The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 6.1 TransitVillageAppeal CITY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 20, 2004 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 02-003 AMB Properties, West Dublin Transit Village -Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review and Planning Commission's Recommendation that Council Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan and Development Agreement Prepared by Janet Harbin, Senior Planner ~ ATTACHMENTS: 1.Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-08, Recommending City Council Adoption of a Mitigation Negative Declaration for the Legacy Partners/AMB Transit Village Project [PA 02-003] 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-09, Recommending City Council Approval of a Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning/Stage 2 Development Plan for PA 02-003 Legacy Partners - West Dublin Transit Village 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-12, Approving a Tentative Parcel Map 8069 and Site Development Review PA 02-003 Legacy Partners - West Dublin Transit Village (with Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069 attached as Exhibit A, and Site Plan attached as Exhibit B) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-11, Recommending that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance for a Development Agreement for PA 02-003 West Dublin Transit Village 5.Planning Commission Staff report and minutes from February 24, 2004 6. Letter of Appeal Received on March 4, 2004 from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104 and the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342 - Distributed under separate cover 7.March 10, 2004 letter from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo agreeing to April 20 hearing on appeal 8. Resolution Denying Appeal and Affirming Planning Commission Resolution Number 04-12 Approving a Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review and g:\pa#~2002\02-003XAMB appeall-libby COPIES TO: Property Owner Interested Parties PA file Appellant 1~ ITEM NO. 6'1 Finding that Resolution Numbers 04-08, 04-09, 04-11 Recommending Council Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, PD Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan · and Development Agreement for the West Dublin Transit , Village are Not Appealable 9. List of Project-Related Studies and Information 10. Late Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration and Staff Responses 11. Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.136 12. Dublin Municipal Code Section 9.08.100 and Government Code section 66452.5 RECOMMENDATON: 1. Hear Staff presentation. /~~ 2. Open public hearing. 3. Take testimony from the Appellant, Applicant, and the public. 4. Question Staff, Appellant, Applicant, and the public. 5. Close public hearing and deliberate. 6. a. Adopt Resolution Denying Appeal and Affirming Planning Commission Resolution Number 04-12 Approving a Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review and Finding that Resolution Numbers 04-08, 04-09, 04-11 Recommending Council Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, PD Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan and Development Agreement for theWest Dublin Transit Village are Not Appealable or b. by Consensus Indicate Intent to Affirm Planning Commission's Actions in part and reverse in part OR Reverse Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Parcel Map and Site DevelOpment Review and Continue appeal to May 4, 2004 for Adoption of Resolution Resolving Appeal DESCRIPTION: AMB Property Incorporated has submitted a project application consisting of a Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review and a Development Agreement for a mixed-use project transit village consisting of a four and ½ story structure, containing a maximum of 304 multi-family residences with a small amount of neighborhood retail uses on the ground story. The project also includes the construction of an approximately 150,500 square foot office building on the southern portion of the site closest to Dublin Creek (Alameda County Flood Control Channel Line T) and 1-580 freeway corridor. The approximately 9.06 acre property is developed with a warehouse managed by Legacy Partners. The site is owned by AMB Property, Inc. who is the Applicant and Developer for this project. Legacy Partners has been assisting AMB Property, Inc., with the processing of the project through the City. The property is located northwest of the 1-580 freeway, south of the future extension of St. Patrick Way in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area of Dublin. Adjacent to the west boundary of the property are light industrial and professional/administrative office uses. Adjacent to the east is the Orix (recently changed to the Ampelon Development Group) residential project on vacant property owned by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), and recently approved by the City Council for high-density residential land use and commercial development. On February 24, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted four resolutions (see Attachments 1 through 4), recommending City Council adoption of a Mitigation Negative Declaration for the Legacy Partners/AMB Transit Village Project [PA 02-003]; City Council approval of a Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning/Stage 2 Development Plan; approving a Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review; and recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance for a Development Agreement the West Dublin Transit Village project. The Planning Commission's approval of the tentative parcel map and site development review were conditioned upon the Council's approval of the PD Rezoning and Development Agreement. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVALS On March 4, 2004, the law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo,. representing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104, and the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342, submitted a Letter of Appeal appealing the February 24, 2004 Planning Commission approval of the Site Development Review and the Tentative Parcel Map for the AMB Properties project and the Planning Commission's recommendations of approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, and the Development Agreement, to the City Council. The Letter of Appeal includes a second letter also dated March 4, 2004, consisting of 36 pages plus seven attachments. This 36-page letter of March 4, 2004 is contained in Attachment 6 and referred to as the "Letter of Appeal" [note: This document was delivered to the MayOr and City Council under separate cover on April 8, 2004]. Applicable Appeal Procedures Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin Municipal Code provides for appeals of any Planning Commission "requirement, decision or determination." (DMC section 8.136.010.) Section 8.136.020.B specifies that "actions" of the Planning Commission "on permits" may be appealed to the Council. Three of the Planning Commission's resolutions that the Appellant has "appealed" are not "requirements, decisions or determinations" of the Planning Commission, nor are they "actions on permits" subject to appeal. Rather, they are recommendations to the City Council. Unless and until the City Council takes the action .recommended by the Planning Commission, such resolutions are not appealable. Therefore, Staff : · recommends that the Council find that there is no right of appeal from Planning Commission Resolutions 04-08 (recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration), 04-09 (recommending adoption of an ordinance rezoning the property) and 04-12 (recommending approval of a development agreement). Resolution 04-11, which approved the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review (SDR) subject to Council approval of the PD Rezoning and Development Agreement, is appealable. Because that resolution approved both a tentative parcel map and SDR, two different sets of regulations are applicable to the appeal. The SDR is subject to DMC Chapter 8.136. Section 8.136.050.B requires that the appellant to specify the grounds for the appeal. Section 8.136.060.C specifies that the Council shall hold a public hearing, receive all written and oral testimony, and consider "only those issues involving the matters that are the specific subjects of the appeal." The Council may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the decision or determinations of the Planning Commission. Provisions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.08) and the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code section 66452.5) require that the appeal from the approval of the tentative parcel map be held within 30 days and a decision made within ten days following the conclusion of the hearing. The Appellant has agreed that the hearing could be heard on this date (see Attachment 7). In acting on the appeal, the Council acts in a quasi-legislative capacity. Grounds for the Appeal The arguments supporting the appeal are voluminous but there appear to be two grounds for the appeal. The first ground is summarized by the Appellant at page 2 of the Appeal Letter as: "the City's failure to comply with CEQA by relying on an inadequate ISND, instead of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR). " The Appellant further states at page 2 of the Appeal Letter that: "substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project will have significant environmental impacts on traffic, public health, air quality, water quality, and other resources." The Appellant's second ground for the appeal is that the City allegedly failed to follow procedural requirements by not sending the proposed negative declaration to the State Clearinghouse and providing a 30-day comment period (pages 35-36 of Appeal Letter). The Appellant asks the Council to uphold the appeal, withdraw the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and prepare a draft EIR for the project (page 3 of Appeal Letter). In addition to the Letter of Appeal the Appellant submitted late comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project after the public review period was over, and in response to Staff's Responses. Those are contained and responded to in Attachment 10. The Appellants' first argument - that a Negative Declaration is not appropriate and an EIR should be prepared - is addressed in (a) this Agenda Statement; (b) the Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.2; (c) the Mitigated Negative Declaration; (d) the Feb. 10, 2004 Responses to Comments Matrix; and (e) the Responses to Late Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated April 20, 2004. The Appellants' second argument - that the Initial Study/Negative Declaration should have been sent to the State Clearinghouse is addressed in (a) this Agenda Statement; (b) the Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.2; (c) the Mitigated Negative Declaration; (d) the Feb. 10, 2004 Responses to Comments Matrix (RespOnses Number 2 and 36); and (e) the Responses to Late Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated April 20, 2004. Anal)~sis of Appeal The following sections briefly discuss the various aspects of the comPonents of the project approved by the Planning Commission. Further discussion of the environmental review for the project is included in the section of this report entitled Environmental Analysis, below. The Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.2 for tonight's meeting on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, and Development Agreement (which is incorporated into this Agenda Statement and made part of the record for this appeal as though set forth in full), discusses: · the proposed West Dublin Transit Village in detail, including existing uses of the project site; · prior City approvals applicable to the site; · the General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan; · compatibility with the Stage 1 Development Plan; · the proposed project (including all required project approvals); · the project site; · architectural and development standards; · preliminary landscape plans; · the Site Development Review approval (including topography, architectural concept and theme, lot coverage, landscape design theme, traffic and circulation, water supply, sanitary sewer and recycled water irrigation, storm drainage/hydrology, police and fire department requirements and maintenance of landscaping and streets); · the vesting tentative parcel maP; · compliance with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations; · the terms of the proposed development agreement; · the environmental analysis (including traffic issues); and · other aspects of the project. Because the appeal raises only the issue of the appropriate environmental review, Staff has not included the detailed discussion of the proposed project in full in this Agenda Statement. The following environmental analysis is included here, however, because the appropriate environmental review is the issue raised by the appeal. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The City prepared an Initial Study dated November 6, 2003 for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and determined that the Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared a draft subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162 to examine how the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs were included in the Project, and thus how prior adopted mitigation established in the Specific Plan would be implemented. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are included in Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 6.2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The City received one comment letter on the Project, from Adams Broadwell JosePh & Cardozo, dated December 2, 2003. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments in a Responses to Comments matrix dated February 10, 2004 which is contained 'in Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 6.2. The comment letter included a substantial amount of background materials that are on file and available for review in the Planning Department. Staff carefully reviewed the comments in preparing the written responses and the responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments. The Appellant also stated in the comment letter of December 2, 2003 that the Mitigated Negative Declaration should have been submitted to the State Clearinghouse and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as the RWQCB is a responsible and trustee agency. The response to this comment is contained in the Responses to Comments matrix dated February 10, 2004 in Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 6.2, Responses 2 and 36. The MND was not provided to the State Clearinghouse for posting as no State agency is responsible for issuance of permits or approval of entitlements. The project is also not considered one of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance requiring State agency review under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15206 as it contains less than 500 housing units (Sec. 15206(b)(2)(A)), and less than 250,000 square feet of office space with less than 1,000 employees (Sec. 15206(b)(2)(C)). Additionally, the RWQCB is not a trustee agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15386. The RWQCB is not a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 as the City has received a RWQCB permit and the RWQCB has no discretionary authority over the Project. Adams Broadwell submitted another set of comments on February 20, 2004, well after the close of the public review and comment period on the Project MND (see Attachment 10). Like the previous letter, the comments objected to the City approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration rather than preparing an EIR. Again, although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to the late comments. The February 20, 2004 letter and the City's written responses dated April 20, 2004 are contained in Attachment 10 of the Staff report for Agenda item 6.2. Both sets of comments (as well as the Appeal Letter) generally assert that the Project may have potentially significant impacts on air quality, water quality, traffic, and public services that have not been mitigated. All of the letters include extensive consultant reports. City Staff carefully reviewed all the comments, including the consultant reports. Where appropriate, the written responses explain why the City disagrees with the consultant reports, and how the City's conclusions are supported by the record. In general, the Adams Broadwell comments reflect a number of common misunderstandings, as follows: 1) Many of the comments state or assume that the Project site is vacant, and thus that the Project is going from no development to intense urban development, with its attendant impacts. However, the Project site is not vacant; it is fully developed and operational with a high intensity trucking and warehousing operation, and a high level of existing impacts. Pursuant to CEQA, the potential for the Project's environmental impacts is measured against the existing development and operations. As explained in the City's written responses, the Project will reduce rather than increase certain potential impacts, e.g., by reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on a site which currently is almost entirely covered by building or paving. The comments do not reflect the past environmental reviews for the Project and Project site. As noted in the chart showing the hierarchy of land use approvals for the site in Agenda Item 6.2, the Projec~t and site have been the subject of past approvals and related CEQA reviews. Contrary to the comments' assertions, CEQA's "fair argument" standard does not apply to the Project. Instead, the Project is subject to the subsequent review standard under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, which prohibits the City from requiring a subsequent EIR unless the Project will cause new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed. Section 15162 states that when a negative declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless substantial evidence shows that 1) the project is substantially changed or the circumstances of the project have substantially changed t¥om the previous review, such that the project :would ~ :. ~ involve· new significant environmental, effects, or, 2) substantial, new. information WhiCh was nOt known and could not have been known when the previous negative declaration was adopted shows the project will have new significant effects. In this case, none of these standards for a subsequent EIR is present. No Project Changes, No Changed Circumstances: The Project has not changed from that analyzed in the Specific Plan ND; the Project is consistent with the general plan and specific plan land uses and development standards assumed in the ND and later approved by the City Council in 2000. Of particular note is the fact that during the specific plan process, changes were proposed for the Project site in anticipation of the current mixed use and office development applications. Those changes were considered by the Council and are reflected in underscored text in the adopted Specific Plan ND. See, for example, underscored text on pp. 3, 14 of the ND describing and analyzing the increased office density then proposed for the Project site. The current Project is consistent with these changes that were specifically analyzed in the prior ND. Similarly, there have been no substantial changes in circumstances since the prior ND. None was identified when the City relied on the prior ND for the 2002 rezoning approval, and none was identified in the Project MND. No New Information of New Significant Impacts: There is no new substantial information showing that the Project will have new significant environmental effects. The record contains various reports and studies for the Project, as required by the Specific Plan, the Specific Plan ND, and City standards, such as updated traffic studies and preliminary geotechnical studies referenced earlier in this Staff report, in the Project MND and elsewhere in the record. The reports generally show how the Project implements the Specific Plan and City standards, and none identifies the potential for new significant impacts. In their comment letters, Adams Broadwell appends several consultant reports in support of their contention that an EIR should be prepared for the Project. City Staff carefully reviewed the letters and consultant reports to determine if they provided any new information of new significant impacts. Much of the information in the reports predates both the 2000 and 2002 City actions based on the Specific Plan ND, so that information was available at the time and is not new information. Similarly, the impacts addressed in the letters, such as construction air quality, construction and operational water quality, traffic impacts and public services were addressed in the Specific Plan and the Specific Plan ND. More importantly, the consultant reports often assume the Project site is v. acant rather than fully developed, and generally do not acknowledge the Specific Plan standards or adopted City standards that apply to the Project and Project site. As such, the information and analysis in the consultant reports is faulty and does not constitute substantial evidence of the potential for significant impacts. Throughout the responses to Adams Broadwell's MND and late comments, Staff explained where and how it disagreed with the consultant reports. As noted in CEQA Guidelines section 15151, experts may disagree on the environmental consequences of a Project. Although not required for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or for late comments, the City has provided written responses to the comments consistent with section 15151 in an effort to provide an adequate, complete, and good faith disclosure of the potential effects of the Project. The City adopted a Negative Declaration when it approved the Downtown Specific Plans, including the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, on December 19, 2000. The City revisited the Negative Declaration when it adopted the PD zoning for the Project site in June of 2002. CEQA allows, even requires, the City to rely on these previous reviews unless new or more significant impacts are identified. All of the issues raised in the comments, including air quality, water quality, traffic and public services are typical development issues,.and all were addressed in the previous reviews. Third, the comments do not recognize the self-mitigating intent of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. As further explained in the written responses, the Specific Plan contains extensive policies, programs and improvements which ensure that implementing projects will not have significant environmental efx%cts, In addition, the Project is subject t° the City's comprehensive regulatory scheme for land development, including adopted ordinances and programs and standard conditions of approval. For example, the Project included programmed roadway improvements identified in the Specific Plan, and is subject to such adopted requirements such as preparation of a construction management plan for air quality, traffic and noise during construction. The site is presently developed with a land use (light industrial) generally considered more intense than the mixed use (residential and retail) and office use now proposed with the AMB Property project. The site will be redeveloped in accordance with the City's General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance, all of which have been previously reviewed and adopted or amended for the Project, with appropriate CEQA analysis. Under these circumstances, preparation of an EIR is unwarranted. Based upon the substantial amount of environmental review completed for the project and the measures incorporated in the project by the Applicant's plan, Staff has determined that no subsequent EIR-level review or recirculation of the document is warranted, that the prior Negative Declaration and the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identify and analyze the Project's environmental impacts, and that the comments and responses do not constitute or require substantial revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. CONCLUSION: The grounds for the appeal are that the City failed to comply with CEQA by relying on an inadequate Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and, instead, should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report. The Appellant also argues that the City failed to follow procedural requirements of CEQA by not submitting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse and providing a 30-day comment period. Staff believes it is appropriate for the City Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and find that no subsequent EIR was required under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, and that the Project would have no significant impacts because it includes programs, standards and improvements required through the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and through the City's standard conditions of approval. The grounds for adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration are set forth in this Agenda Statement and in the Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.2. Submission of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse was not required. Staff therefore recommends that the Council affirm the Planning Commission's approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review, find the Planning Commission resolutions recommending Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Delcaration, PD Rezoning and Development Agreement are not appealable and deny the appeal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council; 1) Open the public hearing and hear Staff presentation; 2) Take written and oral testimony from the Appellant, Applicant, and the public; 3) Question Staff, Appellant, Applicant, and the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; 5) a) Adopt Resolution Denying Appeal and Affirming Planning Commission Resolution Number 04-12 Approving a Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review and Finding that Resolution Numbers 04-08, 04-09, 04-11 Recommending Council Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, PD Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan and Development Agreement for the West Dublin Transit Village are Not Appealable (Attachment 8); OR b) By Consensus Indicate Intent to Affirm Planning Commission's Actions in part and reverse in part and Reopen Public Hearing and Continue appeal to May 4, 2004 for Adoption of Resolution Resolving Appeal; OR c) By Consensus Indicate Intent to Reverse Planning Commission's actions and Reopen Public Hearing and Continue appeal to May 4, 2004 for Adoption of Resolution :Resolving Appeal. G:\p aL2002~Appeal~dVIB appeal l-libby RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LEGACY PARTNERS/AMB TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT PA 02-003 WHEREAS, AMB/Legacy Partners submitted applications for a Transit Village project consisting ora multi-story structure containing a maximum of 304 multi-family dwellings, a separate multi-level approximately 150,500 square foot office building, and associated landscaping, parking and small retail uses, on approximately 9.06 acres north ofi-580, on the existing Cot-O-Van Moving and Storage warehouse site. The development includes applications for a PD Planned Development rezoning and related Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review, and Development Agreement. The applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project site is relatively fiat and fully developed with a moving and storage warehouse operation; and WHEREAS, the Project site is in the Dublin downtown area and within the planning area for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan is one of three downtown specific plans approved by the City on December 19, 2000 and intended to improve the appearance, functionality, and economic vitality of the downtown area, particularly in recognition of a planned BART station adjacent to the Project site. (See Resolution 00-227, incorporated herein by reference). The Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the City's General Plan goals. The effects of implementing the Specific Plan and related general plan amendments were reviewed in a Negative Declaration which was properly circulated for public review and adopted by the CitY Council on December 19, 2000 (See Resolution 00-227, incorporated herein by reference). The City subsequently rezoned the Project site to PD Planned Development and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan on June 4, 2002, based on the prior adopted Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration is available for review in the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan was prepared as a self-mitigating plan. Upon adoption of the Negative Declaration, the City found that the Specific Plan and assOciated actions would not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation was incorporated into the Plan as part of the Plan implementation (Resolution 00-227). In this context, the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs act as mitigations that must be included in subsequent implementing developments, such as the Project. The Project is consistent with and implements the Specific Plan land uses, policies, standards, guidelines and programs; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated November 6, 2003 for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and determined that the Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared a draft subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162 to examine how the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs were included in the Project, and thus how prior adopted mitigation ATTACHMENT established in the Specific Plan would be implemented. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The City received one comment letter on the Project, from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, dated December 2, 2003. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments in a Responses to Comments document dated February 10, 2004. The comment letter and responses are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The comment letter included a substantial amount of background materials that are on file and available for review in the Planning Department; and WItEREAS, the responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and WHEREAS, the City carefully reViewed the comments and written responses and determined that no subsequent EIR-level review of the document was warranted, that the prior Negative Declaration and the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identified and analyzed the Project's environmental impacts, and that the comments and responses did not constitute or require substantial revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. On these bases, the City determined that no recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and WHEREAS, a Staff report, dated February 24, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staffreport, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on February 24, 2004 at Which:time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and ~ WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the AMB/Legacy Parmers Transit Village Project; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, and other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PA 02-003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. B. The Dublin Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments received during the public review period, and the City's written responses to comments prior to making a recommendation on the Project. C. The prior Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describe the environmental impacts of the Project. On the basis of the whole record before it, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. 2 D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. E. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis as to the environmental effects of the AMB/Legacy Partners Transit Village Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA 02-003, consisting of Exhibits A and B above, and make all required findings. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Cm. Fasulkey, Nassar, and Machtmes NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cm. King ~~/~Z,,,~7/,,,~/~/q I~l~_ning ~o.m~s~i [~a-C~i air//J-~''- Community Development Director G:pa~2002\pa 02-003~°C-RESO MitNegDec RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) REZONING/STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PA 02-003 LEGACY PARTNERS - WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE WHEREAS, Legacy Partners has requested approval of a Planned Development District (PD) Rezoning Stage 2 Development Plan for a project consisting of 304 multi-family dwelling units, approximately 1,000 square feet of neighborhood retail, and 150,500 square feet of retail/office space, surface parking, landscaping and related improvements on approximately 9.06 acres of land within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area at 6700 Golden Gate Drive, generally located near the northwest coruer of Golden Gate Drive and Interstate 580; and WHEREAS, a completed application for the requested action is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Project site is in the Dublin downtown area and within the planning area for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan is one of three downtown specific plans approved by the City on December 19, 2000 and intended to improve the appearance, functionality, and economic vitality of the downtown area, particularly in recognition of a planned BART station adjacent to the Project site. (See Resolution 00-227, incorporated herein by reference). The effects of implementing the Specific Plan and related general plan amendments were reviewed in a Negative Declaration which was properly circulated for public review and adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000 (See Resolution 00-227, incorporated herein by reference). The City subsequently rezoned the Project site to PD Planned Development and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan on June 4, 2002, based on the prior adopted Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration is available for review in the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan was prepared as a self-mitigating plan. Upon adoption of the Negative Declaration, the City found that the Specific Plan and associated actions would not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation was incorporated into the Plan as part of the Plan implementation (Resolution 00-227). In this context, the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs act as mitigations that must be included in subsequent implementing developments, such as the Project. The Project is consistent with and implements the Specific Plan land uses, policies, standards, gUidelines and programs; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated November 6, 2003 for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and determined that the Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A of Attachment 1 to the Staff report and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the draf~ Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments in a Responses to Comments document dated February 10, 2004. The ATTACHMENT 2- comment letter and responses are attached as Exhibit B to Attachment 1 of the Staff report, and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and determined that no subsequent EIR-level review of the document was warranted, that the prior Negative Declaration and the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identified and analyzed the Project's environmental impacts, and that the COmments and responses did not COnstitute or require substantial revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, a Staff report, dated February 24, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staffreport, the PD Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on February 24, 2004 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the AMB/Legacy Partners Transit Village Project; and WHEREAS, a Stage 2 Development Plan has been submitted to the City as required by Section ~, .~ 8.32.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; and .... , WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public heating on said application on February 24, 2004; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Planned Development District Rezoning/Stage Development Plan prepared by Staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Planned Development District Rezoning/Stage 2 Development Plan: A. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning (PA 02-003) is consistent with the general provisions, intent and purpose of Section 8.32.010 (Planned Development Zoning District) of the previously adopted Stage 1 Development Plan and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan which designates this area as Mixed Use (MU) and Office (O), in that the project would result in development with the land uses allowed by said designation, and will contribute towards implementation of said Plan; and 2 B. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning is consistent with the general provisions, intent and purpose of the Dublin General Plan, as amended, which designates this area as Mixed Use and Retail/Office, in that the project would result in development with the land uses allowed by said designation, and will contribUte towards implementation of said Plan which is focused on transit-oriented development; and C. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the PD Planned Development Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning will be appropriate for the subject property in terms of providing land use provisions which set forth the purpose and applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses, and Development Standards which will be compatible with existing and proposed residential, business, public/semi-public and light industrial uses in the immediate vicinity; and D. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the PD Planned Development Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance in that it contains all information required by Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and accomplishes the objectives of Section 8.32.010, A through H, of the Zoning Ordinance; and E. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning will provide an environment that will enhance development of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area; and F. The PD Planned Development District Rezoning will provide efficient use of the land pursuant to the West Dublin BART Specific Plan according to the coordinated site plan and circulation system; and G. The Planned Development District Rezoning will not have a substantial adverse effect on health or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public Welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement as ali applicable regulations will be satisfied; and , .. ~ , · . H. The Planned Development District Rezoning will not overburden public services as all agencies must commit to the availability of public services prior to the issuance of building permits as required by the West Dublin BART Specific Plan policies and mitigation measures; and I. The Planned Development District Rezoning and accompanying Stage 2 Development Plan, will create an attractive, efficient, and safe environment; and J. The Planned Development District Rezoning will benefit the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare by providing multi-family housing, retail and office uses in close proximity to the future BART Station and at a prime location in the City; and K. The Planned Development District Rezoning and accompanying Stage 2 Development Plan will be compatible with and enhance the general development, economic development and vitality of the the transit-oriented West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. NOW, TItEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TItAT TItE City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve a Planned Development District Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan PA 02-003, for the Legacy Partners West Dublin Transit Village to develop 304 multi-family dwelling units, approximately 1,000 square feet of neighborhood retail space, and a 150,500 square foot office building near the future BART Station, with associated surface parking, landscaping and related improvements as generally depicted in the materials labeled 3 Exhibit A, Development Plan dated "received January 2, 2004," stamped "approved" and on file in the Dublin Planning Division of the Community Development Department, which includes Architectural (floor and elevations) Plans prepared by the MBH; Preliminary Landscape Plans prepared by Carducci & Associates; Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan; Preliminary Utility Plan; and, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map prepared by Kier & Wright, dated "received January 2, 2004," for Legacy Partners West Dublin Transit Village, which constitute regulations for the use, imProvement, and maintenance of the property. Except as specifically identified otherwise in the approved Development Plan, development and operation of land use activities within this Rezoning shall be subject to the current City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February 2004. AYES: Cm. Fasulkey, Nassar, and Machtmes NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cm. King Community Development Director g:~PA#~2002\PA02-003XPC-Reso PC Rez 4 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 8096 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW pA 02-003 LEGACY PARTNERS - WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE WHEREAS, Legacy Partners has requested approval ora Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review for a mixed-use transit village project consisting ora maximum of 304 multi-family dwelling units, approximately 1,000 square feet of neighborhood retail space, and approximately 150,500 square feet of office space, surface parking, landscaping and related improvements on approximately 9.06 acres of land within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area at 6700 Golden Gate Drive, generally located north of the 1-580 freeway and south of the future extension of St. Patrick Way; and WHEREAS, the Applicant/Developer proposes to split the 9.06 acre property into two separate parcels to facilitate development of the land uses and seeks approval of the development plan for the mixed-use project; and WHEREAS, a completed application for each of the requested actions is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan was prepared as a self-mitigating plan. Upon adoption of the Negative Declaration, the City found that the Specific Plan and associated actions would not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation was incorporated into the Plan as part of the Plan implementation (Resolution 00-227). In this context, thc Specific Plan policies, standards and programs act as mitigations that must be included in subsequent implementing developments, such as the Project. The Project is consistent with and implements the Specific Plan land uses, policies, standards, guidelines and programs; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated November 6, 2003 for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and determined that the Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared a draft subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162 to examine how the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs were included in the Project, and thus how prior adopted mitigation established in the Specific Plan would be implemented. The draft Mitigayed Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A of Attachment I to the Staff report and inCOrporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The City received one comment letter on the Project, from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, dated December 2, 2003. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments in a Responses to Comments document dated February 10, 20042 The comment letter and responses are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The comment letter included a substantial amount of background materials that are on file and available for review in the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised bythe comments; and ATTACHMENT · WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and ~etermined that no subsequent EIR-level review of the document was warranted, that the prior Negative Declaration and the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identified and analyzed the Project's environmental impacts, and that the comments and responses did not constitute or require substantial revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. On these bases, the City determined that no recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and WHEREAS, a Staff report, dated February 24, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, a Tentative Parcel Map has been submitted to the City as required by Section 8.32.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said applications on February 24, 2004; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and the Site Development Review for PA 02-003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said repOrts, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does. hereby approve the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review for PA 02-003 Legacy Partners, West Dublin TranSit village project, subject to the following Conditions of Approval and subject t° City Council approval of the proposed Planned DeVelOPment Rez0ning and Development Plan. This approval shall be as generally depicted by materials labeled Exhibit A, Development Plan, stamped "approved" and on file in the Dublin Planning Division of the Community Development Department, which includes Architectural (floor and elevations) Plans prepared by the MBH, dated "received January 2, 2004"; Preliminary Landscape Plans prepared by Carducci & Associates dated "received January 2, 2004"; and, Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan; Preliminary Utility Plan; and, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map prepared by Kier & Wright, except as modified by the Conditions of Approval contained below. * Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Department of Community Development review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, [BI Building division of the Community Development Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District, [F] Alameda County Fire Department/City of Dublin Fire Prevention, [FIN] Finance Department, [PL] Planning Division of the Community Development Department, [WDBSP] West Dublin BART Specific Plan, [PO] Police, [PW] Public works Department. 2 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 8069 :. ' sms, !:? :. ~i.~':~: , .... /'"' ':'. ~i. CONDITION TEXT .... ~,' .'.:.: ..... ~ .... · · ..... .: .... ' ii ~.:'i "?':.'~:?i::::-.Pfiji~v~ =:-!i .i~..:::: aE E L 1. Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. Approval of the PL City Standard Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for Parcel No. g069, West Dublin Approval of Transit Village, is conditioned upon the requirement that the Final Map development be consistent with the approved Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, including the Land Use and Development Plan, and the related General Provisions, Standards and Conditions. The City of Dublin, by its approval of the Vesting Tentative Map, makes no finding, expressed or implied, as to whether the proposed division and development of the property will or will not reasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of rights described in Government Code Section 66436 (aX3)(A)(1). Approval of this map includes the right to develop these parcels with these general uses. The Final Map(s) shall substantially comply with Exhibit A, the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map prepared by Kier & Wright, Engineers, dated received January 2, 2004 and those plans prepared by the MBH, Architects, and Carducci & Associates, Landscape Architects, dated received January 2, 2004, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein and the Development Agreement. 2. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees 'in effect Various Various Standard at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not limited times, but no to: Planning fees; Building fees; Regional Traffic Impact fees, later than Dublin San Ramon Services District fees; Public Facilities fees; Issuance of Dublin Unified School District Sch°°l Impact fees; Dublin Fire Building . Services fees; Noise Mitigation fees; InclusiOnary Housing In- Permits Lieu fees as set forth in these Conditions; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development Agreement. If the Development Agreement approved for this project conflicts with this condition, the Development Agreement shall prevail. 3. Action Programs/Mitigation Measures. Applicant/Developer PL Approval of Standard shall comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation Improvement measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, West Dublin Plans through BART Specific Plan and any previously approved applicable completion action programs and mitigation measures that have not been made ........ specific Conditions of Approval. .... ;: .CONDITION ~XT ' ' RESPON, ~ iii :i: I,! 'SOURCE 4. Development Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall not develop PL City Approval Standard any of the parcels or uses allowed by this entitlement until the of 1 s, Final Development Agreement is executed, and all appeal periods have Map lapsed. Said Development Agreement will address such issues as required by the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, as related to improvements and dedication of property for the future alignment of St. Patrick Way, and as applicable related to improvements to other streets in the project vicinity in accordance with the Development Agreement. The term "develop" shall mean recordation of the first final parceI map for Parcel Map 8069 or the issuance of Building Permits for any building or structure associated with the project. 5. Standard Public Works and Site Development Review PL Ongoing Standard Conditions of Approval. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Standard Public Works (Attachment A), Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review Conditions of Approval incorporated herein. In the event ora conflict between the Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval and these Conditions, these conditions shall prevail. 6. Conditions of Approval and Development Agreement. PL Ongoing §~imdard Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City of Dublin Conditions of Approval incorporated herein. In the event of a conflict between these Conditions of Approval and the terms of the Development Agreement, the executed Development Agreement shall preVail. ~ 7. Ordinances/General Plan/Policies. The Developer Shall comply PL Approval of Standard '~ with the City of Dublin SubdiVision Ordinance, City 0fDublin Improvement Zoning Ordinance adopted September 1997, the City of Dublin P!ans through ~ General Plan, (a~ amended) applicable Specific Plan, (as completion .amended) Public Works criteria and City Grading Ordinance. 8. West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Subject to the terms of the PL Approval of WDBSP executed Development Agreement, Applicant/Developer shall Improvement comply with all applicable action programs and mitigation Plans through measures of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and Mitigation completion Measures identified in the Negative Declaration prepared for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan that have not been made specific Conditions of Approval of this or previous projects, thereby superceding the pertinent measures referenced in those documents. The City shall determine which of the requirements from these prior approvals are applied at this stage of approval, and which are applicable upon approval of subsequent tentative maps. 4 9. Building Codes/Ordinances and Permits. All project B . Issuance of Standard construction shall conform to all building codes and ordinances in Building effect at the time of building permit. To apply for building Permits and permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit eight (8) sets of Ongoing construction plans together with final site plan and landscape plans to the Building Department for plan check. Each set of plans shall have attached a copy of these conditions of approval with notations as to how the condition is being satisfied. The plans shall clearly indicate how all conditions of approval will be, or have been complied with. Construction plans will not be accepted without the annotated conditions attached to each set of plans. The Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining the approvals of all participating non-City agencies prior to the issuance of building permits. The following items should be included on the drawings submitted to the Building Division: * Provide a detailed plan on exit path from within the building to the public way; · Show location of all rooftop equipment, including isometric outline of the gas/plumbing systems; · Provide details on all construction type for the structure; and · Per 1105B.3.2 CBC, areas to be made accessible include the following: a. Customer and office areas, together with related toilet rooms. b. Conference rooms, viewing and demo rooms or · cubical and similar areas. ~ c. Employee work areas shall have a minimum 36" :.~ wide clear access, except as modified in other .. portions of these regulations. d. All exterior address signage to meet the Dublin Municipal Code, i.e. front of building signage to be illuminated. e. Rear of building signage to be a minimum of 6" in height and to be visible to a passing police officer. t 0. Construction Drawings/Plans. Construction drawings/plans B Prior to Standard shall be fully dimensioned (including building elevations) Issuance of accurately drawn (depicting all existing and proposed conditions Building on the site), and prepared and signed by a California licensed Permits Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape plan and details shall be consistent with each other. 11. Fire Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall F Building Standard conform to all fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of Permit building permit. 12. Infrastructure. The location and siting of project specific PL Approval of Standard wastewater, storm drain, recycled water, and potable water system Improvement infrastructure shall be consistent with the resource management Plans policies of the Dublin General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Public Works Standards. . . AGEN~''I~ ! ·'; ~Q~D'~I ~'~ .... . '. 13. Refuse Collection. The refuse collection service provider shall PL Occupancy of Standard be consulted to ensure that adequate space is provided to Any Building accommodate collection and sorting of petrucible solid waste as well as source-separated recyclable materials generated by the residents, retail and office uses within this project. 14. Refuse Collection Location. The Applicant/Developer shall PL, PW Approval of Standard provide designated refuse collection areas for the project, to the Improvement satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Community Plans; Development Director. Collection areas shall be shown on the Approval of Final Map, improvement and landscape plans for each phase &the project. Occupancy of The refuse collection plan shall be approved by the appropriate Any Building solid waste collection company prior to approval of improvement (For Each plans. All refuse collection areas shall be screened from public Phase of the view and shall have roofs to protect against rainwater intrusion Project) and floor drains connected to the sanitary sewer system to collect runoff from periodic washdown. 15. Recycling. Applicant/Developer shall provide recycling PL, PW Occupancy of Standard collection areas within the refuse collections areas in conformance I Any Building with the City of Dublin's recycling program. Separate recycling chutes shall be provided within the apartment buildings that allow residents to separate recyclables from other refuse before placing the materials into chutes to convey the materials to the dumpster areas beneath the podium. All dumpster areas shall have desi~nated space for recyclable collection and pick-up. 16. PedeStrian Access to Transit Facilities. The project plan shall PL Approval of PL include a pedestrian accessway from east to west across the site to Final Map allow pedestrians access to transit facilities at the future BART Station. This accessway shall be designed to facilitate a future connection with a pedestrian accessway to the Station on the adjacent BART-owned property. Additionally, the accessway shall be desi~ned and constructed to allow access by the disabled. 17. Open Space Areas. Open Space and common areas within the PL Recordation of PL development and within the boundaries of the West Dublin Final Map Transit Village properties shall be under private ownership and and/or shall be maintained by the Property Owner. Approval of Improvement Plans PUBLIC WORKS 18. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069. The APplicant/Developer PW Prior to PW shall prepare Final Map(s) subdividing the property into the approval of configuration, size and number of lots shown on the Vesting final Parcel Tentative Parcel Map 8069 in accordance with the requirements Map of the Subdivision Map Act and City of Dublin standards. The map shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director prior to recordation. 6 · '.:" - 19. Improvement Agreement and SecUrity. Pursuant tO' §7.16.620 PW Prior to PW &the Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act §66499, the approval of Applicant/Developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement final Parcel with the City concurrent with Final Parcel Map approval to Map guarantee required public and site improveme0ts. Improvement Security must be posted to guarantee the faithful performance of the required improvements and the payment for labor and materials. Such Security shall be in the form &cash, a certified or cashier's check, a letter of credit, or surety bonds executed by the Applicant/Developer and by a corporate surety authorized to do business in California. The amount &the Security guaranteeing faithful performance shall be 100% of the estimated cost of the required work. The amount of the Security guaranteeing the payment for labor and materials shall be 100% &the estimated cost &the required work. The Applicant/Developer shall provide an estimate of these costs for approval by the City Engineer/Public Works Director with the first submittal of the final map and improvement plans for checking. 20. Vesting Tentative'Map Expiration. The Vesting Tentative Map PW N/A PW shall have that life determined by the Subdivision Map Act, including but not limited to Section 66452.6, and as set forth in the Dublin Municipal Code, unless otherwise stipulated in the Development Agreement. 21. Title Report. A current preliminary title report together with PW Prior to PW copies of all recorded easements and other encumbrances and approval of copies of Final MapS for adjoining properties and off-site , final parcel easements shall be submitted for reference as reasonably deemed Map necessary by the City Engineer/Public Works Director during ..: review of the final map. 22. Summary Vacation of Existing Public Easements. Public PW Prior to PW Easements that are no longer necessary based on the current site approval of layout and right-of-way configuration shall be summarily vacated final Parcel on the final map pursuant to §66499.20~ of the Subdivision Map Map Act and pursuant to Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 4, Article 1, §8333 of the Streets and Highways Code. 7 ,'" CONDITION.TEXT :~ON~' :'.~ .~'; !' 'SOURCE:' : ~ . "' ' 23. Obsolete Private and/or Utility Easements. Permanent PW Prior to PW structures shall not be constructed within existing private and/or approval of utility easements unless authorization is granted by the easement final Parcel beneficiary. Private easements that are no longer necessary based Map on the new site configuration shall be extinguished or modified as necessary by the Applicant/Developer to eliminate the conflict. The following conflicting easements may include, but may not be limited to: a. 15' sewer line and water line easement (recorded as Series No. 99-254099) b. 10' sanitary sewer easement (recorded on Reel 4233, Image 399) c. 10' PG&E easement (recorded as Series No. 83~093562) d. 10' water line easement (recorded on Reel 4233, Image 404) e. 35' no-build easement (recorded as Series No. 94- 323682) 24. Easement Dedications. APplicant/Developer shall dedicate PW Dedication of PW easements on the final map or by separate instrument as follows: Parcel Map a. Private ingress/egress easement across the drive aisles and pedestrian walkways that flank the apartment building on Parcel 1 for the benefit of Parcel 2. b. Reciprocal private sanitary sewer, water, storm drain, and/or utility easements across both Parcels 1 and 2, Unless otherWise encumbered bY easements granted to specific utility providers pursuant to their requirements. "c. Public sidewalk easements granted to the City of Dublin for all access ramps serving the public sidewalk that extend outside &the public right-of-way. d. Public emergency vehicle access easement (20'-minimum width) granted to the City of Dublin at locations dictated by the Fire Marshal. e. Public service easement along project frontage (1 O'-wide except where building interferes). Any other easements deemed reasonably necessary by the City Engineer/Public Works Director during final design and/or construction. 25. Parkland Dedication/Fee. The developer shall pay Public PW Prior to PW Facilities Fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of approval of final Parcel Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, adopted by the City Council on April 6, 1999, or in the amounts and at the times set forth in any Map resolution revising the amount of the Public Facilities Fee, as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195-99. 8 26. Right-of-way Acquisi'fi~n'"~nd Dedication. The established PW Per the terms PW right-of-way for St. Patrick Way pursuant to Ordinance No. 19-03 of the must be dedicated to the public by the Applicant/Developer as Development stipulated in the Development Agreement. Easements for public Agreement utilities or services shall also be acquired and/or dedicated to accommodate all joint trench utility structures and/or appurtenances located outside of the public right-of-way. 27. Private Egress Easement to BART. Applicant/Developer shall PW Prior to PW dedicate a private egress easement across the northeastern portion approval of of Parcel 1 for the benefit of the neighboring BART property final Parcel (APN 941-1500-046). The easement shall accommodate vehicle Map or sooner as stipulated and pedestrian egress from the future BART development across by the Parcel 1 's eastern drive aisle, terminating at St. Patrick Way. Said Development dedication shall occur on the final map, or sooner as stipulated by Agreement the Development Agreement. . ....... PHASING PLAN 28. Phasing Plan. The construction of the residential/retail PL, B Approval of PL development and the office building may occur in two (2) phases. Improvement Phase I would consist of the development of the residential/retail Plans and prior development, and Phase 2 will consist of the office building to occupancy of affected development. The Applicant/Developer shall construct all building physical improvements within each phase for adequate parking, vehicle circulation, and pedestrian access. 29. Phased Occupancy Plan. If the Applicant/Developer wishes to B Prior to Standard further sequence the building occupancies within each of the occupancy of identified phases, then a separate Occupancy Phasing Plan shall affected be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official a building . ~ .. minimum of 45 days prior to any occupancy within that phase. Any phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all ~. parcels in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No individual building shall be occupied until the adjoining area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining additional construction activity. Each building in the phase shall have its own entrance and exit. 30. Completion of Landscaping Improvements. Subject to the PL, B Prior to Standard approval of the Director of Community Development, the occupancy of completion of landscaping may be deferred due to inclement affected weather with the posting ora bond for the value of the deferred building landscaping and associated improvements. NOISE 31. Noise Study and Mitigation Measures. An acoustical analysis, PL Approval of Standard prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, specifically for the Cor- Improvement O-Van site identified the 1-580 freeway corridor as the main Plans/ Issuance of source of noise emissions, Although the residential portion &the Building project will be somewhat shielded from the noise generated by the Permits of freeway, the acoustical analysis recommends several mitigation each site. measures related to building construction and installation of sound-rated windows to reduce the noise impacts. The mitigation measures listed in the acoustical analysis shall be incorporated in the design of the project to mitil~ate noise impacts. 9 · · ' ' Aa nC¥. · . ."-.'i · PriOrto: ..... :: .. , Noise impacts generated by mechanical equipment such as air , conditioners, pool pumps, etc., shall be minimized. All sound barriers and mitigation measures recommended in thc noise study shall bc incorporated into thc improvcmcnt plans for development of each site. Additionally, thc construction plans shall bc signed by an acoustical consultant. LANDSCAPING 32. Landscaping. The Applicant/Developer shall construct all PL Completion of PL landscaping within the project to the design and specifications of Improvements thc applicable Landscape Plan, City of Dublin specifications, and to thc satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Tree varieties of a minimum 1 g-gallon size shall be planted as shown on the Preliminary Landscape Plan, Sheets L. 1 through L.6 of the Development Plan/Tentative Parcel Map SDR Package for Parcel Map 8069 prepared by Carducci & Associates and dated received January 2, 2004. Exact tree locations and varieties shall bc reviewed and approved by the City's consulting Landscape Architect. The proposed variety of trees to be planted adjacent to sidewalks or curbs shall be submitted for review and approval to the City. Root shields will be required unless otherwise determined by the Director of Community Development. 33. Existing Redwood Grove. ApplicantfDcvcloper shall avoid PL On-goin§ PL disturbance of the existing R. cdwood Grove along southerly property line of the development, and enhance the adjacent area as shown on the Landscape Plan. The regulations of the Heritage Tree Ordinance shall be adhered to should a tree require · . ~ t[imming, prunin~ or removal. 34. Final Landscape Plan. Applicant/Developer. shall Submit a Final PL ' Approval o~f -PL Landscape Plan for approval by the Director of Community Final Map/ Development which shall reflect the specifications and details of Improvement the Preliminary Landscape Plan. Plans 35. Landscape Maintenance. The Applicant/Developer shall PL Approval of PL maintain landscaping after City-approved installation until the Final Map/ appropriate property ownership is established and assumes the Completion of maintenance responsibilities. This maintenance shall include, but Improvements not be limited to, weeding and the application of pre-emergent chemicals. 36. Monumentation & Entry Sign. Monumentation and entry PL Completion of PL signage at the development's intersections on St. Patrick Way Improvements shall require submittal for Sign/Site Development Review approval following approval of the SDR for the project design. LAVTA 37. LAVTA. Applicant/Developer shall cooperate with LAVTA to LAVTA Approval of LAVTA provide convenient access to public transit, to enhance local and Final Map and regional mobility and integration of LAVTA with other public Improvement Plans transit systems. The cost of procuring and installing any necessary improvements to meet the LAVTA requirements shall be paid by Applicant/Developer. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of LAVTA. EMERGENCY SERVICES/FIRE 38. I Secondary Emergency Vehicle Access Route. In accordance I PW, F I Approval of I PW, F 10 with the ACFD requirements, for ail ph~es of development in Improvement excess of 25 Units, Applican~eveloper shall provide seoondaw Plus emergency vehicle access routes into all proposed residential developments. In all phases of development in excess of 75 Units, Appliean~Deveio~r shall provide a second street access into all proposed residential development. ApplioangDevelo~r shall d~monstrate how emergency access r~quirem~nm shall be achieved on the Improvement Plans to the satisfaotion of the Ci~ Engineer and the ACFD. 39. Fire Prevention. Fire pr~wntion measures propOsed for the F P~or to F residential units will be subject to approval by the ACFD Fire Issuano~ of Marshal. Building Pe~its ALAMEDA CO~ FLOOD CONTROL A~ WATgR CONSERVATION DIST~CT 40. Wells. Any water wells, cathodic protection wells or explorato~ Zone 7 Issu~ce of St~d~d borings that are ~own to exist, ~e proposed or am l~ated during Grad~g field operations wi~out a documented intent of future use, filed Pe~its wi~ Zone 7, are to be des~oyed prior to any demolition or oons~uotion activi~ in accordance with a well destruction pe~it obtained from Zone 7 and ~e Alameda Coun~ Depa~ment of Environmental Se~ioes or are to b~ maintained in accordance with applicabl~ ~oundwater protection ordinances. Other wells encountered prior to or during construction are to be ~ated similarly. 41. Requi~meats and Fees. Applioang Developer shall comply Zone 7 Issuance of Smnd~d with ali Almeda Coun~ Flood Control and Water Conse~ation Building Dis~ict-Zone 7 Flood ConSol requirements and applicable fees. Pe~its OTHER COND~ONS 42. Postal Se~iee; Applican~Vel°per shall confer With lOCal PL; PW '" App%aiof' s d' a" postal au~orities to dete~ine the t~e of mail units required ~d Final Map provide a leRer from the Postal Se~ioe stating its satisfaction with · e units proposed. Specific locations for such units shall be subject to approval and satisfaction of the Postal Se~io¢ and the Director of Communi~ Development and Ci~ Engineer. A pl~ showing the locations of all mailboxes shall be submiRed for review ~d approval by the Ci~ Engineer. 43. Affordable Housing (Inelusiona~ Zoning Ordinance PL Approval of Affordable Compliance): To comply with the Ci~'s Inclusion~ Zoning FMal Map Housing Ordin~oe (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.68) and any A~eement amendments thereto, 12.5%, or 38 dwelling units (ifa total of 304 units are built in the project) in the project must be affOrdable units in accor~noe with ~e regulations of the Ordinance. The Inclusion~ units shall be affordable to ve~ Iow-, low-, and moderate-income households as set fo~h in ~e ordinate, and the Applic~gDeveloper shall enter into ~ a~eement wi~ the Ci~ to impose appropriate resale consols required of the dwelling units, ~d the rental restrictions on the units. In addition, Applio~eveloper will cons~ot 23 affordable units, and shall pay "in lieu" fees at the rote in eff<t at the time of building permit issu~ce for each remaining Inclusion~ unit required to meet the Ci~'s lnolusion~ Ordinance standard of affordable units in o0mplianee wi~ the CiW Council adopted Resolution, or 11 as agreed to by the City Council. The Applicant/DeveloP'er shall enter into an affordable housing agreement, as provided in DMC Section 8.68.070(D)(1) ["affordable by design"], for the project no later than the approval of the final map for this subdivision to secure Applicant/Developer's obligation under the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance as such obligation is specified in this condition. 44. Security Lighting. Applicant/Developer shall provide security B, F Occupancy of Standard lighting in any parking lots or areas and above each entrance/exit Building from the buildings. 45. Hold Harmless/Indemnification. Applicant/Developer, and any PL Any Action Standard parties or individuals granted rights-of-entry by Applicant/ Developer, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Director of Community Development, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City concerning a subdivision or other development which actions are brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 provided, however, that the Applicant/Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying the Applicant/Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full actions or.. ro eding p ce s. : DSRSD , 46.~ conStruCtion by Applicant/DevelOper. All onsite'P°table and '"1' DSR Completion of DSRS recycled water and wastewater pipelines and facilities shall be Improvements constructed by the Applicant/Developer in accordance with all DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. 47. Expansion of Infrastructure. Expansion of existing potable DSR Completion of DSR water and sanitary sewer infrastructure and relocation of pipes Improvements within the right-of-way of St. Patrick Way are required to provide adequate capacity to the project. Existing sewer mains on Golden Gate Drive between St. Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard, and sewer mains on Dublin Boulevard between 1-680 and Golden Gate Drive also require upsizing to meet the project demands. The Applicant/Developer shall include these improvements in the project and roadway plans, and submit all plans to DSRSD for review and approval. The Applicant/Developer must obtain construction permits from DSRSD for work on these utilities. The Applicant/Developer's construction or fair-share payment for the cost of improvements shall be determined by DSRSD. 48. Fire Protection Waterline Systems. Domestic and fire DSR Acceptance of DSR protection waterline systems shall be designed to be looped or Improvements interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications. 12 '" CONDITION TEXT · ~$~N~:'''~' ~N'..:" i"SOI~CE ".:.~ ::i:.:"~;:~::-'~: Prio? to:: 49. DSRSD Water Facilities. Water facilities must be connected to DSR Acceptance of DSR the DSRSD or other approved water system, and must be installed Improvements at the expense of Applicant/Developer in accordance with District Standards and Specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains and appurtenances thereto must conform with all of the requirements of the officially adopted Water Code of the District and shall be subject to field inspection by the District. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the following req uirements: a. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete DSR Issuance of DSR improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that Building conform to the requirements of the DSRSD Code, the Permits DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities." all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. b. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to DSR Approval of DSR each development project's demand. Layout and sizing of Improvement mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master Plans planning. c. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSR Approval of DSR DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of Improvement sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under Plans extreme circumstances following a case-by-case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and apprOval by DSRSD of preliminary design · reports, design criteria and final plans and specification. . DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20-year maintenance costs as well as other condition within a separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. d. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems'f°r tracts or DRS Approval of DSR commercial developments shall be designed to be looped or Improvement interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance Plans with requirements of the DSRDS Standard Specifications and sound engineering practices. e. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be DRS Issuance of DSR located in public streets rather than in off-street locations to Building the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer Permits and all or water easements must be established over the alignment DSRS of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private requirements street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. f. Prior to the approval by the City of a grading permit or a site DRS'' Prior to DSR development permit, the locations and widths of all issuance of proposed easement dedications for water and sewer lines grading shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. permit/site development permit 13 -Co~'omON TEXT . RESP~N.. ~:.:. :':'::;W~;' ,' :~?'SOIORCE ,.: ...:' ..~Or:~6: i, .'. g. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by DRS Prior to DSR separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by approval of offer of dedication on the Final Map. Final Parcel Map h. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map DRS Prior to Final DSR shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement Map locations, widths and restrictions, recordation i. Prior to issuance by the City of any building permit, all DRS Prior to DSR utility connections fees, plan check fees, inspection fees, issuance of permit fees and fees associated with a wastewater discharge building permit shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates permit and scheduled established in the DSRSD Code. j. Prior to issuance by the City of any building permit, all DRS Prior to DSR improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by issuance of the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans building shall contain a signature block for the District Engineer permit indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to the approval by the District Engineer, the applicant shall pa all required DSRSD fees, provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for water and sewer systems, a performance bond, a one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature i~i by the District Engineer.· ' ..~ '~ k. No sewer or waterline construction shall be permitted unless DRS IssUance of DSR ~.~ the proper utility construction permit has been issued by building DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all permit and all of the items in this condition have been satisfied. DSRS requirements 1. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, · DRS On-going DSR commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, and/or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project. m The project'is located within the District Recycled Water DRS Approval of DSR Use Zone (Ord. 280), which calls for installation of recycled Improvement water irrigation systems to allow for future use of recycled Plans water for approved landscaped irrigation demands. Compliance with Ord. 280, as may be amended or superseded, is required, The District Engineer must approve any exemption thereto, in conformance with Ordinance 280. n. All irrigation facilities shall be subject to review by the DRS Approval of DSR District for compliance with District and Dept. of Health Final Services requirements for recycled water irrigation design. Landscape and Irrigation plans shall not be approved by the City until Irrigation review and approval thereof by the City is confirmed. Plans 14 . CONDITION TEXT RESPON:':" .:,;i;..-'-. '~i ~ SOI~CE'.::: ::' ::~" ~ Priori~o: The Applicant/Developer shall coordinate with the District DRS Approval of DSR and Alameda County Fire Department on required fire Improvement flows. The present interim water system is capable if Plans providing a maximum of 3,500 gallons per minute of fire flow to the site. A future reservoir will be constructed which will allow for a flow of 4,500 gallons per minute. The applicant shall hold the District harmless over the use of interim water system for fire protection. Review of Improvement Plans. All improvement plans for DSR Recordation of DSR ' DSRSD facilities shall be signed by the District Engineer. The Final Map and City of Dublin City Engineer shall sign ali improvement plans for Approval of City of Dublin facilities. Improvement Plans EMERGENCY SERVICES ACFD Rules, Regulations and Standards. Applicant/Developer F Issuance of F shall comply with all Alameda County Fire Services (ACFD) Building rules, regulations, City of Dublin and standards, including Permits minimum standards for emergency access roads and payment of includin~ City of Dublin Fire facilities Fees. Fire Hydrants. The Applicant/Developer shall construct all new F Occupancy of F fire hydrants in streets to City and Alameda County Fire adjacent mrtment standards, building Fire Conditions. Applicant/Developer shall comply with all F Issuance of F conditions of the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD), Building including: Permits · Final location of fire hydrants Shall be approved bythe Alameda County Fire Department in accordance with current standards. Minimum fire flow design shall be for 1500 gallons per minute with 20-psi residual flowing from a single hydrant. Raised blue reflectorized traffic markers shall be epoxied to the center of the paved street opposite each hydrant. A drawing of the approved locations shall be submitted for future reference. Fire lanes shall be identified in the plan and approved by the ACFD pri°r to installation, Emergency Vehicle Access roadways shall be designed and installed t° suPPort the imposed loads of fire equipment. The minimum standard shall be H20 design. Design shall be approved by ACFD prior to installation. Gates or barricades designed for emergency vehicle access shall meet the standards of the ACFD and the of Dublin. Prior to the delivery of any combustible material storage on the site, fire hydrants, water supply, and roadways shall be installed and sufficient water storage and pressure shall be available to the site. ~roved roadway shall be first lift of asphalt. Plans may be subject to revision following review. Projected Timeline. Applicant/Developer shall submit a PO Issuance of PO projected timeline for project completion to the Dublin Police Building Services Department, to allow estimation of staffing requirements Permits and assignments. Energy Conservation. Building plans shall demonstrate the B Issuance of B incorporation of energy conservation measures into the design, Building construction, and operation of proposed developmenL Permits 15 · .. ..' ..:.. :::, :: ::: :... STANDARDS 56. HeaLth, Design and Safety Standards. Pri~r to final approval PL Occupancy of Standard allowing occupancy of any new building, the physical condition Any Building of the building shall meet minimum health, design, and safety standards including, but not limited to the following: a. The streets providing access to the site shall be complete to PL Occupancy of Standard allow for safe traffic movements to and from the site. Any Building b. All street name signs on streets providing access to the PL Occupancy of Standard homes shall be in place. Any Building c. Exterior lighting shall be provided for building entrances PO Occupancy of Standard and shall be ora design and placement so as not to cause Affected glare onto adjoining properties. Building d. All buildings shall have an illuminated address number that PL, PO Occupancy of Standard is clearly visible from the middle of the street. Any Building f. Applicant/Developer shall submit a final lighting plan PL, PO, B Plans Standard (including photometrics) to the Department of Community Approved Development and the Dublin Police Services for review and prior to approval. At a minimum, the plan shall include 0.50 foot Issuance of candle lightin'g levels at all doors, 1.0 foot candle lights at Building ground level in parking lot areas, and lighting fixtures that Permits/ are a vandal-resistant type. Lighting I Installed prior to Occupancy of Any Building g. All sewer clean-outs, water meter boxes, and other utility DSR Occupancy of Standard boxes shall be set to grade., Any Building ~-~ . h.. The buildings'Shall have received all necessary inspections B Occupancy of' Standard and have final approval by the Building Department to Any Building allow occupancy. i. All fire hydrants in streets providing access to the site shall F Occupancy of Standard be operable to City and ACFD standards. Any Building j. All streets providing access to the site shall be improved to F Occupancy of Standard an adequate width and manner to allow for fire engine Any Building circulation to the approval of the ACFD. POLICE 57. a. Exterior landscaping shall be kept at a minimal height and PO On-going PO fullness giving patrol officers and the general public surveillance capabilities of the area. b. Applicant/Developer shall provide each entrance of the PO Occupancy of PO complex with a graphic unit locator director, visible from Any Building within a vehicle as it enters the complex. c. Applicant/Developer shall keep the site clear of graffiti PO On-going PO vandalism on a regular and continuous basis at all times. Graffiti resistant materials should be used, including appropriate paints and film for windows and appropriate glass. 16 CONDmoN TEXT RESPON,~ .' '.'. :~'N,~'!. d. 'Applican~Developer shall work with the Dublin Police on PO Plan submiued PO an on-going basis to establish an effective the~ prevention prior to and securi~ pro,am. Applic~Developer shall submit a Occup~cy of security plan for the site for review and approval by the Any Building Dublin Police .... c ~e Appli~t shall comply with all applicable Ci~ of Dublin Residential Securi~ Ordinate requirements. f. Applican~Developer shall li~t Unit addresses at night ~d as clearly visible from the middle of~e street. g. The Appli~Developer shall keep any perimeter walls cle~ of g~ti vandalism on a regular ~d continuous basis at all times. G~ti resistant materials and foliage should be installed ~d maintained. h. Applican~eveloper shall install Perimeter fencing at a minimum height of six (6) feet as approved by Community Development Director. i. ApplicanUDevelo~r shall generate strut names that will not duplicate those already being used in other segments of the Ci~. j. Landscaping shall be kept at a minimal height and ~llness giving patrol officers and ~e general public sumeillance capabilities of the area. k. ~e Applican~velope~ shall build the recreation facili~ within this development & shall comply with all applicable - Ci~, of Dublin Non-Residential Secufi~ Ordinance : requirements. ' , ,~ · I. ~e Applic~eveloper shall 'bUild the recmati0n faciliW ,::' ' ' within this. deVelopment & Shall comply with all applicable Ci~ of Dublin Non-Residential Securi~ Ordinance requirements. m. %e Applican~eveloper shall install perimeter cons~ction fencing & shall be fenced during cons~ction, and the Ci~ of Dublin Communi~ Development Director shall employ security lighting and patois as necessa~. 17 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW This Site Development Review approval for PA 02-003 establishes the design concepts and regulations for the project. Development pursuant to this Site Development Review generally shall conform to the following plans and documents available and on file in the Department of Community Development (some of the following items require revisions as noted in other Conditions herein): Architectural and Site Plans prepared by MBH for Legacy Partners/AMB/West Dublin Transit Village dated received September 19, 2003; Vesting Tentative Parcel Map prepared by Kier & Wright, dated received January 2, 2004; and, Preliminary Landscaping Plan prepared by Carducci & Associates, Landscape Architect, dated received September 19, 2003, by the City of Dublin Depaament of Community Development stamped approved and on file. The Site Development Review shall also generally conform to the colors and materials board received on November 10, 2003, on file in the City of Dublin Department of Community Development; the written statement prepared by the Applicant/Developer and on file in the City of Dublin Department of Community Development; and is subject to the following conditions: HO. ;. . '..CO~ITION TEXT RESPON. -'.~ii::~!':": GENERAL CONDITIONS 58. Compliance with Conditions. The project shall comply PL, B Through Standard with the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Completion Parcel Map and the regulations of the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan (refer to Ordinance). 59. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in Various Various times, Standard effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but no later than but not limited to: Planning fees; Building fees; Regional Issuance of Traffic Impact fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District Building fees; Public Facilities fees; DUblin Unified SchoOl District Permits. School Impact fees; Dublin Fire ServiCes feeS; NOise ' Mitigation fees; lnclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees (or as set forth in the applicable Condition herein); Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development Agreement. If the Development Agreement approved for this project conflicts with this condition, the Development Agreement shall prevail. 60. Colors and Materials Board. Colors and materials shall PL Issuance of Standard reflect those approved with this project, dated received Building from MBH on November 10, 2003. If revisions are made Permits to specific colors and materials, the Applicant/Developer shall submit a colors and materials board subject to approval of the Director of Community Development to reflect any changes made during project review. 61. Unit Numbers List. Applicant/Developer shall submit a PL Issuance of Standard unit numbers list corresponding to buildings shown on the Building Tentative Parcel Map, and an address plan as described in Permits the Tentative Parcel Map conditions. Said list is subject to approval of the Director of Community Development. 