HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 67-04 NegDecDubTransitVillRESOLUTION NO. 67 - 04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR
THE AMB PROPERTIES TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT PA 02 -003
WHEREAS, AMB Properties submitted applications for a Transit Village project consisting of a
multi -story structure containing a maximum of 304 multi- family dwellings, a separate multi -level 150,000
square foot office building, and associated landscaping, parking and small retail uses, on approximately
9.06 acres north of 1 -580, on the existing Cor -O -Van Moving and Storage warehouse site. The
development includes applications for a PD- Planned Development rezoning and related Stage 2
Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069, Site Development Review, and Development
Agreement. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is relatively flat and fully developed with a moving and storage
warehouse operation; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is in the Dublin downtown area and within the planning area for the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan ( "Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan is one of three downtown specific
plans approved by the City on December 19, 2000 and intended to improve the appearance, functionality,
and economic vitality of the downtown area, particularly in recognition of a planned BART station
adjacent to the Project site. (See Resolution 227 -00, incorporated herein by reference). The Specific Plan
includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation
improvements and implementation programs to achieve the City's General Plan goals. The Specific Plan
area is intended as a "high- intensity mixed -use area, capitalizing on regional transit linkages provided by
both the BART line and supported by nearby freeways, I -580 and 1- 680." (p. 21). Implementation of the
Specific Plan explicitly contemplates review of private development plans. (p. 30); and
WHEREAS, the effects of implementing the Specific Plan and related general plan amendments
were reviewed in a Negative Declaration which was properly circulated for public review and adopted by
the City Council on December 19, 2000 (See Resolution 226 -00, incorporated herein by reference). In
approving the Negative Declaration, the City determined that adoption and implementation of the Specific
Plan would not have a significant effect on the environment. The City subsequently rezoned the Project
site to PD- Planned Development and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan on June 4, 2002, based
on the prior adopted Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration is available for review in the
Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan was prepared as a self - mitigating plan. Upon adoption of the
Negative Declaration, the City found that the Specific Plan and associated actions would not have a
significant effect on the environment because mitigation was incorporated into the Plan as part of the Plan
implementation (Resolution 226 -00). In this context, the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs
act as mitigations that must be included in subsequent implementing developments, such as the Project.
The Project is consistent with and implements the Specific Plan land uses, policies, standards, guidelines
and programs; and
WHEREAS, the Project is a mixed use residential, small retail, and office project, consistent with
the type, nature, location and extent of development anticipated for the site upon approval of the general
plan amendment, Specific Plan, Specific Plan ND and subsequent PD- rezoning and Stage 1 Development
Plan. The Project includes design level plans to implement these prior legislative approvals; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated November 6, 2003 for the Project consistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 to determine what, if any, additional environmental review might
be required beyond the previously adopted Specific Plan ND. The City determined that no subsequent
EIR was required because there were no substantial changes to the Project or to the circumstances in the
area since the prior environmental reviews that would involve new significant impacts. There was also no
new substantial information since the prior reviews of new significant impacts from the Project; and
WHEREAS, although not required by CEQA based on the Initial Study and CEQA Guidelines
section 15162, the City prepared a draft subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration to examine how the
Specific Plan policies, standards and programs were included in the Project, and thus how prior adopted
mitigation established in the Specific Plan would be implemented. The draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from
November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The City received one comment letter on the Project, from
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo ("Adams Broadwell "), dated December 2, 2003. Although CEQA
does not require written responses to comments on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City prepared
written responses to all the comments in a Responses to Comments matrix dated February 10, 2004 in
order to provide the public and decisionmakers with information on the issues raised by the comments.
The comment letter and responses are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The
comment letter included a substantial amount of background materials, including consultant reports, that
are on file and available for review in the Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, Adams Broadwell submitted a second set of comments on February 20, 2004, well
after the close of the public review and comment period. Although CEQA does not require written
responses to late comments, the City prepared written "Responses to Late Comments on Mitigated
Negative Declaration", dated April 20, 2004. The late comments and the City's written responses are
incorporated herein by reference, and are on file and available for review in the Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, responses to the comments received during the public review period and to the late
comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the
comments and related consultant reports. Where staff disagreed with the comments and consultant
reports, the nature of the disagreement was explained in the responses in the interest of providing full
disclosure of information pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15151; and
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comment letters and written responses pursuant to
the recirculation provisions of CEQA Guidelines section15073.5 and determined that the comments and
responses did not constitute or require substantial revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration;
therefore, no recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was required. The City further
determined that during the negative declaration process, there was no substantial evidence in light of the
whole record that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment and thus that no
subsequent EIR -level review of the document was warranted; and
2
WHEREAS, the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, the December 2, 2003 comment letter and
the February 10, 2004 responses to comments matrix collectively comprise the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated February 24, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project for the Planning Commission;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report, the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and the late comments from Adams Broadwell at a noticed public hearing on February 24,
2004 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Project (Resolution Nos. 04 -08 & 04-
09, incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated April 20, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described
and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration at
a noticed public hearing on April 20, 2004 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be
heard; and
WHEREAS, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan was adopted as a self - mitigating plan which
incorporated mitigation into the Plan; therefore, the City determines that ongoing compliance with the
Specific Plan constitutes the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project pursuant to CEQA section
21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097. Policies, programs and improvements required by the
Specific Plan have been incorporated into the Project and/or made conditions of approval to the Project
thereby avoiding or mitigating significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and other
documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PA 02 -003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings
with respect to the AMB Properties Transit Village Project.
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The Dublin City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to
approving the Project.
C. The prior Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration adequately describe the environmental impacts of the Project. Pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, no subsequent EIR is required for the Project because
there is no substantial evidence of changes to the Project or to area circumstances, or of new
substantial information showing a new significant impact that was not assumed or analyzed in
the prior Negative Declaration.
1. No Substantial Project Changes. There have been no substantial changes to the Project
that were not assumed and analyzed in the previous ND. Changes considered by the
3
Council in the course of the Specific Plan process were incorporated into a revised
Specific Plan ND which was adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000. The
Project is consistent with the mix of uses, density, building heights and other standards
reviewed in the previous Specific Plan ND and approved in the previous general plan
amendment, specific plan, rezoning and development plan actions.
2. No Substantial Change in Circumstances. There have been no substantial changes in
the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that were not assumed and
analyzed in the previous ND. The Specific Plan and its ND planned for change in the
area as uses such as the Project site transition to transit oriented development.
3. No New Substantial Information. There has been no new information of substantial
importance that was not known or could not have been known that shows the Project
will have new significant effects not addressed in the previous ND. Much of the
Specific Plan area, including the Project site, contains existing development, with
existing impacts. The previous ND analyzed the effects of transitioning existing
developed sites to different uses, including effects on air quality, water quality,
hazardous materials, and public services. Furthermore, based on the information
existing in 2002, the City determined that no additional environmental review was
required when it relied on the prior ND for rezoning the Project site. Two comment
letters and related consultant reports (collectively, "comments ") on the MND do not
constitute new information under section 15162 for the following reasons. First, the
comments often rely on information dated prior to the Specific Plan ND, or prior to the
2002 rezoning action based on the ND, and cannot thus be "new information" under
section 15162. Second, the comments often incorrectly assume that the site is vacant
and thus use an inappropriate baseline for measuring the potential for impacts. Third,
the comments also incorrectly assume there has been no previous CEQA review for the
Project. In consequence, the comments incorrectly assert that the fair argument
standard applies to CEQA review of the Project rather than the section 15162 standard
for subsequent environmental review. Fourth, the comments fail to acknowledge or
recognize the information available to the City when it approved the Specific Plan ND
in 2000 and relied on it again in 2002 to approve the Project site rezoning.
D. On the basis of the whole record before it, including the Project plans incorporating Specific
Plan standards and adopted City standards, the prior Negative Declaration, the Project
Mitigated Negative Declaration, background materials, testimony received from the public,
and all other materials in the record, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence
that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.
E. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the
CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
F. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the AMB Properties
Transit Village Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the City Council hereby
adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the AMB Properties Transit Village Project, PA 02 -003,
consisting of attached Exhibits A and B, and adopts a Mitigation Monitoring Program consisting of the
adopted West Dublin BART Specific Plan.
4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED iris 20th diay of April, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: CouncH embers McCormick, Oran etz, S ranti and Zika and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
A i TIE Si:
� Cderk
(`_tem— 6,7)
v WIM12v02v2 -i^3 Lepacy \CC%CC -i eso ioi TvINID DOC
Y� �d
CITY OF UBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin; California 94565 Website: http: / /vvvvw.ci.dublir-.ca.us
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
November 6, 2003
(Prepared pursuant to City of Dublin .
Environmental Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines)
Mitigated Negative Declaration For: PA 02 -003 Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan,
Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review, and Development Agreement
Description of Project: A Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan,
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review and Development
Agreement for a mixed -use Transit Village near the future West Dublin BART
Station on the existing Cor -0 -Van warehouse site, Ultimate development would
include a multi -story structure containing a maximum of 308 multi - family dwellings,
and a separate multi-level 150,000 square foot office building with associated
landscaping, parking and small retail uses.
Project Location: 6700 Golden Gate Drive
Name of Proponents: Legacy Partners
Tom Jodry, Vice President
Acouisitions U Development
4000 cast Third Ave., Suite 600
Foster City , CA 94904
Public Hearings: A public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 (tentative
date;, at 7:00 P.M. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin.
I hereby find that the above project Will not have a significant effect on the environment with the mitigation measures
incorporated in the project. Attached is a copy of the initial Study ( "Environmental Information Form" and "Environmental
Checklist Form ") documenting the reasons to support the above finding,
Dated: November 6, 2003 net Harbin, Sen r Planner
Date Published: November 9, 2003
Date Posted: November 10, 2003
Date Notice Mailed: November 10, 2003
Considered by:
on:
Action on Mitigated Negative Declaration:
Approved Disapproved
Notice of Determination filed:
solution No.
g:lpa o2- 003\WtNeg Dec.
Area Code (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 -6645 • Police 833 -6670
Planning /Code Eniorcement 833 -6610 - Building Inspection 833 -6620 • Fire Prevention Bureau 833 -6606
Printed
6 -2f-7
WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE
LEGACY PARTNERS — AMB PROPERTY
PA 02 -003
Car -Q -Van Site
6700 Golden Gate Dr.
Dublin, CA
ENVIRONMENTAL
INITIAL STUDY
Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan
Tentative Parcel Map
Site Development Review
Development Agreement
PA 02 -003
Lead Agency: City of Dublin
November 6; 2003
7°I
INTRODUCTION
This initial study has been prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential
nvironrnental effects of the proposed Legacy Partners' project in the West Dublin BART Specific
Plan area, The analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), and provide the City with adequate information for project review. This initial
study includes a proiect description, environmental checklist and discussion focused upon issues
identified in the checklist.
in summary, this initial Study concludes that the project will not pose any significant adverse
environmental impacts. Additionally, with the policies and programs included in the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan, the mitigation measures incorporated in the project, and mitigation measures in
the Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review, required to
be implemented with development of the Project, no significant impacts will result. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared and distributed according to the CEQA Guidelines.
The Initial Study was prepared based upon the location of the project; Community
Development and Public Works staff review; field review; comments from City, County, local and
regional agencies; studies prepared by consultants; use of City Planning. Documents; the CEQA Law
and Guidelines; and, City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is a transit- oriented, mixed -use project consisting of a maximum of 308 multi -
famiiv units r"ronting on St. Patrick Way consisting of a tctai of 177.264 square feet with beiow -grade
)arking and stare front retail space on the ground level, and a four -story 150,000 square foot office
uildino with surface parking adiacent to the Interstate 580 freeway corridor. The proposed project is
icca:eci or, arcoroximateiv c,.H acres of band within the West Dublin BART SpacifiC Plan area and ir.
proximity to the future West Dublin BART Station, on property owned by AMB Propert ies. The site is
presently developed and utilized as the Car -Q =Van Moving and Storage warehouse site.
Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Neap, and Site
Development Review, PA 02 -003 to be considered for approval and adoption by the Dubiin Planning
Commission and the Dublin City Council, The development plan for the project site is planned to include
high - density residential housing and office use near a future transit facility located within the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan area. This Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin on December 19, 2000
for the purpose of directing the iand use, circulation, infrastructure and development for 71.40 acres of
land located in the central portion of Dubiin, west of the 1 -680 freeway and north of the 1 -580 freeway, At
build -out over the next five to seven years, the West Dubiin BART Specific Plan area would allow the
development of a range of mixed -uses such as residential, commercial office, retail, employment and
public /quasi - public type uses.
Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the project area in the context of the larger City of Dubiin, and Exhibit 2
depicts the project site in relation to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan.
Project Rezoning & Background
The proposed project involves a rezoning to a Planned Development Zoning District/Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review, and a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the property into
wo separate parcels. With approval of the West Dubiin BART Specific Plan in December 2000, the City
f Dublin approved a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the subject
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners
PA 02 -003
Page 2
November 2003
\V 1\
m
E: I
A
ry -Inll
X
-------- --
N=ILSEN
SCHOOL
. . . .. . .. .
zzp, p:-,
;:t ti
L)L)VVN I UMN
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
-VILLAGE PARKWAY SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
9
DECEMBER 2DO0 I FOR,
LOCAL CONTE>T
WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN CJ T Y 0 F D U B L I N
IC)aa �Js
property to Retail /Office for a portion of the site lying-adjacent to the 1 -580 and Mixed Use (a
combination of High Density Residential and Retail or Office development) for the larger portion of the
site, to accommodate small commercial /retail businesses and multi - family housing. At that time, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan and the General Plan Amendment were also
approved which analyzed and evaluated the land use mix proposed in the Plan, including that proposed
in the area of the West Dublin Transit Village by Legacy Partners. Subsequent to that, the City rezoned
the three Downtown Specific Plan areas to Planned Development (PD) zoning district and Stage 1
Development Plan, which requires approval of a Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2
Development Plan prior to actual development of any property. The Stage 2 Development Plan is more
specific to the site than a Stage 1 Development Plan in that it presents the ultimate development and
design layout, infrastructure and improvements for the property.
Tentative Parcel Map & Site Deveiopmenf Review
The applicant has submitted an application for a Tentative Parcel Map to divide the 9.06 acre property
into two (2) parcels to create separate building lots for the residential use and for the office use within
the area encompassed by the proposed Planned Development Zoning District. This would provide a
separate parcel for the each of the planned land uses.
It is anticipated that the residential property will be developed first and the office building would be the
second phase of the site development. The properties may be developed by separate entities in the
future. Grading activities would occur within the project area to accommodate planned land uses, roads
and utilities. A preliminary grading plan has been submitted as part of this application. Water, sewer and
recycled water services would be provided to the site by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) in
accord with DSRSD's Water Supply and Wastewater Collection System Master Plans. At the present
time, it is anticipated that water service for the project would be,provided by Zone 7 of the Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation_District. Water service is available to the surrounding
properties and would be extended to serve this site; however. a new water service fine*may be required
pricr to the ex—Tension of service to accommodate the intensity of the proposed development or, this sit=;
and others in the surrounding area to be built -Out within the near future.
Sewer service for the project would be accommodated through connection to the existing sewer system
owned and maintained by the Dublin. San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which has existing lines in
the vicinity of the site and adequate capacity to service the planned development. When and where
available, recycled water from DSRSD would be used for irrigation purposes, reducing the need for
potable water.
The storm drain system for the development will be connected to the existing system of drainage
facilities owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation System. This system consists of underground pipes, box culverts and open channels that
flow southerly adjacent to 1 -580. From there, stormwater runoff will be 'transported south into Alameda
County Flood Control District facilities.
City of Dublin Pace 3
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
RA 02 -003
-� of .Dv
8 2�
CiTY OF DUBLIN
Environmental Checkfistl
Initial Study
Introduction
iIV Vb 7- 1t
This initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential. environmental impacts of implementing the proposed
project described below. The initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief
explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist.
Applicant/Contact Person
Torn Joary, Vice President
couisitions & Deveicoment
aa-_V "ar?ner=
�+0 0 U" E S' 1 nirU'L"V , juite 60�
;=osier City, CA, 944044810
Project Location and Context
The proposed project is located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive on approximately 9.04 acres of land within
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area and in proximity to the future West Dublin BART Station, on
property owned by AMB Properties. The site is presently developed and utilized as the Cor -D -Van
Moving and Storage warehouse site and adjacent to a property owned by BART and planned for
residential and commercial use,
Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the project area in context of the larger City of Dublin, and Exhibit 2
depicts the project site in relation to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan.
The project site is located within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. This Specific Plan was
adopted by the City of Dublin on December 19, 2000 for the purpose of directing the land use,
circulation, infrastructure and development for 71.40 acres of land located in the central portion of
Dublin, west of the 1 -680 freeway and north of the 1 -680 freeway. At build -out over the next five to seven
years, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area would allow the development of a range of residential,
commercial office, retail, employment and public /quasi- public uses.
City of Dublin Page 4
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
0
rn
a
MR
m
-------------------------
GOLDEN GATE DRIVE
-''- 907
I �� � i� i T t
I fig'
t � Lit '`�L' i -� , J Q
it
Z
4, 44, 1 i
x
ww
ti
pEi
Ey
..............
1111p. Kill 1111111111 ypq 11
j lilt
7
ww
ti
pEi
Ey
1A
yu!
M,
V I
9
P lit Fip
Kip i Rt. f,
.,,a Ell- T -- -----------
Eli
�j 4 ry � MY'Ll 015
II
-p Hip
N.-
�1 K!
IJ
P.
Go E!!
k�-
I 7i
t
VEITINC TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8069
OF THE KIER & WRIChT
OUBUN TRANSIT VfLLAGE ML
FOR =—Z
AMB COMPANY CAU,."
Ern
1111p. Kill 1111111111 ypq 11
j lilt
7
1A
yu!
M,
V I
9
P lit Fip
Kip i Rt. f,
.,,a Ell- T -- -----------
Eli
�j 4 ry � MY'Ll 015
II
-p Hip
N.-
�1 K!
IJ
P.
Go E!!
k�-
I 7i
t
VEITINC TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8069
OF THE KIER & WRIChT
OUBUN TRANSIT VfLLAGE ML
FOR =—Z
AMB COMPANY CAU,."
Ern
! i ut) I j
t
Land Use Development Plan
The overall land use development plan is oriented toward creating a Transit Village providing an
integration of transportation services, employment opportunities, services and housing within a section
of downtown Dublin-that is both visible and accessible from the freeways and in close proximity to the
future BART station. The preliminary development plan for the Planned Development Zoning
District/Stage 2 rezoning indicates that the project sponsor proposes a maximum number of 3D8 multi-
family dwelling units (apartments) on 7.11 acres of the 9.06 acre property, with a density of
approximately 45 dwelling units per acre. A 150',000 square foot office building is proposed on
approximately 1.95 acres of the property immediately east of the residential development and adjacent
to the freeway. Parking for the development would be provided in surface lots and two levels under the
residential buildings. Pedestrian walkways and landscaping would be provided with the plan.
