HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 GPA&EDUBSPA PA#02-041 CZTY CLERK
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 15 2003
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 02-041, Site 15A, General Plan
Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
(Report Prepared by Michael Porto, Project Planner)
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration with
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration as Exhibit lA
Comment Letters as Exhibit 1B. Responses to Comment Letters
as Exhibit 1 C, Statement of Overriding Considerations as Exhibit
1D and Mitigation Monitoring Program as Exhibit 1E
2. Resolution approving General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendments to change the land use designations for Site
15A to Campus Office with Revised General Plan and Specific
Plan Maps as Exhibit 2A and 2B
3. Project Site Vicinity Map
4. Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending City
Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
5. Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending City
Council approval of General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendments to change the land use designations for Site
15A to Campus Office.
6. Letter from Sybase
RECOMMENDATION:/ 1. Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation
2. Take testimony from the Applicant and the public
' 'h 3. Question Staff, Applicant, and the public
4. Close public hearing and deliberate
5. Adopt the following resolutions:
· Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration
· Resolution Approving Amendments to the General Plan
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land
use designations for Site 15A to Campus Office
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND:
The subject property of this Application, referred to as Site 15A, is located in the development/planning
area known as Emerald Park in the westerly portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The
COPIES TO.' In-House Distribution
Applicant/Property Owner
G:kPA#~2002\02-041 \CCSR 4-15-03 2nd copy.doc
ITEM NO. ~
location of Site 15A is shown in the Site Vicinity Map (Attachment 3) and the proposed amendments are
shown in General Plan and Specific Plan Maps (Exhibit2A and 2B of Attachment 2). Site 15A is a
portion of a site originally shown in the Plan as Site 15. The current owner of the property is the Alameda
County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA), which also is the Applicant for the current
request/proposal. The subject property originally was part of the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and had
been used for various government activities until vacated a number of years ago.
With the adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and the declaration
of this area as government surplus property, Site 15 originally was a 34.6 gross acre site designated for
High-Density Residential use. This land use category is defined as 25.1 or more residential units per
gross acre. (Gross acreage includes property that eventually or ultimately will be dedicated or otherwise
acquired for public rights-of-way.)
In June 2000, Site 15 was divided into two portions approved as PA 99-062. Parcel Map No. 7580
legally separated Site 15 into two separate development sites. The easterly portion of the Site 15 (Site
15B) was created as a development parcel of 19 gross acres (14.59 net acres) oriented towards Hacienda
Drive. The Land Use designation for Site 15B was changed from High-Density Residential (HDR) to
Campus Office (CO), and development was approved for two 6-story office buildings totaling
approximately 420,000 sr. The proposed use was for the corporate headquarters for SyBase, a high-tech
company. The land use amendment and approval of the project reallocated some of the Campus Office
development capacity planned for Site 16 to Site 15B and reallocated 390 units from the original Site 15
to the Waterford project on Site 3. The approved development for Site 15B (SyBase) has been completed,
and the project is occupied. The westerly portion of the original Site 15, Site 15A, remains a vacant site
totaling 15.6 gross acres (11.3631 net acres) currently designated for High-Density Residential use.
In 2001, subsequent to the SyBase proposal, an application (PA 00-029) was submitted to the City and
reviewed for the development of Sites 15A and 16A. The proposal was for facilities to be used by Cisco
Systems, another major high-tech enterprise. Proposed plans for the development of Site 15A by Cisco
Systems included an amendment to the land use designation from High-Density Residential (HDR) to
Campus Office (CO). The total proposed development between Sites 15A and 16A combined was
planned for 862,000 sf. A total of 433,500 sf proposed for Site 15A represented a reallocation of some
development capacity planned for Site 16 and a reassignment of 99,622 sf of"unused" office space
capacity from previously developed sites within the Emerald Park planning area. The Stage 1 Planned
Development Rezoning and Site Development Review portions of PA 00-029 subsequently were
withdrawn by Cisco Systems; however, the ACSPA (as the property owner) has since requested to
continue processing the General Plan and Specific Plan amendments from the original application. Site
15A currently remains designated for use as High-Density Residential with a pending request from the
property owner for an amendment to the Campus Office land use designation.
The current request by the Applicant includes that portion of PA 00-029 which would amend the land use
designation for Site 15A in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan from High-Density
Residential to Campus Office. At this time no development plan is proposed. Uses allowed by the
Campus Office Land Use Designation include professional and administrative offices, technical data
centers and computer serving facilities, training and conference centers, corporate offices and
headquarters, research and development laboratories and offices, parking structures, support structures
and other similar non-governmental uses. l
The project site is located at the northeast comer of Arnold Road and Dublin Boulevard. The northerly
boundary of Site 15A abuts the south side of Central Parkway. A portion of Emerald Point Business Park
has been developed and constructed on the north side of Central Parkway across from the project site
(MicroDental). As discussed above, the corporate headquarters for SyBase, Inc. is located immediately to
the east of the project site. The property to the west across Arnold Road is designated as Parcel F,
~ Alameda County is considering a proposal for a potential future County courthouse facility on Site 15A. The City has
advised the County that a courthouse facility would not be permitted in the Campus Office land use designation. The land use
designation would need to be changed to Public/Semi Public.
identified as a neighborhood park within the Dublin Transit Village Center, a recent addition to the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The Dublin Transit Village Center is a 90+ acre mixed-used project
recently approved in concept to the west of Sites 15A and 16. The property to the south across Dublin
Boulevard remains designated for Campus Office. Both properties to the west and south of Site 15A
currently are vacant.
Under its current land use designation of High-Density Residential, Site 15A could be developed at a
maximum of 864 units which represents a density of 76 units per net acre (or 55± units per gross acre).
Alameda County Surplus Property Authority currently has 1,542,378 uare feet area left
to develop within the Santa Rita (Emerald Park) Property. Under the
proposed land use amendment to Campus Office, the development anticipated by the Applicant is
approximately 433,500 sf as initially proposed with PA00-029 (Cisco). The 433,500 square feet
represents a reallocation of some development capacity planned for Site 16 to Site 15A and "unused"
office development capacity from previously developed projects within the Emerald Park planning area.
The actual distribution of Campus Office development between Site 15A and Site 16 might vary
depending upon the entitlements eventually requested.
Table I. Existing and Proposed Specific Plan/General Plan Land Uses-Alameda County Surplus
Property Authority Property
Site Name Acres Existing Sq. Ft. Proposed Sq. Ft.
(gross) Specific Plan /DU's Specific Plan /DU's
I Tassajara Meadows 14.8 Med. Res. 148 du no change --
2 Emerald Glen Park 51.7 Park --- no change ..... --
3 Village Center 21.9 Neigh. Comm. 286,189 no change --
347 du
4 Toll Emerald Glen 33.9 Med. Res. 339 du no change
5A G.M. 17.0 GC 185,130 no change --
5B Koll 35.1 CO/GC 552,449 no change
I ~'~ ... ,.......2..6.4...,...3_66 no change
6 AutoNation 28.9 --
7 Hacienda Crossing 56.8 [GC 530,536 no change ........--
!
8 Calif. Creekside 35.7 l Med. Res. 277 du no change --
1
9 Villas 16.2 / Med. High 324 du no change --
/ Residential
10 ] School 11.0 I School -- no change --
- llA ]JPI 18.5 Med. High 335du nochange --
I
I Residential
11B [ Sl~mmer Glen 69.2 1 L/M Res. 328 au no change
"' 12 [Pub/Semi:Pub~ 88,5 l PuUic ......................... 963,765 nochange
13 [ Creekside Business 29.71 Industrial 478,681 no change
[Park [/Office .......
14 ~[Emeraldmointe 35'3 Ilndustriall/Office ..~ 568,9~37 nochange
Site Name [ Acres-I Existing [ Sq. Ft. Proposed Sq. Ft.
I ] I(gr°ss) Specific Plan /DU's Specific Plan /DU's
15B Sybase Corporate I 19.0 [ Campus Office 420,000 no change --
Headquarters [ [
' '
Tota!.~ ................. 651.8 2,962 du 2,098 dn
The residential units allowed by the current high-density residential land use designation would be
replaced by the reallocated office development., The residential units anticipated for Site 15A were
reallocated to the Dublin Transit Village Center project when Alameda County Surplus property '
Authority proposed a total of approximately 1500 high-density residential units which were never
anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Planned Development zoning for Site 15A would be
addressed at a later time when a site-specific development plan and design proposal are prepared and
would be submitted for approval.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific land use amendment for Site 15A from High-Density
Residential to Campus Office is consistent with the existing and proposed uses on the surrounding and
adjacent properties. Development of Site 15A as Campus Office, rather than High-Density Residential, is
not anticipated to add to the amount of non-residential space addressed in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, but would represent a reallocation of uses planned (see Table 1 above).. The proposed land use
amendment would not result in a net increase in the total office area from that originally envisioned and
approved for the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority Santa Rita Properties through the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. The adjacent Dublin Transit Village Center mixed-use project is a suitable location
for re-distributing the high-density residential units originally planned for Site 15A Therefore, the
proposed change in land use from High-Density Residential to Campus Office would not result in a
significant deviation from the goals, objectives, and intent of the General Plan/Specific Plan. A public
hearing on this application was held on March 11, 2003, and the Planning Commission has recommended
approval by the City Council.
Staffhas received a letter from Sybase, the adjacent property owner located on Site 15A, stating their very
strong opposition to the potential location of any "county offices, and particularly a county courthouse,
next door" to the Sybase corporate headquarters. Please see Attachment 6. Specific wording has been
added to the City Council Resolution approving this General Plan Amendment defining the land uses
permitted within the Campus Office Land Use designation and specifically stating that a "courthouse
facility" would not be a permitted use.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Initial Study was prepared to determine whether additional impacts beyond those identified in the
Eastem Dublin EIR would result from the requested action. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared and circulated in 2001 since the Initial Study identified several environmental issues which may
be mitigated to less than significant levels. The proposed project addressed by this document was for
862,000 sf of Campus Office development on the combined 25.95 net acre site comprised of Sites 15A
and the northerly portion of site 16 (north of Digital Drive), including the General Plan and Specific Plan
Land use amendments for Site 15A currently presented. The 30-day public review period commenced
June 16, 2001 and ended July 16, 2001.
Upon the request by the property owner to proceed with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan amendments included in the original application, City staff reviewed the Mitigated Negative
Declaration that had been circulated and determined that it still applied to the County's application. Also,
the development project as originally proposed and reviewed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
included density within the mid-range for Campus Office, so that document analyzed a reasonable
potential development scenario per the General Plan and Specific Plan. Under these circumstances, staff
determined that no substantial revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration were necessary for the
County request. The City prepared written responses to the comments that were received during the
public review period.
The proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments are within the Dublin General Plan
Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which was the subject of an
Environmental Impact Report, certified by the City of Dublin in 1993. (EIR Addenda were approved on
May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994).
The General Plan/Specific Plan EIR, which is a Program EIR, anticipated subsequent actions and
addressed development capacities planned for future development in Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area.
The EIR identified a number of impacts from implementation of the General Plan/Specific Plan that are
not able to be mitigated. Upon certification of the EIR, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for several impacts. The City also adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program, which
included measures intended to reduce impacts from development in eastern Dublin. These measures
apply to project approvals and actions at various stages of the development process and are applied to
each project as development occurs. The timing for implementation of these mitigation measures is
indicated in the City's EIR mitigation monitoring matrix (City Council Resolution No. 53-93).
As a result of the review of the certified EIR and addenda and the preparation of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, it has been determined that with the implementatiOn of Mitigation
Measures previously adopted for the Program EIR and with site-specific Mitigation Measures contained
in the Initial Study, potential site-specific impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to a level of
insignificance, and therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council: 1) Receive Staff report; 2) Receive the presentation by the applicant,
the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA); 3) Question Staff and Applicant; 4) Adopt the
Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 5) Adopt the Resolution approving PA 02-
041 for General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use of Site 15A to
Campus Office.
RESOLUTION NO. -03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PA 02~041,
ALAMEDA COUNTY SITE 15A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority has requested approval of
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use designations for
Site 15A, an approximately 11.36 acre property located on the northeast comer of Dublin Boulevard
and Arnold Drive, from High Density Residential to Campus Office; and
WHEREAS, the project site is in Eastem Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning framework for future
development of the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified a program EIR pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51-93, and Addendum dated August 22,
1994, hereafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "program EIR") which is available for review in the Planning
Department and is incorporated herein by reference. The program EIR was integral to the planning
process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy altematives, and
areawide mitigation measures for developing Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and
related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation findings and a Mitigation
Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93), which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to
apply to development in Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EiR also identified potentially significant environmental impacts
that could not be avoided by mitigation and for which the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate site-specific impacts of the Site 15A
project to a greater level of detail than in the program EIR. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 2001 (SCH: 1991103064, attached as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference) and circulated it for public review from June 16, 2001 through July 16,
2001; and
WHEREAS, the City received ten letters commenting on the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
which letters are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Although not required by
CEQA, the City prepared written responses to the comments, which responses are attached as Exhibit C
and incorporated herein by reference. The responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of
the environmental issues raised in the comments; and
WHEREAS, following the public review period, the original applicants withdrew from the
project whereupon the Surplus Property Authority as property owner determined to continue the
ATTACHMENT /
application review process for the General Plan and Specific Plan amendment portions of the application;
and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the property owner's actions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5
and determined that no recirculation of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was required because the
document analyzed the consequences of development pursuant to the requested land use changes; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on March 11, 2003 at
which time they reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all repons,
recommendations and testimony before them. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments (Resolutions 03-06 and 03-07, respectively, which are
incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendations, a staff
report, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
responses thereto, and all written and oral testimony at a duly noticed public hearing on March 25, 2003;
and
WHEREAS, the Site 15A Mitigated Negative Declaration tiers from the Eastern Dublin EIR which
identified significant and unavoidable impacts for which the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations when it approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan. Pursuant to a recent court decision, the City Council must weigh the unavoidable impacts disclosed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR that are applicable to the Site 15A project against its benefits through a new
Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring Program, as required by CEQA, is contained in attached
Exhibit E; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of
proceedings for the project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza,
Dublin CA 94568.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds as follows.
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The Eastern Dublin EIR and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describe the impacts
of the project. As reflected in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed amendments would result
in future urban development but at a lesser scale than assumed and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
To the extent set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed amendments are within the
scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR: Project specific environmental effects have been analyzed in the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which determined that the project will not have a significant effect
on the environment with the application of mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before
the City that the project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment.
C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
623895-1 2
D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent
judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the proposed land use amendments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the City Council hereby adopts
the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA 02-041, Alameda County Site 15A, consisting of Exhibits A,
B and C, as described above and incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Site 15A project as set forth in Exhibit D, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring
Program set forth in Exhibit E, both of which exhibits are incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 2003.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
623895-1 3
I'NITIAL STUDY
· .. ~'~ ' ~ i'.:".'~"I
Dublin, .C_~t . 94568
PA '00-0:29
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
June 2001
EXHIBIT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................... ,', ........................ ;,;~ .......................... 1
APPLICANTS/CONTACT PERSONS ..... , ...................................... ,,;22 .......................... 1'
PROjECT LOCATION AND CONTEXT .................. ; ................. 1
PROjECT DESCRIPTION ..... : ............................................................................................ 2
Specific Plan~General Plan Amendment ................................................................................. 3
Parcel Map ........................................................................... · ................................................... 4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .......................................... 10
DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY LEAD AGENCY):, ............................ 11
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................. 12
XVII. EARLiER ANALYSES.. ' .................................. 22
ATTACHMENT TO INITIAL STUDY .................................................................... ] .... 24
DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST ................... ........................... ' ........................................ 24
1. AESTHETICS ' 24
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... · ........................ 25
3. Am. QUALITY ........................................................................................................................ 25
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 26
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 27
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ' 28
'7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .... : ..................................................................... 30
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................. 32
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING ' 34
10. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 34
11. NOISE .................................................................................................................................. 34
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................. 35
13. PUBLIC SERVICES .............................................................................................................. 36
14. RECREATION ...................................................................................................................... 38
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ............................................................................................. 38
Existing and Future Baseline Conditions .............................................................................. 39
PENDING PROJECTS ................................................................................................................... 41
EXISTING PLUS FUTURE BASE CONDITIONS WITH PROPOSED PROJECT .................................... 43
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................ 44
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 47
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................................... 49
AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ............................................ 50
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 50
City of Dublin Page i
Initial Study/CisCo Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial. Study
introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the Califomia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environrnemal impacts of implementing the
proposed project described belowl The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental
checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist.
Applicants/Contact Persons
Cisco Systems, Inc. Alameda County Surplus Property Authority
170 W. Tasman Drive 224 W. Winton Blvd. ~ 110
San Jose CA 95134 Hayward CA .94544
Atto: Mark Crrieco Arm: Smart Cook
(408) 525 0946 (510) 670 6534
Brobeck, Plileger & Harrison, LLP
One Market Street
San Francisco CA 94105
Attn: James Andrew
(415) 442 1424
Project Location and Context
The project site is located on two parcels of land: the northerly portion of the site is identified as
Site 15 A of the Emerald Park development and is located on the northeast comer of Dublin
Boulevard and Arnold Drive. Site 15A encompasses 11.36 net acres of land. The second Portion of
the project area is located immediately south of the above location on the southeast comer of
Dublin Boulevard and proposed Arnold Road (Site 16A), and encompasses 14.59 net acres of
land. Together, both sites contain 25.95 net acres of land.
Both portions of the site are vacant, relatively flat and contain native and introduced species of'
grasses but no trees.
Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the project area in a regional context and Exhibit 2 shows the
detailed site location with/n the City of Dublin.
The project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan area. This Specific
Plan/General Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1994 for the purpose of directing long-
term land use, circulation, infrastructure and environmental protection for 3,302 acres of land
located east of the central portion of Dublin and north of the 1-580 freeway. At full build-out, the
Eastern Dublin planning area would allow a range of residential, commercial office, employment
and open space uses.
City of Dublin Page 1
]nitial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
Property north of Site 15A has been:: recentlY develoPed with an office complex (Microdental); ·
property to the east of Site 16A across Hacienda Drive has been developed with a major
retail/entertainment complex (Hacienda Crossings)and. the site east and north of the project site
(15A and 16A) has been appr°ved for ~.~.i S~ase Corponite Headquarters complex. Property south
of the project site is currently vacant but ha~'been approved for the Commerce One office
complex. Properties west of the project site are currently vacant, However, the Alameda County
Surplus Property Authority has requested approval of the Dublin Transit Center,it.~ g,maj:or
mixed-use transil village project located adjacent, lo the Eastern Dublin BART statio~on lands
west of the Pr0jeet site.~
p~Oj~t De~eri,Pfi6n :.
