must be permitted by Zone 7 before starting the work. There are no fees for the Zone 7 drilling permits. Well permit applications can be obtained by contacting Wyman Hong at extension 235 or can be downloaded from our web site at w~'.zone7water.com. Flood Control: Developments that increase impervious area are subject to Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 drainage fees. Drainage fees are collected by the governing agency for new roads (upon application for approval of vesting tentative or final map) and buildings, driveways, etc. (upon application for building permit). Thee are no existing Zone 7 flood control facilities at this location. Should you have any flood control related questions, please contact Clayton Botchers at extension 402. For future submittals at th/s location, please refer to Zone 7 Referral No. 00-093D. If you have any questions-, please do not hesitate to contact the person identified per section comments or me at extension 249. V?ry truly yours, Advance Plann/ng Enclosure YK~:CB:jr cc: Clayton Borchers, Zone 7, Flood Conlzol Jaime Rios, Zone 7, Water Supply P:lFloodlRff/'e. rraJ. s[2003ReferralslOO..93D il(Ed Development (PA-O2.-O3.4).doc