Grading activities would occur within the project area to accommodate planned land uses, roads and
utilities. A preliminary grading plan has been submitted as part of this application. Water, sewer and
recycled water services would be provided to the site by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) in
accord with DSRSD's Water Supply and Wastewater Collection System Master Plans. At the present
time, it is anticipated that water service for the project would be provided by Zone 7 of the Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Water service is available to the surrounding
properties and would be extended to serve this site.
Sewer service for the project would be accommodated through new connection to the existing sewer
system owned and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which has existing
lines in the vicinity of the site and adequate capacity to service the planned development. When and
where available, recycled water from DSRSD would be used for irrigation purposes, reducing the need
for ootabie water.
Tne storm drain syster n Tor the development will be provided with a new connection to the existing
system of drainage facilities owned and maintained by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation System, This system consists of underground pipes, box culverts and open
channels that flow southerly adjacent to 1 -580. From there, stormwater runoff will be transported south
into Alameda County Flood Control District facilities.
Exhibit 3 depicts the Proposed Planned Development Rezoning & Development Plan. Exhibit 4 shows
the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the project,
1. Project title: PA 02 -003 Legacy Partners /AMB — West Dublin Transit Village
Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan,
Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review, and Development
Agreement,
2. Project description: Proposed Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning & Stage 2
Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site
Development Review and Development Agreement for a mixed -use
Transit Village near the future West Dublin BART Station. Ultimate
development would include a multi -story apartment complex
containing a maximum of 308 multi family dwellings, and a multi-
story 150,000 square -foot office building, with associated
landscaping, parking and small retail uses.
City of Dublin Page 5
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
PFD. 02 -003
3. Lead agency: City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
Contact person: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
(925) 833 -6610
5. Protect location: 6700 Golden Gate Drive (generally located on Golden Gate Drive,
between St. Patrick Way and Interstate 580).
6. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 941 - 1500 -046 & 941- 1500 -035
7. Project sponsor:
S. General Plan designations
9. Zoning:
10. Specific Plan designations
11. Surrounding land uses:
Legacy Partners
Tom Jodry, Vice President
4000 East Third Ave., Suite 600
Foster City, CA 94404 -4810
Retail /Office and High Density Residential
PD Planned District (Stage 1 Development Plan)
(R) Residential & (0) Office
The project is adjacent to the future residential, commercial, and
West Dublin BART Station with an associated parking garage,
designated Residential, Commercial, and Pubiic /Semi- Public
=acimy on the General Plan. North and west of the site are
retailicommerciai and office buiidinas, which are designated for
Retail /Office use on the General Pian. Adjacent io the southern
property boundary is the interstate 580 freeway corridor.
12. Other public agency required approvals:
Final Maps (City of Dublin)
Grading and Building permits (City of Dublin)
Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
Encroachment permits (City of Dublin')
Notice of intent (State Water Resources Control Board)
City of Dublin Page 6
W_ Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
Environmental. Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
-
Aesthetics
-
Agricultural Resources
-
Air Quality
-
Biological Resources
-
Cultural Resources
-
Geology /Soils
-
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
-
Hydrology /Water Quality
-
Land Use/ Planning
-
Mineral Resources
X
Noise
-
Population /Housing
-
Public Services
-
Recreation
X
Transportation/
Circulation
X
(Utilities /Service
Svstems
-
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
1 find that the propesed oroiect could not have a significant effect on the environment and the previous
Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately address potential impacts and
mitigate E ,, imcucts tc a iess -than- significant iev-
X 1 find that although the proposed projecf could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
incorporated into the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared.
— I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis, as described on the attached sheets. if the effect is a
"potentially significant impact" or'potentially significant unless mitigated," and Environmental Impact Report is
required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
_ i find that although the proposed proiect 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,
Signatures �� ---_
i
i
Printer, Name: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village— Legacy Partners
PA 02 -003
Date: November 6, 2003
For: Citv of Dublin, Community Develoament Deot•
t-age i
November 2003
Environmental impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See fisting of sources used to
,ietermine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found following
the checklist,
1. Aesfih�=ic. laid f>'�e ;projex f
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista? (Source. 1,2,3,4)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 2,3,4,5)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 1,2,3,4,5)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Source: 1.2.3,4.5)
IL Agricultural Resources. W'outd the praject;
a? Convey' grime armiand Unioue Farmland c,
:armiand of Statewide impar ance, as showing
an the maos orei)ared cursuan to the = armianc
lviappina and Monitoring Program of 'the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 2,4,5)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or
a Williamson Act contract? (Source. 2;4,5)
c) involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of farmland to a non - agricultural
use? (Source: 2,4,5)
III. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinations). ftuld tine projedt:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 3,4,5,6)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? (Source: 3;4,5,6)
City of Dublin
VV. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners
PA c2 -003
Potentially
Significant
impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
XI
i
I
I i
X
X
_
X
X
Page 8
November 2003
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non - attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
(Source: 3,4,5)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Source: 3,4,5)
e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 3,4,5)
IV. Bidlpgical-Resouraes.. fi/tlo ].d ,the project;
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2.3.4.5,7)
b) Have a Substantial adverse eff°Ct On any riparian
iiabltc Or otne, sensitive natural cOmmunitV
identifier in iocai cr, reaionai pians, policies or
regulations Or Dy the Cahfornia Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2,3,4,7)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water /pct (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other
means? (Source: 2,3,4,7)
d) interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use Of
native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2,3,4,5,7)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2,3,4)
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Viliage — Legacy Partners
PA 02 -003
�r
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X'
X
I
i
X
I
X
X
Page 9
November 2003
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 2,3,4)
V Cultural .Rasburces. Would-1he, prajedt:
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Sec: 15004.5? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5),
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,3,4,5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source:
2,3,4,5)
Vi, Geoiogy and Solis. Would the.prgject:
a'; "nose ReOD!e or structures to potential
,substantial adverse effects, including the risk o`
ics_:� ; iniur�.. cr death invowinh,
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the mast recent Aiquist -Paolo Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or
based on other known evidence of a known fault
(Source: 1,2,3,4)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including
fiauefaction?
iv) Landslides?
City of Dublin
VV. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners
PA 02 -003
__F
x
v
X
x
I W
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 10
November 2003
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 1,2,3,4)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on-
and off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
13 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 1,2,3,4)
e) Have sciis capable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste? (Source: 2,3,4)
Vll, Hazards -and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal cf hazardous materials
sSourcv,
b, Crean a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous into the environment?
(Source: 2,3;4,5)
c} Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Source: 2,3,4,5)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Sec, 659615 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
OF the environment? (Source: 3,4,5)
A)
For a pro iect located within an airport land use
plan or, where such plan has not been adopted,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 2.3,4,5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
II
j
i
I I
I
i
X
X
X
{
X
City of Dublin Page 11
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
i1
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 2,3,4,5)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2,3,4.5)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
doss, injury or death involving wildiand fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 2,3,4,5,6,7)
Vlii. .ydroio:gy and W6ter';Quaiity Would the praiect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source 3,4,5)
b1l Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that "there would be a net deficit in aquife7
voium cr a iovVenno of the iocai ground wate
table ievel (e.g. the production rate or existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted? (Source:
3,4,5)
C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the aeration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off -site? (Source: 3,4,5,7)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration
of a course or stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off -
site? (Source; 2,3,4,5,7)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 3A,55)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
l
I
X
X
X
I
i
City of Dublin Page 12
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003 -
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source. 3,4,5)
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area
as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 3,4,5,6,7)
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures which impede or redirect flood flows?
(Source: 23,4,5,6,7)
i) Expose peopie or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (2,3,4,5,6)
j) inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudfiow?
(2,3,4,5)
IX. Land Use_:and'Planhing, Would the project;
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1.2,3,4.5,7)
b) Conflict with any appiicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with iurisdiction over
the orgiect ( inciuding but not iimited to the
general D'Ok, specific plan, or zoning ordinance;
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect? (Source; 1,2)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(Source: 1,2,3,4,5)
X.. Mi nor aliRssources :l o.uld#he.p.f ject
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5)
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners
PA 02 -003
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation
Less than
Significant
impact
No
Impact
x
X
X
X
I
I
X
X i
i
X
X
X
i
Page 13
November 2003
41
..'Noise. Would fhe proposal result:in
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? (Source: 2.3,4,5)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing levels
without the project? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels without the project? (Source: 2,3,4,5)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working n the project area to
excessive noise ieveis? ( Scurce: 23,4,5)
f) For a pmlieC wlthih the vicinity ot G private airstrip,
would the prolecl expose people residing Or
wori,dna Iii the pr0!e3 area io excessive, noi.:
ieveis? (Source:
Xli. Popdiation and Housing. -Would the project:
a) induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
(Source: 1,3,4,5,7)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,7)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 1,2)
j- —0:a t t
Potentially
Significant
impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less than
.Significant
impact
No
Impact
X
77-
X
X
I
X
I
X
i
X
X
City of Dublin Page 14
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2D03
PA 02 -003
Atli Pu`bitc Ser�;«ea. would the roposal
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: 2,3,4,5,6)
Fire protection?
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
b) Does the .project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 1,2,3,4,5,7)
XV. Transportation and Traffic., ttiould the proinc '
a1 Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation t0 the existin trafftc bad and capacity o-'
the street system (i.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number 07 vehicie trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7)
b) exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the County
Congestion Management Agency for designated
roads or highways? (Source: 2,3,4,5,6)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(Source: 2,3,4,5,7)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g, sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (Source: 2,3,4,5,6)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source:
1,23;4,5,6)
fj Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source:
1,2,3,4,5)
City of Dublin
\A/. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners
PA 02 -003
V;
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
X
a
Page 15
November 2003
X L U.ffitfies Arrd:.S.erv,iee S.Ystsms, Wo.rfld Me ;prDje.of
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (Source: 2.3,4,5,6)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects? (Source:
1,2,3,4,556)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (Source:
1,2,3,4,5,6)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,6)
e) Pesult In a determination by the wastewate"
treatment Dfovioe" whi n serves Qr may serve the
prQlc';.+ that li. as aG1e(7uate capacity t ^. S °r:'e the
projects protected demand in addition io the
providers existing commitments? (Source;
1.2,3;4,5,6)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (1,2,3,4,5,6)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (Source:
3,4,5,6,7)
City of Dublin
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners
PA 02 -003
Potentially
Significant
impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
I
i
I
�
X
I
I
X
X
Page 16
November 2003
XvE anoafory Finings of Significance.
a) Does the .project have the, potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number of or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects
and the effects o7 probable future oroiects).
C) Does the project nave environmental effects which
wl' cause subsiantlal asverSe e,re-cts on numar:
beings, either directly or indirectly?
M.�
Potentially
Significant
impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
impact
X
X
i
� I
I
n
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts_
1. West Dublin BART Specific Plan (December 2000)
2, General Plan /General Plan EIR (1994 & Updated in 2003)
3. Dublin /Pleasanton BART Extension Project EIR prepared by BART (February 1990)
4, West Dublin / Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project Supplemental EIR (March 2000)
5, Previous Initial Study /Negative Declaration prepared for the Downtown Specific Plans (August 2000, revised
December 2000)
6. Discussion /correspondence with City of Dublin staff or affected special districts
7. Other source (Development Plan, Field observations, Record Search, etc.)
XVli. Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d)
a) Eariier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review
City of Dublin
W. Dubiin i ransit Village — Legacy Partners
PA 02 -003
Page 17
November 2003
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this initial Study refer to
environmental information and mitigation measures contained in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the
Negative Declaration approved on December 19, 2000 by the Dublin City Council. Additionally, portions of the
,nvironmentai setting, pro iect impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental
ifomnation and mitigation measures contained in the Supplemental Environmental impact Report for the West
Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station, and certified in April 2002, to be built in close proximity to the site.
In order to satisfy the City's responsibilities as responsible agency under CEQA, staff prepared this initial study for
the project that analyzed the potential impacts of this specific project. This initial study has determined that the
potentially significant effects of the project are adequately addressed in the recent project revisions and the
mitigation measures incorporated in the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and the Site
Development Review. Specific mitigation measures are noted in the text of the following Initial Study.
Copies of document referenced here are available for public review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, 100
Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business. hours.
City of Dublin Page 18
W. Dubiin transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
Attachment to initial Study for the West Dublin Transit Vil.iage, Legacy Partners
(PA -02 -003)
Discussion of Environmental Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Protect Impacts and Mitigation. Measures
a -d) Significant impact on scenic vista, damage to scenic resource, degrades visual character of the site or
create light or giare? Construction of the proposed project would change the character of the area from
developed property with a warehouse /storage use within a predominantly.ijght industrial area to an
urbanized area with office and residential development. A substantial amount of landscaping and pedestrian-
oriented open spaces (approximately 32% of the site) would be included in the project However, this site
area is contained in the downtown urbanized portion of the City, and the introduction of the BART Transit
Village development would entail construction of a multi -story hotel (eight stories), a residential complex
(four to five stories) and associated parking, and a parking structure (five to six stories) for the station on
land that is currently undeveloped. Aesthetic impacts of constructing the project were addressed in both the
West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EiR and the Initial Study /Negative
Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. However, this development should not obstruct views
of surrounding hillsides and would be consistent with the commercial character of the area.
As this is a less - than - significant effect, no mitigation measures are necessary. However, the design of the
project must be consistem wit- the Design Guideiines incorporated in the VVest Dublin BART Specific Pian,
as a wel- oesigneG iransi village would be an aestnetic asset to the Dublin downtown, The proposed piaze
aGiacent iU the hotel an-.; smiioi;, and the many pedestrian walkways anq sIreeisCape ieatureS of the T r ansji
Viijage will further enhance the appearance and overall design of the project. As the adiacent 1-580 corridor
is designated a Scenic Highway in the Dublin General Plan, the project must follow the City's guldjng policy
related to implementing a physical design that enhances p positive image of Dublin as seen by travelers on
the highway. Staff review and evaluation of the design of the structures and the pedestrian connections
have been performed with the assistance of an architect, and the project design is consistent with the City's
policies related to design and should create a quality physical and structural environment.
El. Agricultural Resources
Project impacts and Mitioation Measures
a -c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a non - agricultural use?
The site has not been used for agricultural purposes in the past or present, and no Williamson Act Land
Conservation Agreement exists on the project site. it is located in an urbanized portion of the City, completely
isolated from other agricultural resources within the region. Additionally, the site is not located on Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide importance as identified by the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, The potential for impacts related to agricultural
resources has been adequately assessed in previous environmental documents, Therefore, no adverse
impacts to agricultural resources would result from the project and no additional mitigation measures are
required.
City of Dublin Page 19
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
Ell. Air Quality
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? The proposed project would not
conflict with the focal Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, since the
proposed number of dwelling units have been included in Dublin's planned growth as part of the West Dublin
BART Specific Plan and are permitted under the City's General-Plan, Additionally, the proposed land uses are
consistent with the ABAG growth projections for the City of Dublin. As a result, development of the proposed
project would not conflict with the projections contained in the Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, such
impacts would be less -than- significant.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? Short -term construction impacts related to implementation
of the project, including grading and excavation, could result in exceedance of air quality standards
established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Adherence to mitigation measures listed in the
Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the project will reduce short -term air quality
impacts to a less- than - significant level. These measures minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading
and construction activities and also mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running order,
Potential air quality impacts related to construction will be mitigated to a less- than - significant impact with these
measures.
Similarly, potential air quality impacts related to vehicular traffic emissions on roadways of Reactive Organic
Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide, both precursor indicators of smog, and stationary source emissions would not
exceed regional air quality standards or thresholds, Additionally, approval of the proposed project would
faCllltaIe the Ceyel00ment Of hOUSIn units CIOse to the ap rOVed West Dublin /Pieasanton BART Station, which
would substantially reduce auiomobiie travel on the IOcai and regional roadways by, providing a tr, anspertation
alter i ative tOr COmmUTerZ. I n reSUl? WDUiu� be ? net reduction in reaiona emissionS. I he; efore, this impa0
would be considered iess- than- signrr"icant.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? Generally such impacts are based on
vehicular emission from future traffic within the sub - region as well as stationary sources. As discussed in ll.b,
above, approval of the project would allow development of housing, office and commercial land uses near a
major transit facility (BART) with pedestrian access directly to the station and retail /office uses nearby. The
result would be a net reduction in cumulative regional emissions, Therefore, this impact would-be considered
less- than - significant.
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create obiectionable odors? The land uses
proposed for the site include residential and commercial /office land uses, As the development of the BART
transit facility and housing units in the vicinity of the station would actually reduce cumulative regional
emissions and reduce the number of vehicles on the area roadways, the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors. No impact will occur and no
further analysis is-necessary,
in sum, air quality impacts associated with the project area have been addressed in previous environmental
documents, including the West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village EIR and the Negative
Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area. The proposed development of the West Dublin
Transit Village is consistent with previous actions approved by the City of Dublin and no additional mitigation
measures are required.
City of Dublin Page 20
Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
36 �-1
r
iV. Biological Resources
Project lmoacts and Mitiaation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on special - status species riparian features, movement of fish or wildlife
species or conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan? Potential impacts to rare, threatened or endangered
species have been addressed in the West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental
EiR and Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area for the project area as well as in
the original EIR for the BART extension project. The development of the project site would result in the loss of
only a few acres of grassland habitat surrounding the existing warehouse building and truck parking areas. All
biological habitat was assumed to be removed from the vicinity in the original EIR for the BART extension
project, and no increase in biological resources on the site bas occurred, Because of the geographic location
of the site between the 1 -580 freeway corridor and light industrial /commercial development, it is highly unlikely
that any special status species would locate on the site or use the site as mitigation or movement corridor.
Additionally, a recent review of the California Department of Fish and Game's CNDDB conducted in February
2000, and a site reconnaissance survey on March 1.6, 2000, confirmed that the biological resources existing
on the site have not significantly changed since the site was originally developed for a industrial warehouse -
type use. Dublin Creek, which was once located adjacent to the alignment of the 1 -580 freeway, is completely
channelized in a concrete -lined channel. The concrete -lined channel does not provide habitat for any potential
rare, threatened or endangered species. Therefore, any potenfial biological impacts of the project have been
addressed, and no biological impacts would result from the development of the project, No mitigation
measures are required.