The pr0p0S~:Proj¢Ci ~'ciudes a number of related Ired use applications to allow the development
of a campus office complex for Cisco Systems, Inc. At full build-out, the campus would include
four mid-rise office buildings, vehicle parking (2,842 total.spaCe, s.,.)' and loading are~. md
landscaping. The total amount of construction on the site would include a maximum of 862,000
square feet, which wou!d largely be professional and business office space, but whch ,wou!d::also
irielUde brews devbted to re S:ear;h' d~ve!ppment and testing, light assembly ,and::~.laboratories.
Other uses and equipment would include conference rooms, small rooftop sate, ilite dishes and
antennas, an employee cafeteri~,.i~'m~i0Yee fitness center, employee laundry pick,up,and ~p off
area, a small employee store for sundries and necessities, and an on-site ATM,.,Two standby.
diesel-power generators would also be installed. A number of temporary and permanent uses and
activities may also take place on the site, such as outdoor employee gatherings,, carwashes ,and a
volleyball/basketball court.
The site would accommodate approximately 3000 employees at full build out,
The proposed development plan indicates that Site 15A would contain two office buildings and a
small maintenance building totaling approximately 433,000 square feet. Site 15A would also
contain a parking structure. Site 16A, south of Dublin Boulevard, would contain two. office
buildings totaling approximately 429,000 square feet and would also contain a parking slrueture.
The pr°Posed building heights .include a mix of 3 and 5 stori}s. Exhibit 4' shows the proposed site
layout and' deg'ign for sites 15A and 16A
Landscaping mould include planting of new street trees along all abutting, streets. On,site
.landscaping would inClUde One plaza area on sites 15A and 16A, landscaping within parking lots
and adjacent to buildings. Enhanced landscaping and a public art feature is proposed at the
intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. A distinct landscape theme is p!ann, ed
along the pe~meter of the Cisco campus. Outdoor recreational amenities are proposed to include a
volleyball / basketball court as well as passive seating areas.
Proposed parking includes two multi-deck parkingI slrucmres, one each. on Sites I5A and 16A and
surface parking on both portions of the project area. Access to the site would be provided by the
following driveways
· ' Central ParkwaY'-2 drives, one full drive and I limited drive (rightin and 'right, out only);
· ArnOld Road .(existing)-I full drive n°rth.°fDublinBoulevard
· Arnold Road (proposed)- 2 limited access driVes.south of Dublin Boulevard (Parking
structure eXit and access to loading' dock);
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200J
PA 00-029
* Digital'Drive (proposed)-2 drives, 1 full drive and 1 limited ·drive (right,in and right-out
* Dublin Boulevard, 1 limimd drive on the north side of..Dub ,.~.. ': Boulevard (righl,,in and
right-out only),: and 3 limited aecess~drives (right,in only, right-out only and right-in and
right,out only) on the south side of Dublin Boulevard.
Full project drives would be located mid-block. Limited access drives would be designed with
raised medians in the::adjaeent roadways to chapel traffic.
As part of project development~...'~e:~site,woUld'..be .cleared and .graded fo aceo~odate'~the
proposed buildings, parking lots, pedestrian walkways and related improvements and to assure
appropriate site drainage. The amount of grading is not known at this time bUt'WOUld be regulated
under,the 'City's.grading ordinance. Umterground utilities, including sewer, water; reclaimed
.water~ .storm. d~ain lines, 'natural gas,.,telephOne~.::fiber optic and"etectdcal, would, beextendeCl to the
site from. adjoining streets.:' Adjacent streets' have.been constructed or' are proPoSed'to be
consUmeted'to' full width per the:Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. '
Development of the project would also include construction of site lighting (including parking lot
landscaping, walkway lighting and lighting near each building) and identification signs..A Master
Sign Program would,need.,to"'be.prepared;:'for, consideration~ bY the CitY ofDubli/ias Part.'oT the
proposed project. ' ' ...
It is proposed that the four buildings be constrUcted in phases. Each phase would include the
construction and occupation of each building, with associated required parking arid ~! necessary
site imprbvements.
.Devetopmenf of the Cisco 'facility wilt reqUiSite.' the approval of/he following related applications:
Specific Plan/General Plan.Amei~dment, PD planned'Devel0pment rezoning' (Stage 1 .~d ~'), Site
DeVelopment ReView (SDR) and a Development Agreement. The applicant has also requested
approval of two Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps.
Specific Plan~General Plan 2t mendrnent
The existing Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General' Plan designates site 15A bounded by Central
Parkway to the north, Dublin Boulevard to the south, Arnold Drive to the west and the proposed
Sybase project to the east (11.36 net acres) for High Density Residential uses permitting an
average of 821 dwellings to be constructed. A portion of the Cisco project would not be consistent
with this land use classification. The property owner, the Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority, has therefore filed an application to amend the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General
Plan to redesignate Site 15A from "High Density Residential" to "Campus Office."
The property to the south, Site 16A, would continue to have a'"Campus Office" land use
designation. Approximately 333,878 square feet of potential office floor area would be transferred
from Site 16A to Site 15A. An additional 99,622 square feet of unused office floor space within
the Emerald Park project would also be assigned to Site 15a. The "Campus Office" land use
designation on Sites 15A and 16A would therefore accommodate the square footage proposed for
the Cisco Systems project. No additional office space beyond that analyzed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR would be added. Exhibit 3 shows the proposed Specific Plan/General
Plan Amendment.
PD-Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans
City of Dublin page 3
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
.PA 00-029
The:applicant has also proposed a PD-Planned :DevelOpment rezoning for SiteS; 15A and 16A.
Existing zoning for sites 1SA and 16A is Planned Development-Business Park. prOpOsed Zoning
for both Sites is PD-Planned Development-Campus Office. The proposed PD-Planned
Development .will include:a Development Plan.that.will establish standards and regulations
governing the future use, development; ~provement and maintenance of theSite, in accord with
Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
As. part of the PD-Planned Development zoning application~ :a Stage 1 ;and Stage 2Development
Plan has been prepared for City approval describing in detail the proposed development program
for the,:Cisc0.:.project. Details. of the development plan:are,:describedabove,
Site Deve
Approval, ora 8itc. De;~elopmemReview Permit:.is ::~so required as.part:of the entitlement, process
for the project, pursuant to ~Chapter. 8.104 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of Site
Development Review is :to promote orderly, attractive,and hanuonious development within the
City and to ensure compliance with all applicable development regulations of:the Zoning
Ordinance.
Devel°Prnent.Agr,eernent
A DevelOpment .Agreement. is required under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan between the City of
Dublin, the current property owner and the project developer. The Development Agreement'would
vest (or "lock in") City development approvals related to the project for a specified period of time.
?arcel Map
The applicant has also requested approval of two Vesting Tentative parcel Maps to subdivide the
block formed by Central Parkway, Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Drive into separate parcels of
record (Site 1.5A), and to subdivide the block formed by Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive,
proposed Arnold Road and proposed Digital Drive into 'separate parcels of record,(Site 16A).
After apprOval of each Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, a final Parcel Map would be prepared,
approved by the City and recorded.
City of DUblin Page 4
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
San Dublin Site
Pacific
Ocean
10 Miles
0 Exh'i'bit 1-Regional Context
~ 'Cisco Project (PA 00-029)
City of.Dublin
Monterey
(CAMP PARKS)
,-" PLEASANTON
Exhibit 2-Site Loca-tiO~-
.Cisco Project (PA 00.029) '
City of Dublin
' __~
~,~' , c E~ ..... + .... ~ ....~ .... ~"' ~.' ~: ....~ '~ ~::: :"-
· ,'.,~ , E: ........~-- ~ ,- ~ L. ~ ~ ::::~:::: :~:
' ,,', ,'s Il,
'- , . ~'x x x -~ ~ ~ "' ' ....... ~ .... 1 ....
....................... ,, .... .
~GUZZARDO
~ PARTNER~iP~c.
t
/
BUILDING SU~RY
SffE 15A: S~ 16~
679,536 SF B~rNG ~1 - 5 ~RS - 2~,980 SF BUILOING ~3 - 5 ~ - 269,975 SF
t5.~ ~R~ · p~ ~QUIRE~(~3.5/I,~ S~-886SP~ES P~ING RE~REME~(~3.3/!,~
494.976 SV 5 L~
1%5631 ~ i ~ ~1 - 1~96 SP~ - 5 L~ ~[ ~2 - g~ ~ -
520,~00 5~ 352,~0 SF
962.676 ~ aUIL~G ~2 - 3 ~OOES - 1~,115 SF ~U~LDtNO ~ - 3 ~ - qSS.~ SF T~-v~E3
22.1000 ~R~ ~ P~KING REQUIR[~E~(~3~/1,0~O S~-522~ACES P~KING REOUIREME~(~3.3/1,~ 5~-524SP~ES ~BUN~
6~,456 SF p~NI~ SU~
14.5900 ~ ~
~CE BU1LOING 5,g95 SF SU~E P~KING - 455
TOTAL STRU~URED PKNG-t396 SP~ES-520.600~ TOTAL ~RUCTURED PKNO- 940 SP~ES-552.0DOSF
~- B62,~0 SF TOT~ ~EF~E PKNO- 5~ SPIES TOTAL SU~E PK"$ - 455
~.~ ~ /. ,. ~1~
) ( '[~ .:
; / I
~ ~F~
~ IGUZZA~DO
~ PARTNER~qI~c.
....................................... : .................................................................................. ~ ............................... ~, ~ 'W'", "~
~ I~ S~E 1~: SITE 1~
R~ ~ 679.556 S~ ~I~ING ~1 - 5 FL~ - 266,gB0 5F BUILD[~ ~3 - 5 ~ - 26~.975 SF
t5.~ ~R~ · P~NO REOUIR~E~{03.5/1,~5~-S66 SP~ P~l~ RE~REME~(O~.3/I~SF)-6gI~ SP~
D ~ 494.978 SF
11.5631 ~ ~ ~E ~ - 1596 SP~ - 5 ~ ~E ~2 - ~G.., - 5 L~
520.6~ SF ? 352,000 SF I
I
;ITE
6A:
ROSS ~ g62.575 $r B~L~NC ~2 - $ ~ORS - I~.1~5 SF 5U~LDING ~ - 3 ~ -
22.~ ~: P~KING R~UIREUE~(eS.~/1.0~SF)-522 SP~E5 PARKING REQUIR~(e3.5/~5~-524
I~ ~ 655,456 SF ~
~C[ BUi~NG 5.995 SF SURFACE P~NG -
;OMBINED SITES ~SA A ~6A TOTAL BUILD1NG ~- 4~.ogo SF TO~AL BU1~ING ~ - 42&.~5 SF ·
~TAL ~RU~UR[D PKNG-1596 SPACES-52O.60~F TOTAL STRUCTURED PKNG- 940
E,~ FRAID PARK
"~~' -- Proposed change from.
'"High Densi~
to "Campu, Offi~"
ou, u./~'u~u-~o. ' I-SilO
Exhibit 3~Proposed Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment
.. Cisco Project (PA 00-029)
.. City of Dublin
1. Project description: Proposed development of an 862,000 square foot office and
.. research complex on 25.95 net acres of land, to include a
. Specific Plan/General Plan Amendmen~ within the Hacienda
~ Gateway portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General
Plan, a PD-Planned Development Stage 1 and Stage 2
Rezoning, a Site Development RevieW, a Development
Agreement and two Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94588
3. Contact person: Anne Kinney, AI'CP Dublin Planning Department
(925) 833 6610
4. Project location: North and south sides of Dublin Boulevard, east of Arnold
Road
5. Project sponsor: Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Drive
Sar~ Jose CA 95134
Arm: Mark Grieco
(408) 525 0946
6, General.Plan/Specific Plan Existing:
designations: High Density Residential (Site 15A)
CO-Campus Office (Site 16A)
Proposed: PD/CO-Campus Office (both sites)
7. Zoning: Existing:
PD-Business Park (both sites)
Proposed' CO-Campus Office (both sites)
8. Other public agency required approvals:
Final Parcel Maps (City of Dublin)
Grading and Building permits (City of Dublin)
Master Sign Program (City of Dublin) .
Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board)
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
City of Dublin .Page 10
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
?A 00-029
The enviroranental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" before mitigation as indicated by the
checklist and discussion on the following pages..
X Aesthetics " - 'AgnZultu~al , X 'Aii"Quali~y
Resources
BiOlogical ResourCes X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils
Hazards and HydrOl0gy/Water X~ I~ff'Use/Planning
X Hazardous Materials X Quality
Mineral Resources X Noise X Pop'~lation/HoUSing
X Publi5 services · - Recreation "X ........ 'Transportation/
Circulation
X Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings
Systems of Significance ........
Determination (to be completed bY Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
__ t find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
X I find that although the pro'posed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described, on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be
prepared.
~ I fred that although the Proposed project may have a significant effec~ on the environment,
but re'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." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but
must only analyze.the effects that remain tO be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not'be a significant effect in this case because all potentiallY significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier' EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are/_reposed on the proposed project.
Signature: ~--~ ' Date:
Printed Name: A-t~e~ IL,~ For:
City of Dublin Page tl
initial Study/Cisco 5)2stems Campus June 200]
PA 00-029
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all ,answers except "no impact" ansWers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis
following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simPly does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g~ the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e,g. the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-speCific screening
analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-sine'as well as omsite,
cumUlative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct; and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "potentially. significant impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIK is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially :Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies
elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially
significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the
mitigation measures.and briefly explain how they :reduce the effect to a less than significant
level.
City of Dublin page ]2
Initial Study/Ciseo Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of
sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found Potentially ...... Less Tha~ Less than No
following the checklist. SignifiCantSignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
I. Aesthetics. Would the project: .............
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic X
vista? (Source: 2) ............
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees; rock X
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? (Source: 2)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ..... X.
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (Source: 2, 6) ................
d) Creme a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or X
nighttime views in the area? (Source: 2, 6)..........
ii. Agricultural Resources
grould the project: .....
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
' Farmland of Statewide Importance, as
showing on the maps prepared pursuant to X
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (Source:
2) _
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture
use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: X
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of X
farmland to a non-agricultural use? (Source:
III. Air Quality (Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district
may be relied on to make the following
determinations). Would the project: ....
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of X
the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2 )
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air X
quality violation? (Source: 2) . ..
City of Dublin Page 13
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus dune 200]
PA 00-029
PotentiallYLess Than Less than "No
SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an X
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ·
ozone precursors? (Source:2)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial - X
pollutant concentrations? (2)
e) Create objectionable odors? (Source:2) .............. X
IV. Biological Resources. Would the project ~ "
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly through.habitat modifications, on
arty species identified as a candidate, X
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, 6)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional X
plans, policies or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S: Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source:
,2)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 oft he Clean Water Act X
(including but not limited to marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption or other
means?
(Source:2)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native X
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? (Source: 2)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinemces
protecting biological resources, such as tree X
protection ordinances? (Source: 2)
Cio~ of Dublin Page 14
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200]
PA 00-029
~PotentiallyLess Than Less than No
Significant SignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With Impact
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural X
Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan? (Source: 2)
V. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as X
defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source:2)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource X
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 4)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleomological resource or unique geologic X
feature? (Source: 2)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? X
'(Source: 2) ......
VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potemial
substantial adverse effects, including the risk X
of loss, injury, or death involving: ·
(Source:3)
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State X
Geologist or based on other known evidence
of a known fault
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ......... X
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ....... X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X
topsoil? (Source 2,3)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in X
on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse (Source:
2.3)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Source: 3)
City of Dublin t>age 15
initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
PotentiallyLess Than Less than :~No
SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems Where sewers X
are not available for the disposal of waste?
(Source: 3)
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. V/ould
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ' "
environment through the routine transport, X
use or disposal of hazardous materials
(Source: 2, 7, 9)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the X
release of hazardous into the environment?
(Source:2, 7, 9 )
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste X
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source: 2, 7, 9) .
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant X
hazard to the public or the environment?
(Source: 2, 7, 9)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such plan has not been
adopted, would the project result in a safety X
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2, 7)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private - '
airstrip, would the project result in a safety 'X
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2, 7)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with the adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation X
plan?
(Source: 2, 7)
Potentially Less Th~~ ~ess than -1~)'"
SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
City of Dublin Page 16
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(Source: 2, 7) .
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X
discharge requirements? (Source: 2) ....
b) Substantially deplete groundwater sUpplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net ·
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the X
local groundwater table level (e.g. the
production rate of existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted?
(Source: 2)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the aeration of the course of a stream or X
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site? (Source: 7)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including through
the alteration of a course or stream or river, X
or substantially increase the rate or mount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 2,
7)
e) Create or contribute nmoff water Which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or X
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?. (Source: 2, 7)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X
quality? (2)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary X
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (7)
eote~ii~li~L Less Than Less than ..... ~o:
SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With impact
Mitigation
· City of Dublin ]>age ] 7
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200]
PA 00-029
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which impede or redirect flood X
flows? (7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, and death involving X
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? (7)
j) Inundation bY seiche, tsunami or mudfloW? X
IX. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) .Physically divide an established community? X
(Source: 1, 2')
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the proj eot (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, X
local coastal p!an, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (1, 6)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community X
conservation plan? (1, 2, 7)
X. Mineral Resources. Would theproject
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state? X
(Source: 2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site X
delineated on a local general Plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source: 2)
XI. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X
levels in excess of standards established in
the general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
(Source: 2)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of X
excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels? (Source: 2)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X .....
noise levels in the project vicinity above ·
existing levels without the project? (Source:
2)
PotentiallyLess Than Less than. N(~ ......
SignificantSignificantSignificam Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
City of Dublin Page 18
Initial &udy/Cis¢o Systema Caml2uS June 2001
PA 00-029
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity X
· above levels without the project? (Source: 2)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would ,the project X
expose people residing or working n the -,
project area to excessive noise levels ?
(Source: 2, 6) .
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to X
excessive noise levels? (Source: 2, 6)
XII. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induc.e substantial population growth in an
area, either directly or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other X
infrastructure)? (Source: 2)
b).Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of X
replacement housing elseWhere? (10)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing X
elsewhere? (Source: 10)
XIII. Public Services. Would the proposal: ........
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
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? (2, 7)
Fire protection? X
Police protection X
Schools X
Parks X
Other public facilities X
x
PotentiallyLess Than Less than No
SignificantSignificantSignificant impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
XIV. Recreation:
City of Dublin Page 19
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200]
PA 00-029
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional facilities such that X
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated
(Source: 7)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities ' '
or require the construction or expansion of X
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 7)
XV. Transportation and Traffic. PVould the
project'
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e. X
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads or congestion at
intersections)? (4)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the X
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways?(4)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels X
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (2, 4)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as X
farm equipment?(4)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (4) ..... X'
f).Result in inadequate parking capacity? (7) X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative transportation X
(such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (7)
PotentiallyLess Than Less than No
SignificantSignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With Impact
....... ~itigation
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. PVould the
project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ........... '"
the applicable Regional Water Quality X
Control Board? (2)
City of Dublin Page 20
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2007
PA 00-029
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the X
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (2, 7)
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of X
which could cause significant environmental
effects? (7)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing water X
entitlements and resources, or are new or
'expanded entitlements needed? (2)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate X
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments? (2)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficiem
permitted capacity to accommodate the X
project's solid waste disposal needs? (2)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes X
and regulations related to solid waste? (2)
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance. L
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 X
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number of or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the maj or
periods of California history or prehistory?
: Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant SignificantSignificant Impact
Impact With Impact
.M. itigation
City of Dublin Pltge 21
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a X
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects X
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan (1994)
2. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan EIR (1994)
3 Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Cisco Systems Site 9, Dublin CA, Lowney Associates
(December 2000)
4 Project Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Omni Means Associates (May 20.01)
6. Site Visit
7. Discussion with City of Dublin staff or affected special districts
8. Other source
9. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Soil and Ground Water Quality Evaluation,
Cisco Systems Site 9, Dublin CA, Lowney Associates (November 2000)
XVIL Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more of the project's effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d) of the CEQA Guidelines.
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Portions of the enviromnental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this
Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1994 Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. (SCH 91103064). This
document is referred to in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR." Copies of this
document are available for.public review at the City of Dublin Planning Department, 100
Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours.
As part of the certification of the EIR, the Dublin City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of
certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air
quality, noise and visual.
City of Dublin Page 22
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
The certified EiR contains a large number of mitigation measures that'will be applied to
any development within the project area, including the proposed project. Specific
mitigation measures are noted in the text of the following Initial Study.
City of Dublin ]>age 23
Initial Study/Ci~co Systems Campus dune 200]
PA 00-029
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS: Potentially Significant
LS/M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation
LS: Less Than Significant Impact
NI: No Impact (or no impact beyond the scope of impacts previously identified
and analyzed
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The project site is vacant and consists of generally flat land with a distinct but gentle slope from
north to south, towards the 1-580 freeway. The Eastern Dublin EIR classifies the project site as
"valley grasslands," which are located on the areas near i-5'80 in the south and southwest portion
of Eastern Dublin. None of the major visual features identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
(hillsides and ridges or watercourses) exist on the project site.
The project site is not located within a scenic corridor as identified in the General Plan or Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan.' The nearest scenic corridor to the project site is the 1-580 freeway.
Prqiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) I-lave a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. Approval and construction of the
proposed project would .convert an existing vacant site to an'urban use, specifically the
construction of 4 multi-story office buildings and related improvements, including parking
and landscaping. This potential impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIK (Impact
3.8C, Obscuring Natural Features and Impact 3.8F, Alteration of Visual Character of
Flatlands) and it was determined th.at no mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level. Therefore, the EIR concluded tiffs impact would be a potentially
significant irreversible change and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for
this impact. The impacts of the proposed project with respect to scenic vistas are within the
scope of the impacts associated with the project covered by the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
proposed project would not change the urban scale of development anticipated in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan EIR. for this project site. There is no impact beyond that identified and
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, therefore no additional discussion or analysis is
necessary
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic high,ray? NI. The project site
is not located adjacent to the 1-580 Freeway, which is a state-designated scenic highway, nor
is it located adjacent or near other local scenic routes, including Tassajara Road or Fallon
Road. and is therefore not within a scenic corridor. No impacts are.therefore anticipated
since the site is not located near an identified scenic corridor.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. This impact
was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and in an associated Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The proposed project would not change the urban scale of development
anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR for this project site, therefore no
City of Dublin .Page 24
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
additional discussion or analysis is necessary. The impacts of the proposed project with
respect to degradation of existing visual character and qualitY are within the scope of impacts
associated with the project covered by the Eastern Dublin EIR. There is no impact beyond
that identified and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
d)~ Create light or glare9. LS/M. Construction of the proposed project would increase the
mount of light and glare due to new street lighting, parking lot lighting and building
security lighting. In some instances, the additional lighting could result in negative aesthetic
impacts through the "spill over" of unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties, streets and
other areas that are not intended to be lighted. The following mitigation is therefore
recommended to reduce spillover of lighting impacts to a level of less-than-significant.
Similarly, extensive use of glass is proposed as one of the primary exterior materials for the
tw° buildings. Depending on the type of glass used, potential glare could result onto adjacent
sites and nearby roadways. Mitigation Measure 1 would also reduce potential glare impacts
to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure 1: Pole-mounted street lights shall be equipped with cut-off
lenses and oriented down toward interior streets to minimize unwanted light and
glare spill over. Building security lighting and other lights shall be directed
downward. All exterior glass panels shall be of non-glare manufacture.
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental Setting
The Eastern Dublin EiR notes that the site is an ,,approximate urbanized area" and is therefore not
prime farmland.
Based on information conta/ned in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Figure 3. l-C), no portion of the site is
encumbered with a Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement contract.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a
non-agricultural use? NI. The site was previously used for governmental purposes and is not
identified as prime farmlands in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No impacts are therefore
anticipated with regard to prime farmland or loss of agricultural production.
3. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
Dublin is located in the Tri-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal standards for
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other airborne pollutants,
including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter (PM-10) are not met in at
least a portion of the Basin.
~roiect impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation .of an.air quality plan? LS. The
proposed project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District, since the proposed mount of development has been
City of Dublin Page 25
]nitial Study/Cisco Systems Campus dune 2001
PA 00-029
included in Dublin's planned growth as part of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan,
which is the basis of the Clean Air Plan. Therefore, such impacts would be less-than-
significant.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS. Short-term construction impacts .
related to implementation of th. e project, including grading and excavation, could result in
exceedances of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (Eastern Dublin EIR, Impacts 3.11/A and B). With adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.11/1.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.11/2.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin Elk short-term
project-level air quality impacts will' be less-than-significant. These mitigation measures
minimize the creation of fugitive dust during grading and construction activities and also
mandate that construction equipment be kept in proper running order. With adherence to
these mitigation measures, project-level impacts would be less-than-significant, and no
additional analysis is required. The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that potential cumulative
air quality impacts related to construction equipment could not be mitigated to a less-than-
significant impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this
impact.
Similarly, potential air quality cumulative impacts related to mobile source emissions of
Reactive Organic Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide, both precursor indicators of smog, and
stationary source emissions were found to exceed regional air quality standards even with
mitigation measures, and were included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
(Eastern Dublin EIR Impacts 3.11/C and E). The air quality impacts of the proposed project
are within the scope of the project impacts covered by the Eastern Dublin EIR, for which a
Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for long-term, cumulative impacts.
There are no additional impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EiR, therefore no additional discussion or analysis is necessary.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? NI. The Eastern Dublin
EIR identifies Mobile Source Emissions and Stationary Source Emissions related to the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan as significant irreversible impacts. Generally such
impacts are based on vehicular emission from future traffic within the sub-region as well as
from stationary sources. The air quality impacts of the proposed project are within the scope
of the project impacts covered by the Eastern Dublin EIR, for which a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted for long-term impacts. There are no additional
impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, therefore no
additional discussion or analysis is necessary.
al,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors? NI. Proposed land uses include campus offices, which are not considered as sensitive
receptors. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to potential impacts to sensitive
receptors.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental' Setting
The Eastern Dublin EIR indicates the biological character of the Cisco site is "ruderal field,"
which is defined as a broad category of plant life closely related to man and consisting of native
and alien elements which occupy disturbed habitats. Plant species typically consist of weeds,
City of Dublin £age 26
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus 'June 200]
PA 00-029
thistles, mustards and grasses. Plant diversity is considered low even though plant cover may be
high.
The Eastern Dublin EIK identifies no known wetlands on the site nor the presence of rare,
threatened or endangered animal plant or animal species.
The site is substantially surrounded by urban development within the greater Eastem Dublin area.
Proiect Imvacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-stares species? NI. As
described in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no candidate, sensitive or special-status species exist on
the site. This has been confu~med by a site review conducted by Ci~ staff. Therefore, there
would be no impact. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure 3.7/20 of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan EIR requires all development projects to conduct prec~)nstruetion surveys within 60 days
prior to grading of a site to verify whether sensitive species axe present. 'So there would be no
impact to these biological resources beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan EIR.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? NI.
As described in the Eastern Dublin EIR, there are no wetlands or riparian features on or
adjacent to the project site. There would therefore be no impacts to wetlands or riparian
habitats. Since there are no streams on the site, the project site is not subject to the City's
Stream Preservation Plan.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NI.' The project site is
substantially surrounded by urban development and was previously developed for
governmental uses. There are no stream courses on or near the site that could be used as a
wildlife migration corridor.' Therefore, no impacts are anticipated with regard to movement
of fish or wildlife species.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. No trees are
present on the site, and there are no impacts with regard to local tree preservation ordinances
or policies. The site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plans.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Settin~
The Eastern Dublin area was surveyed in 1988 as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
associated EIK. Several potentially significant archeological resources were identified in the
Specific Plan area, a number of which were located near the former Santa Kita Kehabilitation
Center. None of these sites have been recorded on the project site.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The site is vacant
and contains no historically significant resources. There would therefore be no impacts to
historical resources.
City of Dublin Page 2 7
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus Jzrne 2001
PA 00-029
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse' impact or destruction to archeoIogical or paleontological
resources? LS/M. The site is located near the former Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center site
and development of the project could have an impact on subsurface archeological and/or
paleontological resources. This would be a potentially significant impact. In the event that
such resources are encountered, the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce
any potential impacts to archeological or paleontological impacts to a level of- less-than-
significance.
Mitigation Measure 2: The possibility that undetected prehistoric' archeological
resources might exist on the property must be recognized and a contingency plan
shall be developed in conformity with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 to handle
discoveries during project construction. In the event any prehistoric material is
discovcred~ work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity of the site until a qualified
archeologist inspects the discovery, and, if necessary, implements plans for further
evaluative testing and/or retrieval of endangered materials.
d) Disturb any human resources? LS/M. A remote possibility exists that human resources
could be uncovered on the site during construction activities. Adherence to Mitigation
Measure 2 would reduce such impacts to a level of less-than-significance.
6. Geology and Soils
[Note: Information for this section of the Initial Study is based on a geotechnical investigation of
the site for the proposed project;prepared by Lowney Associates, December 2000, which is
incorporated herein by reference. A copy of this report can be reviewed at the Dublin Planning
Department.]
Environmental Setting
This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and landform,
drainage and erosion and potential impacts to localized soil types.
Seismic '
The Cisco site is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically active regions
in nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby significant faults,
including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault, and San Anclreas Fault. The
likelihood of a major seismic event on one or more of these faults within the near future is
believed to be high. According to the report prepared by Lowney Associates, the project sites
(Sites 15A and 16A) are not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as identified by
the State of California.
A surface fault rupture study was prepared in the area by Kleinfelder Associates in 1999. No
evidence of fault-related disruption to the site soils was identified in this analysis. Based on this
and other recent geoteclmical information considered by Lowney Associates, a fault rupture on the
site is not anticipated.
Site Soils
The site is underlain by stiff to very stiff and sandy clay to the maximum depth explored (80 feet
below ground surface). Near-surface soils are highly expansive. Test pits dug as part of the
geotechnical investigation found scattered fill material, primarily gravelly clay, as well as
City of Dublin Page 28
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200]
PA 00-029
abandoned utility lines and below-grade structures. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 9 to
20 feet from ground surface, although this may vary due to rainfall and other factors.
Landform and Topography
The site is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-Amador Valley. The
site is relatively flat.'
Drainage
Existing drainage on the site is generally sheet flow in a north to south direction.
?..roject Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury
or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides?
.LS. The site is subject to ground shaking caused by a number of regional faults identified
above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable in the Bay Area over the
next 30 years, buildings, utilities and 'other improvements c°nstructed on the site would be
subject to damage caused by ground shaking.
Since the Cisco site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, the
potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. Adherence to Mitigation Measures
MM 3.6/1.0 through 8.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will ensure that new structures
built on 'the site will comply with generally recognized seismic Safety standards so that
ground shaking impacts would be less-than- significant.
As part of the project, the site is proposed to be graded to accommodate building pads, roads,
parking areas and other development areas. Grading would also occur to improve and control
site drainage. Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-26.0 have been adopted as part of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan EIR t° reduce potential geotechnical impacts to a level of less-than-
significant. These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and
geotechnical reports and adherence to Uniform Building Code and other City requirements
for grading.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. Impacts 3.6/K and L
of the Eastern Dublin EIR note that an impact of constructing all of the land uses identified
in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan would be an increase of erosion and
sedimentation caused by grading activities. Related Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and
3.6/28.0 require that project developers prepare and implement interim erosion plans as part
of grading permits. There are no grading impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and no further analysis is required. With adherence to these mitigation measures,
potential erosion impacts will be less-than-significant.
c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3.6/A of
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, the applicant's geotechnical consultant (Lowney
Associates) prepared a geotechnical analysis of the site. Based on. the Lowney Associates.
report, the site can support the type of project envisioned bY the applicant. Expansive soils
were encountered on the site and recommendations made by the geologist, to include special
grading techniques and building foundation designs will be required. No impact beyond
those addressed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR are anticipated and no further
review is necessary.
City of Dublin Page 29
'Initial Study/Cisco Systems camPus June 2001
PA 00-029
With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 coma/ned in the Eastern
Dublin EIR, potential lateral spreading and related soil hazards impacts to proposed
structures will be less-than-significant.
e) Have soils incapable of support'rig on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. The
proposed development would be connected to a sanitary sewer system within streets adjacent
to the site. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks.
7. Hazards and HazardOus Materials
[Note: Information for this section of the Initial Study is based on the Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment and Soil and Ground Water Quality Evaluation, prepared by Lowney Associates,
November 2000, which is incorporated herein by reference. A copy of this report can be reviewed
at the Dublin Planning Department.]
Environmental Setting
The site is vacant and currently conta/ns no structures. Previous use of the site was for a federal
government installation, which may have involved the use or storage of potentially hazardous
material. An environmental site assessment has been prepared for the project site to assess the
existence of hazardous materials from past uses of the property. The results of the assessment are
discussed below.
Proj~eet Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a-c) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission
of hazardous materials? LS/M. The proposed use of the site would include an office and
R&D/light assembly complex for a high-technology firm. It is anticipated that limited
quantities of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would be transported to and from
the site and may be use~ as a part of on-going operations for the proposed facility. Use of
such materials would be regulated by federal, state and local agencies, including the
Alameda County Fire Department. Other minor quantities of potentially hazardous materials
would also be kept on the site, including normal and customary amounts of lawn chemicals,
solvents and similar items used for building and grounds maintenance. With adherence to
applicable federal, state and local transport and use requirements, creation of a potentially
hazardous condition would be less-than-significant
The environmental site assessment prepared by Lowney Associates indicates that project was
part of an Army Base and Naval Hospital during World War II. All of the buildings and
related structures were demolished between the late 1940s and early 1950s. Facilities that
were previously located on Site 15A included barracks and two former diesel or gasoline
fueling stations. The underground tanks and piping have been removed from these former
facilities. Some heavy petroleum hydrocarbons were discovered in the area of one of the
former fueling stations on Site 15A during the environmental site assessment. In addition,
approximately 1,200 feet of metal pipe which were wrapped with tar paper containing small
amounts of asbestos were also discovered during the enviromuental site assessment.
Mitigation Measure 3 would reduce potential health hazard impacts to a less than significant
level.
City of Dublin ]'age 30
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200]
PA 00-029
Mitigation Measure 3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all of the
. asbestos wrapped piping shall be removed and deposited offof Site 1 SA.
and the heavy petroleum hydrocarbons shall be removed to the extent required by
the appropriate regulatory agencies.
The environmental site assessment also discovered an inactive 1,000 gallon UST which
contained diesel fuel or heating on Site 16A. The UST and contaminated soil were
excavated and removed during 2000. The Alameda County Health Care Services. Agency
has issued a No Further Action letter for the former 1,000 gallon UST, indicating that the
tank site poses no significant health hazard. A copy of the letter is on file with the Planning
Department The environmental site assessment also discovered some deposits of incinerator
ash buried on a small area of Site 16A. Mitigation Measure 4 would reduce potential health
hazard impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4: Prior to the issuance ora building permit, all of the
incinerator ash shall be excavated and deposited off of Site 16A
A plume of groundwater with concentrations of perchloroethylene (PCE) and other solvents
was also detected beneath portions of Sites 15A and 16A. The source of the PCE and
solvent contamination is believed to be a former laundry facility which existed on Site 15B
(refer to Exhibit 2 for site location) during the 1940s. A groundwater monitoring plan has
been submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board by Alameda County to monitor
groundwater concentrations of the contaminants. A Health Risk Assessment prepared by
Lowney Associates, dated November 2000 (and included within the Environmental Site
Assessment referenced above) concluded that the PCE contaminated groundwater does not
pose an unacceptable risk to future office, maintenance or construction workers as levels of..
contaminants are within the acceptable risk range established by the EPA National
Contingency Plan. With adherence to applicable federal and state ground water quality
standards and requirements} potential hazardous conditions would be less than significant.
d) Is the site listed as a ~azardous materials site? LS/M. The site is not listed as a hazardous
materials site. With adherence to Mitigation Measures under (a-c) above, there would be
less-than-significant impacts regarding hazardous materials.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport Or private airstrip? NI.
The site is located northwesterly of the Livermore Municipal Airport but outside of any
safety or referral zone for this airport. No impacts are therefore anticipated regarding airport
safety issues.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. Adequate emergency access has been
provided via proposed driveways on all adjoining streets. Due to the provision of adequate
access, there would be no impact with regard to emergency evacuation plans.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NI. The project site is currently'a
vacant field and is subject to grassland fires during the dry portions of the year. However, the
long-term plan for the area is for urbanization. Development of the project site and the
surrounding area pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan'would include adding new
water lines for firefighting purposes as well as new fire stations and personnel. No impacts
are therefore anticipated.
City of Dublin ~Page 32
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
The project site is generally flat and contains no wetlands or riparian features. Site drainage is by
sheet flow to the south, towards the 1-580 freeway.
The City of Dublin has completed a master drainage and hydrology study for the Eastern Dublin
area. The City of Dublin Master Drainage Plan calls for the construction of both local and regional
drainage improvements to accommodate increased levels of stormwater runoff caused by adding
increased quantities of impervious surf'aces in the area, including buildings, parking lots,
driveways and sidewalks. Stormwater from the Eastern Dublin area generally flows to the south,
under the 1-580 freeway and into regional drainage facilities maintained by Alameda County Zone
7, The ultimate disposal of stormwater runoffis Alameda Creek that drains into San Francisco
Bay. In accordance with the City's Master Drainage Plan, existing drainage facilities have been
upgraded and new facilities constructed within the Emerald Park DeVelopment area to
accommodate new development including the Cisco project.