18 NO. - .CONDITION TEXT 'RESPON.. 62. Term. Approval of~e Site Development Review shall be PL Approval of St~d concu~ent with the te~s of ~e Development A~eement Improvement to allow time for all phases of the project to be built. If Plans construction has not commenced by that time, this approval shall be null and void. The approval period for Site Development Review may be emended six (6) additional months by ~e Director of CommuniW Development upon dete~ination that the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that the findings of approval will continue to be met. (nora: Applican~ Developer mu~ submit a ~inen request for the estension prior to the expiration date of the Site Development Review.) 63. Revocation. ~e SDR wil} be revocable for cause in PL ~-going Municipal accord~ce with Section 8.96.020.I of the Dublin ~ning Code Ordinance. Any violation of the te~s or conditions of this approval shall be sub)eet to citation. ~.. PloWing Plans. Should the project be built in phases, PL Issuance of St~dard ploRing plans for each ph~e of the project shall be Building submi~ed by the Applican~eveloper to the Dep~ment Pe~its of Communi~ Development for approval by the Director of CommuniW Development prior to submiRing for building pe~its in each respective phase. 65. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and B, PL Occup~cy of Smd~d ventilation ducts shall be screened from public view with Unit materials compatible to the main building and shall not be rOof mounted. Units shall be pe~anently installed on concrete pads or o~er non-mOvable materials to approved by the Building Official and Director of Communi~ Development. WALLS AND FENC~G 66. Wall or Fence Height. If any walls or fences are PL Approval of S~d~d cons~ucted within the project ~ea, all wall or fence Improvement heights shall be a minimum 6 feet high (except in those Plus locations where Section 8.72.080 of the Zoning Ordin~ce requires lower fence heists or where an 8-foot sound aRenuation wall is required). Wall and fence locations and details shall ~ submi~ed with pi~ submission at the building peri,plan check stage. All walls and fences shall be desired to ensure cle~ vision at all street intersections to the satisfaction of the Ci~ En$ineer. 67. Retaining Walls. All retaining walls over 30 inches in B Prior to issuance Smd~d height and adjacent to or in a wal~ay shall be provided of BuildMg Pe~its and with guardrails. All ~taining walls over 24 inches with a surcharge, or 36 inches without a surch~ge, shall obtain T~ou~ pe~its and inspections fiom the Buildin$ Division. Completion P~c wo~s ¸19 68. Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval. PW Prior to PW Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable City acceptance of of Dublin Public Works Standard COnditions of Approval Improvements (Attachment A). In the event ora conflict between thc by City Council Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval and these Conditions, thc requirements of the Development A~reement shall prevail. 69. Improvement and Grading Plans. All improvement and PW Prior to issuance PW grading plans submitted to the Public Works Department of Grading/ for review/approval shall be prepared in accordance with Sitework Permit the approved Tentative Map, these Conditions of Approval, the Development Agreement and the City of Dublin Municipal Code including Chapter 7.16 (Grading Ordinance). When submitting plans for review/approval, the Applicant/Developer shall also fill-out and submit a City of Dublin Improvement Plan Review Checklist (three 8-1/2" x 11" pages). Said checklist includes necessary design criteria and other pertinent information to assure that plans are submitted in accordance with established City standards. The plans shall also reference the current City of Dublin Standard Plans (booklet), and shall include applicable City of Dublin Improvement Plan General Notes (three 8-1/2" x i 1" pages). For on-site improvements, the Applicant/Developer shall adhere to the City's On-site ChecMist (eight 8-1/2" x 11" pages). All of these reference documents are available from the Public WOrks Department (call telephone 925,833-6630 for more information). ' 70. Grading/Sitework Permit. All site improvement work PW Prior to issuance PW and public right-of-way work must be performed per a of Grading/ Grading/Sitework Permit issued by the Public Works Sitework Permit Department. Said permit will be based on the final set of improvement plans to be approved once all of the plan ' check comments have been resolved. Please refer to the handout titled Grading/Site Improvement Permit ~4pplication Instructions and attached application (three 8- 1/2" x 11" pages) for more information. The Applicant/Developer must fill in and return the applicant information contained on pages 2 and 3. The current cost of the permit is $10.00 due at the time of permit issuance, although the Applicant/Developer will be responsible for any adopted increases to the fee amount. 20 71. Survey Control. Survey monuments shall be set in PW Priot to PW finished public streets and at designated property comers acceptance of or other control points in accordance with the final maps improvements by recorded for this project, and as required by the City City Council EngineedPublic Works Director. Said street monuments shall be set within a tolerance of twenty (20) seconds for any angle and 1 in 10,000 feet for distances between monuments as required by Municipal Code §9.20.040. Pursuant to Subdivision Map Act §66497, the surveyor of record shall, within five days after the final setting of all monuments, give written notice to the City Engineer/Public Works Director that the final monuments have been set. The Applicant/Developer shall then present evidence to the City EngineedPublic Works Director of thc payment and receipt of payment by the surveyor of record for the monument setting. 72. Storm Drainage Study. Applicant/Developer shall PW Prior to issuance ~W prepare a Storm Drainage Study for the properties and of Grading/ roads to be developed/constructed with the project. The Sitework Permit Study, including a hydrology map and hydraulic calculations, shall include an analysis of all existing and proposed pipes within the watershed. According to Zone 7, this property drains to Zone 7's Line T, also known as Dublin Creek. The analysis shall assume runoff' characteristics from neighboring properties in their fully- developed condition utilizing land use designations from ~" the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, including the '. : . ~ neighboring BART property. The Study must .. · demonstrate that design flows do not adversely impact , existing hydraulics downstream of the project, or that downstream impacts will be mitigated with improvements to the City's pipe network, or Zone 7's channel network. All storm drain improvements and mitigation measures identified in the Study and/or ·specified by the City Engineer/Public Works Director shall become requirements of this project. 21 ' ': ' .':. .":P~i~to: .... ': 73. Storm Drain Improvements. Prior to issuance of the PW Prior to issuance PW first Certificate of Occupancy for any building which is of Grading/ Sitework Permit part of the Project, the storm drainage systems off-site as well as on-site serving the areas to be occupied shall be improved to the satisfaction and requirements of the Dublin Public Works Department applying City's and Zone 7 WaterAgencies standards and policies. If not shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, an inlet or manhole shall be provided at the right-of-way line to delineate the boundary between City and private maintenance of the pipes. If this project proceeds before development of the neighboring BART property to the east, then the new storm drain system may be connected and discharge to the pipe network that exists across the BART property (36"0 pipe along the north side of BART and 18"0 along the south side of BART), provided: · BART does not contest Applicant/Developer's right to discharge to these existing pipes. · The pipes are cleaned and repaired as necessary to accommodate discharge from the new pipes. · A new public storm drain is extended within the St. Patrick Way right-of-way across the BART frontage for future connection to a system to be installed by BART within Golden Gate Drive. 74. Overland Storm Drain Flow. To accommodate potential PW Priorto issuancePW overland flow, the parking lot grading and on-site storm of Grading/ drain system shall be designed to convey storm water sitework Permit overland to St. Patrick Way without inundating the buildings in the event the pipe network becomes plugged. 75. FEMA Flood Zone. According to the Flood Insurance PW Prior to issuance PW Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060705-0001-B, of Gradingt published by FEMA, the Zone AE flood elevation is Sitework Permit contained within the Dublin Creek and varies between 346 and 347. All proposed structures must be elevated at least l-foot above this flood elevation, or the structures shall be flood-proofed. 76. Erosion Control during Construction. PW Prior to issuance PW Applicant/Developer shall include an Erosion and of Grading~ Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and Improvement Sitework Permit and during plans for review and approval by the City Engineer/Public construction Works Director. Said plan shall be designed, implemented, and continually maintained pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between October Ist and April 15th or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather, or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 22 NO. : ':CONDiTION'TEXT 77. Water Quality/Best Management Practices. Pursuant PW Prior to issuance PW to the Alameda Countywide National Pollution Discharges of Grading/ Elimination Permit (NPDES) No. CAS0029831 with the Sitework Permit California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Applicant/Developer shall design and operate the site in a manner consistent with the Start at the Source publication, and according to Best Management Practices to minimize storm water pollution. In addition to the biofiltration swales proposed along the perimeter of the site, in-line filtration devices may be necessary to serve runoff' areas that will not drain to biofiltration swales due to grading constraints. All trash dumpsters and recycling area enclosures that are not located inside the apartment building shall have roofs to prevent contaminants from washing into the storm drain system. The applicant shall file a Notice of Intent with the RWQCB and shall prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the City Engineer/Public Works Director's review/approval. Finally, all storm drain inlets serving vehicle parking areas shall be stenciled "No Dumping - Flows to Bay" using stencils available from the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. 78. Storm Water Treatment Measures Maintenance PW Prior to PW Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall enter into an acceptance of agreement with the City of Dublin that guarantees the improvements by property Owner's perpetual maintenance obligation for ali City Council storm water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said agreement is required Pursuant to ProVision C.3.e.ii of RWQCB Order R2-2003-0021 for the reissuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be properly operated and maintained. 23 NO. commoN-.TEXT .'' . Prior,tO:' 79. Covenants, Conditions and Rest~ctions (CC&~). An PW Prior to Association shall be foxed by recordation ota occup~cy of declaration of Covenants, Conditions, ~d Restrictions to r~st building govern use and maintenance of common ~eas and facilities. Said declaration shall set fo~h the name of~e association, ownership of ~e private access roads, the restrictions on ~e use or enjo~ent of~y ~ion of the access roads for maintenance anWor access, and the bylaws, roles and regulations of the Associmion. Prior to recordation, said CC&R document shall be ~viewed by the Ci~ for compliance wi~ this Condition. ~e CC&Rs shall address the following: a. Maintenance of the private access roads, any common utilities, and ~y common ~eas, including the Tot Lot. ~e CC&Rs shall ensure that there is adequate provision for the maintenance, in good repair and on a regular b~is, of ali commonly owned facilities. In the event that ~y area falls into a state of disrepair or fails to meet the Pe~o~ance Smdards established by the CC~R's, the Ci~ will have thc right but not the obligation to ~e coffective measures ~d bill the Ass~iation for the co~ of such repair and coffective maintenance work plus ~ Ci~ overhead. ~e Decl~mion shall speci~ that, ~ ~ :~ ~ it pekins to the maintenance of ~e a~ve :~ .. listed items, it cannot ~ amended without the consent of the Ci~. b. The private access roads shall be posted in accordance with California Vehicle C~e Section 22658, Sections 1 and 2. The above requirements shall be included in the project CC&Rs. 24 ...sot te NO. · CONDITION TEXT . RESPON. W,~:t~]N:.~;'.. ::: ..SOU~iCE · ' · .-: ' ..... ":" ...... " . ... : ..: .: :':.:...' :: :::. ' Pi;i6~:i0~:' :;ix.:..:, 80. Construction Noise Management PW Prior to issuance PW Program/Construction Impact Reduction Plan. of Grading/ Applicant/Developer shall conform to the following Sitework Permit or Building Construction Noise Management Program/Construction Permit, and Impact Reduction Plan. The folloWing measures shall be during taken to reduce construction impacts: construction a. Off-site truck traffic shall be routed as directly as practical to and from the freeway (I-580) to the job site. Primary route shall be from 1-680 to St. Patrick Way, or from 1-580 to San Ramon Road to Dublin Boulevard to either Regional Street or Golden Gate Drive. An Oversized Load Permit shall be obtained from the City prior to hauling of any oversized loads on City streets. b. The construction site shall be watered at regular intervals during all grading activities. The frequency of watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Watering should include all excavated and graded areas and material to be transported off-site. Construction equipment shall use recycled or other non-potable water resources where feasible. c. Construction equipment shall not be left idling while not in use. d. Construction equipment shall be fitted with noise muffling devices. e. Mud and dust carded onto street surfaces by · construction vehicles shall be cleaned-up on a . ' · daily basis. f. Excavation haul trucks shall use tarpaulins or other effective covers. g. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion. Replanting and repaving should be completed as soon as possible. h. After grading is completed, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be controlled using the following methods: 1. Inactive portions of the construction site shall be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident. 2. All portions of the site shall be sufficiently watered to prevent dust. 3. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph. 4. Use of petroleum-based palliatives shall meet the road oil requirements of the Air Quality District. Non-petroleum based tackifiers may be required by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 25 " '- .. . .. PW i. The Department of Public Works shall handle all dust complaints. The City Engineer/Public Works Director may require the services of an air quality consultant to advise the City on the severity of the dust pr6blem and additional ways to mitigate impact on residents, including temporarily halting project construction. Dust concerns in adjoining communities as well as the City of Dublin shall be addressed. Control measures shall be related to wind conditions. Air quality monitoring of PM levels shall be provided as required by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. j. Construction interference with regional non- project traffic shall be minimized by: 1. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods. 2. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity. 3. Routing construction traffic to minimize construction interference with regional non- project traffic movement. 4. Limiting lane closures and detours to off- peak travel periods. 5. Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel. k. Emissions control of on-site equipment shall be ~ minimized through a roUtine mandatory. - program of low-emissions tune-ups. 81. Geotechnical Report and Recommendations. The PW Prior to issuance PW Applicant/Developer shall incorporate the of Grading/ Sitework Permit recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical or Building Investigation, Dublin Transit Village, prepared for the Permit, and project by Treadwell & Rollo dated April 8, 2002, as during amended by a letter dated February 3, 2003, and any construction subsequent recommendations, into the project design. The Geotechnical Engineer shall certify that the project design conforms to the report recommendations prior to issuance ora Grading/Sitework Permit or Building Permit. All report recommendations shall be followed during the course of grading and construction. 26 NO. · CONDITION TEXT RESPON. :'/' ' 82. Traffic Study and Required RoadwaY Improvements. PW Improvements to PW be guaranteed The Applicant/Developer shall construct all necessary on- site and off-site traffic mitigation/roadway improvements prior to issuance of Grading/ as discussed in Consultant's Report on the Sitework Permit Transportation and Parking Impacts for the Proposed and/or Building Dublin Transit Village prepared by Omni-Means dated Permit May 22, 2002, as amended by the Focused Trip Generation Analysis/Parking Update for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village dated May 14, 2003, and as stipulated in the Development Agreement. Said mitigations include constructing St. Patrick Way between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street. 83. Shared Driveway along East Property Line/Future PW Prior to issuance PW BART Egress Driveway. Thc proposed driveway along of Grading/ thc east side of Parcel I (residential parcel) shall bc Sitework Permit designed to accommodate thc connection of a future BART egress driveway near it's northern terminus at St. Patrick Way, assuming thc Project precedes development of the neighboring BART property. If thc BART development occurs first, Applicant/Developer shall assure that the proposed driveway conforms to the BART egress driveway, and that access from the BART egress driveway remains open and unobstructed at all times during construction. 84. St. Patrick Way Improvements. Applicant/Developer PW Prior to issuance PW shall construct St. Patrick Way in a configuration that of Grad.lng/ follows the established right-of-waY line adopted by the Sitework permit · : City Council as Ordinance No. 19-03 on 12/16/03, and according to City and/or Caltrans Standards applicable at -· the time of permit issuance. All street improvements, sidewalks and access ramps, street lights and circuitry, street signs, and other public infrastructure shall be located in the public right-of-way or within easement areas dedicated to the public. Decorative paving or concrete banding shall be used to designate the boundary between the public right-of-way and private property at all flush driveways. Parking shall be prohibited on the north side of St. Patrick Way. 85. Streetscape Design Standards. The streetscape design PW Prior to issuance PW for St. Patrick Way, including sidewalks, pedestrian of Grading/ crossings, street trees and planters, street furnishings, Sitework Permit lighting, and directional signage shall be consistent with the Design Guidelines included in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan adopted as City Council Resolution No. 227-00 on 12/19/00, except as modified by these Conditions. A copy of said Specific Plan is available for reference from the Community Development Department. 27 NO, · " CONDITION TEXT RESPON... ... W~ i.:~..:!.i.Q.~ 86. Street Trees. 24" box-sized street trees shall be planted PW Prior to issuance PW at 30' on center spacing along both sides of St. Patrick of Grading/ Way between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive. Sitework Permit Said trees shall be placed in 4' x 4' tree wells with cast iron grates positioned at the back of curb. The tree variety shall be either Pyrus calleryana 'ArisWcrat Pear', Pistacia chinensis 'Chinese Pistache', or Celtis sincnsis 'Chinese Hackberry', as determined by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. A separate irrigation system, including separate water service, electric meter, and controller, shall be provided for these street trees. After project acceptance, these trees and the associated irrigation system will be maintained by the City. 87. Stop Controls. Stop control devices for vehicles, PW Prior to issuance PW including an R1 STOP sign, STOP pavement legend, 12"- of Grading/ wide white stop bar stripe, and appropriate double yellow Sitework Permit centerline delineation, shall be provided at the following locations: a. At the two northbound exit aisle approaches to St. Patrick Way. b. At the northbound, westbound, and eastbound exits from the sub-podium parking area. c. At the westbound St. Patrick Way approach to Regional Street. d. At the eastbound :St. Patrick Way approach to Golden Gate Drive. e. At other locations deemed reasonably necessary . · by the City Engineer/Public Works Director during final design and/or construction. 88. Vehicle Parking. Applicant/Developer Shall construct PW Prior to issuance PW on-site paved parking areas and spaces for guest, tenant, of Occupancy and resident parking according to the zoning requirements Permit(s) of the use, except as modified by these conditions and/or the Development Agreement. Occupancy of each phase of development will be dependent upon Applicant/ Developer completing the necessary parking areas to serve that phase. All parking spaces shall be double striped using 4" white lines according to Figure 76-3 and Code {}8.76.070 (A) 17 of the Municipal Code. All compact- sized parking spaces shall have the word "COMPACT" stenciled on the pavement within each space. 12"-wide concrete step-out curbs shall be constructed at each parking space where one or both sides abuts a landscaped area or planter. 28 89. Reduction in Parking (15%). The Applicant/Developer PL Prior to Issuance PL, B is granted a 15% reduction in the amount of required of Building parking due to the transit-oriented nature of the Permit(s), development. Additionally, to ensure success of the Ongoing parking plan, the Applicant/Developer shall implement the shared parking space program for the uses on the site with a parking management plan. 90. Parking Prohibitions/Restrictions. Vehicle parking PW On-going PW shall be prohibited/restricted in the following locations: a. Prohibited along both sides of the private access driveways that extend along the west and east sides of the apartment building. This parking prohibition shall be indicated with red-painted curbs, and with R26F "No Stopping- Fire Lane" signs installed on both sides at a spacing not to exceed 200'. b. Prohibited along the north side of St. Patrick Way. This parking prohibition shall be indicated with R26 "No Parking" signs installed at a spacing not to exceed 200'. c. Prohibited in all areas within the sub-podium parking area except within marked spaces. Appropriate signs shall be posted at each entrance to the sub-podium parking area to inform residents of this prohibition. · d. Restricted to lOading only along the curb at the southwest and s°utheast comers of the apartment building. This parking restriction shall be indicated with yellow-painted curbs, and with Loading Zone signs installed adjacent to each curb. e. Prohibited or restricted at other locations deemed reasonably necessary by the City Engineer/Public Works Director during final design and/or construction. 29 NO.. COND~ION TEXT RESPON.- :" Prio~ it0::.. :: :.'!"..' '. 91. Address Numbering System. After the final Parcel Map PW Prior to issuance PW records but before Building Permits are issued, the of Building Applicant/Developer shall propose address numbers for Permits each building/dwelling unit based on the address grid utilized within Alameda County and available from the Dublin Building Official. The addressing scheme is subject to review and approval by the City and other interested outside agencies. Signs shall be prominently displayed on St. Patrick Way that identify all addresses within the development. Addresses are required on the front and rear of each building. Apartments require address ranges to be posted on the street side of each buildings, or as otherwise required by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. The addressing submittal shall also meet the following requirements: a. Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin's address grid overlaid on the plans at 1"=30' scale; b. Highlight all exterior door opening s on plans (front, rear, garage, etc.); c. Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Residential Security Code; d. Provide a site plan with the approved addresses in 1"=400' scale prior to approval or release of the subject addresses. e. Exterior address numbers shall be backlit and posted to be seen from the street. : · 92. Replacement Parking for Neighboring pan Pacific PW : i Prior to ~ PW ~ ' property. To replace the parking spaces on the acceptance of neighboring Pan Pacific property (APN 941-1500-044-02) improvements by that will be displaced when St. Patrick Way is constructed, City Council the Applicant/Developer shall stripe 33 new parking spaces on the Pan Pacific properties (APN 941-1500-044- 02 and 941-1500-045). Provided, however, that Pan Pacific grants permission for said site work on Pan Pacific property, and provided Pan Pacific concurs with the proposed new locations for the spaces to be replaced. 93. Interim Cor-O-Van Parking. Pursuant to the terms of PW Pursuant to terms PW the Development Agreement, the City will grant or Development Applicant/Developer a license to temporarily park Agreement and passenger cars and trucks on portions of St. Patrick future license Way if the City elects to acquire land for and/or construct St. Patrick Way in a manner that displaces the parking for the existing InduStrial Warehouse (Cot-O-Van and others) use. The license will stipulate that the parking rights temporarily granted will not obstruct emergency vehicle access for buildings located between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive, and that the parking will be promptly removed when the Industrial Warehouse uses are no longer in operation. 30 NO. CONDITION TEXT -RESPON~ W.~i ::.:.'''''~ ~' SOURCE 94. Driveway LOcations/Widths along St. Patrick Way. PW Prior to PW The Applicant/Developer shall install vehicle driveways acceptance of as necessary along St. Patrick Way to serve the current or improvements by expected uses of neighboring properties. The exact City Council location and width of each driveway shall be determined after consultation with each effected property owner. 95. Site Accessibility Requirements. All disabled access PW Prior to issuance PW ramps, parking spaces for the disabled, and other physical of Occupancy site improvements shall comply with current UBC Title 24 Permit requirements and City of Dublin Standards for accessibility. 96. Streetlights. Streetlights for City streets constructed by PW Prior to PW the project shall be the City Standard cobra head fixtures acceptance of with galvanized poles located in the public right-of-way at improvements by a fixture spacing of not more than 200', or as otherwise City Council required by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. All street lights shall be connected to an un-metered secondary service established by PG&E. All publicly- maintained street lights shall be annexed into the Citywide Street Light Maintenance Assessment District 1983-1. A street lighting plan which demonstrates compliance with City standards shall be submitted prior to recordation of the Final Map and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer/Public Works Director prior to installation. 97. Street Light Maintenance Assessment District. PW Prior to PW ~' Applicant/Developer shall not contest the City's efforts' to acceptance of annex the project into the Citywide Street Light improvements by ,. :.: :: Maintenance Assessment District 1,983-!, and shall City Council . ~ ~ . provide all necessary documentation required by the City to complete the annexation process. The Applicant/ Developer shall comply with any City requirements necessary to conform to Proposition 218 regulations. 98. Waive right to protest. The ApplicanffDeveloper waives ' PW On-going pW any right to protest the inclusion of the properties or any portion of the properties in a Landscape and Lighting Assessment District or similar assessment district, and further waives any right to protest the annual assessment for that District. 99. Relocation of Existing Improvements/Utilities. Any PW Prior to PW necessary relocation of existing improvements or acceptance of utilities shall be accomplished at no expense to the improvements by City. City Council 100. Landscaping at Intersections. Landscaping at PW Prior to issuance PW intersections shall be such that sight distance is not of Occupancy obstructed for drivers. Except for trees, landscaping shall Permit not be higher than 30 inches above the curb in these areas. 31 101. Joint Utility Trenches/UndergroundingFUtility Plans. PW Prior to PW Applicant/Developer shall construct all joint utility acceptance of trenches (including electric, telecommunications, cable improvements by TV, and gas) in accordance with standards enforced by the City Council appropriate utility agency. All vaults, electric transformers, cable TV boxes, blow-offvalves and other utility features shall bc placed underground and located behind the proposed sidewalk within the public service easement, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. Conduit shall be under the public sidewalk within the right of way to allow for street tree planting. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities shall be reviewed and approved by thc City Engineer/Public Works Director prior to installation. 102. Street Name Sign Content. Street name signs for the St, PW Prior to PW Patrick Way extension shall display the name of the street acceptance of together with a City standard shamrock logo. Posts shall improvements by be galvanized steel pipe with break away posts. City Council 10'3. Temporary Construction Fencing. Temporary B, PW Prior to issuance B, PW Construction fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of final of all work under construction to separate the construction Occupancy operation from the public. All construction activities shall Permit or acceptance of be confined to within the fenced area. Construction public materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored improvements by outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of- the City Council way unless apProVed in advance by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 104. PriVate Street Signage. APplicant/Devei0p~r"shall pos,. PW Prior to issuance PW private street signage in the private drive aisle areas in of Occupancy accordance with the California Vehicle Code. No Permit trespassing signs should be posted as governed by the California Penal Code Section 602. 105. Construction Hours. Standard construction and grading PW Prior to PW hours shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through acceptance of Friday) and non-City holidays between the hours of 7:30 improvements by a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The Applicant/Developer may request City Council reasonable modifications to such determined days and hours, taking into account the seasons, impacts on neighboring properties, and other appropriate factors, by submitting a request form to the City Engineer/public Works Director. For work on Saturdays, said request shall be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. the prior Wednesday. Overtime inspection rates Will apply for all after-hours, Saturday, and/or holiday work. 106. Damage/Repairs. The Applicant/Developer shall be PW Prior to PW responsible for the repair of any damaged pavement, curb acceptance of & gutter, sidewalk, or other public street facility resulting improvements by from construction activities associated with the City Council development of the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer/public Works Director. 32 NO. :CONDITION TE~ RESPON; : " ·.. :~ Prior:tO.:i' :'''. ' 107. Graffiti. The Applicant/Developer and/or building pW On-going PW tenant(s) shall keep the site clear of graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous basis. Graffiti resistant paint for the structures and film for windows or glass shall be used whenever possible. 108. Occupancy Permit Requirements. Prior to issuance of PW Prior to issuance PW an Occupancy Permit, the physical condition of the project of Occupancy site shall meet minimum health and safety standards Permit including, but not limited to the following: a. The streets and walkways providing access to each building shall be complete, as determined by the City Engineer/Public Works Director, to allow for safe, unobstructed pedestrian and vehicle access to and from the site. b. All traffic control devices on streets providing access to the site shall be in place and fully functional. c. All street name signs and address numbers for streets providing access to the buildings shall be in place and visible. d. Lighting for the streets and site shall be adequate for safety and security. All streetlights on streets providing access to the buildings shall be energized and functioning. Exterior lighting shall· · · be provided for buildingentrances/exits and pedestrian walkways. Security lighting shall be provided as required by Dublin Police. e. All construction equipment, materials, or on- going work shall be separated from the public by use of fencing, barricades, caution ribbon, or other means approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. f. All fire hydrants shall be operable and easily accessible to City and ACFD personnel. g. All site features designed to serve the disabled (i.e. H/C parking stalls, accessible walkways, signage) shall be installed and fully functional. 33 'NO~. · : 'CONI)fflON TEXT .RESPON ........ · '."." .i . · "!i''~/~i~l~!~ .' '" ' ' · ' '~ :" ::'~ 'PrioritY:' ~ .?~? ~"'? '. 109. Bicycle Rac~. Bicycle rocks shall be installed near the PW Prior to issuance PW enhances to the office building ara ratio of I rack per 40 of Occup~cy vehicle parking spaces. Bicycle racks shall ~ desired to Pemit(s) accommodate a minimum of four bicycles per rack, and so that each bicycle can be secured to ~e rack. The location of the bicycle rack shall not encroach into any adjacenffadjoining sidewalks in a manner ~at would reduce ~e unencumbered width of the sidewalk to less than 4'. Bicycle racks shall be placed in locations where they will have adequate li~ting and can be su~eilled by the building occupants. For the apartments, one bicycle storage space shall provided wi~in each residence or in Iockable containers or spaces if not within each individual residence. 110. Environmental Site Assessment. According to the pW Prior to issu~ce PW environmental assessment report pmp~ed by Versar Inc. of Occupancy dated 11/08/00, and their follow-up le~er dated 1/11/01, Pemit(s) ~o underground ~el storage tanks (UST) were closed and removed from the site according to Alameda Coun~ Depa~ment of Environmental Health (ACDEH) requirements and protocols. If, during construction of~e Project, presently-un,om h~rdous materials ~e discovered, ~e Applic~eveloper shall adhere to the requirements of ACDEH, the Fire Marshal, the Ci~, an~or o~er applicable agency to mitigate the h~rd ~fo~ continuing. 34 N.C. :'] . - CONI)iTION TEXT RESpON. 'W~,B~ ' ,s~O,0RCE · . "' 111. Release of Se~u~. When all improvements governed by PW Prior to PW ~e Improvement A~eement are complete to the accept~ce of satisfaction of the CiW EngineerWublic Works Director, improvements by the Ciw Engineer will recommend to the CiW Council that City Co=cil ~e improvements be accepted and that the Security be released. Prior to the Council's acceptance, the Applic~ffDeveloper shall ~mish the following to the CiW: a. A Maintenance Bond or o~er replacement securiW in an amount equal to 25% of~e estimated cost of the work to guarantee against defects for a one-year period. b. As-Built or Record Drawings printed on mylar of all Improvement Plans and maps associated with the project. c. A recorded copy of the Covenants, Conditions, ~d Res~ictions ~at govern the project. d. A Decimation or Repo~ by the project Geotechnical Engineer confirming that all geotechnical and ~ading work associated with the project has been peffo~ed in accordance with the Engineer's recommendations. e. Payment of any outstanding CiW fees or other debts. f. Any other info~ation deemed necessa~ by the City EngineerWublic Works Director. 112. Geographic Information System, Once the CiW PW ~igr to Engineer/Public Works Director approves the acceptance of development project, a digital vectorized file on floppy or improvements by CD of~e Improvement Pi~s shall be submi~ed to the City Co~cil CiW and DSRSD. Digital raster copies ~e not acceptable. The digital vectofized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or hi~er drawing lo,at or ES~ Shapefile fo~at. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of 0.00. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English, although abbreviations are acceptable. All submiaed drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. Said Submi~al shall be acceptable to the Ciw's GIS Coordinator. P~G I 13. ParMng. Applican~Developer shall provide parking as PL. Completion of St~d~d shown on the Site Plan and Project Matrix-Parking Plan, Improvements Sheet EX-2 of the SDR package dated received on September 19, 2003 by ~e Dublin Depaament of CommuniW Development. All p~king spaces shall double-s=iped with 4-inch wide s=ipes set approximately 2 feet apa~ as shown on the "Typical Parking Striping Detail". Handicapped and visitor p~king spaces shall 35 .... Priorto:... ..~.~ .,... appropriately identified on the pavement. 114. Recreational VehiCle Parking. Recreation vehicle PL On-going Municipal parking shall not be permitted on site and shall be Code regulated by thc CC&R's. POLICE 115. Residential Security. The project shall comply with the PL, B Occupancy of Standard City of Dublin Residential Security Requirements of the Units Residential Security Ordinance. CC&R's for the project will include posting of private street areas in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 22658, sections I and 2. Fire lanes will also be posted in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 22500.1. Thc Applicant/Developer and/or Property Owner shall keep perimeter walls clear of graffiti vandalism on a regular and continuous basis at all times. Graffiti resistant paints and foliage shall be used. The CC&R's shall provide for graffiti removal in perpetuity. LANDSCAPING 116. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. Applicant/ PL Issuance of Standard Developer shall submit a Final Landscaping and Irrigation Building Permits Plan, conforming to the requirements of Section 8.72.030 or according to Phased of the Zoning Ordinance (unless otherwise required by Occupancy Plan, this Resolution). The plans shall be stamped and approved whichever is first by the Director of Community Development. That plan ' shOuld generally conform to the Site Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan prepared by Carducci & Associates, Landscape Architect, dated received September 19, 2003. It must reflect any revised project design shown on the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map or Development Plan with a later date. 11'7. Review. Shrub, vine, espalier, perennial, and ground PL Issuance of PL cover varieties shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Permits or according to Director of Community Development. Phased Occupancy Plan, whichever is fn'st 118. Fire-resistant or drought tolerant plant varieties. Fire- PL, F Issuance of PL, F resistant or drought tolerant plant varieties shall be Building Permits required in the plant palette and installed within the or according to Phased project. Occupancy Plan, whichever is first 119. Monument Signs. Design of monument signs shall be PL, PW Completion of PW, PL approved by the Director of Community Development to Improvements assure compatibility with design elements of the project and by the City Engineer to assure unobstructed traffic visibility. .... 120. Backflow Devices. Backflow devises shall be hidden PL Issuance of Standard from view by means of fencing, enclosures, landscaping Grading Permits and/or berms. 36 NO, · :CONDITION TEXT RESPON~ :: :W~N:: i21. Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and PL Occupancy of Standard Maintenance Agreement. Applicant/Developer shall Any Unit sign and submit a signed copy of the City of Dublin Standard Plant Material, Irrigation System and Maintenance Agreement prior to the occupancy of any units. 122. Water Efficient Landscalm Regulations. PL, DSR lssu~mc¢ of Standard Applicant/Dcv¢lol~r shall ensure that the Final Grading Permits Landscaping and Irrigation Plan conforms to the City's Water Efficient Landscape Regulations, including dual piping to facilitate future recycled water. Standards 123. Health, Design and Safety Standards. Prior to final PL Occupancy of Standard approval allowing occupancy of any residential unit, the Unit physical condition of the subdivision and the lot where the unit is located shall meet minimum health, design, and safety standards including, but not limited to the following: a. The streets providing access to the residential/retail of PL Occupancy of Standard office unit shall be complete to allow for safe traffic Unit movements to and from the home. b. All street name signs on streets providing access to PL Occupancy of Standard the units shall bc in place. Unit c. The units shall have a back-lighted illuminated PL Occupancy of Standard streeffunit number. Unit d. The lot shall be finish graded, and final grading B Occupancy of Standard inspection shall have been approved by the Building Unit Departraent. e. All sewer clean-outs, water meter boxes, and other DSR Occupancy of Standard utility boxes shall be set to grade to thc approval of Unit thc City Engineer. f. Thc units shall have received all necessary B Occupancy of Standard inspections and have final approval by the Building Unit Department to allow occupancy. g. All fire hydrants in streets providing access to the F Occupancy of ........ Standard units and buildings shall be operable to City and Unit ACFD standards. h. All streets prOviding access to the units and buildings F Occupancy of Standard shall be improved to an adequate width and manner Unit to allow for 'fire engine circulation to the approval of ACFD. i. Common areas of the project shall be landscaped by PL Occupancy of Standard phase. Unit j. All mailbox units shall bc at the back of the curb. PL Occupancy of Standard Unit k. Exte'rior lighting sl~'all be provided for unit and PL Occupancy of Standard building entrances and shall be of a design and Unit placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties. ... 37 Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate PL, PO, B Occupancy of Standard to provide for security needs. (Photometrics and Unit lighting plans for the site shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and Dublin Police Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits). Glare/Reflective Finishes - The use of reflective finishes. PL Issuance of Standard on building exteriors is prohibited. In order to control the Building Permits effects of glare within this subdivision, reflective glass shall not be used on all south-facing windows. Compliance With Requirements. Applicant/Developer F, PW, PO, Approval of Standard shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City Zone 7, Improvement of Dublin, Alameda County Fire Department, Public DSR, PL Plans Works Department, Dublin Police Service, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, Dublin Unified School District and Dublin San Ramon Services District, or as set forth in the executed Development Agreement. PASSED, AppRovED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February 2004. AYES: Cm. Fasulkey, Nassar, and Machtmes NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cm. King · ~ anningkC, o~r~ {'s~i o n ~~- Community Development Director g:'~PA#X2002\P A02 -003~PC-Reso TMP&SDR 38 RESOLUTION NO. 04- O11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING coMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 02-003 WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE WHEREAS, AMB Property Corporation, has requested approval of a Development Agreement for the WeSt Dublin Transit Village Project on 9.06 + acres at 6700 Golden Gate Drive, generally located north of the 1- 580 freeway and south of the future extension of St. Patrick Way in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the Project site is in the Dublin downtown area and within the planning area for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan is one of three downtown specific plans approved by the City on December 19, 2000 and intended to improve the appearance, functionality, and economic vitality of thc downtown area, particularly in recognition of a planned BART station adjacent to the Project site. (See Resolution 00-227, incorporated herein by reference). The Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the City's General Plan goals. The effects of implementing the Specific Plan and related general plan amendments were reviewed in a Negative Declaration which was properly circulated for public review and adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000 (See Resolution 00-227, incorporated herein by reference). The City subsequently rezoned the Project site to PD Planned Development and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan on June 4, 2002, based on the prior adopted Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration is available for review in the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan was prepared as a self-mitigating plan. Upon adoption of the Negative Declaration, the City found that the Specific Plan and associated actions would not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation was incorporated into the Plan as part of the Plan implementation (Resolution 00-227). In this context, the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs' act as mitigations that must be included in subsequent implementing developments, such as the Project. The Project is consistent with and implements the Specific Plan land uses, policies, standards, guidelines :and programs; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated November 6, 2003 for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and determined that the Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Although not required by CEQA, the City p.repared a draf~ subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162 to examine how the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs were included in the Project, and thus how prior adopted mitigation established in the Specific Plan would be implemented. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A of Attachment 1 to the Staff report and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The City received one comment letter on the Project, from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, dated December 2, 2003. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments in a Responses to Comments document dated February 10, 2004. The comment letter and responses are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The comment letter included a substantial amount of background materials that are on file and available for review in the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and determined that no subsequent EIR-level review of the document was warranted, that the prior Negative Declaration and the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identified and analyzed the Project's environmental impacts, and that the comments and responses did not constitute or require substantial revisions to the Mitigated Negative ATTACHMENT Z/... Declaration. On these bases, the City determined that no recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and WItEREAS, a Staff report, dated February 24, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, and the Project for the Planning Commission; and WEIEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staffreport, the Development Agreement, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, at a noticed public hearing on February 24, 2004 at which time all interested parties had the oppommity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, including comments and responses, reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the AMB/Legacy Partners Transit Village Project; and WItEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WI-IEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Development Agreement. NOW TI-IEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED TI-IAT TI-IE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Development Agreement: 1. Said Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City of Dublin General Plan and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan in that, a) the General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan land use designation for the subject site is Mixed Use and Office and that this is a mixed-use development involving neighborhood retail uses, an apartment project, and an office building consistent with that designation and the policies of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan; b) the project is consistent with.the fiscal policies in relation to provision of infrastructure and public services of the City's :~Gen~ P!an. ,and west DUblin BARTSpeCific Plan; c) the Agreement sets forth the rules .~elDeveloper and : :City will be governed by during the development process; and, (d) site-specific Mitigation Measures contained in the Initial Study prepared for the project have been incorporated into the project. 2. Said Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include a Planned Development Rezoning/Development Plan adopted specifically for the Legacy Partners West Dublin Transit Village Project. 3. Said Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice in that the Project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and City of Dublin General Plan which have planned for a mixed-use development at this location. 4. Said Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare in that the development will proceed in accordance with the Agreement and any Conditions of Approval for the Project; and 5. Said Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values in that the development will be consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER REsOLvED THAT THE Dublin Planning C~or~mission does hereby recommend that thc City Council approve thc Development Agreement between AMB Property Corporation and the City of Dublin, as shown in attached Exhibit A, for PA 02-003, the West Dublin Transit Village Project proposed by Legacy Partners. PASSED, APPROvED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February 2004. AYES: Cm. Fasulkey, Nassar, and Machtrnes NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAEN: Cm. King '~¢.~f~j,.~'~/z~~---' · l~l~ning ~gomm'iss"~ion Chairp~[~ community Development Director 3 AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 24, 2004 SUBJECT: PA 02-003 Legacy Partners/AMB Properties - Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review and Development Agreement Prepared by Janet Harbin, Senior Planner ~ ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution recommending City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (with Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study attached as Exhibit A, Comments Received and Staff Responses attached as Exhibit B) 2. Resolution recommending City Council adopt the Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan (with Development Plan attached as Exhibits A-1 and A-2) 3. Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review (with Tentative Parcel Map attached as Exhibit A, and Site Plan attached as Exhibit B, included in Development Plan) 4. Resolution Recommending APproval of a Development Agreement between the City and AMB Properties (with Development Agreement attached as Exhibit A) 5. Colored Elevations with color samples (to be presented at Public Hearing) 6, Applicant's Written Statement RECOMMEN1)ATON: 1. Hear Staffpresentation. 2. Open public hearing. 3. Take testimony from the Applicant and the public. 3. Question Staff, Applicant and the public. 4. Close public hearing and deliberate. 5. Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 1) 6. Adopt Resolution recommending City Council adopt the Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 2) 7. Adopt Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review (Attachment 3), subject to conditions 8. Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approve the Development Agreement between the City and AMB Properties (Attachment 4) COPIES TO: Applicant Property Owners T 5' ITEM NO. BACKGROUND: Legacy Partners has submitted a project application consisting of a Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review and a Development Agreement for a mixed-use project transit village consisting of a four and ½ story structure containing a maximum of 304 multi-family residences, a small amount of neighborhood retail uses on the ground story, and a 150,500 square foot office building on the southern portion of the site closest to the Alameda County Flood Control Channel and freeway corridor. The approximately 9.06 acre property is owned by AMB Properties, and located northwest of the 1-580 freeway, south of the extension of St. Patrick Way in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area of Dublin. Adjacent to the west boundary °fthe property are light industrial and professional/administrative office uses. Additionally, the site is adjacent to the west boundary of the residential project proposed by Orix on the BART property, recently approved by the Planning Commission for high-density residential land use and commercial development. The project site is currently developed and improved, containing the Cor-O-Van warehouse, storage and distribution center with associated paving for parking and loading areas. The Cor-O-Van center will continue to operate at the site until the residential development is ready to be constructed. The project is anticipated to be constructed in two phases, with construction of the residential and small retail uses on an approximately 4.5 acre (net acreage) portion of the property in the first development phase, and the office building on approximately 3.28 acres (net acreage) of the site in the second phase. The parking for the residential and retail development will consist of a ½ story of subterranean parking area and one ground level parking area as the first floor of the building. The office building will have ground-level parking located on the east portion of the site, close to the flood control channel and the freeway corridor. ANALYSIS: The Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent and requirements of a Planned Development Zoning District. The intent of the Planned Development Zoning District is to creme a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and coordinated development, and a better physical environment than would otherwise be possible under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. This district requires that a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan be adopted to establish regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the property within the requested Planned Development Zoning District. As the Stage 1 Development Plan was previously approved by the City Council in June 2002 with the rezoning of the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, the Stage 2 Development Plan is being considered at this time to further implement the project. The Stage 2 Development Plan depicts the precise location of land uses, unit count, and densities for the project. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan is illustrated in the project plans in Attachment 2, Exhibit A-2. Specific Plan/General Plan The project site is located within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area, a planning area in the City's downtown. This Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin on December 19, 2000 for the purpose of directing the land use, circulation, infrastructure and development for 71.40 acres of land located in the central portion of Dublin, west of the 1-680 freeway and north of the 1-580 freeway. At build-out over the next five to seven years, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area would allow the development of a range ofresidentiaI, commercial office, retail, employment and public/quasi-public uses. The project site is also designated as an "Opportunity Site" in the Specific Plan as it is considered a property in transition, moving away from the industrial uses in the past to a more vital urban transit-oriented place. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan designates the site as Mixed Use (MU), which permits residential use as well as retail or office uses, and Office (O). The original residential density for the site allowed 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre to be developed. The Planning Commission recently recommended City Council approval of a PD Planned Development/Stage 1 Development Plan on the adjacent site owned by BART to allow a high-density residential development and a commercial center assoCiated with the future construction of the West Dublin BART Station. That project and the proposed Legacy Partner project will provide a cohesive and interrelated transit focused community. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The West Dublin BART Specific Plan also established Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for properties within the West Dublin BART planning area. The square footage of the office use proposed as part of the subject project is approximately 150,500 square feet, and the gross acreage of the site is 3.26 acres. The FAR for the office portion of the site area is 1.05. This is consistent with the FAR range of 0.50 to 1.20 allowed on the site by the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. This project as a whole is an interrelated transit village and will be developed consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan, the negotiated Development Agreement (Attachment 4, Exhibit A), and the General Plan. Residential Density: The property contains approximately 9.06 gross acres of land, and with the construction of 304 multi-family units as shown on the Applicant/Developer's plan, the residential development would result in a density of approximately 34 dwelling units per acre for the site. This density is consistent with the density range of 30 to 50 units per acre permitted under the General Plan. The number of residential units is also consistent with the Mixed Use land 'use category in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan which allows a maximum development of 331 dwelling units in the area. Retail Component: The Mixed Use land use category in the Specific Plan and General Plan requires that the residential development also contain a non-residential component, such as retail or office use. The proposed project contains a neighborhood retail component of approXimately 1,000 square feet with small storefronts on ' the ground level floor to serve residents and offiCe users, i ~ .~ ~: · :~ . ~... ~: ~. Traffic Issues: As required by the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the General Plan, traffic impacts and mitigation measures for this proposed project have been reviewed in the Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the West Dublin BART Specific Plan; the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared by BART for the BART extension project (certified by the BART Board in April 2001); and, the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Legacy Partners project. The mitigation measures recommended by these environmental documents have been incorporated into the development plan. No significant traffic impacts will result after mitigation. In summary, the project is consistent with the General Plan and West Dublin BART Specific Plan. Further details of the traffic mitigation measures incorporated into the project are contained in the section on Traffic in this report. Planned Development District Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan The applicant has proposed a PD Planned Development District rezoning for the site. The existing zoning of the property is PD Planned Development Stage I Development Plan. Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the intent, purpose and requirements of the Planned Development District. The intent of the Planned Development District is to create a more desirable use of the land, a more coherent and coordinated development and a better physical environment that would otherwise not be achieved under a single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. A Development Plan is required pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes regulations for the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the property within the Planned Development Zoning District. The Zoning Ordinance also requires the adoption of both Stage 1 and 3 Stage 2 Development Plans with the reclassification of the property in question to the Planned Development Zoning District. The applicant is requesting approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the specific development of the subject site at this time. The Development Plan prepared for the West Dublin Transit Village project, depicts the specific development proposed and addresses the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for this stage of development. The Development Plan and Project Plans for the residential, retail and office sites, roof views, ground level parking, podium-level parking, utility lines, grading and elevations are contained in Attachment 2, Exhibit A-2. The proposed Planned Development District Rezoning would implement and be consistent with the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Dublin General Plan by: · Providing a high profile, state-of-the-art transit-oriented development with a mix of both residential and commercial uses in the vicinity of the West Dublin BART station; · Providing higher intensity residential development for households desiring a more urban living environment close to a transit station; · Promoting the development of a state-of-the-art transit-oriented development on properties adjacent to the West Dublin BART station to create a vital and visually distinctive district, both locally and regionally; Encourage the stimulus of the new BART station to increase economic vitality and overall activity within downtown Dublin; and, · Create a more pedestrian friendly environment within the West, Dublin BART planning area to attract bUsineSses and visitors'. .... , ~ -~ Prior to rezoning of the specific plan area to PD, the project area and the surrounding area was zoned M-I Light Industrial or C-2 General Commercial, and many of the businesses were in the process of relocating to other areas in the City or other jurisdictions. The project proposed by Legacy Partners would provide support for further office and commercial development in the Specific Plan area, and also serve as a transition from the existing light industrial uses in the area to development consistent with the vision of the adopted West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The design objective of the Legacy Partners' Transit Village is to combine a dense, urban residential and commercial/retail development in a compact space to create a "transit village" character. This is reflected in the proposed high density residential dwelling units and the commercial/retail uses close to a major transit station, the proposed future West Dublin BART Station. Stage 2 Development Plan: The Applicant/Developer's proposal consists ora multi-family residential product with a small retail component and an office building of approximately 150,500 square feet (see Attachment 2, Exhibit A-2 for Development Plan/Project Plans). Further details on the Applicant/Developer's development concept are contained in Attachment 6, the Applicant's Written Statement. Statement of Proposed Uses: The project is proposed for development in two phases (see Attachment 2, Exhibit A-2, for Phasing Plan). One phase o£the project consists of the development of residential dwelling units at a density of 34 dwelling units per acre, and the establishment ora small amount of retail space at ground level to serve the residents and office users in the project (see Attachment 2, Exhibit A-2). Conditional and accessory uses would be permitted in accordance with those allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed land uses for the property are as follows: 4 A. PD - High Density Residential/Neighborhood Retail Permitted Use: Phase 1 - Multi-Family Dwellings & Neighborhood Retail Retail uses ora neighborhood retail character Conditional Uses: As provided in the regulations and procedures of the R-M and C-N Zoning Districts as modified by the PD Rezoning Accessory Uses: As provided for in the regulation and procedures of the Zoning Ordinance B. PD - Office/Retail Permitted Use: Phase 2 - Office/Retail Conditional Uses: As provided in the regulations and procedures of the C-1 Zoning District Accessory Uses: As provided for in the regulation and procedures of the Zoning Ordinance Stage 2 Site Plan: The Stage 2 Site Plan is shown in the Stage 2 Development Plan (Project Plans) for Legacy Parmers West Dublin Transit Village in Attachment 2, Exhibit A-2, Sheets EX-1 and EX-2. The Stage 2 Site Plan depicts the location of the proposed land uses, circulation system, parking areas, topography and limits of grading on the site. The first phase of the project is anticipated to include 304 multi-family dwelling units designated Medium High Density Residential with approximately 1,000 square feet of neighborhood retail on the ground level, and is located adjacent to the south side of the future St. Patrick Way alignment from Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street. Additionally, property along the proposed alignment for St. Patrick Way will be dedicated, and roadway access will be constructed in this phase. On-site improvements proposed such as the loop roadway within the project and the paved courtyard area, providing pedestrian access to the BART Station between the residential building and the office building (see Development Plan, Sheet EX-3), will'also be constructed in this phase of the project. Additionally, the applicant proposes to complete rough grading for the second phase of development as part of Phase 1. The development of Phase 1 is anticipated to commence, in 2004, with Phase 2 following thereafter. The second phase of development consists of the construction of the 150,500 square foot office building designated Retail/Office, and located to the south of the residential complex. Road improvements in Phase 2 include additional improvements as determined necessary for safe access to the entire development. A phasing summary is provided below indicating the proposed land use, number of units, and net acreage (minus dedicated land and improvements) for each phase. PHASING PLAN *Net Acreage excludes the private roads and local streets Lots/ Max. Net Acreage* Phase NO. Land Use & Zoning Type Parcel # Units or Sq. Ft. I High Density Residential I 304 4.446 (R-M) Retail/Office (C-N) 1,000 sq. ft. 2 Retail/Office (C-O) I 150,500 sq.ft. 3.281 304 units Total 2 151,500 sq.ft. 7.73 5 Compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage 2 Development Plan proposed at this t~me is generally consistent with the Stage 1 Development Plan approved with the rezoning of the West Dublin Specific Plan area in June 2002 as the table below illustrates: Legacy Partners Proposed Stage 2 Development Stage 1 Development Plan West Dublin Transit Village Plan Acres~ Units/SquareFootage Acres°~ Units/Square Footage High Density Residential 4.45 304 units 4.45 331 Retail/Office 1,000 sq.ft. Max. For Plan Area Retail/Office 3.28 150,500 sq.ft. 2.51 6.98 For Entire Plan Area St. Patrick Way R.O.W 1.15 59,101 2.11 N/A property for BART Frontage .18 N/A TOTAL 9.06 304 9.07 331 Max. For Plan Area Architectural Standards: The architectural design standards and unit floor plans for the Stage 2 Development Plan are established by the architectural drawings prepared by the MBH in the project plans (see Sheets A.9 through A. 14 of the Project Plans in Exhibit A-2, Attachment 2). Additionally, the ApPlicant has provided supplemental information in Attachment 5, Colored Elevations, which also includes the color samples for residential/retail complex as well as the office building. Development Standards: To accomplish the land plan envisioned, specific development standards are established in the Development Plan to guide the Stage 2 development of the property. The proposed 'Development Plan and development, standards for the PD zoning district are attached as Exhibit A-2, Project ~Plans, stamped by the Cify,"received january 2, 2004.' ...., ....: ~ ~:: ~ :. ~ Preliminary Landscape Plan: The'Preliminary Landscape Plan is shown on Sheets L. 1 through I,.6 of the . . project plans, Attachment Ao2. A condition of the Site Development Review (see Resolution, Attachment 3) requires the submittal of a Final Landscaping and Irrigation. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations: The Applicant/Developer wilt comply with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and any City Council Resolution relating to that ordinance in effect at the time of the issuance of the first building permit for this project. The regulations recently adopted by the City Council require new residential projects to provide 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units with the development as affordable units. The City Council may authorize that fees in-lieu of construction can be paid for 40% of the required units. At the present time, the Applicant/Developer proposes to provide a minimum of 38 affordable units within the High Density (multi-family) residential area, which equals 7.5% of the total number for units within the project site. These dwelling units will be for-rent apartment units. The applicant proposes to meet the remaining percentage of the affordable housing requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees. An agreement between the City and the Developer will be prepared to facilitate meeting the affordable housing requirement. The City Council will be the authority in determining how the applicant will be required to meet this housing need. Development Agreement: The property owner of the Legacy Partners project site, AMB Properties, proposes to enter into a negotiated Development Agreement with the City. The Development Agreement for the Legacy Parmers project has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office, and is included in Attachment 4, to be recommended for consideration and approval bythe City Council with ap~proval of the Stage 2 Development Plan. Items in the Development Agreement include, but are not limited to, the financing and timing of infrastructure; payment of traffic, noise and public facilities impact fees; dedication of right-of-way; construction of transportation improvements; the oversizing, construction and general maintenance responsibilities for roads and infrastructure; and, other general provisions. The approval Development Agreement is particularly important for this project due to the amount of land dedication and improvements associated with the project. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: Topography and Site Development The site is located within a developed portion of the City's downtown area. The topography of the site is relatively flat as the site was previously graded for the construction of the warehouse and the paving when the facility was built. The site lies at a lower elevation than the 1-580 corridor, and is separated from the Alameda County Flood Control Channel by a gentle upward slope and a grassy filtration swale. The Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan for the project (Sheet C.2 of Attachment A-2) takes into consideration the existing contours and infrastructure of the site to minimize excessive cuts and fills. The parking lot for the office building, lying closest to the freeway, is setback from the flood control channel easement by approximately 20 feet and a grove of mature redwood trees. Architectural Concept & Theme The architectural concept for the West Dublin Transit Village community is to create a modem, urban transit- oriented character with an interesting color palette. This architectural style is articulated on the residential complex and the office building with detailed features such as colored stucco, wood, glass, and steel. The selected architectural style has been developed by MBH Architects for Legacy Partners to achieve the urban transit village architectural concept and provide a clean innovative design (see Elevations in Exhibit A-2 of the Development Plan/Project Plans, Attachment 2). The proposed architectural design will complement the style of the modem urban buildings and landscaping which eventually will be constructed in the Specific Plan area, and also provide interest in the physical landscape from the freeway corridor, MBH Architects has provided supplemental information in Attachment 5, Colored Elevations with color samples for the building design. These illustrations will be presented at the Planning Commission hearing for review and approval, and provides renderings of the architectural style and design of the project. The four-story apartment complex is designed with four buildings constructed around a large landscaped courtyard. The apartment units consist of 20 studio, 132 one-bedroom, 124 two-bedroom, and 16 three- bedroom units. Unit sizes range between 575 to 1,275 square feet. The parking garage is two levels under the living space, one level of which ½ is subterranean and contains 723 parking spaces. The ground level garage floor is hidden behind the first-story fagade of the building and the neighborhood retail storefronts. The garage is entered from the looped accessway within the complex, creating a pedestrian-friendly fully landscaped street frontage and main entry to the complex along St. Patrick Way. The typical unit plans are illustrated on Sheet A. 14 of the project plans (Development Plan), and many of the units provide balconies. MBH Architects will provide supplemental information in Attachment 5, Colored Elevations with color samples at the hearing for the building design. The office building is an approximately 150,500 square foot four-story structure with a paved parking lot containing 484 surface parking spaces. Between the residential/retail complex and the office building is a paved and landscaped courtyard area (see Sheet L-3 of the Preliminary Landscape Plans in Development Plan), providing pedestrian access to the residential, retail and office uses, and a convenient paved walkway to the adjacent development proposed by Orix on the BART-owned property. The Applicant/Developer and representatives of the BART District will cooperate together to make this an uninterrupted pedestrian pathway 7 to the BART Station, scheduled for construction in 2006. Sheet EX-3 of the Development Plan in Attachment 2 illustrates the various paths of travel from the project to the BART Station, including the connection of a future Orix/BART pedestrian access. This accessway has a secondary use as an Emergency Vehicle Accessway (EVAW) if needed. Lot Coverage In the context of this Planned Development, the Applicant is requesting that the lot coverage standard in the Zoning Ordinance of 50% for the high density residences be applied. The residential/retail portion of the project has a 50 % lot coverage, and is, therefore, consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Landscape Design Theme The Preliminary Landscaping Plan is presented in Sheets L-1 through L-6 of the project plans. The landscape elements have been designed by Caducei and Associates, Landscape Architects, to blend with and enhance the architectural theme. The landscape elements have also been designed to tie the project to the surrounding street network, sidewalks and pedestrian pathways which lead to the BART Station and the commercial areas of the central downtown. The residential/retail complex is enhanced with landscaping, creating an outdoor courtyard wrapping around and in between the four buildings and the total percentage of landscaping on the developed site would be approximately 32% of the site area. The landscaping and decorative paving along the walkways is continued to the office building site and integrates the development into a cohesive community. Enhanced landscaping has also been added to the surface parking lot of the office building to buffer the visual landscape of the development from the freeway. The grove of redwood trees near the freeway corridor near the northwest comer of the site will remain undisturbed. Should any trees be proposed to be removed or altered in the future, the procedures in the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance must be followed. A street tree program and streetscape with pedestrian walkways unify the project and provide a hierarchy of ;~color, texture and size. The various entries to the development are characterized by monumentation, textured concrete paving and boxed specimen canopy trees (see Sheets L-1 through L-5 of the project plans for · : monuments, landscaping and paving features). Landscaped sidewalks along the street frontage of the project are · designed for pedestrians to travel throughout the site year-round and for visual relief. The landscape has been designed to enhance the residents' experience and provide the City with a quality development, and will greatly improve the visual experience in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. Irrigation for this development will be an automatic and efficient system designed to reduce overspray and excessive runoff, utilize low precipitation heads and conserve water. Irrigation valves will be separated based on orientation, exposure to the sun, shade and wind and will be designed to be sensitive to the water requirements of the plant material selected. The irrigation design in the Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan will be required to meet the City's water efficient landscape regulations. Additionally, this project is located within the DSRSD-District Recycled Water Use Zone, which calls for installation of recycled water irrigation systems to allow for future use of recycled water for approved landscaped irrigation demands. Compliance with this District regulation is required, unless the District Engineer approves an exemption (see Conditions of Approval in Resolution, Attachment 3). Traffic and Circulation The new segment of St. Patrick Way between Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street will provide access to the proposed West Dublin BART/Orix and AMB/Legacy Partners (Cot-O-Van) developments. The future extension of St. Patrick Way will be a connection to 1-680 on/off ramps, allowing development of surrounding land uses per the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. The ultimate right-of-way width for St. Patrick Way will vary between 68 and 71 feet. The ultimate section will consist of two 12-foot wide travel lanes, a 12-foot wide center two-way left-tm lane, and 8-foot wide parking lane on the south side and sidewalks that vary between 6 8 feet and 11 feet on both sides of the street. The St. Patrick Way improvements will assure safe and c~fi~nvenient access to abutting properties, and the design will be based on a 25 mile per hour speed limit. A project-specific traffic impact analysis was prepared by Omni-Means in 2000, and update in May 2003. The Omni-Means report concluded that all traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed Specific Plan, which included implementation of the land uses proposed with this project, could be reduced to less-than-significant levels after a number of roadway improvements are completed in the vicinity of the project. The Applicant/Developer will be resPonsible for paying fees related to a portion of the cost of the extension This segment of St. Patrick Way will provide parking only on the south side of the street, adjacent to the proposed development. The Applicant/Developer has agreed to providel O-foot sidewalks for both sides for the street to facilitate pedestrian circulation (reflected in Conditions in the Resolution, Attachment 3). The St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive intersection will be signalized. Right-of-way acquisition and dedication for the future extension of St. Patrick Way is required of the Applicant/Developer as part of the project conditions. The Applicant/ Developer will be required to dedicate 1.17 acres of the established right-of-way for St. Patrick Way, and also · 18 acres of property along the frontage of the BART-owned property as stipulated in the Development Agreement (see Attachment 4) for completion of improvements for the roadway. Any easements for public utilities or services must also be acquired and/or dedicated by the Applicant/Developer to accommodate all joint trench utility structures and/or appurtenances located outside of the public right-of-way. AdditionallY, the Applicant/Developer is required t° dedicate a private egress easement across the northeastem pOrtion of parcel 1 for the benefit of the neighboring BART property (APN 941-1500-046). The easement is to accommodate vehicle and pedestrian egress from the future BART development across Parcel l's eastern drive aisle, terminating at St. Patrick Way. The dedication will be required with approval of the final map, or sooner :as stipulated by the Development Agreement. The Proposed driveway along the east side of Parcel 1 ~ (residential/retail parcel) is to be designed to accommodate the connection of a future BART egress driveway : near it's nOrthern terminUs at St. patriCk Way, assuming the Project precedes development °fthe neighboring ~.~BART property (see' exhibits in Attachment ~4, Development Agreement). If the. BART deVelopment occurs first, the Applicant/Developer must adjust the alignment of the proposed driveway to conform to the BART egress driveway, and maintain access from the BART driveway open and unobstructed at all times during construction. Emergency vehicle access will be provided as a secondary use of the internal pathway/accessway between the buildings for fire and police access to the residential, retail and office uses. Other traffic mitigation measures required of the Applicant are contained in the Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review in Attachment 3, and reflected in the Development Agreement in Attachment 4. The project includes a contribution by the Applicant/Development of a pro-rata share of funding toward those improvements planned for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area. Parking The parking for the residential and retail development will consist ora ½ story of subterranean parking area and one ground level parking area as the first floor of the building. The office building will have ground'level parking located on the cast portion of the site, close to the flood control channel and the freeway corridor. A total of 944 parking spaces are proposed for the development and are allocated as follows: · Residenital Spaces~ 460 Office spaces: 221 Shared Residential/Retail & 263 Office spaces Total Parking SPaces 944 9 The Applicant/Developer is proposing that 263 parking spaces within the parking garage for the residential/retail portion of the project share spaces with the office use to the south. The City's requirement for parking is 1,046 parking spaces for the mixed-use development. The shared spaces would be used by office users during the day, when less residential parking is needed. The office would then be closed in the evening during the peak demand period for residential parking. The Applicant/Developer has submitted a request for a 15% Parking ratio reduction to allow provision of less parking for the development than would normally permitted under the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant/Developer is also requesting permission to implement a shared parking space program for the mix of uses on the site, along with a parking management plan. Traffic and parking studies have analyzed the Project both with and without the BART station. If the BART station is not constructed, the overall traffic generated in the project area would decline, further reducing potential traffic impacts. Two traffic and parking studies have been prepared for the project analyzing the reduction in parking for the project, the Final Report:Transportation and Parking Impacts for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village (dated May 22, 2002), and Focused Trip Generation Rate/ParkingUpdate for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village (dated May 14, 2003) by Omni- Means. These two studies contain the supporting data for the analysis of the parking reduction from 1,046 parking SPaces to 944 parking spaces, with the shared parking as discussed above. This reduction and associated requirements are addressed in the Conditions of Approval in the Resolution in Attachment 3. Additionally, the use of trip reductions for the project's residential and office components are based on research conducted by the University of California (Robert Cervero, University of California Berkeley, Development Ridership Data for BART, November 1993). This research involves actual surveys of transit use by developments in close proximity to BART stations. These reductions were also outlined in the Dublin Transit Center EIR to support the reduction in parking for that transit-oriented development. Water Supply The project site is presently served and will continue to be served by DSRSD water pressure Zone 7. 'Water facilities' must be connected to the' DSRSD or other approved water system, and must be installed at the expense of Applicant/Developer in accordance with the District's Standards and Specifications. DSRSD's specific requirements are included in the Conditions of Approval, and the Applicant/Developer must comply with them prior to issuance of building permits and/or acceptance of final improvements. Sanitary Sewer and Recycled Water Irrigation The existing warehouse use on the property is currently served with sewer service from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). Expansion ofrecycled water and sanitary sewer infrastructure and relocation of pipes within the right-of-way of St. Patrick Way will be a requirement of the project (see Resolution, Attachment 3) to provide adequate capacity to the project. Existing sewer mains on Golden Gate Drive between St. Patrick Way and Dublin Boulevard, and sewer mains on Dublin Boulevard between 1-680 and Golden Gate Drive also require upsizing to meet the project demands. These improvements are included in the project improvement and roadway plans, and the Applicant/Developer will be required to submit all plans to DSRSD for review and approval. Storm Drainage/Hydrology The storm drain system for the development will be connected to the existing system of drainage facilities owned and maintained bY Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation System. This syStem consists of underground pipes, box culverts and open channels that floW southerly adjacent to 1-580. The Applicant/Developer will prepare a storm drainage or hydrology study for the properties and roads to be developed/constructed with the project. All storm drain improvements and mitigation measures identified in the Study and/or specified by the City Engineer/Public Works Director shall become requirements of this project. l0 Police and Fire Department Requirements ~'~ % The Applicant/Developer will comply with all Alameda County Fire Services (ACFD) rules, regulations, City of Dublin and standards, including minimum standards for emergency access roads and payment of applicable fees, including City of Dublin Fire facilities Fees. Maintenance of Landscaping and Streets The City generally is responsible for maintenance of landscaping within the rights-of-way of streets that are accepted for dedication. The landscape improvements for street right-of-way will be installed by the Developer concurrently with the development of the parcel unless otherwise specified by the Development Agreement. St. Patrick Way and the public streets in the project will be publicly maintained. All private accessways and pedestrian pathways will be maintained by the property owner. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP The Applicant has submitted a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069 for the two phases and land uses proposed with the project. The map proposes to subdivide the AMB property into two parcels for the development. The multi-family residential property will constitute Phase 1 of the development and the development of the new parcel adjacent to the extension of St. Patrick Way. Phase 2 of the project will coincide with the commercial development on the second and smaller parcel of the map, closest to the freeway corridor. The primary access to the project will be from the two driveway accessways from the future extension of St. Patrick Way, a public street (See Attachment 2, Sheet C. 1 for diagram of accessway). Other than Street "F" which will be a private street providing access to the proposed residential/retail portion of the project and parking area, which loops around the office building to provide access to that building and the associated parking lot. The drive aisle continues to St. Patrick Way where it will provide an additional shared accessway to residences and those on the adjacent BART property site. Improvements provided by the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, along with the Conditions of APProval in · AttaChment 3, address flood control, street improvements, utilities, schools, phasing, noise mitigation, landscaping, and the open space area. The Development Agreement for the project (Attachment 4) also includes information and reflects the requirements of the Applicant related to improvements. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are shown indetail on the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Plans contained in the Stage 2 Development Plan (Exhibit A-2 of Attachment 2). Requirements of the affected utilities and special districts have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval as part of the required obligations of the Applicant/Developer (see Resolution in Attachment 3 for Conditions of Approval). ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The City prepared an Initial Study dated November 6, 2003 for the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and determined that the Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared a draft subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section'15162 to examine how the Specific Plan Policies, standards and programs were included in the Project, and thus how prior adopted mitigation established in the Specific Plan would be implemented. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A to the Resolution in Attachment I. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from November I0, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The City received one comment letter on the Project, from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, dated December 2, 2003. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments in a Responses to Comments document dated February 10, 2004 which is contained in Exhibit B of the Resolution in Attachment I. The comment letter included a substantial amount of background materials that are on file and available for review in the Planning Department. Staff carefully reviewed the comments in preparing the written responses and the responses provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments. The site is presently developed with a land use (light industrial) generally considered more intense than the mixed-use (residential and retail) and office use now proposed with the project. The site will be redeveloped in accordance with the City's General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Zoning, and preparation of a further EIR is unwarranted. Based upon the substantial amount of environmental review completed for the project and the measures incorporated in the project by the Applicant's plan, Staff has determined that no subsequent EIR-level review or recirculation of the document was warranted, that the prior Negative Declaration and the Project Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identified and analyzed the Project's environmental impacts, and that the comments and responses did not constitute or require substantial revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. CONCLUSION: This application has been reviewed by the applicable City Departments and agencies, and their comments have been incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan (see Resolution, Attachment 2) and the conditions of approval for the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review (see Resolution, Attachment 3). The proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan rezoning previously approved, and represents an appropriate and well-planned transit- oriented project for the site which will assist in revitalizing the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area and the economic viability of the area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Open the public heating and hear Staff presentation. 2. Take testimony from the Applicant and the public. 3. Question Staff, Applicant and the public. 4. Close the public hearing and deliberate. 5. Adopt Resolution approving Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 1). 6. Adopt Resolution recommending City Council adopt the Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 2). 7. Adopt Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review (Attachment 3), subject to conditions. 8. Adopt Resolution recommending City Council approve the Development Agreement between the City and AMB Properties (Attachment 4). g:pa02003XPC-sr2 Stage2 12 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Legacy Partners Tom Jodry, Vice President 4000 East Third Ave., Suite 600 Foster City, CA 94404-4810 PROPERTY OWNERS: AMB Property Corporation Pier 1, Bay 1 San Francisco, CA 94111 CONSULTANTS: Carducci & Associates, Landscape Architects MBH Architects Kier & Wright, Engineers LOCATION: 6700 Golden Gate Drive; located near the intersection of Golden Gate Dr. & future St. Patrick Way (Cor-O-Van warehouse site) in West Dublin BART Specific Plan area APN: 941-1580-047-02 EXISTING ZONING: Planned Development (PD) PD - High Density Residential and Retail PD - Office GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Mixed Use High Density Residential (30- 50 du/ac) .... Retail/Office SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use (MU) Office (O) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: See applicable section of report 13 of Inte rnati o hal Broth erh~od~o f E l~.qtr~i~q~l ~:~9~ ~;~ P.q~ ~ ~ Sheet Metal Workers Union Loqa!~!0.4~ Plumbers and Stea~itters Union Local ~42 of the City of Dublin Planning Co~ission's February 24, 2004 ~ ~ Decision to Approve The West Dublin Transit Village Proje6t Prepared by: Daniel L. cardozo Tom Brohard, P.E. ..... ~ ...... T~m'~'~ii~d ~&' ~S~ates Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 81905 Mountain Vie~v Lane. 651 GateWay~B°ulevar~,Suite 900 La Quinta, CA 92253-7611 South San Franci~.~qo, CA 94080 (650) 589:~66'b petra Pless, D.Env.' J. Phyllis Fox, Ph.D., P.E., DEE 540 I{enY°n Avenue Consulting Engineer Kensington, CA 94708 Environmental Magggement 2530 Etna Street Berkeley, CA 94704 Schuyler Fishman Richard Rollins 654 Poirier Street HOH Corp Oakland, CA 94609 1259 El Camino Real - ~ ..... Menlo Park, CA 94025 ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANIEL L. CARDOZO SACRAMENTO OFFICE RICHARD T. DRURY ATTORNEYS AT I,AW THOMAS A. ENSLOW 1225 8th STREET, SUITE 550 TANYAA. GULESSERIAN 651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD SUITE 900 SACRAMENTO. CA 95814-4810 MARCD. JOSEPH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 TEL (916) 444-6201 SUMA PEESAPATI FAX: (916) -444-6209 OF COUNSEL TEL: (650) 589-1660 THOMAS R. ADAMS FAX: (650} 589-5062 ANNBROADWELL tgulesserian@aoamsbroadwell.com March 4, 2004 VIA MESSENGER ' Mayor Lockhart and City Council Members City of Dublin f Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza ~-~ Dublin, CA 94568 Kay Keck "- City Clerk I::: City of Dublin 100 Civic Paza [- Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Appeal of February 24, 2004 Planning Commission Decision t · West Dublin Transit Village Project, 6700 Golden Gate Drive (PA 02- ~ ' 003) · · Dear Mayor and City Council Members: ~ We are writing on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104, and Plumbers ~ and Steamfitters Union Local 342 ("Unions") to appeal the City of Dublin Planning [. ~ Commission's February 24, 2004 decision to approve the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("ISND"),' prepared by the City of Dublin ("City") "CE A" r- pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( Q ), for the West i ~ ' Dublin Transit Village Project, located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Dublin, proposed by Legacy Partners - AMB Property ("Project."). Specifically, we appeal i: ~ each. of the following Planning Commission approvals related to the Project: March 4, 2004 Page 2 1. Resolution recommending City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2. Resolution recommending City Council adopt the Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning and State 2 Development Plan; 3. Resolution approving vesting tentative parcel map and site development review, subject to conditions; and 4. Resolution recommending City Council approve the Development Agreement between the City and AMB Properties. The members of the Unions construct and maintain commercial, residential and industrial projects, primarily in the vicinity of Alameda County. Union members live in the communities that suffer the impacts of environmentally detrimental projects, including Dublin. Union members breathe the same polluted air that others breathe and suffer the same adverse health and safety impacts. They are also concerned with sustainable land use and development in Dublin and elsewhere in the County. Poorly planned and environmentally detrimental projects may jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live here. Continued degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoria and other restrictions on growth in the County that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities. Union members are concerned about projects that carry serious environmental risks without providing countervailing employment and economic benefits to local workers and communities. Therefore, the Unions and their members, have a strong interest in enforcing environmental laws such as CEQA. The Unions and their members submitted comments on the ISND on December 2, 2003 and supplemental comments on the ISND on February 20, 2003 and testified at the Planning Commission hearing on February 24, 2004. The grounds for this appeal are set forth in detail below. In sum, the grounds for this appeal are based on the City's failure to comply with CEQA by relying on an inadequate ISND, instead of preparing an environmental impact report ("EIR"). Substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the Project will have significant environmental impacts on traffic, public health, air quality, water quality, and other resources. We reviewed the ISND for the Project with the help of several technical experts, including the following: !519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 3 1. Tom Brohard, P.E. on transportation and traffic impacts (Exhibit A); 2. Schuyler Fishman, M.S., atmospheric scientist on air quality impacts (Exhibit C); 3. Dr. Petra Pless and Dr. Phyllis Fox on public health impacts (Exhibit D); and 4. Richard Rollins, P.E., of the Watershed Advisory Group, on water quality impacts (Exhibit E). Based on substantial evidence in the record, CEQA requires the City to prepare an EIR to analyze the Project's impacts and to propose feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant. For these reasons, the City should uphold this appeal, withdraw the ISND and prepare a draft EIR for the Project. The City must then circulate the draft EIR to the public and the decisionmakers to enable an informed decision on the Project. I. THE CITY IS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO PREPARE AN EIR UNDER CEQA CEQA has two fundamental purposes. First, CEQA is designed to "inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR 'protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.' [Citation.]" (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors ("Citizens of Goleta Valley") (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564; CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(1).) The EIR has been described as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm'rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 ("Berkeley Jets"); County oflnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810 [108 Cal. Rptr. 377].) Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2)-(3); see also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 564; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400 [253 Cal. Rptr. 426, 436]).) The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.'' (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2).) If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 4 finding that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns" specified in CEQA section 21081. (CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A)~(B).) In reviewing the adequacy of an ISND under CEQA, expert opinion and even differences in expert opinion trigger the requirement to Conduct environmental review in an EIR. The City is wrong and cites inapplicable sections of the CEQA Guidelines when it argues that differences between expert opinions weigh in favor of the City. Specifically, the City claims in its respOnses to our December 2, 2003 comments on the ISND that CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 "does not allow for differences of opinion between technical experts to the extent the Commenters [sic] consultants disagree with the City's analysis." (See Legacy Partners - AMB Property (PA 02-003), Response to Comments on MND From Adams Broadwell et al. (December 2, 2003), February 10, 2004 (hereinafter "Response to Comments"), p. 5.) To the contrary, CEQA Guidelines seCtion 15151, entitled "standards for Adequacy of an EIR,' states "[d]isagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate .... "(Emphasis added). Thus, the section cited by the City onlY applies when the City has prepared an EIR, not an ISND. Standards for evaluating an EIR are inapplicable in this case. Standards for evaluating an ISND are clear both in the statute and the CEQA Guidelines. As explained in our comment letters on the ISND, CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the "fair argument" standard. Under that standard, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the Whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(c), 21082.2; CEQA Guidelines § 15070; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents o£ the University of California (1993) ("Laurel Heights ~/') 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, l_nc. v. City of LosAngeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75, 82.) A negative declaration is improper, and an EIR is required, even if other evidence supports the opposite conclusion. (Stanislaus Audubon v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 cal.App.4th 1597.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR, rather than throUgh issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Citizens Action to Serve All 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 5 Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.) As a matter of law, "substantial evidence includes.., expert opinion." (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5).) An agency's decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318.) Substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a project may have significant environmental impacts can be provided by technical experts or members of the public. (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(a)(3); Uhler v. City of Encinitas (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 795, 805; Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 183, 199.) In this case, the City has not satisfied the purposes of CEQA, because it has prepared no EIR for the Project. Substantial evidence presented in our comment letters, the supporting technical comments and herein supports more than a fair argument that the Project will have significant unmitigated environmental impacts on traffic, public health, air quality, water quality, and other resources. For these reasons, the City should withdraw the ISND and prepare an EIR for the Project. II. THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE AN EIR, BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. The Project will have Significant Unmitigated Adverse Traffic Impacts Traffic Engineer Tom Brohard, P.E. provides substantial evidence that the Project will have significant adverse traffic impacts due to higher potential traffic trips than analyzed by the City to date. The following evidence creates more than a fair argument triggering preparation of an EIR. 1. The ISND Fails To Accurately Describe Traffic Baseline As an initial matter, the ISND employs an inaccurate baseline, therebY skewing the impact analysis. An accurate deScription of the environmental setting is important because it establishes the baseline physical conditions against which a lead agency can determine Whether an impact is significant. The importance of haVing a stable, finite, fixed baseline for purposes of an enVirOnmental analysis was recognized decades ago. (County of !nyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185.) Today, the courts are clear that an environmental review document must ~5i9-008a March 4, 2004 Page 6 focus on impacts to the existing environment, not hypothetical situations. (County Of Amador vs. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cai. App.4th 931, 954.) Here, the ISND does not correctly describe the existing physical conditions related to traffic. The ISND was published on November 9, 2003. Traffic counts for the May 22, 2002 traffic study were made in January and February 2002. (ISND, p. 5.) However, according to Mr. Brohard in Exhibit A, shortly thereafter, a new southbound on ramp to 1-680 at the end of St. Patrick Way was completed and opened to traffic in about May 2002. Although traffic forecasts in the study were adjusted to reflect the new on ramp based upon the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan prepared in 2000, actual traffic counts were not made and adjusted. (Exhibit A.) Since the City prepared a revised traffic study for the Project in May 2003, actual traffic counts should have been made at intersections and on roadway segments near the proposed project and the new on ramp to verify the "adjustments" assumed from the 2000 Dublin Downtown Specific Plan. 'Without this information, no substantial evidence exists to support the City's conclusion that traffic impacts are less than significant. 2. The City's Analysis Admittedly Underestimates Proposed Traffic Impacts. The City analysis is faulty, because it does not include all potential traffic impacts from the Project. Because the analysis is incomplete, the ISND fails to meet CEQA's fundamental purpose to "inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made." (Citizens of Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 564; CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(1).) a. Traffic generated from Project's retail uses improperly omitted First, the ISND fails to include traffic impacts from the Project's retail component. Specifically, the May 22, 2002 Omni-Means Final Report regarding transportation and parking impacts assumes for purposes of its analysis that the Dublin Transit Village Project would contain "a 120,000 square foot office building and 304 high density residential units." The May 14, 2003 Omni-Means Focused Trip Generation Analysis/Parking Update for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village assumes the project will now contain "150,420 square feet of office uses and 308 residential apartment uses." However, neither traffic study includes any trips associated with the proposed storefront retail space. (Exhibit A.) 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 7 The City acknowledges its failure to assess traffic generated from the retail uses in the proposed Project. (See Response to Comments, p. 5.) These uses could generate approximately 30 PM peak hour trips, according to the City. (See id.) However, the City never recalculates the traffic generation and dis misses these traffic trips as "internal." (Id.) Clearly, this response is unsubstantiated. A project with retail space, "such as a local deli or dry cleaners," has the potential to bring additional traffic trips to the area. (Id.) Most importantly, CEQA does not excuse the City from requiring this additional traffic to be recalculated and evaluated in a revised traffic analysis for the proposed Project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(1).) The City's failure to analyze potentially significant traffic impacts from the Project's retail component is a major omission. The traffic studies are inconsistent with the Project Description, since they ignore all vehicle trips to and from the planned retail space. In turn, this omission understates traffic impacts at intersections and on street segments that will occur from vehicle trips that will be generated by the Project. The additional traffic from the storefront retail space must be determined and the total project traffic impacts must be identified and properly mitigated. Since these trips combined with the other improperly omitted trips described below exceed thresholds of significance, a revised analysis must be prepared in a recirculated draft EIR. b. 15% of office related traffic and 25% of residential related traffic improperly omitted Second, the City fails to conduct a worst-case analysis of traffic impacts if BART is no; constructed. The City's responses to comments claim that the use of trip reductions are based on "research" involving "surveys of transit use." (See Response co Comments, p. 6.) However, the City misses the point. Regardless of whether the City chooses to conduct a hypothetical traffic scenario using trip reductions with the possible BART station, CEQA requires the City to conduct an analysis of ail potential traffic impacts, including traffic impacts if the proposed BART station is not constructed. The City's response to comments also claims that the City analyzed the Project with and without the BART station, but this response is not accurate. (See Response to Comments, p. 6.) The City's traffic studies have only analyzed the Project's parking impacts, not the traffic impacts, with and without the BART station. Thus, the City acknowledges that a worst-case analysis must be conducted, ~9-o0sa March 4, 2004 Page 8 but was not. Therefore, substantial evidence in the record Shows that the City's traffic analysis is inaccurate. SUbstantial evidence in the record also shows that the impact will be significant, requiring preparation of an EIR. Specifically, the City's May 22, 2002 traffic study reduces the projected number of trips generated from the project by 15% for office uses and 25% for residential uses. (See Exhibit A, p. 3; see also Exhibit B: May 22, 2002 Omni-Means Final Report, p. 17-18, Table 3, footnotes 3-4.) The May 14, 2003 traffic update also includes these trip reductions. (See Exhibit A, P. 3; see also EXhibit B: May 14, 2003 Letter from Nickelson, Omni-Means, to Kuzbari, City of Dublin, p. Table 1, footnotes 3-4.) Mr. Brohard comments that using reductions underStates the number of Vehicle trips to and from the proposed project that will occur at intersections and on street segments if the adjacent BART Station is not built. (See Exhibit A, p. 3.) Actual Project traffic trip generation may be much higher than analyzed. 15 percent more office trips and 25 percent more residential trips constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant traffic impacts. In sum, the total traffic from the proposed project must be recalculated and the assOciated significant project traffic impacts must be identified and properly mitigated in an EIR. c. Traffic generated from project's office uses improperly omitted The third inaccuracy and underestimation of traffic impacts in the City's traffic analyses is the City's application of lower trip rates for the 150,420 square feet of offiCe uses. According to Mr. Brohard, both of the City's traffic studies use the Institute of Traffic Engineers' ("ITE") Trip Generation 6th Edition Land Use Code 714, Corporate Headquarters Building, to forecast trips from the office space component of the project - even though a corporate headquarters building is only a single tenant office bUilding. In this case, no evidence exists that the building will be a single tenant office building and, again, no substantial evidence exists to support the City's use of lower trip rates in its traffic impact analyses. Mr. Brohard provides substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the Project will result in significant unmitigated traffic impacts based on the actual trip rates for a general office building. To conservatively and mo're accurately forecast trips from the proposed Project, the traffic studies should have used ITE i519'008a March 4, 2004 Page 9 Land U.se Code 710, General Office Building. (Exhibit A, pp. 3-4.) These rates are Considerably higher than were used in the traffic studies and include average trip rates per 1,000 square feet of 11.01 for weekday trips, 1.56 for a.m. peak hour trips, and 1.49 for p.m. peak hour trips. The City must recalculate potential traffic from the proposed project using genera] office bUilding triP rates. The City admits that using this more accurate trip generation rate would add additional trips for the office uses, but characterizes the effect as not measurable. (See Response to Comments, p. 6.) The City's remark is conClusory and unsUbstantiated. Thus, there is more than a fair argument can be made that the Project will result in potentially significant traffic impacts. d. Traffic generated during construction not analyzed The City failed to analyze traffic impacts that will occur during construction. The City's responses to comments indicate that "[u]p to 100 construction workers could be on site, generating 100 inbound trips in the AM and 100 outbound trips in the PM..." (Response to Comments, p. 8.) The timing of traffic impacts and proposed improvements necessary to mitigate those impacts must be analyzed by the City before the Project is approved and during the environmental review Process. However, this additional traffic and its impacts on local roadways and intersections are not analyzed in any traffic study. Clearly, the local roadway and intersection improvements that the City claims will occur may not be in place during construction. Thus, CEQA requires the City to conduct an assessment of this impact compared to existing conditions. In sum, the citY's traffic analysis is illegally piecemealed and reveals significant adverse traffic impacts that must be analyzed in an EIR. The May 2003 traffic study eStimates 220 more daily traffic trips just for the office space than the May 2002 study. The studies omit traffic from the retail component of the Project, improperly reduce the amount of projected trips from both residential and office uses and incorrectly calcUlate those office traffic trips that were inclUded, as well. The combined impact of all the City's errors and omissions results in overwhelming adverse traffic impacts that must be assess in an EIR. 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 10 B. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Potentially Significant Traffic Impacts From The Revised Access Plan. The City's traffic analyses fail to assess potential traffic impacts that will occur as a result of the Project's revised access plan. Specifically, the May 22, 2002 traffic study was based upon a now outdated plan for three access points, including one shared access through the adjacent BART Station, directly connecting the proposed project to Golden According to the current site plan, three Gate Drive. access points are now proposed on St. Patrick Way within a total length of about 400 feet. While the May 14, 2003 traffic study indicates all vehicle access to the Proposed project will now occur from St. Patrick Way, the traffic study never fully analyzes the resulting traffic conditions at each of these three access points. (See Exhibit A, p. 5.) According to Tom Brohard, many traffic conflicts will result from vehicles entering and exiting these three access points within such a short distance. (See id.) Further, the easterly two access points are proposed to be located on the inside of a horizontal curve where sight distance will be extremely limited. (Id.) The traffic study must evaluate consolidation of these three access points, as well as recommend measures to provide appropriate sight distance, traffic control, and vehicle storage requirements based on expected queuing lengths at each of the resulting access points on St. Patrick Way. (Id.) As proposed, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant and unmitigated traffic access impacts. C. The City Failed To Follow State Guidelines For Preparing Traffic Studies. The City's traffic studies for the Project omit evaluations for 1-580 and 1-680 Freeways on and off ramps, which are required by Caltrans' "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" issued in January 2001. According to Tom Brohard, with the 1-580 and 1-680 Freeways in the immediate area, it is extremely important to address project traffic impacts at on and off ramps as well as on the freeway mainlines, pursuant to State Guidelines. (Exhibit A, p. 4.) The City's responses to comment admit this analysis was not done in the current traffic studies, but claim that the analysis was done some time ago in other studies for other projects. CEQA prohibits such piecemeal approach and requires the information to be included and discussed in the environmental review for the 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 11 proP°sed Project. Thus, additional study of project traffic impacts on State highwaYS must be made in accordance with the State's guidelines. D. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Potentially Significant Impacts On parking. The City's analysis of potentially significant parking impacts is inadequate. AcCording to page 28 of the Negative Declaration for three Downtown Specific Plans, all subsequently proposed land uses must include on-site parking to meet "current City standards," unless the parking analysis shows that reduced parking would have no impacts. In this case, the proposed Project does not provide sufficient on-site parking for its uses. In addition, Mr. Brohard points out that the City failed to analyze all potentially significant parking impacts from the Project. The Project Description in the ISND includes a second building of 177,264 square feet with storefront retail space. However, the traffic studies do not include any parking associated with this Storefront retail space. Thus, like the traffic studies, the parking studies are inconsistent with the Project DescriptiOn, since they ignore all parking associated with the planned retail space. In turn, this understates off street parking generated by the project. (Exhibit A, p. 6.) The effects of understating off street parking are significant, because the City also failed to evaluate the impacts from removing parking to mitigate traffic impacts on Regional Street. According to the City, Regional Street will operate at Level of Service F as a two-lane collector street under cumulative plus project traffic conditions. (Exhibit A, citing May 22, 2002 Traffic Study, p. 27.) To mitigate this significant impact, the traffic study states that "Regional Street may require the removal of on street parallel parking to accommodate left turn pockets and/or a two way left tUrn lane at major driveways which would allow it to operate at Level of Service C." (Id.) Yet, the traffic study fails to analyze potentially significant impacts associated with the removal of the on street parking itself. The City must prepare a revised traffic study, which identifies the associated impacts and measures to mitigate these impacts. The City must determine the total parking requirements for the retail space and analyze the on site and off site parking impacts. Without this information, there is a fair argument that the Project will result in significant unmitigated parking impacts. 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 12 E. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Potentially Significant Cumulative Traffic Impacts In determining whether a project may have a significant impact on the environment, the agency must consider the cumUlative impacts of the Project "when viewed in connection with the effects of past project, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects." (CEQA § 21083(b).) As the Court explained in a recent case: CumUlative impact analYsis is neceSsary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally · from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact. (Communities for a Better EnVironment v. Calif. ReSources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114-115.) A cumulative impact is an impact that is created as a result of the project When evalUated tOgether With Other Past and future projects cauSing related impacts. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15355, 15130.) Even Where a current project would add only a small increment to the existing background levels, the projects' effects may be cumulatively significant. (Los Angeles Unified School District v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.ApP.4th 1019, 1025-26.) Traffic Engineer Tom Brohard, P.E. concludes that the Project is likely to have significant adverse traffic impacts on local and regional roadways. The ISND admits that: "the project would contribute to the unacceptable operation of the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive, Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road, Dublin Boulevard]Dougherty Road, St. patriCk Way/Golden Gate Drive, and San Ramon Road/I-580 interchange. Additionally, cumulative traffic growth in the region with the project would contribute to traffic volumes on roadway segments of Amador Plaza Road 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 13 south of Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive exceeding theft capacity." (ISND p. 26) However, the ISND states that no EIR is required because these impacts were allegedly analyzed and mitigated in prior CEQA documents - the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Transit Village Supplemental EIR, and th e Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. (Id.) To the contrary, Mr. Brohard concludes that the mitigation measures in the prior environmental review documents are insufficient to mitigate the traffic impacts of the Project to a level of insignificance. (See Exhibit A.) Finally, Mr. Brohard identifies specific intersections and roads that have not been adequately assessed as to significant "~-~"~;~, ~***~ irt, pacts. Mr. Brohard's comments in Exhibit A must be addressed separately. In sum, there is a fair argument that the Project will have significant unmitigated adverse traffic and parking impacts. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts and to propose mitigation measures. F. The City Failed To Ensure That Significant TraffiC Impacts Are Mitigated To Less Than Significant Finally, there is no evidence proposed traffic mitigation measures are feasible. (See Exhibit A.) According to the traffic study, the Project will add traffic through the intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, which will operate at Level of Service F in the p.m. peak hour under future base conditions. The traffic study indicates that significant improvements, including triple left turn lanes in both the northbound and the westbound directions, are needed for this intersection to operate at an acceptable Level of Service D. However, according to Tom Brohard, these radical measures have historically been used at only a few locations in highly urbanized California and on the Las Vegas Strip where intersections are spaced further' apart to accommodate the weaving movements that occur downstream from the triple left turns. (Id.) Since the traffic studies do not indicate whether there is sufficient spacing for this measure, no substantial evidence exists that the measure is feasible. There is also no evidence proposed traffic mitigation measures will reduce impacts to ]ess than significant. According to the City, the proposed project should pay "fees related to a portion of the cost of the extension of St. Patrick Way from 1519-008a ,- March 4, 2004 Page 14 Golden Gate Drive to Regional Street and also dedicate land for the alignment of the roadway." (ISND, p. 26.) However, as set forth above and by Tom Brohard, the amount of fees will increase when the actual number of daily project trips is recalculated. (Id.) Other financial contributions toward needed future projects, such as the required triple ]eft turn lanes and other necessary significant improvements at Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard must be required. Without this information, there is no evidence that the project's impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level. Similarly, there is no evidence that parking mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant. According to the ISND, a parking management plan must be prepared to mitigate parking impacts. Until this plan is prepared and circulated to the public, there is no evidence that the plan will effectively reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the plan must be included in a draft EIR, which must be prepared for the Project. Finally, there is no evidence that traffic mitigation measures are fully enforceable. While the traffic study recommends major improvements at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, no programming of funds or timetable for construction are presented to make sure they will be in place in a timely' manner. The costs and scheduling of necessary improvements together with calculations of the developer's fair share contributions to other intersection and roadway improvements need to be made, and a timetable developed for their implementation. Thus, as proposed, there is a fair argument based on substantial evidence in the record that significant traffic impacts remain unmitigated. As discussed in the comments above, mitigation measures exist to reduce many of the Project's significant impacts. These mitigation measures are feasible, and in some cases required by regulatory agencies. An EIR must be prepared to consider and impose these feasible mitigation measures. 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 15 G. The Project Will Have Significant Unmitigated Air Quality and Public Health Impacts 1. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Significant Construction Air Quality Impacts. The ISND admits that the project's "construction impacts.., could result in exceedance of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District" (ISND p. 20) However, the document concludes that mitigation measures listed in the conditions of approval for the vesting tentative tract map for the project will reduce construction impacts to less than significant levels. (Id.) None of these measures are listed in the ISND for the Project. In the City's response to comments, the City lists some of the measures that would address fugitive dust, but no measures are required to mitigate significant air quality impacts from diesel exhaust during construction. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines state: ~ "[a]lthough the impacts from construction related air pollutant ~ emissions are temporary in duration, such emissions can still represent a significant air quality impact. In some cases, construction impacts may represent the largest air quality impact associated with a proposed ._ project... Emissions from construction equipment engines also can contribute to high localized concentrations of PMl O, as well as increased emissions of ozone precursors and carbon dioxide., (Id., p. 52) The ISND fails to include any "quantification of emissions" whatsoever. There is absolutely no attempt to quantify the particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, or other emissions that will result from construction equipment and earth moving during construction. Instead, the ISND merely makes a conclusory statement that with the implementation of mitigation measures, construction emissions will become less than significant. (ISND, p. 20) However, without any quantification of construction emissions at all, it is impossible to determine that the mitigation measures proposed reduce those unknown impacts to insignificance. 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 16 The ISND's analysis is patently inadequate. The ISND must not only identify the impacts, but must also provide "information about how adverse the impacts will be." (Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange, 118 Cal. App.3d 818, 831 (1981).) The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial e-~idence justifying the finding. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of I-tanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (1990); Sundstrum, supra.) The ISND makes absolutely no attempt to describe "how adverse" construction impacts will be. In the absence of such an analysis, there can be no assurance that the mitigation measures will reduce construction impacts to a level of insignificance. As explained in the attached comments from Schuyler Fishman, M.S. (Exhibit C), both the exhaust from construction equipment used to build the Project and fugitive dust emissions from Project construction will cause significant, unmitigated impacts to air quality and public health. To address the ISND's deficient analysis, we estimated diesel emissions from the Project and found that ROG, NOx, and CO emissions from construction exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD") threshold of 80 lbs/day. (Id.) Project emissions exceed both the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District ("SMAQMD") thresholds for NOx and ROG and South Coast significance (85 lb/day) Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") construction emission significance thresholds of 75 lb/day for ROG, and 100 lbs/day for NOx. Therefore, these impacts are significant and must be mitigated. Moreover, both NOx and ROG are ozone precursors and would form ozone downwind of the Project site. The Bay Area currently exceeds state ozone standards. By contributing to this existing significant problem, the Project would cause a significant ozone impact as well. The City of Dublin failed to quantify these emissions in the ISND. 2, Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The City Failed To Mitigate Significant Construction Air Quality Impacts A mitigated negative declaration may only be adopted if all significant impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b).) As discussed herein, the Project will have numerous significant impacts that are not mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, the use of the mitigated negative declaration is legally improper and an EIR is required. 1519-008a March '4, 2004 page 17 CEQA requires the City to adopt feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen or avoid the Project's potentially Significant environmental impacts (PUb. Res. COde §§ 21002, 2i081(a)) and describe those mitigation measures in the ISND. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4.) A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 CaI.App.3d 692. 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation measure because no record evidence existed that replacement water was available).) "Feasible'' means capable of being acComplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social .and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) Mitigation measures must be fully 'enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments. (Id. at § 15126,4(a)(2).) The City failed to specifY and determine whether any mitigation measures will reduce the impacts from diesel exhaust emissions to less than significant. In faCt, the only source of air qUalitY mitigation proposed in the ISND are the measures listed in Table 2 of the BAAQMD CEQA guidelines, and none of these measures address emiSsions from construction equipment exhaust. These emissions, as demonstrated in Exhibit C, exceed relevant thresholds and require all feasible construction mitigation. Finally, there are many feasible mitigation measures fOr these emissions, which are presented in Exhibit C, and which must be required of the prOposed Project. In sum, bOth the eXhaUSt from cOnstruction equipment used to build the Project and fugitive dUst emissions from Project ConstructiOn will Cause significant, unmitigated impacts to air quality and public health. Thus, the City must set aside the ISND and prepare an EIR to analyze these impacts and impose feasible mitigation. 3. sUbStantial EVidence SUpports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Significant And Unmitigated Operational Air Quality Impacts. The ISND states that operational and area source emissions "would not exceed regional air quality standards or thresholds." (ISND, p. 20.) However, the ISND does not quantify operational impacts for this project. The ISND merely claims that the project will result in a "net reduction in regional emissions." (Id.) 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 18 The logic of this statement is faulty, as explained in Exhibit C. Any additional housing units in the Bay Area will result in an increase in emissions. As demonstrated in Exhibit C, this development will have a significant impact - even with the mitigation measures built into a transit-oriented development. As explained by Ms. Fishman, M.S., the Project would cause an increase in air quality emissions from several sources once constructed and occupied. Those sources include increased vehicular emissions, street sweeping, garbage pick-up, landsCape maintenance, and more. To address the ISND's deficient analysis, we estimated the emissions from these sources. The results show that the emissions of ROG, NOx and CO from Project operation are significant and must be mitigated. (Exhibit C.) The legal standards for requiring mitigation are described above. We provide numerous examPles of feasible mitigation measUres that can be incorpOrated in the Project to reduce operational air quality impacts in this case. (Id.) The Project, at a minimum, must include all feasible area mitigation measures as listed in EXhibit C. In sum, operation of the Project will cause significant, unmitigated impacts to air quality and public health. The ISND fails to address or sufficiently mitigate these impacts as required by CEQA. 4. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The ProjeCt Will ReSUlt In significant Cumulative Air Impacts. The City's cumulative impact analysis is patently inadequate. First, the ISND fails to compare the future projected emissions with the existing environmental air quality baseline, as required by CEQA. Second, the ISND fails to include a "quantitative" cumulative analysis of the Project together with past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects, as required by the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines when the City's General Plan is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan. ! ~ 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 19 a. Failure t° evaluate cumulative traffic impacts compared to existing environmental traffic baseline The ISND compares the projected future emissions with the Project compared to the future projected emissions without the Project. The City's analysis is improper. The ISND concludes that becauSe the project is located near BART, more people will take public transportatiOn, and the Project will result "in a net reduction in cumulative regional emissions." (ISND p. 20.) However, this analySis turns the concept of cumulative impacts on its head. The baseline environmental setting for CEQA review is always the exiSting environment - not a hypothetical environmental setting that might possibly exist in the future. A draft EIR "must include a description of the environment in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the commencement of the project, from both a local and a regional perspective." (CEQA Guidelines § 15125; see also Environmental Planning and Info. Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354 (1982); Friends o£ Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 874.) Rather than using the aCtual environment as the baseline, the ISND uses a hypothetical environment that might exist in the future without the Project as the baseline. CEQA prohibits this type of conjecture. In addition to describing the environmental baseline incorrectly, the City conducts the cumulative impact analysis incorrectly. CEQA section 21083 requires that the cumulative impact analysis consider the Project together "with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." "Cumulative impacts" are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(a).) "[I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(a),) The importance of an adequate cumulative impacts analysis was recently reaffirmed in Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) ("CBE v. CRA") 103 Cai.App.4t~ at 116, Where the court stated: Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that 1519-008a ' March 4, 2004 Page 20 environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact. In this case the May 22, 2002 Omni-Means traffic analysis identifies no fewer than twelve projects that are currently approved and pending, including thousands of housing units, commercial development and numerous other projects. (ISND May 22, 2002 Omni-Means Traffic Analysis, pp. 23-24) However, there are literally thousands of other residential and commercial developments currently underway or planned for the City of Dublin. The cumulative impacts from these Projects will clearly exceed significance thresholds when compared to the proper current actual baseline levels. By adding 308 residential units, an office building, a hotel and commercial space to the site, the Project will clearly increase air pollution impacts from the current baseline levels. The ISND's conclusion that the cumulative impacts of the Project will be negative is simply untenable. Clearly, the cumulative impacts of these projects will be highly significant in terms of air quality, water quality, traffic and other impacts. The City must prepare an EIR to analyze and mitigate these cumulative impacts. b. Failure to conduct a quantitative cumulative analysis, required by the as BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines The ISND claims that because the Project is included in the City's General Plan and consistent with Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG") population projections, its air quality impacts are less than significant. (ISND, p. 20.) According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, "cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan," the 2001 Clean Air Plan ("CAP").i If the general plan is not consistent with the CAP, then the cumulative impact analysis should consider all the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The CEQA guidelines also state that if the Project's impact is individually significant, as determined above, then the project would also be determined to have a significant cumulative impact. ~ Bay Area Air Quahty Management District ("BAAQMD"), BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996, Revised December 1999 ("BAAQMD 12/99"), p. 19. :t~_9-oo8~ March 4, 2004 Page 22 cumulative heat island impact from the large number of other developments in the area. Nevertheless, the Project's heat island impacts are ignored entirely in the ISND. There are numerous feasible measures to reduce the Project's heat island impacts. These measures include the use of light-colored paving such as concrete rather than asphalt, use of light-colored roofing materials, and other measures. These feasible mitigation measures should be considered in an EIR. 6. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Significant Diesel Exhaust Impacts. According to Dr. Petra Pless and Dr. Phyllis Fox, both experts in air quality and health risk assessments, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant unmitigated public health impacts. (Exhibit D.) In the City's responses to comments, the City does not dispute and does not assess the significant public health impacts raised herein and in the attached comments from Dr. Pless and Dr. Fox. Interstate 580 has an annual average daily traffic volume ("AADT") of 188,000, counted at the 1-580/I-680 interchange, of which 6.8% or 12,728 are trucks. (CalTrans5, 12/00, p. 336.) The CalTrans data indicate that 65% or 8,220 of these trucks are heavy-heavy-duty five-axle trucks, which have the highest diesel exhaust emissions. In addition, Dub]in Boulevard, a major east-west arterial with six lanes, would run along the northern end of the Project site and would additionally carry diesel-fueled vehicles. The ISND indicates that 308 multi-family residential units and a 150,000- square feet office building would be located between 1-580 to the south and Dublin Boulevard to the north. The office building would be immediately adjacent to the north lane of 1-580. All of the buildings, including the multi-family residential units, would be within less than half a mile of 1-580 and 1-680. (ISND, Exhibits 1 through 4.) Because of the location, one can reasonably anticipate very high concentrations of diesel exhaust at the Project site resulting in significant health s State of California, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation, 2001 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, Compiled by Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems, December 2002. 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 23 impacts to residents and workers. However, the ISND did not recognize the public health impacts of locating residential and commercial uses near these roadways. The ISND claims that "[als the development of the BART transit facility and housing units in the vicinity of the station would actually reduce cumulative regional emissions and reduce the number of vehicles on the area roadways, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations." (ISND, p. 20.) Dr. Pless points out that this statement is invalid and incorrect for two reasons. First, this conclusion is not supported by any quantitative analysis. The CEQA documents that the ISND allegedly relies upon does not contain any ambient air quality modeling for the operational phase of the Project nor do they contain a health risk assessment regarding the impacts of diesel exhaust particulate matter on residents and workers at the Project site. Thus, no substantial evidence exists to support the City's claim that site-specific impacts are not significant. Second, while the existence of public transportation facilities might reduce personal vehicle trips and thus total vehicle traffic counts on nearby roadways, if such a facility is built, it will not reduce the number of trucks on these roadways. Trucks are the chief contributor to vehicle exhaust particulate matter. Diesel exhaust has been identified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant and is identified by the State as a known human carcinogen. Studies have demonstrated that children living near major roadways are exposed to high levels of diesel exhaust and have poorer lung function than children living in cleaner areas6. Diesel exhaust has been officially recognized by the State of California 'as a chemical that causes cancer in humans since October 19907. On August 27, 1998, after extensive scientific review and public hearing, the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") formally identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant ("TAC"). Diesel exhaust is a serious public health concern. It has been linked to a range of serious health problems including an increase in respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. Fine diesel particles are deposited deep in the lungs and can result in increased respiratory symptoms and disease; decreased lung function, particularly in children e Pekkanen, et al., Effects of ultrafine and fine particles in urban air on peak expiratory flow among children with asthmatic symptoms. Environ. Res (1997) 74(1):24-33 ? California Environmental Protection Agency, Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity (Exhibit 5 to Fox Comments). 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 24 and individuals with asthma; alterations in lung tissue and respiratory tract defense mechanisms; and premature death. (CARB 6/98.s) CEQA requires analysis not only of direct impacts of the Project, but also indirect impacts resulting from the placement of sensitive receptors near hazardous conditions. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") modified its CEQA Guidelines in December 1999 (BAAQMD 12/99) to acknowledge the impact of diesel exhaust. These Guidelines (p. 47) state with respect to diesel exhaust that: Because of the potential public health impacts, however, the District strongly encourages Lead Agencies to consider the issue and address potential impacts based on the best information available at the time the analysis is prepared. Particular attention should be paid to projects that might result in sensitive receptors being exposed to high levels of diesel exhaust. This applies to situations where a new or modified source of emissions is proposed near existing receptors and to new receptors locating near an existing source. The Project involves the placement of new receptors (residential and office units) next to an existing source of diesel exhaust (the 1-580 freeway). However, the ISND fails entirely to analyze this significant impact. Dr. Fox and Dr. Pless prepared a health risk assessment to determine the incremental increase in cancer risk from diesel exhaust that would result from living and working at facilities provided by the Project. This analysis used standard risk assessment procedures and default exposure assumptions outlined in guidance provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB 10/02), the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA") (CAPCOA 10/939), the s California Air Resources Board (CARB), Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Identification of Diesel ExhaUSt aS a Toxic Air c~nta~nant., staff Report, JUne 1998. s California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ("CAPCOA"), Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, OCtober 1993. March 4, 2004 page ,,5o Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC') (I)TSC 07/92~0), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") (U.S EPA 12/89;n U.S EPA 6/9522). Dr. Fox and Ms. Pless estimate the increase in cancer risk for two cases: (1) a resident of the multi-family units and (2) a worker at the commercial and retail development. The health risk assessment indicates that diesel exhaust from 1-580 would increase' the cancer risk to children in the multi-family units by 102 in one million, to adult residents by 341 in one million, and to a worker in the retail and commercial developments by 52 in one million. (Exhibit D, Tables I and 2.) These risk levels exceed the District's significance threshold for toxic air contaminants of ten in one million by up to 34 times (BAAQMD 12/99, p. 18) and are significant. (Id.) Actual impacts would likely be much higher. (Id.) Dr. Fox and Dr. Pless based their assessment on data from 1-15, which has a daily truck count of 6,170, about half of the trucks counted on 1-580, i.e. 12,728 trucks per day. (Id.) In addition, their estimates only include diesel exhaust from 1-580. Diesel vehicles that use other roadways, including the six-lane Dublin Boulevard, which would run immediately ro the north of the development, would increase these risks. The estimates also do not consider any future increase in truck traffic along 1-580. (Id.) In addition, the average diesel concentration (1.13 ~g/ms) used in the analysis is a 24-hour average and includes the evening hours when concentrations are low. (Id.) Workers would only be present roughly between 7 AM to 5 PM, when the diesel exhaust emissions are highest. Finally, the risk assessments used actual exposure times instead of a lifetime exposure duration. If a lifetime exposure duration were used in the risk calculations, the cancer risks would be substantially higher, increasing to 1193 in one million for child residents and to 91 in one million for commercial workers this is up to 119 times higher than the BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold of ten in a million. (Id.) l0 Department of Toxic Substances Control, Supplemental Guidance for Human Health Multimedia Risk Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities, July 1992. n U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final, Report EPA/540/1-89/002, December 1989. ~ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Exposure Factors Handbook, Report EPA/600/P-95/002A, June 1995. 1519-0O8a March 4, 2004 page 26 As Set forth in Exhibit D, there are manY feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the Project's potentially significant health impact. (Id.) These impacts can be mitigated by locating people outside of the hazard zone, where impacts are signifiCant, by including a buffer or setbaCk from 1-580. These impacts can also be mitigated by designing buildings to maintain indoor air concentrations · below levels of concern. Limiting indoor concentrations of diesel exhaust could be accomPliShed by minimizing outdoor air infiltration, limiting building ventilation rates to the minimum required for comfortable habitation, and using air cleaning devices. Windows could be designed to remain permanently closed, and all doors cOUld be designed to automatically close. The Project could also incorporate box and bag filters, high-efficiency particulate air ("HEPA") filters, and ultra-low particulate air ("ULPA") filters. Clearly, an EIR is required to analyze these public health impacts and to propose mitigation measures. H. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Impacts On Public Services The ISND's discussion and analysis of the Project's impacts on public services is inadequate. Substantial evidence shows that the Project will result in a significant adverse impact on water, sewer and storm drain services. Therefore, the CitY must PrePare an EIR that evaluates these impacts and proposes feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less than significant. First, the City provides no evidence that adequate sewer service is available for the proposed Project. According to the Dublin San Ramon'Services District, "the existing sewer main behind Orchard Supply...is at capacity and cannot take additional sewer discharges fr°m any expanded use development project without upsizing the pipes..." (See Exhibit E, pp. 7-8, citing Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District to Ronnie Warner of Orix Real Estate Equities (September 23, 2003); see also Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District to Legacy Partners concerning 6700 Golden Gate Drive (August 27, 2003). The City must evaluate the Project's impact on existing sewer services and circulate this information to the public and decisionmakers in an EIR before Project review and approval. Second, the City provides no evidence that adequate water service is available for the proposed Project. According to the Dublin San Ramon Services 1519-008a · March 4, 2004 Page 27 District, "The existing water lines in this area may also need to be extended or upsized..." (See Exhibit 2, pp. 7-8, citing Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District to Ronnie Warner of Orix Real Estate Equities (September 23, 2003); see also, Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District to Legacy Partners concerning 6700 Golden Gate Drive (August 27, 2003).) The ISND also mentions - without conducting any analysis of Project or growth inducing impacts - that a new water service line may be needed. (ISND, p. 3.) Clearly, the ISND is inadequate. Finally, the ISND includes no information as to adequacy of the storm drainage system to convey or treat contaminated storm water or ground water pumped from the underground garage and no information as to whether sufficient treatment capacity is ~vailable for the additional wastewater from these projects. The City must prepare an EIR to evaluate the Project's impacts On the public water supply and sewer and storm drain system. The City must also prepare an EIR to evaluate the Project's impacts on fire protection, police services, schools and other public services. This analysis has not been conducted to date. The Project will certainly create new demand for fire protection, police services, schools, and other public services. The ISND fails to analyze these impacts entirely. There is at least a "fair argument" that the Project's impacts on public services will be significant, particularly when the cumulative impacts are considered together with the thousands of new housing units planned for the City. An EIR should be prepared to analyze these impacts and propose mitigation. I. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Result In Significant Impacts On Water Quality 1. The Project May Cause Hazardous Chemicals To Leach From Soil and Groundwater At the Project Site Into Surface Waters Richard Rollins, P.E., of the Watershed Advisory Group, analyzed the Project and concluded that there is more than a "fair argument" that the Project may cause significant contamination of local surface and ground waters. (See, Exhibit E.) According to the Versar Inc. November 8, 2000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ("Phase I ESA"), the Project site has historically been used for agricultural fields and commercial or light industrial purposes. A 10,000-gallon diesel underground storage tank and a 3,500-gallon gasoline underground storage 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 28 tank formerly existed at the site. Numerous gasoline spills of unspecified status ; occurred on surrounding properties and MTBE contamination is present. (Phase I ESA, pp. 13-14.) The ISND discoUnts the likelihood that 11 environmental releases within 0.5 mile of the site will affect site groundwater during construction and once the below ground garage is completed. According to Mr. Rollins, the Phase I ESA and the ISND provide no reliable evidence upon which to base these conclusions. The November 2000 Draft SUpplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project prepared by EDAW ("BART EIR") indicates that groundwater occurs at depths as shallow as 8 feet. (See, Exhibit E.) The BART EIR also states that "groundwater flows within the Dublin/Pleasanton area have been in a south to southwest direction, although a review of some groundwater reports indicates a flow to the east (Bechtel Environmental, Inc. 1990)." (Id.) The BART EIR indiCates over 60 occurrences of hazardous materials releases are within 1.25 miles of the proposed BART Station and Transit Village. (See, Exhibit E, citing BART EIR, pp. 4.7-1-10.) According t© the BART EIR's recommendation for Phase. 2 Site Assessments, the Project site requires additional evaluation and monitoring. (Id.) The City conducted no analysis to determine the location or direction of groundwater flow at the Project site. Thus, further evaluation is necessary in order to determine the existing environment and assess the impacts based on that information. 2. The City Failed To Assess Significant Impacts On Groundwater and Soils According to Mr. Rollins, P.E., significant impacts are likely to occur during Construction and operation of the Project that must be assessed in an EIR. There are several lines of evidence that support this conclusion. First, the Project's proposal to develop underground parking requires a site- specific hydrological report and further analysis in an EIR, which is circulated to the public and decisionmakers for review. (ISND, pp. 2 and 5.) The City's senior planner, Janet Harbin, has specifically stated: "[i]n the event that subsurface excavation is proposed, adopted City standards require that specific development projects, such as those requiring underground parking structures, prepare a site-specific 1519]008a March 4, 2004 Page 29 ' hydrOlOgical analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis to c~etermine groundwater levels..." (Revised Draft Negative Declaration for Downtown Specific Plans - Downtown Core Specific Plan, West Dublin Bart Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan, December 14, 2000, pp. 18). As per City standards, the ISND recognizes that a hydrolOgical analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis is required. In fact, the ISND states that water and hydrologic impacts of the Project '~nave been addressed in the hYdr°l°gical report for the project.Pr"°p°sed(see ISND 3, p. 22.) However, this study does not eXist. When asked to proVide the hydrology report referred to on page 22 of the ISND, Ms. Harbin responded as follows: "In preparing the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, I erroneously mentioned that a hydrological report was prepared for the site." (Exhibit F, p. 1.) Thus, the City failed to follow "adoPted City standards" and its own requirement from Previous environmental review documents that a hydrolOgical analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis be performed to determine groundwater levels and impacts. Second, according to Mr. Rollins, once excavation for a below ground garage begins, dewatering will likely be required. (See, Exhibit E.) Once completed, pumping of water from the excavation will likely be needed to maintain the garage in a dry condition. According to Mr. Rollins, in an area with an indeterminate groUndwater flow direction, groundwater may migrate towards the pumping under the garage locally modifying the groundwater flow direction toward the garage. (Id.) This may have the effect of carrying contaminants toward the proposed project and eventually discharging the contaminated groundwater to the storm drainage system. (Id.) This is a potentially significant environmental impact not addressed by the ISND. The City must set aside the ISND and evaluate this issue in an EIR. Third, the City admits in other environmental review documents for related projects that groundwater contamination is a potentially significant impact in this area. According to the Initial Study for West Dublin/P]easanton BART Station and Transit Village prepared by EDAW on April 11, 2000 ("BART IS"), "[s]ubsurface 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 30 excavation of groundwater contaminants could result in the vertical and/or lateral migration of groundwater contaminants as well as expose the public and workers to potential hazards. This is a potentially significant impact...," with similar circumstances, that was addressed in the BART EIR. Fourth, in December 13, 2000 letter to John H. Rennels, Jr. of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Barbara Cook of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control commented on the Supplemental EIR for the West Dublin Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village that "[w]hile groundwater and soil samPling has been identified as a mitigation measure for this project, without historical information, it is not clear how the appropriate chemical analyses and sample locations will be selected, or whether residential land use is appropriate for the property." (Exhibit E (emphasis added).) This question is not considered in the ISND and should be addressed in an EIR. In sum, the City failed to conduct any reliable analysis of groundwater at the Project site before reviewing the proposal for underground parking. This analysis must be conducted and circulated to the public for review. The City must set aside the ISND, conduCt the required studies and assess the potentially significant water quality impacts in an EIR. a. Pollution from new construction related activity The ISND admits that "construction activities and operation site uses associated with the project could result in degradation of water quality in nearby surface Water and reServoirs by reduCing the quality of stormwater runoff." (ISND p. 23) As mitigation, the ISND states that a storm water pollution prevention plan ("SWPPP") will be prepared for the Project. (Id.) This is inadequate mitigation for several reasons. The SWpPP should be incorporated in the ISND so that the public can review it for adequacy. CEQA disallows deferring the formulation of mitigation measures to post-apprOval studies. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.ApP.3d 296, 308-309.) An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses '"meaningful information' reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance" (Sundstrom at - 308; see also Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-29 (mitigation measures may be deferred only "for kinds 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 31 of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible").) A lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved; an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hani~ord (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation because there was no evidence that replacement water was available).) This approach helps "insure the integrity of the process of decisionmaking by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug." (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935.) Moreover, by deferring the development of specific mitigation measures, the Applicant has effectively precluded public input into the development of those measures. CEQA prohibits this approach. As explained by the Sundstrom court: An EIR ... [is] subject to review by the public and interested agencies. This requirement of "public and agency review" has been called "the strongest assurance of the adequacy of the EIR." The final EIR must respond with specificity to the "significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process."... Here, the hydrological studies envisioned by the use permit would be exempt from this process of public and governmental scrutiny. (Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 308.) The ISND states that a SWPP will be developed at a later time. The Regional Water Board does not review SWPPPs for adequacy but only requires that SWPPPs be prepared and kept on site. Thus, this "mitigation measure" in no way ensures that adequate storm water measures will be adopted or implemented by the Project. Nor does it allow the public to review any storm water plan for adequacy. The applicant should develop an adequate stormwater mitigation plan and submit it for public review through the EIR process to ensure its adequacy. Mr. Rollins concluded that even if the applicant completes a SWPPP for the construction phase of the Project, discharges from Project construction activity may exceed limits established in the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan by 4 to 14%. (Exhibit E, p. 5.) Mr. Rollins prepared the following table based on several studies analyzing construction runoff emissions. The applicable San Francisco Basin Plan Limits for each parameter are indicated in the BP Limits column. The mean is an average of 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 32 · sampling results from 15 highway construction sites throUghout California from 1998 to 2000. The Mean/BPLim column indicates the ratio of the mean of the discharge concentrations divided by the allowable BP limit. Table 1: Statistical Summary of Construction Site Storm Water Mean BP Limits Mean/BPLim Constituent Units Minimum Maximum (b) (a) (c) Copper Total ug/L 3.8 128 32.07 6.5 4.9 Lead Total ug/L 1 291 44.35 3.2 13.9 Zinc Total ug/L 6.9 609 140.86 23 6.1 Diazinon (d) ug/L 0.02 2.4 0.41 0.1 4.1 a) Applicable Basin Plan Limits b) A value equal to one half of reporting limit was used when reported as non-detect c) Ratio of Mean to Allowable Basin Plan Levels d) Diazinon Limit from USEPA Draft Ambient Water Quality Limit for Diazinon, Aug. 2000 BaSed on these facts, Mr. Rollins concludes that even if a construction SWPP is prepared for the Project, stormwater runoff pollution from the Project may still be a signifiCant adverse environmental impact, as such runoff may exceed applicable significant levels. (See, Exhibit E, p. 5.) In addition, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board has recently proposed implementing California Toxics Rule (CTR) limits for many of the pollutants in San Francisco Bay. This inclusion of CTR limits in the Basin Plan may occur before occupancy of this project and the new limits should be taken into account in the determination of any potential environmental impact. Finally, Alameda Creek and South San Francisco Bay are both impaired for diazinon, which is commonly found in construction site discharges. This Project will discharge through the storm drainage system to Dublin Creek or other tributaries to Alameda Creek. Contributing to further impairment of receiving waters is specifically prohibited by the California Construction Storm Water Discharge Permit. This Project has not proposed mitigation or monitoring to verify that this provision of the Permit is not violated. Mr. Rollins provides substantial evidence that measures discussed in the ISND do not mitigate impacts from the types of pollutants likely to be present at 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 33 this si~e' ~ , · Specifically, the ISND s proposed mitigation measures, which are already required by the State Water Resources Control Board's General Construction Storm Water Permit, do not address any measures to minimize and mitigate release of historical industrial pOllutants that may be present at the site and would likely be released by the Project to the storm drain system, Alameda Creek, and ultimately South San Francisco Bay. (See, Exhibit E, p. 7.) Further, the ISND proposes no mitigation for significant water quality impacts from additional vehiCle trips Per day, increased use of pesticides on landscaping, or contamination that is likely to be present in groundwater discharged from dewatering pumps in the below grade parking structure. (See Id.) As indicated above, these are all significant impacts attributable to this project Which should be evaluated through the EiR process. According to Mr. Rollins, a variety of mitigation measures exist for such impacts, including sand filtration, constructed wetland filtering, and Other measures. The City must also require a mitigation measure implementation and monitoring plan. Mr. Rollins states that the current standard for design of a greenfield or urbanized site is the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan ("SUSMP") For Los Angeles County and Cities in Los Angeles County, recently ad°pted by the L°s Angeles Regional Water QUality Control Board. The SUSMP requires infiltration or treatment of 80 percent of annual runoff plus a maximum Peak runoff flow rates plus specific design requirements for categories of occupancy such as restaurants, commercial, parking, etc. This is a feasible mitigation measure that must be required for the Project. The ISND contains absolutely no mitigation for post-construction run-off pollution. The SWPPP applies only to the construction phase of the Project. The ISND Proposes no mitigation at all for the operational phase of the Project. Thus, the City should prepare an EIR to develop mitigation measures for the operation run-off impacts of the Project. Thus, an EIR should be Prepared to analyze the water quality impacts from new construction related activity and to propose additional feasible mitigation measures. March 4, 2004 Page 34 b. The Project May Cause Significant Water Quality Impacts During Operation Mr. Rollins concluded that polluted runoff from pesticides and increased traffic during operation of the Project would result in a significant adverse impact on water quality. Specifically, approximately 32% of the Project site would be landscaped area where pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers would routinely be applied to maintain the landscape vegetation. The ISND failed to acknowledge that these constituents would be present in storm water runoff from the site, even though they are a cause of water quality problems in the impaired downstream receiving waters,, including Alameda Creek and the South San Francisco Bay. (See Exhibit E, pp. 5-6.) Mr. Rollins concludes that the increase in pollution would result in a significant adverse water quality impact that should be evaluated and mitigated in an EIR. With respect to polluted runoff from increased traffic during operation of the Project, Mr. Rollins prepared the following table based on several studies analyzing highway runoff. The applicable San Francisco Basin Plan Limits for each parameter are indicated in the BP Limits column. Based on studies performed by Caltrans that indicate higher pollutant concentrations in runoff for projects that have higher average daily traffic (Exhibit E, p. 6, citing Kayhanian et al.,~3 p. 15 and Caltrans Paper 01-3181,~4 Table 3), the mean concentrations of copper, nickel, zinc and Diazinon detected in storm water runoff from California highways, for example, are from 6 to 37 times greater than the BP ambient water quality objectives. ~3 M. Kayhanian, A. Singh, C. Suverkropp, and S. Borroum, The Impact of Annual Average Daily Traffic on Highway Runoff Pollutant Concentrations. ~4 "Characteristi cs of Stormwater Runoff From Highway Construction Sites in California," Transportation Research Record 1743, Paper No. 01-3181, National Academy Press Masoud Kayhanian, Ca]trans/UCD Environmental Program, Kevin Murphy, Caltrans/CSUS Storm Water Program, Louis Regenmorter, Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., Richard Hailer, Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. ("Caltrans Paper 01-3181, Table 3'~. 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 35 Summary of CalTrans Highway (1997-1999) Table 2: Statistical Run°ff Mean BP Limits Mean/BPLim Constituent Units Minimum Maximum (b) (a) (c) Copper Total ug/L 2.1 770 50.25 6.5 7.7 Lead Total ug/L 1.1 1530 120.83 3.2 37.8 Zinc Total ug/L 11 2400 231.99 23 10.1 Diazinon (d) ug/L 0.04 2.4 0.65 0.1 6.5 a) Applicable Basin Plan Limits b) A value equal to one half of reporting limit was used when reported as non-detect c) Ratio of Mean to Allowable Ba sin Plan Level d) Diazinon Limit from USEPA Draft Ambient Water Quality Limit for Diazinon, Aug. 2000 Mr. Rollins concluded that the increased pollution from the Project's storm water runoff from roadways may result in significant impacts to receiving waters and potentially contribute to the further impairment of Alameda Creek and South San Francisco Bay. This ISND does not account for the cumulative impact of these pollutants. Thus, storm water pollution from roadways impacted by the Project and cumulative impacts are significant unmitigated adverse environmental impacts that should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be developed. III. THE CITY FAILED TO PROVIDE NOTICE THROUGH THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND FAILED TO PROVIDE THE REQUISITE 30- DAY COMMENT PERIOD FOR DOCUMENTS POSTED AT THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE CEQA requires a lead agency to submit proposed negative declarations to the State Clearinghouse any time a state agency is "a responsible agency or a trustee agency or will exercise jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project." (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15073(d), 15205.) This requirement insures that all state agencies with responsibility over and concerned with the projec[ will be consulted. (CEQA Guidelines § 15205.) In this case, the ISND recognizes that the Regional Water Quality Control Board qualifies as responsible and/or trustee agencies triggering the duty to submit the ISND to the State Clearinghouse. The Regional Board is both a responsible 1519-008a March 4, 2004 Page 36 agency and a trustee agency, responsible agency typically A has permitting authority or approval over some aspect of the overall project for which a lead agency is conducting CEQA review. The Regional Board is a "responsible" agency with respect to this project because it has permitting authority over the SWPPP required by the City as one of the mitigation measures to reduce hydrology and water quality impacts. A trustee agency is an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project, which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. In addition to being a responsible agency due to its permitting authority over the required SWPPP, the Regional Board is also a trustee agency due to the fact that it has jurisdiction over water quality and the beneficial uses of waters of the state, both of which are potentially affected by this Project. By failing to submit the ISND to the S~a~e C~earmghou~e, the City violated a critical CEQA procedural requirement intended not only to alert concerned responsible and trustee agencies projects are proposed, when relevant but to assist the City in complying with CEQA by ensuring other State agencies with specific expertise are consulted in the CEQA process. IV. CONCLUSION A negative declaration is not appropriate since substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that the Project may have significant adverse environmental impacts which have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Considerable expert opinion, admissions in the ISND, and other credible evidence demonstrates that the proposed Project is likely to cause significant impacts that must be analyzed in an EIR. We urge the City to fulfill its responsibilities under CEQA, prepare an EIR for the Project and circulate the document to the public for review and comment. In this way, the City and the public can ensure that all adverse impacts of the Project are mitigated to the full extent feasible and required by law. Sincerely, Tanya ~. Gulesserian TAG:bh Attachments 1519-008a I I I I I I I I I I November 26,2003... qq, - 6J ' ,? ?;~ ' J B. 'm d d '~ ' I I 'om ro ': . 8fl : '&SOCia 'IS I I I Ii I I Ms. Tanya Gulesserian, Attorney at Law , Adams .Broadwell Joseph & Gardozo 651 'Gateway Boulevard, Suite 900 " South SanFrancisco,Californfa94D80 SUBJECT: West Dublin Transit Vill~ge Project Environmental Initial Study- Traffic Comments . . . . , .. I I I Dear Ms. Gulesserian: TomBrohard,PE,has conducted a preliminary review otvariousreports and documents associated withtheproposed,West Dublin Transit Village Project in the City of Dublin. These include, but are not limited to, the November6, 2003 'Environmental Initial Study prepared by the City of Dublin"the May22, 2002 Final Report .of Transportation and Parking Impacts forthe:Proposed Dubl.in Transit Village prepared by Omni~Means, and the May 14, 2003 Focused Trip ~Qnor~tir\n '^na!i/c,-j clP arlrinnl Ip'd~t' e fnr tho' Prnnnsonn"hl in' T r!:ln. . cif\ /'11!'ari~dso 'J.""'I I,"" .....'':''~I.,./~~-_IJ ....7I~I,.. , '~,'" " ~".,. _ .c...t. _. .:".'\"#1 . ","I""'" I,~~"-' ,....,,~'-'~-U:.....IIII.J\.ol .W"L'V:.I . ,t::f""'.:....... _,', .' prepared by'OmnbMeans.ln addition to our preliminary com ITl ents outlined in . this. letter ,from the review of these. documents, we will'also'review..various.,other documents cited in .the Environmental Initial Study and providesupplernental' cOrnmentsprior tbtheproject publichearjng. now schedulediri.January2004.' . . .\ " . ._,.' , :,' ., ....: -', -,- ;'.In . summary; the City;has not conducted an . appropriate traffic and oirculation analysis of the West . Dublin '. . Transit '. ViIlageProjecLWithoutfurther . study ,to . address. . the ..inadequate '.analysis .and.~ubstantialevidence ,'of'significcmttraffic impacts,as\discussed,;beldw,lt,isnof' possible toconcludeJhattheproposed '. project's. traffic 'jmpactshavea; less than significant.. effect on the .' environrnent . with.'. mitigation. The traffic study .mustbe corrected :and a Draft. EIR for the. project musfbepreparedand cir.culatedJor public review. . . , . . Education ;cmdExperience s'incereceivingaBachetorof Science in Engineeringfrom DLikeUniversityin Durham,:NorthCarolinain1969" ';1 ,have gained over 34 years of professional . engineering experience,.all of which has. occurred.' in California. ',1 am licensed as . b()th.aProfessional GivilEngineerandas a Professional Traffic Engineer in California. Jformed Tom Brohardand Associates in 2000 and now serve "on call" as . Consulting . Transportation Engineer for the Gitjes of' Huntington .Beach, San Fernando, and Santa Ana. . I have extensive experience in traffic engineering and transportation planning; , During myoareer .inboththe public arid private sectors, I served as City Traffic Engineer for the' Cities of Bellflower,' Hell Gardens, Huntington Beach, , Lawndale, 8346 Delgm!)'Avenue, PlqyaDelR9, CA 90293 (310) 301,7720'" Fax (310) 301c7740 Email tbrohariJ@earthlink.n.et -"..".i.'..' ':,F:'..: :. i:; .:. ,.w-est.Di~biin.T~anSit..viiiagep!;0je~t !ii~itiai.st~ud~: ~:!Traffi.C.::,c~mmehi~s. .:,,. ;; ,. ~:' ...-: :..?:.: ,. :i":,', !.i:;.i..:' '. ;". r"" .'" '"'" .''.~:" '.:O · · ~' . :. '. ' ' ~" :' ....-'." '::~-.. :'..' "~:'.: . ~ "-?:," ,"-' ~ .... :::.'. ,7..'.....'.-.' '.,,.':,' ".: ~ . .'--.., .... . N .vember.26, 2003..,,,.-..: ,:., -. -.~ .- .,,.. :,,.,... ~... : .......,..:... . ........ -. ~,:.. .... ...... ~ .. .... -..... ,.~... · [ .:.;:.; ..'-. -~ :-'::...:..-:..~'~: ?.: ..:,:...-..',......: :~ .:~.:..~:.': .-':.: ': .... .. ;' . :. '. .:- ~ .': ..-;.:~.-"'~ .~ ?.'-,.'.::.': :'.:.' :.. : .. . .: :.L' .'.~ .,, .-, '~..".: ."-.'.~:.::.-'-".;'~' : ~ ."~: '.'"' '- :' :'."; ' - -': ~ ~u~7 a~ume~ 150;.420:s~'ua~e:Teet o~ o~i~ ~P~oe"~a~ 308.~eSMen~ial. :" ·-'.: ~' ~ ::. ' "":" :: :' "....'' '".apa~'m~nt~ :.:it .dO:~-not i~clU~e-~Y t~p~:as.S°~iated' with the ~prop0Se'd ,S~ore '.; ..~..: ...,. :~... · ::~:. ,.~:.;?.: :.~.:..- ..;front:retail .A'~ace.:::The:t~a~c:stUd~".is.'i~COnsis[ent=With'.:the.,ProjeCt~De~Cdptio~: .:-.::-:,. ~ :.' .:: ':::' ' :' ~; ';:~ as"it ignores,all'~ehi~ie' ~iP~':to andfrbm the :~l'~:nnedretail :~ce in,turn, th~s ...... [; '. ;:.'. ?'.,..~"~ .., 7 --:::: :' :' ',undemtates :traffic 'impaCts at ':interse~ions and: on.' ~s~eet ~seg.me:nts that~,.wili'.: '.'-: :';.', ":' .' '; ::~:':: : '1 :l['l; l'l' I :[l:l'~ :l;;ll ';l[' ':'l[I 'l'l;:°Ccur-:.'from..(ve'hicle' ::t~iPs :lth:~t' Wii!lbeg'ene~ated 57'":~he ProPosed ~est' :D~lih";:' :l :' : I I ; ~ { {' ~ "~.:':' ':~'.. ','~.'.?.:.."-",.':: :~'ransit'..VB'age 'p~ojeCt:' T~e':additi°nal ~C .fr0~.~the'~tO~e':f~0:nt.-:,retai! .~paCe ,:;' "..:'.':-:' : -. '.. :, ..-: :- ': :-'.:;. %-. ,.must'.be.determ!ned ;a~d'thetotatpmje~-t~a~c:impac~ mus't~ jden[ised, and:'". ~- t...:': -; ~-.-. .;":::" ':-"'....:~.';".: .;:-.pmperlY~:mitigated~"...~.:"-',;:;. ' ?'~.:,: "? :::':.':.-?::::.'~ ' :, ::,. ~.':::-':':~ .':~:,':,, ".t:..:::.'::t :..', ',;'~. :.'.,.'-.:'..:.:'..::.'. ~':,,,.":-,:;';..,.":':.'..? :', ':':~".:;-'.....:::..: , ". . ..... . . .::... .... : -~ ....... -:-.:.,,.,.....:,:......:..:~. . ~,:.-.:. :?~;'. '.:'... ',,".. .:.:.;. ? .:. .... ., ,._ :......,:,-,. . -- ~:..:,:.. ~.,. ;::::~..... :.?:. :.: ~".:';.. ' ~ --.v .~: ..:.:'.';:~' ;',- 2:..'., ~na~p~O~)~.~{e~.~ip~Red:uc~i~.:We:¢E~:Ya~en:~¢5~.:~ran~if.~;`.~:ab~e~3.~n.:~Page ..1.8.,.~ :: .,~.. ~ ~'?::' ':.::'~;~;' ::;""~: :::::.:'.., :",.:'.'ef':the. MaY..-.22'~2002.tra~c:stud~'~pmyides:t~ip'.genera[io~ ~;the'We:st'~DUb'lin :. ,:,:'.:. ~:.: ::'"':" .... ' :'Tr~"Si-~':':Vi. ll~ge;:'.'? ~bje¢'-:'P~0seS"? at.:.,:that ?'dine:-? :Foo.[~'ote'.'3: indi~teS: a.'~ 'd'57 :'..:..:- i ...... . ,.. ,..,..-...::' pe~cent'.¢educt!OR,:.was aPplied.,,t:0:~o~::.:.tdPs:.gebe~ted by.;:the .:;prOject :. based ..... :.;:;..:.: ..: .... [ "~"'. ": :'.,: '."-'; :'.'::,: .' '::Percent' fedbcti°n':.':Was';'~PPlied.':t6.'~esidential'.:t~iP~ :generated bY::?the'. p:~jea.'..' :~'::...'.. ~: ¢: ..::.:. :v-:::~:...--..;: ~:'::_:..'.:'b~Sed u~On';proximi~:.~o,tbe;p~opo.~d BART,.,:~.~tion. :.~ble :i. atta~e8 :t&,th:e '"::-'::-'::.:':~',' · m.:- '.-..-.., May-'14, 2:0~3t.[affic:::bpdatejSclud~s.t.