Cultural r esourrer�
Proiect impacts and Mitiaation Measures
a -d) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic, archeological or paleontoiogical resources or human
remains? The Cultural Resources Technical Report for the DPX Project (Woodward -Clyde Consulting, 1989)
and the Archaelogical Survey Report for the Proposed Reconstruction of the 1- 580 11-680 Interchange (Kelley,
11 989) identified no known historic or cultural resources for the project area. Additionally, the site has been
fully developed and improved for a warehouse use with underground utilities and municipal services,
However, disturbance of unknown cultural resources, including disruption or destruction of subsurface
.prehistoric resources, and disruption to historic resources, may occur with the removal of vegetation and
surface soils through development related excavation and grading activities, To reduce the potential
degradation of unidentified cultural resources on the site, mitigation measures have been included in the
Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and incorporated into the project to reduce
impacts to cultural resources to a level of less- than - significance. These mitigation measures are those
required by the CEQA Guidelines in the event that cultural, prehistoric or historic resource is discovered during
site development or ground disturbance, Therefore; cultural resources impacts associated with the
development of the project have been addressed in previous environmental documents and by the Conditions
of Approval for the project, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
V1, Geology and Solis
City of Dublin Page 21
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
3It-
at
Proiect Impacts and. Mitigation Measures'
-a -e) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to
ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslide, substantial erosion, unstable soils -.or
liquefaction? The West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station and Transit'Village EiR and the original EiR for the
BART extension project identify several potential impacts to soils and geology, including earthquake, ground
shaking, and ground rupture. The site is relatively flat and contains no areas of slope, and no impacts related
to landslides and erosion have been identified.
Mitigation measures such as final subsurface investigations, and appropriate structural and foundation: design
incorporated into :the final engineered design will reduce soils and geologic impacts to a level of less -than
significance. Soils and geologic impacts associated with the project site have been addressed -in previous
Geotechnical and soil investigation documents prepared by the Applicant's consultant and reviewed by the
City. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan and environmental
documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
Vil. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Proiect impacts and Mitiaation Measures
a -g) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission of hazardous
materials, listed as .a hazardous materials site, interference with an emergency evacuation plan, subject to
wiidiand fires, or located near a public or private airstrip? No hazards related to transport of hazardous
materials should occur with the development of the project as the transit village will serve only the residential
housing and an office building, which are not associated with the transport or use of hazardous material::. The
site of the proposed development contains an underground storace tank proposed for closure. A Phase 1 Site
ssessmer;t ti "vas perrorm° G the site tGr the prGleGt b\ versa "In:. in order to determine the extent Gt sGi
and groundwater contamination on the site, if any, from an existing 0,500 gallon gasoline tank and a 10,000 -
gaiion diesel tank used for trucks in con iunction with the storage and moving warehouse use. The
environmental documents recommend no further field sampling prior to commencement of construction
activities as no contaminants of a measure level were found in the Groundwater or soil,
Since the project contains two primary access points, there would be no interference with an emergency
access plan. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires, and lies outside the referral area for the
Livermore Municipal Airport. The proposed project is consistent with previous actions and environmental
documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and no additional mitigation measures are required.
Vill. Hydrology and Water Quality
Proiect Impacts and Mitiaation
a -i) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, deplete groundwater resources, .after
drainage patterns, effect surface or subsurface water quality, result in placing housing in a flood plain? Water
and hydrologic impacts of development of the project have been addressed in the hydrological report for the
project, Impacts reviewed included potential flooding, loss of groundwater recharge area, and potential
increases in surface water quaiity pollution. Since the proposed project will develop within the same
approximate area as the adiacent site assessed in the original EIR for the BART extension project, and
construct stormwater drainage facilities and connections on the site connecting to larger drain pipes with a
City of Dublin Page 22
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
greater:capacity within the right -of -way for St. Patrick Way in accordance with the recommendations of the
hydrological report, no new significant stormwater drainage impacts are anticipated, Additionally, the
Appiicant/Developer will be coordinating with the. adjacent site developer for the BART property to insure that
all stormwater and.drainage facilities constructed in the area contain sufficient capacity to service the projected
development of both of the sites and St, Patrick Way.
Construction activities and operational site uses associated with the,project could result in degradation of
water quality in nearby surface water and reservoirs by reducing the.quality of stormwater runoff. A Notice of
Intent (N01) must be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board'(RWQCB) and a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP.) will be developed and implemented for the site, in accordance with the mitigation
measures discussed in the Supplemental EIR. The measures incorporated into the project and discussed in
this section will reduce potential impacts to water and water quality to a level of less - than - significant,
IX. Land Use-and Planning
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation
a) Physically divide an established community? The pro iect is vacant and has been planned for similar uses
associated with a BART Station since the original adoption of the Dublin General Plan in 1990, The adoption
of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and related General Plan Amendment to change the land use
designation on the subject property to Retail /Office for 3.7+ acres and High Density Residential (30 to 50
dwelling units per acre) for 3.5+ acres, to accommodate the future use of the land for a commercial type use
and multi - family housing. At that time, a Negative Declaration for the Specific Plan and the General Plan
Amendment were also approved which analvzed and evaluated the land use mix proposed in the Plan,
including that proposed in the area of the future West Dublin BART Transit Village proposed by Jones Lang
LaSalie Proiect and Development Management, Surrounding uses pianned for the area under the Specific
F an arc mixed use icombmation Of residential and retailicommerciai or office uses) and retailicommerciai and
Office type uses. Adiacent 10 the SOUtnern property boundary is the i -580 freeway corridoi, i nereTOre, there
would be no disruption of any established community.
Id) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? The proposed project would be consistent with
goals and policies contained in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan, and with the
projected land uses and land use designations of the Specific Plan as discussed in IKa above, This project
consists of a rezoning to implement the existing general plan designations on the 9.75+ acre site. No impacts
are therefore anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required,
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No such plan has been
adopted within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, in which the West Dublin Transit Village project is
located. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan for the proposed project.
X. Mineral Resources
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? The site is not located in
an area :of aggregate resources. The West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental
City of Dublin Page 23
W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
EIR and the original EIR for the BART extension project do not indicate that significant deposits of minerals
exist in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no impacts would occur,
"I. Noise
Proiect ImDactS and Mitiaation
a -f) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the
General Plan or other applicable standard, expose people to groundbome vibration, result in permanent
increases in ambient noise levels? The West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Supplemental EiR addressed potential noise impacts of implementing the proposed the project on the
adjacent site; Noise related impacts identified in the that EIR included exposure of future residents in the
residential portion of the development and occupants of the hotel to increased levels of noise due to the
proximity of the 1 -580 freeway corridor, and exposure of residents and occupants to construction noise from
the BART Station and parking structure on the project site. The extension of St. Patrick Way would also
contribute to ambient noise levels, but not to a significant level.
Additionally, Legacy Partners submitted an acoustical analysis, prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates,
specifically for the Cor -O -Van site with their project application that also identified the 1 -580 freeway corridor as
the main source of noise emissions, Although the residential portion of the project will be somewhat shielded
from the noise generated by the freeway, the acoustical analysis recommends several mitigation measures
related to'building construction and installation of sound -rated windows to reduce the noise impacts to a less -
than - significant level, The foliowina mitigation measures incorporated in the design of the project will mitigate
noise impacts to a level of iess -than- significant
incoroorate sound -rated windows and exterior walls in tne,residential units to reduce indoor, levels to 45 dE
r.
as required by the City and eats
E Provide an alternate means of ventilation for the units, such as active supply air systems or passive
sound -line transfer data, to allow residents to Keep windows closed but still have ventilation
Configure the buildings to provide at least a. 13 dB noise reduction with outdoor areas contained within the
"core" of the complex
incorporate sound -rated windows and exterior wails in the office building to reduce indoor levels to 70 dB
as required by the City and State
Provide an alternate means of ventilation for the office units, such as active supply air systems or passive
sound -fine transfer data, to allow occupants to keep windows closed but still have ventilation.
a All construction vehicles or noise generating equipment should not be left idling while not in use, should be
fitted with noise muffling devises, and used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions,
0 Stationary noise - generating construction should be located away from occupied residential units.
Adherence to site-specific mitigation measures contained in the acoustical analysis and those discussed
above will reduce noise impacts to a less -than- significant level
kil. Population and Housing
Proiect impacts and Mitiaation
City of Dublin Wage 24
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
14� _E y v.
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? Approval of the proposed Weat
Dublin Transit Village rezoning is substantially consistent with the existing, approved West Dublin BART
Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan for the site. The project would add an additional 304 -308 multi-
family housing units to the City's housing unit stock, and introduce residential development to an area of
predominantly retailicommercial and industrial development. However, this is consistent with the intent and
land use designations in the Specific Plan and the General Plan, and is considered an appropriate land use
given the location of the future West Dublin BART Station and the regional need to develop housing in
proximity to transit facilities. The planned development also includes up to 23 units of affordable inclusionary
Housing to meet the goals and policies of the Dublin City Council and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,
and would contribute in -lieu fees to meet the remainder of the AppiicantlDevelopers obligation for inclusionary
housing, The office use would also in consistent witht the land use designation of the property, and will provide
employment opportunities for many persons already residing in Dublin. No impacts are therefore anticipated,
and no mitigation measures are required,
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? The site is currently used
as a storage and moving warehouse business, and no housing exists on the site, Implementation of the
proposed project would, therefore, displace neither housing units nor people, but would beneficially increase
the opportunities for people to live in the downtown area and close to transit facilities.
X111. Public Services
Proiect impacts and Mitigation
a -e) Potential impacts related to; fire protection, police protection, schools, maintenance, or solid waste
generation? The deveiopmert of the West Dublin Transit Viiiace will result in a slight increased demand for
polic—& and fire service, police service acceSS!DHIT';'. Tire resDOnSe to the proiect area, minor financial Impacts tD
local school districts, it icreaSed solid waste generation, and impacts to solid waste facilities, bui not M c
substantial o,- signifcani ieve';. Tine L,ppiicant DeveiopeF will L'e required tc pay Fire impact Fees and othe"
fees related to the expansion of municipal and public utility Services at the time of building permit issuance to
cover any increased cost to these services created by the development. The fees are intended to offset fire
protection service costs incurred as a result of project implementation. Additionally, school and park impact
fees will be required to cover any additional service costs. Adherence to these mitigation measures will reduce
public service impacts to a less -than- significant level.
Potential public service impacts associated with the Transit Village proiect were also addressed in the
previously approved Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The proposed rezoning of
the site is consistent with previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin
and no additional mitigation measures are required,
XIV, Recreation
Proiect Imoacts and Mitigation
a: b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or require the construction of
new recreational facilities? Parks and recreation impacts of the project have been addressed during review of
the project by the Parks and Recreation Department. A slight increased demand for park facilities Is anticipated
with the Transit Village project; however, it is not expected that future residents of the pro iect would utilize the
park facilities in the City such that substantial deterioration of the facilities would occur, in accordance with City
of Dublin regulations and policies, the project sponsor will be required to pay park impact fees to cover any
City of Dublin Page 25
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
a jt�, IF a
potential additional service costs related to the development. Additionally, a substantial amount of the internal
area of the building and the courtyards have been designed for passive recreational use and relaxation by
residents. The plaza and outdoor area between the residential development and the office building has been
designed by the Applicant's architect to incorporate places for pedestrians and leisurely activities. Additionally,
grassy areas and landscaped areas around the office building were designed with the intent to provide
ouotdoor areas for workers to enjoy at their leisure,
Potential parks and recreation impacts associated with the project have, therefore, been addressed by the
project or sufficient fees will be paid to provide these facilities within the City for the residents, and no impact
related to recreational services would result, The proposed rezoning and subdivision of the site is consistent
with previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and no mitigation
measures are required,
XV. Transportation /Traffic
Project Impacts and Mitigation
a -g) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity, exceed LOS
standards for CMA roadways, change of air traffic patterns, increase traffic safety hazard, provide for
inadequate emergency vehicle access, inadequate parking, provide hazard or barrier to alternative
transportation modes? Traffio and transportation impacts associated with the approval and implementation of
the West Dublin BART Station and Transit Village project have been addressed in the West Dublin / Pleasanton
BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR, and the Negative Declaration approved by the City of
Dublin for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, Specific impacts identified in the SuIppiemental EiR included
impacts resulting from cumulative traffic growth in the region, to which the proposed project would contribute.
I the Existing Plus Approved, Protects Pius Protect Plus General Plan Buiidout Scenario; the project would
contribute to the unacceptable oDer atlon o the inIersections 01; DUDIIi Douievardi'oi0en Gate Drive, Duoi'r
Bouievard /Amador Plaza Road, Dublin Boulevard /Doughtery Road, St Patric'!l Way /Golden Gate Drive, and
San Ramon Road /1 -580 interchange. Additionally, cumulative traffic growth in the region with the project would
contribute to traffic volumes on roadway segments of Amador Plaza Road south -of Dublin Boulevard and
Golden Gate Drive exceeding their capacity,
A project - specific traffic impact analysis was prepared to analyze the impacts of the change in land use with
the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and General Plan amendment action (Omni- Means, 2000). The Omni -
Means report concluded that all traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed Specific Plan, which included
implementation of the land uses. proposed with this project, could be reduced to less- than - significant levels
after a number of roadway improvements are completed in the vicinity of the project. The Applicant/Deveioper
will be responsible for paying. fees related to a portion of the cost of the extension of St. Patrick Way from
Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street, and also dedicate land for the alignment of the roadway. Those
improvements specifically relating to the development of the Transit Village project have been made conditions
of the rezoning and parcel map approval, and will be addressed in the Development Agreement between the
ApplicantlDeveloper and the City, currently being prepared.
In sum, potential 'traffic and transportation impacts associated with the project are being addressed based on
previous environmental documents,_including the West. Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village
Supplemental EIR, and the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the projected
long -'term traffic needs and 'improvements for the area. The proposed rezoning and parcelization is consistent
City of Dublin page 26
W, Dublin Transit Village — Legacy partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
Z;)p 4.4V0 C 6 I
with previous actions and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and with the mitigation
measures incorporated into the project, the resulting impacts will be less- than - significant..
M. Utilities and Service Systems
Project Impacts and Mitieation
a -g) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, require new or expanded water or wastewater
treatment facilities, require new storm drain facilities, require additional water supplies,. require new or
expanded wastewater treatment facilities, or require new solid waste facilities? Potential impacts of the Transit
Village project were addressed in the West Dublin /Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Supplemental
E1R and the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, Impacts addressed included
impacts to the wastewater and wastewater treatment and disposal system, water system, over drafting of
groundwater resources, additional water treatment plant capacity needs, inducement of substantial population
growth as a result of an expanded water system, and need for additional water storage facilities. The
environmental anaivses concluded that the project would incrementally increase the need for these services,
but to a less- than - significant level. Adequate resource supplies and utility services are available to the project
site, and no mitigation measures are required. Some basic utility service fees, required of all construction
within the City, may be required for connection to systems and facilities,
Based on the above, potential utility impacts associated with the Transit Village project have therefore been
addressed in previous environmental documents, including the West DublinlPieasanton BART Station and
Transit Village Supplemental EIR and Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. The
oroposed rezoning and parceiization of the site is consistent with previous actions and environmental
documentation approved by the City of Dubilr; and no additional mitigation measures are required.
-MI., Manoatory Findings of Slgnificance
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? No.
The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on overall
environmental quality, including biological resources or cultural resources with the implementation of mitigation
measures included in the Conditions of Approval for the project.
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), No,
although incremental increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of constructing this project,
including additional traffic, air emissions, light and glare, the project site lies within an area with an approved
specific plan.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directiy or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial
Study.
City of Dublin Page 27
W. Dublin Transit Village — Legacy Partners November 2003
PA 02 -003
Initial Study Preparer
Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course.of this initial Study.
The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
CalTrans
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Dublin -San Ramon Services District
Livermore Dublin Disposal District
Livermore- Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA)
References
West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Technical Appendices, prepared by City of Dublin, Community
Development Department, adopted December 19, 2000
Draft and Final Environmental impact Report for the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Proiect, prepared by the
Bay Area Rapid Transit District, September 1989 (adopted February 1990)
Drat and Final Suopiementai Environmental impact Report for the West Dublin /Pieasanton BART Station
an, l"ans!, Viliace "rQ!e3t, prepared by the Ba,l Ares Rap " ! r ansi' District, Novembe' 2000 adopted
Apn12001
Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Pian, Downtown Core Specific Plan, and the Viliace
Parkway Specific Plan, prepared by the City of Dublin, November 2001 (adopted December 2001)
City of Dublin Page 28
W. Dublin Transit Village — Leoacy Partners -November 2003
PA 02 -003
December 2, 2003
VIA MESSENGER
Ms. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Comments On The Initial Studv And Mitigated Negative Declaration
For The West Dublin Transit Village Project. 6700 Golden Gate Drive
(PA 02 -003)
Dear Ms. Harbin:
1 %e are writing on behalf of the international Brotherhood of Eleczrical
Workers Union Local 595, Sheetmetal Workers Union Local 104, and Plumbers and
Steamfitters Union Local 342 (`Unions ") to comment on the Initial Study, and
Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "ISND ") prepared by the City of Dublin (`City ")
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA') for the West
Dublin Transit Village Project, located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Dublin,
California. Legacy Partners — AMB Property (the "Applicant ") is requesting several
approvals from the City to construct the proposed project, including a planned
development district rezoning and stage 2 development plan, vesting tentative
parcel map, site development review and development agreement for a mixed -use
transit village near the future West Dublin BART station on the existing Cor -O -Van
warehouse site (collectively, "Project"). The development would include a multi-
story structure containing a maximum of 308 multi - family dwellings in a five -story ;
complex totaling 177,264 square feet with below ade rarkin g 3 mod, se .grate '`
multi -level 150,000 square foot office building, and eight -story hotel, a six -story
parking garage, and associated landscaping and - retail
The members of the Unions construct and maintain commercial, residential
and industrial projects, primarily in the vicinity of Alameda County. Union
members live in the communities that suffer the impacts of environmentally
detrimental projects, including Dublin. Union members breathe the same polluted
1519a -002
rai >� k mq� IT
�
—nr �731119t Sd aT 7e "CyCI�A��
DEC 0
.ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
,$w,�
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Bee .•,�, �?