According to information contained in the Soils, Geology and Seismicity chapter of the Eastern
Dublin EIR, no portion of the site contains historic landslides or mudflows (See Figure 3.6-C).
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the current FIRM
(Flood Insurance Kate Map) Flood Map for the East Dublin area.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Violate any water quality, standards or waste discharge requirements? LS/M. Construction
of improvements anticipated as part of the Cisco proj oct would necessitate grading and '
overcovering of the soil in order to construct building pads, utility connections and similar
features, The amount of grading is not known at this time, however, proposed grading is
anticipated to increase the possibility of soil erosion into creeks and other bodies of water, on
and offthe project site. This could be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5
will ensure that potential water quality impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure 5: The project developer shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), listing Best Management Practices to reduce construction
and post-construction activities to a less than significant level. Measures may
include, but shall not be limited to revegetation of graded areas, silt fencing, use of
biofilters (i.e. grassy swales) and other measures. The SWPPP shall conform to
standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Dublin
and shall be approved by the City of Dublin Public Works Department prior to
issuance of grading permits.
Specific development projects containing five acres or more are also required to
obtain a Notice of Intent from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to
commencement of grading.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? LS. Although
the currently vacant site would be converted to an urban 'use, this impact has been addressed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.5/Z) and Mitigation Measure 3.5/49.0 adopted as part of
City of Dublin ' Page 32
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
the EIR. This Mitigation Measure requires the project to adhere to applicable City policies
and ordinances regarding water quality and to comply with the National Pollution Disposal
Elimination System (NPDES) permit There are no groundwater impacts beyond that
addressed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and no further analysis is required. With
adherence to this mitigation measure, groundwater impacts would be less-than-significant.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? LS. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR acknowledges
that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would change existing natural
drainage patterns on individual sites. In this instance, proposed changes would include
grading and re-contouring much of the site and filling surface drainage swales with
underground pipes and cul~erts to accommodate storm water runoff. The overall direction of
stormwater flow in a southwesterly direction will not significantly change however.
Based on preliminary hydrological information prepared by the applicant's engineer, the
quantity and rate of stormwater flow from the site is consistent with the City's master
drainage plan for Eastern Dublin so that potential impacts would be leSS-than-significant.
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site?
LS. ConstructiOn of the project would not significantly change drainage pattems within the
site area. Existing surface drainage flows would be slightly altered due to anticipated site
grading. Drainage would be routed through newly constructed underground pipes, culverts
and similar facilities. A preliminary drainage plan has been submitted by the applicant,
indicating that storm drain improvements would be constructed to connect with existing and
planned drainage improvements within the Eastern Dublin area. This would be considered a
.... less-than-significant impact. In addition, the site lies above the 100-year flood elevation so
no significant site flooding is anticipated.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts ofpolluted runoff?. LS. Construction of on-site improvements is
anticipated to lead to greater quantities of storm water runoff. According to the Dublin
Public Works Department, the amount of stormwater runoff anticipated to be generated from
the site would be consistent with the approved Master Drainage Plan for the Eastern Dublin
area, so there would be less-than-significant impacts related to increases in stormwater
runoff.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS/M. Refer to the analysis and mitigation measure
under "a," above.
g) _Place housing within a 100-yearflood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map? NI. The proposed project does not include a housing component, so there would be no
impacts with regard to placing housing within a 100-year flood plain:
h, i) .Place within a J O0-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? NI. The proposed project is not located within a 100-year flood
hazard area. Since the project would be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Master Drainage
Plan, there would be no impacts regarding redirection of flood flows.
j) .Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The site is not located near a major
body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflow is considered Iow
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200]
PA 00-029
since no historic landslides or mudflows have been identified on the site (see Figure 3.6-c of
the Eastern Dublin EIK).
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Setting
The project site is site is presently regulated by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan.
The Specific Plan designates Site lSA for High Density Residential and Site 16A for Campus
Office.
Refer to the Project Description for a discussion of both the requirements of the existing Specific
Plan/General Plan and proposed amendments to the Plan.
Pro}ect Iml3acts and Mitigation Measures
a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The project is vacant and is located in an
area planned for and developing with similar land uses to the project. Therefore there Would
be no disruption of any established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted to avoid or mitigate
an environmental effect? NI. The proposed project would be consistent with environmental
· goals and policies contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. No impacts
would therefore result, with regard to consistency with applicable land use plans and policies.
c) Conflict with. a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No
such plan has been adopted within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan area. There
would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan for the proposed project.
10. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
The site contains no known mineral resources.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI.
The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the
site, so no impacts would occur.
11. Noise
Environmental Setting
Mai or sources of noise on and adjacent to the project site include distant noise generated by
vehicles passing Eastern Dublin planning area on I-580, traffic sources on Tassajara Road and
from aircraft flyovers.
Based on Figure 3.10 B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, all or a portion of the project site
would be subject to significant long-term noise exposure, defined as 60 decibels CNEL for
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
exterior noise for residential land uses. The Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies
"normally acceptable" noise levels for non-residential uses as 70 dBA or less.
ProieCt Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: LS. Operation of the proposed
project would be subject'to the General Plan noise, standard of 70 dBA or less. Residential
uses are subject to more stringent noise standards. However, the proposed project does not
include any residential uses. With adherence to the .General Plan noise standards, operational
impacts of the project related to increases in permanent noise levels would be less-than-
significant.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in long-term increases in
groundborne vibration, since office uses would not generate groundborne vibration or noise.
Therefore, this impact would be considered less,than-significant
c) Substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? NI. Impact 3.10/B identified in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR identified future exposure of housing within the
Planning Area to furore roadway noise as significant and unavoidable. Future traffic
generated by the proposed Cisco project would contribute to this condition. However, the
impacts of the proposed project with respect to increases in permanent noise levels are
within the scope of the impacts associated with the project covered by the Eastern Dublin
EIR. The type and intensity of development proposed as part of the Cisco project, and the
noise generated and associated impacts on residential uses have been identified and analyzed ·
in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR; no new impacts would occur.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? LS. Construction of the proposed office complex would
increase short-term noise levels during the construction period for the project. Mitigation
Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR would require individual
project builders to prepare construction noise management plans to minimize noise to
existing and future housing as well as adhere to construction hour limitations. Therefore,
short-term construction noise impacts would be considered less-than-significant.
e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? NI. The project site would not be affected by Livermore Municipal
AirPort due to the fact that the airport is located approximately two miles southeasterly of
the project. The project site lies outside the airport referral area. No impacts are therefore
anticipated.
12. Population and Housing
Envirmxmental Setting
Recent information regarding population and housing in Dublin has been published in Projections
2000, published by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). According to ABAG,
Dublin's population (including the sphere of influence) was 26,300 in 1995 and was projected to
be 31,50'0 in 2000. The estimated population for Dublin is anticipated to be 50,500 in 2010 and
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
66,600 in 2020. By way of comparison, the State Department of Finance has determined that
Dublin's population was 32,500 as of January 1,2000.
The adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan anticipates an ultimate population of
12,458 dwelling traits in the Eastern Dublin planning area at full buildout of all land uses within
the planrfing area. The Specific PlardGeneral Plan also calls for a maximum of 9,737,000 square
feet of commercial, office and industrial uses at full buildout'ofthe Plan.
~roiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Induce substantial po. pulation growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. The
proposed project is consistent with the type and scale of de:qelopment anticipated in the
approved Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. The proposed amendment to the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan would reconfigure office and residential land uses
to be more responsive to market demand. The potential to increase substantial population
growth would be considered a less-than-significant since no new non-residential floor area
would be added to the Specific Plan area.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. The
site is vacant. Implementation of the proposed project would therefore displace neither
housing units or people. No impacts are therefore anticipated in regard to population
displacement.
13. Public Services
Environmental Setting
o Fire Protection. Fire protection services is provided by the Alameda County Fire
Department, which contracts with the City of Dublin for fire suppression, fire
prevention, education, inspection services a~d hazardous material control to the
community.
o Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by Alameda County
Sheriff Department, which contracts to the City of Dublin for 24-hour security
patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime suppression
and traffic safety.
o Schools. The Dublin Un/fled School District (DUSD) provides educational services
to the City of Dublin.
o Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the
responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works Department.
o Solid Waste Service: Livermore Dublin Disposal Company.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) £ireprotection? LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase demand for fire
and emergency services by increasing the amount of permanent daytime population on the
site. This impact was previously addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Features wkich would
be incorporated into the project as part of existing City ordinances and development
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus dune 2001
PA 00-029
requirements and to assist in reducing impacts would include installation of on-site fire
protection measures such as fire sprinklers, installation of new fire hydrants and meeting
minimum fire flow requirements conta/ned in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire
Code.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0-13.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR address
increased demand for fire and emergency services based on new development envisioned in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan. These mitigation measures relate to funding
new fire facilities in eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for fire
suppression, and minimizing wildland fire hazards. The proposed project is required to
comply with applicable programs and standards implementing previously adopted mitigation
measures. With such compliance and normal City fire protection requirements, impacts
related to fire protection would be less-than-significant.
b) Police protection? LS. Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be
expected should the project be approved and constructed. Impacts would generally include
increases in commercial and auto burglary and theft. This increase in calls for service would
be off-set through adherence to City of Dublin safety requirements from the Police
Department, including the non-residential security ordinance. As a condition of project
approval, the Dublin Police Department requires that all new developments prepare a Master
Security Plan to ensure that private on-site security programs are consistent with police
protection operations.
The project developer will also be required to adhere to applicable Mitigation Measures
3.4/1.0-5.0 set forth in Eastern Dublin EIR. These measures deal with establishing funding
mechanisms for additional police personnel and facilities and require the inclusion of.
security provisions into individual development projects. With adherence to previously
adopted mitigation measures and normal City requirements, including preparation of a
Master Security Plan, impacts related to police protection would be less-than-significant.
c) Schools? LS. The proposed project involves the development of an office complex. Since
this is a non-residential land use, minor and less-than-significant impacts are anticipated
with regard to impacts to local schools. The project developer will be required to pay
necessary per square foot fees to the Dublin Unified School District to off-set any indirect
impacts that could result from secondary inducement of furore employees moving into the
District to work within the office complex.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? LS. Approval and construction of the
project would incrementally increase the long-term maintenance demand for roads and other
public facilities. HoWever, such additional maintenance demands will be offset by additional
City fees and property tax revenues accruing to the City of Dublin. Less-than-significant
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are needed.
e) Solid waste generation? LS. Approval of the project and construction of the office complex
would incrementally increase generation of solid waste. The Eastern Dublin EIR requires
adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0-40.0. These measures require the preparation of a
solid waste management plan and assurances that adequate solid waste landfill capacity
exists prior to approval of individual development projects. Less-than-significant impacts
would therefore 'result with regard to generation of solid waste.
City of Dublin Page 3 7
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
14. Recreation
Environmental Settin¢
The project site is currently vacant and contains no parks or other recreational amenities.
~roj eet Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI. The
proposed General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment would not result in new
residences being constructed within the Eastern Dublin area. Therefore, no impact would
result to neighborhood or regional park facilities.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? NI. The proposed project does not include residential development, so there would
be no impact on City park or recreational facilities. The preliminary site.plan for the pr. oject
does include on-site recreational facilities for use by employees.
15. Transportation/Traffic
[Tlfis section is based on a traffic analysis for the project prepared by Omi-Means, Transportation
Consultants, May, 2001, which is incorporated herein by reference. The full text of the traffic
analysis is on file in the City of Dublin Public Works Department.]
Environmental Settin~
Existing Transportation WeCwork
The proj eot site is served by a number of regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and collector
roadways, shown on Exhibit 2 and including:
Interstate 580, an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such
as Livermore and Tracy to the east and .Oakland, San Francisco and other cities to. the west.
In the vicinity of the project, Interstate 580 carries between 169,000 and 187,000 vehicles
per day. Interchanges near the project site include Dougherty/Hopyard Road, Hacienda
Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road/El Charro Road.
Dougherty ttoad is a two-lane rural road with its northern section located in Contra Costa
County. Dougherty Road has four lanes between the Alameda County/Contra Costa
County border and Dublin Boulevard and six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580.
South of I-580, it continues with six lanes as Hopyard Road in Pleasanton. Average Daily
Traffic is approximately 43,500 south of Dublin Boulevard.
Dublin t~oulevard is a major east-west arterial roadway in the City of Dublin. It contains
four lanes largely fronted by retail and commercial uses west of Dougherty Road. Between
Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is a two-lane road with an
exception between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Creek, where it is a four lane road.
Average Daily Traffic varies from approximately 29,300 vehicles east of San Ramon Road
and Interstate 680 to 5,300 vehicles west of Tassajara Road.
City of Dublin ?age 38
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200J
?A 00-029
Hacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to 1-580. It contains six lanes
south ofi-580 and four lanes north ofi-580, extending as far north as Dublin Boulevard.
As part of the Santa Rita Business Center, Hacienda Drive has been extended northward to
Gleason Drive as a three-lane roadway. Between 1-580 and Dublin, the existing vehicle
count is' approximately '11,300.
Arnold Road is a north-south two-lane road parallel to and west of Hacienda Drive. It
currently connects Gleason Drive and existing Dublin Boulevard (future Centrals. Parkway).
This road is being extended southward to Dublin Boulevard (ultimate alignment) The
existing average daily traffic flow on Arnold Drive is approximately 3,500 vehicles per
day.'
Gleason Drive is an east-west' two-lane road parallel to and north of Dublin Boulevard. It
serves the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, Federal Correctional Institute and existing
developments along Gleason Drive. Gleason Drive connects Tassajara Road with Arnold
Road and carries between 5,100 vehicles per day (west of Tassajara Road) to
approximately 1,000 vehicles per day (west of Hacienda Drive). Portions of Gleason Drive
are being widened to four lanes.
Tassajara Road is a two-lane rural road cormecting Santa Rita Road at 1-580 to the south
and continuing north to the Town of Danville. North of Contra Costa'County line, ff is
named Camino Tassajara and is used primarily for local traffic in the Tassajara Valley,
with some through traffic. The average daily traffic volume on Tassajara Road is
approximately 16,800 vehicles south of Dublin Boulevard, 9,900 vehicles per day between
Dublin Boulevard and Gleason Drive and 7,500 vehicles per day north of Gleason Drive.
This road is currently being widened to four lanes from 1-580 to North Dublin Ranch
Boulevard.
Santa Rita Road is a six-lane divided urban arterial roadway from the 1-580 interchange
south to Valley Boulevard. It serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda
Business Park and provides access to downtown Pleasanton.
Existing Intersection Operations
The traffic analysis prepared by Omni Means found that existing intersections near the project site
currently operate at acceptable levels of service,, defined by the City of Dublin as Level of Service
"D" or better. This analysis included counts of existing traffic at major intersections near the
proposed project as well as intersections throughout the Eastern Dublin area.
Existing and Future Baseline Conditions
Furore base conditions represent existing traffic plus anticipated traffic generated by approved and
pending projects (reasonably foreseeable development in the area). Future base traffic conditions
do not include traffic volumes generated by the proposed Cisco Systems development. In addition,
future base traffic conditions assume currently planned or funded roadway modifications would be
in place. Planned roadway improvements include capital improvement programs (CIP) approved
by the City Council or bonded by project developers.
Current and planned roadway and intersection improvements for the project study area include the
following:
Roadways
City of Dublin Page 39
initial Srudy/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
Dublin Boulevard Widening: Dublin Boulevard is currently, being widened to six travel lanes
between Scarlett Drive and Hacienda Drive. The roadway is also planned to be widened to six
lanes between Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive.
Tassajara Road Widening: Tassajara Road is currently being widened to four travel lanes between
1-580 and north of Gleason Drive.
Central Parkway Extension: Central Parkway is currently being extended between Arnold Road
and Hacienda Drive and will include two travel lanes. Central Parkway is currently closed to
through traffic at Tassajara Creek.
Arnold Road Extension: Arnold Road would be extended in a southerly direction from Dublin
Boulevard to just north ofi-580. The roadway width will vary from four travel lanes to two travel
lanes depending on the segment. '
The Boulevard: The Boulevard would be a new east-west ~treet constructed between Dublin
Boulevard and 1-580~ The Boulevard roadway segment between the southerly extension of Arnold
Road and Hacienda Drive would be constructed as part of approved and pending development.
Intersections
Dublin/DeMarcus: The northbound approach of DeMarcus Boulevard would be improved to
include one (1) left-turn lane and one (1) right~tum lane.
Dublin/Iron Horse: The northbound approach of Iron Horse Parkway .would be improved to
include one (1) left-tm lane and one (1) right-mm lane.
Hacienda/Central: The northbound approach of Hacienda Drive would be improved to include one
(1) left-mm lane, two (2) through lanes, and one right-mm lane (two left-tm lanes are currently in
place but not being used). The eastbound and westbound Central Parkway approaches would each
have one (1) left-mm lane, one (1) through lane, and One (1) right-turn lane.
Hacienda/Dublin: The northbound approach of Hacienda Drive would be improved to include
three (3) left-turn lanes, two (2) through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. The westbound
approach of Dublin Boulevard would be improved 4o include two (2) left-mm lanes, two (2)
through lanes, and one (1) right-turn lane. (The additional through-lane is in place but not being
used).
Hacienda/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp: The eastbound off-rmup approach would be improved to
include two (2) left-mm lanes and two (2) right-mm lanes.
Tassajara/I-580 Westbound off-ramp: The westbound off-ramp approach would be improved to
include two (2) left-tm lanes and two (2) right-tm lanes.
Tassajm'a/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp/PimlicO: The eastbound off-ramp approach would be widened
and re-striped to include two (2) left-turn lanes, one (1) through lane, and a free right-tm lane.
The westbound Pimlico Drive approach would be improved to include two (2) left-turn lanes and
two (2) right-mm lanes. The northbound Santa Rita Road approach would be improved to include
four (4) lanes, with the two left most lanes leading to the overpass, the second right most lane
leading to the overpass or 1-580 eastbound on-ramp, and the right most lane leading to Pimlico
Drive or the 1-580 eastbom~d on-ramp.