~bS~,same f~tnetes'~ These reductions:.: :~:.~':'~ ": "" :.;. ~' :.'. · ' , .-:-- ha~e'~n'Ot.'been:' sufipOded by an~ qS'~titati~e:~aia to dScument their use ~' :'.:; ' :.'. ":;.::'.:.:::'..:':.,::,"-:', :Pt°PedY.';'.e~ai'uate;a' reas0~'a~ie' w°rs:t'.~S'e csnditi°n;.that::WOU'l:8 ;O~Cur':.if 't~'.'?..:'~';'--';~':':':~. ':.::-':':'.'" ~" ,',:: .' ::.':....~. ~..?'::.. ,adjacent-BART station s..~ot"¢:8~nSt)dct~d..",Eiimi~ti~g;~ehlole':-t)iP ::[eduotionS ..:., :~ :.:...-,:: ~ ...._,- ...., :fer':;tran~i~,:~oUid.::al~:.:&re&~e;;8on~iAte~6y::'W~t~b:~fhe;pa~in~ _~,a!y~i~,-ti-~.'.b0t-b of :.:,:.;:.-.,:.-..:_.,':...--: ;... :,.-.: .,; :¢..., the,-tra~.C.::.s(bdies::~ich.,:was'dOne-bOth~?With .'~nd:without :the :.adja~e:~t.-BART'? .;: .:.:~ :,. ~'-'- ;.¢,,' ~:::::~ ".':.. :' .;' ~-.. :."" :.: ;:,'". ,:-~::.: ,f~0m :t5e"',P¢oPo~ed'.-,Proje~ ':tsat;'.~i.':'°ccu~ :4f ~th6.':adjace~t: ;BART-S{a6On'.:is.;not:: ',"~,::;: 7":' .-.::.¥', ~. ~: ' :':,'~":.:', .,,':.':'..:. ,: ;'::'-~ :..::'. ;;;built...Using ;:th~s.8.. :~eau~d. tr~:c:.~f6~e~t~.: b~.de)j~t'afes':::ise~,.tr~ffi;c :.i~Pa cts ;o~';~: ?::.~':'.:.: .::::,.-':.,~.:, · ~ :,-." ', :'.;'.'.,"--:-, .'..':: .' t~e..::pr~s~d.' :West .-D Ubli.n'-,,~[ansit":'Mi!lag~.'~p rOject, a.~ :';in(e?~e~.idnS ;'a~d ;-:on.:,:'. ;.-:..:' .:~.:,'. ~ :.::' ;? ;'.:~:;';"~::-:~::'.:..;::' ;; :-,';: ': .':street:'::::seg~'ents:":;.The:, ;.t~:l'-'~;tra~8,.:.;TCe~:~:.,.::t~ ~' :p~e~o~ :": PFo~ec(: ":::.~ ~st. i'b67':':",:;" ',-,' .::.:":: :"'.:" ' :'..::.'.;. f .: '~-:::: ;::".:?: '~' :',:.:"~:;:; :,~;:.; ~e~l~uls. tedand.'!h.8..'.~SFscia~ed :~9jeCt"~tEa~'c :i'~a'~t~'..~ust:'be~ id~dtifi~d· ~,d :':.~':':: :.; ;:: :';.:,'..?: ' : ,. ',-:'. ": :....' · : "properly. mitigated.t:,','..:;....:, ,., · ..'.i.' ','. :.. ;-..::;:, ,.-.:;-.::'.; ....::? :,::.'.-' .::::;., .:;:..~.;' .;: ~-. :.::.-; ~.;.:~.'. :?;:. ;.. :::,: :..::'..~',:::~.-:.~..;--..;...,.-.,;:~,~ .,.-, L-,':. ,~.::...;;...:',:":: ~ :.-':," ' - "':'"':"'"';::- ....... "3;'". 'bOW"":: ' ' T~i, .'.Ra~.:~e~8 U';~:':::f0~'. - th0~e:'. SPa~";'B~':';;f;'t*~ ~;~:'~t~i;; :';;;:'"~';:~':::'?':':;:;':":":?"'::: ,':. -',' ::. :.'-'-:..':' :' ~: the: "ITE.'-Tdp: .'Generabon .6 ,.....Edition -Land-':Use.. :':'0ode:';,71'4,., ;CO'~orate '. :.: ', ";'. '.-:~ p :'' ": ":' :'.::-:' ~, .':::':.'..'~'He'~dq~'aders ,.Building, 'th .fo're,St. triPs ;f~em..,th~'~:o~ce.~'.spa~ d~6~nt -of: ' ~;:::.:.:.-:.: ~" .':; :'" [~'-~-::;;; 7. :..~.:.:, ;:,:'....' .. t'he. Pr~jebt::ACCOrding t0.{he des~i¢i~,.:~f.:thiS,.iandtese.in.the..,iTE, pubi.i-~tion;,.-¢' :., ..?..-...:..,.,.. .-' ' '-...:- :...,.-..: ,A .c0rpOrate'Theadqua~ers: :bUilding .:,is-:::a.::.Sin~le-;:'ten~t' t-o~ce -bUilding?::[hat ';::7:';-': "'."'.' ~-.- ' F'-' ':'?'''' :":'. ~.:.' :';' '::h°USes'-:the:-~b°~P°[ate~:~HeaBqua~e~s:''' :el ';~,?~c°~pA'~y'.-or :'.o:Fgadiz~ibn.~.', :'~'." :No. -'.:':~.;';. '7;': .:;";...-.: ~ ,- - .": .... . '~;- .:.: eviden~ .:is Present:ed, in'-:{he., tra~c studies-. 6r '-in:' the. Environmental ',:i~iti~i ": ;::'- '"" :~ -:'':? ':' StUdy .to-.'supp'od :'using' ~i~ o~ bg".wiii theS~ :'lOwer '. es. - '..rat "that-the': o~'~"bUi'ldi '. '-Contain °nly.a-single;.~P°rate tenant: Idstead;..:~e· tra~cstudie~.'Should,have..: - .::.;'~:,..~-.; ~' ..,: :;"' ?..' '"':; ~.~".' ?;.-: ~. used' .ITE :Land: ':d~'-,~c.~de ..7.~0,:¢;Gen~rai'::~ce. Buiiding,· .~to: ~.co,~e~a[ively '? .:?:.;'-:;;..: .~:;.;-~ forecast tdps'-fr°m :~h.e proposed :'p~oj:e~: ::These.;~ates'are co~siderab(~high~r;".'.'"'!:; "::... :-:.. -' -: "'.:' .; :-' .:'.',.:;::.'- ...:..' :': ;'..: :,,:.::.. ..-::.-.; ::.,;.,.:.':.%. - :. :.,..-::-:.': :,:.,..:.... .... : .:;... ,, - .: - '. .:, ', ':....,: .., · '."' '.::-, ,........~...:~..:_... :- :-._.:,'. :~',. '.,.".-:,,'.. ......,. :'....,... ,',.-:.-,:.: ..'..'. :,.,. '~..., ·: :.-."~ :;.~ , :.-'-,". '.,.,, :.' :.:.:~ . ..". ..: .' ..,,..-.-...-¢ ~ :... "; - "'.--.' :.:' :?..': ' "?': '.-. · '." ..":'""~:. '." ". ~:. ;-; :'.': ::~. :.'.:';...:'?.: :~ ~':"::' ~':,'::.:. ~':." ~'; t' :" ::"??" ';,"~' ':,."'::.'.: :'.:..:..' :"::--' :::. ~.::. ',' .::-.t. ~::~'~':;..'..: .-;" :,:'::-": '::, '-.: :'- ~ , ".'. ":' ,7 :..."-:- .~..~ , ', :.",., ." . '."..,, ?.'_ ...- '. E.':,.. .; ' :'::,.:' :;..: .: :-.'...;._t,"';',":',:'.:'-:.'.'L~': ':.,, .:'.;.. '--'...:?.'. :" '~'~. ':;', :".':~. ::;';..:,','~ "J" :'.':.;', ~". ;~.~ ' ~,..:,.~., . . ~ ,.; , ,....: , . . .- . · · :.,., ;... .: .... , ,.-;..-~ ... ,..~ :..:.~., :...,,..~. ,..,,,, .., .., .,.,.: :..~,~.- ~, ...:.. .;..,- .~..... ,. , .: · .::..... ,: , ,.: ~.., ;.-,:....... ~ :.. , ~...:.., ~ ~ .".i.]i~:.c-.::' ?c..:.~(.'Ms.i .Tanya"Gul.esSerian~~--:,- .' -'*.-~.....-'.':~'; ~.~. ii!:~.'. % ~'.")~/'...:.'.".i:..~'~'~ .~ ,.::..' -...:-' 'i~..'. ~... ,- ~ ~'' *"~ ~.'.~.;:i '~'- ,.~;-:...-~-:...: =-;::-. :i'WeSl~ ~D'ublin: Transitlqillage ;:prOjeb{ ;initiai.: Study :'Traffic' commen~'.'~' . :.-:. i: .::~ :... i' "-'. '.:: -. ..:. /: :...,~ ': N0~/ember 26;',2003 .'.'-. i::'..": '.'.': :'.':' '.:: .=* ..:"' .'~-~' ?...,:~ ;'.,~:-:" ':'-'..'.'..;..'.-: '~-.' .i::'".': '..'-'::: :::~ "' .::'~ :..':":--'"':. ' .: :'. :": ::;'"-:'::::' ~" i:':. ;"'::.':'. ;:{hai~.'~ere::us'edqn ',~-~':it~a~'~"~tudi:es.':~hd.inclUd~'::.~ei:ag'~i:':idp: ~at~~ :p~r !1!;:000-... ~*,. :, :. :... -.. ~.. square ,feet.of fl ,1 .'0't ~for,weekday tdps., :~1:56,for. :a.m: Peak"hou¢;!tdps,. and.'.1:49 -..-' ..':- ' .7: ':..-.' -. [;! ... !'i';," .:'..;'i. ;~': ::(.':: ..-f(~r Pi:m:. Peak.'h°Ui: :triPS.::'-:;.Elsing .:th~' r~daced:traffic-,f"0recasts :un~Jers{ates :ti~e i, ;: .... -: '. ;- -.,. ':': ";: .:"' '" :'-.:i..:.-:!' :..'Y.:.;'.i'; :';;'.:'i'r-,affic: '.:*i~Pacts' -;' .of..;:th-~':'.'lSFopose~.-.W.' 'e§t.',-~DUbiir~:' Transit .::Village ..~.Pr0ject-.; at. ;,: :':-'...;. ~' 'i ...' ...::. ~ 7?. ,':.; i':.:;.' :"' .' :'7; 'i-i!;i.;;:inierse'cti.~ns andl ..;o~i .. ,str;eet. jiseg ments:..:' .The :,t6t~l".:,:~affic..-,fi:om-4iie- iprOpO~ed ".:':;i';~;..;':-:: ". :;:'-!;';' '. !J ;':., :-'....' ": :.:' '.'?.:. i::;:.i.-...:;, projbct-' muSt..'b~ ':re~aiC~lated.'. Using?general;;Offi~; ;:buildi:n. g .:trip. 'ratesi and.:,thb .J, :'j:':.:. ;.' :!. i !'.:':- '.:-'..:_ _ ';.' ':': ::".'.;:i"-:. !, ".: .::;': i! :" 'a§~ocia{ed ',proje~;, ~traffiCi'i:mp~cts: :.~.~St'-:;be:.~ideritifi~d-and' .Pr~et!y', r~itiga~ed:,'. ;:,:::-'...'.'. ~i:-.; :!':-'-' ':..;:..; i.::-i:/;:-!ii!.'. :.Based.Sn.[he ~ctual:..tdp.'i:ates.for::a.:general".offi.ce bUiidin.~;L.a fair~ argument can:'-. ..:;~. :i .'-.:.. ::.' .~.' '~: ..-.'...i~'...:.-:....:-:..-:. ~,::.'/,..' :..':.. :.'::--'.:~.. ::'..:~.., :-.y :::;. '..:.::'":'~; "-.::"..:..':'~':';i:':']-.;'.. ,':.: ;:""..:..',.:,'.".' %; :,' :.'.,. '.;;..:7 '.;.'i':'.::i::::'::?'.:',-,' :-::.:-.'!; :. ;-' ':': :.::~.' ..::.-:.?.;: :, ::i: :'< (: c.~)::;::, ~' :'.'; .." !~:..:¢'.: ..!;::'::. :4.!'::.,.~C~.iiz~d .,Traffi:c-.;Paber~.;i R'a~.'-Cl~a~.~d i~ih~e'200~...:L'.:Tia~.~':bo. Lintsff(~i"{h,e ; :.J:..'..::.:-:: :,~:., :.::' .May 22~--'.2002 :.:traffics. study .'.were:i:..ma~te, ?in ,Janua~:.".and i'F-ebruary :.!2002 .' .. :'.-:.: .-.'.',j'.'..'. :,.~-.' :~',..'!"' "';:'*' "...": :'~' ":"- ao~rding":;*to .'/page 5 0f! 't~is" ,'d, 0cUmer~t:~':i.Fi°wever; ,ishortly j-'thereafter;-a: new.'.'.. ;, ..:-~.!... :...:.:. !. ,,.. ¢ ]'!,;:~!:i'~'.ii:":'~:ii!:" :~'':'' ,.~,,,~o,,~ '~o, ,~,...,0:'.,~0 "~,-:',,e ~.,~,~-,o,~,s'~..~,,,t,,0~",~,,'',as ~om~,,',,~d ' .and opened't°,:traffic; :'inab0'at MAY..2002, Page'..1'2 8f,th'b;;tr~iffic S'tudy ::indiCates;'': ..... ~" :- . -'; :':' '-':';j~: ,',traffic .forecasts .Were .adjUsted .' :t0 .,reflect.. the :new.on_,ramp.based upon -the' '_:': ;: '.' . "":. i-. '.!; i'. :.;:: :'::-.' O~ib.!in ':D bWntewnSp~0i{i~ :P,I' an'.,P~¢ar;d. !;in,;: 2~00... i~ith-':a ,i;~vi;;~l :: t~a~c .::S~L;d.~ ;.../:':, ' "i:; :":':'-.' ;:,':;' :..*'"': .-., :-:"fOr':theProp0sed' Pi-eject co'riducted:':i~-'May'200:3~:.:;actLial':'traffiS~bounts' shOUlS:,.' [_.:.:~.. :'....i!, ':."j.;.' ';i:':-!: ",i' :.'!i-"'-i.i~av~ ' ~e~j~-.: ~mad'~ ;' ;.~t ~:;:i ntersecti0nS ':a,d' ion' .;'~'~oadWa,~.: s~gments!,, i~eai:. ~lie'.!'?; h:!'" "'.~':'::J ~:':. ;::.i;.J ..-'..;.: ':'*' :/.: 'p[0posed prOject'and ;,the ;.new ..on:: :'Camp',to '.ve¢ifY. tt~e .adjustmentS' ..aSs~m~'d. :*: ~:'-:.~ ' '"" '" ;:-;. ~': ~' ':""-','~ :"... ':: "'-;fr°~",t'hb"!20od'DUblin Do~ntoWn.'sl~ecit~c P:l'ani: .:' !... ;i.~. ' '-,.~ .¢'(..,T'./~: .-.'..:; ,..:j,'; (,-(:;. :..;:j... :¢.;:.,::... ~ ..:....i"-¢:;i:- ....... . ..-. , ..... .: . - ,, .. '.;. .j..: :. .'. ,~.*¢..'...;'::;;:.--* ;' :*. fi....::ii.i ...':...',, ,.-.-::. 5.: ::Caltra.h~.:.,~:aff. iS,.S~USy(G.~idelin&~ hot '~F.C;'i~oV~ed:,::.',~th i'.~i~'..ii.L581~'.ia~d,'i:t~80'.:i'.::.. . ~. ,;.... ,.--::.:;.:-. :, ':' -F~eeWays .:'in.,the.~.im:n3ediate"area', ',it :-iS; extreme!Y~ important to ~addrSsS: prSj.eCt: ;;:- ::.::, .-: ;. :,." r':"' '"' ' "";':' :i.-...' "?.: traffic, impaot~ ;'at. on'!:and ,off. ram~:':~- Well. a~ oi~.';~th'~. :fr~eway:..mainiineS:: VV~i'le' :' f .i:i ;:.,j..'jl ':..::. i ;":?,::'.;;.:.: .!' ...the EnVirOnmentai:lnitial:~st. Udyi:i.in~liCates 'C.ai:ti~ah¢ ;was,-~oi~taoted..,.~t:~eir,i,s~ue~::..-.. !:): .'.. i. :* .':-;'. ',..~ ' ~"~":~ ':.::':'-');;":;;'.:.:i' :' ~::~; :':"' and'c°nserns::~a~ ::n0t'!i~ave :,ibee~:'fuijY add~esse~:::';~ :-~,'tr'~¢cl ~die~-f~¢:'i t'," 'j,''):' j'' ::, :i.::.' '-'.:.~.:'."!; :. ~.the-isr0Posed.Pr~je~':d)h~'it ::the .evalu'ati0n~ :re'quired'.:by: caltrans ,',':Guide ifor :-tl3e,;: [ j......! 4..*;.,.,.~.:7::~i.. 'i'. ". :'j:.'-pre~ai~a'tiod' :';,~;~)f', .'~¢a~c~-. lm'P~'cf~ '.: :Studies'!.. -issued .*" i~;'.?.3anuaW'! ;20e~.:i'~':.'T~u~;,-:." J:'.:,i" . !::' .: '*' :-'j;': ;:;.;".,i' i.:i!':', a'ddi¢ona!..~Study of ..p~oj~.c:[i.t!:affic.jimpa~s;o_~' state i:lii~v¢:~ys :.~.u§t..,..l~e.i,.m.~idb ;-i~il; ':(!;::::-.?':::; ::;.:':~..:'. !':: ~.-:.'...,:'.. - ' .~=":,'--" ~:acco.r.'.'dan~e-~ith'the.State s. gui;d~iines.'..;-.'.;:.:.,/.': ::~.';~:";-.~.!...-: :.~'.-,...:, :::i-. i.-?....:, .:. :;,. :-;...'.'~. ~:;',:-:i ;." ':: :-?:...' ;.: .',!'; ;:.:":':..'.'.':";'6:'.'*Si.qnificant;lmprovement~ Are .Req-ai'rbd-:.a~ Dolu.qi~'ylD~bli-h-i::.iP~g~ i2'ib{ ;th~'; :."~::~J· ¢-.,'.::.' .';.,~ :,.::':-..'-i7, :!.May::22,.'*'2002traffiC.-stcidy"indicates/the,intersection of'_DoUghe~tY...,Road..arid': i:-'.~::~ 4. '. ':i- ' h.'.'-i :'. :..:.~: '] ../.....: '.;: ...,'.':; DUblin'..BOUl:e~ard ,. Wii!'... opbi~ateJ! at ', .Ee~el .";:of iSe:~j6e~iF: ~;ih..'.{he.-p,: m'.'::. ~eak :i hbQr:_::; ,i,"' ~:':' ;. 'i-: i~'*"";" "-'- :"' : :'i; :.';-..~:.:.J;i .under;;¢fu't~re 1Sase' c0ndifi0ns..ACCording:~t0.':.the traffic ;~t~bd~,;'/.;~l, ib 'WeSt'D~l:Jlin;:./...:::..', ::',';.. ~.~'.j.'..~:.': '.:* Fi:';. i,.:: ::-.; i':'~ '":~! ~-'i' TranSit'"~Vi'l'jage' wiii'"add'"'traffic~ 'th'r°ugh:':thiS'-;i:nterseCti°n:' '~e'"'tr<~ffic' study :in-~icatbs that-signif~ca:nt'.i'impr0Vements :iir3cluding trilSle'.]ef!...'.:t~mi: !a'rie~'i'n :bC~t~ ''j : - -."? '.': ::::' th.e:northbound and'the-'~estbound directions are needed'for, thiS :in~er.~ectili~h .'. :' . ~, ~ i. ":.:':' !"'" :'~":".-:;;:.':'.. 7to/oper~te at an',acce~tab.ie:.,L:eve. I :~)f.serviceD, q-he:se radical':measUreS:.ha~'e-::. ..~:-.:_'' ! [ i:..':' "'i ...;...'-:'-L. -hiSt(~r~i~-ilY.:been':~use~fat :!.onlY. :a" few;: i°cati°n~'.'. Jh-~'higi3iy: Uriah'izod ,CalifOrnia'-'"'.:.;;- "-':':.::.:."' ".' !: .-. .:. '::..'...::-.,.. :and ,on thC Las:Vegas. Strip .where;intersectioriSare.'sPaCed further apart:tO ".' :':."' ..'.' ~::." '" :.: ('~.....'.::..'.:..'.'~-.' aCcomm°date".the .~eaving ~ovements :that OCdui~ dowr:iStrea~ .fr:orn .th~.: tripie .: :-; [.~i'::-. :~ ,....:i:::-..:'-left.:tarnS.--While:'.:the-.::traf~c'.s'tU'dY"tecO~mer~ds the§e..impFoV~mbh[S.::a~::tliiS .: ,.,-'~: :::... :.:.~.-., ~"'i':i ' i'..-.-: '-." intei'seoffi.on,' no' programming '.of'.-funds.. 0r- t.imetable :'for. b~nstrUctiOn 'are .... - . , '-"'-' . -. '.' ..' N1s~'~Tanya<Goi~s'elian.' " .' . ..' .' . '. .': :"'< "Westnub'lin"Tral')si'tVnl~ge;PrQjec~.lriitia.I..Stu~y:-'''raffi~'.c~ininentS:.... N~vember 26~ 2~03'.' .'. ;' . :. '. ...>.... .'.' . . '.. , .,' -..... I I- t I I I I I' I; I I I',:: I' I I I....... I;,. I'" I' '!_. '.-. - '... - . .. .-. ,...... . ,.' . '.presented ~t().make,sure:they: will' be .:jn.:place:in .a.'tiinelym~riner~ The.yJest . Dublin. Jransif ViII age Project must: be . requif~d 'toPclyits. Jair :sh.~re~.C?(t~~ :' . . :requiredtripJe .Ieft tum';lanes and. other. necessary significant imprpvements' Ell.. '. -.: ., .', .this'critical. intersection.' . Otherwise', ,there .is no, evJderi6e that ,this suggested. " mitigatioriJ1jeasures:isfeas'ible~' ,Thu~,'aspfopos~d,ithere"js:.a'fa.ir:argumen(.:' '. .:based ohstJbstantlalevidence,'inthe:record,that,a'.sigriificant 'traffic imparitwill" . .occur at '::the.interseCtiono{.OoughertyRoad.and .'Qublit1: 'B()Lilevard'th~t< .remairi~un!1litig~t~d;,"...c; . '. . ..' . ". ,.', . ,- ,f . _ '~ -, , .7:'R~Qi;'~ali5t~'-iIalti()'Mi~~i;ReqUiiE,~~~it~rSI~~~"~~g~27bf'th~. ". ":Mt:!y'.22,..2Q02Jr?lffic:study'indicatesRegional.Stre~t wil.l.pperateat..Level:of,':...,...... <'Service ~F.a~~aJwoJane~'coJlector ;$treet urldercuriujlative.plus'proje9ftraffic.~::'.'.,~;' .' ,conditiofls;'PElge 3emlhe trafficstuq:ysuggestS'''RegionaIStre~t.inay.feqtiire ..;.. .. lhe femovalofonstre~t ,paraUelparking toaccommodateclett.:turri.PC?ckets; _.":. . and/or :atwowayileft; ;tu(nJane .at .majordrivew8!ys Whic;hV\iouldallow.it;10.:. ..' >. ..operateat . Level.. of SerVjceC. >>,Potenlial1ysignificanfimpacls .associatedwith:'.. the.'removal of.the'oAstreefparkirigfrom',Regional.,Stree(llluslbe<stucfied'and~r.:.;:~ measuresmustb~-'devejopedto'.mitigateJhese'impaCts. - .' '. ., , . . -..'" . 8. VehiCle Access to theProiectHequi'resFurthef"Study'."":'<;TheJVIay:.22,"~O02,', . · :trafficstudy-wasbased:UPOQ:the:proposed,project!1avingthreeacceSsip9ints;:'~: '.":.: '.' , including one"shared acces~ through .the .~djacent ',J3A.RT 'Station ,direct!y,',. connecting the pf.oposed project to.GOlden Gat~'Drive.. Trip d!strit?utio~Jn"this..'" ;'lrafficstugy,assigned vehidletrips"inand.__outof,:the,proposed'ptoject'via'.~aeh ,,' ; 'ofthese'three'aci?ess':points.,While'Page2dfth~.MaY ,14,2.o0Btr~fficsWdy' .:.~'.: ,iindicates:aH. .vehicle:accessJo .tl1e;pr()p6~edpr6jecfWiJl.' now~oCCLJrfr9rTt:f3t..:. . Patrick Way,. th~ ,traffic study fails 10 fu1!y analyze '.the 'resqltingtraffic. conditions ~ateach .ofthese three accesspdints. According .'tathecurfent site....... plan, three.acce~s pO!9tsarenow:propos~d.onSt..Patric~'Way within a total.' '. . .:Iength gfabout 400.:feet.ManytrafficconflictswilLresuJt':from,;'vehicJes>:' . '.,Emteting'andex!tlng.lhese:three~access.pojntswjthin~uch'a:sh6rfdistance/'~;;" ." '.' Further, the :easter!yJwo,access points are ;,prqposed .~o .'PE3~Jocat~d'on';;the>.~J ;",. ". . . inside ofahotizemfaJ,cyrve where s'ight.dlstancewill be eXtremeJ}1 :liniit~(:tThe":': , traffic st~dy must evaluate Consolidation of thes~ three access points' as well: ' " as recommend measures, to provide appropriate sight distance, :tr8ffic C9nlrol.... '. andvehiclestorage.requirementsbasedone~peCted.qUeuing lengths?,f sacq;,.' :,. ". .. ofthe resulting access points onSt eatrickWay; .. ..... . . '-. . -' ~ - - :;, ;- _:' . " : . :. .... -. '.. '. '--'-. " . . TrafficMitiQation:MeasuresWiII-lncrease'::";Page:260ftt:)e- Environmeptal,... . InitiaJ -Study suggests that4he proposed 'project '. shouldpay:~feesfe!ated foa '.: 'portionofthe costofthe..extension .afSL. P,atfiCkWay from~old~n'Gate DriVe',:';., '.' ,..... 'to HegionC3f . Streetan(j' also dedicate' land forthe. ~Iignnient:of ;the f6adway:~~" ".. .... . As '~indicatedabove, . the proj~Ct "traffic'impatts::have;.not.been,'propeily. .. .... ~ jdenti~ied,;eyaluated, . andn:titigated,]t:is.'; tikelythat,<the, fequired'~ddJtidn~J':; -. panalysisWiJIdisclose'i1'ecessary'additiona'limprov~inents:.Th~ trafficstcidy., :_ J ,. -..' - '.' . ,y.... . ~.r ~ ::~"''::~":~'.::~':".~l""~::~'.:'":'~"~::j~::'::"l~"~ ." r.' - ....... ..G~ie~:~eH~:n:~'"., :-.-::?.:'::.i?'~.,: ..j?:/..:i!'i!. :,:,:.~,:?! :..: :!, ., ,, ...::i:.'-,i.'-!.::,.,!:::i'/.. ,.., . ..~. ~.,.~i:!i.~: ?i .:~,.::.:.:..-:..~i. :.!,:::::-,,::-..?:..:::_... ...:.?..:.:.-,-:..' ........... .:.....; -.: ...... ...-..:.. _'"'!~eSt. Dublin'.:..T. ransit Village!:Pr°jeCt'.tr~iti~i.$~Ud~,:-.'T.~ffi~'ii'C6~i~s'.:'!. !.~::.,.-.:.:!:...-.. ~ .... ..:-':.' '-". ':":"'~':"November 26, 2003 - ":': :-'. :': :.'' '.' "-' "~ ~'-'.' · ..... m ... - - . - p~ect-:trips,'but'thiS amOunt.,will :Jncrea~ :when :.the .Pr0~er.,numbe~.;.o~..dailY ' ' [ -. : .... ..--.:PreleCt ..idps'~.-is v. re~lcuiated:~:Othe~ :financial :~ntdbUtionS':.t0Ward.-neesbd ::¥: -:'-, · ':-~ - .future projects::SU~ .as::the::.,imPro~emen[s :at".. DOughe~y":Rbad,a~d DUblih:":. ":.?'~::..-~..'... ~ :'"" ": ........... '" BOui.e~ard.,mUst '.::be?. :.reqaired. ':'~e::;';~o:~ts' and: scEeddling':°f?:: nebes~a~- ' :;-' .;:.,: ...:' '...:.:.. ~ :':'~::'"':':'~:'.:. :.- .. ........ , ... , . . , ., . . .... : ',:.:..-...-'.......:. :improVements. ,'::together ':~ith' :CalCulaliohs:',',of."~th'e~.':?deVelope~. ~fai.r. ','~ha~e,- ':.' :.' '.. .':.':" ':......-:":..' ::.:. :.;" :.,.' .".' .COntributionS .to'..,:i~tersection' and rbad~ay.-.im, P~O'vem~nts:.:need~::t~-:.be.~.,~ade; .:~..:,:: ~'::~ ."" ..'. '~.,: ~' .:.'.:,.... '.... ¢..': :~.; .:":'.~' ....?..~ and.?'t.imetable: developed .~r: thbir :?~lem:e'ntation:-:' .:Withebt ~ this .,i:~f0~mationj~ j. :,..~ .-:... ~..-... :..:, ';-.; '::~. ': ';?;:;' {:'.(; .':;'~'. ':."' ': :"~:?; ~%':~'~e:~ce'::`h~t .the'; Prcjedt:s ]'~PaC, s',i.', ' be::~i,igated :t0 ~,a ':less','',~an::'.:,'..`. ' :';:..: ~lyl I!11~I it leVel ~: ?' ..::....~ .:..,;.'.': ,":'::~.'0,..Off':..S-t~eei.~. ': p.a. rki'~p'. Anal:YSi~: :0mit~':'Retail.. ~qUire. me~ts :'L.~, .:A~: '.,~ih.~iS~t~d .:.' .... '::."..~ ::';:.~:..': :/-.":':-:.' :'..,;~eVioUsi:y, ".the. p~oje.ct'.:DescriPtiOn:'i-n the Environmental ~lnitia'i's.tbdy: includes :' ': ': ~ :'..': :~...:'; :?:':J:: 7' '~..'.'..:'L. '.. :.:'~ ..':a' ~se%nd .baildi'ng:°f :!77,.264 squ~re' feet.;:~ith':Stdre :~r0n~-.'re~ai'l .spa~-~..::~i:l~'.':'"' . ..~., :.:......~..:..: ....;. :the May: t.'4, 2003:.stUdyasSUmes..t 50,'420.:square'feet· ~[ o~CS..Space.'and 308 ;... :::"-:.?-' .'~ ": '..'" ~.. ::... . .. residential apa~ments for;the :pa[king analysis, ,it...does' nO(indude any' parking' .:- .... ~, : (' .T: .':: ':'-.'-' ,'"-- .,asSociated 'with the- p~oPosed :-stOre :front'.': ~etaii space .'"'~he.,.parking ' S~sdy 'is' "' -. :' , ' '.'"' :" ~ :: ~';' .J.'~::::':: :'--".' ??.::"~: :'.':":-" :',':inconsistent':with .th~. ;'.PrOject :'DescfiPti05:,:a:S:.;]t' ~gn0r~s:'.aii...pa~ki.~g-'~.~s°.ci~ted''' .~ ::~,..'.:: ..' ::;::. ;'.:. '.. _ :.::'(":': ' (:: ~::; ':?"-""'.:":With '~the'-planned ':.retail' ~pace,' :.:'in.' 'tU~,- .'this::''~nders'{~t-es-' .0ff".~:ir~et :.'pa~king: "'.. "'" :-"' ':.:: j ~ --' ....' ,,..; . :: ,.'.- .. . .,, , . .: · . . ,:: .:. , : .' . : · ." ,, ,', ,. . .. ~. ..,. ,. .. .... . , ...-. ..-.. · ... ; .: ~~ ...,'.'.:;~.: ..... ::..?~:'.' ....-:. 7. general~ .by .:the project:':Additional :'par~iug.~rom'"t~e sto~e :f~ont";relai:l 'sPabe'.-"". '.. :;..:. '- ':~..,:~ ?;4 .:... ::.:. 7::..?..: ..": .': :m-~s~; 'be-.:det~rmined?andthe:tolal ,parAigg. requirements :m~St'.,be. :identified and':...-.: '-."; ·: ,. :'...'.. '. ~. ::::. :. :';. ::: --: :;.-:;]:..:.:;' :,.:;.:.7 :. P?perlymi.~iga{e~j A)pa.¢~ing ma~.agem~nt :Plah'. as.'::~e~m medde6, ih':'~tbe :May.:'"-' ': ;.. {:~ '¥ '~: ~: .:~?:::'::":~'~:.";(..~.':..':~:;:: ::'-'~,~ a, :2o03 Stue~.. m~s.l '~'lS°;Be :indiud~.'in :the Englron~e.ntal' l.h'ilia'l';S~ud~;']~. ';' .-. :"' :j'' ?.:-:::.~( ":.:'.:} - ....... ":'. .... ':; .' '::'- ". ,;' · '. :.' .- : :::::. :'.::":'~' ...-,{::~':'.:]:. :... ':":"S::.:.'?'::;:-.?:~;: .~:. :.::;'-..:::: ;../:. ":..'...:. ' ~.. ".::. -?.~' ' :':'j '.';~:':, :::.. :.;~ ::::.".':'~-~' %:NumerOUs. :OmiSsiOn'~ ':>~rOm..t'h'e: Y~a~c 'S(~die~": ~ :~Se. '.teaSe'.: ~'f~i~s.: ~°)":th'e" '....' ';:. :,-.'. :- F ~'': ' "'"??'?":'"::"~:::~' ":'; ~::-'West' Dublin ,. 'Tra~sit :. visage ~Project :'must. :.be. ,:exP~nded; ~o. analy~e ~':'~hd ..'-," '-' '. '/:'":'::.~:'-'::?' ':?.? :'.'":';;' '-"addres~'.these;](oPi~;~hi-ch,hag~'been':lola!!y'0mitle8 ;fCdm'th~S6 ;.8od~me~ts:~.:.:; ;:" :.:::;, .:,;'-;.t": ' ' ::.::';:-: ~::' .....::::.:'::..::::..: ,:.:.;."..:'.c):'::.:~ansit Sb~ibe'.i.mpaCts 'ahd ~r0ViS'ions fS~ bus.'~[op~, and::bU'~:She~terS:,-..: ~'.:~.. ,: :.'-:' :-~ m ':':. :,:?"':~' :'Y::: ?: ,":"~: ':-' :' ~th°'~: ... thi~: ad'di~:i0nai ::'%aiySis'~': ~e'" E-nvir~'hm6.~'i'. i~itia~ :' 'S-i~d~'" .f~'i~ :tS:,:.'-:-'.": [ .'. ::{::,: :..:.'.'.:?../...::::-.:.:;.'~.':':~: :..'address:reasonablY f0r~:eeab!e adverse:t~a~ ~impact~::: :-:...'::...:. ~. ::..:; :' ,.,:..,' ::-......: ~ ":::'":.:;':','~:';:::~.:. :';:':''::As-'indi~t~d:, t~ere :'ace ,;~any ~addreS:s~d trah.¢P'~t~Sn: ~Rd 'cir~latiO~ 'iss~s :S' ':'~ ['~ :'.:'.: '" "'.-':'.': .':.'Jass0ciated WJth..the" pr°~°%d'.west DUblin. Transit"Villa~'eP~oject.-.The ~ariObs. :-"': ":': '-'":'"":': ,.'.isS~eS 'a~d'c0noern~ o~'t'lined above '.must be ~refujly Studied bef°re.-r~aChing' "-'. .':' ..:'".'.' "-' :': ::'.::.:.-'.:-':--:.'.":':-the.:,.,:'%nc~sion'. thi's proj~ot:: '-has- .t~aff~o":i~pact~ that' ~n Se r~dU0ed:' to, ~'" ":'"'?:":-' :-':: ':'::":J~sign'ificanbe.· ~Tse-'pr0je~t :clearly :'has ',impacts`. on '~C: ~n'd:: park.ing,".inCiu~ng ' :':~.':':' '..: '..:"-:..'-: CS~ula:tive'impactS; ".~hat Wil'l' b~ S.ign fiC~nt :.and ::~hat-;:sh0~id: be'. studied"- and E ::, ... :..._: :-'():,' .:. :.:::::'.:: :.: ?.j...-:..:...":-:.: :'. '.::....:.-::..,,:".:..::-..../:,: :.,:.: :..:,,. ::... :... :,. :....:,: ... ,: ..:....,-..-. :..:. -.. _. _ · : ,. ..... ' S_.:(: :' :,.. :. -": -: .:-: : ':':.::..Y'":':' '.., ":.:::.'('-:, 77/: .-., , :':::":e'""'.:::' .':., ;..: :,:: ':.':::. '..'.' ~ ..-' .:':'~; ':.".'~::".'::~- .~.' ';: .'.;:'; :'..',: ~'-' .""' :~: ::- :':" '..S' .-:.-;.:' ':...', '.-',. j"."':.'-":-'-' .?- :',': ·-;: -.. :'.': :"' .. ': .' '..'~: ,'-'" ".'.;" '~': ?':: .--'-' ': ""'-'., :-', "."'." .' :'.," -:-.'' '.:' '" .~' ':;;" :.7-'-" ::.':.':'. ':: ..' i: :L:'."';;::~?: ::::"..;-:.'..,;' (":';::..*':.'::::'::-'.-:'":: ".'?.. :':' '",:'-" .':;'.' :'::';';.' :.,,.. :'~,",' :'" ::.; :'-":'....".:~: ;'. :- ;.." '::: ::.: :.::::: ;':'..~ :;:~;'=:: ':.~..'. ".: ""-.':) ::::::--:"~ :.:'"'j-'~-. :"-:.' '::.'..:' '-'.:::~ S'::;.'.~':'-'::' ::'.":: '.~,::' ::::. .'::";.. '":':~..:"' :"" :'::- ':-"~'~ "': '~'-: ':':: '- ' ' '.-.: :..":. '." ':.'." :-:". ".':'". ?" '.;:. S'.;':"'~':.': ._ :-";':'::..:;..,.'.':.",:'(.".: --:" -'-. :~ :':.:.: '..')';:'::: :'.:':' i..'"'..i.'*"i.:. '-; .i"'.':':":',~'":'~WeSt"~Ddblin;'Transit 'village,Project .initial.;..Study - Traffic;Comments .:. '. ' ,' ¥." .;: :: .;:: :.-~::. :':. N'ovember::26, '2003.'.' "::'~....':..'-.:-. :. ~': :-;':,... ','i '"' ~'-':; i ':.' "' :'.:: ~ '...',-~' '"': '''~ ,..". :'.:' ':' "' ~.'~: ':.'- -~:" .'. :.. :' '. !,:..' i...:-. :-::'.. ". ':'.. ', :"' '".'. ;:. ;"; '.:, :.'.'. ~:..: ":. "': ':"':.?:~'::"'~, .:.mit:ig'a{ed":'::th~Ob'g~':-,.a~' '~:~'IR :~Pi:°~s~' :if-::.~,6u'. ,~a~, ..%'e~tions .~.eg'arding- .::';-~;: ~:";..;..:....i:;..¥.'.Resi~e~-T~ilY:S~ilSmit~t:ed,.::';::'~: ...,.:.:.:: ".'...:.i..:':'.~ - i' .":':::~::::..:,::'.'.-:.' "..":"..' :::..',:.'i :': .......... ':'.-'.'. ''''~'' :.' ;:¥..:",'~ :',.~." -: -::" ' ~ ',' ...: .':.'.; :..":.'~..". :..':'..i! '-:. ;":-:::"~ ':...;....-~': ..' ~:' ::., ::,:' i.:......::.. :.,.:.:'~,....-..: ... ~'. :.'- .. :.': :', '":~~:i"'" ' ':-:'":" ~:' ' :"" :'"' ~'' .... ':? :: '"'""":'" :' i~ -:.:...'..,-'.':'.';.;:.:.' ;. :'.':Tom .Broliard and'Associates :'::..: ..: .....:-: ::',:-.~.' '-...- ,....:-:.~.:.,..,,:. :..-.-::':¥..:-~.i....:.::~...!.., :~..'-,'".:~:....'...:!:..-: :..:.~. :.- :, .:,~:. ...,. .. .,~.- , .:..,,.....,:. ,,; ,.,-. '.'.~, ~ '..":":: ..:.,..::.... -.:. ~ ' ': '"':~:~'"~": ~ ~!";":'""" :' ":"':":'~":': ~:" ::?"'!~-':~ "'"' "~" ':' ~~~-~!' ' '~' '" '~' :"" 'N0.7~4' ':. ~:.' ..., '~ .' ~ -:,'::;':, '.:: ':::.'. ',,.:' '~".:."' :~!.'(i... :.:";::"~'-,.";.~,;';; :: .'{. ":'... ~!.'... ';:.' -.: .-.~..' ' "i'.. '~- .: ,' ..' ~.....'. ' .'.; ,' ', : '.:-"-' ? : .:¥.;,'."~ :':.:~:.:Pri'r~i:pal':':i:".'..-:,;,'..;~":':~".':.'.-:'.:.'.': '.: .:-'.;..' .'.'-. ...,~ '- i~,~)..~ .... ....,. ~ ....... . "-'!.:;~' .'.'.:?'.' :..:::::.:!'.:'i"~'i,:~' :':!":'..' .:%"-.~'.: :-'...'.' :~. :::'.~=.,'.'-" ':.',.. ,:::~'..:'. '.,": .... :'.~;.' ~":" '-..- ~ :...-'.' :,: -' ..-':;::} ."-'. '' .'-"'.' .... ''~-"!'" , ":' .~ ,'J. :'-5 .'.~. ',', : ' ".~.'.:'. ~" .':'" -" -'-:-,- '.-'" .": '.. '. ":' .. : ,' .' ': .~-. ':. ' - . .'?:" ''.!~ '-: -. ,': .-',.;'.....:~.:.':.'.-'.~ ~ "::;.,..' :" '.. '-~ .' :.::'" "":-~'.., · ' .',." ':.-' .:' :'',,,;7 :'~... ~'~ .':'.:. ::' "" .:':: '- ,:' ..... '-."- '-'i:' .: '"' ' '.. ':.'. .: ... ' -' ,".. .:.. ":'.'.'~ '~,...-' '...',: ,,':':.' i.'~'.~' ''.; ..' :". ~":"':".. ::..:, . - .: ':-:' h'~,- . .' ~.',-~: ~-.:.'': '~-~ .::'.'- :' ' . ',, ' .~." :-'. ~... =.;:" '..'"' ';.?: ' ?.. ..' '.. , ' .'..'.'.'-' '--. ~ .: ,: ..., .~.r...,~.::, ..:.:,.~.:,-,;. 'i'".: ',:.'" t:"' '.'-'':",.'. '.':' ':-'.'; :.' .,: ..."~ '..~ '"'. ' - ' :, ':; .'. -' ."~-' "'.".~ : ". -." '' '::':' ;- '.""-':" - '..,; "..''"i'.. · .... ; '""' ' ;. "':.".' ":~- -2-~ .'"-:'--'. -":'. ~'':,...?'..'-t- '.:' ~' '~ '-'-.:::.. :~.'."[,~.:.:Y'"~.',': .i ,' '..;.. -'i.,:'.., .,' '','. .....'-:;' ~ . .' ..:; ..'.":-':~ :., ...".: ;,"':'.- .-.'., : '' : ..... ,"_..' "~ ... ' ~'.. ::ii:?.:'-'::-'::::::".-?-%'i .::.. ?:::'::'~:.-:_:-:.":;..i,::.:':....~::'?'.....~. ?. :..?. :, .'.-':~.':..,:.- :. -- ::.:i ~' - ...:'.;.':--..::-'-¥--.' ';.i:-.'-' i:."..',..;'~'.,'.. '.':.'.-.:"'~.. :::-~':.; ': i.:. --- -:signal':and street'.--li,g;t:iting.perSor]nell ,and ..:the' signing,: stripingl.-and . ii ;':' ":']:,i.' ?s~iec"t~d!Signifi.~nt.accomPiisiimehts :8~i¢in:g'' the .ila~t thrCe'yea~:s:.:india;de.thelf01i6wingi'.,':-'...: :.. ::.: . ,.; ,-:~., {./:,:~.':P[e. Pared'.~i~iq8%';-0f:tSe tra~d; impacts'-' jden~i'fi;d' i& '-the" :Eb~' Angele~: inte~hat ch'al'".: ~ ...:. "'.. ,.~: ::: ".' ] :, :" ":.: .'Air~0d 7Maste~ .~P lan .. D[aff :-El StEIR. ~for. Alt ernativeS. ~A,".. B';; land ;C .'( 21200'1 itc. 7 ~200i )' ,: ]~'/:"-;~:' ¥..:~:.'? 'a~'.:,in.'~the~'supplement :Drafl '::El'S/ElR ,fo.r .Alternative :D .f°r.'the City ~-°f':EI Seguado'' ~ · ","..,"': "]¥' ] ?':] '.'~ ;::::.'...-;,., (7i2003]~b:~:tO1~03)"~';.:..'~ ::'~. :.::- .:".-":'::: ?-" ':~ :~..'..".'.?:.'.?"~::';-:'-:'.."..; .~,:: .'.' :'~:-'': ":".:.;' ;:: :' :., ]:' .;:':.'¥ .".::: .~ :' ~ :'~'~-:..':..:..:';.: .:,'?; :, '~ ]' .:~.': J ' ]":..:';'::' ;-'".',]':~ '] ::"*:': ~ ~,~'~e~d:' 'c~jtj% ~'::'.b?:.th~ ~"~"~i'~paCt's; ;::i~{i~'ed.":i'n~..' :'t~'e' 'D;raff~' EIR. ~d~ Yeb~jai] :.{~ .;: ~ :,. ';. ;.: :. -]' ':;'.]-"; ..; .-....'~o:nseS;'.tb-]~mm~nts,':~:in .. th'e-.Final EIR '::~or:'the ;~rOPesed'.Wal;Ma~ .:in:::.the? city':o{'.= ~-, .::.:-'.".]..- :'..--.:'_-.'--..:..- :.E emont:for-.Mark.~R;.Wo!fe &.Associates (~12002 to.'10/2003);::,;",:.".:..::.~.,?..:,.';'; ,--...-. ;-, :: .:...' ;'.. ~ '?/":. ]:, '"']': ]: :' ?';~* :.' ':~Pa~ed .::'.'~i~i~ue:']~f ': ;the"" ..tra~c '..im.pb~ts ] ide;~ti%d.. ;'i~ 't~'.' "Dra~'; :.:El R,": reSattal]' t0 ;.., :? ... ~. :.";~]'..:".~ ;~ :..']-': ]:::;r~s~°%e~.:in .t:he :Finai'¢;EIR, :and 'testimony.:~t .a;..;~abii'c :~baring. reg~rd~g.t'heA!~ide:- ':.::/.: .' · ?]. ].. %:-..; ?~:' .:;~ '.. '..; ,'. V[ijage'::..S~%pia~ ]ce~te.r] ? .: san: ;Diego ;.',.'COU~t~ ':To~-:-Shute; .';-MihalY; :' &'. ~idberge'r,' :'." '".::':" ' :-~"='.,;'~_ ,.] ~':~-: '.: <'-].Prepar~a "';~riti~%~' o~ '::~h.e..tramc .'.,impacts :~]iden~:~i%' ~in :,the" Dra~ ;' ~iR;.:."~eba~{ai' :t'0 ~ "];' ';': :'-_ '~-":.-' .:.{;::,espOnseS::.~in .:the :,Final ;~lR~?estimony':af;Pu?i~':2e~dn~As; -a:d ~a?~iStan~.:dudng . :.":.. '~.::" ':''; ': :.::Ci~Y'in~'-the-city;of;'Eos;Angeles for;Trabt N~_]7260 As~obiation (912~2:. ~b':1:0)2003):'::"'. :: t":" ..... :'..' ': .;'-,:"'~'.:'~:':'.-.':,.::' .":..',: "':,.-: '....'-"." ':/:".~:"].'.':?:::;'~' :].~':. :'-' ,:; "-..],:~ ':..';'.--.-,.".::-'~. ::,. :-. :--y r:,:.'.. ~." ::~ '.:. [' ;' .-:.':"] ~" "/.? ;':" ;:";~; :;:':Pra~'~ed~::criti~.u:e.s:-' .]:6f'] ~.~he, :~a~'c:: :.~;imp'a~s: ~. ?i.d~,tifi%-~..~, ia' ::t~: ;" B'itJg~{ed: :,N~g~'tiV-~: .: ~' :..' .. ;: ...,".:..' :..'"'." .:'~.: .:.',- :.': '..,., .,'<. ,;;, ...... '., ;'. - , ~ -, .' .. :, ....'. . .: ..",...: .. ,':, ' '~...:.. ¢-, .':...'..~',".'.=-;-. : .' :. ]]. "'.." .'~':'.':.'_'.",', ." ',::: '~.,:'-:., .... '.: :".: ,'-.-:....-,. ": :'. ~:.=. :.' .~,, Ryder':;HomeS' P~oject :ih..:-the;'City'.' of-:Oakie~ fo~:AdamS¢; Broadw¢ll' jose :.~- & C~rdo%' ~ , ~.. ': -...:-: ;.-,.,/."..-;. = ,,. .... , ...... , ...... . ..'::-' ,,, .....-...,...., ..., .... , -, ,.- .... .-.. ......... . . P . ..... .., ,- ..., . ' -:~ 7'.~'- "- ]...:'.., ' .:-:.. :.(912003)'. ~/,:..' ': ~,:'.-...-..'~, .~:.:'.:; :;.."..-:':,'~'.: .':.::::'.'.' '~"' ?:::: :"..":...:~..:'... :;:; :': .:'.].: '. ::;':~:.' '::.~.'.:'~' ":.::;". ";' '];'~]]:..;.,-~.,'-:'~.':.' ;,,'..; ..'~ :".': :. :-; .......'.,; :'.:':.;'~, .' .'.: '.:..., .':-: ~'": ~:: :;: :" .; :,? ]; ::-:?'~;.' ]' ~]:~*' ;;:P~'~'~ea" ~{i~e %~,{h:~'.. ~a~ 8";;~ ~' :i'~'~ntifi;d']n: t'h~ ~ffi:~"'i ~ ~a~{:'~d. ~i'~'~i ~.~{0~ ,:~;e ?- :-, ]:,? :' ] ;;:']:'~?~:.,' ... ',:,.?': ::'Baven~wood: :~;Re'sidentia.J fProje~t ';;in,',.c°nt~a ' ,~sta'. 'c~:upty 'fOr ;Adams: B'r0~dwei! '] ': ;'"" ..' F..,.":' :.'"'-...~. ;:~: '. :.,.:/:" :..';-.?:;JO~bPh'.:S';]Oa~doz0' (8~003 t0~9/2003)...:".::·, ,.:: :' :"':':;'.'.'.:;'"'.. :'; :.:..' ;':-,:'-;';,;:.~,:,, ] '~: .".'.; ? ::. :": ':' ~' ::'..~ '::::..:. :. · :. :-... :.'.':: .',. :.:'.:.,:-.:--.~ :.:.:,P~ep~ed.-¢itiqbe:.0f ;~he':ttamc:impacts::identifiSd':ih ~-t~e..Draft': S Ub:~.~qb~nt .'EiR"fo~':;the':'- ~".:.": :::~";.. :7."' ;;.:' :". '.".:.'~b~eSe~;..Bor~nda'.crOssihg:,:commerdial PrOject:. in ':~hb :Cit'::?bf'Salihas for Mark' R" ~' .~:' ": :'¥:;" :.:" :":'" ' ":' '?~?f;:']: As;~i~s':(~o°2-:tO.9/20o3).,:':::;.':] ::','. ::.'?"':' :.':;":.:. ::',;:' '/'..::": ~':.:" Y:"-"-"'. '?' ::. ;:';'' .'": ;;:.'_':,..]': :,:~.-'.:: ~:"': :':7 ~.::" :" · . ';-....':'.....;; "] ..... .-: .:,-:".... ;.; .'." .-" .. '...:,. -..-........: :......:.. .... ,,.,: ~:~',:'7.:-..]:.:,.-.':.:::",¢.:,":.?:.::.~ :~ '." ..,; . _.;' ...]'. ::;...".::.-..... ::/::;:':' ::... . ~:'.': :'.::; .'."-'-:' .], :::.' :'.'::~: :¢:' :"':P~ar/~a :',f8:~¢,; .br~'.n~: ap, p!icatibn~ ;¢.[b'-.;:d'a'i't~a~'s._:.~°~ :..$~; ¥¢'5;d00":of.,'HaZ;~d.E'ii~ifi~ti0'~'.:,:. ;'.::,: ': :' ~ :.' :..,_,.... :. :'¥;:.:'; .?":'.Sa6tY :funding.: ;~:.m'O;d~..tra~ ,signais :and ]t6?U~g~a~-:reg~lat0w,.'..:warning;: and .'"':. v..-. , :: ...:,..:.:.... :'...:..::.;.]'.:.:. S[reet::na'm'e,,sig'~s'in: th.e ~Ci~-of, Santa'Aha; {3/2.003'to .8/2003) ,~.-:..,: ;.; :...:'?::-:.':]'... ;. ;.] :':.; ;.;],.::'~:..;:., . .... . . . ... . .... ...,... , . -:. ;:....:-, ¢:,, :'-:." ],";.:..:..:: ~.:]'...:..-.,., .~ .,.... _ . , ..-~ .. ~;,'-:' :,..;-'.] -..,-. ~ :':;':: ".:.: : :]': ';. :.'- '~ ?:'., ]P~ePared'~itique~.:~f th~ t~a~c.impa8ts ::identifieE:iH. [h~: T~C lmPac[: Ana'~ysfS f0~¢~he:-';-..:: '; "].~' .'-~ "...t .;-;':::-"' BluerockBusines~ c~ter;¢p~6j%t in-tHe .ci[Y Of.Antioch 'for 'Ada~s..B'~°adWel.I joseph' '... ~ :.]] :--,"-' '. '.~'.': ..' :: :'-, '.,.'.'] &;Ca'rdoz0(8/2~3)"':;. :.'. '.' ],-. :.;; ..:,.-.,: :,-']' .':..; :, :';". :...; ..-: ';: :~;'. ~-. :,. :'~:' ;,;-.,'?::'~'.]-' ':: .';::.' ~ :.-..' ;.. ¥,',;. ?,. '.;'.:..,.:; ::;: :. :..;, ;.: ;':-:,...-. ]:.. ':' ,' :~:.:;':.;::. ~;' :;]'. ]' :' :. = ;'].'.:::; :../:?]. :;~":;;; ,;:.' ,;'..: '..:..'~:-~.: :...:':]:~' .?, .::.,',,' ]::; ;:.:] :,.":: ,.?:...'..:.]-:]: ¢/,.'..:' .;:.; :']' .;,;:]/:~' ~.,, ;;.:','T~m"..B~0h a~d :.and'.ASs~i.ates::;:-;-,-., ~ ....:] ~ '.'-,.:-.: ': ..:.~.;,.-: ,.,?...-]'.~.~::.;: :: .¥:. '.~:; :-:.' ~:.?.?];.?-.;.:'; :.?:?.:.: ~ .; :,:.?'.'/.;..~.'.:..'..: ;] ;;..; ::?:; ';.:.:~:,.;,;' ..~,.:;'., .!'.-:..: ..--. : -,: :....:Residentia~:P.~ject!in~t~4e~City.~f:Rib~hm~nd:f~t~.A.dams:~r~adwe~.~Jdse~h.:i&Card~z0 : ;. ;.'....~';7; ~':;.":.~;[o[:'the West'ernResearchCampus:inJthe Ci~'ofRiChmOnd'in.:Cont~a Costa;County -:. F12NAL REPORT Transportation :~nd Parking hnpacts For The Proposed DUBLIN TRANe;IT VILLAGE Prepared For: THE CITY OF i)UBLIN May 22, 2002 E N G 1 N E E R S · P k /~. N N E p, S includes hotel and residential components that would be located on the southwest ouadrant of the GOlden Gate/stl Patrick Way intersection. The proposed Dublin Transit Village*project would be located imrnediately West of this proposed BART development and south of the new St. Patrick Way extension (see Figure 10). Main access to the proposed project would be gained from St. Patrick Way via a full-access' driveway located 890 feet west of Golden Gate Drive. This main driveway would serve both the residential and office component of the project. A secondary access to the proposed project (to the residential par'king garage) would also be located off St. Patrick Way 600 feet west of Golden Gate Drive. Based. on discussions with Dublin Planning staff, the proposed project would also share an access easement with the adjacent BART project to/from a full-access driveway off Golden Gate Drive 380 feet south of St. Patrick Way. 2. Project Trip Generation The project's daily and peak hour trip generation has been based upon Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation research and previous studies conducted for the proposed Dublin Transif Center.~7 Consistent with other "transit oriented" developments adjacent to BART stations in Dublin, a I5% reduction was applied to office trip rates and a 25 % reduction was applied to residential trip rates. These discounts would a/low for residential/employment interaction as well as proximity to the planned West Dublin BART Station. Daily and peak hour net trip generation for the proposed project has been shown in Table 3. Since the proposed project site is currently generating peak hour trips (by way of the existing Cot-O-Van development), peak hour vehicle counts were conducted at the Cor-O-Van driveways located off of Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street.'~ The Cot-O-Van development trips were then subtracted from overall project trip generation so as not to over-estimate proposed project impacts. As calculated, the project would generate 1,937 net daily trips with 211 net AM peak hour trips and 240 net PM peak hour trips. 3. Project Trip Distribution Office and residential trip distributions for proposed project trips are consistent w~th studies pm-formed for the Dublin Downtown Specific Plans.'~ Office trip distribution has been estimated as follows: ~ Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Edition. Corporate Headquarters Office, and Apartment land uses, 1997 '(some rounding may have occurred during trip generation calculations). ~Omni-Means Engineers and Planners, AM and PM peak period counts at the Cor-O-Van development driveways on Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street, Dublin, April I6, 2002. ~Omni-Means Engineers and Planners, Consultant's Report, Ibid ...... Traffic .4nalvsis for the ?roposed Dublin Transit Villa~e Page 17 Table 3 J / Proposed Dublin Transit Village Trip Generation Daily, AM and PM Peak Hour A. Project Components: Office: 120,000 square feet Resident/al: 304 apartments B. Existing Cor-O-Van Trip Generation:~ 207,609 s.f. x 1.73 trips/I,000 ksf = 360 daily trips 207,609 s.f. x 0.26 trips/i,000 ksf = 55 (26 in, 29 out) 207,609 s.f. x 0.22 tr/ps/1,000 ksf = 45 (18 in, 27 out) C. Project Trip ' Generation: .... Office: 120.,000 s.f. x 6.56 tr/ps/1,000 ksf = 787 daily trips 120,000 s.f. x 1.25 trips/i,000 ksf = 150 (140 in, 10 out) AM peak 120,000 s.f. x 1.18 tr/ps/1,000 ksf = 142 (16 in, 126 out) PM peak Residential: 304 D.U.'s x 4.97 trips/D.U. = 1,510 daily trips 304 D.U.'s x 0.38 tfips/D.U. = 116 (19 in, 97 out) AM peak 304 D.U.'s x 0.47 tfips/D.U. = 143 (96 in, 47 out) PM peak D. Total Net Project Trips (Project Trips Existing Cor-O-Van Trips): Daily Trips: = 1,937 AM Peak Hour Trips: = 211 (133 in, 78 out) PM Peak Hour Trips: = 240 (94 in, 146 out) (I) Omni-Means Engineers and Planners, Peak hour vehicle counts at the Cor-O-Van development driveways on Golden Gate Drive and Regional Street. Dublin. April 16. 2002. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, .Trip Generation, 6th Edition. Corporate Headquarters Office, Apartment, and Specialty Retail [and uses. 1997. Some rounding may have occurred during trip generation calculations. (3) 15 percent discount was applied to the office trips to account for residential/employment interaction and increased use of transit due to the prordmity to the East Dublin BART Station. (4) Residential devetopmen Trips were discounted 25 % due to proximity to the East Dublin BART Station Trafdqc Analysis for the Proposed Dublin D'anxit Village Page ]8 omni-m c ns E N G 1 N E E RS , P L A N N E R,S May 14, 2003 Mr. Ray Kuzbari, P.E. Senior Engineer City of Dublin Engineering/Public Works 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Focused Generation for the Propose"d Dublin Trip Analysis/Parking Update Transit ¥illage Dear Mr. Kuzbah: This letter report provides a focused traffic analysis for the proposed Dublin Transit Village (DTV) project in the City of Dublin. The analysis focuses on the trip generation characteristics . ~ V and parldng demand of the reVised project proposal compared to the previously anal, zed project (Omni-Mea~, May 22, 2002). In addition to analyzing revised project Up generation characteristics, the proposed project's par'king demand has been updated based on the City's parldng code requirements. An analysis of the project's shared parking characteristics has been conducted with and without the planned West Dublin BART Station (consistent with previous analyses). Impacts resulting from the change in proposed project description have been discussed in terms of overall intersection operation and parking demand. Appropriate m/t/gat/on measures have also been suggested to ensure acceptable levels of parking in the project study area. The following sections describe the net increase in trip generation resulting from the new project description, effects of project trips on adjacent intersection operation, and overall parldng demand with and without the planned West Dublin BART Station. i. Proposed Project Trip Generation The previously analyzed Dublin Transit Village development contaJ_ned 120,000 square feet of office uses and 304 residential apartments. As calculated, the project would have generated 1,937 daily trips with 21t AM peak hour and 240 PM peak hour trips.~ The new DTV contains' 150,420 feet' of office a_nd 308 residential project description square uses apartment uses.: This would be an increase of 30,420 square feet of office uses and 4 residential ~Omni-Means Engineers and Plarmers; Transportation and Parkine ImCacts for the Proposed Dublin Transit V~Itage, City of Dublin, Final Report, May 22, 2002. 2MBH, "Dublin Transit Village-Site Info and Project Matrix - Site Acreage. , Figure EX-I, March 14, 2003. 1901 olympic Boulevard, Suil'e 120 - Walnut Creek, CA. 94596 ~ (925). 93F~-2230_ fa):: .(925) 9,~u-.=247':~ o~ ~, ROSEVILLE REDDiNG VISALIA WALNUT CREEK apartment units. The net incr~se in proposed project trip generation from the previously analyzed DTV project has been shown in Table i (attached). As calculated, the additional office and residential uses would add 220 daily trips with 40 AM p~nk hour trips and 38 PM peak hour trips to the project study area. Overall project trip generation would increase to 2,157 dally trips with 251 AM peak hour trips and 278 PM peak hour trips. 2. Effects of DTV Net Trip Generation Increase on Adjacent Intersection Operation The net increase in AM and PM peak hour DTV project trips have been distributed onto the street network based on previous transportation analyses conducted for the project. In addition, the project trip distribution has been revised at the Golden Gate/St. Patrick Way inte~rsection to reflect the elimination of the shared easement project driveway off of Golden Gate Drive. Wi~ the revised project site. plan, all project access would be to/from St. Patrick Way. With peak hour project trips added to the street network, intersection LOS have been re- calculated 'at the Golden Gate/St. Patrick Way intersection for Future Base plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Overall intersection operation would continue to operate at acceptable levels (LOS D or better) with both project scenarios. Wi-th Future Base plus Project conditions, the intersection would operate at LOS A (9.4 seconds of delay) during the AM peak hour and LOS A (8.7 seconds of delay) during the PM peak hour. With this project scenario, the intersection would be Under cumulative conditions, the Golden alt-way-stop-controlled. Gate/St. Patrick Way intersection would be signalized. With additional project traffic, intersection operation would be LOS A (0.44 Volume/capacity ratio) during the AM peak hour and LOS A (0.59 volume/capacity ratio) during the PM peak hour (see LOS calculation sheets-- attached). Based on proposed project's distribution and project access, the net traffic increase at the Golden Gate/St. Patrick Way intersection would equate to only 20 AM peak hour trips and 20 PM peak hour trips. These trips would be further dispersed as they approach outlying intersections along Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard. For this reason, other study intersection LOS would remain unchanged from previously analyzed conditions. 3. Updated Project Parking a. Proposed parking Spaces Based on the proposed project's revised site plan, there would be a total of 944 parking spaces appOrtioned to residential, office, and "shared" residential/office uses2 These spaces would be diVided among the project components as follOWs: ~MBH, "Dublin Transit Village--Site Info and Project Matrix - Parking, Figure EX-2, March 14, 2003. 2 Table 1 Revised Dublin Transit Village Trip Generation Daily, AM and PM Peak Hour A. Previous DTV Project Trip Generation:al Daily Trips: = t,937 AM Peak Hour Trips = 211 (133 in, 78 out) PM Peak Hour Trips = 240 (94 in, 146 out) B. Current DTV Development (Net Increase) Trip Generati0n:TM 30,420 s.f. x 6.55 trips/I,000 ksf = 200 deity trips 30,420 s.f. x 1.25 trips/i,000 ksf = 38 (35 in, 3 out) AM peak 30,420 s.f. x t. I8 trips/t,000 ksf = 36 (4 in, 32 out) PM peak Residential: 4 D.U.'s x 4.97 trips/D.U. = 20 daily trips 4 D.U. 's x 0.38 trips/D.U. = 2 (1 in, 1 out) AM peak 4 D.U.'s x 0.47 trips/D.U. = 2 (t in, 1 out) PM peak C. Total Net Increase in DTV Project Trips: Daily Trips: = 220 AM Peak Hour Trips: = .40 (36 in, 4 out) PM Peak Hour Trips: = 38 (5 hq, 33 out) D. Overall Project Trips: Daily Trips: = 2,157 AM Peak Hour Trips: - 251 (169 in, 82 out) PM Peak Hour Trips: = 278 (99 in, 179 out) (I) Omni-Means Engineers and Planners, Transportation and Parkin_~ Impacts for the Proposed Dublin Transit Villa_oe, City of Dublin, Final Report, May 22, 2002. (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trin Generatlo~, 6~ Edition, Corporate Headquarters Office, Apartment, and Specialty Re[all land uses, I997. Some rounding may have occurred during trip generation calculations. (3) 15 percent discount was applied to the office trips to account for residentiaI/employment interaction and increased use of translt due to the proydmi;y to the East Dublin BART Station. (4) Residemiat development trips were discounted 25 ~, due to proximity to the East Dubiin BART Station. r Comments r ENVIRONMENTAL INTIAL STUDY WEST DUB! TN TRANSi-I-VILLAGE F City of Dublin California Prepared by Schuyler Fishman M.S. Atmospheric Science Oakland, CA February !6, 2004 654 Poirier Street Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: 510-597-1490 Fax: 510-597-1490 Emaih schuylerfish@earthlink, net Website: www.mindlikesky.com Table of Contents CONSTRuCTIoN AIR QUAL TY IMPACTS ARE . I. I SIGNIFICANT ................1 I.A. Construction Emission Sigx2ficance Threshold .............................. ~ ..... ....... 1 I.E. Uncontrolled Diesel Exhaust Emissions Are Significant ........................... 3 I.E.1. Modeling Methods ................................................................................... 3 I.E.2. Uncontrolled Diesel Emissions are Significant and Require Mitigation .............. . .................................................................................................... 4 I.C. Construction Emissions are Improperly Presented as Piecemeal ............. 5 II. ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION IS REQUIRED .................... 6 II.A. Significant Diesel Exhaust Emissions Are Not Mitigated ...................... 6 II.A.1. Additional Feasible Diesel Exhaust Control Measures ...................... 6 III. OPERATIONAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT 10 III.A. Modeling Methods ..................................................................................... 10 III.B. Area Source Emissions Are Si .gnificant ................................................... 12 III.C. Total Operational Emissions Are Significant ......................................... 12 IV. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT AND UNMITIGATED .. 13 V. OPERATIONAL AND CUIv[MULATIVE MITIGATIONS ARE INADEQUATE ............................................................................................................... 13 V.A. Additional Area Source Mitigation Measures are Feasible ................. 15 V.B. Additional Cumulative Impact Mitigation Measures Are Feasible ... 16 VI. OZONE-FORMATION IMPACTS FROM THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT ARE SIGNIFICANT AND SHOULD BE MITIGATED ............................................. 19 VI.A. Reduce Standard Paving ........................................................................... 19 VI.A.1. Porous Block Pavement Systems ..; .................................................. 20 VI.A.2. Conventional Paving Systems .......................................................... 21 VI.A.3. Install Light-colored, Reflective Roof Products ............................. 21 EXHIBIT I - URBEMIS MODELING ............................................................................. 1 List of Tables Table I-1 URBEMIS2002 Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ..................................... 4 Table 111-1 Wintertime Area and Operational Emissions (lbs/day) ....................... 12 Table 11I-2 Annual Average'Area and Operational Emissions (tons/year) .......... 12 Comments In November, The City of Dublin prepared an Environmental Initial Study for the West Dublin Transit Village Cot-O-Van Site. The Project consists of 9.06 acres located adjacent to the 1-580 corridor in Dublin. The Project is part of the West Dublin Bart Specific Plan area. The Project consists of 308 multifamily units, 177,264 square feet of below ground parking and ground level retail space, as well as 150,000 square feet of general office space. The project is smaller part of the West Dublin Transit Village, which will consist of 71.40 acres to be developed over the next five to seven years. The finding of the Initial Study is that the Project will have a less than significant air quality impact, even without the mitigation measures listed (Initial Study, p. 8). As I will discuss in these comments, air quality impacts from the project are significant and the mitigation measures listed do not include all feasible measures. The Neg Dec states, "Short-term construction impacts related to implementation of the project, including grading and excavation, could result in exceedance of air quality standards established by the BAAQMD." (Initial Study p. 20) However, the Initial Study claims that the mitigation measures listed in Conditions for Approval for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map.for the project will reduce the impact to a less than sig-nificant impact. It is impossible to conclude that site- specific impacts have been fully mitigated without performing an appropriate numerical analysis. Such an analysis would include estimating emissions in pounds per day and tons per year of each criteria pollutant using current emissions factors or appropriate modeling software and then comparing the emissions to the significance thresholds. If the significance thresholds have been exceeded, this would require imposing mitigation strategies, then est/mating the controlled emissions, and comparing the .controlled emissions to the significance thresholds. I.A. Construction Emission Significance Threshold The significance of construction exhaust emissions can be evaluated by estimating the emissions using BAAQMD emission factors and comparing them with BAAQMD significance thresholds for project emissions,'or, alternatively, construction-specific thresholds established by other air districts. The BAAQMD has established significance thresholds of 15 tons per year ("ton/yr") or 80 West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 1 pounds per day ("lb/daY") for ROG, NOx, and PM10 and 550 lb/day for CO. (BAAQMD 12/99,~ p. 15, Table 3.) Two air districts have also established emission significance thr'esholds that apply specifically to short-term construction emissions. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District ("SMAQMD') has established significance thresholds for ROG, NO×, and PM10 that apply to construction emissions. The significance thresholds for NOx and ROG are both 85 lb/day and for PM10 1994,2 Table The South Coast Air 275 lb/day. (SMAQMD p. A-2, A-2.) Quality Management District ("SCAQMD') has also established construction emission significance thresholds of 75 lb/day for ROG, 100 lbs/day for NOx, and 150 lb/day for PM10, and 550 lb/day for CO. (SCAQMD 4/93,3 p. 64.) The Initial Study declined to analyze exhaust emissions. However, the BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines specifically conclude that "[aJlthou gh the impacts from construction related air pollutant emissions are temporary in duration, such emissions can still represent a significant air quality impact. In some cases, construction impacts may represent the largest air quality impact associated with a proposed project... Emissions from construction equipment engines also can contribute to high localized concentrations of PMlO, as well as increased emissions of ozone precursors and carbon dioxide." (Id., p. 52) Elsewhere, the BAAQMD presents methods that can be used to estimate these emissions (/d., p. 28) and methods that can be used-to mitigate them. (Id., p. 53.) Because the BAAQMD presents emission estimating methods and mitigation strategies for construction exhaust, such emissions are not de facto exempt due tO their inclusion in attainment plans, as suggested b.y the Initial Study. Additionally, the BAAQMD'Guidelines were published in December 1999. Significant changes have occurred in the past 4 years, including the publication of a Revised Ozone Attainment Plan4 for the Bay Area. This Revised Plan assumes the use of certain controls on construction equipment to reduce ozone precursors, including the use of new, low-emission engines in construction equipment, Iow-emission pick-up trucks, and the use of natural gas and LPG in 1 Bay .Area Air Quality Management District ('BAAQMD'), BAAQMD cEQA Guidelines, April 1996, Revised December 1999. 2 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Thresholds of Significance, 1994. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District,'CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. 4 ABAG, BAAQMD, MTC, Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-hour National Ozone Standard, Adopted October 24, 2001. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 2 off-road equipment. Yet, the Initial Study does not identifv these controls as mitigation measures. In fact, the Initial'Study does not identify any mitigation for these emissions. Thus, the Project's cOnstruction emissions are higher than assumed in this' Plan and are not consistent with it. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125 (b), require that an EIR discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general and re~onal plans. The Initial Study' did not identify these inconsistencies (and possibly others). CEQA requires that the City evaluate a project to identify its significant impacts and adopt .all feasible mitigation measures for significant impacts. The City has not made any attempt to evaluate the significant impacts of construction equipment exhaust emissions and has not adopted any mitigation measures for these impacts. As demonstrated below, these impacts are sio-mificant. I.B, Uncontrolled Diesel Exhaust Emissions Are Significant The Initial Study does not contain sufficient information to accurately estimate construction exhaust emissions. These emissions are usually estimated from a detailed construction equipment inventory and a construction schedule, neither of which is provided in the Initial Study. Therefore, the Project description is inadequate for purposes of p~oject-Ibvel air quality analyses and must be presented in a full fIR. When a project is not adequately described, emissions can be estimated from emission factors expressed 'in terms of mass of pollutant per unit volume of soil disturbed. The BAAQMD has published emissions factors that express PM10, CO, ROG, NOx and SOx in g-rams of pollutant per cubic yard ("g/yd3'') of earth moved. (BAAQMD 12/99, p. 29, Table 7, p. 28.) The BAAQMD would not include these factors in their guidelines unless they expected that construction emissions were to be estimated in the appropriate context. However, these factors cannot be used because there is no information about the amount of soil that wiil be disturbed by project construction, instead, I used a similar but more updated method to estimate emissions. The URBEMIS2002 model contains more recent emissions factors that include estimates from these sources. I.B.1. Modeling Methods I estimated emissions from project construction with the computer program URBEMIS (stands for Urban Emissions Model) 2002, version 7.4, available from the South Coast Air Quality Management District's website. URBEMIS has been developed for modeling traffic-related and area source emissions associated with land use development projects in California such as residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, office buildings, and construction projects. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 3 URBEMIS models construction-related emissions according to'a methodology developed for SCAQMD by the Midwest Research Institutes which are an improvement and more accurate than the standard EPA AP42 emissions factors. Emissions from diesel exhaust from Stationary' and mobile construction equipment are determined by ARB's off-road emissions model6 and ARB's most current mobile emissions database and Walker Building Estimator's Reference Book7. The most basic emissions factors from the MRI study are used in the model, and this is a conservative estimate. Given the large amount of soil to be excavated and graded at the site, emissions will be large and are underestimated here due to lack of specific grading and excavation data. The updated construction model estimates emissions for three, phases of construction: demolition, site grading, and construction. The detailed model output files are attached as Exhibit I. All default settings were used, and I assumed the build out of this project would take place within one year and commence in 2004. Table I-1 URBEMIS2002 Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx CO TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 604 669 586 70 31 38 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 39 31 8 I.B.2. Uncontrolled Diesel Emissions are Significant.and Require Mitigation Table I-1 shows ROG and NOx and CO emissions from construction exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 80lbs/day. As stated above in Comment I.A, emission significance thresholds have been established that apply specifically to short- term construction emissions. Project emissions exceed both the SMAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and ROG (85 lb/day) and SCAQMD construction emission significance threshol ds of 75 lb/day for ROG, and 100 lbs/day for NOx. NOx and ROG are both ozone precursors and wouldcontribute to the local formation of ozone downwind from the construction site. Ozone is an important regulatory concern in the Bay Area, where ozone concentrations currently exceed state and federal ambient air quality standards. These calculations indicate that 5 Improvement of Specific Em/ssion Factors (BACM Project No. 1), Final Report. Prepared by the Midwest Research Institute, South Coast AQMD Contract No. 95040, March 29th, 1996. 6 Software User's Guide: URBEMIS2002 for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module, Version 7.4 Emissions Estimation for Land Use Projects, Prepared for Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District by Jones & Stokes Associates, 2600 V Street, Sacramento, CA, 95818. 7 Walker Building Estimator's Reference Book, Frank R. Walker Company, 1999. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 4 Project construction would contribute to an existing significant ozone impact and thus are also cumulatively significant. During construction, the large volume of construction vehicles may impact local intersections and-worsen traffic conditions. This could increase traffic congestion and vehicle emissions from increased idle times, which will also contribute to construction emissions. The Initial Study does not quantify or mitigate the impacts from these sources. A traffic analysis should evaluate traffic impacts from construction traffic and .propose proper mitigation if necessary. These additional emissions are not included in my analysis therefore these results represent a possible underestimate. Actual emissions cOuld also be much higher because there are numerous sources of construction emissions, including emissions from commuting construction fill and other trucks, trucks, fumes, water workers, import delivery paving trucks, which are not accounted for in this estimate. Most importantly, all the construction mitigation measures 'listed are dust mitigation measures and are usefUl and effective during site grading. These mitigation measures listed are not appropriate' for controlling the bulk of these emissions and should be revised to include diesel emissions control measures and traffic and circulation measures which would limit emissions from construction equipment. The City of Dublin failed to quantify these emissions in the Initial Study. None of the measures listed in Table 2 of the BAAQMD CEQA guidelines (BAAQMD 12/99 p.15), the only source of air quality mitigation proposed in the Initial Study, address emissions from construction equipment exhaust. These emissions as demonstrated above exceed relevant thresholds and require ail feasible cOnstruction mitigation. There are many feasible mitigation measures for these emissions, which are presented below in Comment II. I.C. Construction Emissions are Improperly Presented as Piecemeal The project presented in the Initial Study is actually a smaller piece of a development that will cover 71.40 acres. By presenting the project in pieces the true environmental impact of Project construction has been minimized. However fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are significant for the entire project and considered cumulatively, even with mitigation measures, may cause violations of the 'state and federal ambient air quality standards. In addition, diesel exhaust emissions for the entire site could potentially expose workers and sensitive receptors, depending on build out schedule, to an increased cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust. These are two issues, which are not analyzed in the Initial Study or in the West Dublin Transit Village Plan and therefore must be considered in a full EIR. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 5 The in Comment I indicates that construction, presented Project as mitigated would result in ROG and NOx emissions that exceed thresholds of siomTificance. And that diesel exhaust emissions could pOtentially cause new violations of federal and state ambient air quality standards on both PM10 and PM2.5 and may lead to significant cancer riSks from diesel exhaust. Thus, the Initial Study must be revised and recirculated with the required analyses and additional mitigation to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. II.A. Significant Diesel Exhaust Emissions Are Not Mitigated As demonstrated in Comment I, the diesel exhaust emissions from construction of this Project exceed the significance threshold. However, the Initial Study only listed measures applicable to fugitive dust and did nOt require any mitigation measures for construction diesel exhaust. The BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines recoom-dze that "the discussion of construction impacts and mitigation measures in these Guidelines focuses primarily on PM10 emissions from fugitive dust sources." (BAAQMD 12/99, p. 53.) However, the Guidelines do recommend some measures to mitigate equipment exhaust impacts, including: · Use of alternative fueled construction equipment · Minimizing idling time · Maintaining properly tuned equipment · Limiting the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use Further, the BAAQMD guidelines recommend that "[if] a project may result in public exposure to high levels of diesel exhaust, the Lead Agency should propose mitigation measures to reduce this impact" and recommend the following measures for construction equipment (Ici., p. 60): · Conversion to cleaner engines · Use of cleaner (reduced sulfur) fuel · Regular maintenance - keep equipment well tuned · Add-on control devices, e.g., particulate traps, catalytic oxidizers · Buffer zone between facility and sensitive receptors II.A. 1. Additional Feasible Diesel Exhaust Control Measures Comment I dembnstrates, NOx, ROG, and CO exhaust emissions from construction equipment are significant. However, the Initial Study did not West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 6 indicate if the Project will conform to CARB regUlations and did not include any mitigation measures for diesel exhaust emissions. The following seCtionS discuss four widely used measures to mitigate construction exhaust emissions: (1) ultra low sulfur diesel; (2) alternative diesel formulationS; (3) California Air Resources Board ("CARB')-certified construction equipment; and (4) pOst-cOmbustion controls. These measures are indisputably feasible, as demonstrated below, and shoUld be required for the West Dublin Transit Village Project.8 a) Ultra Low-Sulfur Diesel The U.S. EPA and CARB have adopted fuel regulations that limit the sulfur content of on-road diesel fuel to 500 ppm at the present. This limit will be lowered to 15 ppm in June 2006. However, some California refineries, including the nearby Equil°n Refinery, in Martinez, already comply and could supply 15 ppm diesel fuel for Project construction. CARB diesel, which is not required for off-road equipment, and 15-ppm sulfur, ultra-low-sulfur diesel, are currently used in vehicle fleets and have been widely . required as CEQA mitiga{ion. These fuels not only reduce sulfur, but also NOx, CO, and PM10 and Could be adopted here to further reduce construction exhaust emissions, especially sig~zificant NOx emissions. The CalifOrnia EnergY COmmission ("CEC') has required the use of ulTM low sulfur fuel where available. The CEC follows a CEQA-equivalent process in licensing of new power plants larger than 50 MW. Ultra-low-sulfur diesel was required in the recently decided cases' of the Three Mountain Power Project9 and the Huntington Beach Generating Station Retool Project? 8 See, for example, the construction exhaust mitigation measures for the NASA Ames Development P1an (NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Ames Development Plan, Draft Programmatic EIS, November 2001) and the Stanford University Community PIan (Santa Clara County, DEIR Stanford Universi .fy Draft CommuniW Plan and General Use Permit Application, June 23, 2000). Other agencies outside of the BAAQMD also require aggressive construction equipment exhaUSt control Programs. The City of San Diego, for example, required that exhaust " emissions from equipment used to construct the Padres Ballpark and ancillary projects be reduCed by 95% using a range of measures, including alternative fuels and post-combustion controls. The SMAQMD and the U.S. EPA also routinely recommend mitigation for construction exhaust emissions. California Energy. Commission, Commission Decision, Three Mountain Power Plant Project, May 9 2001, Condition AQZ26, p. 142. 10 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Huntington Beach Generating Station Retool project, May 2001, Condition AQ-C2, p. 30. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 7 Other agencies have also required the use of low-sulfur diesel fuels in construction equipment as CEQA mitigation. The E1 Toro Reuse IS/MNDn requires the exclusive use of 15 ppm diesel in "all on-site construction equipment and ali construction material delivery trucks." The Port of Oakland Berths 55-58 FEIR~2 required the use of CARB Iow-sulfur diesel. b) Alternative Diesel Formulations On January 31, 2001I3 CARB verified PuriNOxTM as an alternative diesel formulation that can achieve a 14% reduction in NOx and a 63% reduction in PM10 compared to CARB diesel. It can be used in any direct-injection, heavy- duty compression ignition engine and is compatible with existing engines and existing storage, distribution, and vehicle fueling facilities. The fuel is locally available from Ramos Oil in Dixon and has been required as mitigation for construction exhaust emission impacts. The NASA Ames Development Plan DEIS requires "where reasonable and feasible, use alternative diesel fuels. The CARB has verified reductions of NOx by almost 15%, and particulate matter by almost 63 %, from use of alternative diesel fuels," describing PuriNOx. c) CARB-Certified Construction Equipment Both the U.S. EPA and CARB have established emission limits on new off-road engines. CARB-certified off-road engines are engines that are 3 years old or less at the time of use and which comply with these new low emission limits. This equipment is widely available in the construction fleet and specified as a control measure in the BAAQMD's Revised Ozone Attainment Plan. SMAQMD and other agencies require the use of at least 20% CARB-certified off-road engines in the mix of construction equipment operating on-site, or alternatively, setting a NOx, ROG, and/or PM10 emission reduction goal for the construction fleet.' A similar measure has been adopted by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("TNRCC") for the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston- Galveston areas. (Rennie et al. 20017) The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ("ADEQ") has also recommended this measure to 1 t Count3' of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse of MCAS E1 Toro and the Airport System Master Plan for lohn Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange Court _t-y IntemationaI AirpOrt, Draft Supplemental Analysis, April 2001. 12 Port of Oakland, Berths 55-58 Project DEIR, December 11, 1998. 13 Letter from Dean C. Simeroth, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch, to Thomas I. Sheahan, Lubrizol, January, 31, 2001. S.G. Rennie, L. Fiffick, D. Huckabay, and B. Ubanwa, Heavy Duty Diesel Engines Retrofit PrOgrams as a Part of Houston SIP, Proceedings of the Air &Waste Management Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 24-28, 2001. West Dublin Transit Viliage Environmental Initial Study 8 address the air quality problems in the Phoenix area. (ADEQ 11/9/00, pp. 19-24.) d) Post-Combustion Controls Post-combustion controls are devices that are installed downstream of the engine on the tailpipe to treat the exhaust. These devices are capable of removing over 90% of the PM10, CO, and VOCs from engine exhaust, depending on the specific device, sulfur content of the fuel, and specific engine. The most common and widely used post-combustion control devices are particulate traps (i.e., soot filters), oxidation catalysts, and combinations thereof. CARB has recently identified, evaluated, and comprehensively reviewed these types of devices.~S These devices are feasible methods of mitigating construction emissions and are Commonly required. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority ("MTA") implemented a voluntary program in the fall of 1998 which resulted in retrofitting 70 pieces of construction equipment with oxidation catalysts (Kasprak et at "Big Dig," massive, 5-year, billion-plus al. 200116) the the $10 Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston's North End and one of the largest infrastructure construction projects in the county. In California, the CEC follows'a CEQA-equivalent process in licensing of new power plants larger than 50 MW and has required these devices on many projects. The Sunrise Power Project was recently constructed using this equipment? Several other 500+MW power plants have been licensed and most are currently under construction successfully using these controls, including High Desert,~8 Elk Hills? Pastoria,20 Western Midway-Sunset,m Mountain 15 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions -from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000; CARB, Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary_ Diesel-Fueled Engines, October 2000. 16 Alex Kasprak, Guido Schattanek, and Ping K. Wan, Emission Reduction Retrofit Program for Construction Equipment of the Central Artery/Turmel Prqlect, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 24-28, 2001. AIso see: www.epa.gov/OMS/retrofit/documents/bigdig_case_Ol.htm. 17 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Sttrudse Power Project, December 2000, Condition AQ-C3, p. 120. 18 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, High Desert Power Project, May 2000, Condition AQ-3(o), p. 107. 19 Calffomia Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Elk Hills Power Proje~b'December 2000, Condition AQ-C2(3), p. 123. 20 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Pastoria Energy Facility, December 2000, Condition AQ-C3, p.. 108. 21 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Western Midway Sunset Power Project, March 2001, Condition AQ-C2, p. 114. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 9 View,22 and Contra Costa Unit 8.23 All of these decisions are posted at www.energy.ca, gov under the name of the individual facility. Post-combustion controls have also been required as conventional CEQA mitigation in EIRs, including The E1 Toro Reuse IS/MND, the Stanford University General Use Permit Application IS/MND, the City of San Diego in the Padres Ballpark FEIR, and the Port of Oakland's Vision 2000 FEIR. , ,, ~. . ~ ~.~k~?,~~ · ~, . ~ -~ The Initial Study states that operational and area source emissions "would not exceed regional air quality atandards or thresholds" (Initial Study p. 20). However, the Initial Study does not quantify operational impacts for this project, claiming that the project will result in a "net reduction in regional emissions." (Initial Study p. 20) The logic of this statement is faulty in many ways. Any additional housing units in the Bay Area will result in an increase in emissions. The West Dublin Transit Village is an example of transit-oriented development, which employs Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) that are included in the most recent Clean Air Plan (CAP). Therefore the reductions in emissions are not new reductions over and above those projected in the CAP and cannot represent a net reduction. As demonstrated above this development will have a sigTdficant impact even with the mitigation measures built in to a transit oriented development. I modeled operational traffic-related and area source emissions on a project level and demonstrated that the Project will exceed the B AAQMD significance thresholds of 15 tons/year for ROG and NOx. This new significant impact must be disclosed and mitigated in a full EIR. III,A, Modeling Methods I estimated operational emissions from the increase in project traffic and area source erpdssions with the computer program URBEMIS 2002, version 7.4. URBEMIS has been developed for modeling traffic-related and area source emissions associated with land use development projects in Califorrda such as residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, office buildings, and construction projects. URBEMIS models traffic-related emissions according to the amount of trips generated by a certain land use based on its dimensions (in 1,000 square feet) or number of units, e.g., residential dwelling units or hotel rooms. The model uses the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual ("ITE 22.California Energy Commission, Commission Decisionr Mountain' View Power Project, March 2001, ConditiOn AQ,C2, P~ 34. 23 California Energy' Commission, Commission Decision, Contra Costa Unit 8 Power Proiect, May 2001, Condition AQC-2, p. 12. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 10 Manual"), 6m edition24, along with CARB's motor vehicle emissions model, EMFAC2002, version 2.2, to calculate motor vehicle emissions. URBEMIS also allows one to model emissions from area sources such as gas appliances, wood stoves, fireplaces, and landscape maintenance equipment, emissions that are not mentioned in the Initial Study. Based on the limited project description provided, I modeled the project using default values where information was not available. Ali defaults were used for trip generation, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual ("ITE Manual"), 6th edition. Emissions are modeled for the target year of 2005. URBEMIS default values of 35% and 10% were accepted for the percentage of homes with wood-burning stoves and fireplaces, respectively. These numbers possibly represent and underestimate and are conservative. In 2000, 60 percent of new homes were built with at least one fireplace compared to 36 percent in 19717 Also, between 2000 and 2001, the number of cordwood fireplaces and 'stoves sold in the U.S. increased by 5% and pellet26-fueled fireplaces and stoves increased by 73%, while the number of gas-fireplaces and stoves declined by 11%.27 Emissions are much higher during the winter months than for typical summer conditions. The results provided in Table IIM represent wintertime emissions and thus represent worst-case conditions. Table Ill-2 represents the annual average, which is expressed as tons per year. The numbers are lower due to the lower summertime emissions. In order to assess their impacts, all mitigation measures mentioned in the Initial Study were modeled with URBEMIS 2002 default emissions reduction credits. 24 Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 2 3, 6m Ed., 1998, p. 1134. Institute Vol. of 25 Hearth, Barbecue, and Patio Association, Hearth Industry Backgrounder and Statistics, April 19, 2002, from National Association of Home Builders CNAHB), from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. 26 Pellets consist of 100% wood Sawdust. 27 Hearth, Barbecue, and Patio Association, Hearth Industry Statistics 2001, httlV://w-w-~v.hpba.org/2OOlstats/HearthStatistics.shtml, accessed February 23, 2003. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 11 Table. llI-Z Wintertime Area and Operational' Emissions (lbs/day) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 441 22 1028 3 15'7 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSTON ESTIMATES TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 104 128 1060 1 66 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 91 113 934 1 58 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSTONS TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 545 150 2088 3 224 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 532 134 1962 3 216 Table III-2 Annual Average Area and Operational Emissions (tons/year) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTTMATES ' ROG NOx CO SO2 PM 10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 20 2 43 0 6 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 17 18 173 0 12 TOTALS (tpy, mitigated) 15 16 :152 0 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 37 20 2:15 0 19 III,B. Area Source Emissions Are Significant As Table III-1 demonstrates this project in wintertime will generate 441 lbs/day of ROG from' area emissions sources. This exceeds the BAAQMD significance threshold of 80 lbs/day. Therefore the project results in significant air quality impacts not included in the Initial Study. The Project, at a minimum, must include all feasible area mitigation measures as listed in Comment V. III.C. Total Operational Emissions Are Significant Table III.1 and III.2 summarize the URBEMIS modeling results for criteria pollutants from area and operational emissions. Project operations that exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for these pollutants are marked in bold. The URBEMIS modeling output is attached as Exhibit I. These results show that Project-related cumulative emissions from operational and area sources considerably exceed the-13 AAQMD significance thresholds for ROG, CO and PM10. Annual average ROG emissions (37 tpy) also exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 15 tpy. These are significant impacts that the City failed to declare in the Initial Study. Consequently, all feasible mitigation for all' of the various emission sources should be imposed as discussed below in Comment V. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 12 The Initial Study claims that because the Project is included in the City's General Plan and consistent with ABAG population projections, its air quality impacts are less than significant. (Initial Study p. 20) According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines2s, "cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan (2001 CAP)" (BAAQMD 12/99 p. 19). If the general plan is not consistent with the CAP, then the cumulative impact analysis should consider all the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The CEQA guidelines also state that if the Project's impact is individually significant, as determined in Comment III above, then the project would also be determined to have a sigTdficant cumulative impact. Because it was published in 2000, the West Dublin Specific Plan could not be consistent with the 2001 CAP. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the BART Station and Transit Village Project (DSEIR) uses URBEMIS7G software to estimate the cumulative air quality impact of all the developments in th~ Transit Village. This software is outdated and underestimates the area and source emissions. Therefore the Initial Study must conduct cumulative air quality analysis that includes all the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. However, even the outdated analysis present in the West Dublin Bart Specific Plan points indicates that cumulative impacts for the entire project will contribute 18.08 tons/year? These emissions exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the Project in combination with the total build-out of the West Dublin Transit Village will result in a significant cumulative impact, irregardless of its consistency with the Clean Air Plan and ail feasible mitigation measures should be included. The mitigation measures listed in the Initial Study are incomplete and do not include all reasonably applicable measures. Even if-the Initial Study or the DSEIR contained ali Transportation Control Measures ('TCMs') contained in the CAP, these measures represent the minimum that must be required from any Project; they are not in of themselves appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures for cumulative impacts should be additional measures specifically Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMHD"), BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996, Revised December 1999. 29 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project, SCH 2000042058, Prepared byt EDAW for the City of Dublin, November 2000. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 13 implemented to bring reductions in vehicle mkies traveled over and above those reductions projected in the CAP. There are numerous additional feasible mitigation measures that could be adopted to further mitigate these new significant impacts. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend five general approaches to reduce emissions from motor vehicles: (1) reduce trips; (2) reduce vehicle miles traveled; (3) use of low emission vehicles; (4) improve traffic flows and reduce congestion; and (5) support measures. (BAAQMD 12/99.) The DSEIR and the Initial Study failed to impose many of these traffic-related mitigation measures recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. These are: · Construct transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, shelters, etc. · Provide shuttle service to transit stations/multimodaI centers ° Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit stops and adjacent development · Install EV charging facilities · Install CNG fueling facility · Provide preferential parking locations for EVs and CNG vehicles · Charge reduced or no parking fee for EVs and CNG vehicles ° Provide shuttle service to regional transit system or multimodal center, including CALTRANS station · Provide shuttle service to major destinations such as employment centers, shopping centers, and schools · Provide satellite telecommunication center for residential areas · Pay transit mitigation fee Emissions from Vehicles could be reduced through providing incentives and free parking spaces for electric and hybrid cars. The BAAQMD Guidelines puts special emphasis on the use of low emission vehicles: "I4Zhile the Dis~'ict urges Lead Agencies to emphasize measures to reduce trips and VMT, careful consideration should always be given to opportunities to promote use of[ow emission fuels. Low emissions vehicles {LEVJ and equipment are particularly well suited.., in situations where there may a critical mass to .justify a fuetingfacility." (BAA QMD CEQA Guidelines 12/99) West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 14 V.A. Additional Area Source Mitigation Measures are Feasible Although the modeling provided in the Initial Study omits emissions from wood stoves and fireplaces, (see Initial Study Appendix D), these emissions will add to the cumulative air emissions and contribute to already existing air quality problems. (See URBEMIS output attached as Exhibit I). These emissions exceed BAAQMD thresholds. URBEMIS default values of 35 % and 10% were accepted for the percentage of homes with wood-burning stoves and fireplaces, respectively. These numbers possibly represent and underestimate and are conservative. In 2000, 60 percent of new homes were built with at least one fireplace compared to 36 percent in 1971.3o Also, between 2000 and 2001, the number of cordwood fireplaces and stoves sOld in the U.S. increased by 5% and pellet3Lfueled fireplaces and stoves increased by 73 %, while the number of gas-fireplaces and stoves declined by 11%?2 Mitigation measures should be implemented to limit the number of fireplaces and wood stoves allowed for residential development or eliminate them altogether. The BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines include additional measures to mitigate operational area emissions. Area emissions can also be mitigated by controlling other sources of emissions from the Project, including exhaust emissions from landscaping equipment, emissions from natural gas combustion for heating/air- conditioning, increased ozone production from the heat island effect (see Comment V below), and indirect emissions from electricity generation. The following are many of the feasible mitigation measures, which should be considered in a new revised EIR: . · Use central water heaters or use solar water heaters were feasible · Incorporate passive solar building design and landscaping conducive to passive solar energy use, i.e. building orientation in a south to southeast direction, encourage planting of deciduous trees on west sides of structures, landscape with drought-resistant species, and use groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce hear reflection · Use high-efficiency, or Energy Star Certified heating and other appliances, such as water heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces, and boiler units 3O Hearth, Barbecue, a_nd Pa~o Association, Hearth Industry Backgrotmder and Statistics, April 19, 2002, from National Association of Home Builders (NAI-IB), from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. 3~ Pelle~ consist of 100% wood sawdust. 32 Hearth, Barbecue, and Patio Association, Hearth Industry Statistics 2001, http://w~,w.hpba.org/2001stats/HearthStatistics.shtml, accessed Februarv 23, 2003. r- West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 15 · Conform'with EPA Energy Star homes standards and use building envelop modeling software to maximize energy efficiency potential · Include energy efficient Window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods on all new residential units · Increase wall and attic inSulation beyond Title 24 requirements · Design homes for maximal day-lighting potential Use green building materials · Install PVC cells · PrOvide electric maintenance equipment Provide natural gas hookups to any fireplaces · Install eleCtrical Outlets at the fr°nt and back of residences to accommodate electrical yard equipment · Install natural gas outlet in the backYard of an new residences for gas burning barbecues · Prohibit open burning · Require the use of landscape companies that use battery-powered or electric equipment for non-residential maintenance activities · Require the use of Iow VOC emitting plant species for landscaping V.B. Additional Cumulative Impact Mitigation Measures Are Feasible In additiOn, the CEQA Guidelines of other air districts identify numerous other feasible measures for commercial/industrial operations, Some of these additional measures, which are routinely require~l as mitigation in other EIRs33 inClUde: · Use eleCtric lawn and garden equipment for landscaping (BAAQMD) · Use electrically or CNG-powered specialty equipment, e.g., utility carts (BAAQMD) · Use propane-powered specialty equipment, e.g., forklifts, utility carts, etc. (BAAQMD) r- 33 For example: City of Elk Grove, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Table ~ 4.3-5, p. 3.0'96, October 2000; County of Placer, BiCkf°rd Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, pp. 8-20 to 8-22, November 13, 2000; Sacrament° County, East Franklin Specific Plan, Final r'-' Environmental Impact Report, Table ES-l;, and Appx. D, February 2000; City of Truckee, Draft } Environmental Impact Report, Old Greenwood Planned Development, pp. 4.5-10 to 4.5-13, February 2002. West Dublin Transit Village EnVironmental Initial Study 16 ·Increase walls and attic insttlation beyond Title 24 requirements (SLOAPCD34, SCAQMD3s) · Orient buildings to maximize standard heating and cooling (SLOAPCD) and include passive solar design, e.g., day-lighting (SCAQMD, SBAPCDa6, BCAQMDaT) · Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD) · Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD) · Use energy-efficient and automated controls for air conditioning (SCAQMD, BCAQMD) · Use lighting controls and energy-efficient interior lighting (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD) and built-in energy-efficient appliances (SLOAPCD) · Use double-paned windows (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD) · Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD) · Use light-colored roof materials (SCAQMD) and paint (SBAPCD) to reflect heat · Install solar cooling/heating (SBAPCD) · Install solar water heater for at least 25% of the building floor area (BCAQMD) · Substitute materials, e.g., use water-based paint (SCAQMD) · Modify manttfacturing processes, e.g., reduce process stages, closed loop-systems, materials recycling (SCAQMD) · Install resource recovery systems that redirect chemicals to new production processes (SCAQMD) San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District ("SLOAPCD"), CEQA Air Quality Handbook, August 1997. 35 South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), CE@A Air Quality_ Handbook, April 1993. 36 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District ("SBAPQD"), Scope and Content of Air Qualit¢ Sections m Environmental Documentsj September 1997. 37 Butte County Air Quality Management District ('BCAQMD"), Ind/rect Source Review Guidelines, March 1997. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 17 · Use solar or low-emission water heaters (SCAQMD) · Use centralized water.heating systems (SCAQMD, VCAPCD38) · Use concrete or other non-pollutant materials for parking lots instead of asphalt (SBAPCD) · Pay an air quality mitigation fee · Secure emission offsets · Landscape with drought-resistant species, and use groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection Provide electric maintenance equipment · Use ozone-destruction catalyst on air condition systems · Reduce standard paving by 20% Further, some air districts recommend that large projects that cannot be fully mitigated with on-site measures, should implement off-site mitigation measures, for example: · Retrofit existing homes and businesses in the project area with approved energy conservation devices (SLOAPCD) · Replace/repower school/transit bus with cleaner vehicles (SLOAPCD) · Construct satellite work stations (SLOAPCD)' · Fund a program to buy and scrap older, high-emission vehicles (SLOAPCD) · Contribute to an off-site TDM fund (VCAPCD) · Repair smog-check waived vehicles (SLOAPCD) · Introduce electric lawn and garden equipment exchange program (SLOAPCD) · Retrofit/purchase clean heavy-duty trucks, construction equipment, diesel locomotives, and marine vessels (SLOAPCD) 38 Ventura Count), Air Pollut/on Control District ("VCAPCD'), Ventura Count~, >dr Quali _ty Management Plan, Appendix G-94, Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Ouahtv Impact Analyses, October 1989. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 18 The Project would increase the emissions of ROG and NOx, which are ozone precursors. The Bay Area is not in compliance with either federal or state ozone standards. Thus, the Project would directly contribute to existing exceedances of the federal and state ozone standard, which is a significant impact? In addition, the Project would add several buildings, large parking lots, roads, and roofs, thus increasing the amount of existing blacktop. By this type of change in land features, will contribute to the "urban heat island effect" and increase the formation of ozone. The "heat island effect" is a meteorological phenomenon caused by urban surfaces, which absorb more solar radiation and radiate that heat, increase local ambient temperatures?