SACF;AMt�I
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
V�QTP1Gf�'�
RICHARD T.DRURY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1029 K STREET, SUITE 37
THOMAS A, ENSLOW
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 900
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
MARC 0.JOSEPH
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
TEL: (916) 444.6201
SUMA PEESAPATI
FAX: (916) 444.6209
OF COUNSEL
TEL: (650) 589.1660
THOMAS R. ADAMS
FAX: (650) 589.5062
ANN BROADWELL
rdruryoadamsbroedwell.com
December 2, 2003
VIA MESSENGER
Ms. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Comments On The Initial Studv And Mitigated Negative Declaration
For The West Dublin Transit Village Project. 6700 Golden Gate Drive
(PA 02 -003)
Dear Ms. Harbin:
1 %e are writing on behalf of the international Brotherhood of Eleczrical
Workers Union Local 595, Sheetmetal Workers Union Local 104, and Plumbers and
Steamfitters Union Local 342 (`Unions ") to comment on the Initial Study, and
Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "ISND ") prepared by the City of Dublin (`City ")
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA') for the West
Dublin Transit Village Project, located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Dublin,
California. Legacy Partners — AMB Property (the "Applicant ") is requesting several
approvals from the City to construct the proposed project, including a planned
development district rezoning and stage 2 development plan, vesting tentative
parcel map, site development review and development agreement for a mixed -use
transit village near the future West Dublin BART station on the existing Cor -O -Van
warehouse site (collectively, "Project"). The development would include a multi-
story structure containing a maximum of 308 multi - family dwellings in a five -story ;
complex totaling 177,264 square feet with below ade rarkin g 3 mod, se .grate '`
multi -level 150,000 square foot office building, and eight -story hotel, a six -story
parking garage, and associated landscaping and - retail
The members of the Unions construct and maintain commercial, residential
and industrial projects, primarily in the vicinity of Alameda County. Union
members live in the communities that suffer the impacts of environmentally
detrimental projects, including Dublin. Union members breathe the same polluted
1519a -002
rai >� k mq� IT
�
—nr �731119t Sd aT 7e "CyCI�A��
t:r `,
December 2, 2003
Page 2
air that others breathe and suffer the same adverse health and safety impacts.
They are also concerned with sustainable land use and development in Dublin and
elsewhere in the County. Poorly planned and environmentally detrimental projects
may jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for
business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for
businesses to locate and people to live here. Continued degradation can, and has,
caused construction moratoria and other restrictions on growth in the County that,
in turn, reduce future employment opportunities. Union members are concerned
about projects that carry serious environmental risks without providing
countervailing employment and economic benefits to local workers and
communities. Therefore, the Unions and their members, have a strong interest in
enforcing environmental laws such as CEQA.
We are submitting the comment letter under protest since; as discussed more
fully below, we did not receive adequate notice of the ISND from the City despite
re ea ,2. te- u1stc Also. the Citv failed to provide all supuortinff documents for the »
IS ND aurinE the full comment Aeriod,
r inaliy the ' ✓1r—, to provl.cte notice oI
the TS T, t lrol-� h -1E he State C earn -Lr 0 use anw I^-I_e` , )Il de the requisite 30-
day comment perio or aocuments required to be noszed at the State
a rlerefore, we 'reserve-the right to supplement these comments at a
later date.
I. CEQA'S PURPOSE AID GOALS.
CEQA requires the lead agency to prepare an environmental impact report
(EIR) to analyze the Project's impacts and to propose feasible mitigation measures
or alternatives for any project for which there is a "fair argument" that the project
may have any adverse environmental impacts. Here, there is more than a "fair
argument" that the Project will have significant unmitigated adverse environmental)
impacts in numerous areas including traffic, air pollution, public health, water 7`-
pollution, utilities, and others. Thus, the City should have prepared an EIR to
propose measures to mitigate these impacts, or to issue statements of overriding `1
considerations for any impacts for which mitigation is infeasible. However, instead 1
or preparing an EIR, the City issued a mitigated negative declaration. A mitigated
negative declaration is only appropriate when all of the Project's impacts have been
mitigated to a level of insignificance. Since the Project will have significant
unmitigated impacts, an EIR rather than a mitigated negative declaration is I
required.
1519a -002
I ��
December 2, 2003
Page 3
CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision
makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a
project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. (hereinafter "CEQA Guidelines ") § 15002(a)(1).) "Its
purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental
consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR `protects not
only the environment but also informed self- government.' [Citation.]" (Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d.553, 564). The EIR has been
described as "an environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public
and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached
ecological points of no return." (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port
Comm'rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 ( "Berkeley Jets "); County of Inyo U.
Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810 [108 Cal.Rptr. 377].)
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental
damage when uossible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA
Guidelines 15002(x)(2) and (3). See also, Berke ey ,Jets, 9 Cal. App. 4ti1 1344,
7354• Citizens of Goleta T%al ey U. Board o`SZZDervisors (199D) 52' Cal 3d 553. 564
[276 Cal.Rptr. 410, 416] Laurel Heights improvement Assn 1iegent,s of the
University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400 [253 CaI. FLptr. 426; 436]).} The
EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information
about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to
"identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced."
Guidelines §15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment,
the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has "eliminated or
substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and
that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to
overriding concerns" specified in CEQA section 21081. (Guidelines, § 15092(b)(2)(A)
& (B)•)
The City has not satisfied these purposes because it has prepared no EIR for
the Project. As discussed below, the negative declaration is legally and factually
untenable. The courts have required EIR's even for residential developments of 21
homes, (see, Arviv Enterprises v. South Valley Area Pln. Comm. (2002) 101 Cal.
App. 4th 1333), and for 40 -home residential developments whose only impact was
blocking the view from a park. (Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994)
29 Cal.App.4th 1597). In light of these cases, it is clear that an EIR is required for a
308 -home residential development, with 150,000 square feet of office space and
1519a -002
`-t f IT .. f �.
December 2, 2003
Page 4
retail space that will have a panoply of environmental impacts on air quality,
traffic, public health, water quality, noise, cumulative and other impacts.
We conducted a preliminary review of the current ISND for the Project with
the help of several technical experts, including Dr. Petra Pless and Dr. Phyllis Fox
(public health impacts, - Exhibit A) and Tom Brohard, P.E. (transportation and
traffic impacts, Exhibit B).
II. AN EIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCEr
SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT
CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to
prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the "fair argument" standard.
Under that standard, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial
evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a
project may nave a significant effect on tre environmenz, (Pub. Res. Code c
21082.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn, v. Regents of the University of
California (1993) (`aurel g, ors, i 1" 1; ?�` N
�1e1 12is 1 ) �a�. 4Ti1 i_, �u�. VO Lll
Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75, 82; Quail Botanica% supra, at 1602.)
Under the "fair argument" standard, a negative declaration is improper, and
an EIR is required, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair
argument" that significant impacts may occur, even if other substantial evidence
supports the opposite conclusion. (Stanislaus Audubon v. County of Stanislaus
(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150 -151; Quail Botanical. Gardens v. City of Encinitas
(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low
threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through
issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Citizens
Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.) As a
matter of law, "substantial evidence includes ... expert opinion." (Pub. Res. Code §
21080(e)(1); (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5).) An agency's decision not to require an
EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary. (Sierra
Club v. County of Sonoma, (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318.) Substantial evidence
supporting a fair argument that a project may have significant environmental
impacts can be provided by technical experts or members of the public. (CEQA
Guidelines § 15063(a)(3); Uhler v. City of Encinitas (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 795, 805;
Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 183, 199.)
1519a -002
74� 40 1-k -(
December 2, 2003
Page 5
Here, substantial evidence presented in this comment letter, and the
supporting technical comments, supports a fair argument that the Project will have
significant environmental impacts on traffic, public health, air quality, water
quality, and other resources. For these reasons, the City should withdraw the ISND
and prepare an EIR for the Project.
A. The Project will have Significant Unmitigated Adverse Traffic
and Parking Impacts.
Traffic Engineer Tom Brohard concludes that the Project is likely to have
significant adverse traffic impacts on local and regional roadways.
The ISND admits that:
"the -oroject would contribute to the unacceptable operation of the I
intersections of Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive, Dublin
Bouleva-dLkmador Plaza Road, Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road, St.
Patri=' Wav/\Golden Gate Drive, and San Ramon, Road /1 interchange.
Additionally, cumulative traffic growth in the region vvath tne project would
contribute to traffic volumes on roadway segments of Amador Plaza Road
south of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive exceeding.their capacity."
(ISND p. 26)
However, the ISND states that no EIR is required because these impacts
were allegedly analyzed and mitigated in prior CEQA documents — the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR, and the
Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. (Id.)
Mr. Brohard concludes that the mitigation measures in the prior
environmental review documents are insufficient to mitigate the traffic impacts of
the Project to a level of insignificance. (See Exhibit A.) Mr. Brohard also concludes
that the City failed to analyze numerous potentially significant parking and traffic
impacts.
1519a-002
December 2, 2003
Page 6
1. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That
The Project's Proposed Retail Uses Will Have Potentially
Significant Impacts On Traffic.
The City failed to assess potentially significant traffic impacts from the
Project's retail component. The May 22, 2002 Omni -Means Final Report regarding
transportation and parking impacts assumes for purposes of its analysis that the
Dublin Transit Village Project would contain "a 120,000 square foot office building
and 304 high density residential units." The May 14, 2003 Omni -Means Focused
Trip Generation Analysis/Parking Update for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village
assumes the project will now contain "150,420 square feet of office uses and 308
residential apartment uses." However, neither traffic study includes any trips
associated with the proposed storefront retail space. (Exhibit A.)
The City's failure to analyze potentially significant traffic impacts from the
Project's retail component is a major omission. The traffic studies are inconsistent
vJ1ti1 the Proieci Descrlptl0r:, s1nC °. the .' 1gnOre ail Vei2lcle trips to anc-i from the
M
nla��ne d retail space. X11 turn, this omission- understates trafn.c impacts at
intersections and on street segments that will occur from vehicle trips that will be
generated by the Project. (Exhibit A.)
i
The additional traffic from the store front retail space must be determined
and the total project traffic impacts must be identified and properly mitigated.
Without this information, there is a fair argument that the Project will result in
significant unmitigated traffic impacts.
2. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That
The Project's Proposed Retail Uses Will Have Potentiallyo
Significant Impacts On Parking.
Similarly, the City failed to analyze potentially significant parking impacts„
from the Project's retail component. The Project Description in the ISND includes a
second building of 177,264 square feet with store front retail space. However, the
traffic studies do not include any parking associated with this store front retail
space. Thus, like the traffic studies, the parking studies are inconsistent with the
Project Description, since they ignore all parking associated with the planned retail,",'
space. In turn, this understates off street parking generated by the project. (Exhibit
A.)
151sa -002
k 44 it -
December 2, 2003
Page 7
The City must determine the total parking requirements for the store front
retail space, analyze impacts from the Project parking, as proposed, and identify
mitigation. Without this information, there is a fair argument that the Project will
result in significant unmitigated parking impacts.
3. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That
The Project Will Have Potentially Significant Impacts On
Traffic Due To Higher Traffic Trips.
No substantial evidence exists to support the City's use of trip reductions or
lower traffic rates in its traffic impact analyses. Since actual Project traffic trip
generation may be higher than analyzed, substantial evidence support a fair
argument that the Project may result in significant unmitigated traffic impacts.
The Ma;- 22, 2002 traffic study indicates a 15 percent reduction was applied
Lo office trips anti a 25 percent reduction was a- - 1'ed to reSldeiiLla trips generaLec
b; -the 1,roject basec_ upon proximitT.- to the proposed BA-.P-,T Station. (See Exhibit z�
citing Footnotes 3 and 4.) The May 14, 2003 traffic update also includes these trip
reductions. According to Mr. Brohard, "[tjhese reductions. have not been supported
by any quantitative data to document their use." (Exhibit A.) In fact, Mr. Brohard
states that taking the reductions understates the number of vehicle trips to and
from the proposed project that will occur at intersections and on street segments if
the adjacent BART Station is not built. (Id.) 15 percent more office trips and 25
percent more residential trips constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair
argument that the Project may result in potentially significant traffic impacts.
In order to adequately evaluate reasonable worst case traffic impacts that
would occur if the adjacent BART Station is not constructed, no trip reductions for
transit should be applied to the proposed project. The City acknowledges that this
worst case analysis must be conducted, but was not. Both traffic studies analyze
parking impacts with and without the adjacent BART station. Thus, the total
traffic from the proposed project must be recalculated and the associated significant
project traffic impacts must be identified and properly mitigated.
In addition to the improper use of trip reductions, the City's traffic analyses
improperly apply lower trip rates to the 150,420 square feet of office uses.
According to Mr. Brohard, both of the traffic studies use the ITE Trip Generation 6th
Edition. Land Use Code 714, Corporate Headquarters Building, to forecast trips
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 8
s
from the office space component of the project, even though a corporate
headquarters building is only a single tenant office building. No evidence exists
that the building will be a single tenant office building and, again, no substantial
evidence exists to support the City's use of lower trip rates in its traffic impact
analyses.
Mr. Brohard provides substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that
the Project will result in significant unmitigated traffic impacts based on the actual
trip rates for a general office building. To conservatively and more accurately
forecast trips from the proposed Project, the traffic studies should have used ITE
Land Use Code 710, General Office Building. (Exhibit A.) These rates are
considerably higher than were used in the traffic studies and include average trip
rates per 1,000 square feet of 11.01 for weekday trips, 1.56 for a.m. peak hour trips,
and 1.49 for p.m. peak hour trips. Using these rates, a fair argument can be made
that the Project will result in potentially significant traffic impacts.
The total traffic from the -orouosed -oroiect must be recaiculated using gener
office building trir rates and the associated oroiect, traffic impacts must be
identified and properly mitigates:.
4. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That
The Project Will Have Potentially Significant Traffic
Impacts From The Revised Access Plan.
Substantial evidence shows that the Project's revised access will result in
significant traffic impacts. The May 22, 2002 traffic study was based upon the
proposed project having three access points, including one shared access through
the adjacent BART Station, directly connecting the proposed project to Golden Gate
Drive. According to the current site plan, three access points are now proposed on
St. Patrick Way within a total length of about 400 feet. While the May 14, 2003
traffic study indicates all vehicle access to the proposed project will now occur from
St. Patrick Way, the traffic study fails to fully analyze the resulting traffic
conditions at each of these three access points. (Exhibit A.)
According to Tom Brohard, many traffic conflicts will result from vehicles
entering and exiting these three access points wit' hin such a short distance. (Id.)
Further, the easterly two access points are proposed to be located on the inside of a
horizontal curve where sight distance will be extremely limited. (Id.) The traffic
study must evaluate consolidation of these three access points, as well as
1519a -002
L4 -::�17
December 2, 2003
Page 9
recommend measures to provide appropriate sight distance, traffic control, and
vehicle storage requirements based on expected queuing lengths at each of the
resulting access points on St. Patrick Way. (Id.) As proposed, substantial evidence
supports a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant andy
unmitigated traffic access impacts.
5. The Project Will Have Significant Cumulative Parking = s.,
Impacts.
The ISNII must evaluate the impacts from removing parking to mitigate
traffic impacts on Regional Street. According to the City, Regional Street will
operate at Level of Service F as a two lane collector street under cumulative plus
project traffic conditions. (Exhibit A citing May 22, 2002 Traffic Study, p. 27.) To
mitigate this significant impact, the traffic study states that "Regional Street may
require the removal of on street parallel parking to accommodate left turn pockets
and/or a two wav left turn lane at major driveways which would allow it to operatE
v4 e ^ " yid. j et, the traffic stud�T fails to analyze notentiall�
at, i-devei of
'Service lc. � .
si,znifi ca uk lmDa- s assoclated with til° removal of the on street TJarKlnf itself TnE
City must prepare a revised traffic srudv willch iaen%IIles the assoclateu impact
and measures to mitigate these impacts.
6. The City Failed To Follow State Guidelines For
Preparing Traffic Studies. 4,L--
According to Tom Brohard, with the I -580 and I -680 Freeways in the
immediate area, it is extremely important to address project traffic impacts at on
and off ramps as well as on the freeway mainlines, pursuant to State Guidelines.
(Exhibit A.) In this case, the two traffic studies for the proposed project omit the
evaluations required by Caltrans' "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies" issued in January 2001. Thus, additional study of project traffic impacts
on State highways must be made in accordance with the State's guidelines.
7. The City Improperly Omitted Analysis Of Other
Important Traffic and Safety Issues.
Mr. Brohard states that the City's traffic analyses contain numerous other 41u
omissions with respect to potentially significant unmitigated traffic and related
in
safety impacts. The City failed to assess potentially significant impacts from
inadequate site distance at internal intersections, from construction, and from
1519a•002
L�7i,D °2r
December 2, 2003
Page 10
transit service. The studies also omit any discussion of bus stops and shelters and
the need for safe pedestrian crossings at St. Patrick Way to the commercial area.
Thus, the City must address these important issues in a revised analysis and
comprehensive EIR for the Project.
S. The City Improperly Omitted Analysis Of Traffic and%`
Safety Issues Related to a Possible Hotel.,h
As discussed below, the ISND states that the Project includes an 8 -story
hotel. However, the traffic analysis includes no mention of the hotel and no traffic
from the hotel. This is patently inadequate. The City must clarify the Project
.Description, prepare an adequate traffic analysis of the entire project and re-
circulate the information and analysis in an EIR.
In sum, there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant
unmitigated adverse traffic and barking impacts. An EIR is required to analyze
these impacts and to propose mitigation measures.
E. The Project Will Have Significant zi-€fverse kir Quality and
Public Health Impacts
`�
1. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That
The Project Will Have Significant Construction Air (\
Quality Impacts.
The ISND admits that the project's "construction impacts ... could result in
exceedance of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District." (ISND p. 20) However, the document concludes that
mitigation measures listed in the conditions of approval for the vesting tentative
tract map for the project will reduce construction impacts to less than significant
levels. (Id.) None of these measures are listed in the ISND for the Project.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA
Guidelines state:
1519a -002
I,-(
December 2, 2003
Page 11
'JaJlthough the impacts from construction related air pollutant
emissions are temporary in duration, such emissions can'still represent a
significant air quality impact. In some cases, construction impacts may
represent the Iargest air quality impact associated with a proposed
project... Emissions from construction equipment engines also can
contribute to high localized concentrations of PN110, as well as increased
emissions of ozone precursors and carbon dioxide." ad., p. 52)
I
The ISND fails to include any "quantification of emissions" whatsoever. {
There is absolutely no attempt to quantify the particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, or
other emissions that will result from construction equipment and earth moving
during construction. Instead, the ISND merely makes a conclusory statement that
with the implementation of mitigation measures, construction emissions will
become less than significant. (ISND p. 20) However, without any quantification of
construction emissions at all. it is impossible to determine that the mitigation
measures proposed reduce those unknown impacts to insignificance.