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
Future Base Methodology
Traffic projections for existing and future base conditions have been taken directly from the study
performed for the adjacent proposed Dublin Transit Center (Omni-Means, January 26, 2001),
incorporated herein by reference. The existing plus future base scenario contained projects which
were approved (under construction, built but not occupied, or unbuilt with final approval) or
pending (currently proposed or in approval process). At the time of the Dublin Transit Center
traffic study, the Cisco Systems development was considered a "pending project". Therefore, for
the purposes of this focused traffic analysis for the Cisco project.previous trips assigned to the
Cisco System development were removed from the existing plus future base scenario. For existing
plus future base conditions, the following approved and pending projects were assumed:
Apl)roved proiects:
o Hacienda Crossings (Opus): 469,000 square foot retail center (partially occupied)
o Villas at Santa Rita: 324 apartments
o Santa Rim Property Sites 1 lA and 1 lB (Summerhill and Jefferson Residential
Development): 368 apartments and 341 single family homes
o Casterson: 106 single family homes.
o Creekside Business Park III (Opus): 590,000 square feet office development
General Motors: 75,660 square feet of new automobiles and service.
Dublin Ranch Phase 1 Residential Development: 847 ·single family homes
o Tassajara Meadows Residential Development: 96 single family homes
Emerald Glen Residential Development: 143 single family homes and 152 townhomes
o Koll Dublin Corporate Center: 590,000 square feet of office space, 100,000 square feet of
hotel and 7,000 square feet of retail
o Yarra Yarra Residential Development: 251 single family homes
Dublin Ranch. Area G Development: 1,426 apartments and 230,000 square feet of
commercial development
Dublin Ranch Area A Residential Development: 562 single family homes and 18 hole golf
course
Emerald Glen Village Apartments Development: 390 aparlrnents and 132,235 square feet
of commercial development
Sybase Dublin Headquarters: 420,000 square feet of office space
o Marriott Hotel Project: 214 hotel rooms
o Commerce One Office Project: 760,000 square feet office of space
Downtown Dublin Specific Plans: Multiple use project with commercial, residential, and
transit uses (please see referenced document below).
In addition to specific approved projects in the City of Dublin, City of Pleasanton approved
development was also considered. Based on the City of Pleasanton travel demand forecasting
model, approved Pleasanton projects are expected to generate 9,661 AM peak hour trips and
10,584 PM peak hour trips. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes from the above projects in
Dublin and Pleasanton were taken from a recent traffic study conducted by TJKM Transportation
Consultants (TJKM Transportation Consultants, Final: A Traffic Study for the Proposed Marriott
· ' Hotel, City of Dublin, October 25, 2000.)
Pending Proiects
City of_Dublin Page 41
Initial Study/Cis¢o Systems Campus June 200!
1,4 00-029
o Proposed Silveria Residential Project: 214 single family homes.(currently under review by
the City of Dublin)
o There-location of the Camp Parks main gate would also occur within the next five years.
Based on discussions with Camp Parks staff, it is anticipated that a new roadway/gate
connection will occur at the Dublin/DeMarcus intersection to form the north leg of the
intersection (the roadway is currently under construction). Various military activities
related to the facility are expected to be most concentrated on the weekends when
reservists report for training duties. In addition, summer weekends would be most active
with possible convoys coming m/from the Camp Parks area.
With weekend Camp Parks activity expected to generate the most intense traffic volumes,
existing and furore base peak hour weekday volumes would experience lesser increases in
traffic volumes related to the re-location of the Camp' Parks main gate. However, peak
period vehicle counts were conducted at the Camp Parks gates to quantify weekday traffic
that would transfer to the Dublin/DeMarcus intersection.~ Peak hour volumes related to
Camp Parks have been added to the Dublin/DeMarcus intersection to account for increased
traffic volumes at this location.
For a complete description of the location and AM and PM peak hour trips of the pending Silveria
residential project, please refer to the following transportation study on file with the City of
Dublin:
TJKM Transportation Consultants, Final: A Traffic Study for the Proposed Residential
Development on Silveria Property on Tassajara Road, City of Dublin, Revised: October
25, 20O0.
For a description of the location and AM and PM'peak hour trips of the approved Downtown
Dublin Specific Plans project, please refer to the following traffic study on file with the City of
Dublin:
Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, Consultants Report of the Transportation Impacts for
the Proposed Village Parkway, Downtown Core, and West BART Station Specific Plans,
City of Dublin, Final Draft Report, September 25, 2000.
Approved and pending project trips were added to existing AM and PM intersection volumes to
create a future base Year 2005 scenario.
Existing plus Future Base Conditions Without Proposed Project
With future base traffic added to existing volmnes, AM and PM intersection LOS have been
Calculated and are shown in Table 2. With future base volumes, calculated intersection LOS
contain the planned circulation improvements for roadways and intersections in the study area
listed in Existing and Future Baseline Conditions above. The Dublin/Dougherty intersection
would experience significant congestion during the AM and PM peak hours. A portion of the
Dublin/Doughtery intersection improvements is part of the Eastern Dublin Traffic impact Fee
program adopted by the City of Dublin. The City is currently updating the Eastern Dublin Traffic
Impact Fee program to include additional improvements at the Dublin/Doughtery intersection.
With these planned improvements the Dublin/Doughtery intersection LOS would improve from
~Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, Peak period counts at the 5th Street and 8th Street Camp Parks
Gates at Dougherty Road, January 24, 2001.
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
LOS D (0.86) to LOS B (0.70) during the AM peak hour and from LOS'F (1.10) to LOS D (0.82)
during the PM peak hour.-
Exist!ng plus Future Base Conditions With Proposed Project
With proposed project traffic added to existing plus future base ,volumes, study intersection LOS
have 'been re-calculated and are shown in Table 3. As calculated, all twenty study intersections
would operate 'at acceptable levelS-of-service with planned circulation improvements for existing
plus future base conditions.
Table 2. Existing Plus Future Base Intersection Level-of-Service (LOS)
AM and PM Peak Hour
Interjection .... Existing~ Existing + Ffiture Base
AM PM AM PM
1. DoUgherty/SCarlett -- ' -- "" -- --
2. Dougherty/Dublin B 0.65 D 0.8i' D 0.~'6 .... F 'i'~i0"
B O. 70 ' D O. 82
3. Dougherty/I-580-WB Of-ramp A 0.58 A 0.52 .... B 0.68 A 0.59
4.Hopyard/I~580 EB Off-ramp A 0.56 "'B 0'.'~2 A 0.57 B 0.64
5. Dublin/Scarlett C 20.4 F 50+ j(' 0.30 A 039
'6.' Dubl'in/DeMarCm' A 0.53 ...... B 0.64 A 0.45 A 0146
7. Dublin/Iron Horse A 0.29 B 0.61 ~'"0.27 "'A 0.37
8. Dublin/Arnold C""i8.'1 '" E 39.5 ......... A 0,37. B 0.62
91 Arnold/Central" -- ' .... -- A 0'~'~'5" ~ 0.38
10. Hacienda/Gleason B i0 ~7 A 9.8 A 0.24 A 0.14
Tll Hacienda/Central A {Ji'~?' A 0.38' B 0.64 i C0.72
~ i2. Ha'cienda/Dublin ........... A 0,37 A 0.42 A 0.54 A 0.71
13. Hacienda/The Boulevard .... A t3.34 [ A 0,55
Li4. Hacienda/I-580 WB off-ramp A 0.27 A 0.15 D 0.82' _4. 0:~8
~i~5~ HaCienda/i:580 EB °ff-ramp A"0'.5'~) ...... A 0.33 ............... D 0.89 B 0.65
i 6. Tassajara/Gteason C24.9 E 44.2 A 0.57 ' B 0.62
17. TassajarWCentral -- ' ~-- '""A 0'.49 B 0.6i
l'g'. Tassaj~ublin A 0..42 ............ B 0.69 A~ 0.53 B 0.64
~19. TassajarafI-580 WB off-ramp A 0.30 A 0.35 A 0.49 A 0.60
20. Santa Ritafl-580 EB off- A 0760 B 0.70 B 0.66 D 0.87
ramp/Pirnlico .....
('r) Signalized intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
methodology. LOS for unsignalized intersections is based on 1998 Highway Capacity Manual and
represents average delay in seconds for stop-sign controlled minor street traffic.
(2) D~e to planned roadway improvements some study intersections' LOS may improve from existing
conditions. This is particularly true along Dublin Boulevard where the roadway wou d be w dened
from two to six travel lanes between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Drive.
(3) Based on DUblin Transit Center Draft Report by Omni-Means Engineers & Planners, January 26,
2001.
(4) The Dougherty/Scarlett, Arnold/Central, and Hacienda/The Boulevard intersections currently do not
exist. Central Parkway is _currently closed off between Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek.
These intersections will be analyzed in future base and proposed project conditions. The
Dougherty/Scarlett intersection is not expected to exist under existing plus future base conditions.
(5) Italicized type indicates LOS after implementation of tr,affic improvements noted in this report.
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus dune 2001
PA 00-029
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is Substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i. e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? LS/M.
The traffic analysis,, which analyzed the impacts of the Specific Plan/General Plan
amendment and development of the proposed Cisco office development, concludes that
implementation of the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact with
regard to anticipated project traffic The traffic analysis included determining traffic
generation of the proposed project, distributing this traffic on adjacent roadways' and adding
the proposed project related traffic, to ex/sting, future base and cumulative traffic volumes.
Trip generation and distribution
Based on discussions with City of Dublin Transportation staff and Alameda County
Development Agency staff, daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed Cisco
Systems development have been calculated. Project trip generation has been based on ITE
research for corporate headquarters office uses. In reviewing studies of transit ridership of
people working near BART and traffic studies prepared for other East Bay BART Stations,
Omni-Means in conjunction with City and County Staff determined that it is appropriate to
reduce these trip generation rates by 15% to account for proximity to the East Dublin BART
station. The proposed Cisco Systems project would generate.5,615 daily trips with 1,070 AM
peak hour trips and 1,010 PM peak hour trips.
Overall vehicle trip distribution for proposed office use has been based on previous
transportation, studies conducted in the study area. Based on other office development in the
study area, proposed project trip distribution would be estimated as follows:
Hacienda Drive to/from the south: 55%
Hacienda Drive to/from the north: 3%
Dublin Boulevard to/from the east: 10%
Dublin Boulevard to/from the west: 30%
Arnold Drive to/from the north: 2%
Total: 100%
Project impacts
Anticipated traffic associated with the approval and development of the proposed Cisco
project have been analyzed in conjunction with impacts related to existing and future base
projects. The results of this analysis is shown on Table 3, below.
Table 3. Existing Plus Project Plus Future Base Intersection Level-of-Service (LOS) AM
and PM Peak Hour
Intersection ' Existing +'Future Ba'~ ......... Existing + Future Base +
Pr'oject
................................ AM Pm .......AM ' PM-
1. Dougherty/Scarlett ........ - .......
3. Dougherty/Dublin B'0"iT0 D 0.82 .... C 0.~J' D 0.86
iB. Dougherty/I-580-WB off-ramp B 6.68 ..... ~"0.59 B 0.68 A 0.60
4. Hopyard/I-580 EB""o~ff-ramp A 0'."57 iB"0.64 ..... A. 0~¢ B .~':..64 '
City of Dublin Page 44
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
5. Dubli~'g~lett ........... A 0.30 A 0.39 A 0.36 A 0.44 .....
611Sul3iin/DeMarcus ........... A 0145 ........ A 0.46 A 01'51 A 0.51
")'i Dublin/konHc~ifi'e ....... A 0.27 "' A 0.3'~'"' A 0.32 A 0.42
8. Dublilff~old A 0.37 B 0.42 "'A 0.43 'C 0.75
'§. Amold/Ceni~al ..... H 0.22 A 01'38 "A 0.~2'" ~ 0.38
10. Hacienda/Oleason ...... ~ 0.24 A 0~'14 A 0.26 A 0.t 5
~ 1. Hacienda/Central ....... B 0.64 ...... C 0.72 ....C 0,7'5 D 0.83
12.'Hacienda/Dublin A 0.'5;4 '"C 0.71" A 0160 ...... C 0,74
13J Hacienda/The Boulevard A 0.34 A 0.55' ' A, 0.41" A '0.5'9 .......
14. Haciendafl'-5~0 WB off-ranip .... D 0'182 A 0..15 D 0182 A 0.48
'15. HaciendaJI-'5"80 EB 0ff-r....amP D 0.89 B 0.'65" D 0.89 B0.66
16. Tassajara/Gleason ..... '" A, 0.57 B 0.~'~ .... A 0.59 .B 0.65
i7~ TaSsajara/Central A'0.49 B 0.61 A 0.51 B 0.62
18. Tassajara/Dublin ..... ,~, 0.53 .... B 0164 '" A 0.5;4' B 0.65
19. Tassajara/I-58'6-wB off-ramp ..... A 0.~4~} .~ 0.60 '"' A 0.2~9 A0~60
50. santa RliWI-580 EB Off: .... B 0.66 D 0.87 B 0.66 D 0.87
ramp./Pimlico ........... ...
(1) Signalized intersection LOS is based on Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) methodology.
LOS for unsignalized intersections is based on 1998 Highway Capacity Manual and represents average
delay in seconds for stop-sign controlled minor street traffic,
(2) The Dougherty/Scarlett intersection is not expected to exist under existing plus 'future base conditions
With proposed project traffic added to existing plus future base volumes, study intersection LOS
have been re-calculated and are shown in Table 3. As calculated, traffic would increase at most of
the intersections, however all twenty study intersections would operate at acceptable levels-of-
service with planned circulation improvements for existing plus future base conditions.
However, this additional traffic to adjacent streets includes an increase to an estimated 555
southbound fight-mm vehicles from Arnold Road onto Dublin Boulevard during the PM peak
hour and 935 northbound left-mm vehicles from Hacienda onto Dublin during the AM peak hour.
This increase in vehicular trips would result in congestion of specific mm movements related to
ingress and egress to the project site. This is a potentially significant impact because it would
reduce the operating capacity of the intersections and may increase the number of safety incidents
due to obstruction of vehicles traveling through the intersections as vehicles que.ue up waiting to
make tums. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project ~rnpacts to a
less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure 6: The project developer shall construct the following traffic
and transportation improvements in the vicinity of the project:
o Dublin/Arnold intersection: a separate right-turn lane for the southbound
Arnold Drive approach.
o Hacienda/Dublin intersection: restripe the northbound Hacienda Drive
approach to include a third left-turn lane.
o Right-turn lanes to allproject driveways
o Cisco Systems Access/The Boulevard improvements, to include: Eastbound
approach: 1 left-turn lane; Westbound approach: 1 right-mm lane;
Southbound approach: 1 left-mm lane, 1 through/right-mm lane.
City of Dublin Page 45
In#ial Study/C~co Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
Mitigation Measure 7: Commerce One is responsible for constructing the
" following traffic and transportation improvements in the vicinity of the Cisco
project site. These improvements are also necessary for Cisco to gain access to
their site: In the event that these improvements are not constructed by Cemmerce
One, Cisco shall be responsible for constructing the following traffic and
transportation improvements:
o Arnold Drive/The Boulevard improvements, to include EastboUnd approach: 1
left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right-turn lane; Westbound
approach:2 left-tm lanes, 2 through lanes, 1 right-turn lane; Northbound
approach: t left-turn lane, 1 through lane, 1 through/right~turn lane, and
right mm lane; Southbound approach: 1 left-mm lane, ..1 through lane, 1
through/right-turn lane.
o The Boulevard/Hacienda Drive improvements, to include: Eastbound
approach: 1 left-turn lane, 1 through/right-mm lane, 2 right-mm lanes;
Westbound approach: 2 left-turn lanes, 1 through/right-turn lane; Northbound
approach:3 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes', 1 right-turn- lane; Southbound
approach:2 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane
o Roadway segment improvements on Arnold drive between Dublin Boulevard
and The Boulevard (future): Four (4) travel lanes [two in each direction]; The
Boulevard between Arnold Road and Commerce One Mid-Block Access
(future): Six (6) travel lanes [three in the westbound direction and three in the
eastbound direction]; The Boulevard between Commerce One Mid-Block
Access and Hacienda Drive (future): Six (6) travel lanes [three in each
direction].
Cumulative traffic impacts.
The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed cumulative traffic from potential development in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The City of Dublin has adopted a Traffic Impact Fee
program which requires developers to contribute their 'fair-share' of sub-regional traffic
improvements required for new development within the Eastern Dublin area. The Cisco
project is within the scope and level of development and impacts assumed within the
Specific Plan and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the site and area and is required to
participate in the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program.
For the purposes of this Initial Study, anticipated cumulative impacts .were further assessed
based on the proposed Cisco project and projects identified in the Dublin Transit Center
traffic study.
Intersections near the project site with the exception of the Dublin/Dougherty Road
intersection would generally operate at satisfactory levels during morning and evening peak
hours. Under cumulative conditions, with the addition of both future and project traffic, total
future traffic would contribute to the need for sub-regional traffic improvements within the
Eastern Dublin area. A portion of the Dublin/Dougherty Road intersection improvements is
an Eastern Dublin Traffic impact Fee project. The City is currently updating the Eastern
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program to include additional improvements at the
Dublin/Doughtery intersection to accommodate anticipated traffic demand. With these
planned improvements, the Dublin/Doughtery intersection would operate at an acceptable
level-of-service for cumulative total future traffic. All new developmem projects within the
Eastern Dublin area including Cisco are required to make a 'fair share' contribution to the
Traffic Impact Fee project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Therefore, no
City of Dublin Page 46
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
PA 00-029
cumulative impact beyond that identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would occur as a result
of the project and no fin'ther mitigation i~ required.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the C~unty CMA
for designated roads)? LS. Based on the information contained in the Omni-Means traffic
analysis, Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard which are CMA designated roads will not
exceed the minimum Level of Service E established· by the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency. Impacts to CMA-designated facilities would therefore be less-than-
significant.
c) Change in a change of air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project would have no impact
on air traffic patterns, since it involves office development and is located outside of the
Livermore Airport general referral area.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? N.I. Approval of
the proposed project would add new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian
travel ways where none currently exist. Increases in safety incidents may occur due to the
volume of vehicles and pedestrians using nearby roads and other circulation features. The
proposed on-site circulation and access for the project (refer to Exhibit 4, Proposed Site Plan,
15A and 16A) has been designed to adequately and safely distribute projected traffic flows
per recommendations of the Omni Means traffic study as deemed appropriate by the City
Engineer. The City's site development review process ensures that the proposed development
meets all City standards relating to safety hazards, design features, on-site circulation and
access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? LS. The current need for emergency access is low,
since there are no current residents or visitors on the site. Construction of the proposed office
complex on the site would increase the need for emergency services and evacuation in the
event of an emergency. If adequate access is not provided, excessive lengths of time would
be needed for emergency vehicles to serve the new development.· Since the propOsed site
development plan indicates that driveways meeting City design requirements would be
provided to Arnold Road, Central Parkway, Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive, potential
impacts relating to inadequate emergency access would be less-than-significant.
f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. Parking for the proposed office complex would comply
with the minimum number of on-site parking spaces required by City's parking ordinance.