° This can reasonably be expected to increase local ambient temperature and hence local formation of ozone4~. VI.A. Reduce Standard Paving Parking lots and roads are typically constructed by mixing asphalt with aggregate. The aggregate provides strength and the asphalt binds the aggregate together against the forces of traffic and weather. The resulting pavement is black and absorbs about 85 % to 95 % of sunlight that falls on it, becoming one of the hottest surfaces in urban areas. The hot surfaces of pavement (and similarly dark roofs) quickly warm the air over urban areas, leading to the creation of summer urban "heat islands." On a clear summer afternoon, the air temperature in urban areas can be 2oF to 9oF hotter than the surrounding rural area. The elevated temperature increases cooling energy, demand, accelerates the rate of smog production, and increases evaporative losses of organic compounds from gasoline tanks of vehicles parked over the hot surfaces. This effect can be mitigated through use of lighter-colored, reflective pavement materials, which reflect the Sunlight off the pavement before it heats up. These materials reduce the urban heat island effect, reducing the formation of ozone, and reducing evaporative emissions from vehicles that park on and use the pavement. This measure advocates the use of grass paving or reflective surfaces on unshaded parking lots, driveways, and fire lanes to reduce standard paving by 10%. This measure should be considered because, as discussed below, it is widely used, technically feasible, provides air quality benefits, and is economic. F 39 See Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hartford (1990) 221 Cal. App.3d 692 [270 Cal. Rptr. 650]. 40. B. Fishman, H. Akbari, H. Taha, Meso-Scale Climate Effects of High Albedo Surfaces at'White Sands, F New Mexico. LBL Report 35056, 1994. 41 Taha, HaJder. 1995." Ozone Air Quality Implications of Large-Scale Albedo and and Vegetation F Modifications in the Los Angeles Basin ," Atmospheric Environment, 31(11), pp. 1667-1676. Also Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBL-36890, Berkeley, CA. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 19 There are a large number of optiOns that can be Used to C°mPiy with this measure, ranging from porous block pavement systems to conventional asphalt .pavements using light aggregate to conventional concrete pavements. Some are comparable in cost to conventional pavements and have added benefits besides reducing air quality impacts. A few of these are discussed below. VI.A.1. Porous Block pavement Systems Porous pavements are prefabricated lattice structures.made of concrete or plastic. The lattice blocks are filled with aggregate or soil and grass or ground cover. Once grass has grown, or enough aggregate is placed, the underlying lattice is invisible. TheSe systems typically cost $I.50 to $3.00 per square foot installed, excluding excavation and thus are competitive with conventional asphalt pavements. The lattice provides support, preventing compaction. A number of companies market the product,, including Invisible Structures, Inc., Aurora, CO; Preston products, Appleton, WI; Bartron Corp., Tempe, AZ; Landscape Products Co., Union City, CA; Bomanite Corp, Palo Alto, CA; and Hastings Pavement Co. Inc, Freeport, NY.42 These systems are useful for pedestrian walkways, driveways, parking lots, overfloTM Parking, fire lanes, or any other less .frequently traveled surface, depending on traffic density. They are also used to control storm water runoff and hillside soil erosion. Grass paving can OnlY be used in areas with light traffic, no more than two to three passes per day in the same spot, because heavy traffic does not allow grass to regenerate. It is most commonly used for fire lanes, access rOads, jogging trails, employee Parking, and overflow parking. Notable applications of grass paving include a 280,000 square foot parking lot at the Orange Bowl Stadium in Miami43 and a 200,000 square fOot overflow parking area at Westfarms Mall in West Hartford, cormecticut.44 Other applications are described on vendor websites. In areas with heavy traffic, gravel fill of the same type of substrate is recommended. Attractive, light-colored gravel can be Used to fill the grid, providing many of the same benefits as grass paving, but providing additional durability and less maintenance. Grass paving is comparable in cost to conventional Portland cement concrete paving, COsting about $3.50 per square foot installed for a 6-inch Class 2 road base. However, it has significant aesthetic and env/ronmental benefits. It 42 See websites as follows: www.invisiblestructures.com, www.grassroad.com, and www.~cat, com. 43 Patrick Wh/te, Miami's Orange Bowl Gets A Turf Parking Lot, Turf Magazine, October 1996. 44 Patrick White, A Whole Lot Of Turf, Turf Magazine, February 1996. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 20 replaces hot asphalt paved areas With cool, green, lawn-like spaces. Evapotranspiration of water cools the air above the grass, reducing the heat island effect. The lattice is porous, allowing precipitation to naturally infiltrate, thus recharging the aquifer and reducing stormwater runoff. It also functions as a biofilter or treatment layer, removing pollutants from percolating waters. VI.A.2. Conventional Paving Systems The most economical way to lighten pavement is to place the aggregate, which is typically lighter in color, near the surface.' This measure is widely recommended in the literature? This paving system is known as "chip seal." An asphalt emulsion binder is first sprayed onto the pavement, followed by a layer of aggregate. The aggregate is pressed into the binder, yielding a surface whose reflectivity is dominated by the aggregate. Whiter aggregate can be used to achieve high reflectivity, depending on local availability. This typically costs $0.09 to $0.14 per square foot installed, applied over a standard asphalt pavement base, which typically costs $1.00 to $1.50 per square foot. There are a number of other standard paving techniques that can be modified to lighten the pavement by using lighter aggregates or adding light pigments or coatings to the top inch or two of the pavement mixture, but most are more costly. These include asphalt emulsion seal coats ($0.06-$0.10/ft2), asphalt pavement ($1.00-$1.50/ft2), asphalt slurry seals ($0.12-$0.14/ft2), and asphalt surface coatings ($0.25~$0.75/ft2).46 Alternatively, some paving systems are naturally light, including Portland cement concrete paving ($2.00 - $6.00/ft2), resin modified emulsion pavement (which is Clear and thus retains the color of the aggregate) and white-topping ($1.50-$2.50/ft2), a technique of covering asphalt pavement with a layer of concrete. Ail costs are installed) excluding n.47 surface preparatio VI.A.3. Install Light-colored, Reflective Roof Products Most buildings hav® dark roofs, Which behave similarly to asphalt paving and contribute to the "heat island effect". Dark roofs absorb 80% to 90% of the incident sunlight, heating the roof and The air space below., which then heats the interior air of the house and raises summertime cooling demand. In addit-ion, 4.5 M. Pomerantz, H. Akbari, P. Berdahl, S.J. Konopacki, and H. Taha, Reflective Surfaces for Cooler Buildings and Cities, PhilosophJcal Magazine B, v. 79, no. 9,1999, pp. 1457-1476; A.H. Rosenfeld, H. Akbari, J.J. Romm, and M. Pomerantz, Cool Communities: Strategies for Heat Island Mitigation and Smog . Reduction, Energy. and Buildings, v. 28, 1998, pp. 51-62_ 46 Some local vendors include AsphaColor, Sparks, NV (800-258-7679); StreetPrint, Fair. Oaks, CA (916- 966-7875; and CPM Inc, Sacramento, CA (916-381-8033). ~7 See more detailed discussion, at www.energy.ca.gov/coolcommunity/strategy/coolpave.htnd. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 21 . heating the roof heats the air that passes over the roof. ThUs, the entire re,on around a dark roof becomes warmer. As discussed above, dark roofs (and parking lots) quickly warm the air over urban areas, leading t© the creation of summer urban "heat islands." The additional air conditioning demand created by this temperature effect is responsible for 5% to 10% of urban peak electric demand. The increased power demand leads to higher emissions from power plants. This increaSe in temperature Causes a 10% to 20% increaSe in Urban ozone, and in some cases, generates 'as much ozone 'as ali on-road motor vehicles? Measures to reverse the heat island effect include planting shade trees and other vegetation and incOrPorating reflective rOofs and pavements into urban landscapes. Intercepting the sunlight before it heats a building keeps its surface cooler and reduces the heat flow into the building. This reduces the demand for air conditioning. This can be accomplished by using light-colored, reflective roofs. A light-colored roof can reduce the amount of energ-y needed for cooling by 20% to 70%, depending on the amount of insulation under the roof and design of the. air ducting system. This is achieved by reflecting most of the energy, rather than absorbing it. The difference between the roof surface and ambient air temperatures may be as high as 90°F, while for reflective roofs, the difference is only about 18°F. This reduces peak cooling demand, cooling costs, the size of the HVAC sYstem, and the rating and ~°unt of insulatiOn required in a building, and increases the lifetime of the roof. This also reduces air pollution by reducing the amount of external power that must be produced and the amount of ambient ozone that is formed in the vicinity of the development from the heat island effect. There are cUrrently over 115 manufacturers enrolled in the Energy Star4abled Roof program,, which is sponsored by the U.S. EPA and is also recognized as an acceptable design option in the latest edition of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers ("ASHRAE") Standards 90.149 and 90.2 on energy-efficient buildings.. Normal asPhalt'baSed roofing produCts typically have a reflectivity of 10% to 20%. Energy Star-labeled roof products are roofing produCtS certified to achieve at least 65% reflectivity and to maintain a reflectivity of 50% under normal conditions for 3 years after installation. Reflective roofing is also reCognized 48 Hashem Akbari, Cool Roofs Save Energy, ASHRAE Transactions, v. 104, Pt. 1, 1998; H. Taka, Modeling the Impacts of Large-Scale Albedo Changes on Ozone Air Quality in the South Coast Air Basin, Atmospheric Environment, v. 31, no. 11, 1997, Pp. 1667-1676. 49 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, Standard 90.1-1999. r- West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 22 Energy Star roof products are economical to apply and maintain and are frequently cheaper than or comparable to conventional roofing products, which cost from $1.50 to $2.50 per square foot installed,so Cool roofs come in a variety of styles, including reflective coatings, reflective membranes, or metal roofs made of galvanized or other coated metal. Coatings have a consistency of thick paint and cost from $0.75 to $1.50 per square foot installed. Membranes are single-ply, pre-fabricated sheets applied in a single layer, typically made of PVC (poly vinyl chloride), TPO (tripolymer olefin), Hypalon, or CPA (copolymer alloy) and cost from $1.50 to $3.00 per square foot. A reflective roof can be installed or applied over almost any type of roof material, including directly on a plywood deck in place of asphalt. The performance of reflective roofing materials has been extensively documented. At a single family residence in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity of the roof from 18 % to 79% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling energy use over the June to October period by 66% and the peak power by 17%. At a one-story school in Sacramento, increasing reflectivity the of the roof from 8 % to 68 % by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling energy, use over the June to 'October period by 34% and peak power by 32%.s~ In another Sacramento study, daily air conditioning savings of 17%, 26%, and 39% were documented in an office, museum, and hospice with high-reflecfivity roofs? Computer simulations of reflective roofs have documented cooling energy savings in residential and commercial buildings? In addition to simulations, many studies have shown the effectiveness of Cool roofs. Cool roofs have been widely used in California, including on the American Airline airport terminal in San Jose, on control towers at the Stockton and Palmdale airports, at the 300..000 ft2 Honda distribution warehouse in Stockton, the 200,000 ft2 JC Penny warehouse in Buena Park, and numerous buildings in Silicon Valley. At a one-story, 31,700-ft2 Kaiser medical office building in Davis, increasing the reflectivity of an R-19 fiat roof from 24% to 60% reduced summertime average weekday air conditioning by 18%. At another one-story, 23,800-ft2 Kaiser R.S. Means, Square Foot Costs, 21st Ed., 2000, Division 5, Roofing. 50 51 I4. At<bari, S. Bret_z, D. Kurn, and J. 14anford, Peak Power and Cooling Energy Savings of High- Albedo Roofs, Energy. and Buildings, v. 25, 1997, pp. 117-126. 52 E.W. Hildebrandt, W. Bos, and R. Moore, Assessing the Impacts of White Roofs on Building Energy Loads, ASHRAE Technical Data Bulletin, v. 14, no. 2, 1998. See, for example: H. Akbari, S. Konopacki, C. Eley, B. Wilcox, M. Van Geem and D. Parket, Calculations for Reflective Roofs in Support of Standard 90.1, ASHRAE Transactions, v. 104, no. 1, 1998, pp. 984-996; L. Gartland, S. Konopacki, and H. Akbari, Modeling the Effects of Reflective Roofing, ACEEE 1996 Summer Study on Energy_ Efficiency in Buildings, v. 4, 1996, pp. 117-124. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 23 medical office building in Gilroy, increasing the reflectivity of an R-7 flat roof from 25 To to 65 % reduced the summertime average weekday air conditioning by 13%. At a 33,000-ft2 drug store in San Jose, increasing the reflecfivity of a foil barrier flat roof from 18 %'to 28 % reduced the summertime average daytime air condition by 2%.54 Not only are Cool Roofs feasible as a mitigation strategy for operational emissions, they are cost effective. Reflective coatings reduced, cooling energy costs by 12% to 18% in two buildings California.ss other commercial in The reflectivity of a conventional unsurfaced, galvanized corrugated metal roof of seven retail stores in a strip mall in Florida was increased from 29% to 75% with a white coating. This reduced the summer space cooling energy use by 25%, with a range in savings of 13% to 48%, depending on the temperature maintained in the shops. The cost of the application ~vas $0.53/ft2 with a payback period of about 9 years? in nine Florida homes, daily air conditioning energy, use was reduced by 2% to 43% and peak demand was reduced'by an average of 22%. Ceiling insulation and duct system locations, were factors that affected the total amount of savings. Poorly insulated homes and those with duct systems in the attic space had greater savings than well-insulated homes? A high- reflective coating on an office building in Mississippi reduced cooling energy demands by 22%? In sum, this measure is not cost prohibitive, in fact, it could save a substantial amount of money over the life of the Project. By reducing the amount'of power used as cooling energy, it would also reduce energy consumption. The only potentially negative impacts are increased glare for sloped roofs and premature membrane failure if water were allowed to pond on the roof. (unlikely if roof properly designed). 54 H. Al*bari, L. Gm-tland, and S. Kon0packi, Measured Energy Savings of Light-Colored Roofs: Results from Three California Demonstration Sites, Proceedings of the 1998 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, v. 3, no. 1, 1998. 55 S. Konopacki, H. Akbari, L. Gartland, and L. Rainer, Demonstration of Energy Savings of Cool Roofs, LBNL RePort 40673,1998. 56 D. Parker, J. Sorme, and J. Sherwin, Demonstration of Cooling Savings of Light Colored Roof Surfacing in Florida Commercial Buildings: Re~ail Strip Mall, Florida Solar Energy Center Report FsEC-CR- 96~97,1997. (w-v~7.fsec.ucf. edU/Bldg/Pubsonline.htm) 57 D.S. Parker and others, Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in Residential Buildings, ASHRAE Proceedings 0Ninter Meeting), Atlanta, GA, 1998. (www.fSec.uCLedu/Bldg/pubsonline-htm) 58 C. Boutwell and Y. Salinas, Bttilding for the Future - Phase I: An Energy. Saving Materials Research Project, Mississippi Power Co., R°hm and Haas Co and the UniVersity of MissisSippi, 1986. West Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study 24 Page: URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C:~Program Files~URBEMIS 2002 For Windows~Projects2k2~Dublin.urb Project Name: W~st Dublin Bart Project Location: San Francisco Bay Ares On-Road Motom Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 S~Y REPORT (Pounds/Day - S~er) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTI~TES PM10 PM10 PM10 *** *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL E~AUST DUST 2004 TOT~S (lbs/day,u~itigated) 82.07 678.58 569.40 0.01 108.36 32.32 76.04 TOT~S (lbs/day, 'mitigated) 82.07 678.58 569.40 0.01 48.~8 32.32 15.76 PM10 PM10 PM10 ~** 2005 *** ROG Nox CO SO2 TOTAL E~uST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day, u~itigated) 1,125.91 659.87 602.35 0.14 30.69 30.18 0.51 TOT~S (lbs/day, mitigated) 1,125.91 659.87 602.35 0.14 30.69 30.18 0.51 ~A SOURCE EMISSION ESTI~TES ROG NOx CO S~2 PM10 TOT~S (lbs/day, u~itigated) 15.69 5.05 3.83 0.00 OPE~TION~ (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTiP~TES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOT~S (lbs/day, u~itigated) 87.87 85.00 889.36 0.74 66.21 TOT~S (lbs/day, mitigated) 78.41 74.93 784.23 0.65 58.40 S~ OF ~A ~D OPE~TION~ EMISSION ESTI~TES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOT~S (lbs/day,u~itigated) 103.56 90.05 893.19 0.74 66.22 Both ~ea and Operational Mitigation must be turned on to get a co~ined mitigated total. Page: 2 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C:\Program Fites\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows%Projects2k2\Dub!in.urb Project Name: We'st Dublin Bart Projec~ Location: San Francisco Bay Area On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM!0 PM10 PM10' *** 2004 *~* ROG NOx CO S02 . TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 82.07 678.58 569.40 0.0t 108.36 32.32 76.04 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 82.07 678.58 569.40 0.01 48.08 32.32 I5.76 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2005 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EX}LAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 1,125.9I 659.87 602.35 0.14 30.69 30.18 0.51 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 1,125.91 659.87 602.35 0.14 30.69 30.18 0.51 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM!0 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 441.02 21.59 1,028.35 2.71 157.47 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 103.93 127.97 1,060.09 0.69 66.21 i>f2 02/20/2004 11:15 AM TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 91.43 112.82 934.07 0.60 58.40 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 544.95 149.57 2,088.43 3.39 223.68 Both Area and Operational Mitigation must be turned on to get a combined miEigated total. Page: S URBEMIS 2002 F~r Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Projects2k2\Dub!in.urb Project Name: West Dublin Bart Project Location: San Francisco Bay Area On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) CONSTRUCTIO~ EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PMt0 PM10 *** 2004 *** ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 6.06 50.61 41.89 0.00 2t.93 2.44 1.09 TOTALS (tpy, mitigated) 6.06 50.61 41.89 0.00 16.49 2.44 0.23 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2005 *~* ROG N0x CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST 'TOTALS (tpy, unm/tigated) 17.11 35.86 32.43 0.00 13.20 1.65 0.00 TOTALS (tpy, mitigated) 17.11 35.86 32.43 0.00 i3.20 1.65 0.00 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 20.29 1.60 42.61 0.11 6.46 oPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PMt0 TOTAJ~S (tpy, unmitigated) 17.01 lS.13 172.69 0.13 12.08 TOTAS~S (tpy, mitigated) 15.10 15.98 152.24 0.12 10.66 SUM OF A/~EA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, urnuitigated) 37.30 19.73 215.31 0.24 t2.54 Both Area and Operational Mitigation must be turned on to get 'a combined mitigated total. of2 02/20/2004 11:15 AM S£1tIJYI. ER BEITI FIS IMAN 654 POIRmR StP, O n, CA. 94609 510-597-1490 ,schuylerfishC~_,earthlink.net www.mindlikesky.com EDUCATION Cornell University, B.A. December 1988 in Physics, special focus on Social Studies of Science and Technology. University of California at Berkeley, Jan. 1993 - May 1 995. Post-Bachelor studies in Environmental Engineering. University of California at Davis, M.S. June 1997 in Atmospheric Science, special focus on Air Qualib/. RESFARCB EXPERIENCE ' Communities for a Better Environment, SF, CA July 1997 - July 1999 Staff Scientist Ran RPA regulatory models to assess population exposure to air pollution. Justice research using GIS census data with population exposure data Conducted Environmental Reviewed and summarized recent research on MTBE Reviewed and analyzed EPA's Toxic Release Inventory Biogeochemistry Lab, UC Davis March 1996 - Oct ! 996 Researcher and Lab Assistant ~ Designed.and implemented apparatus to measure for atmospheric selenium Conducted florescence analysis for trace levels of Selenium in atmospheric samples Received UC Davis Jastro Sheilds Research Fellowship 1996 Crocker Air Quality Group, UC Davis Oct t 995 - Present Research Associate Analyzed PM10 data from National Parks Network Monitored PM10 emissions from-agricultural practices Conducted research on urban PM10 and asthma Heat Islands Project Jan 1993- May 1995 Energy and the Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory ,' Berkeley, CA Research Associate Designed, programmed, and installed 'meteorological equipment Analyzed meteorological and energy use data using SAS Acquired and analyzed remote sensing data ;:! SCmYyLER B~ FzSmVL~ .- PAGE 2 PUBLICATIONS B.Fishman, "The BUcket Brigade Manual: Take Back Your Air'', Third Edition, October 1999, Communities for a Better Environment H.Akbari, S. Bretz; B,Fishman, J. Hanf°rd' A. RoSenfeld, D. Sailor, H, Taha., "M°nitoring Peak Power and Cooling Energy Savings Of Shade Trees and White Surfaces in the Sacramento Municipal.Utility District (SMUD) Service Area", First Year Final Report, December 1992, LBL Rep°rt 33342. H.Akbari, S. Bretz, B.Fishman, J. Hanford, D. Kuru, H. Taha., "Monitoring Peak Power and COoling Energy savings of Shade Trees and White SurfaCes in the SaCramento Municipal Utility. District (SMUD) Service Area",' Second Year Final Report, July 1993, LBL Report 34411. B. Fishman, H. Akbari' H' Taha, Mes°-Si:ale C!imate Effects of High Albed° SurfaCeS at White Sands,· New Mexico~ LBL Report 35056, 1994. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Private COnSUltant August 1 999-Present Reviewed Bay Area Clean Air PI.an and Ozone Attainment Plan and prepared comments Testified for local environmental groUps in court and reviewed environmental impact reports Ran EPA ~egulatory models and risk assessments for proposed facilities and facility eXpansions Project Create, East Bay Depot for Creative Reuse, Oakland, CA August 1999 - August 2001 Program Manager Supervised staff to implement free environmental education program fo~ Alameda County Schools Planed, improved, and assessed all program, curriculum, and educational materials Wrote and managed all financial aspects, including reporting to funders grants, Destiny Arts Center, Oakland, CA june 1995 - Present Program Coordinator, Environmental/Outdoor Education Program Instructor, youth Leadership Program Train high school youth to teach violence prevention, conflict resolution, and self defense to peers Plan and lead environmental education, environmental justice, and outdoor adventures trips communities for a Better Environment, SF' CA july 1997 July 1999 Staff Scientist/Community Organizer/Youth Program Coordinator PrOvide leadership deVelopment and environmental justice training for a group of 7-12th graders Coordinate joint CBE/Contra Coast County/community based air sampling program Inform and organize community members around environmental issues San FranciSco state U~iversity' sF, CA January 1999- January 2000 Department of Geosciences, Lecturer Parttime lecturer for general education classes in meteorology Comments Environmental Initial Study WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE City of Dublin, California Prepared by Petra Pless, D. Env. Kensington, CA J. Phyllis Fox, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Engineer Berkeley, CA December 1, 2003 Table of Contents I. OPERATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT AND UNMITIGATED .......................................................... 2 I.A Project Location Results In Significant Health Risks ..................... ,.. 2 I.B Diesel Exhaust Impacts Are Significant ................ ~ ............................ 4 II. MITIGATION FOR DIESEL EXHAUST IMPACTS ..................................... 7 II.A Buffer Zone ............................................................................................ 8 II.B Building Design ..................................................................................... 8 II.C Building Ventilation ............................................................................. 8 II.D Air Cleaners .............................................. ~ ............................................ 8 COMMENTS The City of DUblin proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for the West Dublin Transit Village mixed-use development in Dublin, California ("Project"). The Project will consist of a maximum of 308 multi-family residential units'fronting on St. Patrick's Way consisting of a total of 177,264 square feet ("sqft') with below-grade parking and store front retail space on the ground level and a fOur-story 150,000-sqft office building with surface parking adjacent to the Interstate 580 ("I-580") project corridor. (IS~, p. 2.) These comments demonstrate that the Project will result in significant impacts on public health that were not analyzed in the Environmental Irdtial Study ("IS") and which have not been mitigated. The IS contains no assessment whatsoever of public health impacts on Project residents and workers resulting from exposure to diesel 'exhaust from nearby Interstates 580 and 680 and other roadways. The IS nevertheless finds no significant impacts to sensitive receptors t_~ough exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations. (IS, pp. 9 and 20.) For this conclusion, the IS relies on previous California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") documents including the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Extension Project Environmental Impact Report2, the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3 ("DP BART/Transit Village SEIR'), and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Downtown Specific Plans.4 (IS, pp. 17 and 20.) However, these previous CEQA documents did not analyze public health impacts related to diesel exhaust emissions from nearby roadways nor do they include a health risk assessment. A later CEQA document that tiers off of General P1an Environmental Impact Reports ("EIRs") must evaluate significant environmental effects that were not examined in the prior EIRs or that were previously examined and are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance through project revisions, mitigation measures, or other means. 14 CCR §15152(d). See also Public ~ City of Dublin, West Dublin Transit Village, Environmental Initial Study, November 6, 2003. 2 Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project, September 1989/February 1990. 3 EDAW, Inc., Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project, November 2000; a_nd F/hal Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasmnton BART Station and Transit Village Project, April 2001. 4 City of Dublin, Initial Study/Draft Negative Declaration, Downtown Specific Plans - Downtown Core Specific Plan (PA-99-055), West Dublin BART Specific Plan (PA-99-056), and Village Parkway Specific Plan (PA-99-054), September 2, 2000, Revised December 14, 2000. Resources Code Sec. 21094(a), (c). As demonstrated in Comment I below, the Project will result in significant public health impacts that were not examined in the prior EIRs and that have not been mitigated. Consequently, a subsequent EIR must be prepared. 14 CCR §15152(f) and Pub. Res. C §21094(a), (c). I, OPERATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT AND UNMITIGATED The Project would locate a large number of residents and workers close to a major transportation corridor, exposing them to unhealthy concentrations of diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust is a serious public health concern. It contains particulate matter ("PM"), Which has been implicated with a variety of health effects including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory (e.g., cough, shortness of breath, wheezing, bronchitis, asthma attacks) and cardiovascular disease, declines in lung function, changes to lung tissues and structure, altered respiratory defense mechanisms, and lung cancer. (U.S. EPA 4/96;5 61 FR 65638.6.) Particulate matter is a non-threshold pollutant, which means that there is some possibility of an adverse health impact at any concentration. (See American Trucking v. U.S. EPA: Unjustified Revival of the Nondelegation Doctrine, 23-SPG Environs Envtl. L & Pol'y J. 17, 26.) Several mitigation measures are feasible and should be implemented as discussed in Comment II below. I.A Project Location ResUlts In Significant Health Risks The Project with its proximity to major truck routes is poorly located for the proposed uses from a public health perspective. The Project site borders 1-580 to the south and is within a quarter mile west of the 1-580 interchange with Interstate 680 ("I-680"). Interstate 580 has an annual average daily traffic volume ("AADT") of 188,000, counted at the 1-580/I-680 interchange, of which 6.8 % or 12,728 are trucks. (CalTrans~, 12/00, p. 336.) The CalTrans data indicate that 65% or 8.220 of these trucks are heavy-heavy-duty five-axle trucks, which have the highest diesel exhaust emissions. In addition, Dublin Boulevard, a major east-west arterial with six lanes, would run along the northern end of the Project s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Report - EPA/600/P-95-001aF through 001cF, April 1996. 6 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Proposed Decision, Federal Register, v. 61, no. 241, December 13, 1996, pp. 65638-65675. 7 State of California, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation, 2001 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, Compiled by Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems, December 2002. 2 site and would.additionally carry diesel-fueled vehicles, but h:uck AADT estimates are not available. The IS indicates that 308 multi-family residential units and a 150,000-sqft office building would be located between 1-580 to the south and Dublin Boulevard to the north. The office building would be immediately adjacent to the north lane of 1-580. All of the buildings, including the multi-family residential units, would be within less than half a mile of 1-580 and 1-680. (IS, Exhibits 1 through 4.) Because of the location, one' can reasonably anticipate very high concentrations of diesel exhaust at the Project site resulting in significant health impacts to residents and workers. The IS did not recognize the public health impacts of locating residential and commercial uses near these roadways. In fact, the IS claims that "[a]s the development of the BART transit facility and housing units in the vicinity of the station would actually reduce cumulative regional emissions and reduce the number of vehicles on the area roadways, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations." (IS, p. 20.) This statement is in,~alid and incorrect for two reasons. First, this conclusion is not supported by any quantitative analysis whatsoever and appears to be drawn from thin air. The CEQA documents this IS allegedly relies upon do not contain any ambient air quality modeling for the operational phase of the Project nor do they contain a health risk assessment regarding the impacts of diesel exhaust' particulate matter on residents and workers at the Project site. One carmot conclude that site-specific impacts are not significant without first performing an analysis of the magnitude of these impacts. Second, while the existence of public transportation facilities might reduce personal vehicle trips and thus total vehicle traffic counts on nearby roadways, it 'wilt not reduce the number of trucks on these roadways. Trucks are the chief contributor to vehicle exhaust particulate matter. Neither the CEQA documents nor the IS evaluated health impacts of diesel exhaust particulate matter from nearby roadways on Project residents or workers. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD') CEQA Guidelines recognize this exact situation, viz., "This [need to consider diesel exhaust impacts] applies to situations where a new or modified source of emissions is proposed near existing receptors and to new receptors locating near an existing source of diesel exhaust." (BAAQMD 12/998, p. 47, emphasis added.) 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD.CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1999. 3 This situation is also supported by scientific research. Several Studies have found an association between childhood cancers and other health effects and proximity to roadways and traffic density on streets where they live. Children living on streets with traffic densities greater than 10,000 vehicles per day had an odds ratio9 of 3.2 for total childhood cancers and 4.7 for childhood leukemia. (Savitz and Feingold, 1989.10) Another study found the largest number of excess cancer associated with traffic within about one-half mile of major roadways. (Knox and Gilman, 1997.n) Still other research reported an odds ratio of 6.25 for all cancers and 5.00 for leukemia in children who live within 750 feet of roadwavs with traffic densities greater than 20,000 vehicles per day. (Pearson et al. 2000.12) Finally, a recen~ study found that among children living within about 500 feet of a main road, the risk of wheeze increased with increasing proximity by an odds ratio of 1.08 per 100-foot increment in primary school children. The highest increased risk was localized to within 300 feet of the roadside. (Verm et al. 2001~s.) Therefore, by locating residential units and commercial development close to the edge of a major roadway with .high traffic densities, and truck traffic in particular, the Project could be .endangering the health of occupants. To address this issue, we prepared an analysis to determine the cancer risk from diesel exhaust only due to locating a large number of workers, and residents immediately adjacent to a major roadway, 1-580. I.B Diesel Exhaust Impacts Are Significant We prepared a health risk assessment to determine the incremental increase in cancer risk from diesel exhaust that would result from living and working at facilities provided by this Project. This analysis used standard risk assessment procedures and default exposure assumptions outlined in guidance 9 The odds ratio or relative risk is the ratio of the'probability of an exposure effect occurring, e.g., cancer, for those exposed to the probability of an exposure effect to those not exposed. Thus, an odds ratio of three for cancer means an exposed person is three times as likely to have cancer as an unexposed person. ~0 D.A. Savitz and L. Feingold, Association of Childhood Cancer with Residential Traffic Density, Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, v. 15, 1989, pp. 360-363. n E.G. Knox and E.A. Gilman, Hazard Proximities of Childhood Cancers in Great Britain from 1953 -80, Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, v. 51, 1997, pp. 151-159. 32 R.L. Pearson, H- Wachtel, and K.L. Ebi, Distance-weighted Traffic Density in Proximity to a Home Is a Risk Factor for Leukemia and Other Childhood Cancers, Journal of Air & Waste Management Association, v. 50, 2000, pp. 175-180. ~3 A.J. Verm and others, Living Near a Main Road and the Risk of Wheezing lllness in Children, American lournal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, v. 164, 2001, pp. 2177-2180. 4 provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB 10/02), the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEI-IHA") (CAPCOA 10/93~4), the Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") (DTSC 07/92~5), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") (U.S EPA 12/89;~6 U.S EPA 6/95~z). The risk assessment relied on diesel exhaust concentrations measured along a road segment similar to 1-580. The results .of the risk assessments are summarized in attached Tables I and 2. We used four months of continuous diesel exhaust data that were collected at fOur sites along Interstate 15 (;'I-15') in Nevada, about 15 miles west of the California/Nevada border, 300 to 600 feet from the downwind edge of the freeway. This segment of 1-15 was selected to.represent-the segment of 1-580 near the Project site from our database of diesel exhaust PM10 data because it had a high AADT volume of trucks, about half of the AADT at the 1-580/I-680 interchange. The following inset table shows the most recent, i.e. year 2001 CalTrans truck survey data for the 1-580/I-680 interchange and the year 2000 CalTrans truck survey~8 data for 1-15 at the California/Nevada border, i.e. the year We collected the diesel exhaust data: Location AADT Trucks 2-Axle 3-Axle 4-Axle 5-Axle 1-580/I-680 Interchange 188,000 12,728 3,155 852 503 8,220 1-15, CA/NV Stateline 3'5,000 6,170 1,200 300 170 4,500 Thus, diesel exhaust PM10 data collected along 1-15 should present a lower bound estimate of dieSel exhaust concentrations along 1-580 near the Project site. The diesel exhaust PM10 concentrations measured along the above-cited segment of 1-15 are presented in Figure I and sttmmarized in the inset table below: ~4 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ("CAPCOA'), Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Revised 1992 Risk Assessment Guidelines, October 1993. ~s Department of Toxic Substances Control, Supplemental Guidance for Human Health Multimedia Risk Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities, July 1992. ~6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superftmd, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final, Report EPA_/540/1-89/002, December 1989. ~7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Exposure Factors Handbook, Report EPA/600/P-95/00ZA, June 1995. ~8 State of California, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation, 2000 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, Compiled by Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems, December 2001. 5 Site 1 ' Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Days 21 30 25 46 Dates(2000) 8/8-8/28 8/29-10/9 10/10-11/7 11/8-12/1. Average (ng/m3) 1,737 1,017 703 1,160 Distance to 1-15 (feet) 300 600 600 525 The weighted average diesel exhaust PM10.concentration' measured over this four-month'period is 1.13 [~g/m3. These measurements were made with an AE-16 Anderson aethalometer? which records black carbon. A comprehensive survey of the recent, post-1990 literature on the composition of diesel particulate matter from on-road vehicles -indicates that 10% to 60% of. diesel particulate matter is black carbon, based on current diesel engines and California reformulated fuel. The most recent diesel composition study, conducted using California reformulated diesel and medium- duty diesel trucks, found that 17% of diesel particulate matter is elemental carbon.20 (Schauer et al. 1999,2~ Table 1.) In this work, we Used 30% to convert black carbon to diesel exhaust PM10. The 1-15 data were used to estimate the increase in cancer risk for two cases: (1) a resident of the multi-family units and (2) a worker at the commercial and retail development. The health risk assessments for these two cases are presented in attached Tables I and 2. These calculations indicate that diesel exhaust from 1-580 would increase the cancer risk to children in the multi-family units by 102 in one million, to adult residents by 341 in one million (see attached Table 1), and to a worker in the retail and commercial developments by 52 in one million (see attached Table 2). These risk levels exceed the District's significance threshold for toxic air contaminants o£ ten in one million (BAAQMD 12/99, p. 18) and are significant. Actual impacts would likely be much higher for a number of reasons. First, these estimates are based on measurements made at 1-15, wkich has a daily truck count of 6,170, about half of the trucks counted on 1-580, i.e. 12,728 trucks per day. ~9 Information on these instruments and their application can be found at www.mageesci.com. r" 20 30.8/185 = 0.17 ~ ~ 2~ j.j. Schauer and others, Measurement of Emissions from Air Pollution Sottrces. 2. C1 through C30 Organic Compounds from Medium Duty Diesel Trucks, Enviromnental Science and [-~ Technology., v. 33, 1999, pp. 1578-1587. 6 Second, these estimates only include diesel exhaust from 1-580. Diesel vehicles that use other roadways, including the six-lane Dublin Boulevard, which would run immediately to the north of the development, would increase these risks. Third, these estimates do not consider any future increase in truck traffic along 1-580. Fourth, the average diesel concentrafion (1.13 gg/m3) used in the analysis is a 24-hour average and includes the evening hours when concentrations are low. Workers would only be present roughly between 7 AM to 5 PM, when the diesel exhaust emissions are highest. Fifth, the risk assessments in attached Tables I and 2 used actual exposure times. The OEHHA and CARB both recommend the use of a lifetime exposure duration when evaluating diesel exhaust, even if the actual exposure time is far shorter. (CARB 10/00.22) This assumption is used because it is inappropriate to average exposures to carcinogens that occur during a short period over a 70-year lifetime. Such averaging ignores dose-rate effects, ignores impacts on sensitive subpopulations, such as infants and children, and makes the assumption that short-term exposure to high levels of carcinogen are associated with the same level of risk as lower level exposures Over longer periods. There is no scientific evidence that this is true. Furthermore, there are many (possibly hundreds of) carcinogens in diesel exhaust for which-a brief or single exposures to relatively high levels result in increased tumor formation in animals, e.g., benzo(a)pyrene, a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ("PAH'), which is found in diesel exhaust. Likewise, in humans, exposures at high doses to some carcinogens (e.g., cancer chemotherapeutic agents, asbestos) increase the risk of cancer later in life. If a lifetime exposure duration were used in the risk calculatiOns in attached Tables I and 2, the risks would be to 1193 substantially higher, cancer increasing in one million for child residents and to 91 in one million for commercial workers. II. Mitigation For Diesel Exhaust Impacts. These significant operational impacts are caused by the particulate fraction of diesel exhaust emitted by vehicles predominantly using 1-580 and 1-680. These impacts can be mitigated by either locating people outside of the hazard zone, where impacts are sigTdficant, or by desiomaing buildings to maintain indoor air concentrations below levels of concern. 22 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Proposed Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationa _fy Diesel-Fueled Engines, October 2000. 'II.A Buffer Zone A buffer zone could be incorporated into the Project layout, sufficient to assure that the concentration of diesel exhaust does not cause a significant health impact. This is a commonly used measure for mitigating air quality impacts in the vicinity of industrial facilities. This would likely require a setback north of 1-580. The size of the hazard zone should be determined from a health risk assessment, based on a minimum of I year of diesel exhaust data collected within 1000 feet of 1-580 at the Project site, prior to final design. II.Il Building Design Workers and residents would likely spend most of their time at the site inside of offices, and residences. Indoor exposures could be minimized by designing buildings to control indoor concentrations of diesel PM10 to levels that would result in less than a one in one million cancer risk. A lower threshold than the usual ten in one million is warranted because building occupants would also unavoidably spend some time outdoors. Limiting indoor concentrations of diesel exhaust could be accompliShed by minimizing outdoor air infiltration, limiting building ventilation rates to the minimum required for comfortable habitation, and using air cleaning devices. II.C Building Ventilation The building shell could be designed to minimize air in-leakage. Windows could be designed to remain permanently closed, and all doors could be designed to automatically close. The building ventilation system could be designed to comply with energy efficiency standards, which limit air exchange to the minimum required to maintain a healthy indoor environment. Examples of applicable codes include the California Energy Commission ("CEC") AB 970 Energy Standards23 and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers ("ASHRAE") Energy Standard.24 II.D Air Cleaners There is a wide range of air cleaning devices that are widely used in commercial buildings, paint booths, hospital labs, smoking lounges, general surgery, and clearrrooms, among others, to remove mold spores, welding fumes, 23 California Energy Commission, AB 970 Energy_ Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Adopted January 3, 2001. 24 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engdneers, Inc., Energy_ Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, Standard 90.1-1999, 2000. 8 bacteria, dusts, copier toner, viruses, smoke, and other similar materials from building air. The particle size of diesel exhaust particulate matter is generally similar to these materials, i.e., 98 % smaller than 2.5 microns, and thus can be removed from building air using the same methods as currently used for these other similar materials. The most common methods of removing fine particulate matter from building air are bOx and bag filters, which remove greater than 90% of the particles larger than I micron, high-efficiency particulate air ("HEPA") filters, which remove greater than 95% of particles larger than 0.3 microns, and ultra- low particulate air ("ULPA") filters, which remove greater than 99.97% of particles larger than 0.3 microns. The latter two classes of filters, HEPA and ULPA filters, are recommended for diesel exhaust. Suitable devices should be selected and tested based on ASHRAE Standard 52.2.25 (See more detailed discussions of these devices in NAS 198126 and Burton 200127.) These and other mitigation measures should be evaluated and a health risk assessment performed to determine whether feasible measures incorporated into the design of the Project can reduce the impact of diesel exhaust PM10 on site occupants to less than significance. 25 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size, 1999. 26 National Academy of Sciences ("NAS"), Indoor Pollutants, National Acadpmy Press, 1981. 2; D. Jeff Burton, IAi) and HVAC Workbook, 1993. Table 1 West Dublin Transit Village Project Carcinogenic Risks to Residents from Locating Multi-Family Residential' Units Close to i-580 Variables Acronym Units Values SOurce Exposure Parameters: Annual Diesel. PM C Hg/m3 1.13 1-15, 5 mi west of CA-NV stateline Unit conversion factor CF mg/pg 0.00I Inhalation Rate - Child IRc mS/day 15 Title 22, Sec. 12721 Inhalation Rate- Adult IRa mS/day 20 !Title 22, Sec. 12721 Exposure Time ET hours/day 24 ~residential Time conversion factor TCF days/hour 0.0417 Exposure Frequency- Child EFc days/year 350 DTSC 1994 Exposure Frequency - Adult EFa days/year 350 DTSC 1994 Exposure Duration - Child EDc years 6 Age 2 - 7 Exposure Duration - Adult ED~ years 70 Title 22, Sec. 12721 Body Weight - Child BWc kg 15 DTSC 1994 · Body Weight - Adult BWa kg 70 DT, SC 1994 Averaging Time AT days 25,550. 70 yr x 365 day/yr Daily Intakes: Carcinogenic- Child LAADc mg/kg-day 9.30E-05 Note 1 Carcinogenic - Adult LA,ADa mg/kg-day 3.10E-04 Note 1 Toxicity Criteria: Cancer Slope Factor SF (mg/kg-day)'~] 1.1 wWw. OEHHA.ca.gov Carcinogenic Risk: Note 2 Child CR~ cancers per 102 Adult AR~ 106 exposed 341 Notes: 1 The lifetime average daily inhalation dose ("LAAD") is calculated from: LAAD = (C x CF x IR x EF x ED x ET x TCF) / (BW x AT) 2 The cancer risk is calculated from: CR = LAAD x SF Table 2 West Dublin Transit Village Project Carcinogenic Risks to Workers from Locating Office Building Adjacent to 1-580 Variables Acronym Units Values Source Exposure Parameters: Annual Diesel PM C pg/m3 1.13 1-15, 5 mi west of CA-NV stateline Unit conversion factor CF m'g/IJg 0.001 · Inhalation Ra[e- Worker IRa m3/day 20 Title 22, Sec. 12721 Exposure Time ET hours/day 9 8 AM to 5 PM Time conversion factor TCF days/hour 0.0417 Exposure Frequency- Worker EFa days/year 250 DTSC -1994 Exposure Duration -Worker. EDa years 40 Title 22, Sec. 12721 Body Weight - Worker BWa kg 70 DTSC 1994 Ave~'aging Time AT days 25,550 70 yr x 365 d,ay/yr iDaily Intakes: Carcinogenic LAADa mg/kg-day 4.74E-05 Note 1 ToxiCity Criteria: Cancer Slope Factor SF . (mg/kg-day)-~ 1.1 www. OEHHA.ca..qov Carcinogenic Risk: NOte 2 Worker AR~ 106 exposed 52 Notes: I The lifetime average daily inhalation dose ("LAAD") is calculated from: LAAD = (C x CF x IR x EF x ED x ET x TCF) / (BW x AT) 2 The cancer risk is calculated from: CR = LAAD x SF Petra Pless 540 Kenyon Ave. (510) 558-9132 Kensington, CA 94708 ppless~ea~fl~.net Environmental Scientist Extensive experieace conducting and managing interdisciplinary environmental research projects and report writing for U.S. and European stakeholder groups. Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering from UCLA, Masters in Biology from Technical University of Munich, Germany;, co-authored many peer-reviewed papers, books, book chapters, proposals, and proprietary client reports. Areas of expertise include air and water pollution control, industrial ecology, and toxicology. WORK HISTORY Leson Environmental Consulting, Berkeley, CA lg97-present Environmental Scientist Air and water pollution control * Investigated and evaluated topics related to permitting for power plants, large industrial ~facilities, and housing developments in several U.S. states under a variety of statutes, including CEQA and CA.A: - Assessed potential impacts of proposed power plant on local hydrology and groundwater quality; co-authored docketed report. - Analyzed best available control technology for NOx and CO contxol in steel mills and power plants in Europe and U.S. - Evaluated potential impacts of carbon monoxide emissions on ozone formation. - Reviewed environmental impact statements for residential developments. * Provided comprehensive environmental and regulatory se~ices for a,-~ industrial laundry chain: - Facilitated permit process with Air Quality Management District. - Developed test protocol for VOC emissions, conducted field tests, and established mass balance. - Performed health risk screening for emissions of air toxics.. - Keduced disposal costs for solvent-containing waste streams by identifying alternative disposal options. - Designed computer model to predict performance ofbiological air pollution control as part of a collaborative technology assessment project, co-funded by several major chemical. manufacturers. Industrial ecology and sustainable design Conducted technical and economic assessment of product lines from agricultural fiber crops for European equipment manufacturer; co-authored proprietary client reports. Developed life cycle assessment methodology for industrial products from agricultural fiber crops; analyzed technical feasibility and markets for thermal insulation materials from plant fibers and conducted comparative life cycle assessment. Pet~a Pl~ss, p~ Other projects · Designed and managed toxicological study on potential interference of delta-9-te~'ahydrooanm- ~ binol in food products with U.S. employee drug testing; co authored peer-reviewed publication. · Identified U.S. buyers for forage and erosion control seeds, negotiated purchase agreements, [-' identified import requirements and supervised imports. · Provided, as a pro-bono consultant, environmental improvement and economic development assistance at the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. University of California Los Angeles, Environmental Science and Engineering, CA 1994-96 ;-- Graduate Research Assistant / Teaching Assistant · Designed research protocols for a coastal ecological inventory;, developed sampling methodologies, coordinated field sampling and aralyzed data. · Teaching Assistant - Atmospheric transport and transformation of airbbrae chemicals. ECON Research and Development, Ingelheim, Germany 1992-93 Biocontrol, Ingelheim, Germany 1991-92 Environmental Scientist * Facilitated licensing of pesticides: -- Co-authored technical reports regarding fate and transport of pesticides. - Evaluated adequacy and identified deficiencies of existing data sets, initiated and supervised studies, and monitored QA/QC compliance at subconWactor laboratories. .... Submitted and discussed applications with German registration agencies; received regulatory approval in less than 6'months. · Designed and implemented database on physico-chemical properties and environmental and health impacts of pesticides. EDUCATION Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, 2001 M.S. Biology (Botany / Ecology), Technical U~versity of Munich, Germany, !991 SELECTED PUBLICATIONS Pless, P. Technical and environmental assessment of thermal insulation materials fi:om fiber crops. Doctoral Dissertation in Environmental Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, 2001. Leson, G., Pless, P., Grotenhermen, F., Kalant, H., E1Sohty, M. Evaluating the impact of food consumption on workplace drug tests. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 25:11/t2, 1-8, 2001. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Center for Waste Reduction Technologies. Evaluation ofbiofiltration as an energy-efficient Iow Waste alternative for treating dilute vent streams. Co-author of sections compound database, design manual, and literature database. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Association of Environmental Professionals Association for Women in Science Bay Area Women's Environmental Network J. Phyllis Fox, Ph.D, PE, DEE Environmental Management 2530 Etna Street Berkeley, CA 94704 510-843-1126 510-845-0983 Fox@AeroAquaTerra.Com Dr. Fox has over 30 years of experience in the field of environmental eng/neering, including air quality management, water quality and water supply investigations, hazardous waste investigations, environmental permitting, nuisance investigations, environmental impact r~orts, CEQA/NEPA documentation, risk assessments, and litigation support. EDUCATION Ph.D. Environmental/Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1980. M.S. Environmental/Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1975. B.S. Physics (with high honors), University of Florida, Gainesville, 1971. Post-Graduate: S-Plus Data Analysis, MathSoft, 6/94. Air Pollutant Emission Calculations, UC Berkeley Extension, 6-7/94 Assessment, Control and Remediation o£LNAPL Contaminated Sites, AP1 and USEPA, 9f94 Pesticides in the TIE Process, SETAC, 6/96 Sulfate Minerals: Geochemistry, Crystallography, and Environmental Significance, Mineralogical Society of America/Geochemical Society, 11/00. Design of Gas Turbine Combined Cycle and Cogeneration Systems, Thermoflow, 12/00 Air-Cooled Steam Condensers and Dry- and Hybrid-Cooling Towers, Power-Gert, 12/01 Combustion Turbine Power Augmentation with Inlet Cooling and Wet Compression, Power-Gert, 12/01 CEQA Update, UC Berkeley Extension, 3/02 The Health Effects of Chemicals, Drugs, and Pollutants, UC Berkeley Extension, 4-5/02 Noise Exposure Assessment: Sampling Strategy and Data Acquisition, Ali-IA PDC 205, 6/02 Noise Exposure Measurement Instruments and Techniques, PDC 302, 6~02 Noise Control Engineering, AIWA_ PDC 432, 6/02 REGISTRATION Class I Registered Environmental Assessor, California (REA-00704) Class H Re~stered Environmental Assessor, California (REA-20040) Qualified Environmental Professional, Institute o£Professiona'l Environmental Practice (QEP #02-010007) Registered Professional Engineer: Arizona, California, Florida, Georg/a, Washington Diplomate Environmental Engineer, American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Certified in Air Pollution Control (DEE #01-20014) - £ J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 2 PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Environmental Management, Principal, 1981-present Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Principal Investigator, 1977-t 981 University of California, Berkeley, Program Manager, 1976-1977 Bechtel, Inc., Engineer, 1971-1976, 1964-1966 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Society of Environmental To'xicolog~y and Chemistry Association for the Environmental Health of Soils American Society of Civil Engineers Society of Automotive Engineers American Industrial Hygiene Association Air and Waste Management Association American Cherrfical Society Phi Beta Kappa Sigma Pi Sigma lC/ho's Who Environmental Registry, PH Publishing, Fort Collins, CO, 1992. l;F'ho's Who in the World, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., Chicago, IL, 1 itt Ed., p. 371, 1993-presem. t7~ho~s Who of American Women, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., Chicago, IL, 13th Ed., p. 264, 1984- present. Who's Who in Science and Engineering, Marquis who's Who, Inc., New Providence, NJ, 5th Ed., p. 414, 1999-present. Guide to Specialists on Toxic Substances, World Environment Center, NeW York, NY, p. 80, 1980. National Research Council Committee on Irrigation-Induced Water Quality Problems (Selenium), Subcommittee on Quality Control/Quality Assurance (1985-1990). National Research Council 'Committee on Surface Mining and 'Reclamation, Subcommittee on Oil Shale (1978-80) REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Performed environmental investigations, as outlined below, for a wide range of/ndustdal and commercial facilities including refineries, reformulated fuels projects, petroleum distribution terminals, conventional and thermally enhanced oil production, underground storage tanks, pipelines, gasoline stations, landfills, railyards, hazardous waste treatment facilities, power plants, ah-ports, hydrogen plants, petroleum coke calcining plants, asphalt plants, cement plants, J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 3 incinerators, flares, manufacturing facilities (semiconductors, electronic assembly, aerospace components, printed circuit boards, amusement park rides), lanthanide processing plants, ammonia plants, urea plants, food processing plants, grain processing facilities, paint formulation plants, wastewater treatment plants, marine terminals, gas processing plants, steel mills, battery manufacturing plants,-pesticide manufacturing and repackaging facilities, pulp and paper mills, redevelopment projects (e.g., Mission Bay, Southern Pacific Railyards, Moscone Center expansion, San Diego Padres Ballpark), residential developments, commercial office parlcs, campuses, and shopping centers, server farms, and a wide range of mines 'including sand and gravel, hard rock, limestone, nacholite, coal, molybdenum, gold, zinc, and oil shale. EXPERT WITNESSZLITIGA TIQN SUPPORT · Assisted California Central Coast City obtain controls on a proposed new city that straddles the Yentura-Los Angeles County boundary. Reviewed several environmental impact reports, prepared an air quality analyses, a diesel exhaust health risk assessment, and detailed review comments. · Assisted Central California city to obtain controls on large alluvial sand quarry and asphalt plant proposing a modernization. Prepared comments on Negative Declaration on air quality, public health, noise, and traffic. Evaluated process flow diagrams and engineering reports to determine whether proposed changes increased plant capacity or substantially modified plant operaiions. Prepared comments'on application for categorical exemption from CEQA. Presented testimony to County Board of Supervisors. Developed controls to mitigate impacts. Assisted counsel draft Petition for Writ. Case settled June 2002. Substantial improvements in plant operations were obtained including cap on throughput, . dust control measures, asphalt plant loadout enclosure, and resthctions on truck routes. · Assisted oil companies on the California Central Coast in defending class action citizens lawsuit alleging health effects due to emissions from gas processing plant and lealdng underground storage tanks. Reviewed regulatory and other files and advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled November 2001. · Assist oil company on the California central Coast in defending property damage claims arising out of a historic oil spill. Rev/ewed site investigation reports, pump tests, leachability studies, and health risk assessments, participated in design of additional site characterization studies to assess health impacts, and advised counsel' on merits of case. Prepare health risk assessment. Assisted unions in appeal of InifiaI Study/Negative Declaration ("IS/ND") for an MTBE phaseout project at a Bay Area refinery. Reviewed IS/ND and supporting agency perrnirting files and prepared technical comments.on air quality, groundwater~ and public health J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 4 impacts. Reviewed responses to comments and final IS/ND and ATC permits and assisted counsel to draft petitions and briefs appealing decision to Air District Hearing Board. Presented sworn direct and rebuttal testimony with cross examination on groundwater impacts of ethanol spills on hydrocarbon contamination at refinery. Hearing Board ruled 5 to 0 in favor of appellants, remanding ATC to district to prepare an EIR. Assist Florida cities in challenging the use of diesel and proposed BACT determinations in prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits issued to two 51 O-MW simple cycle peaking elecWic generating facilities and one 1,080-MW simple cycle/combined cycle facility. Reviewed permit applications, draft permits, and FDEP engineering evaluations, assisted counsel in drafting petitions and responding to discovery. Participated in settlement discussions. Assisted large California city in federal lawsuit alleging peaker power plant is violating its federal permit. Reviewed permit file and applicant's engineering and cost feasibility study to reduce emissions through retrofit controls. Advised counsel on feasible and cosT-effective NOx, SOx, and PM10 controls for several 1960s diesel-fired Pratt and Whitney peaker turbines. Assist.coalition of Georgia environmental groups in evaluating BACT determinations and permit conditions in PSD permits issued to several large natural gas-fired simple cycle and combined-cycle power plants. Prepare technical commems on draft PSD permits on BACT, enforceability of limits, and toxic emissions. Review responses to Comments, advise counsel on merits of cases, participate in settlement discussions, present oral and written testimony in adjudicatory hearings, and provide teeth/ca] assistance as required. Cases settled. Assist citizen's group in Massachusetts review, comment on, and participate in permitting of pollution control retrofits of coal-fired power plant. Assist construction unions in review of air quality permitting actions before the' Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") for several natural gas-fired simple cycle peakers and combined cycle power plants. Assist building trades in review of air quality permitting actions for coal-fired power plants before the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection. Cases in progress. Assist coalition of towns and environmental groups in challenging air perm/ts issued to 523 MW dual fuel (natural gas and distillate) combined-cycle power plant in Connecticut. Prepared technical comments on draft permits and 60 pages of written testimony addressing emission estimates, startup/shutdown issues, BACT/LAER analyses, and toxic air emissions. Presented testimony in adjudicatory administrative hearings before the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in June 2001 and December 2001. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 5 Assist various coalitions of unions, citizens groups, cities, public agencies, and developers in licensing and permitting of over 20 large combined cycle, simple cycle, and peaker power plants in California, Arizona, Oklahoma, Oregon, and elsewhere. Prepare analyses of and comments on applications for certification, preliminary and final staff assessments, and permits issued by local agencies. Present written and oral testimony before California Energy Commission and Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee on hazards of ammonia use and transportation, health effects of air emissions, contarrdnated property issues, BACT/LAER ~ssues related to SCR and SCONOx, criteria and toxic pollutant emission estimates, MACT analyses, air quality modeling, water supply and water quality issues, and methods to reduce water use, including dry cooling, parallel dry-wet cooling, hybrid cooling, and zero liquid discharge systems. Assist unions, cities, and neighborhood associations/m challenging an EIR issued for the proposed expansion of the Oakland Airport. 'Reviewed r~vo draft EIRs and prepared a health risk assessment and extensive'teclmical comments on air quati¢- and public health impacts. The California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, ruled in favor of appellants and plaintiffs, .concluding that the EIR "2) erred in using outdated information in assessing the emission of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from jet aircraft; 3) failed to support its decision not to evaluate the health'risks associated with the emission of TACs with meaningful analysis," thus accepting my technical arguments and requiring the Port to prepare a new EIR. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the BaY Committee, City of San Leandro, and CIO.: of Alameda ez al. v. Board of Port Commissioners (August 30, 2001) l 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 598. Assisted lessor of former gas station with leaking underground storage tanks and TCE contamination fi.om adjacent property. Lessor held 'option to purchase, which was forfeited based on misrepresentation by remediation contractor as to nature and extent of · contamination. Remeddation contractor purchased property. Reviewed regulatory agency files and advised counsel on merits of case. Case not filed. Advised counsel on merits ofseveraI pending actions, including a Proposition 65 case involving groundwater contamination at an explosives manufacturing firm and two former gas stations with leaking underground storage tanks. Assisted defendant foundry in Oakland in a lawsuit brought by neighbors alleging property contamination, nuisance, trespass, smoke, and health effects fi.om foundry operation. Inspected and sampled plaintiffs property. Advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled. Assisted business owner facing eminent domain eviction. Prepared technical comments on a negative declaration for soil contamination and public health risks from air emissions fi.om a proposed redevelopment projem in San Francisco in support ora CEQA lawsuit. Case settled. Assisted neighborhood association representing residents living downwind of a Berkeley asphalt plant in separate nuisance and CEQA lawsuits. Prepared technical comments, on air J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 6 quality, odor, and noise impacts, presented testimony at commission and coUncil meetings, participated in community workshops, and participated in settlementdiscussions. Cases settled. Asphalt plant was upgraded to include air emission and noise controls, including vapor collection system at truck loading station, enclosures for noisy equipment, and improved housekeeping. Assisted a Fornme 500 residential home builder in claims alleging health effects from faulty gas quality study, advised counsel on merits installation of appliances. Conducted indoor air of case, and participated in discussions with plaintiffs. Case settled. Assisted property owners in Silicon Valley in lawsuit to recover remediation costs from insurer for large TCE plume originating from a manufacturing facility. Conducted investigations to demonstrate sudden and accidental release of TCE, including groundwater modeling, development of method to date spill, preparation of chemical inventory, investigation of historical waste disposal practices and standards, and on-site sewer and storm drainage inspections and sampling. Prepared declaration in opposition to' motion for summary judgment. Case settled. Assisted residents in east Oakland downwind of a former battery plant in class action lawsuit alleging property contamination from lead emissions. Conducted historical research and dry deposition modeling that substantiated claim. Participated in mediation at JAMS. Case settled. Assisted property owners in West Oakland who purchased a-former gas station that had leaking underground storage tanks and groundwater contamination. Reviewed agency files and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepared declaration in opposition to summary judgment. Prepared cost estimate to remediate site. Participated in settlement discussions. Case settled. Consultant to counsel representing plaintiffs in two Clean Water Act lawsuits involving selenium discharges into San Francisco Bay from refineries. Reviewed files and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepared interrogatory and discovery questions, assisted in deposing opposing experts, and reviewed and interpreted treatability and other technical studies. Judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Assisted an oil company in a complaint filed by a resident of a small beach community alleging that discharges of tank farm rinse water into the sanitary sewer system caused hydrogen sulfide gas m infiltrate residence, sending occupants to hospital. Inspected accident site, interviewed parties to the event, and reviewed extensive agency files related to incident. Used chem/cal analysis, field simulations; mass balance calculations, sewer hydraulic simulations with SWMM44, atmospheric dispersion modeling with SCREEN3, odor analyses, and risk assessment calculations to demonstrate, that the incident was caused by a faulty drain trap and inadequate slope of sewer lateral on resident's property. Prepared a detailed technical report summarizing these studies. Case settled. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D. PAGE 7 Assisted large West Coast city in suit alleging that leaking underground storage tanks on city property had damaged the waterproofing on d0wngradient building, causing leaks in an underground parking structure. Reviewed subsurface hydrogeologic.investigations and evaluated studies conducted by others documenting leakage from underground diesel and gasoline tanks. Inspected, tested, and evaluated waterproofing on subsurface parking structure. Waterproofing was substandard. Case settled. Assisted residents downwind of gravel mine and asphalt plant in Sisldyou County, California, in suit to obtain CEQA review of air permitting action. Prepared two declarations analyzing air quality and public health impacts. Judge ruled in favor ofplaintifts, closing mine and asphalt plant. Assisted defendant oil company on the Califorrfia Central Coast in class action lawsuit alleging property damage and health effects from subsurface petroleum contamination. Reviewed documents, prepared risk calculations, and advised counsel on merits of case. Participated in settlement discussions. Case settled. Assisted defendant oil company in class action lawsuit alleging health impacts from remediation of petroleum contaminated site on California Central Coast. Reviewed documents, designed and conducted monitoring program, and participated in settlement discussions. Case settled. Consultant to attorneys evaluating a potential challenge of USFWS actions under CVPIA section 3406Co)(2). Reviewed agency files and collected and analyzed hydrology, water quality, and fishery data. Advised .counsel. on merits of case. Case nor filed. Assisted residents downwind of a Carson refinery in class action lawsuit involving soil and groundwater contamination, nuisance, property damage, and health effects from air ermssions. Reviewed files and provided advise on contaminated soil and groundwater, toxic emissions, and health risks. Prepared declaration on refinery fugitive emissions. Prepared- deposition questions and reviewed deposition transcripts on air quality, soil contamination, odors, and health impacts. Case settled. Assisted residents downwind of a Contra Costa refinery who were affected by an accidental release of naphtha. Characterized spilled naphtha, estimated emissions, and modeled ambient concentrations of hydrocarbons and sulfur compounds. Deposed. Presented testimony in binding arbitration at JAMS. Judge found in favor of plaintiffs. Assisted residents downw/nd of Contra Costa County refinery in class action lawsuit alleging property damage, nuisance, and health effects from several large accidents as well as routine operations. Reviewed files and prepared analyses of environmental impacts. Prepared declarations, deposed, and presented testimony before jury in one tr/al and judge in second. Case pending. i J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 8 ~ · Assisted business owner claim/rig damages from dust, noise, and vibration during a sewer ~, construct/on project in San Francisco. Reviewed agency files and PM 10 monitoring data and advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled. ,~ · Assisted residents downwind of Contra Costa County refinery in class action lawsuit alle~ng property damage, nuisance, and health effects. Prepared declaration in opposition to ~_ summaryjudgrnent, deposed, and presented expert testimony on accidental releases, odor, ~ and nuisance before jury. Case thrown out by judge, but reversed on appeal and to be retried. , Presented testimony in small claims court on behalf of residents claiming health effects from hydrogen sulfide from flaring emissions triggered by a power outage at a Contra Costa County refinery. Analyzed meteorolog/cal and air quality data and evaluated potential health risks of exposure to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. Judge awarded damages to ~ plaintiffs. · Assisted construction un/ohs in challenging PSD pbrmit for an indiana steel mill. Prepared ,- technical comments on draft PSD permit, drafted 70-page appeal of agency permit action to ! the Environmental Appeals Board challenging permit based on faulty BACT analysis for electric arc furnace and reheat furnace and faulty permit conditions, among others, and m drafted briefs respondhag to four parties~ EPA 'Region V and the EPA General Counsel [ intervened as am~ci, supporting petitioners. EAB ruled in favor of petitioners, remanding permit to IDEM on three key issues, including BACT for the reheat furnace and lead F~ emissions from the EAF. Drafted motion to reconsider three issues. Prepared 69 pages of techrfical comments on revised draft PSD permit. Drafted second EAB appeal addressing lead emissions ~om the EAF and BACT for reheat furnace based on European. experience ~ with SCR/SNCR. Case settled. Perm/t was substantially improved. See In re: Steel [: Dynamics, Ync., PSD Appeal Nos. 99-4 & 99-5 (EAB June 22, 2000). · Assisted defendant urea manufacturer in Alaska in negotiations with USEPA to seek relief i -- from penalties for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Reviewed and evaluated · regulatory files and monitoring data, prepared technical analysis demonstrating that permit limits were not violated, and participated in negotiations with EPA to dismiss action. Fines ~ were substantially reduced and case closed. · Assisted construction unions in challenging PSD permitting action for an indiana grain mill. [-, Prepared technical comments on draft PSD perrrfit and assisted counsel draft appeal of ~ · agency permit action to the Environmental Appeals Board challenging permit based on faulty BACT analyses for heaters and boilers and faulty permit conditions, among others. Case r- settled. ~ ~ · As part of a consent decree settling a CEQA lawsuit, assisted neighbors ora large west coast port in negotiations with port authority to secure mitigation for ak quality impacts. Prepared ["] technical comments on mobile source air quality impacts and mitigation and negotiated a $9 F J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 9 million CEQA mitigation package. Currently representing neighbors on technical advisory committee established by port to implement the air quality mitigation program. Assisted construction unions in challenging permitting action for a California hazardous waste incinerator. Prepared technical comments on draft permit, assisted counsel prepare appeal of EPA permit to the Environmental Appeals Board. Participated in settlement discussions on technical issues with applicant and EPA Region 9. Case settled. Assisted environmental group in challenging DTSC Negative Declaration on a hazardous waste treamaent facilify. Prepared technical comments on risk of upset, water, and health risks. Writ of mandamus issued. Assisted several neighborhood associations and cities impacted by quarries, asphalt plants, and cement plants in Alameda, Shasta, Sonoma, and Mendocino counties in obtaining mitigations for dust, air quality, public health, traffic, and noise impacts from facility operations and proposed expansions. For over 100 industrial facilities, commercial/campus, and redevelopment projects, developed the record in preparation for CEQA and NEPA lawsuits. Prepared technical comments on hazardous materials, solid wastes, public utilities, noise, worker safety, air quality, public health, water resources, water quality, traffic, and risk of upset sections of EIl~s, EISs, initial studies, and negative declarations. Assisted counsel in drafting petitions and briefs and prepared declarations. For several large commercial development projects and airports, assisted applicant and counsel prepare .defensible CEQA documents, respond to comments, and identify and evaluate "all feasible" mitigation to avoid CEQA challenges. This work included developing mitigation programs to reduce traffic-related air quality impacts based on energy conservation programs, solar, low-emission vehicles, alternative fuels, exhaust treatments, and transportation management associations. TE INVESTIGA TION/REMEDIA TION/ CL OSURE Technical manager and principal engineer for characterization, remediation, and closure of waste management units at former Colorado oil shale plant. Constituents of concern included BTEX, As, 1,1,1-TCA, and TPH. Completed groundwater monitoring pro'grams, site assessments, work plans, and closure plans for seven process water holding ponds, a refinery sewer system, and processed shale disposal area. Managed design and construction of groundwater treatment system and removal actions and obtained clean closure. Principal en~neer for characterization, remediation, and closure of process water ponds at a former lanthanide processing plant in Colorado. Designed and implemented groundwater monitohng program and site assessments and prepared closure plan. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 3.0 · Advised the city of Sacramento on redevelopment of two former railyards. Reviewed work plans, site investigations, risk assessment, RAPS, KI/FSs, and CEQA documents. Participated in the development of mitigation strategies to protect construction and utility workers and the public during remediation, redevelopment, and use of the site, including buffer zones, subslab venting, rail berm containment structure, and an environmental oversight plan. · Provided technical support for the investigation of a former sanitaU landfill that was redeveloped as single family homes.' Reviewed and/or prepared portions of numerous documents, including health risk assessments, preliminary endangerment assessments, site investigation reports, work plans, and RI/FSs. Historical researclq to identify historic waste disposal practices to prepare a preliminary endangerment assessment. Acquired, reviewed, and analyzed the files of 18 federal, state, and local agencies, three sets of construction field notes, analyzed 21 aerial photographs and interviewed 14 individuals associated with operation of former landfill. Assisted counsel in defending lawsuit brought by residents alleging health impacts and diminution of property value due to residual contamination. Prepared summary reports. · Technical oversight of characterization and remediation of a nitrate plume at an explosives manufacturing facility in Lincoln, CA. Provided interface between owners and consultants. Reviewed site assessments, work plans, closure, plans, and RI/FSs. · Consultant to owner of large western molybdenum mine proposed for NPL listing. Participated in negotiations to scope out consent order and develop scope of work. Participated in. studies to determine premining groundwater background to evaluate . applicability of water quality standards. Served on technical committees to develop alternatives to mitigate impacts and close the facility, including resloping and grading, various thickness and types of covers, and reclamation. This work included developing and evaluating methods to control surface runoffand eros]on, mit/gate impacts of acid rock drainage on surface and ground waters, and stabilize nine waste rock piles containing 328 million tons of pyrite-rich, mixed VOlcanic waste rock (andesites, rhyolite, tuff). Evaluated stability of waste rock.piles. Represented client in hearings and meetings with state and federal oversight agencies. REGULATORY PERMITTING/NEGOTIATIONS · Prepared Authority to Construct Permit for remediation of a large petroleum-contaminated site on the Central Coast. Negotiated conditions with agencies and secured permits. · Prepared Authority to Construct Permit for remediation of a former oil field on the Central Coast. Participated in negotiations with agencies and secured permits. · Prepared and/or reviewed hundreds of environmental permits, including N-PDES, UIC, Stormwater, Authority to Construct, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, New Source Review, and RCRA, among others. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 11 Participated in the development of the CARB document, Guidance for Power Plant Siting and Best Available Control Technology, including attending public workshops and filing technical comments. Performed data analyses in support of adoption of emergency power restoration standards by the Public Utilities Commission for "major'~ power outages, where major is an outage that simultaneously affects 10% of the customer base. Drafted portions of the Good Neighbor Ordinance to grant Contra Costa County greater authority over safety oflocal industry, particularly chemical plants and refineries. Participated in drafting BA_AQMD Regulation 8, Rule 28, Pressure Relief Devices, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, draft roles and other technical materials, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of methods to control PRV releases, and negotiations with staff. Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 18, Valves and Connectors, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and cost of low-leak technology, and negotiations with staff. Participated in amending BA_AQMD Regulation 8, Rule 25, Pumps and Compressors, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staffproposals, research on availability and costs of low-leak and seal:less technology, and negotiations with staff. Participated in mending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 5, Storage of Organic Liquids, including participation in public workshops, review of staffreports, proposed rules, and other supporting techrfical material, preparation of technical comments on staffproposals, research on availability and costs of controlling tank emi ssions, and presentation of testimony before the Board. Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 1'8, Valves and Connectors at Pelxoleum Refinery Complexes, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments o~ staffproposals, research on availability'and costs of low-leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board. Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 22, Valves and Flanges a~ Chemical Plants, etc, including participation in public workshops, review of staff`repons, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation oftectmical comments on staff proposals, research on ava/lability and costs of Iow-leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board. Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 25, Pump and Compressor Seals, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 3.2 supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability °flow-leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board. participated in the development of the BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, Toxics, including participation in public workshops, 'review of staffproposals, and preparation of technical comments. Participated in the development of SCAQMD Rule 1402, Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources, and proposed amendments to Rule 1401, New Source Review .of Toxic Air Contaminants, in 1993, including review of staff proposals and preparation of technical comments on same. Participated in the development of the Sunnyvale Ordinance to Regulate the Storage, Use and Handling of Toxic Gas~ which was designed m provide engineering controls for gases that are not otherwise regulated by the Uniform Fire Code. Participated in the drafting of the Statewide Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries, including participation in workshops, review of draft plans, preparation of technical comments on draft plans, and presentation of testimony before the SWRCB. Participated in developing Se permit effluent limitations for the five Bay Area refiner/es, including review of staffproposals, statistical analyses of Se effluent data, review of literature on .aquatic toxicity of Se, preparation of technical' comments on several staff proposals, and presentation of testimony before the Bay Area RWQCB. Represented the California Department of Water Resources in the 1991 Bay-Delta Heatings before the State Water Resources Control Board, presenting sworn expert testimony with cross examination and rebuttal on a striped bass model developed by the California Department of Fish and Game. Represented the' State Water Contractors in the t987 Bay-Delta Hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board, presenting sworn expert testimony with cross examination and rebuttal on natural flows, historical salinity trends in San Francisco Bay, Delta outflow, and hydrodynamics of the South Bay. Represented interveners in the licensing of over 20 natural-gas-fired power plants and one Coal gasification plant at the California Energy Commission and elsewhere. Reviewed and prepared technical comments on applications for certification, preliminaw staff assessments, final staff assessments, preliminary determinations of compliance,, final determinations of compliance, and prevention of sign/ficant deterioration perm/ts in the areas of air quality, water supply, water quality, biology, public health, worker safety, transportation, site contamination, cooling systems, and hazardous materials. Presented written and oral testimony in evident/aw hearings with cross examination and rebuttal. Participated in technical workshops. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 13 Represented several parties in the proposed merger of San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison. Prepared independent technical analyses on health risks, air quality, and water quality. Presented written and oral testimony before the Public Utilities Commission admirfistrative law judge with cross exam/nation and rebuttal. Represented a PRP in negotiations with local health and other agencies to estabtlsh impact of subsurface contamination on overlying residential properties. Rev/ewed health studies prepared by agency consultants and worked with agencies and their consultants to evaluate health risks. WA TER QUALITY~ RESOURCES Directed and participated in research on environmental impacts of energy development fin the Colorado River Basin, including contamination of surface and subsurface waters and modeling of flow and chemical transport through fractured aquifers. Played a major role in Northern California water resource planning studies since the early 1970s. Prepared portions of the Basin Plans for the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Delta basins including sections on water supply; water quality, beneficial uses, waste load alit)cation, and agricultural drainage. Developed water quality models for the Sacramento and San Joaquin R/vers. Conducted hundreds of studies over the past 30 years on Delta water supplies and the impacts.of exports i~om the Delta on water quality and biological resources of the Central Valley, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and San Francisco Bay. Typical examples include: 1. Evaluate historical trends in salinity, temperature, and flow fin San Francisco Bay and upstream rivers to determine impacts of water exports on the estuary; 2. Evaluate the role of exports and natural factors on the food web by exploring the relationship between salinity and primary productivity in San Francisco Bay, - upstream rivers, and ocean; 3. Evaluate the effects of exports, other in-Delta, and upstream factors on the abundance of salmon and striped bass; 4. Review and critique agency fishery models that link Water exports with the abundance of striped bass and salmon; 5. Develop a model based on GLMs to estimate the relative impact of exports, water facility operating variables, tidal phase, salinity, temperature, and other variables on the survival of salmon smolts as they m/grate .through the Delta; 6. Reconstruct the natural hydrology of the Central Valley using w~ter balances, vegetation mapping, reservoir operation models to simulate flood basins, precipitation records, tree r/ng research, and historical research; ! J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 14 7. Evaluate the relationship between biological indicators of estuary health and down-estuary position of a salinity surrogate (X2); 8. Use real-time fisheries monitoring data to quantify impact of exports on fish migration; 9. Refine/develop statistical theory of autocorrelation and use to assess strength of relationships between biologica! and flow variables; 10. Collect, compile, and analyze water quality and toxicity data for surface waters in the Central Valley to assess the role of water quality in fishery declines; 11. Assess mitigation measures, including habitat restoration and changes in water project operation, to minimize fishery impacts; 12. Evaluate the impact of unscreened agricultural water diversions on abundance of la_wal fish; 13. Prepare and present testimony on the impacts of water resources development on Bay hydrodynamics, salinity, and temperature in water rights hearings; 14. Evaluate the impact of boat wakes on shallow water habitat, including interpretation of historical aerial photographs; 15. Evaluate the hydrodynamic and Water quality impacts of converting Delta islands into reservoirs; 16. Use a hydrodynamic model to simulate the distribution of larval fish in a tidally influenced estuary; 17. Identify and evaluate non-export factors that may have contributed to fishery declines, including predation, shifts in oceanic conditions, aquatic toxicity from pesticides and mining wastes, salinity intrusion from channel dredging, loss of r/parian and marsh habitat, sedimentation from upstream land alternations, and changes in dissolved oxygen, flow, and temperature below dams. Developed, directed, and participated in a broad-based research program on environmental issues and control technology for energy industries including petroleum, oil shale, coal mining, and coal slurry transport. Research included evaluation ofa/r and water pollution, development of novel, Iow-cost technology to treat and dispose of wastes, and de-detopment and application of geohydrolo~c models to evaluate subsurface contamination tSom in-situ retorting. The program consisted of government and industry contracts and employed 45 technical and administrative personnel. Coordinated an industry task force established to investigate the occurrence, causes, and solutions for corrosion/erosion and mechanical/engineering failures in the waterside systems caused by water and steam contamination that were investigated included waterside corrosion caused by poor microbiological treatment of cooling water, steam-side corrosion caused by ammonia-oxygen attack of copper alloys, stress-corrosion cracking of copper alloys in the air cooling sections of condensers, tube sheet leaks, oxygen in-leakage through condensers,' volatilization of silica in boilers and carry over and deposition on turbine blades, and iron corrosion on boiler tube walls. Mechanical/engineering failures investigated included: steam impingement attack on the steam side of condenser tubes, tube-to-tube-sheet joint leakage, flow-induced vibration, structural design problems, and mechanical failures due to stresses induced by shutdown, startup and cycling duty, among others. Worked with electric utility plant owners/operators, condenser and boiler vendors, and architect/engineers to collect data to document the occurrence of and causes for these problems, prepared reports summar/zing the investigations, and presented the results and participated on a committee of industry experts tasked with identifying solutions to prevent condenser failures. · Evaluated the cost effectiveness and technical feasibility of using dry cooling and parallel dry-wet cooling to reduce water demands of several large natural-gas fired power plants in Califomia and Arizona. ·Designed and prepared cost estimates for several dry cooling systems (e.g., fin fan heat exchangers) used in chemical plants and refineries. · Designed, evaluated, and costed several zero liquid discharge systems for power plants. · Evaluated the impact of agricultural and mimng practices on surface water quality of Central Valley steams. Represented municipal water agencies on several federal and state advisory committees tasked with gathering and assessing relevant technical information, developing work plans, and providing oversight of technical work to investigate toxicity issues in the watershed. AiR OUALITY/PUBLIC HEALTH ·Prepared or reviewed the air quality, and public health sections of hundreds of EIRs and EISs on a wide range of industrial, commercial and residential projects. ·Prepared or reviewed hundreds of NSR and PSD permits for a wide range of industrial facilities. · Designed, implemented, and directed a 2-year-long community air quality monitoring program to assure that residents downwind of a petroleum-contaminated site were not impacted during remediation of petroleum-contaminated soils. The program included real- time monitoring of particulates, diesel exhaust, and BTEX and time integrated monitoring for over 100 chemicals. ·Designed, implemented, and directed a 5-year long source, industrial hy~ene, and ambient monitoring program to characterize air emissi OhS, employee exposure, and downwind J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 16 envirorm'zenta] impacts of a first-generation shale oil plant. The program included stack monitoring of heaters, boilers, incinerators, sulfur recovery units, rock crashers, API separator vents, and wastewater pond fugitives for arsenic, cadmium, chlorine, chromium, mercury, 15 organic indicators (e.g., quinoline, pyrrole, benzo(a)pyrene, thiophene, benzene), sulfur gases, hydrogen cyanide, and ammonia. In many cases, new methods had to be developed or existing methods modified to accommodate the complex matrices of shale plant gases. · Conducted investigations on the impact of diesel exhaust fi.om track traffic from a wide range of facilities including mines, large retail centers, light industrial' uses, and sports facilities. Conducted traffic surveys, continuously monitored diesel exl~aust using an aethalomerer, and prepared health risk assessments using resulting data. · Conducted indoor air quality investigations to assess exposure to natural gas leaks, pesticides, molds and fungi, soil gas from subsurface contamination, and outgasing of carpets, drapes, furniture and construction materials. Prepared health risk assessments using collected data. , Prepared health risk assessments, emission inventories, air quality analyses, and assisted in the permitting of over 70 1 to 2 MW emergency diesel generators. · Prepare over 100 health risk assessments, endangerment assessments, and other health-based studies for a wide range of industrial facilities. , Developed methods to monitor trace elements in gas streams, including a continuous real- time monitor based on the Zeeman atomic absorption spectrometer, to continuously measure mercury and other elements. · Performed nuisance investigations (odor, noise, dust, smoke, indoor air quality, soil contamination), for businesses, industrial facilities, and residences located proximate to a]~d downw/nd of pollution sources. PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (Partial List - Representative Publications) J.P. Fox, T.P. Rose, and T.L. Sawyer, Isotope Hydrology of a Spring-fed Waterfall in Fractured 'Volcanic Rock, Submitted to Journal of Hydrology, 2002. C.E. Lambert, E.D. Winegar, and Phyllis Fox, Ambient and Human Sources of Hydrogen Sulfide: An Explosive Topic, .42r & Waste Management Association, June 2000, Salt Lake City, San Luis Obispo County, Air Pollution Control District and San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department, Community Monitoring ProgT'am, February 8, 1999. J. PHYlliS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 17 The Bay Institute, From the Sierra to the Sea. The Ecological History of the San Francisco Bay- Delta Watershed, 1998. J. Phyllis Fox, Well £nterference Effects of HDPP's Proposed Wellfield in the Victor Valley Water District, Prepared for the California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE), October 12, 1998. J. Phyllis Fox, Air Quality Impacts of Using CPVC Pipe in Indoor Residential Potable Water Systems, Report Prepared for California Pipe Trades Council, California Firefighters Association, and other trade associations, August 29, 1998. J Phyllis Fox and others, Authority to Construct Avila Beach Remediation Project, Prepared for Unocal Corporation and submitted m San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, June 1998. J. Phyllis Fox and others, Authority to Construct Former Guadalupe Oil Field Remediation _Project, Prepared for Unocal Corporation and submitted to San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control D/strict, May t998. J. ~Phyllis Fox and Robert Sears, Health Risk Assessment for the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport Proposed Airport Development Program, Prepared for Plumbers & Steamfitters U.A. Local 342, December 15, 1997. Levine-Fricke-Recon (Phyllis Fox and others), Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Work PZan for the Study Area Operable Unit, Former Solano County Sanitary Landfill Bemcia, California, Prepared for Granite Management Co. for submittal to DTSC, September 26, 1997. Phyllis Fox and Jeff Miller, "Fathead Minnow Mortality in the Sacramento Privet," _rEP Newsletter, v. 9, n. 3, t996. Iud Monroe, Phyllis Fox, Karen Levy, Robert Nuzum, Randy Bailey, Rod Fujita, and Charles Hanson, Habitat Restoration in Aquatic Ecosystems. A Review of the Scientific Literature Related to the Principles of Habitat Restoration, Part Two, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Report, 1996. Phyllis Fox and Elaine Archibald, Aquatic Toxicity and Pesticides in Swface Waters of the Central Valley, California Urban Water Agencies (CUWA) Report, September 1997. Phyllis Fox and Alison Britton, Evaluation of the Relationship Between Biological indicators and the Position of X2, CUWA Report, 1994. Phyllis Fox and Alison Britton, Predictive Ability of the Striped Bass Model, WRINT DWR-206, 1992. J. Phyllis Fox, An Historical Overview of Environm'ental Conditions at the .North Canyon Area of the Former Solano County Sanitary Landfill, Report Prepared for Sotano County Department of Environmental Management, 1991. J. PHYLLIS PAGE 3.8 FOX, PH..D., J. Phyll/s Fox, An ]-Iistorical Overview of Environmental Conditions at the East Canyon Area of the Former SoIano County Sanitary Landfill, Report Prepared for Solano County Department of Enviionmental Management, 1991. Phyllis Fox, Trip 2 Report, Environmental Monitoring Plan, Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program, Unocal Report, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Long-Term Annual and Seasonal Trends in Surface Salinity of San Francisco Bay," Journal ofHydroiogy, v. 122, p. 93-117, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Reply to Discussion by D.R. Helsel and E.D. Andrews on Trends in Freshwater 'Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 27, no 2, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Reply to Discussion by Philip B. Williams on Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento-San Joaqu/n Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 27, no. 2, 1991. J. iP. Fox and others, "Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 26, no. 1, 1990. J.':~P. Fox, "Water Development Increases Freshwater Flow to San Francisco Bay," SCWC Update, v. 4, no. 2, 1988. J..,~. Fox, Freshwater _Inflow to San Francisco Bay Under Natural Conditions, Stare Water C:ontracts, Exhibit 262, 58 pp., 1987. J.'~. Fox, "The Distribution of Mercury During Simulated In-Sim Oil Shale Retort/ng," Environmental Science and Technology, v. 19, no. 4, pp. 316-322, 1985. J. P. Fox, "El Mercurio en el Medio Ambiente: Aspectos Referentes al Peru," (Mercury in the Environment: Factors Relevant to Peru) Proceedings of Simposio Los Pesticidas y el Medio Ambiente," ONERN-CONCYTEC~ Lima, Peru, April 25-27, 1984. (Also presented at Instituto Tecnologico Pesquero and Instituto del Mar del Peru'.) J. P. Fox, "Mercury, Fish, and the Peruvian Diet," Boletin de Investigacion, Instituto Tecnologico Pesquero, Lima, Peru, v. 2,'no. 1, pp. 97-116, 1984. J. ?. Fox, P. Persoff, A. Newton, and R. N. Heistand, "The Mobility of Organic Compounds in a Codisposal System," Proceedings of the Seventeenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1984. P. Persoffand J. P. Fox, "Evaluation of Control Technology for Modified In-Sim Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of the Sixteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School o£Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1983. J. P. Fox, Leaching of Oil Shale Solid Wastes: A Critical Review, University of Colorado Report, 245 pp., July t983. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D. PAGE 19 J. P. Fox, Source Monitoring for Unregulated Pollutants from the White River Oil Shale Project, VTN Consolidated Report, June 1983.' A. S. Newton, J. P. Fox, H. Villarreal, R. Raval, and W. Walker II, Organic Compounds in Coal Slurry Pipeline Waters, Lawrence' Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-15121, 46 pp., Sept. 1982. M..Goldstein et al., High Level Nuclear Waste Standards Analysis, Regulatory Framework Comparison, Battelle Memorial Institute Report No. BPMD/82/E515-06600/3, Sept. 1982. J. P. Fox eT al., Literature and Data Search of Water Resource Information of the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming Oil Shale Basins, Vols. 1-12, Bureau of Land Management, t982. A. T. Hodgson, M. J. Pollard,' G. J. Harris, D. C.' Girvin, J. P. Fox, and N. J. Brown, Mercury Maas Distribution During Laboratory and Simulated In-Sits Retorting, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 12908, 39 pp., Feb. 1982. E. J. Peterson; A. V. Henicksman, J. P. Fox, J. A. O'Rourke, and P. Wagner, Assessment and Control of Water Contamination Associated with Shale Oil Extraction and Processing, Los 'g21amos National Laboratory Report LA-9084-PR, 54 pp., April 1982. P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, Control Technology for In-Sits Oil Shale Retorts, Lawrence Berkeley 'Laboratory Report LBL-14468, 118 pp., Dec. 1982. J. ~. Fox, Codisposal ~valuation: Env~'ronmental Sig-ni. ficance of Organic Compounds, Development Engineering Report, 104 pp., April 1982. .J.i~. Fox, A Proposed Strategy for Developing an Environmental Water Monitoring Plan for the Paraho-Ute Project, VTN Consolidated Report, Sept. 1982. J. P. Fox, D..C. Girvin, and A. T. Hodgson, "Trace Elements in Oil Shale Materials," Energy and ~nvironmental Chemistry, Fossil Fuels, v. 1, pp. 69-10I, 1982. M. Mehran, T. N. Narasimhan, and J. P. Fox, "Hydrogeologic Consequences of Moctified In-sim Retorting Process, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado," Proceedings Fourteenth Oil Shale of the Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1981 (LBL-12063). U. S. DOE (J. P. Fox and others), Western Oil Shale Development? g Technology Assessment, v. I-9, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report PNL-3830, 1981. J. P. Fox (ed), "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy and Environment Division Annual Report 1980, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11989, 82 pp., 1981 (mithor or co- author of four articles in report). J- P' Fox, The Partitioning of Major; Minor, and Trace Elements during ]n-Situ Oil Shale Retorting, Ph.D. Dissertation, U. of Ca., Berkeley, also Report LBL-9062, 441 pp., ] 980 'Diss. Abst. Internat., v. 41, no; 7, 1981). J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 20 J.P. Fox, "Elemental Composition of Simulated In Situ Oil Shale Retort Water," Analysis of Waters Associated with Alternative Fuel Production, ASTM STP 720, L.P. Jackson and C.C. Wright, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 101-128, 1981. J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, P. Wagner, and E. J. Peterson, "Retort Abandonment -- Issues and Research Needs," in Oil Shale: the Environmental Challenges,'K. K. Petersen (ed.), p. 133, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 11197). J. P. Fox and T. E. Phillips, "Wastewater Treatment in the Oil Shale Industry," in Oil Shale: the Environmental Challenges, K. K. Petersen (ed.), p 253, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 1.1214). R. D. Giauque, J. P. Fox, J. W. Smith, and W. A. Robb, "Geochemical Studies of Two Cores from the Green River Oil Shale Formation,." Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 61, no. 17, 1980. J. P. Fox, "The Elemental Composition of Shale Oils," Abstracts of Papers, t79th National Meeting, ISBN 0-8412'0542-6, Abstract No. FUEL 17, 1980. J..:P. Fox and P. Persoff; "Spent Shale Grouting of Abandoned h~-Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of Second U.S. DOE Environmental Control Symposium, CONrF-800334/1, 1980 (Eawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 10744). P. iK. Mehta, P. Persoff, and J. P. Fox, "Hydraulic Cement Preparation from Lurgi Spent Shale," Proceedings of the Thirteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, C:O, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11071). F. E. Brinckman, K. L. Jewett. R. H. Fish, and J. P. Fox, "Speciation of Inorganic and Organoarsenic Compounds in Oil Shale Process Waters by HPLC Coupled with Graphit¢ Furnace Atomic Absorption (GFAA) Detectors," Abstracts of Papers, Div. of Geochemistry, Paper No. 20, Second Chemical Congress of the North American Continent, August 25-28, 1980, Las Vegas (i980). J. P. Fox, D. E. Jackson, and K. H. Sakaji, "Potential Uses of Spent Shale in the Treatment of Oil Shale Retort Waters," Proceedings of the Thirteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School 'of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1980 CLawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11072). J. P. Fox, The Elemental Composition of Shale Oils, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 10745, 1980. R.. H. Fish, J. P. Fox, F. E. Brinckman, and K. L. Jewett, Fingerprintz'ng InoTTanic and Organoarsenic Compounds in Oil Shale Process Waters .Using a Liquid Chromatograph Coupled with an Atomic Absorption Detector, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 11476, 1980. National Academy of Sciences (J. P. Fox and others), Surface Mining of Non-Coal Minerals, Appendix II: Mining and Processing of OiI Shale and Tar'Sands, 222 pp., '1980. J. PHYlliS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 21 J. P. Fox, "Elemental Composition of Simulated In-Sim Oil Shale Retort Water," in Analysis of V/at'rs Associated with. Alternative Fuel Production, ASTM STP 720, L. P. Jackson and C. C. 'Wright (eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 101-128, 1980. R. D. Giauque, J. P. Fox, and J. W. Smith, Characterization of Two Core Holes from the Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number ], Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10809, 176 pp., December 1980. B. M. Jones, R. H. Sakaji, J. P. Fox, and C. G. Daughton, "Removal of Contaminafive Const/tuen~s from Retort Water: Difficulties with Biotreatment and Potential Applicability of Raw and Processed Shales," EPA/DOE Oil Shale Wastewater Treatability Workshop, December 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 12124). J. P. Fox, Water-I~elated Impacts of ln-Situ Oil Shale Processing, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6300, 327 p., December 1980. M. Mehran, T. N. Narasimhan, and J. P. Fox, An Investigation of Dewateringfor the Modified In-Situ Retorting Process, Piceance Creek Basin, 'Colorado, Lawrence B erkel ey Laboratory. l~eport LBL-11819, 105 p., October 1980. J.;~. Fox (ed.) "Oil Shale Research,".Chapter fi:om the Energy and Environment Division Annual Report 1979, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10486, 1'980 (author or coauthor of eight articles). E.- Ossio and J. P. Fox, Anaerobic Biological Treatment of ln-Situ Oil Shale Retort Water, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10481, March 1980. J. P. Fox, F. H. Pearson, M. J. Kland, and P. Persoff, Hydrologic and Water Quality Effects and Controls for Surface and Underground Coal Mining -- State of Knowledge, Issues, and Research Needs, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11775, 1980. D. C. Girvin, T. Hadeishi, and J. P. Fox, "Use of Zeeman Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy for the Measurement of Mercury in Oil Shale Offgas," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March t 979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8888). D. S. Fan-/er, J. P. Fox, and Il E. Poulson, "Interlaboratory, Multimethod Study of an In-Sim Produced Oil Shale Process WaTer," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March I979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9002). Y. P. Fox,. J. C. Evans, J. S. Fru'chter, and T. 1L Wildeman, "lmterlaboratory Study of Elemental Abundances in Raw and Spent Oil Shales," Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sam?ting, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8901). J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 22 $. P. Fox, "Retort Water PaTficu]ates," Proceeding~ of the Oil Shale Symposium: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Law?ence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8829). P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, "Control Strategies for In-Sim Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of the Twelfth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9040). J. P. Fox and D. L. Jackson, "Potential Uses of Spen~ Shale in the Treatment of Oit Shale Retor~ Waters," Proceedings of the DOE Wastewater Workshop, Washington, D. C., June 14-15, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9716). J. P. Fox, K. K. Mason, and J. J. Duvall, "Partitioning of Major, Minor, and Trace Elements during Simulated In-Sim Oil Shale Retorting," Proceedings.of the Twelfth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden; CO, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9030). P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, Control Strategie~ for Abandoned In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8780, 106 pp., October 1979. 'D.-C. Girvin and J P. Fox, On-Line Zeeman Atomic Absorption Spectroscoj2y for Mercury Analysis in Oil Shale Gases, Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-600/7-80-130, 95 p., August 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9702). J.-;P. Fox, Water Quality Effects of Leachates from an In-Situ Oil Shale Industry, Lawrence BerkeleyLaboratory Report LBL-8997, 37 pp., April 1979. J. P. Fox (ed.), "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy andEnvironmem Division Annual Report 1978, Lawrence Berkel6y Laboratory Report LBL-9857 August 1979 (author or coauthor of seven articles). J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, M. M. Moody, and C. J. Sisemore; "A Strategy for the Abandonment of 'Modified In-Sim Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of the First U.S. DOE Environmental Control Symposium, CONF-781109, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6855). E. Ossio, J. P. Fox, J. F. Thomas, and R. E. Poulson, "Anaerobic Fermentation of Simulated In- Sim Oil Shale Retort Water," Division of Fuel Chemistry Preprints, v. 23, no. 2, p. 202-213, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6855). J. P. Fox, J. J. Duvall, R. D. McLaughlin, and K. E. Poulson, "Mercury Emissions from a Simulated In-Sim Oil. Shale Retort," Proceeding~ of the Eleventh Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-7823). J. P. Fox, R. D. McLaughlin, J. F. Thomas, and R.. E. Poulson, "The Partitioning of As, Cd, Cu, Hg, Pb, and Zn during Simulated In-Sim Oil Shale Retorting,'.' Proceedings of the Tenth Oil Shale Syml2osium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1977. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 23 Bechtel, Inc., Treatment and Disposal Of Toxic Wastes, Kcport Prepared for Santa Aha Watershed Planning Agency, i975. Bay Valley Consultants, Water Quality Control Plan for Sacramento, Sacramento-San Joaquin and San Joaquin t~asins, Parts t and II and Appendices A-E, 750 pp., 1974. Watershed Advisory Group 12 February 2004 Ms.' Tanya Gulesserian Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 651 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 900 South.San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone (650) 589-1660 Fax (650) 589-5062 ' RE: West. Dublin Transit Village Environmental Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for 6700 Golden Gate Drive Dear Ms. Gulesserian: This letter presents the results from the Watershed Advisory Group review of water qu_a_!ity issues . addressed in the West Dublin Tran.~it Village Environmental Initial Study (WDTVIS) prepared for the West Dublin Transit Village residential, office, and commercial project ("project") on the LegaCy partners - AMB Property at the Cot-O-Van Site, 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Dublin, Califorrda dated 6 November 2003. The project's proposal to develop residential, office and commercial land uses has the potential to create sig~ficant impacts on local surface waters through discharges of contaminated storm water, potentially contaminated groundwater, and pesticides in landscape irrigation runoff. This project will be constructed, on an existing mised industrial and commercial use site, which has numerous potential sources ofl~istoric soil or groundwater contamination. The project will include a below grade garage Which may serve as a collecting point for area groundwater, which may be contaminated. No provision is made in the project plans or WDTVIS to address contaminated groundwater or to prevent contamination from reaching surface waters. Further, the completed project Mil generate in excess of 14,000 average vehicle trips per day, which, in turn, will generate substantial deposition of heavy metal and petroleum hydrocarbon pollutants on exposed surfaces associated with automotive traffic. The concemrations of these pollutants in storm water leaving the developed site will be increased through entrainment of the deposited pollutants in rainwater. In short, I conclude that there .is more than a "fair argument" that the Project may have significant adverse environmental impacts. Further, the environmental impacts associated with this project are likely to be multiplied several fold through the cumulative impacts created by approval and construction of several additional projects in the immediate vicinity of this Project. These impacts 1259 El Camino Real, No. 124 Menlo Park, California 94025 Phone 650 853 04c:~4 Fax 650 853 0465 email H2OAflvGrp~aol.com Watershed Advisory Group should be analyzed and mitigation measures developed through an environmental impact repert t. Introduction This project will develop an existing warehouse site into mixed use residential, commercial, and office space. There will also be two levels of par 'king below the residential'buildings. The City of Dublin has prepared an Environmental Initial Study (WDTVIS) for the Project entitled West Dublin Transit Village, Legacy Partners - AMB Property, PA 02-003, Cor-O-Van Site, Environmental Initial Study, 6 November 2003). The project is being proposed in anticipation of au extension of BART to Pleasanton and Dublin and construction of a BART Station in West Dublin. Based on the Versar Inc. "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 6700 Golden Gate Drive, Dublin, California; 8 November 2000," (Phase I BSA) the site has historically been used for agricultural fields and commercial or light industrial purposes. The present building was constructed between 1969 and 1973 (page 4), The site elevation is indicated as 340 feet and sloping gently to the east (page 2). "Groundwater flow is indicated to be variable, but predominant flow direction is anticipated to follow topography to the east/southeast." The November 2000 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project prepared by EDAW (BART ElK) indicates that "Groundwater occurs at depths as shallow as 8 feet. Historically, groundwater flows wi/kin the Dublin/Pleasanton area have been in a south to southwest direction, although a review of some groundwater reports indicates a flow to the east (Bechtel Environmental, Inc. 1990)." 2. 14a~ardous Material Spills Near the Site May Contaminate GroundWater The WDTVIS largely discounts the historical contamination near the site and ignores the risk of groundwater in the area being drawn into dewatering pumps in the below grade parking garage. Once this contamination, which potentially remains in soil and groundwater, flows down gradient to the pumps, it would ordinarily be discharged to the local storm drainage system. This could result in contamination of local surface waters. There is at least a "fair argument" that hazardous materials in the subsurface soil may be discharged into the storm drainage system and local surface waters. This is a potentially significant impact that should be analyzed and mitigated through an ElK. A. Site History_ The Versar Phase I ESA review is generally limited to the 6700 Golden Gate Drive parcel. Versa' discounts the likelihood that environmental releases might have occurred on the site from the Airborne Express vehicle maintenance facility or that releases on other sites may affect the groundwater at the site. Even though gasoline spills of unspecified status (page 14) and with MTBE contamination are present, this Phase I ESA also discounts the likelihood that 11 environmental releases within 0.5 mile of the site will affect site groundwater during construction and once the below ground garage is completed. 12 February 2004 Wats[ Oualiiy Review of the WeSt Dublin Transit VtlJege Envimnmentsi In,al Study {6 November 2003} Page 2 Watershed Advisory Group The BART EIR indicates numerous sites of environmental releases within 1.25 miles of thc proposed BART Station and Transit Village. The BART EIR (pages 4.7-1 to 10) data base search identified over 60 occurrences of hazardous materials releases within 1.25' miles of the proposed project. Since many of these occurrences are duplicates, it is more relevant to review the 'sites recommended for Phase B Site Assessments including field sampling for two areas on Golden Gate Drive and construction monitoring of three additional sites on or near Golden Gate Drive, Crown Chevrolet, Cor-o-Van Warehouse and the former Smith-Kline Laboratory (6511 Golden Gate Drive). Each of these sites requiring additional investigation is close to the proposed Project. In summary, numerous potential sources of hazardous materials contamination of soil or groundwater within a short distance of the site have been identified. In addition, the direction of groundwater flow has not been clearly defined. At some times and locations, groundwater exists within 8 feet of the surface. Once excavation for a below ground garage begins, dewatering will likely need to be conducted. Once completed, pumping of water from the excavation will likely be needed to maintain the garage in a dry condition. In an area with an indeterminate groundwater flow direction, groundwater may migrate towards the pumping under the garage locally modifying the gro,.mdwater flow direction toward the garage. This may have the effect of carrying contaminants toward the proposed project and eventually discharging the contaminated groundwater to the storm drainage system. This is a potentially significant environmental impact not addressed by the WDTVIS. This impact should be addressed by an EIR. B. Keg,,latorv Background on Potentially Contaminated Soil and Groundwater The Initial Study for West DublinfPleasanton BART Station and Transit Village prepared by EDAW on 11 April 2000 (BARTIS) states: ~'However, as discussed in Section VII (b,d) [of the DPX EIR] there is the potential ~ to encounter sUbsurface.contamination during project construction. As indicated in ~ the Phase 1 ESA, shallow groundwater may be present in the project area. ,_ Subsurface excavation of groundwater contaminants could result in the vertical ~ and/or lateral migration of groundwater contaminants as well as expose the public ~ and workers to potential hazards. This is a potentially significant impact and will be addressed in the EIR." (page 21 .) · In a 13 December 2000 letter to John H. Rermels, Jr. of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Barbara r- Cook of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control commented on the Supplemental ~ EIR for the West Dublin Pleasanton BART Station and. Transit Village (SuppEIR) that "While groundwater and s0il sampling has been identified as a mitigation measure for this project, without r"~ historical information, it is not clear how the appropriate chemical analyses and sample locations ~ will be selected, or whether residential land use is appropriate for the properS." [emphasis added.] This question is not considered in the WDTVIS and should be addressed in an EIR. Finally, this [ · proposed mitigation constitutes improper deferral of miff gation under CEQA. In the "Revised Draft Negative Declaration for Downtown Specific Plans - Downtown Core [- Specific Plan, West Dublin Bart Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan, 14 December 12 February 2004 Water Quality Review of the West Dublin Transit Village Page 3 Environmental InltJat Study (6 November 2003) Watershed Advisory Group 2000" (RDND), Signed by Janet Harbin, Senior Planner, the statement is made "The project would not affect groundwater direction, since no significant subsurface consu'uction is anticipated. In the event that subsurface excavation is proposed, adopted City standards require that specific development projects, such as those re uirin under ound arkin structures, prepare a site- specific hydrological analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis to determine groundwater levels..." [emphasis added] (page 18). "Parkin for the develo merit would be rovided in surface lots Since page 5 of the WDTVIS states and two levels under the residential buildines_," and page 2 states "The proposed Project .. ,consist[s] front retail space.on of a maximum of 308 multi-family units...with below grade parking and store the ground level," a hydrologic study must be prepared. In the WDTVIS signed by Janet Harbin, Senior Planner of the City of Dublin on 6 November 2003, the statement is made that "Water and hydrologic impacts of development of the project have been addressed in the hydrological report for the project (page 22). Impacts reviewed included potential flooding, loss of groundwater recharge area, and potential increases in surface water quality pollution." In a letter from Janet Harbin, Senior Planner of the City of Dublin to Tanya Gulessarian of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo dated 4 December 2003, the statement is made that "I erroneously mentioned that a hydrological report was prepared for the site...A hydrology report is not necessary at this stage of the project as drainage will be improved w/th the development..." There is no evidence that the City standards requiring a hydrologic study for projects with underground parking changed between December 2000 and November 2003. The presence of many sources of potential soil and groundwater contamination near the proposed project raise a fair argument that an ErR should be prepared which addresses the DTSC question of"whether residential land use is appropnate for the.prop rty, as well as the potential for an underground garage to alter groundwater flow patterns and to discharge contaminated groundwater to the storm drain system and local surface waters. 3. Potential Pollution from New Construction Related Activi..ty Assuming that the Applicant develops and implements a SWPPP for construction oft he project, the following table indicates what type of contaminants are discharged from construction sites with SWPPPs and at what level the contaminants exist in the discharge. This table is a modified version of a table that apPears in "Characteristics of Stormwater Runoff From Highway Construction Sites in California," Transportation Research Record 1743, Paper No. 01-3181, National Academy Press Masoud Kayhanian, Caltrans/UCD Environmental Program, Kevin Murphy, Caltrans/CSUS Storm Water Program, Louis Regenmorter, Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., Richard Haller, Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (Caltra_n..q Paper 01-3181, Table 3) While it may not specifically replicate the analytical results that would be found from this construction project, the Table summarizes a range o:f values that could reasonably be expemed to be discharged from sites where heavy equipment is used to construct roads, utilities, and foundations. The applicable San Francisco Basin Plan Ambient Water Quality Limits for each parameter are indicated in the BP Limits column. The mean is an average of sampling results from Water Quality Rovie~v of the Wast Dublin Transit Village 12 February 200~ Environmental.initial Study (6 November 2003} Page 4 Watershed Advisory Group 15 highway construction sites throughout California from 199g to 2000. The Mcan/BPLim column indicates'the ratio of the mean of the discharge concentrations divided by the allowable BP limit. Based on these mean levels, discharges from this construction activity may exceed the BP Limits by 4 to 1 4 times. If the discharges range higher than the means .indicated, the construction discharges may exceed the BP limits by .an even greater margin. It should be noted that the Caltrans data was not identified as being sampled from runoff from an historical hazardous waste site. In addition, tlxe San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board has recently proposed implementing Califbmia Toxics Rule (CTR) limits for many of the pollmants in San Francisco Bay. This inclusion of CTR limits in the Basin.Plan may occur before occupancy of this project and the new limits should be taken into account in the determination of any' potential envh'om~ental impact. Table 1: Statistical Summary of Construction Site Storm Water constituent units Minimum Maximum Mean (b) BP Limits (a) Mean/BPLim (¢} 4.9 Copper Total ug/L 3.8 128 32.07 6.5 Lead Total ug/L 1 291 44.35 3.2 13, 9 Zinc Total ug/L 6.9 609 't 40.86 23 6.1 Diazinon (d) uglL 0.02 2.4 0.41 0.1 4.1 a) ApPlicable Basin Plan Limits assuming 100 mg/L hardness as CaO03 (Table 3-4) b) A value equal to one half of reporting limit was used when reported as non-detect c) Ratio of' Mean to Allowable Basin Plan Levels d) Diazinon Limit from USEPA Draft Ambient Water Quality Limit' for Diazinon, Aug. 2000 Discharging storm water from construction sites with concentrations potentially 4 to 1 4 times the ambient water quality limits'represents an environmental impact,which should be mitigated and has nor been specifically addressed in the WDTVIS. In addition, Alameda Creek and South San Francisco Bay are both impaired for Diazinon, which is commonly found in construction site discharges. This project will discharge through the storm drainage system to Dublin Creek or other tributaries to .Alameda Creek. Contributing to further impairment of receiving waters is specifically prohibited by the California Construction Storm Water Discharge Permit. 21Tfis project has not proposed mitigation or monitoring to verify that this provision of the Permit is not violated. 4. Sources' of Potential Contamination in the Completed Proiect. a)Pesticides from Newly Landscaped Area~ The Project would dedicate approximately 32 per cent of the Project site to landscaped area (page 1 9 of WDTVIS). Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers would routinely be applied in these areas to maintain the landscape vegetation. The WDTVIS failed to acknowledge that these materials would be present in storm water runoff f~om the site, even though they are a cause of water quality problems in the downstream receiving waters. Alameda Creek and the South San Francisco Bay are impaired for pesticides. Alameda Creek and South San Francisco Bay, the water bodies that would ultimately be affected by Water Quality Review of the West Dub n Transit Village 12 February 2004 :.nvironmental Initial Study (6 November 2003) Page 5 Watershed Advisory GroUp meet water quality objectives for several Thus, storm water discharges from the Project, currently fail to pesticides, including chlordane, DDT, diazinon, and dieldrin. (See 303(d) list, p. 29 and 49.) any increase in any of these constituents, most notably diazinon, which is a widely used pesticide, or other nutrients is a significant impact that was not analyzed in the WDTVIS. As discussed below, none of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. b) Pollut~nt~ From Increased Avera~e Daily Traffic by the The WDTVIS refers to and relies upon the West Dublin BART Specific Plan As Adopted Dublin City Council, 19 December 2000 (WDBSP) for analysis of ~raf-fic impacts. However, neither the WDBSP nor the WDTVIS evaluate the pollutants attributable to additional traffic, which are added to the runoff from the Project during storm events, or propose any mitigation for that environmental impact. Based on the WDBSP, this Project would increase average daily traffic by over 14,000 average trips per day. (WDBSP Technical Appendices, pages 35 and 37.) These trips would be distributed throughout roadways, both inside and outside of the immediate vicinity of the Project, Studies performed by CalTrans in Califomia indicate that a statistically significant positive slope for annual average daily traffic "indicates that higher AADT tends to result in higher pollutant concentrations in runoff." (Kayhanian et al.,~ p. 15.) Thus, an increase in ~rips over roadways both at the immediate Project area and outside it would increase pollutant loads from these roadways. Runoff from roadways contains very high concentrations of many constituents. (Caltrans Paper 01 318 i, Table 3,) The mean concentrations of copper, nickel, zinc and Diazinon detected in storm water runoff from California highways, for example, are from 6 to 37 times greater than the BP ambient water quality objectives. Thus, increased pollution will likely result from storm water runoff from roadways impacted by the Project' and may result in significant impacts to receiving waters and potentially contribute to the further impairment °fAlameda Creek and South San Francisco Bay (see discussion of construction runoff above). This project has not proposed mitigation or monitoring to.verify that this provision of the Permit is not violated. Table 2: Statistical Summary of CaiTrans Highway Runoff (~997-'1999) Constituent Units Minimum Maximum Mean (b) BP Limits (a) IVieanlBPLim (c) Copper Total ug/L 2.1 770 50.25 6.5 7.7 Lead Total ug/L . ~1.1 1530 120.83 3.2 37.8 Zinc Total ug/L 11 2400 231.99 23 10.1 Diazinon (d) uglL 0.04 2.4 0.65 0.1 6.5 a) Applicable Basin Plan Limits assuming 100 mg/L hardness as CaCO3 (Table 3-4) b) A value equal to one half of reporting limit was used when reported as non-detect c) Ratio of Mean to Allowable Basin Plan Levels d) Diazinon Limit from USEPA Draft Ambient Water Quality Limit for Diazinon Aug. 2000 4. Mitigation Is Inadeauate ~ M. Kayhanian, A. Singh, C. Suverkropp, and S. Borroum, The lmpac£ of Annual Average Daily Traffic on Highway Runoff Pollutant Concentrations. Water Oualib' Review of ~e WeSt Dublin Transit Village 'i2 February 2004 Environmental Initial Stu~ ($ November 2003) Page § Advi ry up Watershed so o The mitigation measures discussed in thc WDTVIS are inadequate for the pollutants that are likely to be present at th/s site. The measures described by the WDTVIS to comply with the General Construction Storm Water Permit do not address additional measures appropriate to minimize and mitigate release of historical industrial pollutants that may be present at the site and would likely be released by the Project to the storm drain system, Alameda Creek, and, ultimately South San Francisco Bay. A variety of mitigation measures exist for such impacts, including sand filtration, constructed wetland filtering, or other measures. These significant impacts and the reasonably available mitigation measures to reduce these impacts must be assessed and required in an EIR. Further, no mitigation at all is proposed for the water quality impacts likely to result from 14,000 additional vehicle trips per day, increased use of pesticides on landscaping, or contamination that is likely to be present in groundwater discharged from dewatering pumps in the below grade parking structure. As indicated above these arc all significant impacts attributable to this project which should be evaluated through the EIR process. This analysis would result in an implementation and monitoring plan for appropriate mitigation measures which would provide protection for local receiving waters. The current standard for design of a greenfield or urbanized site is the STANDARD URBAN STORM WATER MITIGATION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND CITIES IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY (SUSMP) recently adopted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SUSMP requires infiltration or treatment of 80 percent of annual runoffplus a maximum peak runoff flow rates plus specific design requirements for categories of occupancy such as restaurants, commercial, parking, etc. This is a feasible mitigation measure that should be required for the project. 5. Vague, Contmrlictory, or Inadequate Documentati on a) Infrastructure The WDTVIS states that this "project would incrementally increase the need for these [water, sewer, storm drain] serv/ces, but to a Jess.than-significant level." A 23 September 2003 letter'from Dublin San Ramon Services District to Ronnie Warner of Orix Real Estate Equities concerning his BART project at 6600 Golden Gate Drive states that "the existing sewer main behind Orchard Supply...is at capacity and cannot take additional sewer discharges from any expanded use development project without upsizing the pipes...The existing water lines in this area may also need to be extended or upsized..." A similar letter from 27 August 2003 was sent to Legacy Partners concerning 6700 Golden Gate Drive. In addition to the sewer main behind Orchard Supply and the water lines, the sewers on Golden Gate Drive and Dublin Boulevard "will also need to be upsized." Given the fact that the Service District made this information available in September 20.03 and no mention is made in the WDTVIS from November 2003, some confusion is evident in the 12 February 2004 Water Quality Review Df ti3e West Dublin Transit Village Environmental In,al Study (6 November 2003} Page 7 Watershed Advisory Group documentation. Unless these issues are adequately and thoroughly addressed, the public has no way to tell if the relevant agencies have made adequate preparations for this project. No information is provided as to adequacy of the storm drainage system to convey or treat In addition, no contaminated storm water or ground water pumped from the underground garage. inf0~nation is provided as to the adequacy of potable water supply during drought years or whether sufficient treatment capacity is available for the additional wastewater from these projects. Failure to adequately plan for any of these contingent infrastructure requirements can result in significant environmental impacts. Preparation of an EIR which adequately documents these infrastructure requirements would 'prevent potentially damaging errors in project coordination. As described above, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may result in a significant impact to the public water supply and sewer system. b) Hotel The WDTVIS fails to describe the hotel in the fn:st 18 pages of the document. On page 5, the project is described this way "Ultimate development would include a multi-story apartment complex. containing a maximum of 308 multi-family dwellings, and a multi-story 150,000 square foot office building, with aSSOciated landscaping, parking and small retail uses." On Page 19, which begins the "Attachment to Initial Study for the West Dublin Transit Village, Legacy Partners," the project is described'as "entail[lng] construction of a multi-story hotel (eight stories), a residential complex (four to five stories) and associated parking, and a parking structure (five to six stories) for the station on land that is currently undeveloped. Thus, the project description is incomplete and inconsistent and does not match the analysis. Where did the hotel come from and what happened to the 150,000 sq)_mre foot office building? How does the City know what .they are approving? How does the public know what the City has approved? The WDTVIS does not address these issues and an EIR should be prepared which does. ~ 6, Cumulative Im_~acts~ k ~ The December 2000 Downtown Core Specific Plan, West ·Dublin Bart Specific Plan, and Village r- Parkway Specific Plan Environmental Initial Study purports to "assess the potential environmental [.~ effects of the proposed Specific Plans...to satisfy the requireraents of CEQA, and provide the City with adequate information for project review." As described in some detail above, the current F' project has substantial potential for irreparable impacts on water quality in local surface waters, [. Alameda Creek, and San Francisco Bay. If one assumes that, like traffic, the cumulative harm fi'om the entire redevelopment will be many times that of this single project, the result will very likely be [- continued degradation of the local receiving waters, Alameda Creek and San Francisco Bay water f quality. An EIR must be prepared which takes these cumulative impacts into account and proposes adequate mitigations such that surface water quality is not degraded to a further extent than it already is. h~ conclusion, this project has many potential deleterious environmental impacts upon water quality in local receiving waters, Alameda Creek, and South San Francisco Bay, which are not adequately 12 Fel~ruary 2004 Water Quality Review of the West Dubtin Transit Village Page 8 F' Environmental Inithal Study (6 Novena)er 2003) Watershed Advisory Group mitigated by the present WDTVIS. The City must clearly go beyond an initial study and prepare an EIR for the project. An EIR should be prepared which accounts for all impacts and proposes adequate mitigations to prevent further impairment of water quality in the Bay Area. _ Sincerely, Richard Rollins, PE Watershed Advisory Group ~ 12 February2004 Water Quality Review of the West Dublin Tmn---slt Village Page Environmental Initial Study (6 November 2003) Richard M. Rollins 1.259 El Camino Real, Suite 124 Menlo park, California 94025 (650) 853-0464 (voice) (650) S53,0465 (faX) Q UALIFICA TIONS Over fifteen years environmental prOject management including 8 years in pharmaceuticals production. · 'International standards implementation . Environmental and safety auditing · Industrial wastewater treatment · Project risk and financial analysis EXPEI~tENCE Chief Environmental Engineer, Watershed Advisory Qroup, Menlo Park, California, 1996 to present · Inspected over 90 industrial facilities and e~onstru~tion sit~s. Recommended improvements for compliance with the California General Industrial and Conswuction Storm Wat, r Permit~; Examined facilities including saw mills, foundries,, military bases, s~rap metal reoyolers, sand and gravel mines, auto dismantlers, slaughterhous~ yards, paint manufacturers, highway, residential, and commercial construction sites. ·Presente~t testimony for clients at oublic hearings of the California Water Resources Control Board on the Inland Surface Waters Plan and the General Industrial Storm Water Permit. o Conducted all communications with clients} prepared project proposals and reports, and managext all environmental engineering consulting projects. - N~gotiated litigation sottlements for clients which resulted in savings of over $200,000 in legal costs. Provided technical consultation for litigation involving compliance with indastrial storm water and municipal wastewater permits. Corporate Environmental Engineer, Syntex (USA) Inc., Pale Alto, California, 1987 through 1995 Environmental Engineering Projects · Prepared Capital Appropriation Request, provided technical management for $6.9 million waste wa~or treatment ~xpansion in Puerto Rico. Expanded wastewater treatment capacity permitting substantial increase in pharmaceutical production levels. Result: Facility r~eived best industrial discharger award from local regulatory agency for 1992 eomolianee. · Provided ~iesign and technical management for $0.7 million waste water plant in Mexico City. Resuk: Met new discharge requirements with first double contained industrial wastewater trealxncnt plant in Mexico. · Developed conceptual design for $0.5 million storm drainage modifications in Puerto Rico. Result: Excluded drainage from neighboring cemetery and industrial sites improving strategic position in permit negotiations with Federal. and Puerto Rican environmental agencies. - Prepared Capital Appropriation Request, provided technical management for $3.5 million volatile organic carbon (VOTE) emissions control project in Cuernavaea, Mexico. Result: Resolved existing violation condition with SEDESOL (environmental authority) pted operati ility ensuring uninterru on of fac ·Provided t~¢hnical management for planning and design of $3.8 million zero discharge wast~wat~r ~roatmen! plant. Result: Resolved regulatory enforcement action by Missouri environmental agency. NPDES Permit Negotiations · Represented Corporation in Consent Decree negotiation with EPA and Department of Justice with regard to alleged wastewater violations in Puerto Rico. Result: ' Savings of over $5 milIion in potential fines. Richard M, RoBins · 'Formulated technical strategy for Administrative.Hearing with EPA involving stormwater permit conditions in Puerto Result: Savings of over $4 million potential filtration plant costs. Corporate'Environmental Risk Management · Developed Global Double Containment Design Guide fOr hazardous materials storage and handling systems. Implemented u'alning program for Plant Engineers and Engineering Manager~ from the EurOpe, North America, and the Caribbean using, this Design Guide. Initia~ed installation of leak prevention projects valued at $4.3 million. Result: Rcduce~l likelihood of spills by 90 p~r cent. · 'Developed guidelines for including full costs of environmental controls in Corporate Capital Appropriation .Requests for new production projects. Result: More accurate estimates of production project ROI and capital expenditure planning. Corporate Environmental Health and Safety Audits · Audited domestic and international sites for compliance with local~ stat~, federal regUlations, Corporate. Policies, and industry Good Management Practices. Result: Initiated control of major environmemal and safety risks at chemical plants. · Served as.Corporate Audit Corrective Action Coordinator in Mexico. Developed first formalized follow-ap sad progress reporting procedures for audited sites. Result: Provided accurate audit follow-up reporting to Management assuring cost effective corrective a~tions. Project Manager, Construction Services Division, Coumy of Santa Clara, California, 1986 to 1987. ·Responsible for scope definition, design, and construction of seven environmental, water supply, and wastewater projects. Value of projects: $700,000. Environmental Engineer, Intel. Corporation, Santa Clara, California, 1984 to 1986. · Assessed environmental risk associated with toxic process gas delivery system. Implemented improvements to avoid expeeted costs of $250,000. · Supervised multi.discipline teams in planning, designing, and constructing chemical delivery and waste collection systems resulting in reduced probability of leaks by approximately 90 per cent. Environmental Engineer, National Semiconductor Corporation, .Santa Clara, California, i983 to 1984. · Managed groundWater remediation projeeL represented Corporation in negotiations with San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Wastewater Engineer, California Canners and Growers Association, Sunnyvale, California, 1982. · Designed reductions in wastewater discharge approximately per $0 cent several canneries. ED UCA TIO N · Environmental Stanford University Engineering, · B.A., Biology, Colorado College, Colorado Springs PROFESSIONAL LICENSES AND AFFILIATIONS · Registered Professional. Civil Engineer, California, License number C 044162 · Certified Water and Wastewa~er Engineer,' American Academy of Environmental Engineers · Member since 1986, Society for Risk Analysis Page 2 :":- :!i::.: j Califori~ia State University, : ' ,. . ': t Saczamento (CSUS) · - -'-..-. - :'. j.,.-~T-%-~-~_~.~:,..~ '. t~" .-- :'~77 ,: :': ....... ' "~ ' ~ C~orffi~ Dep~e~ of. Characteristics of Stormwater Runoff From ~ghway Construction Sites in Ca!ifor~a Presented in: Trico catch Record 1743, Paper No. 01 -3181, Nation~ Academy Press ration Res Authors: Masoud ~Yhaffia~ Cal~s~CD En~onment~ ~o~ Ke~ Mushy, Cal~s/CSUS Store Wa~er Proem Loffis Regenmo~er, C~mp Dresser ~d McKee, ~c. ~chard Ha~er, C~p Dresser ~d McKee, ~c. Disclaimer: ~s work reflects ~e au~or's op~o~ md does not represent o~ci~ poScy or endorsement by ~e C~fo~a Dep~ent of Tr~spomfion, the C~o~a State U~versi~, or ~e U~versi~ of C~fo~a. Storm Vfater Program CSUS Off/ce of Water Progr~s 780! Fo~om Bo~evm*d, S~te !02~ Sa~mento, CA 95826 Kayhanian et al. ~ ~ACT OF _~'~ AXe. GE DA~ ,Y T~HC ON ~G~AY R~OFF POLLUT.~ CONCENT~iTIONS ~asoud Kayha~ Membe~ ~ardeep S~g~ Claus Suver~opp Steve Borro~ Member ~ST~CT ~e objective offs study was-to evaluate co.elations b'e~ee= mu~ average ~y WafSc, (~T) ~d sto~ water ~off po~ut~t coneen~arions geaerated C~fom~ Depm~ent of Tr~po~afion r~_~x · .... . ~~; ~gaw~y sites..~alyses collected ~om ~e C~ 4-ye~ (!997-0 I) ~ghway ~off ch~raete~afion proem revealed ~at, ~ general, ~o~ut~t concen~atio~ ~om ~ose fo~d ~o~ no~b~ ~ghways. For a l~mqted ember o~ poltutmts, however, ~e concen~afions 5om non-~b~ ~ghways were fo~d to be ~er ~ ~: concen~afions ~om ~b~ ~ways<No ~eet ~e~ co~elahon was fo~d po~u~t event me~ coneen~a~ons ~MCs) ~d ~T. However, ~ou~ mffifiple recession ~n~lyse% it w~s sho~m ~at )~T ~s ~ ]n~uenee on most ~wa3; -~ox~ co~fime~t eoncen~afions: ~ conj~c~on with factors associated wi~ watershed ch~racte~sfics ~d po~ut~t b~d-up ~d wash o~2 ~e o~er ~otieeable ~?ffasoud Kayh~,~,,L Member, (Corresponding Author) Associate Direztoz, C~.aZ~ far Emvizcrmmemzal and Water 8957, F~: (9530) n - a ~ Drive, 5uke 25~, Saar~=nta, CA 95B2~, Phone: (9~ ~ 67~-2244: P~: {916) 929-726~, e-mail: ~deep_S~gh~.SCo~.com. Ci~us Suverkrop~, Sen~or Sci=n~ La~ %r~_ ~sociatc~, 509 ~ S===:, Davi~. C~. 95616, Phon=: (530) 75~-6400. ~: (530) S~eve B~o~, ~ember. ~o~erly, Ca,fora Dep~ o;T~o~on C~ent a~es~: S~ Proj:~ ~ag~z: U~: 1380 Lead ~ Btv~ Sm~ ~00, ~e~= CA 95661, Phon=: (916) 7B~39DO, ~m~ (9i~ 78~021 i, e-~!: Steve_Bo~o~u~oo~.co~ ayhaman et to influence the accumulation of pollutants on _ ys wet_ antecedent dr), period, hk, hwa ~ e · drainage area, maximum rain intensity, and land use. -KeyrVords: :A~Ual average da~ty traffic (:4ADT), highway rtmofz; iinear re_m-ession model, multipte regression model, and pollutants. :[NWRODUCTION The California Deparm~ent of Transportation (Cakrans) is engaff~d in a 'multi-year program ofreseamh and monitoring pertaSn~ng to the environr~ental effects of ston-nwat~r quality from ~a=.~portation facilities. Par~ of Caltrans storm Water quality reseamh and monitoring program involves the chavactcrizati0n of highway runoff (Ifmyhan~an et al., 200I). These monitoring studies were principally undertaken (i) to comply with the statewide Nations] Pollution Discharge E]~rn~nadon System (N-PDES) storm water permit requfl-ements, (ii) to add'ess leg~] requirements, (iii) to aid in · developing new treatment systems, (ix,) to develop runof~/load models, aud (v) to fitl data ~aps in stormwater runoff characterization for statis~cal analysis. The im%rmafion . presented in this paper is based on a g-year hi~=hway Stonnwater ranoff characterization study that was undertaken during the i997-01 rain), seasons from 'October throug, h April. Cal~rans monitoring data are analyzed, on a regular basis to assess .runoff characteristics. One question that is frequently asked is whether a correlation exists between annual average da/fy traf~Sc (A_ART) and the concentrations of hi'=~,hway nmoff pollutants. The current paper addresses this issue. ' 2 ICayhanian et al. M~. TEIODS SampIing Procedures Represemafive highway sites and smnn events were selected for ~vem-based monitoring. There are a wide range of parameters that can potent[ally afl'cdt the quality of srormwater discharges incluct~g geographic location, z~Smafic/ecologi~ conditions, hydrologic conditions, land use, and AJuDT. The highwsy sites.were sel0cted to represent the full range ofphys'ical parameters. In addition: the sites wet0 selected as pmcnfia] monitoring sites based on the ab~ty of the sampling Teams to porfo_rm the required tasks sm%ty. The locations of monitoring sites are shown in Figure 1..ks shown in Fi~n'e 1, dm-ing thc four years of monitoring (1997-2001), 83 tfighwa.¥ sites were monitored for wa~er quality characteristics. These highway sites were tomted in ? .of the ~2 Caltrans districts. General physical characteristics of these sites, incl~a~g A_~flDT, are sammarized in Table 1. TO ensure monitoring of an appropriate number of Storms, a weaiher-tmctfing procedure was established to :ar~.e~ storms producing a m~m~m of 2.$4 r~ ofr~faI~ (7.62 mr~ in Northern California). The predicted ~mo un/of rM~fall: kmown as the qu~fi~°f pr~¢ip itafion forecast (QPF), was obtained'" ' " ~om the Nauonal P~, cather 5e~4c¢ in conjunction with other private wca~ez sendccs Ko to 72 hours prior to a storm Once s storm evem with s tarEeted QPF was forecasted, monito_.-fin~ temms v~ere dispatched to the various siies to set up for monitoring and obsm-wc the runoff characteristics. Sionmwatez runo~" samples were. collected usin~ automated sampiess placed at the dischargepoimsdowns=¢am ~ = = ~ ~ ' = ' ' o~ r~or~s~mat~w azs~us _~e areas..A_ 'Kypical Eal=ans ua. yhaman et al. ' automated' sampler installation.is shown in Pi~mn'e 2. Flow-wei~_hted. composite.sample~' were collected, nmofff fiow was measured, and rainfall amouut~ were recorded using automated'equipmem The monitor:rog was conducted dturing the wet season, starting October t throtw~h .&p~il 30. On average., ap' to eigh~ storm events were monitored annually at eaoh highway Site during the e-year period. Depending on and duration, up to 50 sample alJquots were obtained to capture a representative composite sample during each. monitoring event. A .Urpical hydro,apb, including samptiu_~ time-and number of sample atiquots taken during a representative storm event, and other aspects ~ "' ' ' ' o, momtonng methods followed the- SPecifications presented in the Caltrans Guidance Manual: .qtormwater Monitoring ProtOcols, second edition (Caltrans,. 2000a). The flow-weighted composite' samples obtained from the entire storm event were sent to ~ taboratow for analysis. The resnlts of these analytical tests .ar~ assumed to represent event mean concen~-ations (EMC) for runoff fi.om a ~vcn rainfall event. Constituents and parameters analyzed under this pro=°-ram during the Course of monitoring are summarized -in Table 2. As shown, the constituents and parameters'were as: (i) convenfionals, (ii) metals (tot~ and dissolved)', (iii) nutrients, (iv) major ions and minerals, (v) microbiological, (vi) 0il and ~rease, and (vii) pesticides. Ail laboratory analyses were conducted accordin~ fo Standard Methods and U.s. Environmental Protection Agency (i SEPA) analyncal m~.thods as specified in the 'Caltrans Stormwat¢r Monitoring Protocols (Caltrans, 2000a). Extensive field and laboratory quality Kayhanian et assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures were followed mud analyticml result~ were quaiided as necessary based on the resMts of the QA/QC evatnation,~. Data Evaluation Ail highway Stormwater nme ff monitoring data were reported as specified by Caltrans dam reporting p~oto~ots (Cattram.. 2000b). The data were then imported into database containing three main tables: sample description, sampling event description, and site description. Sample description dam consist of :.mforma~ion specific zo individual samples including lab results, analytical methods and date information. Event desgripiion data consist ofprecipitat, ion (start.. and end time, maximum in, ensity, antecedent dry period), and mmoff (t0ta] flow volume, oeak flow rate, and start and end time) -.in~%n:nation. Site description data describe location of the monitoring site along with ;some physica~ characteristics of the site. The above database was used to extract all analytical, precipitation information, for'highway sites for statistical analysis. For the most part, s~te dam oollutmu$ concentrations in stormwater runo~wcre reported Shove the ~!ytical reporting limit (detected values). ~rhen anatylical results contmSni~g data below reporting ]~rn~ts (non-dete~ts) the entire data sets including the non-detects w~re used in stadsSc~l analysis. Traditionally: these non-detects were substituted with the detecIion ~rn~t or an ~rbitrary fraction of the detection 15rna t. In %~s paper a more scientific approach described in Shumway et al. (2002) and'known as recession on order statistics was used xo evaluate data sets containSng non-detects. Statistical Approach Multiple 'ifiae~ regression (!VILP~) and analysis of oovariance (A_NCO¥~) Kayhanicm et al. were used to address the impact of A.ADT on po~ut~t ConcenWafions. U~ess spic, ed, ~eshotds for stafistic~ si~c~c¢ were set a~ a covalence level of 95 percent ~ < 0.05) for aH ~tyses. The d~s~budons of runoff qust/'~ data for each conSfitucm were evatua~sd approximate no~ us~g no~at c~afive probab~, plo~s of ~fo~ed log-~sfo~ed ~ta, ~¢se ev~fio~ were pe~o~ed us~g o~y detected data ~th probab~fies adjusted for .~ be]ow detection ns~g ~e me,od of Hcls¢t ~d Co~ (1988), ~e ~fo~afion pro~d~g the best R~ recession s~afisfic w~'scl~ctcd -~-~ ........ ~ ~ ...... aa~o~l ~ys~s. Dis~bufio~ ~ R~ v~ucs M~ 0.P75 were considered adcq~cIy norm to m¢¢~ ~c as~pfio~ of subsc~¢nl ~tyses. M ~¢ probab~D, ploi R~ was loss ~ 0.975, s~afisfic~v s~mc~, donation ~om no~V was ¢vat~tmd us~g ~¢ me, od of Ry~ ~d Joker (1P76). ~s me,od is essenfi~y ¢q~vaiem ~o ~c me, od of Shapko ~d ~z~: (1968) ~d D'Agos~o (1972). Si~c~i d¢~afio~ ~om no~D, w~rc evaluated ai 99 pcrccnl co~dcnc¢ lcv¢I ~<0.0 I). The ~s~bufions of o~¢r con~uous promotor v~ablcs ~rccipkafion factors. ~tccodcm co~fio~ A~T ~d con~b,,~m- ~agc m-ca) ~'¢r¢ ~so cv~uated for ~opzo~a~¢ no~Wby inspection of c~afive'probab~, plots, were ~fo~cd to ~ log~thms (¢vcm r~aH, m~ ~te~iD,, ~tccedent &~ pefio& and ~a~age ~ca) or cube-roots (c~afive precipitafioff), ff appropriate. ~R ~d ~NCOVA me.ods were used to ev~uate ~e effects of precipitation factors, ~tcccdcm once, om..~T, con~bu~E &-~a$e ~¢a ~d s~o~a~g usc on ~ghway ~off quaH~~. ~R ~d ~NCOVA a~!yscs were pc~cd us~g ~ta reported above rcpo~g l{~s. P~-wise co~o~so~ bc~'ocn 1~d usc 6 Xayhcmian ei al. were performed using the Tuke~:Kramer post-hoc rear. MLR models were developed for each constituent. The primary assumptions of h~R analysis (equal variance and normality) weke assessed by inspecfio~ of residual plots, Problems due to unequal variance and non-normaLity ofresiduals were largely avoided by transforming dependent and independent variables to approximate normality prior to analysis. Generally, ail significant predictor variables (pc0.05) were.included in the IVILR model unless they ex2fibited symptoms ofmulfi-collineazity or co-dependence in the set of predictors. Independence of predictor variables (the absence ofmulfi-co]li~earity)was assessed by evaluating correlations and partial correlations of the variables. If con-elation coefficients were ~eater than 0.~ for a paiff of predictors, or if the signs of the correlation and partial co=elation coefficients .... " .... casa_o-reed, one o£the pa~r o£premcmr variables was excluded · .~rom the MLR model. Partial co=elations were also used ~o selec~ the independent ..... wariabtes for the MLR models. The fmal "opt~m~zext" MLR model was used to generate a new fitted variable calculated as the camutalive effects of the si~p. ~ficani predictor variables for each constituent. Ttfis fitted var/able was then included as the s/ngle covafiate in the ANCOVA models .used to evaluate the effects of SmToundin¢ land use. Because of imbalances in the representation of land use categories., interaction' ' between' mmvmual' .... covariates fix the/~R'modet and the categorical variables eouSd not be assessed in a statistically rigorous way. ln.~tead., potential interaction effects were qumxitafivety evaluated by insr>ection Ofbivafiate plots o£the dependent variable versus the lvlLR-fitted data. In a/t cases, interaction was judged to be rnln~rnal and to. have no substantial effect on interoremtion of the A_NICO\rA results. .K. ayhanian et I:~ESULTS A.N'D DISCUSSION H_ighway Classification A report prepar, ed by Driseolt et al. (1990) for the Federal Highway Adrnin~,~trafion (7!-ZWA) attemvted to d/v/de highway sites J_ara two general categories: urban and not, urban. According to the report, the h/ghways w/th .&ADS values greater than. 30,000 are eonsictered "urban" and those with A_ADT values less than 30,000 are "non-~rban." The AADT values for ail 83 h/ghway sites investigated as part o£d~ds smd), are showm/n Table I. The A_b_DT values range from as iow as 2,200 vehicles/per day'CVPD to as high as 328,000 ZzPD. Due re large variations in m-ban A_&DT values (AADT>30,000 VPD), a single classifieat/on for urban h/ghways was found to be /mpraeticaI to properly assess any correlations that may ex/st between pollutant concentrations and AA_DT. Fo_,' tiffs reason the'urban h/ghways were further divided into four categories: low.. medium, medium-high, and h,.'ff~ vehSzular traffic Voiume. Tn/s new kig-hway tassmeation.based o~ the number o£veh/cies per day CVPD) is shown in Tabie E[ighway Runoff Characteristics CharactmSsties o£nmoff tot all monStored h/gt~way sites, cornb~ning ur'oa~ and non-urban highways, are summarized ha Table 4. Average conceal-efforts of pollutants in nmoff from urban and non-urban h/g_hways are compared in Table 5. Dam were also analyzed separately for the d/~,ff%rent urban ~.'ghway ctasskficafio~s, and the mean md median values for each catego~, are summarized ~ Table 6. _A~ showm fix Table 5, there are some large apparent, dizff~renees ha ~e comstim~nt coneentrat/ons for sites with AADT greater than 30,000 (urban highways) ~ompared to site,~ with A_A_DT less than 30,000 (non-urban highways). On average, most of the pollutant conccnl:rafions in urban highway runoff" were hi~cr than those in non-urban highway runoff. Exccp~ons included chemic~J oxygen demand (COD) total suspended solids (TEa), totaJ dissolved solids (TIDE), turbidity, m-nmonia, and diazinon for which the average conoentzafions were kigher in non-urban highways than urban highway runoff. A, verag¢ ¢oncenu'adons of total lead and total arsenic were more fhan ten rimes greater in urbau highway runoff fhan for non-urban hiehwavs. The h~gher concentrations of some pollutants observed in nmoff from urban highways does not fully address the issue o! correlating concentrations with A_ART. This aspec~ of the study is further discussed below. '?~irecf Correlation between Pollutant Concentrations mhd Simple linear re~ressi'on analysis was peffomed to evaluate direct co=elation ,betweon A_ART and concentration of highway runoff potlutauis. The'resUlts of this 'knatysis revealed extremely tow Rsvalues (ran~ing from 0 to 0.32) for all constituents, which sug.~,eszs weak or no direct co=elation between A.~IDT and pollutant concentrations. Simple Iiuear regression ana-lysis ~s a useful, but relatively crude, form of data. ~n~tysis. For bct~er nnderstanS~ng of the relationship being cx~rn~n0~l, and to avoid lanky conclusions' produced by simple regresmon, all monito,-ing data w~re plotted and examined. Selected scatter otots foi: copper, Icad, zinc, and oil and grease are shown in Pig-are 4. As sho~m, no direct correlations were evidem bet-Ween concentrations of these- metals and .A~DT when data for ali tdghways (non-urban and uzban) were considered. In-addition to poliumnts shown in Pi=o~re 4. no ctcar relationships betwe¢n .~'ADT and po!lutan~ concenzrarions were e~denz for nearly ~ve~' oth~r cons~itu¢n~ ]qayhanian et al. However, when median and mean concentration~ for the same pollutants were examined for medium and higher range of A_gDTs for urban highway, a more-consistent.correlation began to emerge (Figqn'e 5), - Severfl other studies have also attempted to correlate A.ADT to pollutant concentrations in hi.way runoff. However, most of these studies were anabte to confirm strong correlations. For example, Chuiet et al, (1922) 'found o~y correlatio~ and a study conducted by FPIWA (DfiscolI et 'al, 1990) suggested that there is no Strong aad definitive relationship between differences in traffic density and the pollutant concentrafio.ns ~or a site. Drisco]~ et al. conclude.that, ,~+~ A_~LDT as a surrogate measure to distinguish between urban and non-urban highways, further use of AADT to refine esthnates o£pollutant levels in nmoffhas no supporting basis. Another study, conducted by Stotz'(19g7) on highway runoff in Gezmany,.also concluded tha~ the poLlutam conaentrafion is no~ dependem on trafi:3c frequency. Other invesiigators, found somewhat better corr~2ations bet~veen AADT and k3.'ghway runoff poliutan~. For example,. D orman, et al. (19 g 8) dcm'ensnared a direct con-elation between pollutants and ~&ADT, and .in another study; M~Kenzie and ~ concen~ations of lead, zinc and COD con'elate welt ~4th_~KAI)T. The ]irniZed number of studies able to demonstrate correlations between A_~DT and pollutant conc~ntrafio be explained by the fact that these studies focused on p0llutan, concenU-aiions from highways in urbanized areas hax4ng medium to high vetzicutar ~affic. ~en the medium to blgh range .~t~DT highway sites Were evaluated as .peri 0fthis Caltrans study, the average concentrations of aboul half of the pollutants investigated were found to correlate well with .~ADT. ZCayhanian et al. The positive or negative nature of correlations of po-llutams with AAJDT cma be explained if the sources of the contarrdnants are taken into consideration Cfdobriger and Gainopolos, 1984), For example, cadmium, copper, lead,, oil and grease, and ×]nc are known to be related fo transportation activities. Because AADT is measure of ~ansportafion activin, a positive correlation between these pollutants and A.ADT is expected CLaxen and Harisson 1977, Gupta et al. 1981, Moo et al. 1982.~ tC~m 'and Fer=m4sson 1994). As sho~mpreviousty, results obtained from this study were /nconelusive when both'urban and.non-urban highways are considered: and therefore the L; m~j. L~..LLU. y · ~ease, however, was the only pollutant for which the average concentration had strong ~con:elation with AgHDT, and quantitatively can be related m transportation activity :CFi=mare 5). On the other hand, pollutants such as pesticides and n/troge~ and phosphorus :::compounds (constituents commonly found in highway runoff) are expected to have little · ~Or no correlation w/th 'AADT Cfoung t996). W'nile/n-most pan lhi~ ,,as found to be · true, contrary to expectation, fairly strong co,elations between Diaz]non, total K.jeldah/ obtained when iow AADT urban highways are. al&regarded. Interpretation o£ these correlations can be problematic, as the sources o£pcstScides and nutrients are not obviously related to tran.~oortafion aefivffies. It is, however, possible that atmospheric dcp0sifion of these pollutants is ki~ffaer in. ufoan areas than in non-urban areas. Based on the ~ndqngs ofth/s study and imbnnation presented m rnos~ lkeratare cited previously, Ac~DT should ordy be considered as a yeW general indicator of poldutant concentrations when it is used as a sole predictor. Pos~ibte rsasons for ~e lack ~.ayhaman et at. of simple linear correlation include complicating factors such as wind, vehicular' turbulence, volat]t';zafioz~, and oxidation (irish et al. 1.995, ~ristrom and Matsumoto, 1999). These factors can Limit the accumulation ofpoliutants on road smTaces, and thereby decrea, sc the importance of AA3DT for short periods. Unusual or atypical points (known as curriers) in specific .data sets may be another factor 1kufi~g thc ab~iv to demons~ate simple correlations. Examination of plotted data indicated that fez some pollutants there were one or more curlier data points that were substantially, hi~,he~ than aH other values in the data set. Although'the data were processed through vigorous QAdQC, the validity of these.curlier data for those, specific sites is questionable. Clearly these curlers are not consistent vclth the remaining data, and a~ best suggcs~ an unusual or atypical situafiom 'Although inclusion of these outlier points in regTession s~!yses ~y ~n~lnence the con-elations between pollutant concenU'afions and ,~kDT, analysis of those Pollutants with apparent outJders revealed that the exclusion of the outEezs generally did not improve th~ regression co=clarion coefficients substantially. tn thc absence of a'strong correlation ber~vcen A.Z~DT and pollutants, some investigators (K. ori et al. 1985, Chu~ et al. 1982) suggest that traffic levels during.storm events (vetficles during storm, \rDS) is a better independent variable for esi/m~tin¢ total runoff'ioads for certain pollutants. Literature reviewed ivy WSstrom and Matsomoto (1999), ]5owever, conclude that .~Z)T is not generally expected to be useful as a control' variable for the design, operation,, and .maintenance of speekSc runo~ control structures, as traffic/ntens/ty on a particular str~.tcla .o~ lfighway is expected to be fa/rty constant from day to day. YXayhanian ez From the discussion above, it appears that the A.A_DT is nor the sole factor conU4butkug to pollutant accumulation in highway sites, in the absence of a dJzec~ relationship between AADT and highway runoff pollutants, the search for a' better model shifted to multiple regression, where variables other than A_ADT were con.~idered. Multiple Linear Regressi6n. Amalysis ok th~ MLP~ analyses are presented in Table 7, inctud/ng relevant · The resuks ~' MLR model stat/sties and the speckfic effects ofprecipitafio= factors, antecedent con/dtions} A.Z~DT, and drainage area on Caltram highway nmoff quaI/ty. A summary of the patterns in si~mxifieant cova2-/ate effects is provided in Table. 8. The effects of precipitation factors (event ra~n4'all and max/mm rainfall '5xtensity), antecedent ¢onditio/~s (cumulative seasonal precipitation and antecedent period), AA33T', and contributing drainage area on constituent concenU:ations 5n storm' 'runoff from highways were evaluated using ld2LR. Models'were developed for 33 of 36 ~onstituents, w/th statistically si=maificant adjusted'R:-¥alues ranging from 0.085-0.648 (p<0.05). The-results of these analyses indicate that all of these factors have statistically si~5¢ant effects on pollutant concentrations in runoff, and that these effects are generally consistent for most pollutants. Tn~ dominant (mos~ frequently observed) statistically s~n~cant effects of precipitation factors, antecedent conditions: contributing drainage are& and AADT on nmoff quality are surnrnazLzed as follows: A stadstically s~=~fificant negative coefficiem for Event Rainfall was obse_rvcd nearly, all pollutants modeled, indicating that concentratio~ tend to d~crease as tom] even~ rainfall increases. A stafisfioaliy si~cam positive coe~cicnt for ~imum ~ainfafl ~catcs ~at ~gh~r r~ ~te~ides tend to reset ~ ~ca~cr polluter conzsn=afio~ ~ ~o~ A si~Sc~t negative slope sugges~ ~at ~gher r~aH ~te~ifi¢s ~¢nd ~o ~ve a ~u~g ¢ffect. M~fmum Rain, ali Intsnsi~ t¢nd~d to be co~etaZ¢d ~ Evenz Rain/all ~d was statistically si~fic~ for. o~y comfim¢nt ~ mod¢ts. ~ mos~ cases whcre ~e toe,ciera was posi~ve oH ~d ~¢ase. TSS/~ota] phosphorous, ~d bactc~), ~e co~fimems wcre wi~ p~at¢S, ~ca~g ~hm ~¢r rajah ~e~ifi¢s have ~e ¢ff¢c~ of mobUiz~g ~¢se p~ic~ate-associat¢d p~¢rcrs. Thc fo~ co~fim¢n~ n¢gafive cocffici~nts (~ssotwd copp¢r ~d zSnc, h~ess ~d tots were ~ ~ssotwd par~¢ters~ ~ca~g ~a~ ~e ~u~g ¢~¢cf is more co~on for p~tcrs nor associaz~d wi~ p~i~ates. Mnzezeden~ D~ ~e~ffod ~d a st~tisfic~y si~i~c~t effect ~-~e ~R ~odels for most zo~zimenzs, ~d si~Sc~z zo~ffiMen:s for ~s factor w~re n~ty ~ positive. ~e si~z~ posi~v& stoge ~zazes ~t lomgzz ~tez~d~nt ~ pefio~ ~nd ~e ~ff~zt of~e season~ ~st fiu~ (e.g. ~e f~s~ si~cam s~o~ ev~m was assessed by ev~i~g ~e ~ ~ e~ec~ of Cumufafve Seasonal Preciyita~on on q~V. ~e s~adsfiz~y si~fiz~ negaSve slope of ~e ooe~z~m for 3ed~onaf Precipita~on ~cates ~at po~ut~t conccn~afio~ ~ ~off ~e w~ scion ~d tend to decrease ' ~ ~reanez. C~mufa~ve Seasonal Kayhania~ et aZ. Precipitation had a statistically sigmificant ef~%ct in the IvILR models for most eonsfimems, and si~?n~ficant Coefficients for this factor were negativein eve~ case. .4 significant positive slope for the Dr=i~afe ~4re~ parameter indicates tha~ sites with Iargar contributing drainage areas tend to have h~ghar potlumn~ ¢onc~ntrations in runoff, while a negative slope indicates that larger drainage areas tend tO reduce pollutant concentrations in nmoff. Drainage .4rea had a statisfi0aliy significant effect in appro~raatety half of the IvILR models. S~n~ficant coef:ficiems for Drainage Area . ware predominantly positive for parficutate-assbciate~t constituents (.vith the exception of fecal coliform) and negative for dissolved parameters. A stafistically significant positive slope for'_i&D'~r indicates thai higher/~LDT Xends to resul~ in highez pollutant concentrations in runoff. M.dDirhad a statistically sig-n~ficam effez~ in two lbirds, o~ihe si?~can~ MLI~ models, and sig-n~fieant co~fibcienZs for 'iiDir were nearly all positive. A significant negative slope -Was observed for only one constituent (NO~-N), and this result was based on relatively few d~tectcd dam compared to most other.constituents. The relative importance of the effects of A_ADT was assessed in two ways: (i) by. comparing the numbers of constituents si~o-~ificantly af/%cted by .iAI)T, d.ra~nage area, and precipitation related factors; .and (ii) by comparing the relative magnitude of the eft%cts. Evaluation of the relative maguimde of the effects of si~fic~t independent factors on listed po!lutant concentrations was based on comparisons of. the absolute values of the standardized regression c~)efficients; which express thc efc%c, ts of variables m the same scale rcgardless of difz%rcnces in thc ori~u~l scales of tho variioies. (-Figm~TC 6), Based on these comparisons, the e~cts of.~T, cvem rn~f~, c~ativ~ seasonal precipitation, ~d ~teced~n/~W period on po~u~/concen~afio~ were s~m~i~ ~ marred¢. On average. ~ese fora- p~eters were. stafisfic~y si~]c~t factors ~ 73 percent o~ ~¢ I~R models. Con~bu~g &a~ag¢.~¢a ~d r~a~ ~t¢~i~, tended to have sm~cr effects ~d were si~fic~t for f~wcr po~ut~ts (45 ~d 33 percent of ~R mod¢ts,, respectively). ~Ysis of Covabianee: Ev~ua~2 the Effect of Predominant Lnnd Use .. Effects on ~way ~off quaH~ a~bntabt¢ to ~¢r~n¢¢s ~ con~bn~g re,ts adj~ted to accost for thc s~fic~y si~c~t effects of precipitation factors, .~teccdent con~fions, ~T, ~d &~ag¢ ~¢a on ~off quailW. Re'ts oF.~CO~A ~yses of-~¢ effects ofpr~oo~m~i l~d usc on qu~, ~¢ presumed ~ Table 9. For K~proxJm~1¢ty h~' of the co~timents evMuated (t 6 of 29), con~bn~g t~d use was .'deter]ned to ~v¢ a smfisfiCaHy si~]fic~t poEnt~t concen~afio~. How¢~¢r, fhe most co~isi~m pa2¢m obsewed was ~at ~' ~om ~culmrat (~;), Commercial (Corem J, Z~du~-ia! ~n~, ~eviden~al ~d T/anspm~aron ~ran¢) t~d nse categories was gcner~y s~m~l~ for most voltu~ts e, zects m ~T, prccipimfi0~ ~t¢cedcm con~fio~ ~d ~c cat~=on~s, ~d ~at v¢W fe~ sites were s~plcd for ~e ]~ixed ~d), ~iculmral, ~d Open l~d use catezOfies. ~s ~bal~ce ~ s~p~g aes~ c6n~butes to ps~uaorepHcafion effeCts ~d overes~afio~ of ~e si~fig~ee ICayhanian et, aZ. the effect of under-represented land use categories on rv. uoff quality, andis in pan ~ reSPons~ie for the fmdi=g of si~cant effects of con~ibutmg land use. r~ ?he general conclusion from these analyses is that contributing land use appears to si~maificantty affect concentrations of many pollutants in h/ghway runoff, but that ~ additional dam are needed to conclusively establish the specific effects for different land uses. Although the results of analyses for the effects of land use vary by constituent, an '~ ~ example cfa 'fairly .typical case is illustrated in Figure 7 for total copper 6oneentrations in ~ h/ghway turnoff. Comparisons of raw data and residuals from the/vlLR model for total ~.. copper illustrate that runoff quality varies si~mfificantty for different Iand a~es. Both plots suggest that runoS' from .l~ixe~f and Open land.uses typically have ki~her copper concentrations. However, the plot of MLR residuals demonstrates -that copper concentrations in rnnoff frozn other land uses are s~mllar when vmatioms in event rainfall, antecedent dry. period, cumulative precipitation, draimage area, ~nd A~A2DT are accounted } ~ for. 'The relatively large error bars (95 percent confidence t~ts for the mean) for the ' fndu~trial land use reflects the small Clam set fo~ this category. PtL&CTIC.&L APPLICATION' OF. TI:t'E~ P,_ESULTS Comparative Analysis To illustrate wh¢thcr Caltrans runoff qualiV is differem or Slm~tar to that documented in other studies, the results of Caltrans hi~faway rUno~' quality data were compared x~Sth the Nationwide Urban RunoffPro~amCNI. YRP) study (USEPA 1983) and other nationa/highway runo~~ dharacterlzation studies CBarrett et al. 1993, and W~ e~ al., !998). 17 Kayhanian et aL Quafitafive comparisons of. highway rt~off qua~- for constituents me.toted by bo~ Cal~s ~d ~ ~i~-e 8) show ~a~ ~e co~Scicnts ofv~afion (COVs) for ~ace me~ats ~d conventional po~u~s (copper, lead, ~c~ chc~c~ o~y~n dem~d, ~d. to~ suspended soBds) ~e s~, w~e ~e COVs for nu~oms (~ate, phosphorus, ~d ~' ~e somew~t l~ger for C~s ~ghway ~off ~t~ ~ for '~ l~d use categories. Pi~e 9 compeer ~e me&~ EMOs for aH of~e ~ghway ~offda:a wi~ me~ EMCs for ~e me~ ~d 90t~ percentile r~ed sites ~om.~¢ ~ resets. As sho~, m¢~ copper, lead, ~d ~¢ EMCs were tower for C~ ~ghway ~off ~ for ~. ~e t~ges~ ~rence was obse~ed for ~¢ Cfl~ m¢~ lead EMC, w~eh was &~azi¢~y lower ~ ~e ~ EMC. MD~ C~ ~way EMCs-for COD, TSS, ~d nu~ents w¢re gen~raEy s~m~l~r to ~e me~ ~ EMCs for ~¢se constituents. ~ previous ~yses ~y~ ~d Bo=o~, 2000; Kay~ ~ M., 200 reprmsenta~ve concen~afio~ ofpoRnt~ts ~ C~%~ ~way sto~wa~z ~o~' were c.o~o~ed to v~ues reposed for ~ghw~ys ~ Texas and ~o~ Cmoi~a ~&~e~, 1993, ~d Wu e~ ~., !998). ~ genera~ concen~afions or,st ~oHut~ts for Ca~°~i~ ' ~ghways w~re fo~d to be ~th{n ~e'r~ge o~ v~nes rep0~ed ts~where. However, the me~ concen~afiom of COD ~d NOs-N were reported to be ~er for ~Ehways. Site ch~actefisfics ~d ¢n~o~cntal con,rio~ were thou~ to play a ~3or role con~bu~g to ~e ~gher polluter conccn~afions obse~ed ¢~r ~ghways because mos~ C~ mo~to~g s~cs were conducted ~ Southern Ca~o~a. ~nere there ~¢ move ~d~ acfiVi6cs, ~-~- ' ~ ~, ~-~, ~d more asp~lt · s~c¢ per ~ ~a~ge ~ea. More ~-dep~ ~3,sis of~e relafio~o b~ccn ch~rac~eristic~ mud other potential sources of these pollu~m~s ~e no~ supported by the c~endy ava~able ~ Mode~g and Ad~ess~g M~gemem Issues ~e development of~R-based ~off qu~ models ~s a n~b~r ofpracdc~ applica~o~. Two of ~ mos~ ~po~t ~p~ca~io~ ~ctude es~a~g mass loads ~d us~g ~e model as a ~oot to equafio~ delved ~om mul~ple recession models ~ Table 7 c~ be used to ~si~ate the poHut~ event me~ eon~enmafions ~de; e~ected even~ m~ totM copper concen~adon ~ ~off ~om a specie (or predicted) sto~ cvem ~d loca~on c~ be es~ated a~: To~ coppeA ~g~ = ez~(om~'x~ g (0.m~.x:~(0~n~.x~ g(o.07~.x~)+~s.~.xD (1) ~ = Ln~vcn~ ~aH~ ca), ~ = Ln(~teeedem D~ Pefio& ~vs), ~ = ~T- ~0'~ ~ese esSmat~d EMCs em ~ ~ be ~ed to esSmme .~e m~ss toa~g o~ a sim-specffic, re~o~, or watershed basis. ~e~ appl~g a loading model, ~ approphare EMC for · e re~on~ location m~st be used. Appty~g o~e ~MC o~ state~fids basis is a 'common problem mo~g modelers ~d prac~fioners ~fi ~ay gea~ate l~ge e~ors when c~cffia~g to~. For ~us~afion p~oses, ~e r~gio~ vmason ~ ~e EMC ~or ~ge ~Ban ~eas wrsus less m-B~nq~ed appty~g a s~gte me~ z~nc co, cessation (2~5.8 gg~) ~or ~wa3, ~off o= stme~de. basis would result in an overestimate of the z~¢ mass.loading for primarily rural ar¢as such as P, edding, Eureka, and Mar),svi/ie. Applying the same tine concentration for the ~gh.¥ uzban~ed kighways in Los Angeles and San Diego would underestimate the zinc loading in these areas. Us/rig the appropriate EMC for each category o£ h/ghway lassmcations would a/low more accurate prediction o.~ loads from Calirans hght-o ways. This type o£modeting tool may also be. applied to evaluate and f-alt'gl total maximum daily icad (TMDL) ~ ' r~qmrements on a regional basis. The analyses pert%treed in this paver may also proxfide tools rote,ant to best management practices (B/V-~s). For/n. stance; the increase otpoltutant concentrations proportion to the ~ADT'indieates the need 'to prior/tize h/gE traffic sites for management and treatment o£ stormwater runoff. Simil. ' arly' the association o£10nger antecedent dry periods with hi~her pollutant concentrations suggests that a more regular street sweep/ng or drain/nlet cleaning may reduce the pollutants/n nmoff and thereby decrease the need for potentially higher performance and costly BMPs. CONCLUSIONS 'l~ae £ollo~fing conclusions can be drawn fi:om this · In general, the average pollutant concentrations in runoff from urban i2ghways (AAD~>30,000 vehicle per day) were found to be m~o to ten times higher those found in non-urBan (A-~DT<30,000 veh/cle per d~,) h/ghways. However, average concenWafions o£some pollutants (COD, TSE, T'DS, turbidity, NI-I~, and diaz.~on) were to,md to be higher in nmoff from non-urban ifighways than the nmoff from urban highways, suggesting sources other than the transportation related activities. 2O t~ayhanian er aZ. No simple linear correlations were found between h/ghway runoff pollutant event mean. concentrations (EMCs) and ~IDT, including far those pollutants that are known to be related to transportation.activities (e.g., Pb, Cu, Zn, and off and grease). AADT is no/the only factor capable of i~t3uencing the accum~afion and runoff of pollutants from highways. Other factors with sig~ifican~ effects iactude antecedent dry per/od, seasonal cumulative rainfall, total event r~nfal]- and maximum rain intensiW, drainage area, and land use When the effects of these other factors were also considered. A_ADT was formal to have a significant effect . on concentrations Of most const/mems in kig. hway runoff. The effects of_A.A.DT, total event r~im'all., seasonal cumulative r~in~alt, and antecedem dry period on pollutant concentrations in thghway turnoff were si~o'n~cant for more Ih~n 70 percem of constituents evaluated nsmg multiple linear regression ~n~lysis. The effects of drainage area and maximum rainfall intensity Were smaller and]ess frequently. .AA_DT and other factors evaluated in this paper cam be used as a practical too] for ptanning and prioriti~ng efforts for managing runoff qualiW in ~hly urb~nqT, ed- areas. Based on these results, ¢on~butirtg land use effects on runo~~ quali¢- seem to be less consistent and less important than AA_DT and the other parameters evaluated .in this paper. Consequently, land use character/sties m~y be less valuable in preddcting ranoff quality and in planr~qng and prioritizing managemant activities. [ 21 Ifayhanian e~ al. ~Ckq'~OWLEDGEMEWrS We ~ate~Y ac~owledge ~ m~y ~d~s on ~ me,tong te~s who worked retenflessly.d~g ~ pas~ fo~ ye~s to eMse eve~, sto~ event ~ C~b~a. ~out · ek h=d wor~ ~e'~o~afion presented ~ ~s rcpo~ wo~d not have been possible. We appreciate ~e assist~ce of~. NoH W~ts ~om UC DaVis Sta~fica'Laborato~ who peffo~ed the m~fiple reffessi0n tests ~ ~e e=tier version of~s m~uscdpt. We =e reD, ~ to Ms. A-u&ey Me~a ~d ~. A~md' Ruby.for e~g o~ paper ~d prolog valuable e~tofial suggestions. We wo~d also.