The IS- D's analysis is patently inadequate. The ISNID must not oni,-
identify the impacts, but must also provide `'information about how adverse the
impacts will be." (Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange, 118 Cal- App.3d
818, 831 (1981).) The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant
only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the
finding. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (1990);
Sundstrum, supra.) The ISND makes absolutely no attempt to describe "how
adverse" construction impacts will be. In the absence of such an analysis, there can
be no assurance that the mitigation measures will reduce construction impacts to a
level- of insignificance.
Contrary to the ISND's representations, the City has not required even the
standard mitigation measures required by the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan. Thus, the
Project is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan — yet another significant impact.
There are numerous mitigation measures required by the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan
that the ISND has failed to require, including the use of alternative fuel
construction equipment, use of cleaner fuels, particulate traps, and numerous other
measures. In addition, there are numerous mitigation measures suggested by the
California Air Resources Board that have not been imposed on the Project.
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 12
Thus, the Project will have significant unmitigated construction impacts, and
an EIR is required to analyze these impacts and impose feasible mitigation.
2. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That
The Project Will Have Significant Cumulative Air
Impacts. ,
The ISND's cumulative impact analysis is patently inadequate. The ISND
compares the projected future emissions with the Project compared to the future
projected emissions without the Project. The ISND concludes that because the
Project is located near BART, more people will take public transportation, and the
Project will result "in a net reduction in cumulative regional emissions." (ISND p.
20.) However, this analysis turns the concept of cumulative impacts on its head.
The baseline environmental setting for CEQA review is always the existing
environment: — not a Hypothetical environmental setting that might possibly exist in
the future. A draft. EIR "must include a description of the environment in the
VIC1I1It' of ttie t�r01eC as It exists before the commencement Q` �12e 13r0�leCL from D ti
a lOCai and reg10na1 perspeCtlVe.' (CEO: uuideiines i7uu; SS °e aiS�
Environmental. Manning and Info. Council z;. County of El .Dorado (1982) 131
Cal.App.3d 350, 354 (1982); Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency
(2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 874.) Rather than using the actual environment as
the baseline, the ISND compares to the Project to a future hypothetical
environment that might exist in the future without the Project. CEQA prohibits
this type of conjecture.
By adding 308 residential units, an office building, a hotel and commercial
space to the site, the Project will clearly increase air. pollution impacts from the
current baseline levels, which includes no development on the site: In addition,
there are literally thousands of other residential and commercial developments
currently underway or planned for the City of Dublin. The cumulative impacts from
these Projects will clearly exceed significance thresholds when compared to the
proper current actual baseline levels. The ISND's conclusion that the cumulative
impacts of the Project will be negative is simply untenable.
CEQA section 21083 requires that the cumulative impact analysis consider
the Project together "with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects." "Cumulative impacts" are
defined as "two or -m-ore individual effects which, when considered together, are
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 13
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." (CEQA
Guidelines § 15355(a).) "[I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a single ;
project or a number of separate projects." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(a).)
I
The importance of an adequate cumulative impacts analysis was recently
reaffirmed in Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency
(2002) ( "CBE u. CRA') 103 Cal.AppAffi at 116, where the court stated:
Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental
impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most
important environmental lessons that has been learned is that
environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small
sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but
assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other
sources with which they interact.
In this case the May 22, 200`, Omni- lAeans traffic analysis identifies no fewer,
trlan Twel -Te nrolects that are currentIv aporoved and pending, including thousand:
of housln(z units, commercial development and numerous other projects. U i`N TU
May 22, 2002 Omni -Means Traffic Analysis, pp. 23 -24) Clearly; the cumulative
impacts of these projects will =be highly significant in terms of air quality, water
quality, traffic and other impacts. The City must prepare an EIR to analyze and
mitigate these cumulative impacts.
Furthermore, contrary to the statements in the ISND, the City's General
Plan is inconsistent with the most recent Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District. The ISND states that the Project and City's
General Plan are consistent with the 1997 Clean Air Plan. (ISND p. 20) However,
the most recent Clean Air Plan was adopted in 2001 by the BAAQMD. The General
Plan -is inconsistent with the current Clean Air Plan, because it fails to include all
transportation control measures, and for other reasons.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide as follows:
For any project that does not individually have significant operation air
quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impacts should
be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local
general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan. (Tile
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 14
appropriate regional air quality plan for the Bay
adapted Clean Air Plan.) ...
IV Z) wI
Area is the most recently
For a project in a city or county with a general plan that is not consistent
with the Clean Air Plan, the cumulative impact analysis should consider the
combined impacts of the proposed project and past, present and reasonably
anticipated future projects. ( "Reasonably anticipated future projects" should
include, at a minimum, project of which the Lead Agency is aware based on
applications for permits and other land use entitlements, environmental
documents, and discussions with probable future developers.) A project
would have a significant cumulative impact if these combined impacts would
exceed any of the thresholds established above for project operations. A
quantitative analysis of past, present and future projects would be required
as part of this determination...
B_,IAQMD CEQA Guidelines, -or. .20-21 (emphasis added).
`Inca the, General Plan 1S 1nCOnSlsten +, wit' the Clean AlLl- Plan.
BAAQI \dD CEQA Guidelines require a `quantitative cumulative analysis of the
Project together with past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects. j
Given the thousands of housing units planned for Dublin and other development, j
the quantitative analysis will indicate that the cumulative air pollution impacts of
the Project far exceed relevant significance thresholds. Thus, an EIR is required to
quantify and disclose these cumulative impacts to the public and to propose feasible
mitigation measures.
3. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That —' �`
The Project Will Have Significant Diesel Exhaust i
Impacts.
According to Dr. Petra Pless and Dr. Phyllis Fox, both experts in air quality
and health risk assessments, substantial evidence supports a fair argument -that
the Project may result in potentially significant unmitigated public health impacts.
(Exhibit B.) Interstate 580 has an annual average daily traffic volume ( "AADT ") of
188,000, counted at the I -580/1 -680 interchange, of which 6.8% or 12,728 are trucks.
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 15
; X17
(CalTransl, 12/00, p. 336.) The CalTrans data indicate that 65% or 8,220 of these
trucks are heavy- heavy -duty five -axle trucks, which have the highest diesel exhaust
emissions. In addition, Dublin Boulevard, a major east -west arterial with six lanes,
would run along the northern end of the Project site and would additionally carry
diesel - fueled vehicles.
The ISND indicates that 308 multi - family residential units and a 150,000 -
sgft office building would be located between I -580 to the south and Dublin
Boulevard to the north. The office building would be immediately adjacent to the
north lane of I -580. All of the buildings, including the multi- family residential
units, would be within less than half a mile of I -580 and I -680. (ISND, Exhibits 1
through 4.) Because of the location, one can reasonably anticipate very high
concentrations of diesel exhaust at the Project site resulting in significant health
impacts to residents and workers. However, the ISND did not recognize the public
health impacts of locating residential and commercial uses near these roadways.
The ISND claims that "[ajs the development of the BART transit facility and
hounn= u.niCS in tine vicinitTr oi`tr1G station wool ac-uall reduce cumulative.
rep oval emissions and reduce the number of vehicles on the area roaaways. the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations."
(ISN -D, p. 20.) Dr. Pless points out that this statement is invalid and incorrect for
two reasons. First, this conclusion is not supported by any quantitative analysis.
The CEQA documents that the ISND allegedly relies upon does not contain any
ambient air quality modeling for the operational phase of the Project nor do they
contain a health risk assessment regarding the impacts of diesel exhaust
particulate matter onxesidents and workers at the Project site. Thus, no
substantial evidence exists to support the City's claim that site - specific impacts are
not significant. Second, while the existence of public transportation facilities might
reduce personal vehicle trips and thus total vehicle traffic counts on nearby
roadways, if such a facility is built, it will not reduce the number of trucks on these
roadways. Trucks are the chief contributor to vehicle exhaust particulate matter.
Diesel exhaust has been identified by the California Air Resources Board as a
toxic air contaminant and is identified by the State as a known human carcinogen.
Studies have demonstrated that children living near major roadways are exposed to
1 State of California, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation,
2001 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, Compiled by
Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems, December 2002.
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 16
r
high levels of diesel exhaust and have poorer lung function than children living in
cleaner areas2.
Diesel exhaust has been officially recognized by the State of California as a
chemical that causes cancer in humans since October 19903. On August 27, 1998,
after extensive scientific review and public hearing, the California Air Resources
Board ( "CARB ") formally identified particulate emissions from diesel- fueled engines
as a toxic air contaminant ( "TAC "). Diesel exhaust is a serious public health
concern. It has been linked to a range of serious health problems including an
increase in respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. Fine
diesel particles are deposited deep in the lungs and can result in increased
respiratory symptoms and disease; decreased lung function, particularly in children
and individuals with asthma; alterations in lung tissue and respiratory tract
defense mechanisms, and premature death. (C A.RB 6/98.4)
CEQA requires analysis not onl -,= of direct impacts of the Project; but also
indirect impacts resulting from the placement of sensitive receptors neap hazardous
conditions. The BaT Area Air Qualit7 Manazement .District ( "BAAQMD ") modified
its CEQA Guidelines in December 1999 (BAAQX1D 12/99) to dcimowledge the
impact of diesel exhaust. These Guidelines (p. 47) state with respect to diesel
exhaust that:
Because of the potential public health impacts, however, the District strongly
encourages Lead Agencies to consider the issue and address potential
impacts based on the best information available at the time the analysis is
prepared. Particular attention should be paid to projects that might result in
sensitive receptors being exposed to high levels of diesel exhaust. This applies
to situations where a. new or modified source of emissions is proposed near
existing receptors and to new receptors locating near an existing source.
2 Pekkanen, et al., Effects of ultrafime and fine particles in urban air on peak expiratory flow among
children with asthmatic symptoms. Environ. Res (1997) 74(1):24 -33
3 California Environmental Protection Agency, Ciemicals.known to the State to Cause Cancer or
Reproductive Toxicity (Exhibit 5 to Fox Comments).
4 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemakina. Proposed
Identification of Diesel Exhaust .as a Toxic Air Contaminant, Staff Report, June 1998.
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 17
The Project involves the placement of new receptors (residential and office
units) next to an existing source of diesel exhaust (the I -580 freeway).. However, the
ISND fails entirely to analyze this significant impact.
Dr. Fox and Dr. Pless prepared a health risk assessment to determine the
incremental increase in cancer risk from diesel exhaust that would result from
living and working at facilities provided by the Project. This analysis used standard
risk assessment procedures and default exposure assumptions outlined in guidance
provided by the California Air Resources Board (GARB 10/02), the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( "OEHHA ") (CAPCOA 10/935), the
Department of Toxic Substances Control ( "DTSC ") (DTSC 071926), and the U.S. j
Environmental Protection Agency ( "U.S. EPA ") (U.S EPA 12/89;7 U.S EPA 6/958).
Dr. Fox and Ms. Pless estimate the increase in cancer risk for two cases: (1) a
resident of the multi- family units and (2) a worker at the commercial and retail
C The health risk assessment indicates that diesel exhaust from I -580
would increase the cancer risk to children in the multi - family units by 102 in one
mlKilon, To, adult residents bv- 941 In one mllllorL and to, a worker in the reta- anc
commercial developments by 52 in one million. (Exhibit B, Tables i and 2.) These
risk levels exceed the District's significance threshold for toxic air contaminants of
ten in one million by up to 34 times (BAAQMD 12/99, p. 18) and are significant.
(Id.)
Actual impacts would likely be much higher. (Id.) Dr. Fox and Dr. Pless
based their assessment on data from I -15, which has a daily truck count of 6,170,
about half of the trucks counted on I -580, i.e. 12,728 trucks per day. (Id.) In
addition, their estimates only include diesel exhaust from I -580. Diesel vehicles
that use other roadways, including the six -lane Dublin Boulevard, which would run
5 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ( "CAPCOA "), Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program,
Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, October 1993.
6 Department of Toxic Substances Control, Supplemental Guidance for Human Health Multimedia
Risk Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities, July 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I,
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final, Report EPA/540 /1- 89/002,
December 1989.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Exposure Factors Handbook, Report EPA/600/P- 95/002A,
June 1995.
1519a -002
--z ' Z).
December 2, 2003
Page 18 r
immediately to the north of the development, would increase these risks. The
estimates also do not consider any future increase in truck traffic along I -580, (Id.)
In addition, the average diesel concentration (1.13 4g /m3) used in the analysis
is a 24 -hour average and includes the evening hours when concentrations are low.
(Id.) Workers would only be present roughly between 7 AM to 5 PM, when the
diesel exhaust emissions are highest. Finally, the risk assessments used actual
exposure times instead of a lifetime exposure duration. If a lifetime exposure
duration were used in the risk calculations, the cancer risks would be substantially
higher, increasing to 1193 in one million for child residents and to 91 in one million
for commercial workers — this is up to 119 times higher than the BAAQMD CEQA
significance threshold of ten in a million. (Id.)
As set forth in Exhibit B, there are many feasible mitigation measures
available to reduce the Project's potentially significant health impact. (Id.) These
impacts can be mitigated by locating people outside of the hazard zone, where
impacts are significant, by including a buffer or setback from 1 -580. These impacts
ca
�.l aso be mitigated b7, designing builaings to maintain indoor air concentrations
below levels of concern. Limiting indoor concentrations of diesel exhaust could be
accompiislied by minimizing outdoor air infiltration, limiting building ventilation
rates to the minimum required for comfortable habitation, and using air cleaning
devices. Windows could be designed to remain permanently closed, and all doors
could be designed to automatically close. The Project could also incorporate box and
bag filters, high - efficiency particulate air ( "HEPA ") filters, and ultra -low particulate
air ( "ULPA ") filters.
Clearly, an EIR is required to analyze this impact and to propose mitigation
measures.
4. The Project Will have Significant Heat Island Effects.
The Project will have significant "heat island" impacts. The "heat island
effect" is a meteorological phenomenon caused by urban surfaces, which absorb
more solar radiation and radiate that heat, increase local ambient temperatures.9
This can reasonably be expected to increase local ambient temperature and hence
9 B. Fishman, H. Akbari, H. Taha, Meso -Scale Climate Effects of High Albedo Surfaces at White
Sands, New Mexico. LBL Report 35056, 1994.
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 19
local formation of ozone10. The Project will involve large amounts of asphalt
parking lots, black rooftops, and road surfaces. In addition, there will be a
cumulative heat island impact from the large number of other developments in the
area. Nevertheless, the Project's heat island impacts are ignored entirely in the
ISND.
There are numerous feasible measures to reduce the Project's heat island /
impacts. These measures include the use of light- colored paving such as concrete
rather than asphalt, use of light- colored roofing materials, and other measures.
These feasible mitigation measures should be considered in an EIR.
C. The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Impacts on Public
Zn
Services
4
The Project will certainly create new, demand for fire protection, police �.
services. schools; and other pu!) services. The ISND fails to analyze these impacts
entirely. There is at least a "fair argument'' that the Project's impacts on public
-rvl..ez v:ill be sip. nlcarn, DarLlcuiarl7T whet file cumiriadv& impacts are
considered together with the thousands of new housing units planned for the City,/
An EIR should be prepared to analyze this impact and propose mitigation. J/
D. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project
Will Result In Significant Impacts On Water Quality
I. The City Failed. To Assess Significant Impacts on
Groundwater and Soils
Although the ISND states that the Project's water and hydrologic impacts
have been addressed in "the hydrological report," there is no evidence that a
hydrological report was prepared for the proposed Project site. According to the
Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans, including the West Dublin
Specific Plan:
In the event that subsurface excavation is proposed, adopted City
standards require that specific development projects, such as those
10 Taha, Haider. 1995. " Ozone Air Quality Implications of Large -Scale Albedo and Vegetation
Modifications in the Los Angeles Basin," Atmospheric Environment, 31(11), pp. 1667 - 1676.1
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBL- 36890, Berkeley, CA.
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 20
requiring underground parking structures, prepare a site - specific
hydrological analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis to determine
groundwater levels. (Negative Declaration, Downtown Specific Plans,
September 2, 2002, Revised December 14, 2000, p. 18.)
The purpose of this site - specific analysis is to assess potentially significant impacts
due to alterations in the direction of the groundwater. This is important since the
City is underlain by an extensive underground aquifer, which ranges in depth
between 15 and 500 feet.
Here, the Project proposes "below -grade parking." However, the record is
devoid of a "site- specific hydrological analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis
to determine groundwater levels," as required by the Negative Declaration for the
West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The City must perform the required analysis.
Without this information, the City has no evidence. to support its conclusion that
impacts are less than significant.
TD6oten-tlial Pollution fron-L nev.'` construction _relareC.
activi vv
The ISND admits that "construction activities and operation site uses
associated with the project could result in degradation of water quality in nearby
surface water and reservoirs by reducing the quality of stormwater runoff." (ISND
p. 23) As mitigation, the ISND states that a storm water pollution prevention plan
( "SWPPP ")will be prepared for the Project. (Id.) This is inadequate mitigation for
several reasons.
First, as discussed below, a SWPPP mitigates only construction phase
stormwater impacts, not operational impacts. Thus, the operational impacts
remain entirely unmitigated.
Second, the SWPPP should be incorporated in the ISND so that the public
can review it for adequacy. CEQA disallows deferring the formulation of mitigation
measures to post- approval studies. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B);
Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308 -309.) An agency
may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses
meaningful information' reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance."
(Sundstrom at 308; see also Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of 1
Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028 -29 (mitigation measures may be
1519a -002
Z.�4 C�V —
December 2, 2003
Page 21
deferred only "for kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible ").) A
lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the record
shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved;
an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility
(Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727
(finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation because there was
no evidence that replacement water was available).) This approach helps "insure
the integrity of the process of decisionmaking by precluding stubborn problems or
serious criticism from being swept under the rug." (Concerned Citizens of Costa
Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist, Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935.)
Moreover, by deferring the development of specific mitigation measures, the
_4pplicant has effectively precluded public input into the development of those ;
measures. CEQA prohibits this approach. As explained by the Sundstrom court.
.kri EIR ... 11s1 subject to review, by the public and interested agencies. This
requirement. of `public and agency review" has been called "the strongest
assurance of the adeauac -v of the EIR." The final EIR rust respond with
specificity to the `significant environmental points raised in the review ana
consultation process." ... Here, the hydrological studies envisioned by the
use permit would be exempt from this process of public and governmental
scrutiny. (Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 308.)
i
The ISND states that a SWPP will be developed at a later time. The
Regional Water Board does not review SWPPPs for adequacy but only requires that
SWPPPs be prepared and kept on site. Thus, this "mitigation measure" in no way
ensures that adequate storm water measures will be adopted or implemented by the
Project. Nor does it allow the public to review any storm water plan for adequacy.
The applicant should develop an adequate stormwater mitigation plan and submit
it for public review through the EIR process to ensure its adequacy.