The most recent Cisco site plan shows a total of 2,842 on-site spaces being provided whereas
the Code requires 2,446 spaces. Thus, there would be a surplus of 396 spaces. Bus service is
also available to the area as is a BART station southwesterly of the site to encourage non-
auto usage. Since the proposed site plan would comply with City standard, no impact is
anticipated.
g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Cisco development
would include on-site bicycle parking as well as connections between proposed· buildings
and nearby streets. No impacts to pedestrian or bicycle access is therefore anticipated.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
City of Dublin t>age 47
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 2001
P~t 00-029
The project site is served by the following service providers:
o Sewage treatment and local water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District and
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7.
o Regional water supply and distribution: Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, Zone 7
o Storm drainage: City of Dublin/Alarneda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, Zone 7.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Exceed wastewater.treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. The regional wastewater
treatment plant is currently operating 'in compliance with local, state and federal water
quality standards according to DSRSD staff. The addition of wastewater flows from the
project would not cause the plant.to exceed such standards. Mitigation measures 3.5/1.0
through 22.0 contained in the eastern Dublin EIR deal with wastewater treatment collection,
treatment and disposal. With these adopted mitigation measures potential wastewater'
impacts of the project would be less-than-significant.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? LS.
Existing water and sewer lines would need to be extended into the site from the west. Such
extensions have been planned as pan of the East Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan and have
been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Less-than-significant impacts would therefore
result. The project developer will also be required to conform to adopted Mitigation
Measures 2.5/24.0 through 43.0 d in the Eastern Dublin EIR, as applicable, regarding water
service
c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. The project developer has indicated that new on-
site drainage facilities would be constructed as part of project construction. The City's Public
Works Department has indicated that the proposed drainage system is generally acceptable
and overall drainage from the site would be accommodated by existing or planned local and
regional drainage facilities. A less-than-significant impact would therefore result. The
project developer will also be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through
52.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, as applicable, regarding drainage.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available ? .LS. Approval of the proposed project and
implementation of new office and R&D space under the auspices of the Specific
Plan/General Plan Amendment would result in an increased demand for water for domestic
and irrigation purposes. The proposed project and impacts, however, are within the building
projections contained in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan and analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR; increased water demand could be accommodated by DSRSD and Zone
7 facilities and long-term supplies. Recycled water would be supplied to the site for
irrigation by D. SRSD. The project developer would be required to provide any local
extensions and connections to nearby facilities. This conclusion is based on inforrnation
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Less-than-significant impacts would therefore result.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. Approval oft he proposed
Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment and construction of new offices space would
increase the demand for wastewater treatment over present conditions. Presently, the site is
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200]
PA 00-029
vacant and there is no demand for wastewater treatment service. DSRSD staff has indicated
that the local wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project.
Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to wastewater treatment.
e, f) Solid waste disposal? LS. Construction of proposed office uses under the auspices of an
approved Specific Plan Amendment/General Plan Amendment would incrementally increase
generation of solid waste. Over the long term, the amount of solid waste reaching landfill
would decrease as statewide regulations mandating increased recycling take effect.
Information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the solid waste hauler can
accommodate this project. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated with
regard to solid waste disposal. The project developer must also adhere to Mitigation
Measures 3.4/37.0 through 40.0, as applicable, contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
regarding solid waste disposal,
g) · Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste ? NI. The
City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would ensure that developers of individual projects
constructed under the auspices of an amended Specific Plan and General Plan would adhere
to federal, state and local solid waste regulations.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality o. f the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
'below self-sustaining4evels, 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 recommended in the Initial Study.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects and th.e 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, short term noise emissions, the project site
lies within an area with an approved specific plan. In connection with the Specific Plan
approval, cumulative impacts were identified and mitigated or overridden. The project's
cumulative impacts are within the scope of the cumulative impacts associated with the
project covered by the Eastern Dublin E~R. No additional cumulative impacts are identified
in this Initial Study,
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in
the course of preparing this Initial Study.
City of Dublin Page ,I9
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus ' dune 2001
PA 00-029
Initial Study Preparer
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
Anne Kinney, AICP, Associate Planner
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The, following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this initial Study:
Eddie Peabody Jr., AICP, Community Development Director
Kevin Van Katwyk, Senior Civil Engineer
Ray Kuzbari, Traffic Engineer
Rose Macias, Dublin Police Department
Ed Laudani. Alameda County Fire Department
George Nickelson, P.E., Omni-Means, Traffic and Circulation analysis'
Peter Galloway, Omni-Means, Traffic and Circulation
References
Eastern Dublin Specific Pla.n/General Plan Environmental Iml~act Rel~ort, Wallace
Roberts and Todd, 1994.
Geotechnical Feasibility Study, CiscO'Systems Site 9, Dublin CA, LoWney
Associates, December 2000
Focused Traffic Circulation Analysis for the Cisco Systems Proiect, Omni-Means
Engineers and Planners, May 2001.
Phase I En¥ironmenml Site Assessment and Soil and Ground Water Quality
Evaluation, Cisco Systems Site 9, Dublin CA, Lowney Associates, November 2000
City of Dublin Page 50
Initial Study/Cisco Systems Campus June 200J
PA 00-029
~orrn A
Noti__~ce of Completion & Enviro 'iental Document Transmittal
Mail to: State Clearinghoux~-, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 SCH # q/- tt~) ~
(916) 445-0613 state, ctearingho~e~opr, ca.gov
Project Title: ~O~-O~q ~ 7~l~t~. ~p~,~ ~[~"c~
Lead Agency: ~ Z~ OF ~E~ Conta~Person: ~
StreetAddmss: lOP ~V~C pUR~ Phone: ~Z~- ~7-66/0
City:._ ~ Zip: qCr96 County: ~~
Proje~ Location:
County: ....~~ City/Nearest Communl~: ~
Cross Streets: ~ ~ + ~ ~v~ ~ ~~ Zip Code: ~5~4 Total Acres:
Assessor's Parcel No, :~ -¢- ~& 4 le - ~ Section: Twp.~ Range: Base:
Within 2 Miles: State Hey: I-~¢~ Wate~ays:
Airpo~s: ~&~&~ Railways: Schools:
Document Type:
CEQA: Q NOP- Q SupplemenFSubs~uent EIR (Pilot SOH No.) NEPA: Q NOI Q Joint Bocument
O EA O Final Document
rly Cons
g Dec Q Other Q Dra~ ElS
~ Dra~ EIR ~ FONSI Q Other
Local A~ion Type:
~ General Plan Update Q S~cific Plan ~Rezone Q Annexation
CGeneral Plan Amendment .~ Master Plan ~ Prezone ~ Redevelopment
Q General Plan Element ~Planned Unit Development ~ Use Permit ~ Coastal Permit
~ Commun~y Plan ~ Site Plan ~and Division (Subdivision, etc.) ~ Other
Development Type: ~ Water Facilities: Type MGD
Q Residential: Units 'Acres ~ TranspoAation: Type ,,
~Office: Units ~%,eO0 Acres ,.~ Employees ~ OOO ~ Mining: Mineral
~ Commercial Units Acres Employees. ~ Power: T~e_ Wa~s
~ Industrial: Units Acres Employees. ~ Waste Treatment: Type,
~ Educational Q Hazardous Waste: Type .....
~ Recreational Q Other:
Funding (approx,): Federal $ State $, Total $
Project Issues Discussed in Document:
~" Aesthetic/Visual, Q Flood Plain/Flooding Fi Schools/Universities C~"'Water Quality
Fi Agricultural Lan~ El Forest Land/Fire Hazard Fi Septic Systems E3 Water Supply/Groundwater
Gr' Air Quality / ~1/ Geologic/Seismic [::~'Sewer Capacity ~ Wetland/Riparian
~ Archeologic, C/Histodcal Q Minerals ~" Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Q Wildlife
[D Coastal ZCne ID Noise [i~'Solid Waste Q Growth Inducing
~ Drainage/Absorption [] Population/Housing Balance [~"Toxic/Hazardous ~ Land Us.e
Fi Economic/Jobs Gl' Public Services/Facilities ~}/Traffic/Oirculation El Cumuiative Effects
[] Fiscal Q Recreation/Parks Fi Vegetation [3 Other
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:
__
Project Description: /~ Z~ ~'~,,,,~ ~,~.,,/~.Fc~ ~ ~ ~.,.~-¢~ ~
i~e.~viewin~l A~encies Checklist Form A continued ~r~..jE¥
~' ~ Document sent by lead agency
Resources Agency .X = Document sent by SCH
,/' = Suggested distribution
Boating & Waterways
Conservancy .5'/
Colorado River Board
Conservation Environmental Protection Agency
Fish & Game Air Resources Board
Forestry & Fire Protection California Waste Management Board
Office of Historic Preservation SWRCB:. Clean Water Grants
Parks & Recreation SWRCB: Delta Unit
Reclamation Board SWRCB: Water Quality
S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission SWRCB: Water Rights
.... Water Resources (DWR) Regional WQCB #. (
Business, Transportation & Housing Youth & Adult Corrections
Aeronautics Corrections
' California Highway Patrol Independent Commissions & Offices
Housing & Community Development Energy Commission
Food & Welfare Native American Heritage Commission
Health & Welfare Public Utilities Commission
Health Services Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State & Consumer Services State Lands Commission
General Services Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Other
Public Review Period. (to be filled in by lead agency)
Starting Date ~ [ I¢!O ~ Ending Date ¢'/!0 lo I
Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): For SCH Use Only:
Consulting Firm: Date Received at SCH
Address: Date Review Starts
City/State/Zip: Date to Agencies
Contact: Date to SCH
Phone: Clearance Date
Notes:
Applicant:
Address:
City/S~atelZip:
Phone:
Gov~ernor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
Gray Davis Steve Nissen
GOVEKNOR DIRECTOR
July 25, 2001
· Anne Kinney
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin,. CA 94568
"Siibje~{i'"'PA~0'0'-02'9" Ci~c0' S~;Si~; i/lC. 'Campus oi'fi~:e Co~l~x
SCH#: 1991103064
Dear Anne Kinney:
The enclosed comment (s) on your Negative Declaration was (were.) received by the State Clearinghouse
atter the end of the state review period, which closed on July 17, 2001. We are fonvarding these comments
to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be adckessed in your final environmental
document.
The California Enviromental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies ~o respond to late cmmuents.
However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental
document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed.project.
Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you. have any questions concerning the
environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, please refer to
the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number (1991103064) when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse.
cc: Resources Agency ,
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO~ CALIFORNIA 95812-304~
9~6-445-o6~3 ~x 9i~3-3o~8 ~.o~.~.~ov/~~o~..~ EXH!~IT
.. ,.. .,.=. GRAY DAVIS. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
(510) 286-4444
TDD (510) 286-4454
July 11, 2001
ALA-580-18.82
File #ALA580694
SCH #91-103064
Ms. Anne Kinney
Associate. Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin; CA" 945'68
Dear Ms. Kinney:
Cisco Systems Campus Office Complex - Initial Study & Negative Declaration
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation in the environmental review
process for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration, and have the following comments to offer.
We are concerned about the additiOnal traffic volumes to Interstate 580 (1-580) and would like to
study this in greater detail. Please provide us a copy of the traffic analysis for the project prepared
· by Omi-Means, Transportation Consultants, dated May 2001.
Some specific concerns we have:
1. What are the project impacts to the ramps at Dougherty Road/I-580 and Hacienda Drivefl-580
during peak commute, hours? Will the project cause a backup of traffic there during peak
hours?
2. For the eastbound off-ramps, are extra left-turn or auxiliary lanes going to be needed? The
onramps should also be addressed.
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Paul
Svedersky of my staff at (510) 622-1639.
Sincerely,
HARRY Y. YAHATA
District Director
BY ~t'~~~ ~0~.%~.~
JEAN C. R. FINNEY
District Branch Chief J~JL ~ ~ ?_[l~'~
IGPJCEQA
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER,CONS'ERVATION DISTRICT
· 5997 PARKSIDE DRIVE i~ PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 945fl8~5127 ,1~ ~HONE (92'5) 484-2600 FAX (925) 462-3914
~ ·July 16, 2001
Ms. Anne Kinney
Associate Planner
Planning Department ' '
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
........... Dublin~CA.,94.$68 ..
_Re: Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
for Proposed Cisco Systems Campus Office Complex
Dear Ms. Kinney:
Zone 7 received the referenced document on June 18, 2001. Our comments below relate to Zone
7's responsibilities for water supply, flood protection, and groundwater management in the
Livermore-Amador Valley.
The proposed project is for a large office complex 'located on two parcels adjacent t° both Arnold
Road and Dublin Boulevard. The project site is located within the area covered, by the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan.
We have the following comments:
1. Page 17. "IX. Hydrology and Water Quality"
The Environmental' checklist and attachment to the Initial 'Study does.not discuss the
Potential salt balance impacts due to irrigating landscaping areas with recycled water.
There is references however, to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. If mitigation
measures are not covered in that reference, please.be advised that the EIR for the DSRSD
and EBMUD Recycled Water Authority (DERWA) does.' However, the Initial Study does
not make any reference to the DERWA EIK Please note tfiat it is our understanding that
DERWA has not e0mpleted its obligation for mitigation measures that allow irrigation
with recycled water in eastern Dublin. Specifically, there is a requirement to build a Water
quality monitoring station in Tassajara Creek to monitor for pre,project quantity' and
quality, and to share in the salt loading reduction in the Main Basin.
RECEIVED
JUL ~ ~ 2001
DUBLIN pLANNiNG
Ms. Anne Kinney
July 16, 2001
Page 2
2. Page 32~ "8. Hydrology and Water Quality"
a. Under "Environmental Setting," second paragraph, Zone 7 should be referenced as
"Zone 7 Water. Agency," instead of"Alameda County Zone 7."
b. Under "Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures," for Items "c," "d," and "e" of
'.. '.'P.otentiallmpaets and.Mitigation. Measures,!~..it.should be .noted.that. the
mitigation of impacts to flood control facilities downstream of the proposed
project is handled'through the collection of appropriate drainage fees through,
Zone 7's Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 Program. Also, we request that
hydraulic calculations be sent to Zone 7 for review, ,prior to construction.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. Please feel free to call me at (925)
484-2600, ext. 400, Or Jack Fong at ext. 245~ if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Horen
Principal Er~gineer
Advance Planning Section
cc: Ed Cummings
John Mahoney
David Lunn
Diana Gaines.
Matt Katen
Jack Fong
p:~i~o$1~t*ms.wpd
C rr
"
· '~'~ .... " RECEIVED
su~m~c July '16, 2001
zos2 s. Li.r,.o,~ ^...e DUBLIN PLANNING
Livcrmon~. CA 94550.4899
?h; (925) 373-5100
Fax: (925) 373-5155
TDD (925) 378-5052
Anne Kinney, Associate Planner
MAYOR. / COUNCIL
sn.5.~4~ City of Dublin
CITY MANAGER
~: 373.~o. ~=: 373.5oa~ q 00 Civic Plaza
Dublin, GA 94§68
CITY A'VrORNEY
Ph; 373-5120 · F~x: 878.5125
RE: Cis¢° Systems Campus Office Complex Draft Mitigated Negative
C~T~ CL~ Declaration
?h: 373~5150 * Fax: 37~-5135
CO~MUS~TY Dear Ms. Kinney:
DEVELOPMENT
Building Division
Ph: 373-5180 · Fax; 373-5183
r,,¢..,.s.~.,.,.~o. The City of kivermore appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the
Ph: 378-5240* Fax: 373-5267 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Cisco Systems Campus
Hou~i.n~ Division
,~:3n-~2o0.~ax:sn-53~ Office Complex. The proposed project woUld involve the construction of up to
r~,,,.~.,.~. 862,000 square feet of professional and business offices, research and
Ph: ~73-5200, Fax: 373.5318
development, light assembly and related ·uses, along with parking facilities and
..co~o.m landscaping. The project includes amendment to the East Dublin Specific
· DEVELOPMENT
Phi 373-5095. F~: 454.2879 Plan/General Plan, rezoning, site development review, development
FINANCE DEPARTMENFT agreement, and parcel map. The project site includes two parcels located east
r~: sn.5~5o,rax:.~?3~ of Arnold Drive and north and south of Dublin Boulevard.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.~so ~.,,,,,~ The City of Livermore offers the following specific comments on the MND:
Ph: 454-2361 · Fax: 454-2367
~y . Air, Quality (page 26, second full paragraph). The MND indicates that the air
~ooo s. L~.r.~o. ,.,.~ quality .impacts anticipated from the proposed project are within the scope
Pi,: 373-5500. Fax: 373.5505 of the project impacts covered by the 1994 East Dublin EiR. However, no
PEI~ONNEL analysis 'is provided to support this conclUsion. 'The air quality impacts
?h: 373-5103.Fax; 373.5035 cumulative changes in land uses, traffic generation and traffic patterns,
POLICE DEPARTMENT particularly due to the loss of a large number of residential units in close
111o $. Livermor¢ ^vc,ue proximity to employment areas, are not addressed in the MND.
Ph: 371-4900, Fax: 371d,950
TDD 371.4982
pu. LIcs.~,wcss . Population/Housing (page 35). The proposed project woUld include
3~oo,o~,,,o,,~.,a. the elimination of 821 average dwelling units currently planned.for
Ph: 373-5270 · Fax: 873.5317 ~
,~,~.o,.~.,,. site 15A. The MND does not address the potential effect this loss of
636TerminaJ C~Ie residential units would have on the jobs/housing balance within
Ph: 373-5280 · Fax: 873.5042
c..~f~.,...,.~,.,. Dublin or the Tri~Valley area. Given that the residential units would
909 Clubhouse Drive
,~: s~3-~239.~ax,~3..,~0., be high density, the MND should also address the losS of potentially
Main~na~.e Dlv~ion
3500 Robs~on park Rd. affordable u nits.
Ph: 37~,-5220 * Fax! 373-5033
101 W, Jack London Bird·
DUBLIN PLANNING
Anne Kinney, Associate Planner
July 16, 2001
Page Two
· Transportation/Traffic (page 41). The MND indiCates that the traffic "
projections for existing and future base conditions have been taken directly
· from the study prepared for the adjacent proposed Dublin Transit Center.
However, the Dublin Transit Center is not listed as a pending project included
in the traffic analysis on page 42. If the Dublin Transit Center is not included
in the traffic analysis as a pending project, then the cumulative traffic impacts
in Table 2 (Existing PlUs FutUre Base intersection LOS) and Table 3 (Existing
Pi'~'S"P'roj~t'P'i"~J'~"'F~u're' B~ 'ln{'er:s'e'cfi0~'"'['~'~'i"hav~' 5~e'n-"un'de:re'~'ti"~tedl'
Thank you .again for the opportunity to provide these comments, Please contact me if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Susan Frost
Senior Planner
cc: Eric Brown, Planning Manager
THE CITY OF
pL£AS&NTON
june 28, 2001
Eddie Peabody, Jr.