~e to ae~owledge ~e con=ibufions of ~ee re~ewer.~ ~d ~soc. iate E~tor, ~-~ ..... =~* * ~ ~- - pa~ic~, ~e~ ~cisiv¢ comments lcd to sgos~fial revision ~d ~provement of~e ofi~a: ~ersion of ~ paper. ~~NCES · Barrett, M. E., Irish, L. B., Matina: J. t~. and Ctmrbeneau R. 2. (1998).. "Characterization o£ki2-_hway runoff'in Austin, Texas, area."./. Envi~: E%o-~g., ASCE, 124(2), I31-137. Caltran.~ (2000z.), "G'M' · " . · canoe manuat: stormwater monitoring protocols, Edition.'" California Department of TranSpormfio~ Sacramento, CA, Report No. CTSW-RT- 00-005. ' · Caltrans (2000b). "Data Reporting Protocols, 2''a Edition." California Department of Transportation,. Sacramento, CA_, Report No. CTSW-R%00-002: Chui, T.W., Mar, B.W., Homer, P~. R. (1982). '?oHutant loading model for hi_~__hway runeS..f.. Envin Eng-rg., _A. SCE, 108(6), t193-12t0. 22 Jfnyhanian et at. D'Agostiuo, P.. (I97t). A_u omnibus test of norm~Iity for moderate and large ss_xnoles. 2~iomem'ka 58: 341-348. Dormau M. E. (1988). '~etention; detention, and overland flow' for pollutant removal from highway stormwater runoff: interim-~m~/delines for managemenz measures." US Department of Tr~n.~portation. Driscol!, E.D., Shelley, P.E., Streel~er E.W. (1990).'"Pollutant loadings and impacts from highway stormwater nmoff volum~ ]212: analytical-investigation and research report/" Federal Highway Administratio~ Publicafio~ No. F-HWA-I~D-§8-008~ Gupta,.M.K., Ag-new, P,..W., Iiobriger, N. P. (1981). "Constituents of hi,way runoff vol. 1 state-of-the-art report." Federal I-I_ighway Administration, P, epon No. FI-IWA/RD- 81/042. .Hetsel, D, and Cohn T. (t988). Bstimatior~ of Descr/ptive Statistics for Multiply Censored'Wmex Quality' Dam. Water t~esource~ 2Research ¥.24(12) 1997-2004. Hurlbei-t, S. t984. Pseudoreplicafi0n and the design of ecological field e~eriments. £cological Mono~o-ra_~hs 54(2): 187-211. Irish, L. B. jr., Malina, Y. F., Charbeneau, K. J. and Wardg G. Il. (199'5). ';Solids loari~ng model for au urban highway." Proceeding ofthe 1~ International Conference on Water Resoarces, Part 2. San Antonio, TX. Kayh~nian, M., Borrourrg S. (2000). Charaeter/zatio~a of the t-Iighway Stormwater Runoffin California." Proeeedb~gs of the 72~ An~uat Conference on California Water Environmental Assoeiation~ Sacramento, CA, April 16- ! 9. ICayhanian et ~atcr mnn,~m~nt pro~." 3torm~atez', Vol. 2, No. 2, pp 52-67. Forccas~ng polluter loa& ~ghway ~od2" F~an~orta~'n.~e~earch ~ecord, K~m, N. D. ~d Frc~s.o~ f. Z. (1994). "~nc conccn~afio~,-~bution ~d so,cos of ca~, copp¢~, lead, ~d ~c ~ ~¢ a~osphcr¢ of Science of the Tota~ Environment, 144, 179-~ 89. Kobriger, N.m, G~op01os, A. (1984). "So~ees md ~afion of~ghway ~off' po~u~tS ,otme ~: rese~zh repo~.' Federal ~ghway Admqn~s~afion, No. F~r~-84/059. Laxen, D. P.H. and Harrison, R., M. (t977). "H_/~ffaway as a source of water pollution: an ell appraisal with the heavy metal lead." FFater l~e~earch, 11 (1), 1-11. Mckenxie, D. J. and MJli,r, T. L. (1983). '~rater-quality assessment o£stormwater Resources Investigations, Report no. 83-4t 53. Moe, R.. D., Bull~n, J. A. and Loughead, M. J. (1982). "Atmospheric particulate analysis and impact of h/~_hway runoff on water quati¢- in 'r~ ,, ~ .,.xas. TeXas State Depar~nt of H_ighways mad Public Transportation,' Repo~ no. 19 !-ZF. Ryan, T, and Joiner B. (t976). Normal Probability Plots and Tests for Normati~,. Brhite Paper. Statistics Department, The Penn,~ylvania State UniversiTM. Shapiro, S, and Wilk M. (1968). The jo;mt assessment of normality of several independent sam-vies. TechnomerricS 10: 825-8~9. ' 24 tCayhanicrn er al. ' Shumway: 1L. ii., Azari, A. S. arid I<2ayharfian, M. (2002) "Statistical Approaches To Estimating Mean Water Quality Concentrations wi~ DetectiOn Limits." Environmental Science and Te'chnol. ogy, In Press. Storz,. G. (1987). ~'Investig~tion of the properties of me surface water nmo~' from federal highways in the FGtL." Science for Total ~nvironment, 59, ~" USEPA (1983). Results of the Nationwide Urban RunoffPro~am - Volume 1 -Final Report. PBS4---185552. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wash~ng'ton, DC. Wistrom, A.O., Matsumoto, M.P.. (1999). "Flighway runoff: contaminant sources and der~ositioz mechanisms." Department of Chemical and environmental engSneering University of cali~°rnia. Riverside. Wu, S. f., C. J. Allan, W. L. Saunflers, and f. B. Evett. Ctmracterization and Pollutant Load~.ng Estimation for ~Iighway Runoff.. ASCE ~rournal of~nvironmentaI E~neering,~,.. Vol. 124, No. 7, 1993, pp. 584-592. Young, G. (1996). ~gvaluation and management of highway rtmoffwater quality." Federal Flighway Administration, Washln~o~ DC. ~.ayhan~an et List .of Figures Figure 1 Caltrans Highway Monitoring sites Figure 2 Photo View of a Typical Caltrans Monitoring Station FigUre 3 A TYPical Hydrograph with' Sampling Intervals for a Representative Storm Event Figure 4 Scatter Plots of. EMC Concentrations for (a) total' Cu, (bi total. Pb, (c) total Zn~ and (d) Oil and Grease Figure 5 Correlation-between .AADT and Selected Pollutant Concentrations, (a). total Cu, (b) total Pb, (c) total Tn, and (d) oil and grease Figure 6 Comparison of Independent vaf-iab!e Effects Figure 7 Effect of Contributing Land use on Highway Runoff Quality for Total Copper, (a) means with 95% for raw data, (b) means .with 95% for MLR model results Figure 8 Comparisons of EMC Variability,'Caltrans and NURP Results Figure 9 Comparisons of' Caltrans median E'MCs to NURP .ResUlts for (a) Trace Metals and Conventional Pollutants, and (b) Nutrients Figure 10 'Variations in Total Zinc EMCs for Ivlonitoring Locations · Ka?hanian er aL List of Tables Table 1 AADT Values and other Genera Characteristics of the Monitoring Sites Table 2 Chemical Constituents, Analytical Methods, and Reporting Limits Table 3 Classification of Non-Urban and Urban Highways Based on AADT Table 4 General Characteristics of Runoff from Urban and Non-Urban Highways Table 5 Average Constituent Concentrations for Urban vs. Non-urban Table 6 Average Constituent'Concentrati°ris for urban Highway Runoff Sites Table 7 Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) Modal Parameters and Coefficients :Table 8 Summary of Significant Effects for Multiple Linear Regression Models - ~ .......i · Table 9 ~ffen'~ r.,,f I ~n,.-,! Use nn Hinhu,m/m, ,n~m Qua!K3, F Fig~are 1 Caltrans Highway IVionitc~rin. g Sites f(a?hanian e~ at. Figure 2 PhOt° View Ora Typical Caltrans Monitoring station . ]Cayhanian er aZ ~ ]O'~yhanian et al. . Box Plot Regiuns (percentiles) 1Dth 25th 50th 75th 90th ..~ AADT ~1 1.44- Drainage Area Cumulative Precipitation Antecedent Dry Period . Raihfall lntens~-y Event Rainfall 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Absolute Value of Standardized Regression Coefficient Comparison of lndependentFigure 6 Variable Effects F- F Figure 7 Effeat of Oontributing Land use on Highway Runoff Quality for Total CoPper (a) ~eans ~ith 95~ for raw data, an~ (b) ~eans with 9~% for MLR model res.~duals t~'ayhanian e~ at. 4.~ ,. : [] NUP-~ ~ s.o >2' ~'~' '5 "5..~ 2.0 2.5 Figure B Oomparisons of E~C Variabili~, Cal~rans and N~RP ResUlts ~ayhanian' er al. ~ 100 Ou, total, pg/L Pb total pg/L Zn, total, pg/L OOD, mglL TSS, mglL (a) Trace metals and conventional pollutant Caltrans NURP @Otb percentile sit~ 0.5 ' 0.05 NO3-N, mg/L TKN, mg/L P, dissoJved, mg/L P, total, mg/L (b) Nutrients Figure 9 Comparisons Of Caltrans median EMCs to NURP Results 'for (a) Trace Metals and Conventional PollutantS, and (b) Nutrients Figure 10 Variations in Total Zinc EMCs for Monitoring Locations Table 1 AADT Values and other General Characteristics of the ,v,un~orm~ Highway County .Drainage Land Use AADT Area (1) (2) (3) (4). 580 i Atameda 0,1 Transpor[ation 134,000 680 Contra Costa 0.1 Transportation '132,000 50 El Dorado 0.3 Residential 37,000 50 El Dorado 0.1 Opa[~ 14,1 50 Et Dorado 0.3 OPen 11,600 180 Fresno - 0.7 Transportation 41,000 4I Fresno 0,2 Yranspo~ation 116,000 299 . Humbafdt 0.1 Residential 8,500 36 Humboldt 0.2 Residential 2 600 395 l nyo 0.3 .Residential 5,500 58 ' Kern 17.3 Transportation 40,,000 198 Kings 0.1' Agdcuiture. 14,000 405 Los An~ueies. 0.4 Transporter!on 2~19,000 210 Los Angeies 4.8. Residential 18t 605 Lo~ Angeles 4.4 Agriculture 149,000 210 Los Angeles 12.6 Agriculture 97,000 210 Los Angeles 0.4 'Transportation 176,000 91 Los Angeles 0,4 Transportation 187,000 105' Los A~geles 0.1 · Tran .spcrtation 218,000 210 Les Angeles 12.8 .ResiUential .105 Los. Angeles 0.2 TransPortation 176,000 105 Los Angeles 0.2 : Transp°rtation I76,000 105 Los Angeles 0.d Transportation 218,000 110 Los A~ge es 1.4 Commercial 292,000 60 Los Angeles 0.2 Transportation 228,000 60 Los Angeles 0.3 Transpor[ation 227,100 405 Los Angeles 2.1 Residential 310,000 ~605 Los Angeles 0.1 Transpor[ation 280,000 605 Los Angeles 0.O Trsnsportation 280,000. 91 Los Angeles 1.0 COmmercial 233,000 · 5 Los Angeles 0.1 Transpor[atbn I 222,000 605 Los Angeles 0. I Transp~rtatbn' 222,000 210 Los Anoeies 0.2 Transportatbn 96~000 91. Los Angeles 1.6 ;;l'nclustrial 164,000 210 Los An~oetes 0.4 Transportation 99,000 210 Los Angetes 1.5 Residential 128,000 101 Los AnDeies 1.3 Transpor~atbn 328,000 405 Los Angeles d .7 Transportation 260,000 405 Los Angeles 0.4 Transporb~tion 322,000 10 Los Angeles 1.5 Residential 223,000 I70 Los Angeles 1.0 Residential 180,000 210 Los A~geles '2.9 Residential' 126,000 10 Los Angeles 0.5 Residential 267,000 I70 Los Angeles 0.9 Residential 1B0,0D0 .Kayhanian et a~. Table 1 Highway County Drainage Land use AADT ' Area .(ha,;) " (3). 710 Los Angeles 2.9 Residential 2!9,000 210 'Los Angeles 2.8 , Commercial 100,000 118 Los Angeles 0.8 Residential [. 111,000 5 Los Angeles 1.1 Transportation 25t ,000 605 Los Angeles 0.1 .Transportation 130,000 132 - MadDosa 0.3 Residential 2,100 101 Mendocino 0.4 Residential 6,400 299 Mendocino 0.9 Transportation 1,890 142 Orange 0.4 TranspOrtation 16,000- 405 Orange 0.4. Transportation 237;000 80 Placer 0.2 Open 74,000 ' ' 10 Riverside .0.2 Transportation '70,000 11 t Riverside 0.6 'Transportation 13,600 10 Riverside 0.5 . Resident al 18,300 ' 10. Rive, Side 0.2 Residential 63,000 99. Sacramento 0.1 Open 47,500. . 50 .Sacramento 0.3 Commercial i 1'27,000 .25 San Bonito 0..1 Residential 2,200 ~10 San Bernardino 0.4 Transpor[ation 95,000 805 San Diego 1.1 Transportation 212,000 8 San Diego 0.2 Transportation 175.000 5 'San Diego 2.1 Transportation 254.000. 15 San Diego 5.4 Commercial 262,000 78 San Diego 1.0 Transportation 112,000 5 San Diego. 1.9 TranspoJlation 188,000 5 San Diego 1.7 Mixed 182,000 5 San Diego 0.9 Transportation 181 ,oDo. 15 San Diego 1.3. Transportation 259,000 .805 San Diego 0.8 Transportation 177,000 I2 San Joaquin 0.3 Transportation .14,300 5 . San Joaquin 0.2 Mixed 65,01:)0 46 San Luis Obispo 0.5 Residential 21,300 227 - San Luis Obispo 0.1 I .C°mmercial 10,500 I Santa Cruz 2.4 Residential 55~000 680 Solana ' 0.6 TranspOrtation 53,000 36 Tehama 0.6 Transportation 2,100 5 Tehama 0.6 Transportation 29',000 99 Tutare O. 1 Agriculture 44,500 120 Tuolumne 0.3 Residential 4,900 Kayhanian et al, Table 2 ,,.Chemical Constituents, Analytical Methods, and Constituent f AbbrevJati°n't Method Limit Unit (1) ConventiOnal Chemical Oxygen Demand COD EPA 410.4 10 mg/L Hardness Hard. EPA' I30.2 Total Dissolved .Solids TDS EPA t60,1 I rng/L Total Suspended Solids TSS EPA 160.2 1 rng/L Turbidity Turb. EPA 180.1 0.05 NTU Metals.(Tota! and Diasolved) Arsenic= As EPA 200.8 0.5 " ,~g/L Cadmium Cd EPA 200.8 0.5 p~g/L Chromium Cr .EPA 200.8 1 ~g/L Copper Cu I=PA 200.8 1 t~g/L Lead Pb .EPA 200.8 t ,~g/L ,Nickel Ni EPA 200.8 2 Fg/L Zinc Zn' EPA 200.8 5 ~g/L Nutrients Ammonia (N) NH3 ~ EPA 300.2 0.1 r~g~L Nitrate (N) NC~ EPA 300.0 0.1 mg/L Nitrite (N) NO2 EPA 300.0 0.1 mg/L Or[ho-phosphate (p) Or[ho-P EPA 365.2 0.05 mg/L Total Kjetdahl Nitrogen TKN .EPA 351.3 0.1 mg/L Total ,Phosphorus TP EPA 365.2 0.05 mg/L Major Ions and Minerals Calcium (Ca) Ca SM 3111B 1 rng/L Magnesium, Total and Dissolved Mg SM 3111 B I mg/L Sodium, TotaI and Dissolved Na SM 3111 Sulfate SO4 ' EPA 300 2 mg/L Total Coliform TC EPA 921 lf= 2 MP~100/mL' Fecal Coliform FC EPA 922 lB 2 MPN/100/mL ' Oil and GreaSe O&G Pesticides Dir. zinon EPA 8141 0105 ~glL Chl~rpyrifos EPA 8141 0.05 .,~J/L ,GlYPhosate EPA 832t 0.05 bg/L Areemu ~.~ not a-metaL For [he p~rpuee of this paper Arsenis i~ ~rganized under me+,al poliutanL .: Table 3 Classification of Non-Urban and Urban Highways Based on AADT Classification AAD.T Values Non-Urban Highways /-~DT<3O,000 Urban Highways Low Medium 100,000>AADT>60,0OO Medium- High 20(3,000>AADT> 100,000 High AA, DT>200,000 r-" ~ayhanian e~ Table 4 General Characteristics of Runoff fron Urban and Non-Urban Highways Constituent I Uni~ Sampl~ Size Non-Detects Ran9e Conven~ionais (7~ Chemical 0~gan D~mand mg/L ~1 ~ 2.4-.480 Eardness mg/L as CaCO3 792 3 2 -~ 4~'.5 37.3 pH PH ~4 ~ 5,~ - 10.1 7.3 7.3 T~mp~ture ~C ~70 0 4.8 - ~ ~.7 ~'~'n:~}Z~.~::~J,F~..',~:~:~:~,~:,.~'.,::,~::.- ~ - 5100 14~.1 65,8 Turbidi~ ~ 42 0 %1 - 2620 310.1 141.5 Arsenic pg/L 343 q43 0.5 - 2300 Cadmium ~glL 586 184 D.15- Chromium ~g/L 586 32 ::..¢~'~3 ~t~. ~glL 694 '~:?~':"¢ ............ ~'~. ~;~ha ~' ~/L 892 16 ~5~:~0,~" Arsenic ~glL 397 199 D.5'- 15.9 1.1' 0.7 Ca~mium ~gfL 761 495 0.02- B. 1- Oh~mium pglL 761 :~?~t~¢.. ,,~<~:,:~, ...... 106 0.6 - ~ Ammani~-N mg/L 81 D D.D8 - 6.4 1,1. O.B Nitrat~-N mgiL 700 43 0.01 - t4.7 ' : 1.1 0.7 Nitrit~N mglL 94 50 0.05 - ! .7 0.1 0.1 Odho-P mglL 514 121 0.91 - 1.03 ' 0.1 0.1 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen. mg/L ~ 104 0.1 - 57 2.0 1 Total Phosphorus mg/L 707 1DB 0.01 - $ D 0,3 Major ions 0.2 Oaloium, tot~i mg/L 43 6 4.5 - BB.8 ~2.7 8.4 Magnesium, Total mglL 50 20 I - 21.8 3.2 2. l. Sodium, To~l mglL 32 2 ' 1 - 58 1 ~.0 4.3 SuEate mg/L 55 ~ I 0.23 - 57 4.2 Microbiological Total Coli~ MPN/1D01mL 540 12 2 - 900000 21970 2014 F~=ai Col~o~ MPN/IDD/mL ~59 112 2 - 205090 8083 356 Oil and Grease m~/L ~51 68 ~ PeslicJde~ ~' ' 18.E 5.7 '~i~i~i:~: ~¢L ~ o~ 3s o.o~ s - 2.4 Ohio~y~s ~/L ' 93 50 0.03 - 1 0. I 0.02 Giyphosate .~g/L 20 T 6.4 - 220 27.8 Kayhanian er al. Table 5 Avera!~e Constituent Concentrations for Urban vs. Non-urban Hi~hwa~ Sites Average Concentration Ratio Non-urban Urban Urba~Non- Constituent ' Unit (~DT <.3~,000) (~DT > 3~,000)' Urban ' ¢) (4) (s) . Conventionals Chsmbal O~gen Demand mg/L 145,5 1.19.0 0,8 Hardness mg~ as GECO3 30,3 52,5 1,7 pH pH units 7,0 7.4 l, 1 7e.mperatum,,~,~,~.~ °C ~,~,~7~,?~ ~,. ~ ~ ~13.5 1.2 Turbidib~ NTU 567.2 135.2 0.2 MeCals-Di~soived Arseniu pg~L 0.6 1.2 2.0 Cadmium ~/L. No data 0.3 No data Chromium ~IL 1'~7~ ~ ',~ .,.,,~.2.~ ~, 1.5 ,..,. ........ ..~ .- . ,~, . .~ ..... 2.3 ~1~:' pglL ,,~'~:, ~ ~~;~'~,. 1.0 :(.:'~. ~/L :~=~%~ ~~(~:' 2.2 Ar~gnic '~IL 0'.7 11.6 16.6 . Cadmium ~/L 0.2 ~ .1 5.5 ~'~. ~~ ......... ,~ ~/L ~~ ' -~ .... '"~' Ammonia (N) mg/L 2.3 1.0 0.4 Nitrate (N)' mg/L 0,6 1.1 1,8 Nitre (N) mg/L No data 0.1 N0 da~ O~h~ph~sPhate (P) mg/L 0.1 0.12 . 1;2 Total Kjeldahl Ni~ogen mg/L 2.0 2.1 1, d Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.2 0.3 1.5 . ' Majcrl~ns Calcium (Ca) mg/L No data 13.0 No data Magnesium, mg/L No da~ 3.6 'No 'da~ mg/L 15.8 . No data Sodium No data Sulfate ' mg/L No da~ 4.2 No data ~icro~i~Jogical Total Cotif~ MpN/1D0/mL 11,700 22,000 1.9 Fecal Coliform MPN/1D0/mL 3,800 6,700. 1.8 OE and Grea~e mg/L 2.5 10.9 4.4 P~icid~ GJyphosate ~/L No datB 20.5 No data 43 Table B Average Constituent Con~.entrations for Urban Hi9 ..... ~. Runoff Urban Highway Pollutant Concentration Constituent Unit Low ~ ~ed~um ~Medium-High ~ High Co ~ventiona/~ Chemi:ai O~gen Demand mg/L . 215,~ (16~.5) 143.4 (~t0) 1~7,~ (~g.2) 1D~,2 (~1~ Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 57,2 (34,5) 77,2 (55,3) 4&.~ (35.2) 50,2 pH PH '7,2 (7,3) 7,2 (7,2) .7,4 (7.4) 7,4 (7.4) Tempem~re oC .11,9 (11,1) ~ 10,~ (10,I) ~ 14.4 (~4,~) ~3.6 Turbidl~ ~ 28%4 [301) No dat~ No dat~ ~7.3 (31.1) · e tal~Dissolved Arsenic ~glL %4 (0~7) 0.6I {0.35) 1.03 (0.7~) 1.6 (I 'Cadmium ~glL 0.15 (O.O6) O.2S (0.19) 0.25 (0.14) 0.25 Chremium ~DfL j ~ ~ (1.7~ 1.7 (~.4J ~.7 (~.2) 2.7 ~ ~glL 5.4 (0.7) 1.6 (~.7) 5.33 (2.1D) B.3 (2.66) ¢~:' ~¢L ~.~ (~.s) 4.~ (2.9) (24) 4.~ ;~;¢~. 3.1 (2.9) ~:~¢~;~ pg/L 50.8 (~.6) 74.5 (4Z5) ~.9 (54.~) So.2 ~tats-T~tal Ar~ic ' .~g/L '2.6 (1.4) 1.30 (8.9a) 23.7 (1.63) 2.4 (1.8) Cadmium pall 0.8 (0.5) 0.79 (D.68) 1.05 (B.~) 1.15 Chromium pg~ 11.1 (B.D) - ~.4 rS.0) ..... !D (6.~ .......... ~,~¢.,(6,.~) ..... ~ ~[~k~ ~ d~ ?~.~;~'~ ¢~:~';~.,~:.-, ..::;.~ :..m ............ ~~, ~D/L ................ ~:!:~: ::':'~:'"~ ~ ' ~:¢~ :~'~":~ ~IL ~'~ "~" "':~'~'~%~ ~moni~-N ' mg/L. No darn O.D1 (D.78) %2 (%D4) O.BB (D.4O) Ni~-~[~ mail 0.8 (0.5) 1.22 (0.sS) 1.13 (0.82) 1.18 Nitrb--N. mall 0.2 (0.2) 0.28 i0.1~) n 10 (0.06) 0.1 cn O~ho-P mg/L 0.14 (.0.09) O.lD (O.OB) 0.11 (0.08) 0.12 (0.lO) Total ~eldahl Nitrogen malL 2.2 (5.2) 1.B (1.2) %99 (1.35) 2.2 (%6) Tote: Phosphors mg/L 0.8 (0.2) 9.21 (0.16) 0.32 (0.17) 8.34 (~.20) Major Ions Calcium, to~l mail No data 31.5 (~.2) ~ 1.6 (~,2) ~ %6 (~.0) Magnesium, To~l malL -, No data 5.3 (1.2) 3.9 (3.4~ 3.3 (2.7) Sodium, To~l malL ND data 4.8 (4.3) No data 28.8 Sulfate malL · No d~ta N~ dat~ 2.BB (I.~) 6.4 (2.6) To~l Oolib~ MPNI1OOfmL 6,282 (1800) 11,858 (11D) 20,213 (I791) 25,100 (3.BDO) Fe=al Ooffo~ MPNI1D0/mL 949(500) .B,23D (1,20D) 5,040 (248) 8,036 (50D} Oil end Grease malL 3.9 (3.5) 6.3 (4.6) 8.9 (3.5) 12.D Pesticides ~lypho~ate . ~D/L No dat~ No d~ta 24.4 (~.5) 15.3 (B.B) 44 ICayhanian et al. Table 8 Summar~ of Significant Effecf~ for Multiple Linear' Regression Models Ratio of ' models CovaHate exhibiting Factor Dominant. effect significant (preditor .on pollutant dominant · variable) concentration~~ effect~ ' ~ceptions= Commen~ . (~) (2) (~) (4) 23 of 24 Positive: . Concen~ations ' modeb had Not Event decrease w~h Rainfall higher to~l event a significant dissolved Zn, COD, NH~. '~ rainfall negative NO~, fe~l and total coefficient ~oiiform~ di~inon Maximum Concentrations 7 of 11 Not significant is the most commo~ Rainfall increase with m~dels had Ne~ativ~ di~;¢~G=;~.~'~'~ result. Maximum intensi~ i~ higher m~imum a significant ,,,,~.~fi?~,-:,..~,~:~:~..,~.~'. ~ ........... ~,.. I ~;~¢8~ss~B~~;'''':~'',' correlated w~h event rainfall. · intensi~ intensi~, p~sifive '~,~&~i~;;.;E~ ~:4~;¥~*~'- Generally appears not ~ be a good coe~lcient predimor variable. Concentrations' 23 of 25 Negative: pH, di~inon; Antecedent increase with modeis had Not sign~can~ total As, Vow consistent preditor. Same DW Period longer a sign~sant dissolved Or, Calcium, pa~em for heady all significan~ antecedent dW 'positive COD, SO4, NHz, ND~, and models. period coefficient chto~y¢~os Positive: n~ne Seasona~ CDncent~tions 24 of 24 models had Not significan~ dissolved · decrease as Pb, calcium, oil and Ve~ consistent predictor. Same Cumulative · cumulative a signifi=ant Precip~a~on negative grease, pM, SO4, ~rbidi~, pa~ern for alt signifisant models. - rainfall increases coefficient NO2, fecal colifo~, chlorpyrifos and di~inon Drainage are higher for' models had NJ, and Zn dissolved 'TS'S':~-or~ot'slgnlficant for Area larger drainaue a signBcant oAhophosphate, and fe~l dissotved.metaJs and.dissolved - positive a~as ~e~cient colifo~ P. Conca~raSons 22 of 23 Negative: a sign~nt As, Cd, and N[, toot Ni, ~csites wi~ highe~ positive COD, NH~, o~P, fecal modeis. ~e~ciant coliform, chlorpyrifos and di~non a Summarized for MLR models including o~ty whole moro or first flush data.' "Dominant Effect" is the m~st freque~iy obse~ed sign of sign~nt ~effi:ients for the favor in MLR models. In ali cases, the relationship be~een covariate and dependent variables (a~er t~nsfo~ing to approximate no~al~) is approximately b Threshold of sta~sfisal significance is p<0.05. Cons~tu~nts for which the preditor had ~ sign~cant effe~ opposite to ~e dominant effect for the predimor. F 47 t£ayhanian et al. Effect of Land Use on Hi~hwa~ F~unoff Quality/ Significant pairwise comparisons of Constituent p-value contributing land use categories (Tukey-Kramsr Post-hoc test) Conventionals Ln(COD) ID ID Ln(Hardnesa} <0.0001 Ag > (Corem, Jndl Mxd, Open, Res, Trane); Trane > Res pH 0.0002 (Ag, C0mm, Ind, Mxd, Res, Trans) > Open TemPerature ID ID ' Ln(TDS) 0.0540 Not Significant Ln(TSS) <0.0001 (Ag, Corem, Ind, Mxd, Res, Trane) > Ind > (Ag, Res, Trans) Ln(Turbidity) iDb ID Metals. Total Ln(As-TotaJ) 0,5854 Not Significant ' Ln(Cd-Total) 0.0335 Mixed > Open Ln(Cr~Total) 0.0002 Ind > (Open, Res, Trans) Mxd > Ag; Ln(Ou-Total) <0.0001 t'Mxd, lnd) > (Corem, Res, Trans) 'Ln(Pb-TOtal) <0.0001 (Ag, tnd, Mxd, Res, Trane) > Open; Mxd > (Ag, Corem, Res, Trans) Ln(Ni-Total) d.0002 'Cc)mm .> Res Ln(Zn-Total) <0.0001 Mxd > (Ag, Corem, Res, Trans) Metals-Dissolved Ln(As-Diss) 0.1209 Not Significant Ln(C~-Diss) 0; 1752 Not SignifiCant Ln(Cr-Diss) 0.0108 No significant pairwise comparisons Ln(Ou-Diss) <0.0001 (lnd, Mxd, Open) > (Oomm, Res) Mxd'> Trans Ln(Pb-Diss) 0.0193 No significant pairwise comparisons Ln(Ni-Diss) 0.90! 7 Ag > Res Ln(Zn-Diss) 0;3211 Not Significant. Nutdents Ln(NH3-N) 0.4647 Not Significant. Ln(NO3-N) 0.0470 No significant pairwise compads°ns Ln(NO2-N) ID "ID Ln(OdhoP-Diss) 0.0639 ' NC~t Significant Ln(TKN) 0.1724 Not Significant Ln(P-Tota~) 0.0011 Mxd> (Res, Trans) Major ions Ln(Ca) 0.0557 Not Significant Ln(SO4) 0.9508 Not Significant Ln(Oil & Grease) 0.0962 Not Sigriificant f~icrobieiogical Ln(Fecal .Coliform) 0.7021 Not Signfficant 48 I(a~hanian e~ al. Table 9 Continued Significant pairwise comparisons of Constituent p-value contributing land use categories~ ('rukey-Kramer post-hoc test) ('I) I2) .' (3) Ln~otal Coliform) 0.5050 Not Significant Pesticides Ln(Chlorpyrifos) ID ID Ln(Diazinon) ID ID ['n(GiYPhOSate) ID ID Note: Threshold for statistical sign~cance is p < 0.05 for all comparisons and'effects ~Land Uss designations; Ag=Agriculture, Corem=Commercial, Ind=lndustria[, Mxd=NO dominant land use determined, Open=Open, Res=Residential, Trains=Transportation ~JD=insufficient'data .: ,~'b-~_-~¥.,)' 100 Civic Piaza, Dubfin, California 94568 Website: h~tp://www, ci.dublin.ca.us T~ya A. Gulesseri~ Adams BroadWell JOseph & C~dozo 651 Gateway Blvd., Suite 9.00 South S~ Fr~cisco, CA 94080 Re:Public Records Act Request for West Dublin Tr~sit Village - Legacy P~ners Hydrology Repo~ (le~er of 12/3/03) and 1984 General PI~ EIR Dear Ms Gu!esse:~: I have received by fax ~d reviewed the le~er from yo~ fi~ dated December o, 2003 requestNg a copy of the hydrology repo: referenced on page 22 of the Dra~ INtial Study ~d ~e Mm=ateo Negat:ve Declaration for the Legacy Panners' West Dublin Tr~sit Village project. In preparing ~e Initial Study ~d Mitigated Negative Dec!rotatiOn for the project, I e:oneously mentioned :hat a hydrOlOgical repo~ was prepped for ~e site. The Applic~t did not submit such a repon as the site is ~lly developed, including impe~i°us coverage and ~ainage Facilities. A hydrology repo~ is not necess~y m tNs stage of · e project as ~ainage will be imprOved ~th the development t~ough ihe reduction in imperious coverage on the Site. The Applic~t~eveloper will be installing a subst~tial ~o~t of l~dscaping ~d various paving Wpes in the project wNch will ~low the ~ainage facilities to work more efficiemly. Additionally, prior to issu~ce of building pe~its to construct the project, the Applic~t~eveloper will be required to submit calculations ~d soil ~fo~ation to the Director of Public Works and to the Dublin San Ramon Se~ices District (DSRSD) for approval. TNs Will ens:e ~hat any improved ~aNage ~acilities are of su~cient capaciW to semite ~e development. I apologize For ~y ~s~derstanding the reference to a hydrological report for the project may have caused. On November 24, 2003, Zohary Basse~ of yo~ f~ requested durNg a telephone conversation ~at a copy of the EnViro~ental ~pact Repo: for the origNal 1984 Dublin General Plan be provided For Your rcvicw. :~. ~:=~ ~: ~,~ ¥=mo=~ ~a, ~ mentioned Fnat :Ns wo'~d require some resem'ch to locate, ~d it would be made available by December 10. t now have that doc~ent available, ~d requesl that you conlaCt me al vour e~Iiest conveNence to m~e an apPointmem to have tNs copied by a copy se~ice, t can be reached m (925) 833-6610 if you have ~her questions. Since:ely,. L Senior Plier Cc: EliZabeth Silver, CiD' A~omey Jo~ Greer, Legacy Pa~ners Tom Jod~, Legacy Pa~ers J~i R PI~ am~ nin~ Manager ~,b' uOu,,~,, 8oo-u~ou" Personnei 833-6605 = Economic ~ "~' Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 · Parks & Community Services 833-6645 · Police 833-6670 P~anning/Code Eniorcement 833-66i0 · Building Inspection 833-6620 · Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 Pdnt~d on Recycled Paper ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO DANIEL L CARDOZO RAMENTO OFFICE RICHARD T DRURY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1029 K STREET, SUITE 37 TANYA A GULESSERIAN MARC O. JOSEPH 651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 SACRAMENTO. CA 85814 SUMA PEESAPATI SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 TEL: (916) 44."-6201 KATHERINE S. POOLE FAX: (916) 4,~4-8209 OF COUNSEl. TEL: (650) 58S-1660 THOMAS R. ADAMS FAX: {650} 589-5062 ANN BROADWELL tguiesser~an@aoa msoroadweli.com December 3, 2003 V-iA FACSIMILE & U.S..MAIL Janet Harbin Planning Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fax No. (925) 833-6628 Re: Request for Documents Referenced In The West Dublin Transit Village Initial Study/Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Harbin: On behalf of the Sheetmetal YVorkers Union Local 104, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 595, and the Plumbers & Steamfitters Union. Local 342, I am writing to request that the City of Dublin provide us with or make available for our immediate review the hydrology report referenced on page 22 of the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the West Dublin Transit Village (PA 02-003) Project ("Project"). This request is made pursuant to Section 21092(b)(I) of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(f)(4), which require that "all documents referenced in the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration" be available for review and "readily accessible" during the entire comment, period. Zohary Bassett will call you to arrange immediate access to this document. Please call me at (650) 589-1660 should you have any questions. t519a-003 . December 3, 2003 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Tanya A. Gulesserian TAG:bh Zohary Bassett cc: 1519a-003 F [- WEST DUBLIN T~NSiT VILLAGE LEGACY PARTNERS - AI~B PROPERTY PA 02-003 Cor-O-Van Site 6700 Golden Gate Dr. Dublin, CA ENV~RON[~ENTAL INITIAL STUDY F' P~anned Development Rezonin[i & Stage 2 Development ~, Tentative Parcet Map i i Site Development Review Development Ag ~." '~ PA 02-003 Lead Agency: City of Dubtin November 6, 2003 Proiect impacts and Mitiuation Measures a.e) ' F- "people or structures fo potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to _XDOS,., ' ' ccround rupture, se¢smt~, grouno shaking., ground failure, or/andsiide, substantial erosion, unstabie soiis or t~ouefactiOn? The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village EIR and the original EIR for the B~,RT extension project ident'fy several'potential impacts to soils and geology, including earthquake, ground shaking, and ground rupture. The site is. relatively fiat and contains no areas of slope, and no impacts related to landslides and erosion have been identified. Mitigation measures such as final subsurface investbations, and appropriate structural and bundation design incorporated into the final enDneerea design will reduce soiis and geologic impacts to a Isys! of tess-than- ~o~,s and geologic impacts associated with the project site have been addressed in previous signNcance. " '1 Geotechnical and soil investigation documents prepared by the Applicant s consultant and reviewed by the City. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan and environmental documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and no additional mitigation measures are required. . VII, Hazards and Hazardous ~ateria Proiect tmDactS and Mitbation Measures 'a-g) Crea~e a significant hazard through transpofl of hazardous materials or release or emission of hazardous . ~nt~rr~r~nc~. with an materials, lis~ed as a hazardous materials site. ' ";"" ~' eme~ency evacuation plan, subiect to wild/and fires, or located near a punic or private airslrip? No hazards related to transport of.hazardous materials should occur with the development of the project as the tra. nsit village will serve.only the residentia! housino and an office building, which are not associated with the transpod or use of hazardous materials. The site of ~'he proposed development contains an underground storage tank proposed for closure. A Phase 1 Site Assessment was performed on the site for tiae ~rolect by Versar, lnc. in order to determine.the extent of soil ;na~/nroundwater contamination on the site, if any, from an existing 3,500 gallon gasoline tank and alO,OOO- diesel tank used for trucks in conjunction with the storage and moving warehouse use. The environmental documents recommeno no further '~l~lo sampling prior to commencement of construction activities as no contaminants of a measure level were found in the groundwater or soil. SIn,~ the project contains two prima,5, access ooints, there wouid be no interference with an emergency access plan. The site is not in an area subject to wildland fires, and lies outside the referral area for the Livermore Municipal Airport. The proposed project is consistent with previous actions and environmental. documentation approved by the City of Dublin, and no additional mitigation measures are required. Vlil. Hydrology and Water Quality ero~ec: tin,acts and ivlitiaation ~-l) Violate any water quality szandaros or wests discharge requirements, deplete groundwater resources, slier drainage pa#ems, ,..ff,..,.,,,~ r=,.., surface or subsurface water quaiity, result in placing housing in a flood .~/ain? Water and hydrologic impacts of~-,..,,,,a,'~,,'-'t~,om~'nf. ~ . of the proiect, . have been addressed in the hydrotodca!~ re.~o¢, for the · r~, ~V~O · . project, impacts =,'" ," included potential flooding, toss of groundwater recharge area. and ~otential incieases in surface water quaiity pollution. Since the proposed pro. ed will develop within the same approximate area as the adiacent, site assessed in the original EIR for the BART extension project, and construct stormwater drainaoe facilities and connections on the site connecting to larger drain pipes with a Paoe 2'2 City of Dublin ' W. Dublin Transit Village - Legacy Partners November 2003 PA 02-003 :· 8.2 PA 02-003 Legacy Partners/AMB Properties - West Dublin Transit Village Planned Development Rezoning & Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review, and Development Agreement for development of a mixed-use project consisting of a maximum of 308 high density aparbnents (4 stories over 2 levels of parking), neighborhood retail and service uses on the ground floor, and a 150,000 square foot office building Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Harbin, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and a PowerPoint on the project for the Planning Commission. She explained that Legacy Partners has submitted a project application consisting of a Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review and a Development Agreement for a mixed- use project transit village consisting of a four and 1/2 story structure containing a maximum of 304 multi-family residences, a small amount of neighborhood retail uses on the ground floor, and a 150,500 square foot office building on the southern portion of the site closest to the AIameda County Flood Control Channel and freeway corridor. The approximately 9.06 acre property is owned by AMB Properties, and located north of the 1-580 freeway, south of the extension of St. Patrick Way in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area of Dublin. Adjacent to the west boundary of the property are light industrial and professional/administrative office uses. Additionally, the site is adjacent to the west boundary of the residential project proposed by Orix on the BART property, recently approved by the Planning Commission for high-density residential land use and commercial development. Ms. Harbin stated that this application has been reviewed by the applicable City Departments . ... .: · and agenCies, and their comments have been incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan. (see Resolution, Attachment 2) and the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting. Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review (see Resolution, Attachment 3). The proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan rezoning previOusly approved, and represents an appropriate and well- planned transit-oriented project for the site, which will assist in revitalizing the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area and the economic viability of the area. A letter was received from the law firm of Adams Br°adwell Joseph & Cardozo regarding the environmental review of the project. The City has fully analyzed all the environmental issues ;through the mitigated negative declaration and the issues in the comments from the law firm are addressed in the matrix in Attachment 1, Responses to Comments. The law firm did not ihave the responses when they wrote this letter. Ms Harbin stated that Staff recommends the Pla .rming Commission adopt a resolution approving Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopt a resolution recommending City Council adopt the Ordinance approving the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, adopt a resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review, subject to Conditions and adopt a Resolution recommending City Council approve the Cfannint] Commission 26 q,'e§ruaO, 24, ATTACHMENT Development Agreement between the City and AMB Properties. She concluded her presentation and asked if there were any questions. Cm. King asked for clarification on the pedestrian pathway shown on Exhibit 3. Ms. Harbin stated that is a potential pathway on the applicant's property across the BART/Orix site, which might be connected in the future but is not currently planned. Cm. Machtmes asked what happens to the in-lieu fees the City collects. Mr. Peabody stated they go into the City's Inclusionary Fund and are used for development of affordable housing such as the Senior Housing project. John G?eer, Applicant, stated they have presented a very high quality project that they hope will be a model for the Bay Area. He hopes the Planning Commission recommends approval. Cm. Machtmes had a concern with the small amount of retail for the project since the intent of the project is to create a vibrant urban environment. A key element of such an environment is a significant retail presence. Mr. Greet stated they gave a lot of thought to retail for the site but felt there are better opportunities for additional retail development in other locations in more visible corridors. If the project had a significant amount of ground level retail it would die. They propose a more vibrant residential community as opposed to having vacant retail spaces. Tanya Gulesserian, representing the Intemational'Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IB ~EW)~ and other unions, stated the project is not ready to move forward and is not ready to be approved due to lack of environmental review. Ms. Gulesserian stated that the project will have unmitigated significant traffic impacts and that the City's analysis is inadequate. She further stated that the problem with approving a mitigated negative declaration is that an environmental review has not been conducted and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is needed. By not preparing an EIR the City is missing out on the opportunity to improve the project. A Negative Declaration is stating that an EIR study is not required. She urges the Planning Commission to not approve the project and that an EIR be performed. Cm. Nassar asked Ms. Gulesserian if these studies are conducted and there are no issues, what would be her position. Ms. Gulesserian said for the City to move forward. Cm. King asked who the clients are represented by her law firm. Ms. Gulesserian responded IBEW, and the Plumbers Local 595, Steamfitters Local 342 and Sheet Metal Workers Local 104. ~Pfanmnd Comra&ffo~ 27 f¥,Srua~. 24. 2004 .l~g, qu(ar '.Meetb~g Cm. King said labor unions are not usually concerned with traffic. Ms. Gulesserian stated they are more proactive focusing on sustainable development and sustainable growth in urban areas. Cm. King asked Ms. Gulesserian where are the traffic impacts likely to occur that are unacceptable. Ms. Gulesserian stated that there are five intersections that will exceed thresholds of significance for traffic. They are on the nine pages of the mitigated negative declaration. There are two roadways - Golden Gate and St. Patrick Way - that will exceed the City's standards. Andrew Michael, Vice President of Sustainable Development for Bay Area Council, stated the Bay Area Council was here to speak in support of the project. He would like to submit a letter for the record that states their support of the project. The project will be a model for smart growth with mixed-use development as well as being consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan and Housing Element. It will be a benefit for Dublin as well as for the region as a whole. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing to deliberate. Cm. King stated that he is not satisfied to the attention paid to the traffic impacts. Ms. Harbin stated Omni Means conducted a traffic study with a parking analysis. The study concluded that the improvements planned could meet the traffic demands. The traffic study proposed for the project tiered off the previous West Dublin BART Specific Plan negative declaration, which talked about expanding Golden Gate to four lanes, Regional Street to three ~ ~' lanes and the. extension of St. Patrick Way. There will be contribution by the deYelopers for traffic signals and also the EIR prepared for the BART Station and extension in West Dublin and improvements. Cm. Fasulkey re-opened the public hearing. Cm. Nassar asked Ms. Gulesserian if she reviewed the staff report and matrix prepared by the City. Ms. Gulesserian responded yes. She provided the City with additional irfformation that' quantified construction and operational air quality impacts. David Gold, representative of AMB, stated this is an exemplary project the City has done. CEQA is based upon the concept of not repeating the process at the General Plan stage and Specific Plan stage. He was at the meetin§ when the City adopted the West Dublin Specific Plan {or 71 acres. This project is 9 acres of those 71 acres. There is nothing about this project that isn't consistent with the City's Specific Plan. He thanked the Planning Commission. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing rP[a. nnirgj Coramission 28 tFe~ruary 24, 2004 tR¢it ufar 5~i eet b¥] Ms. Harbin stated that this is a developed site and existing water and sewer services are there. Some expansion of specific lines may be required, but the project site has current utility service already in place. Cm. King stated the overall plan is a beautiful plan, but he is not satisfied with information on traffiC. Cm. Fasulkey asked for Staff to discuss traffic. Ray Kuzbari, Senior Civil Engineer, stated a comprehensive traffic study was prepared in 2000 in conjunction with the downtown specific plans. The traffic study looked at a huge number of intersections and many recommendations came out of that study. When the AMB/Legacy project came along, the City conducted a traffic study specific to that project. All the improvements prescribed for the specific plans were incorporated into the traffic study for this project. The City looked at 16 intersections within the downtown area and roadway segments in the vicinity of the project. The intersections studied were all mitigated at acceptable levels of service at build out conditions based on the improvements that came out of the traffic study for the specific plan. The traffic study for the AMB project only showed Regional Street being impacted by the project. All the 16 intersections that were analyzed showed levels of insignificance based on all the improvements that were in the traffic study. Kit Faubion, City Attorney, stated that in the prior environmental review this particular project addressed the mitigation recommended in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan in general but at the'request of the property owner very specific attention was given to the site andthe proposed project in the traffic analysis. ~:: .~ ~:, Cm. King stated he has not read the information and cannot vote in favor of the project. Cm. Nassar asked Mr. Kuzbari if there were any other options that can be looked at if traffic is a problem in the future. Mr. Kuzbari stated ail the mitigations have been clearly identified including roadway improvements, and he feels strongly that the mitigation measures are very important and will be implemented in the future. Beyond those mitigations and improvements, nothing more should be required as the impacts on traffic will not be significant. Cm. Fasulkey asked where the traffic study is located in the staff report for the project. Ms. Harbin responded that summaries of the traffic studies are located in the matrix and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. There was a lengthy discussion on the traffic issues between Staff and the Planning Commission. *P[anr~ind Cl~rnmg, sion 29 7: ¢§rua~. 24, 2004 q(¢au[ar 51{eetin~] Mr. Peabody suggested for the Planning Commission to take the time to read the documents prepared by Staff. He recommended continuing the item until after the IKEA hearing to allow Staff time to prepare the additional traffic information requested by the Planning Commission. Cm. Fasulkey continued the item as suggested by Mr. Peabody. He directed Staff to compile the additional information requested regarding the traffic study. 8.3 PA 02-34 IKEA Retail Complex - Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment, PD - Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, Development Agreement and Site Development Review. The proposed project is located on an approximately 27.54 acre site. The westerly portion of the site would include an approximately 317,000 square foot IKEA home furnishing facility and the easterly portion of the site would include an approximately 138,000 square foot retail center Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Andy Byde, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Byde explained that the Applicant, IKEA, is proposing an approximately 317,000 square foot IKEA home furnishing retail facility and an approximately 137,000 square foot retail center on a 27- acre site. The IKEA facility is proposed to be located on the westerly portion of the site and the retail center is proposed to be located on the easterly portion of the site. The site is bounded to the south by 1-580, to the west by Arnold Road, to the north the future Martinelli Way, and to the east, Hacienda Drive. AdditionallY, IKEA is requesting approval of various wall signage as wellasa 99-foottallpylonsign~ -- ~. ~..:~. ~ : ::The proposed project includes the following actions: :: ~:- ~ : The Applicant/Developer has applied to the City for a number of` planning actions and approvals necessary for constructing the IKEA Home Furnishings Store and obtain general approvals for the retail center portion of the site. Analyses of these planning actions are included below. These actions collectively comprise PA 02-034 and include: · Certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR); · - An Amendment to the General Plan reflecting the requested land use modification from Campus Office to General Commercial; · An Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan reflecting the requested land use modification from Campus Office to General Commercial; A Planned Development Rezone/Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan to establish zoning and development standards for the entire Site; · A Site Development Review (SDR) requesting approval of the site layout of the IKEA portion of the site and the architecture of the IKEA building; · A Master Sign Program (MSP) requesting approval of directional signage, flags, and wall signs for the IKEA portion of the Project and a 99-foot tall freestanding sign to serve both the IKEA and the retail center sites; and · Development Agreement (DA) that would vest the laws applicable to the project for a five year time frame (a DA is required by the policies of the Specific Plan). ~Pfanninlt Commis. mm 30 cFe~ruary 24. 2004 ~l(e g u[a r '.Meeting] Planning Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission refer its hearing jurisdiction on the Master Sign Program and the Site Development Review to the City Council pursuant to Section 8.96.020.C.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Staff requests that the Planning Commission transfer original hearing jurisdiction on this project to the City Council due to the requirement that the General Plan, Specific Plan amendments and the Planned Development Rezoning be approved by the City Council. Any comments or requested changes that the Planning Commission has to either the Conditions of Approval and or any of the proposed signage will be brought to the City Council. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: open Public Hearing, hear Applicant's presentation; question Staff, Applicant and the Public; close Public Hearing; deliberate; and adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Planned Development (PD) rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans; adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Site Development Review for the IKEA portion of the Project; adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Master Sign Program for IKEA; and adopt a resolution recommending the City Council adopt a Development Agreement for the IKEA project. Cm. Fasulkey opened .the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak. '~ Doug Greenholz, Applicant presented a PowerPoint for the project. He introduced the project team and eXplained the origins of IKEA and vision of the store. He stated that there:.are more than 192 stores worldwide in 31 countries. Dublin M1 be the third Bay Area store and planned to open in 2005. IKEA would'be an added benefit to the community. He provided the Planning Commission with an extensive overview of the project and proposed signage for the site. He thanked them for their consideration of the project. Randy Ackerman, Opus West, stated they have developed many projects in Dublin such as Hacienda Crossings, Emerald Point Office development, and Creekside Business Park. He discussed traffic circulation, parking, signage and the proposed tenants for the Lifestyle Center of the site. Mr. Greenholz discussed the economic and job benefits for Dublin. He reiterated that IKEA is an overall benefit for the area. Cm. King asked if there were any other sites looked at in Dublin. Mr. Greenholz stated they looked at two other sites but felt this was the best site due to the infrastructure already in place and the surrounding retail. Cm. King asked the distance between this piece of property and BART station. ~?[annini~ Commissflm 31 ~Fe6rua~. 24, 2004 ~Rcguiar 5iteetinif Mr. Byde responded .37 miles. He explained that generally the acceptable walking distance for the United States is .25 mile. Cm. Nassar asked Mr. Greenholz about concerns with the height of the sign. Mr. Greenholz stated that, due to the combined sign with the adjacent retail, there is not sufficient room below the IKEA panel to allow visibility for the tenants in the Lifestyle Center. Cm. Nassar asked about the height of the IKEA section. Mr. Byde responded the bottOm of the letters are approximately 88 feet. Cm. Machtmes noted that the Specific Plan states that a cornerstone of the Specific Plan is to locate employment centers next to public transit, meaning BART. He asked the applicants why the City should change the Specific Plan and General Plan designation. Mr. Greenholz stated IKEA would compliment the surrounding retail. Part of the reason they are looking at this site is because it was available due to Commerce One falling out of their contract with Alameda County because office space is no longer viable. The studies that the City produced through Economic Planning Systems concluded that office would not be built for another 10 years. The benefits to the City are enormous - economically and part of the attractiveness is the location of the BART station. Cm. Machtmes stated that Staff had informed him they expect 15% of neighboring office users ' to use BART, which would equal about 450 people if the current approved use of.a 3000 employee office development were maintained. He asked how many people we could expect to · ::*:~ use BART to get to IKEA and asked if there is any data from the Emeryville store that tracks customers using BART. Mr. Greenholz said they do not track customers using BART. Mr. Ackerman stated there is also a bus stop going to be built on Martinelli Dr. Cm. Machtmes said there isn't any reason to expect IKEA to maximize the location next to BART. It is not reasonable to expect customers will take BART to a furniture store. Mr. Greenholz stated it does happen worldwide where customers come on mass transit. They shop and have the product shipped to their home. It is a big focus for IKEA to be close to public transit. 'Cm. Machtmes stated that one of the projected uses that maximize the transit center orientation is high density residential. How will IKEA compliment the existing nearby residential and the high density residential planned for 600' to the west in the transit village? ~P~nni~t Coramiasion 32 q.'e~rua~_ , 24, 2004 ~¢gufar :Meetin~ Mr. Greenholz stated IKEA has done a lot of screening along the back of the building. They have been working closely with Staff on landscaping and creating a buffer between IKEA and the mixed use along Arnold Road. Cm. Machtmes asked if it is the plan to buffer those two sites rather than incorporate them, and how is that complimentary? Mr. Greenholz stated there is also very easy pedestrian access to and through the site coming from BART and the transit center. Cm. Machtmes stated he could not read the sign displayed on the PowerPoint slide, which was taken beyond the exit for Hacienda and asked how will the 99 foot sign signal the driver of the location. It seems drivers will have already passed the exit so it doesn't serve the purpose it's intended for. Mr. Greenholz stated, based on a study conducted, the logo and the colors of the sign would be visible from the exit point at Hacienda Drive. Due to the size of the slide, it does not show that. Cm. Machtmes stated because it is a destination retail, wouldn't folks already know it's there. Mr. Greenholz stated they would love to propose a larger sign so it is readable from farther away. Cm. Machtmes stated that it would seem to argue that the sign isn't necessary. Cm. Machtmes stated that the application states the architecture has a European influence.. He asked what about IKEA's 600' long, 70' high blue and yellow building evokes European influence. Mr. Greenholz responded IKEA warehouses on site, which requires a large building. The ' building is a prototypical building for IKEA. Cm. Nassar asked how many of the employees will be from the Tri-Valley area. Mr. Greenholz stated they would recruit locally from the area. Ted Wilcox, Dublin resident made a comment about traffic and bypassing the 580 by driving down Dublin Boulevard to get to the 680. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any further questions of Staff; hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. King stated that on page 5 of the agenda statement is unclear. He asked for clarification on the following text: the DSEIR concluded that increased regional traffic beyond that anticipated in the 1993 EIR would result in potentially significant impacts on several intersections and road segments. ;~'fannin[l CoramisMon 33 '?e6raa~. 24. 2004 Mitigation measures in the DSEIR proposed improvements to reduce these impacts to less than significant except at cumulative buildout for 2025for various 1-580 and 1-680 freeway segments, already operating below the acceptable level of service D. As a result of the Project, the traffic analysis anticipates that the traffic on these freeway segments, will increase by an average of approximately 1% He stated that appears that there are already below the acceptable level of service and this will make it worse. Mr. Byde stated that there are segments on that freeway that operate below acceptable levels of service as a result of development in San Joaquin County. Those levels are not resulting in Dublin but resulting from Livermore and east of Livermore. Cm. King asked if the reason that there were no measures proposed to reduce the impacts was because they would be minimal. Mr. Byde said the reason is that there are no feasible mitigations. The only potential mitigation would be to extend BART to San Joaquin County or additional lanes to the 1-580. Cm. King said this project would increase traffic on those freeways segments by an average of 1%. He has concerns with the additional traffic on the 1-580 and the potential for rear-ending the vehicles in front of him. He asked the range. Mr. Byde said .5 % to approximately 2%. Mr. KuZbari stated that during the a.m. peak hour, the campus office development would generate a lot more trips than a commercial development for that parcel.. He. stated, · .the, proj~ct.~ ~ would be required to contribute to Tri Valley Transportation Fees t© help fund:regional imProvement Projects that has been planned. For example, there are plans to improve some of the 1-580 interchanges. Cm. King asked why the original General Plan designation was office for that site. Mr. Byde stated that when the specific plan was done, the Transit Center was not part of the specific plan area. That portion was added in 2001. Cm. King asked why. Mr. Peabody explained because that area was originally part of Camp Parks and were subsequently transferred to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority. The plans were developed to maximize development around the Transit Station. Cm. Machtmes asked how does the City or Staff know that Phase 2 of the project will be built at all, or as shown and in a timely manner. Mr. Byde stated given the current market dynamics additional retailers in the market that are not here have a desire to be in Dublin. :t'fanrtinl] (?oramL~'xitm 34 q-'e6nta~., 24, 2004 ~gufar ~,leetin. q Cm. Machtmes asked since' we are being asked to change the planned use, is there a reason to think that the City will not end up with the same situation in the future to accommodate a WaI- Mart type use in a neighboring parcel. Mr. Byde stated based on the discussions with Alameda County and plans and improvements set forth and the residential development occurring, there is no way big box retail like Wal-Mart could afford to pay for the land value. Any future projects that come in are subject to the plans in place and the Commission and Council's approval of a particular project. Cm. Fasulkey wanted on the record was his concern with the height of the sign and would like to see it stay at 75 feet. Cm. Nassar asked if the Master Sign Program is being requested to be referred to the City Council. Mr. Peabody responded yes. Cm. Machtmes stated he does not agree with .37 miles being greater than what people are willing to walk and so doesn't agree with the proposition that the IKEA parcel is not within walking distance to BART. Comparisons were made to shops in downtown Palo Alto and Walnut Creek, which have shopping districts much longer and people enjoy the walks. If we are going to change the designation then we should do it to create the pedestrian oriented, vibrant environment we all say we want and which Phase 2 acknowledges in a smaller way. He feels it would be a terrible misuse of a piece of property that is closely related to the BART station, and that the IKEA portion does not complement existing and planned neighboring. residential. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Machtmes. It is not consistent with the theory of the original plan in relation to the BART station. It is also going to make the traffic on the freeway worse. It is a beautiful proposal but not for this location. Cm. Nassar stated that he is in favor of the project. Cm. Fasulkey asked Cm. King where is there a better location for the project. Cm. King stated something similar to the Costco location in San Ramon that is not right off the freeway. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Peabody for some direction. Mr. Peabody stated that there are four Planning Commissioners, which will require 3 votes in favor. What is being heard is a 2 to 2 vote. Ms. Faubion suggested that the items be sent to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. :P/an~n'n/] Commixsfim 35 q:e§rua~. 24, 2004 There was much discussion on whether to approve or deny the IKEA project. From the Planning Commission discussion, it was clear there were not enough votes to send a positive recommendation to the City Council because a positive recommendation requires 3 votes. The Planning Commission was okay recommending certification of the SEIR though, so that was the first motion. Motion #1 - On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Nassar, with a 3-1-1 vote with Cm. Machtmes voting no and Cm. Jennings absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE IKEA PROJECT PA 02-034 The Planning Commission asked if they should consider each motion separately. Mr. Peabody suggested that the Planning Commission just deny all the rest of the items rather .than going through them one by one. Some of the Planning Commissioners indicated they didn't want to recommend denial of the project. It was suggested that the Planning Commission act separately on the GPA/SPA item, then they could recommend:denial:on the rest of the items because of inconsistency with the General Plan. Cm. King then asked whether .. this was a way of not denying on the merits; answer was yes, it would not be denying onthe merits. Motion #2 - On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. Fasulkey, by a 2-2-1 vote with Cm. King and Machtmes opposed, with Cm. Jennings absent, the motion failed recommending that the City Council approve the amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Without an approval recommendation on the GPA/SPA, none of the remaining actions could be recommended for approval because they would be inconsistent with the existing general plan and specific plan. The Planning Commission addressed the rest of the actions in a single motion. Motion #3: On motion by the Planning Commissioner's by a 3-0-1-1 vote with Cm. Jennings absent and Cm. Nassar abstaining to recommend denial of the Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans, of the Site Development Review for the IKEA project, of the Master Sign Program, and of the Development Agreement for the IKEA project, and to forward the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting to the City Council. ~?[anni;U Comm£r.~ion 36 :Ft:Sruary 24, 2004 8.2 PA 02-003 Legacy Partners/AMB Properties - West Dublin Transit Village Continued Cm. Fasulkey re-opened the public hearing for item 8.2 Ms. Harbin presented to the Commission the Legacy Partners Transit Village Project (PA 02- 033) Summary of Sources of Traffic Data to address their traffic concerns. Ray Kuzbari presented a section of the Omni Means Traffic Study for the project and addressed the traffic issues the Planning Commission had concern with. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. Machtmes by a vote of 3-1-1 with Cm. King abstaining and Cm. Jennings absent the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 -08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LEGACY PARTNERS/AMB TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT PA 02-003 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) REZONING/STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PA 02-003 LEGACY PARTNERS - WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 8096 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PA 02-003 LEGACY PARTNERS - WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 02-003 WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE :Pfannin~ Commission 37 qrel~rua~. 24, 2004 cRe. gufar'3feetind ATTACHMENT 6 DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SACRAMENTO OFFICE DANIEL L. CARDOZO RICHARDT. DRURY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1225 8th STREET, SUITE 550 THOMAS A. ENSLOW TANYAA. GULESSERIAN 651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4810 MARCD. JOSEPH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 TEL: (916) 444-6201 SUMAPEESAPATI FAX: (916) 444-6209 OF COUNSEL TEL: (650) 589-1660 · THOMAS R. ADAMS FAX: (650) 589-5062 ANN BROADWELL tgulesserian@ad arnsbroadweH.com March 10, 2004 Via Facsimile and By U.S. Mail Ms. Jeri Ram, Planning Manager Planning Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fax (925) 833-6628 Re: West Dublin Transit Village Appeal - City Council Hearing Date Dear Ms. Ram: ' We are writing on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104 and Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342 to inform you that April 20, 2004 is an acceptable date for the City Council to consider our March 4, 2004 appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the West Dublin Transit Village Project.~ By agreeing ~;o this date, we hereby waive the requirement in Government Code Section 66452.5(d) that the hearing shall be held within 30 days after the filing of the appeal. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Please call me if you have ~farther questions. Tanya ~. OulesserJan TAO:bh ce: gohn Bak~er 1 The West Dublin Transit Village Project, proposed by Legacy partners - AMB Property, is located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in the City of Dublin (PA 02-003). 1519-009a ATTACHMENT 7 RESOLUTION NO. - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING APPEAL AND AFFIRMING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-12 (APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) AND FINDING THAT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOS. 04-08, 04-09, 04-11 (RECOMMENDING, RESPECTIVELY, COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PD REZONING AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE) ARE NOT APPEALABLE WHEREAS, AMB Property Corporation has requested approval of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review for a mixed-use transit village project consisting of a maximum of 304 multi-family dwelling units, approximately 1,000 square feet of neighborhood retail space, and approximately 150,500 square feet of office space, surface parking, landscaping and related improvements on approximately 9.06 acres of land within the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area at 6700 Golden Gate Drive, generally located north of the 1-580 freeway and south of the future extension of St. Patrick Way (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant/Developer also applied for a rezoning to a Planned Development District, approval ora Stage 2 Development Plan and a Development Agreement (the "Related Project Approvals"); and WltEREAS, the Applicant/Developer proposes to split the 9.06 acre property into two separate parcels to facilitate development of the land uses and seeks approval of the development plan for the mixed-use project; and WHEREAS, a completed application for the Project and Related Project Approvals is available and on file in the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Project site is in the Dublin downtown area and within the planning area for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan is one of three downtown specific plans approved by the City on December 19, 2000 and intended to improve the appearance, functionality, and economic vitality of the downtown area, particularly in recognition of a planned BART station adjacent to the Project site. (See Resolution 227-00, incorporated herein by reference). The Specific Plan includes permitted land uses, development standards, urban design guidelines, transportation improvements and implementation programs to achieve the City's General Plan goals. The Specific Plan area is intended as a "high-intensity mixed-use area, capitalizing on regional transit linkages provided by both the BART line and supported by nearby freeways, 1-580 and 1-680." (p. 21). Implementation of the Specific Plan explicitly contemplates review of private development plans. (p. 30); and WHEREAS, the effects of implementing the Specific Plan and related general plan amendments were reviewed in a Negative Declaration ("the Prior Negative Declaration"), which was properly circulated for public review and adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000 (See Resolution 226- 00, incorporated herein by reference). In approving the Prior Negative Declaration, the City determined that adoption and implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant effect on the ATTACHMENT 8 environment. The City subSequently rezoned the Project site to PD-Planned Developme~ and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan on June 4, 2002, based on the Prior Negative Declaration. The Prior Negative Declaration is available for review in the Planning Department and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan was prepared as a self-mitigating plan. Upon adoption of a Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and associated amendment to the General Plan in 2000, the City found that the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and associated actions would not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation was incorporated into the Plan as part of the Plan implementation (Resolution 00-227). In this context, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan policies, standards and programs act as mitigations that must be included in subsequent implementing developments, such as the Project and Related Project Approvals. The Project and Related Project Approvals are consistent with and implement the West Dublin BART Specific Plan land uses, policies, standards, guidelines and programs; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated November 6, 2003 for the Project and Related Project Approvals consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and determined that the Project and Related Project Approvals' would not result in any significant adverse impacts. Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared a draft subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162 to examine how the Specific Plan policies, standards and programs were included in the Project and Related Project Approvals, and thus how prior adopted mitigation established in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan would be implemented. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A of Attachment 1 to the Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.1 for the April 20, 2004 meeting and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the draft MND was circulated for public review from November ! 0, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The City received one comment letter on the Project, from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, dated December 2, 2003 ("Comment Letter"). Although not required by CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments in a document entitled "LEGACY PARTNERS - AMB PROPERTY/PA 02-003/Response to Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration From Adams Broadwell et al (December 2, 2003), dated February 10, 2004 ("Responses to Comments"). The Comment Letter and Responses to Comments are attached as Exhibit B to the Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.1 for the April 20, 2004 meeting and incorporated herein by reference. The Comment Letter included a substantial amount of background materials that are on file and available for review in the Planning Department, which materials have been reviewed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Responses to Comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comment letter; and WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the Comment Letter and responses to Comments and determined that no subsequent EIR-level review of the MND was warranted, that the Prior Negative Declaration and the MND adequately identified and analyzed the environmental impacts of the Project and Related Project Approvals, and that the Comment Letter and Responses to Comments did not constitute or require substantial revisions to the MND. On these bases, the City determined that no recirculation of the MND was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and WHEREAS, an Agenda Statement, dated February 24, 2004 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the MND, including comments and responses, and the Project for the Planning Commission and recommended approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and the Site Development Review for PA 02-003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on the Project on February 24, 2004, and proper notice of said hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 04-08, 04-09 and 04-11, recommending that the Council approve the MND, the Planned District rezoning ordinance, and approve a development agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069 and the Site Development Review for PA 02-003 (the Project) on February 24, 2004 by Planning Commission Resolution 04-12, which approvals were contingent upon Council adoption of the Planned District rezoning ordinance for the Project; and WHEREAS, Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.136 provides that Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin Municipal Code provides for appeals of any Planning Commission "requirement, decision or determination" (DMC section 8.136.010) and Section 8.136.020.B specifies that only "actions" of the Planning Commission "on permits" may be appealed tothe Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's approval of Vesting TentatiVe Parcel Map 8069 and the Site Development Review for PA 02-003 on February 24, 2004 was appealed by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on behalf of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104 and the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342 by letter dated March 4, 2004, received on March 4, 2004 ("Appeal"). The stated grounds for the appeal were that an EIR rather than a Mitigated Negative Declaration should have been prepared for the Project and that the City should '..', have Sent the draft MND to the State Clearinghouse and provided a 30-day comment'period; and WHEREAS, proper notice of this hearing on said appeal was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, an Agenda Statement was submitted recommending that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission decision to approve the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069 and the Site Development Review for PA 02-003 on February 24, 2004; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2004, the City Council did hear and consider the March 4, 2004 appeal letter including all attachments, the Agenda Statement for the appeal and all attachments, the Agenda Statement for Agenda Item 6.2 on the April 20, 2004 agenda (related to the Related Project Approvals) and all attachments, all reports, recommendations and testimony provided at or before the close of the public hearing whether orally Or in writing, and exercised their independent judgment to make a decision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does make the following findings and determinations regarding the Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Resolution 04-12 (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 8069 and the Site Development Review for PA 02-003), which findings and determinations are based on (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b) the City of Dublin's General Plan, (c) the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, (d) the 2000 Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, (e) the MND, (f) the Agenda Statement for Agenda Items 6.1 and 6.1 for its April 20, 2004 meeting, including all attachments to said Agenda Statements and received at or before the close of the public hearing. FINDINGS A. Three of the Planning Commission's resolutions that the Appellant has "appealed," Resolution Nos. 04-08, 04-09, 04-11, are not "requirements, decisions or determinations'' of the Planning Commission, nor are they "actions on permits" subject to appeal. Rather, they are recommendations to the City Council. Accordingly, such resolutions are not subject to the appeal. provisions contained in Chapter 8.136 of the Dublin Municipal Code, and only Planning Commission Resolution No. 04-12 is subject to appeal to the City Council. B. Contrary to the grounds stated in the appeal, the City was and is not required to prepare an EIR for the project for the following reasons: 1. The Prior Negative Declaration for the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and the Mitigated NegatiVe Declaration adequately describe the environmental impacts of the Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, no sUbsequent EIR is required for the Project because there is no substantial evidence of changes to the Project or to area circumstances, or of new substantial information showing a new significant impact that was not assumed or analyzed in the prior Negative Declaration. 2. N° Substantial Project Changes. There have been no substantial changes to the Project that were not assumed and analyzed in the Prior Negative Declaration. Changes considered by the Council in the course of the Specific Plan process were incorporated into a revised West Dublin BART Specific Plan ND which was adopted by the City Council on · .: December 19, 2000. The Project is consistent with the mix of uses, density, building ~: ': ~. ~.. heights and other standards reviewed in the Prior Negative Declaration and approved in the previous general plan amendment, specific plan, rezoning and development plan actions. 3. No Substantial Change in Circumstances. There have been no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that were not assumed and analyzed in the Prior Negative Declaration. The Specific Plan and the Prior Negative Declaration planned for change in the area as uses such as the Project site transition to transit oriented development. 4. No New Substantial Information. There has been no new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known that shows the Project will have new significant effects not addressed in the Prior Negative Declaration. Much of the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, contains existing development, with existing impacts. The Prior Negative Declaration analyzed the effects oftransitioning existing developed sites to different uses, including effects on air quality, water quality, hazardous materials, and public services. Furthermore, based on the information existing in 2002, the City determined that no additional environmental review was required when it relied on the Prior Negative Declaration for rezoning the Project site. Two comment letters and related consultant reports (collectively, "comments") on the MND do not constitute new information under section 15162 for the following reasons. First, the comments often rely on information dated prior to the Prior Negative Declaration, or prior to the 2002 rezoning action based on the Prior Negative Declaration, and cannot thus be "new information" under section 15162. Second, the comments often incorrectly assume that the site is vacant and thus use an inappropriate baseline for measuring the potential for impacts. Third, the comments also incorrectly assume there has been no previous CEQA review for the Project. In consequence, the comments incorrectly assert that the fair argument standard applies to CEQA review of the Project rather than the section 15162 standard for subsequent environmental review. Fourth, the comments fail to acknowledge or recognize the information available to the City when it approved the Prior Negative Declaration in 2000 and relied on it again in 2002 to approve the Project site rezoning. Contrary to the grounds stated in the Appeal, the City was not required to circulate the MND to the State Clearinghouse because no State agency is responsible for issuance of permits or approval of entitlements. The RWQCB is not a trustee agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15386. The RWQCB is not a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 as the City has received a RWQCB permit, and the RWQCB has no discretionary authority over the Project. The project is also not considered one of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance requiring State agency review under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15206 as it contains less than 500 housing units (Sec. 15206(b)(2)(A)), and less than 250,000 square feet of office space with less than 1,000 employees (Sec. 15206(b)(2)(C)). NOW, THEREFORE, THE DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL hereby affirms Planning Commission Resolution 04-12, approving the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review for the West Dublin Transit Village project (including all conditions in such resolution) and denies the ~ppeal. The Council further determines that there is no right of appeal from Planning Commission Resolutions 04-08 (recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration), 04-09 (recommending adoption of an ordinance rezoning the property) and 04-12 (recommending approval of a development agreement). ~ ;~ ;' : PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of Dublin, on the 20th day ~of April 2004 bY the following votes: . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk G:\PA#L2002\02-003 Legacy~AppealLadVIB appeal resolution_JDB Revisions. DOC AMB PROPERTY INCORPORATED - WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE LIST OF PROJECT-RELATED STUDIES & INFORMATION (Informational) The following is a list of thc technical studies and information prepared for background and support documents for the AMB Property, Inc. West Dublin BART Transit Village Project: 1) West Dublin BART Specific Plan · Adopted by Dublin City Council on December 19, 2000 2) Negative Declaration for Downtown Specific Plans · Approved by thc Dublin City Council on December 19, 2000 3) West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2000 · Certified by BART Board April 2001 4) Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Legacy Partners/AMB Property, Inc. dated November 6, 2003, and circulated for public review from November 10, 2003 to December 2, 2003. The following studies and reports support the environmental analysis of the Project and are included in Binder, 2 of Attachment 3 of Agenda Item 6.2: · Traffic Reports/Studies - Omni-Means a. Final Report: Transportation and Parking Impacts for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village 5/22/02 b. Focus Trip Generation Rate/Parking Update for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village 5/14/03 · Acoustical Analysis/Report - Charles Salter Associates a. Environmental Noise Study 10/28/02 · Geotechnical Investigation- Treadwell & Rollo a. Preliminary Report 4/8/02 · Hydraulic Analysis- Kier & Wright a. Investigation Letter 5/3/02 b. Dublin Storm Drain Plan (1971) · Will Serve Letter- Dublin/San Ramon Service District 8/27/03 a. Sanitary Sewer Line Upsizing b. Location Map for Potable Water/Fire Lines · Environmental Investigative Reports - Versar a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment b. Documentation for Closure of Underground Storage Tank 1/11/01 · Air Quality Report - Tetra Tech EM Inc. a. Preliminary Letter Report 4/2/04 G52002\02-003X2MMB List of Studieslnfo ATTACHMENT ~ Responses to Late Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration On February 20, 2004, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (Adams Broadwell) submitted a 16- page letter with extensive attachments asserting to contain supplemental comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the AMB project. This submittal was long after the end of the public review and comment period on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as after release of the staff report for the February 24, 2004 Planning Commission hearing on the Project. Adams Broadwell previously submitted extensive comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration by way of a letter, again with extensive attachments, dated DeCember 2, 2003. These comments were submitted within the public review and comment period; although not required to respond to comments on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City prepared written responses in the interest of providing information on the issues raised. Although identified by the commentor as supplemental comments, the February 20, 2004 comments are simply late comments to which the City is not required to respond. However, in the interests of providing information to the public and decisionmakers on the issues raised once again by the commentor, the City has prepared brief responses to the recent comments. No other comments have been received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and no comments from anyone other than Adams Broadwell. The following terminology shall be used for the purposes of these responses: "MND" for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, "Project" for the current AMB project as described in the staff report and elsewhere in the record, "RTC" for the February 10, 2004 matrix containing responses to Adams Broadwell's previous comments. Comment 1. Supplemental comments on the MND should be addressed separately from the December 3, 2003 comments. Response 1. The comments were submitted to the City on February 20, 2004, long after the close of the public comment period on the MND. CEQA does not require written responses to comments on a Mitigated Negative Declaration or to comments submitted after the close of the public review and comment period. Nevertheless, the City is providing brief responses to the issues raised in the late comments for the benefit of the public and the City Council. Comment 2. The City should prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Project because there is a fair argument of potential significant effects on the environment. Response 2. Much of the comment is virtually identical to comments in the December 2, 2003 letter. See RTCs 3, 4, and 5 which explain that the commentor incorrectly applies the fair argument standard to the Project. Instead of the fair argument standard, the Project is subject to the CEQA Guidelines § 15162 standard, i.e., whether the Project will cause any new or more severe significant impacts than identified in the prior CEQA reviews. As noted in the RTC and throughout the record for this Project, substantial evidence supports the City's decision to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the § 15162 standard. Comment 3. Construction exhaust and fugitive dust will cause significant air quality impacts that have not been addressed or mitigated. ATTACHMENT Response 3. See RTCs 14 and 16 which address the City's standard requirement for a construction management plan. The plans must be submitted prior to issuance of a grading permit and must identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) tailored to the Project to control construction emissions. This standard condition is reflected in both the prior Specific Plan Negative Declaration (p. 19) and the Project MND (p. 20). Staff reviewed the consultant's report submitted with the comment letter; however, the report does not consider the effect of the City's standard requirement for construction management plans, which is applicable to all projects, including the AMB project. Staff also reviewed an air quality report submitted by the applicant which addresses construction emissions and concludes that Project construction emissions will be less than significant with the City's standard requirements. (Preliminary Letter Report for the Air Quality Analysis at the West Dublin Transit Village Project, Tetra Tech EM Inc., April 2, 2004, hereafter, "Letter Report", attached as Exhibit A). Upon review of the materials cited above, the City respectfully disagrees with the commentor's consultant and concludes that air quality has been adequately analyzed and that no significant construction air quality impacts will occur with implementation of the standard construction management plan requirements. Comment 4. Operation of the Project will increase air quality emissions because any additional housing will increase emissions. Response 4. The commentor may be confusing the Project site with the adjacent BART property which is vacant. By contrast, the Project site is fully developed and operational with high-volume, high-frequency vehicular and truck traffic, and related high emissions. These existing conditions are the baseline from which the Project impacts are measured. As reflected in tlie prior CEQA reviews and RTC 17, the Project is consistent with applicable air quality plans, and with its transit focus, may contribute to a reduction in emissions. The Project's operational impacts are also compared to the existing operations on a quantitative and qualitative level in the above mentioned Letter Report, which concludes that the Project will not have a significant air quality effect. Upon review of the materials cited above, the City respectfully disagrees with the commentor's consultant and concludes that operational air quality has been adequately analyzed and that no significant air quality impacts will occur with implementation of the Project, and that emissions may well be reduced from current levels. Comment 5. The Project will result in cumulative air quality impacts. Response 5. See RTC 17 which updates the MND discussion of Project compliance with the applicable Clean Air Plan. As reflected in the prior CEQA reviews, RTC 17, and the above mentioned Letter Report, substantial evidence supports the City's conclusion that the Project will not have the potential for a significant contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. Comment 6. The Project requires additional evaluation and monitoring for hazardous materials effects on groundwater. The Project has not submitted a site-specific hydrological report for the proposed underground parking. Response 6. The comment°r attempts to craft an argument from several disparate sources, but mischaracterizes the referenced BART SEIR analysis, ignores the City's standard requirements for geotechnical reporting prior to issuance of grading permits, and ignores the preliminary reports already submitted for the Project. 687665-1 2 BART SEIR. The commentor asserts that the Project MND discounts the survey of reported hazardous materials sites data in the BART Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR was prepared for the adjacent BART property; its survey identifies many hazardous 'materials sites within the vicinity of that property. Contrary to the suggestion in the comment, 6700 Golden Gate Drive, the Project site, is among the remediated sites. (Draft SEIR pp. 4.7-5, -6). After Phase A and Phase B Preliminary Site Assessments, the Draft SEIR determined that no field sampling was required for the Project site. (Draft SEIR pp. 4.7~8 to -10). Similarly, Impact 4.7-1 did not identify potentially Significant impacts for the remediated sites, such as the Project site. (Draft SEIR pp. 4.7-12, -13). Instead, it identified potential impacts only for the sites for which pollution characterization had not been Completed.~ The related mitigation measure required field sampling, which the analysis had specified was not required for the Project site. As further noted in the Project MND, a site-specific Phase 1 Environmental Assessment to determine the extent of soil and groundwater contamination on the site found no measurable contaminants. The Draft SEIR, the Project MND and studies submitted for the Project support the City's determination that no further analysis is required for potential hazardous materials impacts. Geotechnical Testing. The commentor reiterates prior comments regarding a statement in the Project MND that a hydrological report had been prepared. Response to Comment 21 clarifies staff's erroneous advice on this matter; however, it also clarifies the reports submitted by the Project in compliance with the Specific Plan ND. Groundwater levels in the area of the proposed below grade parking are addressed in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the Project, as cited in RTC 21. The prior and current Project environmental reviews, the BART SEIR, and the Project plans and reports and other materials in the record support the City's determination that Project has complied with the Specific Plan ND requirements. The City's Public Works staff has reviewed the report from the commentor's consultant and the reports submitted by the Project and other related materials in the record, and respectfully disagrees with the commentor's consultant that additional CEQA review is required. Comment 7. Even with a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), the Project may exceed applicable Basin Plan water quality limits. The Project may cause significant water quality impacts from pesticides and increased traffic. Response 7. See RTCs 22 and 23 regarding the City as permittee under the Clean Water Act, and the City's standard requirements to ensure compliance with its water quality permits. Project- ~ The commentor states that the City admits groundwater contamination is a potentially significant impact in this area, then refers to discussion in the Initial Study for the BART SEIR. (p. 8, third full paragraph). First, the SEIR was prepared for and certified by BART, not the City. The City was a responsible agency under CEQA. Second, statements like the referenced one in an Initial Study are not conclusions. In the CEQA process, the Initial Study for an EIR identifies subjects to be further addressed in the EIR (or SEIR, in the case of the BART project). The potential for contamination was in fact further addressed in the SEIR, which ~found no potential for significant impacts on the Project site, as described above. 