3. Potential Pollution from Post - Construction Activity
a. Pesticides from Newlv Landscabed Areas
a
t
The Project may introduce significant amounts of pesticides and petroleum
hydrocarbons into receiving waters. The ISND includes no measures described to
address these ongoing sources of pollution.
1519a -002
5,111. I`D, a 17
December 2, 2003
Page 22
The Project would increase the amount of landscaped area at the Project site,
particularly when considering the cumulative impacts of the numerous Dublin -area
projects. Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers would be applied in these areas. Ana
EIR must be prepared to analyze this impact and propose mitigation.
b. Pollutants From Increased Average Daily Traffic
The Project would increase average daily traffic above current levels. These
trips would be distributed throughout roadways, outside of the immediate vicinity
of the Project. In addition, the large parking lot areas associated with the Project
will generate significant run -off. I
Studies performed by CalTrans in California "indicate that higher AADT
[annual average daily trips] tends to result in higher pollutant concentrations in
runoff." (Exhibit C: Kayhanian et al.,11 p. 15.) Thus, an increase in trips over
roadways outside of the immediate Project area would increase pollutant loads from.
these roadways.
Runoff from roadways contains very high concentrations of mam"
constituents. (Exhibit C: Kayhanian et al., Table 6.) The median concentrations of
copper, nickel, and zinc detected in storm water runoff from urban highways, for
example, exceed the U.S. EPA saltwater aquatic life criteria as reported in the
NURP study. (EPA 12/83,12 Table 5 -1.) Thus, it is likely that increased storm
water pollution from roadways impacted by the Project may result in significant
impacts.
This ISND does not account for the cumulative impact of these pollutants.
Thus, storm water pollution from roadways impacted by the Project and cumulative
impacts are significant unmitigated adverse environmental impacts that should be
analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be developed.
11 Nt. Kayhanian, A. Singh, C. Suverkropp, and S. Borroum, The impact of Annual Average Daily
Traffic on Highway Runoff Pollutant Concentrations.
12 U.S. EPA. Results of Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, v. 1, Final Report, PB84- 185552,
December 1983.
1519a -002
December 2; 2003
Page 23
c. Mitigation Is Inadequate
LO 0 P—D, t
The ISND contains absolutely no mitigation for post-construction run-off � 2'� ~
pollution. The SVRPP applies only to the construction phase of the Project. The
ISND proposes no mitigation at all for the operational phase of the Project. Thus,
the City should prepare an EIR to develop mitigation measures for the operation
run -off impacts of the Project.
III. THE ISND FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT a ��
The ISND fails to accurately describe the Project. A negative declaration is
legally defective if it fails to accurately describe the proposed project. (Christward
Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180; CEQA Guidelines
§15071(a)). CEQA provides that before a Negative Declaration can be issued, the
i
initial study must "provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a
\e�Taui e 1)ecia.ration them a protect Will not have a slgnllZcant effect or, the
environment." (CEQA Guidelines Q 15063(c)(5).} The courts have repeatedly neid
tua- `'a accurate, stable anc:mite proliect description is the sine quo non of a.-
informative and legally sufficient [CEQA document]," (County of Inyo v. City of i,os
Angeles, (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.)
The project description must be accurate and consistent throughout an
environmental review document. (County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192.) It is
impossible for the public to make informed comments on a project of unknown or
ever - changing proportions. "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify
the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project
may affected outsiders and public decision - makers balance the proposal's benefit
against its environmental costs ...." (County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192 -193.)
In County of Inyo, the lead agency first defined the project to include only the
extraction of groundwater from Owens Valley for export and use on city -owned land
in Inyo and Mono Counties. Then, the project was defined as "one part of the larger
operation of the Los Angeles Aqueduct System." And in yet another part of the
document, the project included the entire Los Angeles Aqueduct System. (Id. at
190.) The Court found the inconsistent project descriptions to be harmful because
"the inconsistency confused the public and commenting agencies, thus vitiating the
usefulness of the process "as a vehicle for intelligent public participation.... A
curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the
path of public input." (Id. at.197 -198.)
idea -ooz
December 2, 2003
Page 24
r (
In this case, the ISND contains an inadequate project description. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration Notice dated November 6, 2003 describes the project
as including "a multi- story structure containing a maximum of 308 multi -use family
dwellings, and a separate multi -level 150,000 square foot office building with
associated landscaping, parking and small retail uses." Later in the ISND, the project
is described as entailing construction of a multi -story hotel (eight stories), a
residential complex (four to five stories) and associated parking, and a parking
structure (five to six stories). (ISND, p. 19.) However, nowhere else is this full
development potential discussed.
The City should prepare an EIR that accurately discloses the scope of the
proposed Project.
IV. THE ISND FAILS TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF
THE EN77IRONNIENTAL BASELINE
The ISIJD employs an inaccurate baseline, thereby skev,71 th lmpacL
ana1`lsl::. L,L acc-arat- descrintlon of the environmental setzinz is 1n21"3ortant because
it establishes the baseline physical conditions against which a lead agency can
determine whether an impact is significant. The importance of having a stable, j
finite, fixed baseline for purposes of an environmental analysis was recognized
decades ago. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185.)
Today, the courts are clear that an environmental review document must focus on '
impacts to the existing environment, not hypothetical situations. (County of Amador
us. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 954.)
A. The ISND Fails To Accurately Describe Traffic Baseline
Here, the ISND does not correctly describe the existing physical conditions
related to traffic. The ISND was published on November 9, 2003. Traffic counts for
the May 22, 2002 traffic study were made in January and February 2002. (ISND, p.
5.) However, according to Mr. Brohard in Exhibit A, shortly thereafter, a new
southbound on ramp to I -680 at the end of St. Patrick Way was completed and
opened to traffic in about May 2002. Although traffic forecasts in the study were
adjusted to reflect the new on ramp based upon the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan
prepared in 2000, actual traffic counts were not made and adjusted. (Exhibit A.)
Since the City prepared a revised traffic study for the Project in May 2003, actual
traffic counts should have been made at intersections and on roadway segments
near the proposed project and the new on ramp to verify the "adjustments" assumed
1519a -002
iA , t
December 2, 2003
Page 25
from the 2000 Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. Without this information, no
substantial evidence exists to support the City's conclusion that traffic impacts are
less than significant.
B. The ISND Fails To Accurately Describe The Existing Water
Quality Environment
The ISND fails entirely to discuss the existing water quality environment.
The ISND does not discuss the location or quality of waters that will be affected by
the Project. Without an adequate discussion of the quality of receiving waters, it is
not possible to adequately characterize the impacts of the Project.
C. The ISND Fails To Accurately Describe The Existing Air
Quality Environment
f
The ISrJD fails entirel-,- to discuss the existing air oualitr environment. The
ISND does not even discuss the fact that the Bay Area fails to attain state any
i
federa stan'P -' v for ozon ; and state standards for particulate matte~. I` also falls
to mention that the tri- valley region_ is one of the worst ozone not spots" in the lay
Area. The court in slings County Farm. Bureau, supra, stated that the failure to
consider the Project's impacts in light of existing unacceptable ozone levels in the
area rendered the environmental analysis inadequate.
The City must revise the environmental analysis to accurately reflect the
environmental baseline. Without this baseline information, no substantial evidenc�
exists to support the City's findings that impacts are less than significant.
V. THE ISND FAILS TO DISCUSS INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE
CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND APPLICABLE REGIONAL PLANTS
CEQA requires the lead agency to analyze the impacts of a project in
reference to relevant planning documents, including the General Plan. (CEQA
Guidelines, App. G, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, Item 6.) An EIR must
discuss any inconsistencies that exist between a proposed project and any
applicable general plans and regional plans. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d).) This
discussion is mandatory under CEQA. The same analysis must be conducted when
a lead agency elects to use a negative declaration to evaluate the significant
environmental impacts that may be caused by a project. (CEQA Guidelines, App.
G.) The purpose of this requirement is to determine - in the context of a general
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 26
plan's policies, objectives and standards— whether a particular project will have a
significant impact on the environment. A project's impacts may be significant if
they are greater than those deemed acceptable in a general plan. (Gentry v. City of
Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App Ath 1359, 1416.)
Despite this requirement, the ISND fails to identify or evaluate any of the --,,
inconsistencies that exist between the Project and the currently applicable Bay ,
Area's Revised Ozone Attainment Plan, adopted in 2001. Instead, the ISND
compares the Project to the outdated 1997 Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD CEQA
guidance makes clear that the Project must be analyzed in light of the most recent
Clean Air Plan, The ISND fails to conduct this analysis.
If the analysis had been conducted, it would be clear that the Project is
inconsistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan. The Clean Air Plan requires the
implementation of construction air pollution control measures that are not required
of the. Project. and also requires implementation of transportation control measures
that are pat required for the Proiec�. This inconsistency is itself a significant
aave- -S�&; impa -vS requiring disclosure anc review.
VI. THE ISND IMPROPERLY PIECEMEALS THE ANALYSIS OF THE
PROJECT'S ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CEQA mandates "that environmental considerations do not become submerged
by chopping a large project into many little ones -- each with a minimal potential i
impact on the environment -- which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." I
(Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283 -84; City of Santee v. County of San
Diego, (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452). Before undertaking a project, the lead
agency must assess the environmental impacts of all reasonably foreseeable phases of
a project. (Laurel Heights I, supra, pp. 396 -97 (EIR held inadequate for failure to
assess impacts of second phase of pharmacy school's occupancy of a new medical j
research facility).) A public agency may not segment a large project into two or more
smaller projects in order to mask serious environmental consequences. As the Second
District very recently stated:
The CEQA process is intended to be a careful examination, fully open to the
public, of the environmental consequences of a given project, covering the
entire project, from start to finish... the purpose of CEQA is not to generate
paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decision with
environmental consequences in mind.
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 27
-d- "
(Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles ( "NRDC v. LA') (2002) .. Z-
103 Ca.l.AppAth 268.)
The ISND improperly piecemeals a single project into several smaller sub -
projects, each with comparatively limited environmental impacts. The Project is
actually part of a much larger BART expansion Project. Despite the larger nature of
the Project, the ISND analyzes only the 308 unit residential development, and ignore
other phases of the BART development.
CEQA prohibits such a "piecemeal" approach. (Kings County Farm Bureau V. 3
City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720.) In fact, it was precisely such
piecemealing that was rejected by the Second District in the NRDC v. LA case. In
that case, the Port of Los Angeles analyzed Phase 2 of a three phase project in a
negative declaration. The court held that an EIR was required to analyze the entire
three -phase project as a whole. (NRDC v. LA, supra, p. 284.) Similarly here, the
must prepare an EIR to analyze the impacts of the entire project as a whole, rather
.i i anai1,,ziii each indn iCli.'.�`�i" t h ss iri a series oI separatle negative ae-la rati n5.
VII. THE ISND PAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THE CUMULATn; E
IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE PROJECT ' ✓
In determining whether a project may have a significant impact on the
environment, the agency must consider the cumulative impacts of the project "when
viewed in connection with the effects of past project, the effects of other current.
project, and the effects of probable future projects." (CEQA § 21083(b).) As the
Court explained in a recent case:
Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full
environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a
vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has '
been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally
from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant
when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions
when considered collectively with other sources with which they
interact.
(Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103
Cal.App.4th 98, 114 -115.) A cumulative impact is an impact that is created as a
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 28
'r
result of the project when evaluated together with other past and future projects
causing related impacts. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15355, 15130.) Even where a
current project would add only a small increment to the existing background levels,
the projects' effects may be cumulatively significant. (Los Angeles Unified ,School
District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.AppAth 1019, 1025 -26.)
In this case, the City fails to analyze most of the cumulative impacts of the
project together with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
There are numerous other project currently planned or under construction in the
City of Dublin totally thousands of new residential units and commercial space. The
cumulative impact of these projects will be dramatic in terms of air quality, traffic,
water pollution, water usage, sewage, public services and virtually every other
impact. It is impossible to gauge the effects of the Project in a vacuum without
considering it together with the other development.
The discussion above and the expert- comments submitted herewith discuss !
the project's cumulative impacts ors air; water, traffic and other resources. CEQA
requires a_ m,anciator , finding of significance and an EIR, must be pre- nared. ?3nde_rt
the guidelines, an agency niusi find that. a project may nave a signiacan
environmental effect, and thus prepare and EIR, if, inter aria, the possible
environmental effects of the project are cumulatively considerable.13 (Pub. Res.
Code § 21083(b)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15065(c).) `
VIII. THE ISND FAILS TO IDENTIFY AND INCORPORATE ALL
EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS
A mitigated negative declaration may only be adopted if all significant
impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2);
CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b).) As discussed above, the Project will have numerous
significant impacts that are not mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, the
use of the mitigated negative declaration is legally improper and EIR is required.
13 "`Cumulative considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in Section 15130." (CEQ.A Guidelines
§ 15065(c).)
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 29
CEQA requires the City to adopt feasible mitigation measures that will
substantially lessen or avoid the Project's potentially significant environmental
impacts (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002, 21081(a)), and describe those mitigation
measures in the ISND. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4.)
A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or
feasibility. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d
692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation measure
because no record evidence existed that replacement water was available).)
"Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable. period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social
and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) Mitigation measures must
be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding
instruments. (Id. at § 15126.4(a)(2).)
In this case, there is no evidence proposed traffic mitigation measures are
feasible. (Exhibit .L.) According to the traffic study. the Project will add traffic
throu-11 the intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, which will
oraraie G" l.eve_ of --D -- c : F in the p.m. peal: hour under future base conditions.
The traffic stud- indicates that significant improvements, including triple left turn
lanes in both the northbound and the westbound directions, are needed for this
intersection to operate at an acceptable Level of Service D. However, according to
Tom Brohard, these radical measures have historically been used at only a few
locations in highly urbanized California and on the Las Vegas Strip where
intersections are spaced further apart to accommodate the weaving movements that ti
occur downstream from the triple left turns. (Id.) Since the traffic studies do not
indicate whether there is sufficient spacing for this measure, no substantial
evidence exists that the measure is feasible.
There is also no evidence proposed traffic mitigation measures will reduce
impacts to less than significant. According to the City, the proposed project should
pay "fees related to a portion of the cost of the extension of St. Patrick Way from
Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street and also dedicate land for the alignment of
the roadway." (ISND, p. 26.) However, as set forth above and by Tom Brohard, the
amount of fees will increase when the actual number of daily project trips is
recalculated. (Id:) Other financial contributions toward needed future projects,
such as the required triple left turn lanes and other necessary significant
improvements at Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard must be required. Without
this information, there is no evidence that the project's impacts will be mitigated to
a less than significant level.
1o19a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 30
f
Similarly, there is no evidence that parking mitigation measures will reduce
impacts to less than'significant. According to the ISND, a parking management
plan must be prepared to mitigate parking impacts. Until this plan is prepared and
circulated to the public, there is no evidence that the plan will effectively reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the plan must be included in a
draft EIR, which must be prepared for the Project.
Finally, there is no evidence that traffic mitigation measures are fully
enforceable. While the traffic study recommends major improvements at the
intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, no programming of funds or
timetable for construction are presented to make sure they will be in place in a
timely manner. The costs and scheduling of necessary improvements together with
calculations of the developer's fair share contributions to other intersection and
roadway- improvements need to be made, and a timetable developed for their
implementation. Thus, as proposed, there is a fair argument based on substantial
evidence in the record that significant traffic impacts remain unmitigated.
As discussed in the comments above, mitigation measures exist to reduce
many of the Project's significant impacts. These mitigation measures are feasible,
and in some cases required by regulatory agencies. An EIR must be prepared to �r6
consider and impose these feasible mitigation measures.
IX.. THE CITY FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PUBLIC NOTICE AND —"
A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE ISND r'
t
Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA review process. Each
public agency is directed to provide for extensive formal and informal public y
involvement to receive and evaluate public reaction to environmental issues related
to the agency's activities. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21083 and 21087; CEQA Guidelines §
15201; Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. u. 32nd District Agricultural Assoc.
(1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936 (public holds privileged position in CEQA process based
on belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental
protection and on notions of democratic decision making); County of Inyo i,. City of `
Los Angeles (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1185 (CEQA process must "be opened to j
the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes
and effect of a consistently described project. ").)
1519a -oo2
W V V a.
December 2, 2003
Page 31
The City failed to provide adequate notice of intent to adopt the ISND,
pursuant.to CEQA. Public Resources Code Section 21092.2 requires the City to
mail CEQA notices to any person who has filed with the City Clerk a written
request for such notices. The statute and the CEQA Guidelines explain that the
lead agency shall mail a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated
negative declaration to the last known name and address of all organizations and
individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to allow for at
least a 20 day public the review period provided under CEQA Section 15105.
(CEQA Guidelines § §15072, 15105; Pub. Res. Code § 21091.)
In this case, the City failed to mail CEQA notice, pursuant to our May 6,
2003 letter to the City Clerk requesting that the City send us CEQA notices for all
projects for which the City was the responsible or lead agency. The City also failed
on numerous occasions to return or otherwise respond to telephone calls from our
office regarding our request for CEQA notices. The City's consistent lack of
resbonse and failure to provide CEQA notice in this case does not constitute
substantial compliance with CEQA's notice requirements in Public Resources Code
tee` %iCii
In addition, the City failed to comply with Public Resources Code Section
21092(b)(1) which requires that all documents referenced in the MND be available
for review and readily accessible during the entire comment period. This is
especially important, where, as here, the City fails to include environmental review
for the Project in one document. CEQA section 21092(b)(1) requires that the CEQA
notice for an EIR or negative declaration must include "the address where copies of
the draft EIR or negative declaration and all documents referenced therein are
available for review and readily accessible during the agency's normal working
hours." As noted by leading CEQA commentators, Remy and Thomas:
The above - referenced section [21092(b)(1)] requires the agency to notify the
public of the address at which "all documents referenced in a draft EIR [or
negative declaration]" can be found (and presumably read) ... seems to
require agencies to make available for public review all documents on which k,
agency staff or consultants expressly rely in preparing a draft EIR [or
negative declaration]. In light of case law emphasizing the importance of
ensuring that the public can obtain and review documents on which agencies
rely for the environmental conclusions (see, e.g., Emmington v. Solano
County Redevel. Agency, 195 Cal.App.3d 491, 502 -503 (1987)), agencies
should ensure that they comply literally with this requirement.
1519a -002
December 2, 2003
Page 32
W F t t
Remy, Thomas and Moose, Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act, p.