Director of Community Development
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA . 94568
Dear Mr. Peabody:
The "Cisco Systems Notice of Public Review of Mitigated Negative Declaration" has been forwarded to
our office for review and comment. Our primary concerns are to assure that development is in concert
with previous agreements regarding the reimbursement of funds for freeway interchange construction,
and the timely completion of freeway interchange mitigations to assure that both Dublin and Pleasanton
General Plan development is accommodated.
The notice states "traffic impacts on the street system will be less than significant with mitigation."
The Study .Report indicates that the existing, plus approved, plus projected traffic can be accommodated
at acceptable levels of service, with planned mitigations, .with the exception of Dougherty Road
improvements that will be included in an Updated Eastern Dublin Traffic'Impact Fee Program.
Our interchange agreement requires Dublin to improve the interchanges at Hacienda and Santa
Rita/Tassajara to be adequate to meet our mutual buildout demands. Traffic projections of. these
"Buildout" needs indicate that widening of the Hacienda overpass for the northbound lanes is required.
The Study Report indicates a major orientation of trips to and from Cisco are via the 1-580 Hacienda
Interchange. Our concern is that if these impacts are not ultimately mitigated, traffic will back up
restricting access to Pleasanton.
staff ann that of the Public Works
We appreciate the opporturdty to continue working with Your ' ~
Department to assure mutual satisfactory results in terms of our traffic needs.
Rm~d~ll A. Lum JUL 0
Diredtor of Public Works
"DUBLIN PLANI~NO
C :\d ata~LUlVI~DublinEIR.doc ,,.
PUBLIC WORKS . P.O. BOX :520, Pleasantp.n..t CA 94566-0802
Administration Engineering Traffic Inspection Operations Service Center
200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave, 205-E Main Street 3333 Busch Road
(925) 931-5648 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931-5680 (925) 931-5500
Fax: 931-5479 Fax: 931-5479 Fax: 931-5479 Fax: 931-5484 Fax: 931-5595
· Alameda coUnty Airport Land Use commission Lo~,/~~
224 W. Winton Avenue, Room 151
Hayward, CA 94544
' ' (510) 670-6511
July 5, 2001
Anne Kinney, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
...... SUB?I:. Envir0nmental..R~ie~v.;f°r. Cisc0. Systems Cam.pus Office Comp!ex.(PA #00~029)
Dear Ms. Kinney:
Thank you for your referral of the above project. Staffhas reviewed the document and has determined
that this project is not located within any of the Referral Areas (i.e., Height, Noise, Safety, or General) for
the Livermore Municipal Airport. This project, as defined, will create no hazard to air navigation in the
vicinity of the airport, and is not an incompatible land use in its proximity to the airport.
Thank you for this referral, and please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions regarding this
letter.
Cindy Horvath
ALUC Staff
c: James Sorensen, Alameda County Planning Director, ALUC Administrative Officer
Parks & Community Services Department
· MEMORANDUM
D,~TE: July 5,200'1
TO: Anne Kinney, Associate Planner
............ FROM: ............. Diane..Lowarh. Parks & Community .Services Directo.r-.:. ~..? ~
SUBJECT: Environmental Review for Cisco Systems Campus Office Complex'(PA # 00'029)
i have completed my review of'the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Cisco
Systems Campus Office Complex and have one comment. On Page 38, Section 14. Recreation, you
state that the project will not increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional 'parks nor require the
construction of recreational facilities. I would like to point Out that in the 1996 Public Facilities Fee
Justification Study, we allocate the cost of certain public facilities to both residential and non-residential
land uses. Thus, non-residential projects actually contribute fees towards the construction of community
parks, community buildings, aquatic center, library and civic center. Employee impact of facilities is
weighted as follows:
Community Parks - 15%
Community Buildings - 5%
Aquatic Center - 5%
Library - 22%
Civic Center- 25%
We justified as part of our Fee Study that employees do have minimal impacts on parks and recreation
facilities.
Please let me know if you have questions related to this issue or if you need further information.
ac Tn,~t July 9, 2001
Director
Matt Williams
mm,~- couu~ Ms. ~e ~ey
s~p,~,o. Pl~ng D~ment
Gail Steele
Mayor
CiW Of ~b~y
myo~ S~CT: Co~ents on Gener~ PI~ ~endmem PA 00-029, Cisco Systems, Inc.
P~g~ Thomaen
m~ in the Ci~'ofDub~
Director
Pe~ $nyd~r
Dear .~e:
Ct~ of B~kaley
Councilmemb~r
~, W~h~g~o~ Th~ you for ~e oppo~ty to coment on the City of Dublin's ~neral Plan
c~**f.~l~ ~endment (GPA) to remove residential uses ~d spread the other uses over a lgger
~uncilmember
a~o~s: x. z~ l~d ~ea for Sites 1SA ~d 16A of the Dubl~ ~neral .Plan ~d Eastern Dubl~ SPecffic
c~ of ~,~ Plan. Over,l, the amount of office square footage would not exceed what is ~gently in
~uncilmember
so~D~, the Pl~s ~d residenti~ would be removed.
Ci~ of ~ont
myo~ Based on o~ renew of the GPA ~d based on discussion Mth you, the ACC~ has no
Gus Morrison
c~**fmm~a co~e~t becaUse the project does not appe~ to meet the Tier 1 r~uirem~ts of
~o, generating 100 'or more p.m peak hour trips over b~e~ne conditions. Therefore it is
Mayor
.~o~ ~o~ exempt ~o'm the.Land Use ~ysis Progrm of the C~.
CiW of ~vemore
Councilmember
to~ v,~ Once'ag~n, th~ you for the oppo~uffity to coment. Please do not hesitate to conta~
c~,o~,~k me ~You requke additional ~ommion. I c~'be reached at 510/836-2560 e~. 13.'
Coun'cilmember
Susan Boggs
Councilmember
Laru Reid. ~~
CiW of Pie~ont
'C~uncilmember
MichaelBruck Beth Walukas
CtwofPleas~ton · Savor .D.
Plier
Mayor
Tom Pico 0
cc: file:C~ - Enhroment~ Review pinion~ - Responses - 2001
Mayor . · ~ ~
Shelia Young .,
Mark Green "
~ecutiveD~ectOr .... ,1~[ 1 1 't001' '
Dennis R. F~y
13~8 BROADWAY SUITE 220, O~D, ~ 94612 · PHONE: (510) 836~2560 · F~X: (510) 836-2185
E-~L: mail~accma.ca.gov · WEB SITE: accma.cagov
f~cc PA 00-. Dublin BI. northeast Dublin Office Tech.
029 @ Amotd Dr. & & Research
Dublin BI. southwest. Campus
between Hacienda
BI. & Arnold
Comments - Cisco Office Campus, Dublin:
WHEELS currently operates the Route 10 & 12 along Dublin Boulevard. Them
are no bus stops / bus pull outs on Dublin Blvd. between Hacienda and Dublin
Court-~....whichis. a biggap~. This, .is .an.opportunity,to,,, provide safe..and, convenient
service to passengers working shopping and committing to BART. We are
request bus pUllouts on Dublin Blvd., Digital Dr., Central, Arnold and Hacienda.
Long range we could have several configurations of routing,,depending on the
demand in the nex~ few years. With the spaciousness of these developments
bus riders may have to cross large parking areas as well as set backs form the
street to reach their destina~n. Bus stops need to be as convenient as possible.
Of course we would like shelters benches and trash receptacles at these
locations.
Livermore Amador Valley 'Transit Authority
1362 Rutan Court, Suite 100, Livermore, CA 94550 · 925.455.7555 FAX 925,443.1375
Department of Toxic Substances Control ,..
Edwin F. Lowry, Director
700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 200
Mnston H. Hickox Berkeley, California 94710-2721 Gray'Davis
~gency Secretary Governor
;alifo mia Environmental
Protection Agency
July 17, 2001
Ms. Anne Kinney
City of Dublin
,..,. ...... '
Dublin, CA 94596 L_STAT? CLEARtN~ H__.0U~
Dear Ms. Kinney:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration and Initial Study
for the Cisco Systems Campu.~ Office Complex (PA # 00-029). As. you may 'be aware,
the California Department of Toxic Substances COntrol (DTSO) oversees the cleanLJp of
sites, where 'hazardous substances have been released pursuant to th.e California
Health and Safety Code, Division 20, chapter 6.8. As a potential Resburce Agency,
DTSC is submitting comments to ensure that the environmental documentation
prepared for this project to address the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
adequately addresses any required remediation activities that may be required to
address any hazardous substances release.. ..
Page 31 ,.Mitigation Measure 4, identify the "other solvents" detected beneath portions
of Sites 15A and 16A.
· DTSC can help your.agency in overseeing characterization and cleanup activities
through our Voluntary cleanup Program. A fact sheet describing this program is
enclosed. We are aware that projects such as this one are typically on a compressed
schedule, and to use the available review time efficiently, we request that DTSC be
included in. any meetings where issues about our statutory authority are discu'ssed.
In the near future, DTSC will be administering the $85 million Urban Cleanup Loan
Program, which will provide Iow-interest loans to investigate and Cleanup hazardous
materials at" properties where redevelopment is likely to have a. beneficial impact to a
community. The program is composed of two main components: Iow interest loans of
up to $100,000 to conduct preliminary endangerment assessments of underutilized.
properties; and loans of up to $2.5 million for the cleanup or removal of hazardous
materials also at underutilized urban properties. These loans are available to
developers, businesses, schools, and local governments. A fact. sheet regarding this
program is attached for your information,
The energy challenge facing California is mai. Eve~ Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption.
For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web.site at www. dtsc. ca,gov. ·
~ Printed on Recycled Paper
Ms. Anne Kinney
July 17, 2001'
Page 2
Please contact C aude Jemison at (510) 540-3838 if you have any questions or would
like tO"~chedu, lea meeting. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, i"n this matter.
Sincerely, ·
Barbara J. Cook, P.E.~ Chief
Northern California - Coastal Cleanup
Operations Branch
EnclOsures
cc: without enclosures
.Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse.
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
Guenther Moskat
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806 -.
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
L Z 0 1Q overnor's Office of Planning and Research'
BLffi pLANNIN6 ' '~'"
, ' State Clearinghouse
Gray Davis Steve Nissen
GOVEKNOR
July 18, 2001
Anne Kinney
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
SfibjeetSPA#00-029 CiSeo Systems, Inci Campas':Office complex
SCH#: 1991103064
Dear Anne Kinney:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for
review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state
agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on July 17, 2001, and the comments from
the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the
State Clearinghouse immediately. Please .refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in
future correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the Califomia Public Kesources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive commems regarding those
activities involved m a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation.,
These commems are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. ShoUld you need
more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for &aft
environmental documents, pursuant to the Calif0mia Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State
Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
Terry Roberts
Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
I400 TENTH STREET :P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW. OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML
Document Details Report c~(~
State Clearinghouse Data Base "7 ~
SCH# ' 1991103064
Project Title PASO0-029 Cisco'Systems, inc. Campus Office Complex
Lead AgenCY Dublin, City of
· Type Neg. Negative Declaration
Description Amendment to General Plan/Specific Plan to reconfigure 'land uses and add campus office as a
permiffed use.
Lead Agency Contact
Name · Anne Kinney
Agency City of Dublin
Phone 925-833-6610 Fax
email
Address 100 Civic Plaza
""'" 'City""" 'D~blln State" CA "~"' Z/p"94568 ........ : ............................
Project Location
· County Alameda
City Dublin
Region
Cross Streets Arnold Drive, Dublin Boulevard & Hacienda
Parcel No. 986-5;26'-1, 14-6
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways 1-580
Airports Livermore
Railways
Waterways
SchOols
Land Use Project Site is vacant and planned and zoned for need use of residential & office,
Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Drainage/Absorption; Geologic/Seismic; Public
Services; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous;
Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality; Landuse
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game; Region 3; Office of
Agencies Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics;
California HighWay Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; Department of Housing and Community DevelOpment;
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native
.American. Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission
Date Received 06/18/2001 Start of Review 06/1812001 End of Review .07117/2001
kl~fa. I:llan[-e in H~f~ fi~lH~ r~llt frnm in~lff'ic.i~nt infnrm~tien nrevided bv lead a~encv.
07/16/01 09:tl FA}i 5102865513 TRANS PLANNING B . ~001/001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94523-0660
(510) 286-44-44
TDD (5!0) 2864454
July 11, 2001 ALA-580-18.82
._,,.~. File #ALA580694
~~'=. ~.~aJ~[D [ SCH#91-103064
Associate Planner '
City of DUblin ~ 7- ~/-
Dublin, CA 94568 ~
Dear Ms. Kinney:
Ciseo Systems Campus Office Complex- Initial Study & Negative Declaration
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation in the environmental review
process for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration, and have the following comments to offer.
We are concerned about the additional traffic volumes to Interstate 580 (I-580) and would like to
study this in greater detail. Please provide us a copy of the traffic analysis for the project prepared
by Omni-Means, Transportation Consultants, dated May 2001.
Some specific concerns we have:
1. What are the project impacts to the ramps at Dougherty Road/I-580 and Hacienda Drivefl-580
during peak commute hours? Will the project cause a backup of traffic there· during peak
hours?
2. For the eastbound off-ramps, are extra left-tm'n or auxiliary lanes going to be needed? The
onramps should also be addressed.
Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Paul
Svedersky of my staff at (510) 622-1639.
Sincerely,
HARRY Y. YAHATA
District Director
JEAN C. R, F[NNEY
District Branch Chief
IGR/CEQA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
951 Turner Court, Room 100
Hayward, 'CA 94545-2698
(510) 670-6601
FAX (510) 670-5269
July 12, 200,1 .
Anne Kinney, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Dublin'
Plarn~g Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Ms. Kinney:
Subject: initial Study and Drait Mitigated Negative Declaration for Cisco Systems
Campus Office Complex
Reference is made to your transmittal of June 13, 2001, of the Initial Study and Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Cisco Systems Campus Office Complex, located in the'
vicinity of Dublin'Boulevard and Arnold Drive.
We have reviewed the submitted documents and have no comments to offer at this time.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the In/rial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration for this project. If you have any questions, please call me at (510) 670-6613.
Very truly yours,
Andrew Otsuka
Development Services Department
/AO toOtitt, t~ pt ,. cUOI
TO SERVE AND PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY
Draft 1/17/03
City of Dublin
Site 15A Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment
File PA 00-029
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Responses to Comments
Office of Planning and Research (June 26, 2001)
Comment: Acknowledges receipt of Response: None required.
document and date of comment period.
Department of Toxics Substance Control DTSC) (June 27, 2001)
DTSC has determined that additional Response: The City of Dublin will refer
review of future development proposals on additional project information to DTSC at
the project site are required, the time such information is submitted to
the City. The adopted Eastern Dublin EIR
requires applicant preparation of Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments as part of
individual development applications. To
date, the previous Cisco Systems
application for a Stage 1 Planned
Development approval on this site has been
with&awn, so there is no pending
development.
EXHIBIT f"'.'6
Caltrans (July 11, 2001)
1) What are the project impacts to the Response: As indicated in the MND, and
Dougherty Road/I-580 and Hacienda based on the traffic study conducted by Omni-
Drive/I-580 during peak commute hours? Means for the Cisco project, the addition of
Will the project cause a back-up during Cisco traffic to existing plus future base
peak hours? volumes would allow the I-580 ramp
intersections at Dougherty/Hopyard Road,
Hacienda Drive, and Tassajara/Santa Rita
Road to continue operating at acceptable
levels-of-service with .planned circulation
improvements. Additional improvements
would be required at certain ramp intersections
as a result of added traffic from the proposed
Dublin Transit Center project. Such
improvements can be found in the July 2001
DEIR for the Dublin Transit Center as part of
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 (b),
Dougherty/Dublin intersection, and Mitigation
Measure 4.11-1 (c), Hacienda~I-580 Westbound
Off-Ramp.
2) For the eastbound off-ramps, are extra Response: See above response.
left-turn or auxiliary lanes going to be
needed? On-ramps should a also be
addressed.
Alameda County Co,ngestion Management Agency (ACCMA) (July 9, 2001)
ACCMA has no comment on the proposal, Response: Comment acknowledged. No
since it would not meet Tier 1 requirements additional analysis is required at this time.
and is exempt from the Land Use Analysis
portion of the CMP.
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 (July 16,
2001)
1)The Initial Study does not discuss Response: Impacts and mitigations for salt
potential salt balance impacts due to loading related to development projects in
irrigation, although reference is made to the Eastern Dublin are addressed in the Eastern
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. If Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan EIR
appropriate mitigation is not included in (Impact 3.5/20.0), and related Mitigation
the EDSP EIR, they are included in the Measure 3.5/20, that requires to incorporate
East Bay Municipal Utility District salt mitigation into their individual
DERWA EIR. The DERWA EIR notes that projects. Future project developers will be
there is a requirement to build a water charged impact fees to mitigate salt loading
quality monitoring station in Tassajara impacts.
Creek and to share in the salt loading
reduction in the Main Basin..
Page 2
2) In the Environmental Setting Section of Response: Comment acknowledged. The
the Hydrology and Water Quality recommended change is hereby made by
discussion, "Zone 7 Water Agency" should reference in the Initial Study document.
be used instead of "Alameda County Zone
.,,
3) Items c, d and e under Hydrology and Response: Comment acknowledged. No
Water Quality Project Impacts and additional analysis is required at this time.
Mitigation Measures, it is noted that
mitigation of impacts to downstream flood
control facilities is through.collection of
appropriate drainage fees to Zone 7.
4) Zone 7 requests that hydraulic Response: Zone 7's request has been
calculations be sent to Zone 7 for review transmitted to the Dublin Public Works
prior to construction Department for compliance.
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (July.,' 5~ 2001)
The ALUC has determined that the Response: Comment acknowledged. No
proposed project site does not lie within additional analysis is required at this time.
any airport Referral Area. The proposed
project would therefore not result in any
hazard to air navigation.
WHEELS (Livermore-Amador Valley Transportation Authority) (need a date),,
WHEELS requests bus pullouts on Dublin Response: This request has been forwarded
Boulevard, Digital Drive, Central, Arnold to the Dublin Public Works Department for
and Hacienda since there are no current bus consideration.
stops or pullouts on Dublin Boulevard
between Hacienda and Dublin Court.
City of Dublin Parks & Community Services Department .(July 5, 2001)
The Mitigated Negative Declaration notes Response: Comment noted. Future office
that the City of Dublin assumes use of City uses that are constructed on the project site
parks and recreation facilities by non- will be subject to payment of the City of
residential land uses for collection of the Dublin Public Facilities Fee, so that any
Public Facilities Fee. impacts to City parks would be less-than-
, significant.