293 (Solano Press, 1999). The courts have held that the failure to provide even a
few pages of a CEQA document for a portion of the CEQA review period invalidates
the entire CEQA process. (Ultramar v. South Coast Air Quality Man. Dist., 17
Cal.App.4th 689 (1993).) a
In this case, we requested immediate access to the documents listed in the
ISND on November 19, 2003.14 On November 21, 2003, the City indicated to Zohary
Bassett of our office that the documents would not be accessible until Monday,
November 24, 2003. On November 21, 2003, we requested an extension of the
public comment period to provide a minimum of twenty days for public review and
comment after documents referenced in the ISND are properly provided, as
mandated by CEQA Section 21092(b)(1). (November 21, 2003 letter from
Gulesserian to Harbin incorporated by reference.) On November 24th; we copied
the documents, which were provided by the City. However, the City, failed to
-or o,via- us with all exhibits referenced in the ISND (exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4) until
, Te �i `! . 200'
Contrary to the City statements in the November 25, 2003 letter responding
to our request for an extension, the City did not respond to our request or otherwise
provide for immediate access to documents referenced in the ISND. Although
Zohary Bassett of our office called the City to arrange copying on November 19,
2003, she was informed by the City that the Senior Planner on the Project was
unavailable. Ms. Bassett was provided with no additional information as to the
availability of any documents. Even if the documents referenced in the ISND were
ready and made immediately accessible on November 19, 2003, as suggested by the
City, then the comment period deadline would be no earlier than December 9, 2003
to provide for at least a 20 -day review. (Pub. Res. Code § 21091; CEQA Guidelines §
15105.)
In addition, to date, the City has still not provided all documents referenced
in the ISND for the project. For example, the City has not provided the
"hydrological report for the project," which is referenced and relied upon in the
hydrology and water quality section of the ISND. (ISND, p. 22.)
14 On November 21, 2003, we also requested a copy of the City's General Plan Environmental Impact
Report ( "GP EIR"). To date, the City has not yet provided us with a copy or access to the GP EIR.
1519a -002
rLl� 0V L-- .
December 2, 2003
Page 33
The City has no reasonable basis to complain that an extension of the
comment period would make the comment period a "moving target." In this case,
the City failed to provide timely notice and access to documents, as required by
CEQA. These documents are specifically relied on by the City for the
environmental analysis for this project. Access to these documents is especially
critical when, as here, the City does not conduct environmental review and merely
issues a negative declaration for a project. Access to these is also especially critical
in this case, because the City relies on numerous other documents, letters and
memos for the supposed environmental analysis and findings for the Project. The
public has a statutory right to review public documents for the requisite time
period.
Consequently, these comments are submitted under protest, and we reserve
our right to submit supplemental comments, including additional consultant
comments,'at a later time.
�L
TIdE CITE PAILED TO PPMUMT lzOTICE TPIROTJGPI THE STATE
RTI�TG MOUSE' xNI . :rE . T' PR A 'r7D,E. THE REQUISITE,,
�.J.�_
DAY' COMMENT PERIOD EOL DOCUMENTrL'S POSTED AT THE
S'T'ATE CLEARINGHOUSE
30-
CEQA requires a lead agency to submit proposed negative declarations to
the State Clearinghouse any time a state agency is "a responsible agency or a
trustee agency or will exercise jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by
the project." (CEQA Guidelines § §,15073(d), 15205.) This requirement insures that
all state agencies with responsibility over and concerned with the project will be
consulted. (CEQA Guidelines ,§ 15205.)
In this case, the ISND recognizes that the Regional Water Quality Control
Board qualifies as responsible and /or trustee agencies triggering the duty to submit
the ISND to the State Clearinghouse. The Regional Board is both a responsible
agency and a trustee agency. A responsible agency typically has permitting
authority or approval over some aspect of the overall project for which a lead agency
is conducting CEQA review. The Regional Board is a "responsible" agency with
respect to this project because it has permitting authority over the SWPPP required
by the City as one of the mitigation measures to reduce hydrology and water quality
impacts. A trustee agency is an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a project, which are held in trust for the people of the State of
California. In addition to being a responsible agency due to its permitting authority
1518a -002
tF
I10 4- 11 11
December 2, 2003
Page 34
over the required SWPPP, the Regional Board is also a trustee agency due to the
fact that it has jurisdiction over water quality and the beneficial uses of waters of
the state, both of which are potentially affected by this Project.
By failing to submit the ISND to the State Clearinghouse, the City violated
a critical CEQA procedural requirement intended not only to alert concerned
responsible and trustee agencies when relevant projects are proposed, but to assist
the City in complying with CEQA by ensuring other State agencies with specific
expertise are consulted in the CEQA process.
XI. CONCLUSION
A negative declaration is not appropriate since substantial evidence in the
record supports a "fair argument" that the Project may have significant adverse
environmental impacts which have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Considerable expert opinion, admissions in the ISItiTD, and other credible evidence
demonstrates that the proDosee Proiect is liken% to cause significant impacts that
must be avail zec' = an EIF V urge the 'it-,- to Iu.1111 its responsibilities undelr
CEQA:; prepare an EIR for the Project and circulate the document to the public for
review and comment. In this way, the City and the public can ensure that all
adverse impacts of the Project are mitigated to the full extent feasible and required
by law.
Sincerely,
Tanya A. Gulesserian
Richard Toshiyuki Drury
RTD /TAG:bh
1519a -002
a� W U U
¢ H U Q" ti o
�
& ;>
cd h O.
°o'
rn
Cd
0 U W r-L4
-a Q Q
o Q
U a) .-
Ln V) 0 0 N
Cd
bb W
chi cd o
En
O N � R.a by
to CZ
aA o
94 ,-4
M FWr N
� � +' �
W U H Cd C44
cn
°a'°
N cd fir
Cd
cd �
U Q cd Q
U
a Oho .0
o 6 " p 3
cn
cd O 3 > bn Q o cd
O~ cd cd �" U N a "O
+-+ y
OR U cd
In
O
O y 3 N
fl O O rn p pQ� cad
N U U N 0 O
cd
it N ct3 O .� �� 2E
O
a'' N O r
m 14
En cd
O 3 O a�
U U a� 'O > s y + O ' N
O O 0000 Q bA
r .
C: 0 0 cd
c
y C, fYl
- 4-
U
0
N
cd H i� U
yyU
a a,.o
7�
cd bn
bn
o 0
U .r
7�
¢. 3 fYi
U O cd N
0
�
p � , as
bb
.byM>4�
U
U b 3
•o � U � bn
3 O
�
+� a� 4
o � H
0 W
0
o
a
'U
aoi
IOA Cab,
CA
c"' `d U Q
� O
'A cl bA
al
U
M to
cd
O
U o
p o
00
N � M
ZVI:
I �vo 2,l
Cd
cd bb
s O 'rJ cd -a O O 'd Q p ti s
00 0
00 0---4 sue+ N p a) N ^�" '2 , 'O cd U - ��-+ W °
cd rs P-4
o U�d
cd oo U s s0, a" bA , ' n i s , Cd
k oo `o U U O _• O F U 'O p_ U
O U a) ctd ° U � "� O U � > cd CO cd ,, ° c�
r_i �' � �, v � � a' .� c', � � v o a, o � En � � � � � � Z � cd tin
Ed
Q C7 4-4 cd U 4-
cat
a) bn �. v' U O V] O N N 'L3 bn Ham, N cn «i
a� tin cad btio r.� — - C) U p U U O x. - «-+ a)
N cn O f1 '" Tj p s, 4� t. U_ N
p + cd • :
O N r0 O N U cn O ��, r�i� s" OU O k- 4
A cad O,' 'C3 �, cd O Q U O N
.. U 0 Q
03 U
tin S., cd ° •° i o o 3
cd ss -t3 o a� Z H o v � °� o
Z � bn :� a) �, o .� a� - b p �, cd cH �, .. tin U ..,
th rA
"3
K.54 tin ° o .��' W a� ,�' `� tin cd
O N O 4 r J ,� p. ;. O, U O Q ., �" N ?y
0 $.4 �. +- C; . a: a) a) O U O U Cd cd y� , O O r
Q) U g U Sr" y U Q) .
tg � N
O
bb P. -. P i N 4-i --+ U � cd N O U +-� • �, � U �+ OU 3
N �*" �" R� } a) O 4-i a) •Ur 4 , �. O U N O7 4� 4- En V a) V N U N 'U i'�-+ Q° p O N +' O py
rn
0
U t+ + "d N i s Q) r U N � cd cd N +1
Zl
b�,A c�C +- +' +cd+ a) w
bb
c p •O cd O U a) O pi �+ 'C a) Z N M 9
U 'C3 O Fri - cm Q., (4-1
cn
O ...
1=4 ' ^�. �' + �+ N O U cn -7=J
A� coy UU" ,d ��-+ U) vi �" id Q O Z Q N R. N N U 0 cd
U- p, O a .a �, O Q, U O O O U a) v
Cd
m cd
+, ran O -sU" �� O �� N N N O -�• p Q N S.
L'
+ cn .� C% sU. Q) U o U sU+ 40 -� 4-, N- U o FC+ [mod V'
U O H U p a- a; N a• ., U p O O M 7C V a>
ol
° 4-� ''+-'+ bn
Cd s, U Z O M� �+ c Q, '. H O U �+�- V) O N sU �•-" � Q Q
"C3 'CS U �' Z N 0 cd m O cn -
+'a tineQ ���0 r,U mZ oZ a, 3 a? o
Ln +1 U. ��" 'rs �+ cn � O 4- � U d z Cd
N -fl Q vUi W �' N p. tiA �. N V O U O vz a)
U �°. api cd 'C3 U 0 0 -. - O • - -0 - U Z Q ^C
to g E ai 'C3 i Q U U cd f-r Z . �' cd m
a,f /
N
3
�
tin `
bb
N d
cn
rn
`
O U
'� i%
to 0 u i
^�
^'
O
X
o Q°
C4
O H O
O
D
LS
rn - O a• •�
U
O
U
��
En
cu
Cd
a) 4-a
d `n
U
to O O
O
°
0
a0i
c� cd
vi
N
c
O O U
O"
y
tin to
Cy4
a> a)
�
d'
� O "'� � cd
+'' �
� O
�
�
•'.'
-�' cd
U U ' � cd cd
110
cd cn cd
O U
O
R 'd �, U U U
r�
a,f /
N
-7 q 1PO 2, 1
It
U
cn
O N v,
bb +� cn .•� N O + N 0 +U-
o 'C3 U .14 O cl, C13 y +� Ln
U o o c> a� o ;� �Q� Urn Q'a0i o
� -cl C V ." �° � P. 4) 3 � � '� � 0 Ln
U +-+ ,::$ cn s" U U N C" Q p 0 O N L3 N c O 'n bA
U -' ° U++
+ Ste" y U
cC3 U N N
IPA
N +3 N O ° QA f, O '
A ", UO bA
rn
N O � V S O � y N� �c � N O CZ N
cn 0 Q 0 N � N � O �
�+
UT, o o �.a o °02r �, �U ai �•�� a:
Z �' any Z_ 0 3 a�i ��
o °
U o U bA + LL, U cd o p N %:L4
cd
— b1l o �"" bp
�� �.�n ° �'°�3 >���N�°�'o00� mss" Itz
0 411
Gn cn
M
b
�_Q
ol
N
o
O
'y O
(4-4 't3 vi
U
O �
c
U V) 't3
cn
>
�. Cd �
a
O �
> N En
s� bQ
c
N � 4-i �
qp +0'-', 9 p 0
U Q � U
° as z o �,
as>
d ° U cd
Fq
;� bA 0 'C U VA
6 r. to vi
r, o zs
75 th c3 0
U «i N
a0>i o
Cd
C -d
� •,� 'Li .Zi V] Q-' 0 .fir
� O
bA .�U O
o
o -,
a�
b4 to
o o-cj °�o cd
� 'd
cd C5
bo
W O U N O N U 9
O vi O N +J sU. vNi
y O N Z
� U -d U � ^• p
0 N
N
o Cd Ga a
0Z Q
-d 'o 00
cd
cd
cn
'd
' C13 o
>
cd
� � o to
O t-7 A �
O
Cd ° o
7j a W
0
0
oC°
N
CID � �U., O U
En in
N > crj 0 0
i
.!:j
-d :3 'd N
C's
o 3
i s
emu. >
¢ to
4.. F--'
o � y
3 a,
.•pU "t3 � ,� O
o
O~ Cj
Y . �. °
4 o°
U '•O N
n
� U
O
cl �' W
o �U
Cis
a" o c
U n ¢, P. 9
0
to
o °
O 14
H U c;l U
U
o ,5
O I
jai+ N U o
0 o
° 0 Con o
cn
Ln
• � gl, cn �
�d
cn
>
cn
SU N U O, ✓ i�'
U un '
U� >
?~ U
-O cd U
El O Q n � ++ N
° • °; o
".44
Cd
U 00 cz O
N ^" > cd O U
s bA cd o U
.0 O
_, bA . c� c
U C En
? U A p
� cd
U �cn cd �+- cd
Cd -�
4 x. p ai
� 3
0 U
oo 0
o
U
N
"Cl
� m O zi
U
114 i
CJ ' vi N cn •�
bb >
�r 'z3 P. N can d.
cd N
tb cd
.� Cd U
c i
bA cd En 'd bA '41.
En
cn
� > o 0 o
0 cd
0
i
t 3.
kn
_a
bA
c�
�
N
ro-
a . ,
Cd
v°
c4F, +- c '+
°a
Y
°
aA
cd
w
Ln
V)
m om
03
°�03
O .., Cd
y r. O
O
b!1
bUA O N
M
"CS
¢
cn
+
4-i
0o ai O
cn
rA
rn '
En
O
4-4
O a' -+
cd
b!J
cn
U
U a3 N
U
v th
cd s
LN
cn
OU
�+
-- O O
cr cd
W i
un
sU,
O
N z
o�
° 3CY
'.
r
0
00 a
o .�
�— 'm
os
OO
N
cd
to
En
aUi
�,
o th
aoi
5-4 CIJ
�M
,ate cd
� n
bA
t
° O
'���
on
bD
:j
U°
� !4:1
bb 0 Cd
�Z3
rA
En
by O •
r� N
bD
U
bb
�:
'O
14
:x U
In
> Ok
L
rUi)
.�
Q.)
-d
bA
Ln
+�
;on En
bb
0
-+t °o cn (D
vi
�
Gn
' Jo,
bbo
W s�,
c3
441
s.
o
C�3 �,
w
L..'
s.
N O
O cd
�1 .O
�
Q
O
� cC3
,
� �
p
1 bb
h
'
OU
:�- U
cn v
C.�:, Cd N
rn
'Lj
`4. ::J
00
k
+
bA
4) U cd
4) •. U
w
'-'
U
O bA
�.
�W
O O
a
0
°
O bA c�
U.�
O ED
Ca
0
kn
_a
4-i bA
4-
o 0
}•+ by '��'' O
H a3 M o
bbD
En
O
Vex °E cn
� U
r-+
s cn
Cn
En
o a a,
rn
bb bb
.r-4,
N
_ 'C3
Q ' �
t4 C's
Z U cd U
a�
o O � .�
bA 'L7 O "Cl
Cl
N
F" o cn
.� .. N ...
-- N tQ
'n
En
CA
cn
Cd cz 0
� O
00 _
0 bA
o� M Cl
4iU U°+
N
O +�
4a
h O
cn
rA
Q rA
Cd
4Z3 a,
cO
cn
ti
0 .
°Cq
nz$
.C) Cd vp U
U C U En
pi
cd 0 ,� 1
U. Z
>��
`n l m
bA to b4 Cd
� ice., • � ti - U
O 0
Q
U to U
H , Q
l
3H ZYU
0
d
m'6
0
+� a
'
cd
Ell
.0
cn
o q cd
U W bA O
Cd
zi
0,
U C+ a 7:$
Nq cd cd 4m
U vi
U �+.
N
CZ1
+� o
O
O `n k `n
NU
(1)
U O 16
U
N
N o En
p
s.
icl
cd
U
N
Q A U
O
cd
O 40a
U N N O
CIS
U N 'd
a�
o >,, o s
0 r�
m
m .�
En
~"
cd
U W U
(4--1 C4. �
O O
O
N N � rn O
•� iU.
O —
O~� C,
O O
cd
H
o > S ,A
4� N > Q U
o U o v irlf) ;:
O > � U
Cd
o
O m
¢ Cd Q U
4-4 Cn
Ica
r,
u.
cn
4- cn
o -d
o
Cd
cn
cd N N
.SJ N
0
z4 U
o
m'6
0
+� a
'
Cd
zi
0,
U C+ a 7:$
U vi
U �+.
N
CZ1
+� o
O
NU
U O 16
U
N
N o En
p
s.
icl
cd
U
cd
CIS
a�
°
0 r�
m
m .�
W�
cli En +C4 41
O
H H n N 'G
P� +y O O vi N
O N cn cd
'd .� :5 "O �
bA
�! O Cd rte+
.� cn ¢ �
t8 0
w, O
�O O � N�P -�•�
4N bA O U �. +�� O
^' ++ O O cd U
$ G�
� � � cad �., •�-� � � � a
o n3 q) _,cl M 03
� cd
� .'" ¢. o .
Q o
cd
f1, 4�.O O cd
U cd N O N N
�. rn N cd d Q >, cd m
ol >, r� v' cn O
cd
bb 0 cd cn En
cd U
En
t
cn N 'c3 zn
N¢ cd h U U N
cri
crj V ° rA)
HUa b C4 �� (� o �jQ
' o �
cd
v 3
� TS
ni
UU
via
0
j
.� i
CA
in, o
�
b o o
F
°�'
_
U n
EA
211
cd
4-1
cn
ao"n
W coo
'—� �' N � i,y
V] ~ i-a
W O Q) '� � � °
� �+�-1
/^•�$ .� � @ CCU
'."� C,
i--j
..Ni
(4-4 Cr4 ~ '^7
V] (� ..i ''�,•y�
C�V
•U-i
U d
� .7.v -iI
° .F V O
}�y11
eti il
O
N N
U O
'+
O
?•1
cd
o
3 U v
a
-o
.z
tD
O�,
cd
'
4- N
S
d
^U' j �
U
O
N i-+
0 -0 cd
bA 4'
cn
° O
+� Cd
s , N
U Z-;:i -3 �
O +,
b4
vcd
.
U
S," O O
0 -
U
;> m
cd N
cn
� O
>, O
� ° o
� cn
x fl ate+
N
�.
N C/1 �O N U O
o Cd
-0 M bA O U
14;
9 N N 41
�a
o o
300
°� U
on
X73
s�.
UQ •�
��+ :
cn
OU v
bo
to
cd
L'.
TJ °
pN
'✓' ..
vi 4- yU d
N O �
4
O
�
N
cd
cdA O
r;� s�
't7 U �, ct
�. x N +cd+
to
cd cd
cd
o O �
O
cj 0.
N
cd cd
U° O O p
cn
+-+
.O m a"
O N 4. mcd
}Ul �
�-d o
>o a� �•�
-c1 Ems'
o
N
¢ (4, � �
-
bb � � � � � � o
� MO ° > U
�� O U �
r-
o •.�
t c�
Cr F� .do
Cd
+� U
U cd s ..,
p Cd
7<8
o- 0 N —"
M b4 d
o
+ O + U
0
�,
r
4 + �, .
z
.— , Z t; U
q�"j
r. m
cd cd 1 O
�� p� N
d cn bQ
C
m � �
� � a i
o
bb
.° C� � -° a�i
o o q � b° H
U
En
40
C) P, P.
�
H
U
v N
bJ
v cJ g"
4-4
cd
bD
ti U
M O
, O
b)
•O O
U'c3
�•�"•.�
j
.� i
�-cl o3 o o
� ++ N •� U v' cad 4�r-+ O
O �" •."
O cd cn
Cj o 91.1 o
's++ , r.- U O U
O O U $`O s, SZ, cad cd N
En
O U eUd O —+ O O 't7 N
cn
rA
Q• U o `�
3 N bp
U ^-
O p U U Q cad
cn U U �-
«i +-
s �s, W O s" t3 Cd 0 .....
O cn fl Cd
. d) -8 E 4 ;
00 A N O tip cci N N~ O O Cd
C,3 Q > as ^C3 N U +p t� Q �+ ¢" U •Ur" �"+
tQ
owe '� cd 0 0 7� � �-d off'.- In
cl En
cd g cd U cn
as �• 'd Q, s- 44 v� cd Cd Q; .- - by s
cd
bn o U o C,3 cj
z U
c � ad N ' �, N , V) tr" � o �—+ 'd ' � ,'� rn W �" 'd • ^-> Off••++ r�
cd
as
v' + N Z OU cad p cd m
as
O 4yi 4 s"+ + +
ov b
n
cd a o
v O Cd ti
o i tj o o
cn
a�
En o -d
p ' Ln Q, o
CO
a=
+� � cd O. rn •�,
Cd 0
Cd
td � V1 bA • � H
4
to vUi 'g5
r 0 cd
cd
Cd cn +~�
U
cd N Cd
~v
to
t" 9 4-+
Cd
o45
"C 2
cd
+4 $-4
bO >�-'
bA A-,
o a 5 3 0 E-+
O O 1, O
Cd O Ito O
N U1 U O C/o
p
a) m
3-d= '
0
121?
� � � � �. p : �-' 'C3 �t�i " � ' � ,�„ [S}•+., N �-• � V fir, '-•' �
ch CZ
C d 14-4 O U cd N N v)
U
N N O Q N N cd d
N N b bUA N U 'O 0 U
o ° ^ o
1 o
O
N ° bA d
U
t4-4 0
¢" �° � -1
.SU'. O ° N N r-' O O U N rn N
m Ed
O C� O p cd :� O
U p +N N O N rn U U N vi
w
CIS 'rte+ O cd U ti +O
cd �O c bb bUA pU , � O � p bUA
CA 7j
Cam.
CIS
O s. 4� a. C�. . - ^C1 O p
E i O U Ri p O N N cd a; s0
s U cn
0 0.p QA Q N O N by O . O
0 C's W O � . -+ Cd cel � a �:s += cd
zs 44 03
U r+
cd E'er N + N O N' N Q +,, 9 U C o
UO UO bA cC
U N 't3 � °
f.�+
N �U O v� rte+ •-l", U V-4 N
En
U cd Z p O
O � � C 4, V cd O U � u
�
°U N °U ai �i O
O O O N
O by O 40 � '� p O 213
bb U
ti P. +5 C/ cd 0 Q�
cd " . 'L3 cn
C) N yam. , G? p ..� "•" +., U 't� t�, i' 'C t�. +' ��,,, • bA
+1 N U u r, = p N O O N . r' rte-+ O cd OU P', r.
v,,, �-• cd Z 'S , O +-� H 'i '� "�"' '+'" O " O N cd cd
cd En O
c � N ACS F r V ~�'-,��
CIS U)
Coil
q
a
� � O by �, •� N � � � . � � �'�_., � O N � p
as "T:�
bb , ice, 9 TJ
ull
^� b bUQ 4� U U 0 M +U- �+ V] d . d" O' a3 z
p cd Cn cd O
d U U cd CQ ¢' U rU+ Ln
rn iC
rU. U '� O � +�
rn N O U o S�
> C� ca �," F" d cl
<=> 4 ::j
vUi rn '�'• N U W � U 'd V cn Cj
03 U- 4 i by Q «3 cd
° > '" 4° ° ° a o a� Z CA a a s� O
to uo
O o :�=, V �C3 z�", U a) E-+
to 03
�. o i o o ¢ 0 o ub W.- : 0 -o co En
cd
. ° O - N + ' O O p 'd
O cd O s~ U cst N C1, U + U O, • bp
cn
CIS � b Q U �U N O � 4'
IV -d " U 'L3
Unt O rn
U 3~ O Cd U N O s + X to N � � Q' � � � 0 s, as
>, p 0 2 « 3 U H U N U �, O U r U cn m C's 0
cd O p U .— ;> Ste" �, .. , U cj
UO
° ti
cd
n o °o of a C�s
CZA
s° Ln ' O U v Cd a' .� N N ;, c�
Q z~ > E- -cs ..
o y °. U o r N o 0 0 ° crj ° o o U
Q) u ' Fv -1 c H c+-+ c0i 0
Z*� 4� 'b
CZ
�-. O N V U
as O
yU
to •� C-) O Ar vi 4
O v, •�
a ' Cd ° y am+ -0 U Cd �N
to
t n° N
cd
to-
cn
oj O
tb
-1t`2
O
Lim
M -cl p 00 O N cn O O V
79 x bA '
CX
cn bb
t 1 :7z Fj Q 0 v' ,i W by ' 4?, En V)
-+ ccri N> k bA O O Z r, by ' p N O O N cC U ccs d 't N
a3 n� �' ' U COO
Izl
cn
• U � 't7 y Q ; j ^C� '+�- U v� 4) F3 � cn vs N v. O 3 cd O U
4t Cd
Cj Q' s U 'C7 U O v o cd +, U cd to R
+ ., N r cd n CC3 U O vUi p ¢ « 3
r G-+ — cn r--r + "" > O cd 4� t3 O U d U S: • o
O N N 0 CCj U U N N
O 3 N' cn N U b 'C3 N 'C3 U U N b4 O
0 U C sU" O +'� sU Q.
U •i•� -� i-i
Q�
C C
Cd
8
U
cd
>cd
S�
cd
e-)
o cd
o cd
bb Cd
O C/]
cd o '� Q P�
U
to
CO
ono
�,� ?cd
Cd
w
n
0
0
CIS
p
,�
� U
O d
Cd
-Z�
CZ
0
A
o
cn
(
�
>
o
i3
O
o 3
QO
a�
TA
o
Cd �,.�
0
Cd
a.
cd
d
0
o °
-r
cd
Q1
4•i rn
O
cn
a Ln +- U
o
M -cl p 00 O N cn O O V
79 x bA '
CX
cn bb
t 1 :7z Fj Q 0 v' ,i W by ' 4?, En V)
-+ ccri N> k bA O O Z r, by ' p N O O N cC U ccs d 't N
a3 n� �' ' U COO
Izl
cn
• U � 't7 y Q ; j ^C� '+�- U v� 4) F3 � cn vs N v. O 3 cd O U
4t Cd
Cj Q' s U 'C7 U O v o cd +, U cd to R
+ ., N r cd n CC3 U O vUi p ¢ « 3
r G-+ — cn r--r + "" > O cd 4� t3 O U d U S: • o
O N N 0 CCj U U N N
O 3 N' cn N U b 'C3 N 'C3 U U N b4 O
0 U C sU" O +'� sU Q.
mm
N
0
�. con
•�
cn
'
U
•� Q o
0 0 0
o
U O
ES.,
o
°cn
10
� � v
v b!1
Pl
o
cd
U 4a
�" O
O
N U N S"
N
bA
O
-0
0N
P- /0•� Z
N N
H
+'
Ccu d
v
0
A N
�cd -
N
O
N 9 9
U
NV �, U
C •U
Cd }
N O
:
. b
cn .N ° -0
U N¢ � U
0,
`0 �
� �' � � �
o
� � Z � � � zs a,
�
�.
�
�" N
N
Rf S. � S-.
U
� ¢
U
o o � � �
� �
� U or � U
. H � �
O
o
i
" +-'
o 'b
Q. tin °
a
>, s •
° �
•t3 4.+
U fs. •t3 U U � • � �.
U � • � � a�
U
r4
¢
'd
0" �
O
id .fl
f3, . ,
O
N
cN d
U
�cbn A
U
U
O
11 O
+
U N
cbdIl
4-�
O
0
'U
�3 a>
O
Cd cd v
'�
O
0 N O cC3
p
O N
° o
a
a� j
"
o
°°,
0 a 5b
p, m
C's 0
9 y a
O
4.4 �
p O'
O O
U
.� O by
•4
A. 20 co- � O
+U+
bA
^
bA .C/1 N M
9 ti cd U O
0
Qom+
d �O+ O
Q,:
°
cn U N to
r- p
cd
o
U 0 �
.s; acd 0 0
O
z
E O U
O
U N
U D n
+�
0 d
U .
0 'U � ,�
O U + v
0 j 0 P,
O
+5 U O N .y., O°
sN �
+'
O cn
cd
d
p U v'
4! N bb Cif 'd
O
O
m O U
�+ sue. =,
cd cd
N cd
N -=
> ••p � cd U
N N
cd
S�. '�
U
H
U U a ^d °�' g
-0 U
ai �.
c�a
N
0
a� a�
o 04 o
cn Q> .� N � ¢, � � N O O .� N 'can � � •� sU., ,� .� •C)
cn
0 U4
i, �' ran cci �� U �, p A 0 N V bA
o .., U cd o N rd o 0 'b ::3 "� 'd p s"
".0 6n Cfj c
p 4, O d O _ " O o U cd N U py :=
U o o O
bf) fcd O cd , A ] v N C) to • U Q,
55 C3 N O O N s , p N u, �' ' 3 ° U ¢
tn
3
U ~S y O Q Z7 N N � a� )
p dA 4 O U p� y 0 'O • O P r N N .O ba� A i O U p N 2 M q U Os,
crj -5 O p
03 ,
N p fit, N R, to bA O Q O
En 03
Ei k rn O U oQ ` 0
M 4° �U 0 C
" N N r ,
a c ++ a o o �
o
p G) 71 U m bA p ��, O
N ° C'3 �v] to as
bA U
c job 4�
N M cn
G-0 U Q, sue, U +-� N N > - 'O — U '>'
C's OU cn cn �, U ' ' Q, U OU rn 'O cd rA
E� 'd _
p cn
Q N N p cd ^C3 N N t1 �; .s� N 41 � cd V�� ss N N E 3
s ° o I Z -a - �,. �. o o rt o to U
a, v d N O O am N
c� ;P, Q, Q" a3 d"
4 N ti �' ' '
O -o '2 44 U
cn
cn
*� U
A'o�o
tip,•�ti p
o cn rs
ti o 0'"
� ,3
N cd
. C�
cn a
i4 4cd
3 n
U V
U H
to. -b
M
bi
d-
Pl
v,
p
U
°U U
A,
O
"d
bUA
Ep
on
bD
rl
y
bo
O a) a)
vs
cd
7:1
4�
o
O
O
N
N
U +In+ +� +
° Q+
En
cd
a, ¢•
cd
'- to °U
U
. d In cd S
'zj
4-4
Cd cd t
Q N d bA
O
cd U
a) rn
4Z 0
x
Ed
En cn
cd
O
bA
rn
,�
O
U
U to <+-;
U. � . r
+� p
cod u
O' •
a?
03 o
U
ca
.6
Cd
�r b a�
R
cu
v aq �? =
a, +� 4-4
IA
Cd
sU, bA U bA
d
N
OU
1-
0
O
0
�,
Cd
a +•
>,
r- R
^a
sti
E C6
n
+-
ca
cd
O
cn
a
O
bb
O
Ul
(n
N
O
' d
'Cj
+-+
Ln
'o U
�q
r�
5
-
N ...
•.,
.�
4c+
¢
�," N
¢
U p
Cn
CA
ai o
� � °
3
°'
to
o
cn °"
o. � r--
E �
Lon
C • o U
U
1+
0 n (1)
c°
0
t8
cd
u p Q
W
-.0
Z
vs
•.O
e/)
o
E- -d
a
C�l
+s o o
0 u
p+ o
o
o
O
o
a, a�
U4-1 Q
o
1)
O to O z
N
s.
n
4
+' O a)
U
N
+ C4 0O
N
` 4;� n E+ O
N
'O
N
bA O
cy
O N
C6
cd En th
N
U O U
M
U Ubl)
N
'CY O
a)
El : .5 v,
4-�
O 4] a)
A
s + cn
N
ct3 ++ U
d-
ZL
-� � F
4Ei
o U
Cd
°
w U o¢
bb
o
O
U 0 &n � o �,�
� �
�
� 3•°
o
� � � � o ��°, �
O
c
U
^�
tO
to
..-
N
140.
O
Cl) o
:z O. cn-+
� •t7
� s-+ cn c�3 ,,,., O
� U
� .
.
cn
N
44,
U U U d
�3
't3
Cd
cd
,�
� a o
C�l CA
o
.� o
cd to
tj
U o
-a
o
Z w
'�
� ' m o 0
,
En
o
O O
2
�r � N� S1• �� 1
110 vi cd
a U
O
yp
t3'
--n N 'O
p
.
rA
to
m
v
cn
Q,
° ' ° o� Q'
0
p '�
�' U �� 's, >> U Z
+'
s., m
I +�
v
I '� C)'N W(n vi
cp
rn {
tti N
t O Q
19
Qt «i
Q a te, Q.
pCd
&n
bA
h N N "a
p
1 �5 „�
n
`
N
Q
U U ° vi `+ +
1 o
�" cn
°
Cd
En
s
1
V1
N c,
FU H
N
v th
O
N V)
�
N � �
� � • �
N � a3
rA
'd 2 N � 'C3 LH +�
+
�,
o C d
rn � ,
�
O >,
cd O
En
cn cn
..
N 0
4 O
ik,
N O U
O m +
N Q bA
0
Q
zz„
z
to 15
u.
V H 3 Rs O r� btJ �..,
U
V
� �
V H •r,1
� � ti
V
,•fl ....
..
.fl
.. + +�
ZL
Zt7
"d
N
U ° C, U Q
4-+
r Sr
°
to 0
N.
Z
�+
"mod 5
v�
�-
-0 y�� d. z
0
CCS
C) U cd
J
N
N;:3 0"
+1,
o
°
co
a°i
obdo
a� a
a.
' 0 4., -
�° O a o = a.)
t4
o
o �
U
N p
'd � O U�
cn
'd
rn U
d U
4°
Cd
cod
'
U
a? d Q a +d
j�4 cc bo
:
O
•
Q ° 3
U °
�- 3 2
o♦
o
0
0 on
o
�
cn Q o o�n
a �!
L
'
Z
a�i ca .�
I U� i-' -�
(4)
�� ° is
s o"r. �
cn
0
cn
ca
a�
o:4-
o7�
b
'
> a
° N
o
U
at
C's Q
N
N p a) "v o
N f�,
b ��' U O
N
N
N Q a a' ~ Q)
OM ° b
M o +�U' �U' � v im"
M cd
i a+ N
�
t!
ii tQ
��,
14)
0
N
4d4
U�
U� C,tQ �U�
3
U�Cr1w� o.
UU
Zt7
2(I
GO
cp
Lo
4.1
cn
U
U " 0
O
U �
"d
a
4- O
++
%1
O O -
cd td
o
' N
cOd"
p
O
a
9--lO
Phi
U
44
v
N N +�+ 0
�Q
.,
�
cd +j O
pro
cz Cd �
rn 0�
00 z
bo
$-' �-' � �
cd
N
M
O +i44 't
0 . 0 -�
O 0"
0
N
N
-+
4�
d
O
CIS
O
O t
� O
'ZI
p
0
� cd
42 O
0
U
cq
U vju
�, Q
U w
+-'
'd
cn U
Ul
O
-d -0
a? L) cd
a
cod
O
a)
ai '
, O U
Gn
_.
+
•�'
��"
0
jay „'�.•
.. e-+
b O
. �""+
a
o ¢
� 3
O ti
U U
4°
�
N
O
,
& O
�
O cd
�
Q
°
°
a) °� '
o
'
°�'
cn
o 3
-0 C"d -ts
o -° o
'n
o 0 0.°
s�.
N
N 0
> p N~
cd
O Q.
D O
'"
tF �j
H U
fl
Q o
� 0 •0
aQ
bb
cn y cn a, p
k
N
` -0 U
— ^t3
F
�y i•y �y
.a
i•-1 Vl
"_' ° V] ° .O
�.+ O
Q� •��
�
i-CIS
j
2
C13
o U °
'� a '�
�N
�n
0
b o
a�i
U
s�, ;:3 o
�-.
03 ai
\V
� a� cn
o °�'
..
U
o
.. y
ll
.� .o
bA rx, .��
.O U) cd
a 0 -
m
4-4 .�
U N
O p
Cn
FL
O
a
N
cd N .N t�,
rte„
cd
o
y
!3. F,
o
ca
Q
cw
-•
o
Q. � Q
o
¢
0
0
to
Q41 U
mo=d
P a) P44
H
4-4
°
z
U
U
H
Cl)
S
.�
'� �
S
1 0
+
U
Cl) o
xl
�
�,
m U
w
v] �
cn a�
z
,� U
' O
°0
N
O w N
N 'L7
U
En
V) b�A bA
U'
N
M �
O
N
N >
M
M
N
N
U
N 'cam
cd
U a�
a
M
L
M
cUn �^
aUi
N
R,
b
p �''' '+�+
In
CU
N 4- • r
M +p+
f".
O
N cn
Cd cn
a3
V)
cq
O. m cn 2
N
�' 'O
p
cd N N
�
M as
CIJ
+
cd
El +�
'C3
to
++ p cd
�" �"
.
V H
V H H
rn
U U °
o
U
u
2(I
U
a
3
x
U
as
U
a
x
U
N
«3
U
a�
00
M
�i
O
..r
U
U
N
N N
a�
w
U �
o °
'i
0
� o
o
� O
� C,
cn m
2 =-
-0
U
O
o
�a 0 c O
s�
bb ca
a�
,SU', •O 'U C*0
Zn
~ Z N
co H c
c
0
'Zi
9
m