City of Livermore (July 18, 2001)
1) No analysis is provided to conclude that Response: Since residential units proposed
the proposed project is within the scope of to be "lost" as part of this application will
the 1994 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, be located within the proposed Dublin
particularly due to loss of residential units. Transit Center. The 1994 EDSP EIR
included a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for regional, cumulative air
quality impacts.
Page 3
2) The proposed project would include the Response: The eastern Dublin EIR
loss of high density residential dwellings, analyzed the potential for urbanizing a
The environmental document does not large, defined planning area and identified
address effects on the'jobs/housing balance impacts as noted in the Initial
or the loss of potentially affordable units Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
project site is within the Eastern Dublin
planning area and proposes urban
development, as a somewhat lesser extent
that assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, for
both Campus Office and residential land
uses. The Eastern Dublin GPA/SP planned
for residential land uses on Site 15A, but
did not assume development that has
subsequently approved at the adjacent
Dublin Transit Center. The Transit Center
project was approved for up to 1500 high
density residences planned around the
existing BART station and bus transit hub.
This, the residential opportunities on Site
15A would be shifted to the Transit Center
to better complement transit opportunities.
3) The transportation and Traffic Section of Response: The Existing Plus Future Base
the environmental document does not list conditions are intended for near-term future
the Transit Center as a pending project, so conditions due to approved and pending
that cumulative traffic analyses have been projects that are consistent with the City of
underestimated. Dublin General Plan. The Dublin Transit
Center project is a longer-term project and is
not currently included in the Dublin General
Plan. Approval of this project will require a
General Plan Amendment. As a result, the
Dublin Transit Center project was included in
the traffic analysis under Cumulative
conditions (see the Cumulative traffic impacts
section on page 46 of the MND) to cover long-
term future conditions.
Page 4
City of Pleasanton (June 28, 2001)
The interchange agreement requires Dublin Response The need to widen the Hacienda
to improve the interchange at hacienda and Drive overpass to include three exclusive
Santa Rita/Tassajara to be adequate to meet northbound through lanes will be triggered by
mutual buildont demands. Traffic the Dublin Transit Center project, based on the
projections for buildout conditions indicate traffic study conducted by Omni-Means for
that widening of the Hacienda overpass for this project. This improvement is well
the northbound lanes is required. If impacts documented in the July 2001 Draft
of the proposed project are not ultimately Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
mitigated, then traffic will back up into Dublin Transit Center, as part of Mitigation
Measure 4.11-1(c), Hacienda~I-580 Westbound
Pleasanton. Off-Ramp. Hence, the Dublin Transit Center
project would have a significant impact on this
intersection and would be responsible for
constructing the above improvement.
Page 5
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted
a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as
significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.) The City Council carefully considered
each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council is currently considering the
Site 15A project on Alameda County Surplus Property Authority property in Eastern Dublin. The Site
15A project proposes to amend the land use designations for the site from High Density Residential to
Campus Office. Tiering from the Eastern Dublin EIR, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for
the Site 15A project, proposing additional mitigations applicable to potential future development on Site
15A. Although the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land
use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, pursuant to a recent court decision, the City Council
hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the Site 15A project. ~
The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR that are applicable to Site 15A will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted
with the original approval and by mitigation measures adopted through the Site 15A approval to be
implemented with future development approvals. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that
the implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified
in the Eastern Dublin EIP~. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified
adverse or potentially adverse impacts for Site 15A have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are
specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval oi~ the
Project.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant environmental
impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Site
15A project.
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/B,
Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character and 3.8/F, Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands:
Although considerable development has occurred in the Site 15A area, the project site is vacant and has
some open space character. Future development of Site 15A will contribute to the cumulative loss of
open space land.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/F. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: The
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Site 15A and the Dublin Transit Center EiR update cumulative
impacts to the 1-580. and 1-680 freeways from development in Eastern Dublin. While city street and
interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned improvements, transportation demand
management, the 1-580 Smart Corridor program and other similar measures, mainline freeway impacts
continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Future development on
Site 15A will contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources and
Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased
~ "...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant
unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency 103. Cai.App. 4t~ 98, __
(2002).
623896-1 1
EXHIBIT
Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System: Future development of Site 15A
will contribute to increased energy consumption.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects: Even with
seismic design, future development on Site 15A could be subject to damage from large earthquakes.
Air Quality Impacts 3.1 l/A, B, C, E: Future development of Site 15A will contribute to cumulative dust
deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source emissions.
3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastem
Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future
development on Site 15A against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are
outweighed by the benefits of the Site 15A project as further set forth below.
Site 15A is a relatively unconstrained parcel whose future development would further the urbanization of
Eastem Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern
Dublin approvals. Future development would contribute to an urban presence in the area, and would
provide the potential for approximately 1500 new jobs as well as construction jobs, in an area convenient
to major transit facilities. Site 15A is also convenient to existing and future housing in Dublin, and could
substantially increase property tax revenues.
623896-1 2
Site 15A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
March 2003
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Responsibility Schedule
Mitigation Measure 1: Pole-m0unted street Dublin Public Dublin Public Street
lights shall be equipped with cut-off lenses Works Works improvement
and oriented down toward interior streets Department; Department; drawings (for
to minimize unwanted light and glare spill Dublin Planning Dublin Planning street lights);
over. Building security lighting and other Division Division plan checks for
lights shall be directed downward. All individual
exterior glass panels shall be of non-glare buildings prior
manufacture, to issuance of
building permits
(building
lighting)
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Responsibility Schedule
Mitigation Measure 2: The possibility that Project Dublin Planning During project
undetected prehistoric archeological developer Division construction
resources might exist on the property must
be recognized and a contingency plan shall
be developed in conformity with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 to handle
discoveries during project construction. In
the event any prehistoric material is
discovered, work shall be halted in the
immediate vicinity of the site until a
qualified archeologist inspects the
discovery, and, if necessary, implements
plans for further evaluative testing and/or
retrieval of endangered materials.
Mitigation Measure 3: Prior to the issuance Project Dublin Public Prior to issuance
of a building permit, all of the asbestos developer Works of building
wrapped piping shall be removed and Department penYdt
deposited off of Site 15A, and .the heavy
petroleum hydrocarbons shall be removed
to the extent required by the appropriate
regulatory agencies.
Site 15A GPA/SPA Application Page 2 ~
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ~
City of Dublin
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Responsibility Schedule
Mitigation Measure 4: Prior to the issuance Project City of Dublin Prior to issuance
of a building permit, ali of the incinerator developer Public Works of grading
ash shall be excavated and deposited off of Department permit
Site 16A.
Mitigation Measure 5: The project Project City of Dublin Prior to issuance
developer shall prepare a Stormwater developer Public Works of grading
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), listing Department permit
Best Management Practices to reduce
construction and post-construction
activities to a less-than-significant level.
Measures may include, but are not limited
to, revegetation of graded areas, silt
fencing, use of biofilters (i.e. grassy swales),
and other measures. The SWPPP shall
conform to standards adopted by the
Regional Water Qualioty Control Board and
City of Dublin and shall be approved by the
City of Dublin Public Works Department
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Site 15A GPA/SPA Application Page 3 ~
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ~
City of Dublin ~'
Mitigation Measure Implementing Monitoring Monitoring Verification
Responsibility Responsibility Schedule
Mitigation Measure 6: The project Project City of Dublin Prior to
developer shall construct the folIowing developer Public Works occupancy of
traffic and transportation improvements in Department first building
the vicinity of the project:
· Dublin/Arnold intersection: a separate
fight-turn lane for the southbound
Arnold Drive approach;
· Hacienda/Dublin intersection: re-
stripe the northbound Hacienda
Drive approach to include a third
left-turn lane;
· Right-turn lanes to ali project
driveways;
· Cisco Systems Access/The Boulevard
improvements, to include:
Eastbound approach: 1 left-turn lane;
Westbound approach: 1 right-turn
lane; Southbound approach: 1 left-
turn lane, 1 through/right-turn lane.
Site 15A GPA/SPA Application Page 4
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Dublin ·
RESOLUTION NO. xx-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 02-041 FOR GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR SITE 15A TO CAMPUS
OFFICE
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority has requested approval of General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use designations for Site 15A, an
approximately 11.36 acre property located on the northeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Drive,
from High Density Residential to Campus Office, as shown on Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and
incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, uses allowed by the Campus Office Land Use Designation include professional and
administrative offices, technical data centers and computer serving facilities, training and conference centers,
corporate offices and headquarters, research and development laboratories and offices, parking structures,
support structures and other similar non-governmental uses. A courthouse facility would not be a permitted use
in the Campus Office designation; and
WHEREAS, the project site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning framework for future development of
the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15168 (SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51-93, and Addendum dated August 22, 1994, hereafter "Eastem
Dublin EIR" or "program EIR") which is available for review in the Planning Department and is incorporated
herein by reference. The program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect
effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy altematives, and areawide mitigation measures for developing Eastern
Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate site-specific impacts of the Site 15A project
to a greater level of detail than in the program EIR. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared and circulated
a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, following the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the original
applicants withdrew from the project whereupon the Surplus Property Authority as property owner determined
to continue the application review process for the General Plan and Specific Plan amendment portions of the
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the project on March 11, 2003. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 03-06
recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Resolution 03-07 recommending approval of
the Site 15A General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, both of which resolutions are
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, a staff report dated March 25, 2003 and incorporated herein by reference, described and
analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site 15A project, and was considered by the City Council,
together with the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including comments and responses), the Planning
623897-1 1 ATTACHMENT 2
Commission recommendations and all ~Tit~en ~_ud oral testimony at a duly noticed public hearing on March 25.
2003 at which time all interested p~ies had an opportunity to be heard~ mud
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-03, incorporated herein by
reference, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Site 15A project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are tree and correct and made a
part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find that approval of the Site 15A
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments are in the public interest and that the General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to change the land use designations for Site 15A from High Density
Residential to Campus Office, as further set forth in Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated by
reference.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 2003.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
623897-1 2
~" ~ -- SITE 15A BOUNDARY
HDR ~ C.O.
81TE ~A 81TE 16A
HIGH DENSrrY RESIDENTIAL CAMPUS OFFICE
15.6 ACRES GROSS 15.6 ACRES GROSS
11.365 ACRES NET 11.365 ACRES NET
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN USE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN USE
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ~/~~lo~ ~
ALAMEDA COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY, i.;;;~i--~,~. ~ ~
SANTA RITA PROPERTY ~' ;: '
" FIGURE 1-2B
SITE 15A
-""'"'"'"" ~ 15A BOUNDARY
HDR C.O.
81TE 'ISA ~nrE 16A
HIGH DENSrlY RF. SI~ CAMPUS OFFICE
15.6 ACRES GROSS 15.6 ACRES GROSS
I1.5~ ACRES NET 11.363 ACRES NET
EXISTING LAND USE MAP PROPOSED LAND USE MAP
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE PLAN ,'.¢
ALAMEDA COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY
SANTA RITA PROPERTY ,/,?.,.i'"' :IGURE 4.1
TRANSIT CENTER
srr[ L~,)USE ~ ;:~ ~ EMERALD PARK
A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ~ ............ J SITE LAND USE
B HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL J 2 '::" 1 T~S~J~J~A
:. I~ssion Peak Horr~s
C HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ':
D~ c~us OFF~CE/HOTEL / Ci~ of Dub,.
~, i Shea Properties
E1 c~us OF.CE . E~D G.E.
£2 CAk~US OFFICE Toll Brothers
F NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 5A GENEP. AL MDTORS AUTO MALL
........... ~ ........ .=.......,, :.~ ..... ,., SB ~)LL DU~UN CO~PO~AT~ CENTER
~' " ..... ~'~ ":::" 2 '<<'"?:.J'~" ~'' :L.,. ," 3 K~ii Rent Estate Group
AutoNati~
~' .( ..,.. '":~- _% ~ ~C,ENDACROSS,NGS
. ". "."'".'> -- -- Re~al Cinemas MuJti-PJex
J :" :" 8 CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE/BROOKSIDE
Kaufman and Broad
*"~ :: }:~i g EF~ERALD PARK APARTMENTS
Arch~toae Communities
I'OSAN ~ON ,,~"" ;: ] 10 DOUGHERTY ELEJVENTARY SCHOOL
Dub[in Unified Sc~oo[ District
~-e,~.~ c~ [~A~CS -- ~: :~-: :il ~.=~--
*,._.: N,,..-._.~ / N. ,/'./ Z:; Z : ::~ 11A JEFFERSONATE/VERALDPARKAPARTIvENTS
{.,x. ....... ¥1 iv ...~.~:::~ ,--'~'-~.- ?,~m
%' c~- ...... ~ ~.--7% "' -~- c. ~ ~ SU.~9[R GLEN
..... ~-~"~-- -- ~"~.'[ Richmond Amedca. Homes
Pulte Homes
'~::~:_~.., -- __)i __ F~ ~ ~.X~-~-7~I '~ ~ ~- . - ~-~ Alameda County
"~g/~%~,~' .~ ~. C J! L~" !'I~i ~ Humphrey in.ruments/E-Loan/S. E.T. Inc.
~'¢'" OPUS Wesr./i~icro Dental
15A CANI~US OFFICE
/ 4r--- ;r----n,r---~~~F: a.~., ~., ,:r , I--- ,
",> "'"""'"._.'/?"'~'~.r~ "~,,(C -- ,~' :~/..~~,.// ,~, CA.US
BART STAllO. -~.'., , ,,.'-~ 1-580
~ _J ~ 16B CAF~US OFFICE
~ PROJECT SITE
VICINITY MAP
1.3
~""~'-~ " EmeraLd Park Ar~ :
~ Al~medu Cnun~ Cnmmuai~/~"~1'
224 W. Winton/~
"'*"" .... ~ u ~ ,. ~ ~ · . ^ ~ s ~ T c ~ N T ~ ~ ""i ATTACHMENT 3
Dublin, California
RESOLUTION NO. 03-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 02-041
ALAMEDA COUNTY SITE 15A
GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority has requested
approval of General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to change the
land use designations for Site 15A, an approximately 11.36 acre property located on
the northeast comer of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Drive, from High Density
Residential to Campus Office; and
WHEREAS, the project site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive
planning framework for future development of the area. In connection with this
approval, the City certified a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168
(SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51-93, and Addendum dated August 22, 1994, hereafter
"Eastern Dublin EIR" or "program EIR") which is available for review in the Planning
Department and is incorporated herein by reference. The program EIR was integral to
the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts,
broad policy alternatives, and areawide mitigation measures for developing Eastern
Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant
environmental impacts and related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together
with mitigation findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93), which
mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to development in
Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potentially significant
environmental impacts that could not be avoided by mitigation and for which the City
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate site-specific impacts
of the Site 15A project to a greater level of detail than in the program EIR. Based on the
Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June 2001 (SCH:
1991103064, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference) and circulated
it for public review from June 16, 2001 through July 16, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City received ten letters commenting on the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, which letters are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
ATTACHMENT
Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to the comments,
which responses are attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. The
responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues
raised in the comments; and
WHEREAS, following the public review period, the original applicants
withdrew from the project whereupon the Surplus Property Authority as property owner
determined to continue the application review process for the General Plan and Specific
Plan amendment portions of the application; and
WHEREAS, staff reviewed the property owner's actions pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines § 15073.5 and determined that no recirculation of the draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration was required because the document analyzed the consequences of
development pursuant to the requested land use changes; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on
March 11, 2003 at which time they reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and all reports, recommendations and testimony before them; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the
record of proceedings for the project is the City of Dublin Community Development
Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
finds as follows.
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The Eastern Dublin EIR and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately
describe the impacts of the project. As reflected in the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
the proposed amendments would result in future urban development but at a lesser scale
than assumed and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. To the extent set forth in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed amendments are within the scope of the
Eastern Dublin EIR. Project specific environmental effects have been analyzed in the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which determined that the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment with the application of mitigation measures
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There is no
substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project as
mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment.
C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the
City's independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the proposed
land use amendments.
2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for PA 03-0__, Alameda County Site 15A consisting of Exhibits A, B and C,
as described above, and make all required findings.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11th day of March, 2003.
AYES: Cm. Fasulkey, Jennings, Nassar, King and Machtmes
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
3
RESOLUTION NO. 03- 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PA 02-041 FOR GENERAL
PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR SITE 15A TO CAMPUS OFFICE
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority has requested approval
of General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use
designations for Site 15A, an approximately 11.36 acre property located on the northeast
comer of Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Drive, from High Density Residential to Campus
Office, as shown on Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the project site is in Eastem Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning
framework for future development of the area. In connection with this approval, the City
certified a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH: 91103064,
Resolution 51-93, and Addendum dated August 22, 1994, hereafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" or
"program EIR") which is available for review in the Planning Department and is incorporated
herein by reference. The program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the
direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives, and areawide
mitigation measures for developing Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to evaluate site-specific impacts of the
Site 15A project to a greater level of detail than in the program EIR. Based on the Initial Study,
the City prepared and circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration on March 11, 2003 through
Resolution 03-xx, incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, following the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
the original applicants withdrew from the project whereupon the Surplus Property Authority as
property owner determined to continue the application review process for the General Plan and
Specific Plan amendment portions of the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the project on March 11, 2003; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the Site 15A General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments; and
ATTACHMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments and responses thereon, and all said
reports, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution, and that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
approval of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments to change the land
use designations for Site 15A from High Density Residential to Campus Office.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of March 2003.
AYES: Cm. Fasulkey, Jennings, Nassar, King and Machtmes
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
John S. Chen
Chairman, CEO and President
March 18, 2003
Mayor Janet Lockhart
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mayor Lockhart:
Per our meeting two weeks ago, I want to reiterate Sybase's strong opposition to the
building of any county offices on Site 15A in Dublin, which is located adjacent to
Sybase's worldwide corporate headquarters. We feel that building any county offices,
and particularly a county courthouse, next door to our facility would greatly jeopardize
the safety, integrity and well-being of our employees, customers, partners and corporate
image.
During our conversation you stated that any non-commercial development of this site
requires approval from the Dublin City Council. As Sybase adamantly opposes the
development of Site 15A for anything other than commercial purposes, I want to confirm
that the Dublin City Council agrees with this position. I am respectfully requesting a
written response from the Council stating its opposition to any county development on
Site 15A.
Please contact me directly if there is anything that Sybase or I can do to assist in
opposing the development of Site 15A as a county courthouse or other county
government building.
S inc~~//~
cc: Members of Dublin City Council
Sybase, Inc. ~T
One Sybase Drive ISOg001 RE(~ISTERED
Dublin, CA 94568-7902
ATTACHMENT
Fax (925) 236-8004
www.sybase.com