687665-1 3 specific SWPPPs allow a particular project to tailor a pollution prevention program to that project. As reflected in RTC 22, the City identifies certain minimum measures; additional measures may be included in a program as necessary and effective to attain compliance with water quality standards. The City's Public Works staff reviews proposed SWPPPs to ensure compliance with applicable standards. See also RTCs 23 and 24, which address the relationship between pesticide management, pollution from Project traffic, and the City's water quality permits. The City also notes that none of the issues raised in this, or any other of the commentor's letters, is a new issue that was not, or could not have been raised at the numerous previous hearings and approvals related to the Project. Many of the issues are long-standing, well-recognized issues, common to land development. Some of the issues, like water quality, often involve the City as a permittee as well as a regulator. The City's regulatory process, in turn, is designed to ensure that development projects, and thus the City, comply with applicable federal and state standards. Comment 8. There is no evidence that water, sewer and storm drain services are adequate. Response 8. The Specific Plan, the Specific Plan ND, and the Project MND all anticipated development of the type and extent proposed by the Project; the Project does not include any application to change the General Plan or Specific Plan to increase previously planned density. The City is in receipt of a letter dated August 27, 2003 from the Dublin San Ramon Services District, which states that existing sewer mains cannot accept additional sewer discharges from any expanded use on the site. In addition, the letter states that the water lines in the project area may also need to be extended or upsized depending on the fire flow requirements and final configuration of the project. Consequently, project infrastructure designs have incorporated both sewer and water improvements necessary for the successful service of the project. Like any development project, the Project is required to construct the improvements necessary to provide service to it, as reflected in the City's standard conditions of approval, tn this case, the deVeloper is not only providing utility, roadway and other required improvements, but is also providing roadway improvements above and beyond those necessary for the Project pursuant to the development agreement negotiated between the City and the developer, as described in the staff reports. Comment 9. The Project has numerous significant impacts which are not mitigated to a level of insignificance. Response 9. For discussion of diesel exhaust, construction and operational emissions, see RTC 14, 16, 17, 18, and Responses 3 and 4 above (including the referenced Letter Report). For discussion of water quality, see RTC 21, 22, 23, and Responses 6 and 7 above. The Project MND reflects the requirements and intent of a SWPPP that continue to apply with this Project approval; the City's standard development conditions require that detailed measures included in the SWPPP be identified and approved prior to grading permits. Comment '/0. The City should prepare an EIR to address the impacts identified by the commentor. Response 10. No subsequent EIR is required for this Project. The commentor consistently fails to recognize the prior CEQA reviews and land use.approvals related to the Project, and the role of adopted City standards and conditions in the CEQA process. While this may the commentor's first 687665-1 4 review of the Project, it has been before the City and the public in various stages of planning, review, and approval since at least 2000. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan was intended to be a self-mitigating plan, whereby "mitigating" plans, programs and improvements were included in the document itself. Further, the Specific Plan was adopted as the Stage 1 Development Plan in 2002 when the Project site was rezoned to PD-Planned Development. (Ordinance 10-02, June 18, 2002). As such, it is a regulatory document whose requirements apply to all projects within the PD district, including the Project. Similarly, other City standard requirements and standard conditions of approval apply to the Project as well. To the extent that standard requirements apply to a project, address environmental issues reflected in the CEQA environmental checklist, and resolve those issues, separate mitigation measures need not be identified in subsequent environmental reviews. City staff from various departments have reviewed the Project applications, commentor's comments on the MND, these late comments, and all accompanying consultant reports. After such review, staff have not identified any necessary mitigation measures beyond adopted City standards and those previously established through incorporation in the Specific Plan. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15162, the previous Specific Plan ND and the subsequent MND for the Project are adequate to describe and analyze the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The commentor also consistently fails to recognize that the Project site is fully developed and operational. Many of the comments state or assume that the Project site is vacant. It is not. To the extent that the potential for significant environmental impacts is measured against the existing conditions of the site, many of the commentor's assertions regarding potential impacts are simply incorrect because they are founded on incorrect assumptions. Attachments ~... Exhibit A: Preliminary Letter Report for the Air Quality Analysis at the West Dublin Transit Village r ..... · Project, Tetra Tech EM Inc.., April 2, 2004 687665-1 5 Tetra Tech EM Inc. 135 Main Street, Suite 1800 * San Francisco, CA 94105 * (415) 543-4880 * FAX (415) 543-5480' April 2, 2004 Mr. Luis Belmonte Executive Vice President AMB Property Corporation Pier 1, Bay i San Francisco, CA 94111 Subject: Preliminary Letter Report for the Air Quality Analysis at the West Dublin Transit Village Project Dear Mr. Belmonte: In response to your request, this letter presents the results of Tetra Tech EM Inc.'s (TtEMI) air quality analysis for AMB's West Dublin Transit Village Project. This work is related to the development ora new mixed use residential and commercial development (Project) on the site that is currently referred to as the Cor-O-Van warehouse at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Dublin, California. The primary focus of the analysis is (I) comparing the air emissions from the existing trucking warehouse operations (the baseline for the purpose of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis) with the future operations of the Project, and (2) reviewing and analyzing the level of significance that air emissions during the construction phase of the Project will have on the surrounding environment. Comparison of Existing (Baseline) Air Emissions and Future Project Air Emissions A large Commercial warehouse currently occupies the site identified for development. This warehouse, referred to as the Cor-O-Van site, currently has several tenants and four primary sources of air emissions. These four emissions sources are (1) the idling heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDD) utilizing the 19 loading docks on the north side of the warehouse, (2) the large air emissions vents on the west side of the building, (3) the mobile traffic sources in and around the facility and (4) stationary air emissions related to on-going warehouse operations. Based on preliminary emissions estimates, the idling HDD vehicles utilizing the 19 loading docks constitute a large source of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions. Based upon our on-site observations at the warehouse, HDD vehicles spend a significant portion of time idling adjacent to the warehouse prior to actually utilizing the loading docks. This is a common industry practice. DPM is a complex mixture of fine particulate that contains 47 identified Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) such as benzene, arsenic, formaldehyde and cyanide compounds (CARB/OEHHA 2002) and is currently the most significant air pollutant in terms of human health risk due to exposure in the State of California (CARB 2000). Other emissions generated by idling vehicles include Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Both of these pollutants are ozone pre-cursors because they contribute to "smog" or ground-level ozone through secondary photochemical reactions. Idling vehicles produce significantly more pollution than accelerating vehicles as the engines are operating at less efficient combustion rates than during normal operations. Also, due to atmospheric phenomena, idling vehicle emissions do not mix well vertically into the atmosphere in the same way as air emissions from moving vehicles. Because of this reduction in atmospheric mixing, greater emissions result from idling vehicles than from moving vehicles. Consequently, sensitive receptors such as individuals at residences, schools and commercial operations are exposed to higher levels of toxic emissions with idling vehicles. contains recycted fiber and is recyclable April 2, 2004 Page { PAGE } of 4 The Airborne Express facility currently oPerating on the west side of the Cor-O-Van site is a large volume throughput airmail and freight operations. The on-site fleet consists of 8 HDD straight track/tractor trailer vehicles and 77 small vans'operating six days per week. 400 track departures occurred over a recent five- day period with 1,540 departUres occurring over a recent twenty-day period (Airborne Express 2004). The mobile source emissions from the high frequency of vehicle departures is enhanced by the high Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as Airborne Express tracks and vans service all parts of the San Francisco Bay Area. The Project would replace the existing Cor-O-Van warehouse operations with approximately 308 multifamily units, 175,000 square feet of below ground parking and retail space and 150,000 square feet of general office space. Primary air emissions from the Project would be automobile and small track traffic from the residential and commercial activities. HDD idling would be almost completely eliminated based on the new land use scenario. The estimated Project trip generation would be 2,157 daily trips with 251 AM peak trips and 278 PM peak hour trips (Omni-Means 2003). Previously completed air quality studies focused on the increase of localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) concentrations near roadways and in the proposed underground parking structures using earlier traffic estimates. Based on mobile source traffic and air quality modeling (CALINE4 and CAL3QHC) for the Project, the increase in CO would be below both the 1-hour and 8-hour CO thresholds (EDAW 2000) and not considered a significant environmental impact. Emission of other ozone pre-cursor pollutants such as NOx and ROG varies based upon the future vehicle fleet mix for the residents and workers at the Project and the BART patrons. The proximity of the Project site to the future West Dublin BART station may result in a regional net reduction in the ozone pre-cursor air emissions due to Project residents and workers traveling by BART instead of by automobiles. / On a qualitative level, the net emissions from the two different land use scenarios, the existing warehouse and the Project, are characteristically quite different. While the overall number of trips to and from the area will likely increase with the Project, the net toxic emissions from each trip and other operations activities on the local and regional air quality will be reduced. California's Clean Fuels program ensures that the most clean burning gasoline in the United States will be utilized in all the vehicles traveling to and from the Project. The co-location of a BART station will also significantly reduce both the frequency of trips and the VMT for trips into and out of the Project area. FinalIy, the type of exhaust emitted from the HDDs and the larger gasoline-using vehicles in the existing warehouse land use has a much greater negative impact on the local and regional air quality from a toxics standpoint when compared to the Project. DPM is a known carcinogen and the current activities, particularly vehicle idling, are greater contributors to human health impacts on local sensitive human receptors than are smaller vehicles traveling to and from the site. In summary, the development of the Project will result in a net reduction in toxic air emissions, which will have a positive effect on local and regional ail' quality. Potential Air Emissions During the Construction Phase of the Project There are two air pollutants of primary concern that will arise during the construction phase of the Project. These two pollutants are the short-term DPM emissions due to HDD vehicles utilized for construction and fugitive dust emissions, specifically the PM 10 (that is, particulate matter less than I0 microns in diameter) fraction, that will be released to the atmosphere due to construction activities and exposed soils. Other short-term emissions would includeNOx, ROG, and CO due to construction vehicle operations. Mr. Luis Belmonte April 2, 2004 Page { PAGE } of 4 As discussed previously, DPM emissions have been identified as a significant source of TACs by the CARB (CARB 2000). From a human health prospective the major concern is exposure over a long duration to these TACs. Because the construction phase of the Project is short term by nature, the exposure duration will not create an exposure scenario that leads to significant human health impacts on local sensitive human receptors. It should also be noted that once the construction phase is completed, DPM emissions will be almost completely eliminated because of the elimination of the loading docks and the HDD idling sources. The mitigation measures set forth in the City of Dubliffs conditions of approval for the Project will reduce air quality impacts from the Project to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures include requiring the construction of the Project to conform to a Construction Impact Reduction Plan. The Plan requires, in part, that no construction equipment be left idling when not in use, the watering of the construction site at regular intervals during all grading activity, and the prompt replanting or repaving of all exposed surfaces. In summary, the Project will provide a net reduction in DPM emissions and the construction-related PM10 emissions will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the required construction impact plans. Conclusions The development of a "transit village" is consistent with state and local governments' environmental goals to reduce VMT and provide "jobs-housing balance". Specifically, the Project meets the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan requirement that development be transit-friendly (BAAQMD 2000). By co-locating residential and commercial land-uses with a new BART station, the Project may result in a net reduction in regional air pollution. With the transformation of the area from an industrial/commercial land use that is accessible exclusively by highways and surface streets to a mixed residential/business office/retail land use that is accessible by public transportation, the Project will reduce the level of TAC emissions from the HDD idling sources. The elimination of these high impact pollution sources will have a net positive impact on local human health. Construction related emissions will be mitigated to a less than significant level due to required mitigation measures. Local receptors such as schools, businesses and residences wilt encounter fewer emissions from the Project than from the current warehouse operations. In conclusion, with ,the development of the Project there will clearly be a reduction in local toxic air emissions and there may also be a net benefit to the overall regional air quality. If you have any questions regarding this analysis please contact me at (415) 222-8309. Best regards, Chris Easter Environmental Scientist Mr. Luis Belmonte April 2, 2004 Page { PAGE } of 4 References Airborne Express 2004, "Technical Memorandum on Tracking Volume", March 10. Bay Area Air quality Management District (BAAQMD) 1999, "BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines", December 1999. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (CARB/OEHHA) 2002. "Executive Summary for the Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant". April 22 1998, revised 2002. California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2000, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles." October. City of Dublin 2003, "Mitigated Negative Declaration for West Dublin Transit Village", November 6. EDAW 2000, "Draf~ Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project" November. Omni-Means 2003, "Focused Trip Generation Analysis/Parking Update for the Proposed Dublin Transit Village" George Nickelson, P.E. May 14. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village Project SCH 2000042058 NOve~7]ber 2000 4.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 4.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The discussion of public health and safety issues within the project area was developed through a review of existing environmental records to identify agency listings of sources of hazardous materials which . might affect the project area as well as a review of the ?reKminary Site Assessments conducted on the project site (Bechtel Environmental, ][nc., 1990 and 1991). GENERAL GEOLOGIC AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS The proposed project is loCated in the Amador Valley region of northern Alameda County, within the California Coast Ranges PhysiograPhic Province. The project area comists of deep, geologically recent alluvial deposits containing gravel, sand, silt, and day. The reported depth to the water table is in' the range of 8 to 19 feet (Bechtel Environmental, Inc., I990). Groundwater occurs at depths as shallow as~8 feet I-Iistotically, groundwater flows within the Dublin/Pleasanton area have been in a south to southwest direction, although a review of some groundwater reports indicates a flow to the east (Bechtel Environmental, Inc., 1990). RL'VIEW OF ENVIRO~AL DATABASES AND REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS' 3, database search was conducted on May 9, 2000, for known sites with potential or existing hazardous materials within a 1.25 mile radius of the center of the project site 0rlSTAinfo). The databases are based on records kept by federal, state, and local agencies that are responsible for recording incidents of contamination and permitting transfer, storage, or disposal facilities that handle hazardous materials. Individual sites can occur on several lists and are sometimes repeated under different names. B_ summary of the primary listings is presented below. National Priorities List of Superftmd Sites Thc National Priorities List of Superfund Sites (NI~L) is thc U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) database of hazardous waste sites currendy identified and targeted for deanup action under the Superfund Program. The lqPL database was last updated in January 2000. A search of the National Priorities List identified no Superfund sites within the search radius of 1.25 miles from the central Donjon of the project arm. . San Francisco Bat' Area Rapid Trensil Distrid EDAW West Dublin/Pleasonton BART Station anti Transit Village 4.7d Public Health and Safely Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System I Mandated as part of the 1980 Superfund Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Ixfformafion System (CERCLIS) database is an EPA compilation of sites identified as known or suspect abandoned, inactive, or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that may require cleanup. A search of the CERCLIS database, which was last updated in October 1999, identified one site within the search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project site. The following kfi:ation was listed: · 7035 Commerce Circle (Pleasanton), Nudepore Corporation. Further information on the above site was provided by the regional leaking underground storage tank information system (LUSTIS) database, which is discussed below. Emergency Response Notification System The Emergency Response Notification System CERNS) is an EPA database of reported releases of oil and other hazardous substances. A search of the ERNS database, which was last updated in August 1999, identified one site within the search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project site. The following location was listed: · 6900 Amador Plaza Road (Dublin), Montgomery Ward. The above site is located approximately 0.23 mile north of the central portion of the project site. According to the information presented in the ERNS database, 12,500 gallons of unleaded gasoline were spilled on November 25, 1988. No information is available pertaining to the extent of contamination at this site. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RC1LIS) is an EPA database which includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Identification · on this list does not necessarily indicate that a violation of a hazardous waste regulation has occurred. Thc RCRIS database was last updated in December 1999. A search of the RCRIS database identified ten sites within the search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project site that are registered under RCRA as small generators of hazardous waste. KCRA small generators are facilities EDAW San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Public Health and Safely 4.7-2 West Dublin/Pleosanton BART Station and Transit Village that generate less than 1,000 kg per month of non-acutely hazardous wastes. The following locadons were Listed: · 1388 Stoneridge Mall (Pleasanton), Expressly Portraits, Inc. · 6401 Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Gallucd Body and Paint · 6429 Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Dublin Auto · 7100 Regional St (Dublin), Grand Auto, Inc. · 7544 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Crown Chevrolet · 6956 Amador Plaza Blvd (Dublin), Martinizing Dry Cleaning · 5940 Stoneridge Mall ]Kd (Pleasanton), Stoneridgc Motor, Inc. · 7192 Regional St (Dublin), Wolf Camera No. 989 · 7201 Kcgional St (Dublin), Rim Aid No. 5936 · 7099 Amador Plaza Blvd (Dublin), Dublin Honda None of the above sites, are 3/8 project site, are which located less mile from the curivmfly undergoing "corrective actions." A "corrective action ordeal' is issued pursuant to RCRA Section 3008 (h) in the event ora release of hazardous waste or constituents into thc environment from a RCRA fadlity. Review of Cali~ :m ~ Environmental Data ' GAL-SITES Database The CAL-S1TES database is compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cai-EPA) and includes known and potent/al hazardous waste sites as well as sites targeted for dean-up. A search of the CAL-S1TES database, which was last updated in OCtober 1999, identified one location within a search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project area. The following location was · 2035 Commerce Cirde (Pleasanton), Nudepore Corporation. The above site, which is located approximately east projeCt a O.7 mile of the site, former ap. null[ workplan site and has subsequently been referred to the ]Kegional Water Quality Control Board. lqo additional information is available. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Distrid EDAW Wwa Oubtin/Pleasan~on BART Station and Transi! Village 4.7-3 Public Health and Safety COl~TESE Database The CORTESE database is compiled by Cai-EPA and the Office of Environmental Protectior~ Office of Hazardous Materials, and identifies potential and confirmed hazardous waste Sites throughout the State of California pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. These hazardous waste sites indude public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with known underground storage tanks (USTs) having a reportable release, and solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration. The CORTESE database was last updated in April 1998. A search of the CORTESE database identified thirteen sites within a Search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project site. The following locations were listed: · 6900 Amador Plaza (Dublin), Montgomery'Ward · · 7007 San Ramon Valley (Dublin), Chevron ~95542 · 7240 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Chevron #92582 · 6300 Clark (Dublin), Lucky Stores · 7850 Amador Valley Bird (Dublin), Unocal ° 7840 Amador Valley Bhrd (Dublin), Exxon · 6973 Village Parkway (Dublin), Corwood Car Wash : · 7400 Amador Valley Blvd (Dublin), Dodge Property · 7375 Amador Valley Blvd (Dublin), Unocal · 6207 Sierra Ct (Dublin), Old Herald News Building · 7194 Village Parkway (Dublin), Oil Changers #301 · 7191 Village Parkway (Dublin), BP Oil Facility #11116 l:urther information on most'of thc above sites was provided by the ieaking underground storage tank information system (LUSTIS) database, which is discussed below. In addition, the CORTESE database indicated that the Montgomery Ward incident consisted of a leaking gasoline tank; however, this site was not listed in the LuSTIs database. No additional information regarding this inddent was provided except that a leak monitoring system is currendy present at the site in order to detect the presence of future gasoline leaks. Toxic Pit List ,. Thc Toxic ]?it database is compiled by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and identifies sites which are subject to the Toxic ]?it Cleanup Act. The database contains sites suspected EDAW Son Fmndsm Boy Area Rapid Tronsil Oislrkl Publk Health and Safely 4.7-4 West Dublin/~eosanton BART Slolion ami Transit Village of hazardous substances where has been A search of the Toxic Pit containing cleanup not completed. database, which was last updated in February 1995, identified no sites within a search radius of 1.25 miles from the central portion of the project area. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System Database The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUSTIS) database is compiled by the ' SWRCB and contains an inventory of reported leaking underground storage (LUSTs) statewide. A search of the LUSTIS database, which was last updated in lanuary 2000, identified 24 leaking tanks (three repeats) within a search radius of 1.25 miles. Of the reported leaking tanks, 12 were also listed on the COKTESE database, although two of these sites were listed with differing addresses. The following locations were listed: · 6700 Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Bedford Properties ! · 6850 Regional St (Dublin), Transamerica Tide Company · 7575 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Montgomery Ward I~ · 7499 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), ShamrOck:_ Ford " · 7420 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Chevron #92582 · 7007 San Ramon Kd (Dublin),Chevron #95542 o 7099 Amador Plaza 'Rd (Dublin), Dublin Honda - 6300 Clark (Dublin), Lucky Stores ' . · 7850 Amador Valley Blvd (Dublin), Unocal · 7840 Amador Valley Bird (Dublin), Exxon · '6841 Village Parkway (Dublin), Continental Baking Company · 6973 Village Parkway (Dublin), Corwood Car Wash · 7667 Amador Valley Blvd (Dublin), Amador Valley Medical Clinic · 7608 Amador Valley Blvd (Dublin), Target · 11555 .Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Hexel · 7400 Amador Valley Blvd (Dublin), Dutch Pride Dairy · 7375 Amador Valley P.d (Dublin) Unocal · 6207 Sierra Ct (Dublin), Old Herald Hews Building · 70~3 Commerce (Pleasanton), Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. · 7194 Village Parkway 0)ublin), Oil Changers #301 · 7197 Village Parkway (Dublin), BP Oil Facility # 11116 According to the LUSTIS dambase,.remediafion of 14 of these mci&nm has aIready been completed, and the cases have consequently been closed. The incidents occurring at the BP Oil Facility #11116 San Francisco Boy Area Rapid Transit Distrid EDAW j West Dublin/Ple°Sant°n BART station end Transil Vi]loDe 4.74 Public Health and SaTet'f and the Chevron Station #92582 are currently undergoing pollution characterization studies to determine the extent of contamination at the site. In both of the aforementioned incidents, groundwater has been affected; however, no additional information was available. The incidents occurring at Oil Changers #301 and Unocal (7850 Amador Valley) both involved gasoline leaks and Prelim/nary Site Assessments (PS/ks) are currently underway at both locations. The Chevron #95542 inddent consisted of gasoline leaks, and a remediation plan is currently being devdoped. The Lucky Store incident consisted of gasoline leaks affecting soil only. Information provided in the LUSTIS database indicates that the gasoline leaks are currently being confirmed on-site; therefore, no enforcement has been taken as o£yet for the Lucky Store incident. The Hexel incident involved leaks of miscellaneous motor vehicle fuels, and the storage tank on the site has subsequently been dosed. No additional information was available. Under~ound Storage Tanks Database The Underground Storage Tanks Database (UST) database is compiled by the SWRGB and lists registered underground storage tanks. USTs are regulated under Subtitle 1 of RCRA. Identification on this list does not necessarily indicate that a hazardous waste incident or release has occurred. The UST database was last updated in Ianuary I994..A search of the LIST database identified 18 (three repeats) underground storage tanks sites within a 0.5 m/de radius from the central portion of the project area. Of these sites, 9 are listed on the LUSTIS database as leaking tanks. The following locations were listed: · 1500 Stoneridge Mall (Pleasanton), lC Penney Store #389 · 6511 Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Intemational Clinical Laboratory · 6511 Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Micro Bio Science · 6700 Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Unisource Corporation · 7100 Regional St (Dublin), Grand Auto, Inc. · 7544 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Crown Chevrolet · 7575 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Montgomery Ward · 7499 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Shamrock Ford · 6900 Amador Plaza (Dublin), Montgomery Ward · 7420 Dublin Bird (Dublin), Ghevron #92582 · 7007 San tLamon Valley (Dublin), Chevron #95542 · 7240 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Dublin Auto Wash · 7099 Amador Plaza Rd (Dublin), Dublin Honda · 6300 Clark Ave (Dublin), American Stores Company Data Center · 11599 Dublin Bird (Pleasanton), Cop Canyon Meadows Booster EDAW San Frandsco Bay Area Rapid Transit District PUblic Health and Safely 4.7-6 West Dublin/Pieasanton BART Station and Transit Village As previously noted, all of these registered USTs are located less than 0,5 mile from the central pardon oft_he project site. Of these sites, 13 are located within 3/8 (0.375) mile from the project site. The registered UST in closest proxirn/ty to the proposed project site is located at the JC Penney Store #389, approximately 0.12 miles southeast of the central portion of the project area. Keview of LocMly ~orted ~nvironmental Data San Francisco Bay Fuel Leaks List The San Francisco Bay Fuel Leaks List (SFBFL) is compiled by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Region #2 (San Francisco Bay) and identifies incidents of fuel leaks wiflain its jurisdiction. A search of the SFBFL database, which was last updated in January 2000, identified 26 leaking tanks (threc repeats) within a search radius of 1.25 miles. 21 of these reported fuel leaks were also listed in the LUSTI$ database as state leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) and discussed above. Therefore, this discussion will focus on the two remaining regional LUSTs located at the i' following sites: · 7544 Dublin Blvd (Dublin), Crown Chevrolet · 7035 Commerce Cir (Dublin), Nudepore Corporation The Crown Chevrolet incident consisted of leaks of miscellaneous motor vehicle fuels, and.the storage tank has subsequently been dosed. The Nudepore Corporation inddent also Evolved leaks of miscellaneous motor vehide fuels for which no enforcement action has been taken as of yet. The Nudepore incident is currently an active case of the'San Francisc° Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. No additional information was available for either listed site. Review of Technical Documents for the DPX Project A Geology/Seismology and Hazardous Materials Technical Report was prepared for the DPX Project by Woodward-Clyde Consultants in September 1989. The Hazardous Materials section of this report focused on the results of a visual site inspection of the DPX project area, including the project site and a search of readily available agency records at the EPA, the State Del:r, uu~ent of Health Services (DHS), and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Based on information provided by the database searches for the Geology/Seismology and Hazardous Materials Technical Report, the following locations within the project vicinity were identified as potential sites of concern for hazardous material contamination: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transil District EDAW West Dublin/Pleosanlon BART Station and Transit Village 4.7-1 Public Heahh and Safety · 6401 Golden Gate Dr (Dublin), Gallucci Body and Paint · 7544 Dublin Bird (Dublin), Crown Chevrolet · 6850 Regional St (Dublin), TranSamerica Tide Company The Hazardous Materials Technical Report concluded that further investigation was required to defme the areas of contamination and determine means of avoiding, containing, or cleaning up these sites prior to commencement of construction activities. This report recommended the completion of a Preliminary Site Assessment for the DPX project. Review of Preliminary Site Assessments for the DPX Proje. ct Phase ~t Preliminary Site Assessment Based on recommendations of the Hazardous Materials Technical' Report for the DPX EIR, a Phase A Preliminary Site Assessment was completed for the DPX Project by Bechtel Environmental, Inc. in December 1990. This report focused on the collection and evaluation of information or* past operatiom within the project area involving hazardous materials, which may have contaminated a site and would therefore pose a potential hazard to human health or the environment. Upon further review of agency records and more-detailed visual site inspections, thc following locations near the vicinity of the project site were found to pose a potential human health or enviromnental hazard related to hazardous material contamination: · ''~ · · The corridor adjacent to the Hexel property on Dublin Boulevard west of Donlan Boulevard in Dublin; · North parking lot (currently referred to as ~)ublin parcd") in the following areas: Unisource Warehouse parcel; north end of lot near Crown Chevrolet at 7544 Dublin Blvd and Montgomery Ward at 7575 Dublin Bird; and east end of lot adjacent to Gateway Plaza auto shops and Enea Business Park; · North of 1-580/I-680 interchange in Dublin near the Chevron Station at 7420 Dublin Boulevard and Lucky Stores at 6300 Clark Avenue; · .South of 1-580/I-680 interchange in Pleasanton near Nuclei)ore Corporation at 7035 Commerce Circle. Thc Montgomery Ward site was of primary concern within this section of the DPX Project area. Lealdng underground storage tanks were reported in November I983 at this auto maintenance/gasoline dispensing facility located within 0.25 mile north of the proposed project site. The tanks have El)AW San Francisco Bay A~ea Rapid Transil District Publk Health and Sa~e~y ,[1-8 West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village subsequently been removed and the gasoline dispensing operation has ceased, thereby r~emoving the source of contamination. However, soil contamination was obserVed to a depth of 20 feet from the surface, 'Contamination also identified in the located at 8 to 12 feet from the surface. groundwater was Bechtel Environmental, Inc. concluded that there is a potential for groundwater migration of contaminants toward the project site. However, the VISTAinfo report conducted for the project site indicated that remediafion of the Montgomery Ward site has been completed, and it is no longer an active case of the SWRCB. Information for the remaining sites was not available for review. Based on the findings of the Phase A Site Assessment, sufficient evidence was prevalent to recommend Phase B Sire 2~sessmenr for selected of within the D?X area. This Phase B Site COI'IC~"I project Assessment would further define areas of potential contamination that could be encountered during excavation and construction activities for the DPX project. Phase B Site Assessment A I>hase B Site Assessment was prepared for the DPX Project by Bechtel Environmental, Inc. in April 1991. The main objective of the Phase B Site Assessment was to fil~li?.e a list of sites recommended for the fidd ~mpling and tinting program, rl~ough which the p~ or absence of contaminated soil or groundwater within the DPX Project area would be confirmed. Based on the results of ~ assessment, the following sites located within the vicinity of the proposed West Dublin/Pleasanton BUT Scation and Transit Village were recommended for monitoring and/or field sampling prior to the commencement of project-related construction activities: · Undeveloped parcel at south end of Golden Gate Drive in Dublin · Area north and east of the Dublin parcel, adjacent to auto shops on Golden Gate Drive, Enea Retail Plaza Business Center, and the Smith-Kline Labs (now the Micro Bio Science Laboratory) La addition, the Phase B Site Assessment recommended that some lower priority sims within the DPX Project area undergo monitoring during consm/cfion activities. Field sampling of potential soil or groundwater contamination was not necess:/ry for these locations, but Bechtel Environmental, Inc. concluded that past operations at these sites involving hazardous wastes warranted monitoring during construction activities. The following is a list of sites recommended for construction monitoring near proposed project the site: San F, mn(Jsco Boy Area gQpid Tronsil Dislrid EDAW West DublinlPleosunton BAI~T StQlion ond Tronsit VilloDe 4.7-9 Public Heolth end Sofely · 7544 Dublin Boulevard (Dublin), Crown Chewolet · Golden Gate Drive (Dublin), Unisource Warehouse (now Car-O-Van Warehouse) · 6511 Golden Gate Drive (Dublin), Smith-Kline Laboratory (now Quest Diagnostics) RELEVANT GENERAL PLAN POLiCiES AND PROGRAMS City of Dublin The following City of Dublin General Plan Seismic Safety and Safety Policies are relevant to the discussion of public health and safety:. Policy 8.2.4-A: Maintain and enhance ability to regulate use, t~ansport, and storage of hazardous materials and to quicldy identify substances and take appropriate action during emergencies. l~olicy 8.2.4-B: Implement the Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, when it is approved by the State. ' Policy 8,2.4-C: Adopt an ordinance to regulate handling, transporg and storage of hazardous. materials and hazardous waste. City of Pleasanton · The fo~owi~§ C/~ of Ykasanton Gcner~ P~an ?u~li¢ $~fe~ and ~ Q~_~ ~, potties, and programs are relevant to the discussion of public health and safety: Policy 5: Review proposed projects for their potential to generate hazardous air pollutants. Program 5.1: Include the Fire Department's hazardous materials spedalist in staff review procedures for proposed land uses which may handle, store, or transport lead, mercury, vinyl chloride, benzene, asbestos, beryllium, and other hazardous materials. Program 5.2: Require uses which utiliTe hazardous materials to submit emergency response plans for Possible spills, leaks, or other accidental emissions ofhazardom materials. EDAW San Fraadsco Bay ArBa Ral~d Transit District public Heallh and Safety 4.7-10 West Dub[in/P|easanton BART Sratinn and Transit Village Program 5.3: Update and implement the City's' hazardous materials response program for accidental emissions of hazardous materials. Goal 5: To minimize the risks to life and property due to potential exposure to hazardous materials. Policy 16: Regulate the transportation, del/very, use, and storage of hazardous materials within the City limits. Program 16.1: Enforce the provisions of the City's Hazardous Materials Storage Permit Ordinance. Program 16.3: Expand thc Fire Deparmxent's automated data system to speed identification of hazardous materials and users in the event of an emergency. Policy 17: Ensure that hazardous materials and potential contamination are remediated prior to development. Program 17. I: Require a site-specific soils report for new development where there is a history of prior industrial or agricultural land use activities. 4.7.2 ENVlRO~TAL IMPACTS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project would have a significant impact on public health and safety if it would: · Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving thc release of hazardous materials into the environment; or · Be located on a site which is induded on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government C°de Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; Son FronfisCO Boy Arno Rnpid Trnnsil District EDAW West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and lronsil Village 4.7-11 Public Health and Safely PROJECT IMPACTS Impact materials contamination. P~ject co~st~o~ co~d potenffally e~ose cons~o~ workers a~d se~siti~e recepto~ to hazardous mate~als i~ ~e area. Site residents an~ hotel occupan~ couM also be e~osed to soil co~tam~an~, ~ iden~ed and unidenb~ed, in ~e pmje~ ~dni~. This would ~ conside~d a potenff~ly significant ~pa~. M~fiplc sit~ l~md ~ ~e ~ of ~e pro~sed proj~ have ~e potenfi~ ~ con--ate ~e so~ or sh~ow ~o~dwatcr M ~e 1~ area. M~ou~ most of ~e re~n~ le~g ~der~omd smra~ ~ ~ M ~e LUgS dan~ ha~ ~en reme~ated, po]ufion ~a~e~fion h~ y~ to ~ complet~ at some sit~ wi~ close pro~ to ~e project site. For ~ple, ~e ~cnt of con~fion r~g ~om ~e Cro~ ~ev~let Mddent at 75~ ~b~ Bo~e~d ~ ~t to ~ det~ed. ~e Ph~e B Si~ ~s~ment for ~e DPX P~je~ reco~end~ field s~p~g do~a~t of ~e site to dete~ ~e pr~ence ofpot~dfl ~n~afion r~ ~om ~e l~g ~ at ~ l~fion. L~e, ~e ~on ~dd~t at 7420 Dub~ Bo~d, w~ ~c~ bo~ so~ md ~o~dwater, h~ not ~ ~mpletdy r~e~d; mine ~n~at~ soft ~ s~ pr~ent at ~e si~. ~ p~e B Si~ ~~t ~ r~~d~ field s~p~g at ~ l~fio~ M~ it w~ ~own as ~e BP ~ S~fion at ~at ~e. ~e ~ent of con~fion r~g fwm ~e Che~n ~dd~t at 7007 S~ ~ R~d ~ ~ not ~ deter~ ~ of~. A reme~a~on plm ~r ~ si~ ~ ~enfly ~Mg de~o~, but ~e ~nt of ~o~d~t~ con~afion is not c~ at ~ me. ~ site ~ not m~fion~ M ~e Ph~ B Site ~m~t for ~e DPX Proj~ ~e ~ent of poHu~t con~afion at ~o ad~fio~ fits, ~e Un~fl Station at 7850 ~ador V~ey ~d md ~e BP OH Fac~v at 7191 V~age P~ay, is ~ce~ at ~ ~e. How~, ~e si~ ~e ~.l~t~ more ~m 0.5 ~e no~ of ~e proje~ site, so 1~ potenfiM ~m for ~ ~dd~ to con~ ~e so~ ~d ~o=dwater ~ ~e ~ of ~e pro.ed proje~ ~m~on ~MW ~at~ ~ ~ pro~sed proj<t ~Md ~se workem or semifive recepmm m h~dom matefi~ ~ough ~e ~vafion of ~t~fi~y con--ted soH or ~o~dwa~r. PotenfiM ~sm for ~e ~ ~d ~o~dwater at ~e project site ~ be ion~ated ~ a r~Mt of ~e lea~g storage ~ re~rted ~ ~e pro~ ~ ~d ~ed a~ve, ~m~cfion work coMd abo r~t ~ ~c a~den~ sp~age of matefi~s to so~ or wa~r. Because ~e ~c n~o~ ~ster~ g~emm~ of h~dom wast~ ~d ~d~o~d storage ~ ~ ~e ~ of ~e pmj~ rite, ~e ~t~fiM ~m for core.etlon.work, s to enco~ter preMomly ~den~ areas of ~n~afion d~g ~vafion. PotenfiM &o ~sm for long-term ~e of h~rdom w~ ~ EDAW ~n Frand~ Bay ~ea Ra~d T~nfit oi~rid Public Heol~ and Safe~ 4.7-12 We~ Dubli~Pleasa~ton BART Slati~ and Tran~t ~llage the residents d~at would occupy the proposed residential building as well as guests of the proposed hotel. These sensitive receptors could potentially be exposed to contaminated soil as well as to acddental spills or leaks of hazardous wastes nearby sources. Also, biological resources from could degraded by exposure to hazardous materials. The uptake of contaminants by plant roots can bioaccumulate in wildlife, adversely affecting the health of individual species. This would be considered a potentially signific~t impact. 4.7.3 MITIGATION The following mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate public health and safety impacts to a less- than-significant level: f m,~,o.1 Potential tlmman Exposure to Soil Contuminants. ln order to determine the [ 4.7-1 J extent of soil and groundwater contamination on the site, field samplingp~or to the commencement of construction act~%'ties shall be conducted. This sampIing shall be consistent with the field sampling for the project site outlined in the kb'eld Investigation Work Plan prepared for the DPX Project (Bechtel Environmental, Inc., 1991) and shall consist of soil boffngs and groundwater monitoring webs Iocated throughout the project site. In addition, a Health and Plan shall be developed that outlines safety procedures to follow in the Safety event of accidental spills or the unearthing o/contaminated soil or groundwater during constr~c~a'on activities. This Health and Solely PIan sholl also be consistent with the safety guidelines'set forth in the Field Investigate'on Work Plan. If contaminants are identified on the site, a remediaffon plrm shall bo developed conM~ont with applicable local, ~tate, and federal reguloffons. Remediation of any site contaminants shall be completed prior to the issuance of building .permits for the proposed project, consistent with applicable regulations. 4,?.4 l,mtr~ OF .~IGNn~CA~C~- A~T~ 1VlrrlaA~ON Following implcmentation of the mitigation measures discusscd above, impacts on public health and safety would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District EDAW Wesl Oublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit ¥iIlage 4.7-13 Publk Heoilh and Safe~ ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SACRAMENTO OFFICE DANIEL L. CARDOZO RICHARD T. DRURY ATTO[~,,N'ffi,¥S AT LAW 1225 8th STREET, SUITE 550 THOMAS A. ENSLOW J TANYAA. GULESSERIAN 651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 SACRAMENTO, CA 958'14-4810 MARCD. JOSEPH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 TEL: (916) 444-6201 SUMAPEESAPATI FAX: (9'16) 444-6209 OFCOUNSEL TEL: (650) 589-1660 THOMAS R. ADAMS FAX: (650) 589-5062 ANN BROADWELL tgulesserian@adarnsbroadwell.corn February 20, 2004 VIA HAND - DELIVERY Ms. Janet Harbin, Senior Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Supplemental Comments On The Initial Study And Mitigated Negative DeclaratiOn For The West Dublin Transit Village Project, 6700 Golden Gate DriVe (PA 02:003) Dear Ms. Harbin: We are writing on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104, and Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342 ("Unions") to submit supplemental comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("ISND") prepared by the City]~ '"Cit "' of Dublin ( y ), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), for the West Dublin Transit Village Project, located at 6700 Golden Gate Drive in Dublin, California. The attached supplemental comments were prepared by . atmospheric scientist, Schuyler Fishman, M.S. and Richard Rollins, P.E., of the Watershed Advisory Group. These comments supplement the issues addressed in our December 2, 2003 comment letter to the City and should be addressed separately. The members of the Unions construct and maintain commercial, residential and industrial projects, primarily in the vicinity of Alameda County. Union members live in the communities that suffer the impacts of environmentally .detrimental projects, including Dublin. Union members breathe the same polluted air that others breathe and suffer the sam~ adverse health and safety impacts. They are also concerned with sustainable land use and development in Dublin and elsewhere in the County. Poorly planned and environmentally detrimental projects 1519a-007 RECEIVED FEB 2 0 Z00¢ February 20, 2004 Page 2 may jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and bY making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live here. Continued degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoria and other restrictions on growth in the County that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities. Union members are concerned about projects that carry serious environmental risks without providing countervailing employment and economic benefits to local workers and communities. Therefore, the Unions and theft.members have a strong interest in enforcing environmental laws such as CEQA. In sum, the City's ISND fails to evaluate significant adverse impacts to air quality, surface and ground water quality and public services. The City must set aside the ISND and prepare a draft EIR with the required analysis and with all feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant. The City must then circulate the draft EIR to the public and the decisionmakers to enable an informed decision on the Project. I.. AN EIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT As explained in our December 2, 2003 comment letter, CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the "fair argument" standard. Under that standard, a lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency sUpPorts a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. l~es. Code § 21082.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. t~egents of the University of California (1993) ("Laurel tteight~ II') 6, Cal. 4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75, 82.) Under the "fair argument" standard, a negative declaration is improper, and an EIR is required, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant impacts may occur, even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion. (StanisIaus Audubon v. County of Stanislc~us (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151; Quail Botar~ical Gardens v. CCty of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597 (emphasis added).) The "fair argument'' standard creates a "low threshold" fa. voring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. 1§19a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 3 (Citizens Action to Serve All StUdents v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.) As a matter of laW, "substantial evidence includes.., expert opinion." (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1); (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5).) Here, substantial evidence presented in this supplemental comment letter, and the supporting expert comments, supports a fair argument that the Project will have significant environmental impacts on air quality, surface and ground water quality, and public services. For these reasons, the City should withdraw the ISND and prepare an EIR for the Project. A. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That the Project Will Have Significant Adverse Air Quality Impacts. 1. Construction Exhaust Will Cause Significant Air Quality Impacts As we explained in our December 2, 2003 comment, letter, the ISND admits that the project's "construction impacts.., could result in exceedance of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District." (ISND 20) However, the ISND concludes that mitigation measures listed in the conditions of approval for the vesting tentative tract map for the project will reduce construction impacts to less than significant levels. (Id.) None of these measures are listed in the ISNI) for the Project. Thus, the ISND admits that the Project may result in significant air quality impacts during construction, but provides no evidence of mitigation measures to reduce this impact. The ISND also fails to include any "quantification of emissions" or analysis whatsoever. Instead, the ISND merely makes a conclusory statement that with the implementation of some unidentified mitigation measures, construction emissions will become less than significant. (ISND p. 20) To the .contrary, without any quantification of construction emissions, it is impossible to determine whether any mitigation me,asures would hypothetically reduce those unknown impacts to insignificant. As explained in the attached comments from Schuyler Fishman, M.S. (Exhibit 1), both the exhaust from construction equipment used to build the Project and fugitive dust emissions from Project cdnstruction will cause significant, unmitigated impacts to air quality and public health. The ISND fails to address or sufficiently mitigate these impacts as required by CEQA. 1519a-007 FebruarY 20, 2004 Page 4 To address the ISND's deficient analysis, we estimated diesel emissions from~ the Project and found that ROG, NOx, and CO emissions ~rom construction exceed the Bay Area Air Quality. Management District's ("BAAQMD") threshold of 80 lbs/day. (See Exhibit 1.) Project emissions exceed both the. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District ("SMAQMD") significance for NOx ,,a, nd ROG (85 lb/day) and South Coast Air Quality Management~ threshold,s, District ( SCAQMD ) construction emission significance thresholds of 75 lb/day for ROG, and 100 lbs/day for NOx. Therefore, these impacts are significant and must be mitigated. Moreover, both NOx and ROG are ozone precursors and would form ozone downwind of the Project site. The Bay Area currently exceeds state ozone standards. By contributing to this existing significant problem, the Project would cause a significant ozone impact as well. The City of Dublin failed to quantify thes~ emissions in the ISND. The City also failed to specify any mitigation'to reduce thi~ impact to less than significant, as described below in Section II of this comment letter. In sum, both the exhaust from construction equipment used to build the Project and fugitive dust emissions from Project construction will cause significant, unmitigated impacts to air quahty and public health. Thus, the City must set aside the ISND and prepare an EIR. ' 2. Project Operation Will Cause Significant Air Quality Impacts The ISND states that operational and area source emissions "Would not "" 20.) However, the exceed regional air quality standards or thresholds.. (ISND, p~ ISND does not quantify operational impacts for this project. The ISNDS merely claims that the project will result in a "net reduction in regional emissions." (Id.) The logic of this statement is faulty, as explained in Exhibit 1. Any additional housing units in the Bay Area will result in an increase in emissions. As demonstrated in Exhibit 1, this development will have a significant impact - even~ with the mitigation measures built into a transit-oriented development. As explained by Ms. Fishman, M.S.,' the Project would cause an increase in~ air quality emissions from several sources once constructed and occupied. Those ' 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 5 sources include increased vehicular emissions, street sweeping, garbage pick-up, landscape maintenance, and more. To address the ISND's deficient analysis, we estimated the emissions from these sources. The results show that the emissions of ROG, NOx and CO from Project operation are significant'and must be mitigated. (Exhibit 1.) In Section II of this comment letter~ we describe the ISND's failure to require feasible mitigation measures in violation of CEQA. In sum, operation of the Project will cause significant, unmitigated impacts to air qualiW and public health. The ISND fails to address or sufficiently mitigate these impacts as required by CEQA. ~ B. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Result In Significant Cumulative Air Impacts. The ISND claims that because the Project is included in the City's General Plan and consistent with Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG") population projections, its air qualiW impacts are less than significant. (ISND, p. 20) According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, "cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan . ("CAP").~ If the general plan is not consistent with the CAP, then the cumulative [~'~ impact analysis should consider all the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable I~ future projects. The CEQA guidelines also state that if the Project's impact is individually significant, as determined in Comment I.A. above, then the project would also be determined to have a significant cumulative impact. BecaUse it was published in 2000, the West Dublin Specific Plan could not be consistent with the 2001 CAP. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the West Dublin Transit Village ("DSEIR") uses specific software, called "URBEMIS7G,' to estimate the cumulative air quality impact of all the developments in the Transit Village. (See, Exhibit 1.) This software' is outdated and underestimates the area and source emissions. Therefore, the ISND must conduct cumulative .air quality analysis that includes all the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. .... MD" 1 Bay Area Air QualiW Management District ( BAAQ ), BAAQMD CE~)A Guidelines, April 1996, Revised December 1999 ("BAAQMD 12/99"), p. 19. 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 6 However, even the outdated analysis present in the West Dublin Bart ~ Specific Plan indicates that cumulative impacts for the entire project will contribute~ 18.08 tons/year.2 These emissions exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the Project in combination with the total build-out of the West Dublin Transit Village will result in a significant cumulative impact, irregardless of its consistency with the Clean Air ?lan, and all feasible mitigation measures should be included. ~- - C. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Impacts on Water Quality. 1. The Project May Cause Hazardous Chemicals To Leach From Soil and Groundwater At' the ~Project Site Into Surface Waters Richard Rollins, P.E., of the Watershed Advisory Group, analyzed the Project and concluded that there is more than a "fair argument" that the Project may cause significant contamination of local surface and ground waters. (See, Exhibit 2.) az Site History According to the Versar Inc. November 8, 2000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ("Phase I ESA"), the Project site has historically been used for agricultural fields and commercial or light industrial purposes. A 10,000,gallon diesel underground storage tank and a 3,500-gallon gasoline underground storage tank formerly existed at the site. Numerous gasoline spills of unspecified status occurred on surrounding properties and MTBE contamination is present. (Phase I ESA, pp. 13-14.) The ISND discounts the likelihood that 11 environmental releases within 0.5. mile of the site will affect site groundwater during construction and once the below ' ground garage is completed. According to Mr. Rollins, the Phase I ESA and the ISND provide no reliable evidence upon which to base these conclusions. ~ 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact l~eport for the West Dublin/Pleasanton. BART Station and Transit ViLlage Project, SCI-t 2000042058, Prepared by EDAW for the CiW of Dublin, November 2000. 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 7 Enviro~mental~ Impact The November 2000 Draft Supplemental Report the West Dublin/Pl,e, asanton BART Station and Transit Village Project prepared by~ EDAW ("BART EIR') indicates that groundwater Occurs at depths as shallow as 8 feet. (See, Exhibit 2.) The BART EIR also states that "grOundwater flows within the Dublin/Pleasanton area have been in a south to southwest direction, although review of some groundwater reports indicates a flow to the east (Bechtel Environmental, Inc. 1990)." (Id.) The BART EIR indicates over 60 occurrences of hazardous materials releases are within 1.25 miles of the proposed BART Station and Transit Village. (See, Exhibit 2, citing BART EIR, pp. 4.7-1-10.) According to the BART EIR's recommendation for Phase 2 Site Assessments, the Project site requires additional evaluation and monitoring. (Id.) The City conducted no analysis to determine the location or direction of groundwater flow at the Project site. Thus, further evaluation is necessary in order to determine the existing environment and assess the impacts based on that information. b. Significant Water Quality ~mpacts Aocoring to water quality expert, mci ard iollins, P.E., si nmcant ' are likely to occur during construction and operation of the Project that must be assessed in an EIR. There are several lines of evidence that support this conclusion. First, the Project's proposal to develop underground parking requires a site specific hydrological report and further analysis in an EIR, which is circulated to the pubhc and decisionmakers for review. (ISND, pp. 2 and 5.) The City's senibr planner, Janet Harbin, has specifically stated: "[tin the event that subsurface excavation is proposed, adopted ~ity standards require that specific development projects, such as those requiring underground parking structures, prepare a site-specific hydrological analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis to determine groundwater levels..." (Revised Draft Negative Declaration for Downtown Specific Plans - DoWntown Core Specific Plan, West Dublin Bart Specific Plan, and Village Parkway Specific Plan, December 14, 2000, pp. 18). As per City standards, the ISND recognizes that a hydrological analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis is required. In fact, the ISND states that 'water and hydrologic impacts of the proposed Project "have been addressed in 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 8 the hydrological report for the project." (See Exhibit 3, p. 22.) However, this study does not exist. When asked to provide the hydrology report referred to on page 22 of the ISND, Ms. Harbin responded as follows: ,~ "In preparing the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, I erroneously mentioned that a hydrological report was prepared for the site." (Exhibit 4, p. 1.) , ,~ Thus, the City failed to follow "adopted City standards" and its own requirement from previous environmental review documents that a hydrological analysis with geotechnical and soils analysis be performed to determine groundwater levels and impacts. Second, according to Mr. Rollins, once exc~vat'ion for a below ground garagq begins, dewatering will likely be required. (Se&, Exhibit 2.) Once completed, ' pumping of water from the excavation will likely be needed to maintain the garage in a dry condition. According to Mr. Rollins, in an area with an indeterminate groundwater flow direction, groundwater may migrate towards the pumping under the garage locally modifying the groundwater flow direction toward the garage. (Id.) This may have the effect of carrying contaminants toward the proposed project and eventually discharging the contaminated groundwater to the ~torm drainage system. (Id.) This is a potentially significant environmental impact not addressed by the ISND. The City must set aside the ISND and evaluate this issue in an EIR. Third, the City admits in other environmental review documents for related projects that groundwater contamination is a potentially significant impact in this area. According to the Initial Study for West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Transit Village prepared by EDAW on April 11, 2000 ("BART IS"), "[s]ubsurface excavation of groundwater contaminants could result in the vertical and/or lateral migration of groundwater contaminants as well as expose the public and workers to potential hazards. This is a potentially significant impact...,' with similar circumstances, that was addressed in the BART EIR. Fourth, in December 13, 2000 letter to John H. Rennels, Jr. of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Barbara Cook of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control commented on the SuppIemental EIR for the West Dublin Plead~anton BART Station and Transit Village that "[w]hile groundwater and soil 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 9 sampling has been identified as a mitigation measure for this project, without sample locations will be selected, or whether residential land use is appropriate for the property." (Exhibit 2 (emphasis added).) This question is not considered in the ISND and should be addressed in an EIR. In sum, the City'failed to conduct any reliable analysis of groundwater at the -- Project site before reviewing the proposal for underground parking. This analysis ~ must be conducted and circulated to the public for review. The City must set aside the ISND, conduct the required studies and assess the potentially significant water quahty imp acts in an EIR. . 2. The Project May Cause Significant water Quality Impacts From New Construction Related Activity Mr. Rollins concluded that even if the applicant completes a storm water pollution prevention plan ("SWPPP") for the construction phase of the Project, discharges from Project construction activity may exceed limits established in the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan by 4 to 14%. (Exhibit 2, p. S.) Mr. Rollins prepared the following table based on several studies analyzing construction runoff emissions. The applicable San Francisco Basin Plan Limits for each parameter are indicated in the BP Limits column. The mean is an average of sampling results from 15 highway construction sites throughout California from 1998 to 2000. The Mean/BPLim column indicates the ratio of the mean of the discharge concentrations divided by the allowable BP limit. 1519a-007 -February 20, 2004 Page 10 Table 1: Statistical Summary of Construction Site Storm Water Mean BP Limits Mean/BPLim Constituent Units Minimum Maximum (b) (a) (c) Copper Total ug/L 3.8 128 32.07 6.5 4.9 Lead Total ug/L I 291 44.35 3.2 13.9 Zinc Total ug/L '6.9 609 140.86 23 6.1 Diazinon (d) ug/L 0.02 2.4 0.41 · 0.1 4.1 a) Applicable Basin Plan Limits b) A value equal to one half of reporting limit was used when reported as non-detect c) Ratio of Mean to Allowable Basin Plan Levels d) Diazinon Limit from USEPA Draft Arabient~ Water Quality Limit for Diazinon, Aug. 2000 Based on these facts,'Mr. Rollins concludes that even if a construction SWPP is prepared for the Project, stormwater runoff pollution from the Project may still be a 7.~ significant adverse environmental impact, as such runoff may exceed applicable significant levels. (See, Exhibit 2, p. 5.) In addition, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board has [ ff~ recently proposed implementing California Toxics Rule (CTR) limits for many of the pollutants in San Francisco Bay. Thi§ inclusion of CTR limits in the Basin Plan may occur before occupancy of this project and the new limits should be taken into account in the determination of any potential environmental impact. Finally, Alameda Creek and South San Francisco Bay are both impaired for diazinon, which is commonly found in construction site discharges. This Project will discharge through the storm drainage system to Dublin 'Creek or other tributaries to Alameda Creek. Contributing to further impairment of receiving waters is specifically prohibited by the California Construction Storm Water Discharge Permit. This Project has not proposed mitigation or monitoring to verify that this provision of the Permit is not violated. Thus, an EIR should be prepared to analyze the Water quality impacts from new construction related activity and to propose additional feasible mitigation measures. 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 11 3. The Project May Cause Significant Water Quality Impacts DUring Operation Mr. Rollins concluded that polluted runoff from pesticides and increased traffic during operation of the Project would result in a significant adverse impact on water quality. Specifically, approximately 32% of the Project site would be landscaped area where pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers would routinely be applied to maintain the landscape vegetation. The ISND failed to acknowledge that in storm water runoff from the site, even these constituents would be present though they are a cause of water quality problems in the impaired downstream receiving waters, including Alameda Creek and the SoUth San Francisco Bay. (See Exhibit 2, pp. 5-6.) Mr. Rollins concludes that the increase in pollution would result in a significant adverse water quality impact that should be evaluated and mitigated in an EIR. With respect to poll,.ted r~unoff from increased traffic during operation of the Project, Mr. Roll.ins prepared the following table based on several studies analyzing highway runoff. The applicable San Francisco Basin Plan Limits for each parameter are indicated in the BP Limits column. Based on studies performed by Caltrans that indicate higher pollutant concentrations in runoff for projects that have higher average daily traffic (Exhibit 2, p. 6, citing Iiayhanian et al.,s p. 15 and Caltrans Paper 01-3181,4 Table 3), the mean concentrations of copper, nickel, zinc and Diazinon detected in storm water runoff from California highways, for example, are from 6 to 37 times greater than the BP ambient water quality objectives. s M. Kayhanian, A. Singh, C. Suverkropp, and S. Borroum, The Impact of Annual Average Daily Traffic on Highway Runoff Pollutant Concentrations. 4 "Characteristics of Stormwater Runoff From Highway Construction Sites in California," Transportation Research Record 1743, Paper No. 01-3181, National Academy Press Masoud Kayhanian, Caltrans/UCD Environmental Program, Kevin Murphy, Caltrans/CSUS Storm Water Program, Louis Regenmorter, Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., Richard Hailer, Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. ("Caltrans Paper 01-3181, Table 3"). 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 12 Table 2: Statistical Summary of CalTrans Highway Runoff (1997-1999) Mean BP Limits Mean/BPLim Constituent Units Minimum Maximum (b) (a) (c) Copper Total ug/L 2.1 770 50.25 6.5 7.7 Lead Total ug/L 1.1 1530 120.83 3.2 37.8 Zinc Total ug/L 11 2400 231.99 23 10.1 /~ Diazinon (d) ug/L 0.04 2.4 0.65 0.1 6.5 a) Applicable Basin Plan Limits b) A value equal to one half of reporting limit was used when reported as non-detect c) Ratio of Mean to Allowable Basin Plan Levels d) Diazinon Limit from USEPA Draft Ambient Water Quality Limit for Diazinon, Aug. 2000 Mr. Rollins concluded that the increased pollution from the Project's storm water runoff from roadways may result in significant impacts to receiving waters and potentialIy contribute to the further impairment of Alameda Creek and South San Francisco Bay. These significant water quality impacts from the ongoing operation of the Project must be evaluated in an EIR. Feasible mitigation measures are described in Section II of this comment letter. .. D. Substantial Evidence Supports A Fair Argument That The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Impacts On Public Services The ISND's discussion and analysis of the project's impahts-on Public SerVices '~ is inadequate. Substantial evidence shows that the Project will result ina significant adverse impact on water, sewer and storm drain services. Therefore, the ~ City must prepare an EIR that evaluates these impacts and proposes feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less than significant. First, the City provides no evidence that adequate sewer service is avaflable~_ for the proposed Project. According to the Dublin San Ramon Services District, "the existing sewer main behind Orchard Supply... is at capacity and cannot take additional sewer discharges from any expanded use development project withou~ upsizing the pipes..." (See Exhibit 2, pp. 7-8, citing Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District to Ronnie Warner of Orix Real Estate Equities (September 23, 2003); see also Letter from Dublin San P~amon Services District to Legacy Partners 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 13 cor~cerning 6700 Golden Gate Drive (August 27, 2003). The City must e~aluate the Project's impact on existing sewer services and circulate this information to the public and decisionmakers in an EIR before Project review and approval. Second, the City provides no evidence that adequate water service is available for the proposed Project. AccOrding to the Dublin San Ramon Services District, "The existing water lines in this area may also need to be extended or upsized..." (See Exhibit 2, pp. 7-8, citing Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District to Ronnie Warner of Orix Real Estate Equities (September 23, 2003); see also, Letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District to Legacy Partners concerning 6700 Golden Gate Drive (August 27, 2003).) The ISND also mentions - without conducting any analysis of Project or growth inducing impacts - that a new water service line may be needed. (ISND, p. 3.) Clearly, the ISND is inadequate. Finally, the ISND includes no irfformation as to adequacy .of the storm drainage system to convey or treat contaminated storm water or ground water pumped from the underground garage and no information as to whether sufficient treatment capacity is available for the additional wastewater from these projects. The City must prepare an EIR to evaluate the Project's impacts on the public water supply and sewer and storm drain system. Without any analysis, the ISND is clearly inadequate. II. THE ISND FAILS TO DESCRIBE OR REQUIRE ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. A mitigated negative declaration may only be adopted if all significant impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b).) As discussed in these supplemental comments, the Project will have numerous significant impacts that are no~ mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, the use of the mitigated negative declaration is legally improper, and an EIR is required. CEQA requires the City to adopt feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen or avoid the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002, 21081(a)) and describe those mitigation measures in the ISND. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4.) A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 14 feasibility. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanforcl (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation measure because no record evidence existed that replacement water was available).) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments. (Id. at § 15126.4(a)(2).) The City's vague references to unidentified mitigation measures in other documents do not satisfy CEQA's mandates. A. The ISND Fails To Mitigate Significant Operational Air Quality Impacts The City of Dublin failed to quantify the Project's construction diesel exhaust emissions in the ISND. As described above, air quality expert, Schuyler Fishman, estimated diesel emissions from the Project and found that ROG, NOx, and CO emissions from construction exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 80 lbs/day. (See, Exhibit 1.) Therefore, these impacts are significant and must be mitigated. The City failed to specify and determine whether any mitigation measures will reduce the impacts from diesel exhaust emissions to less than significant. In fact, the only source of air quality, mitigation proposed in the ISND are the measures listed in Table 2 of the BAAQMD CEQA guidelines, and none of these measures address emissions from construction equipment exhaust. These emissions, as demonstrated in Exhibit 1, exceed relevant thresholds 'and require all feasible construction mitigation. Finally, there are many feasible mitigation measures for these emissions, which are presented in Exhibit 1, and which must be required of the proposed Project. B. The ISND Fails To Mitigate Significant Operational Air Quality Impacts The ISND Suggests that mitigation measures will reduce significant operational air quality impacts, but proposes no actual measures in the document. As Schuyler Fishman noted in Section I, emissions of ROG, NOx and CO from Project operation are significant and remain unmitigated. '(Exhibit 1.) We provide numerous examples of feasible mitigation measures that can be incorporated in the 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 15 Project to reduce operational air quality impacts in this case. (Id.) The Project, at a minimum, must include all feasible area mitigation measures as listed in Exhibit 1. Mr. Rolhns provides substantial evidence that measures discussed in the ISND do not mitigate impacts from the types of pollutants likely to be present at this site. Specifically, the ISND's proposed mitigation measures, which are already required by the State Water Resources Control Board's General Construction Storm Water Permit, do not address any measures to minimize and mitigate release of historical industrial pollutants that may be present at the site and would likely be released by the Project to the storm drain system, Alameda Creek, and ultimately South San Francisco Bay. (See, Exhibit 2, p. 7.) Further, the ISND proposes no mitigation for significant water quality impacts from additional vehicle trips per day, increased use of pesticides on landscaping, or contaminationthat is likely to be present in groundwater discharged from dewatering pumps in the below grade parking structure. (See Id.) As indicated above, these are all significant impacts attributable to this project which should be evaluated through the EIR process. According to Mr. Rollins, a variety of mitigation measures exist for such impacts, including sand filtration, constructed wetland filtering, and other measures. The City must also require' a mitigation measure implementation and monitoring plan. Mr. Rollins states that the current standard for design of a greenfield or urbanized site is the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan ("SUSMP") For Los Angeles County and Cities in Los Angeles County, recently adopted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SUSMP requires infiltration or treatment of 80 percent of annual runoff plus a maximum peak runoff flow rates plus specific design requirements for categories of occupancy such as restaurants, commercial, parking, etc. This is a feasible mitigation measure that must be required for the Project. 1519a-007 February 20, 2004 Page 16 III. CONCLUSION The ISND fails to satisfy CEQA's fundamental mandates of informing the public and decision makers of the potentially significant er~vironmental impacts of project and feasible measures to mitigate those impacts to less than significant. The City should set aside the ISND and prepare an EIR to address the significant impacts described above, in the attached documents and in our December 2, 2003 comment letter and circulate the draft EIR for public review. Sincerely, Tanya A. Gulesserian TAG:bh ~' Attachments cc: City o£ Dublin Planning Commission 1519a-007 APPEALS Chapter 8.136 "~ CHAPTER 8.136 APPEALS 8.136.010 Purpose. To establish a procedure for the appeal ora requirement, decision or determination made by the Zoning Administrator, Director of Community Development, .or Planning Commission. Intent. The intent of this Chapter is to ensure that appeals of decisions are properly held and noticed and that the public has a means to appeal decisions made by the City. 8.136.020 Appeal subjects and jurisdiction. Actions and decisions that may be ~ appealed, and the authority to act upon an appeal shall be as follows: A. Administration and interpretation. The following actions of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council: 1. Meaning and applicability of the provisions of Title 8. Determinations on the meaning or applicability of the provisions of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code that are believed to be in error, and cannot be resolved with Staff ~ 2. Incomplete application. Any determination that a permit, application, or information submitted with the application is incomplete, pursuant to Government Code Section 65943. B. ' Permit and Hearing Actions. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, actions of the Director of COmmunity Development and the Zoning Administrator on permits may be appealed to the Pl, anning Commission and then to the City ~ Council. Actions of the Planning Commission on permits may be appealed to the · City Council. Actions of the City Council are final. 8.136.030 No Appeal From Ministerial Actions. No right of appeal shall exist when the decision or action is ministerial and does not involve the exercise of judgment or deliberation pursuant to any provisions of this Title. 8.136.040 Who may appeal. A. Administration and Interpretation. An appeal may be filed by any person affected by a Department administrative action or interpretation as described in Section 8.136.020. A. City of Dublin ZOning Ordinance136-1 October, 1998 ATTACHMENT J I APPEALS Chapter 8.136 B. Permit and Hearing Actions. An action described in Section 8.136.020.B may be appealed by: 1. Anyone. Anyone who, in person or through a representative explicitly identified as such, appeared at a public hearing in connection with the decision being appealed, or who otherwise informed the City in writing of the nature of his/her concerns before the hearing. 2. City Council Members. A member of the City Council may appeal an action of the Zoning Administrator, Community Development Director and Planning Commission. If an appeal is made by a Council Member, there shall be a presumption applied that the reason for the appeal is because the appealed action has significant and material effects on the quality of life within the City of Dublin. Notwithstanding Section 8.136.050.B, no other reason need be or shall be stated by the Council Member in his/her written appeal. No inference of bias shall be made because of such an appeal. C. Staff Appeal Prohibited. A representative of the City government presenting departmental recommendations at a hearing is~ prohibited fi.om appealing a decision reached at such hearing. 8.136.050 Filing Appeals.. ..... A. Appeal Periods. An appeal must be filed within 10 days of the action which is the subject of the appeal. Appeals filed beyond 10 days shall not be accepted. B. Form of appeal. An appeal shall be in writing, shall reference any Planning _ Application number, shall fully state the extent of the appeal and the reasons and- grounds for appeal, shall include any information required by the Director of Community Development, and may include any explanatory materials the appellant wishes to furnish. The appeal shall be accompanied by the filing fee established by the City Council. C. Filed with City Clerk. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk. D. Effect of filing. In the event of an appeal, the decision being appealed shall not be effective until final action by the appeal body. II City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 136-2 October, 1998 APPEALS~' Chapter 8.136 8.136.060 Processing Appeals. A. Report, Scheduling of Public Hearing, and Action. When an appeal has been filed, the Director shall prepare a report on the matter and shall schedule the. matter for consideration by the appropriate appeal body after completion of the report. The appeal body shall conduct a public heating on the appeal within 45 days of its proper filing and shall take action on the appeal within 75 days of its proper filing. If the matter is not heard within 45 days or if action is not taken within 75 days of the proper filing of an appeal, the decision being appealed shall be deemed affirmed. B. Notice of Appeal Public Hearing. Notice shall be Provided for an appeal public hearing in the same manner as required for a public heating by this Title. The appellant shall be resPonsible for providing all noticing materials for the appeal hearing. C. Appeal Hearing Procedure. Appeal hearings shall be held at the date, time, and place stated in the required notice. Minutes of the hearing shall be prepared and an audio tape filed in the Department or with the City Clerk as appropriate. At the hearing, the appeal body may consider only those issues involving the matters that are the specific subjects of the appeal; provided that when the appeal is made by a Council Member the City Council may consider any issue concerning the application. Any hearing may be continued provided that prior to the adjournment or recess of the hearing, a clear announcement is made specifying the date, time, and place to which said hearing will be continued and Provided the continuance is not beyond the 75 day period for taking action. D. Action. By a majority vote the appeal body may .affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action, decision or determination that is the subject of the appeal, based upon findings of fact about the particular case. A tie vote shall mean that no action was taken and shall result in the affirmation of the action being appealed. The findings shall identify the reasons for the action on the appeal, and verify the compliance or non-compliance of the subject of the appeal with the provisions of this Chapter. The appeal body shall take action and announce and record its decision at the public hearing. Following the heating, the appeal body shall provide written notice of the action taken to the appellant at the address shown upon the application for the appeal. E. Additional conditions of approval. When reviewing a decision on a permit, the appeal body may adopt additional conditions of approval that address the specific subject of the appeal. City of Dub/in Zoning Ordinance 136-3 October, 1998 APPEALS Chapter 8.136 F. Effective Date of Appealed Actions. An action of the Zoning Administrator or Director of Community Development appealed to the Planning Commission shall not become effective until action on the appeal by the Planning Commission. An action of the Planning Commission appealed to the City Council shall not become effective until action on the appeal by the City Council. 8.136.070 Effect of Denial. When an application for a permit is denied on appeal, no application for the same or substantially same permit or a permit for the same use on the same property shall be filed for a period of one year from the date of denial, except where the permit was denied without prejudice. 8.136.080 Relation of appeals procedure under this Title to the appeals procedure of Section 1.04.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code. Any appeal under Title 8 shall be processed in accordance with the appeal provisions of this Chapter and not in accordance with the appeal provisions of Section 1.04.050 of the Municipal Code. City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 136-4 October, 1998 9.08.050 with requirements and sPeCifications of the 9108.080 Action---Subdivision. Dublin grading ordinance. Additional re- The advisory agency shall approve, con- ports and data may be required by the Corn- ditionally approve, or disapprove tentative munity Development Director when deemed maps of subdivisions within fifty (50) days necessary due to scale of the proposed after certification of the environmental subdivision or presence of potential hazard- impact report, adoption of a negative decla- ous or environmentallY sensitive conditions; ration, or a determination by the Communi- C. A report evaluating the geological ty Development Director that the project is conditions present, prepared by a geologist exempt from the requirements of Division certified in engineering geology by the state 13 (cOmmencing with Section 21000) of the of California. Public Resources Code. Conditions of ap. D. A "will serve" letter from the agency proval may include, but are not limited to, proposed to provide sewer and water service dedication and improvement of streets, to the proposed subdivision indicating and alleys, including access rights and abutters" committing that sewer and water service rights, drainage, public utility easements and connections and service can be placed on other public easements. (Ord. 5-96 § 1 the proposed subdivision. (Ord. 5-96 § 1 (part); Ord. 1-91 § 1 (8-2.5)) (part); Ord. 4-96 § 5: Ord. 1-91 § 1 (8,2.4)) 9.08.090 Conformance to city 9.08.060 Hearing. ordinance. The advisory agency shall conduct a No tentative map shall be approved noticed public hearing on all subdivisions, which is not in conformance with the provi- Hearing procedures shall be established by sions of this title, the city of Dublin zoning the advisory agency. (Ord. 1-91 § 1 (8- ordinance and any other ordinance of the 2.41)) city. The applicant shall be responsible for attaining conformance with the tentative 9.08.070 Public notice, map requirements of other agencies. (Ord. The advisory agency shall give a public 1-91 § 1 (8-2.6)) notice of the time and place of hearing on a subdivision by posting notices not less 9.08.100 Appeals. than ten (10) days prior to the initial hear- A. 1. The Planning Commission shall be ing on the matter. The notice shall include the appeal board for decisions of the Com- a brief description of the location and de- munity Development Director, Zoning Ad- sign of the subdivision. Notices shall be ministrator or Community Development placed not more than five hundred (500) Director's designated representative. feet apart along each street abutting the 2. The City Council shall be the appeal proposed subdivision extending at least board for decisions of the Planning Com- three hundred (300) feet beyond the subdi- mission. vision. In event of an appeal, this form of B. As used herein, the term "interested public notice shall be given in addition to person adversely affected" means any city that required under Section 9,08.100. (Ord. department, public agency, public utility, or 1-91 § 1 (8-2.42)) any person claiming that the decision is 444~14.3 (tabu. 4-96) ATTACHMENT 9:.08.100 likely m result in personal economa'c loss or damageto his property. C',.. Within fifteen (15) calendar days after_aetion, the-,subdi¥ider may appeal:any action of.the ad,cisory agency: Appeals Shall be_sUbmitted in writing to the-.City'~:Glerk. Such_appeals Shall:reference the tentative map..num~r-:and shall state.fully the nature 9.08,100 and extent of the appeal and the masons circulation in the city of Dublin. Any inter- why it is taken. Such appeal and the hearing ested person may appear at such hearing thereon shall be conducted in the manner and shall be heard. (Ord. 6-92 §§ 23, 24; provided by Government Code Section. Ord. 1-91 § 1 (8-2.7)) 66452.5(a) and (b), and by subsection F of this section. 9.08.110 Time for action or report. D. Any interested person adversely Any of the time limits for action or re- affected by a decision of the advisory port may be extended by mutual consent of agency may file a complaint on a form to the subdivider and the advisory agency. be provided by the city Planning Depart- Failure of the advisory agency or appeal merit with the City Clerk concerning such board to act within the time limits specified decision. Any such complaint shall be fried herein or in the Subdivision Map Act shall with the Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar be remedied as specified in the Subdivision days after the action which is the subject of Map Act for inaction on tentative maps of the complaint. The appeal board may, in its subdivisions. (Ord. 1-91 § I (8-2.8)) discretion, reject the complaint within fif- teen (15) calendar days or set the matter for 9.08.120 Effective period. "~',~ %..( .~?~public hearing. If the board rejects the com- The approval of a tentative map shall be plaint, the complainant shall be notified of effective for two and one half (21/2) years, such action by the City Clerk. or for such shorter period as may be speci- E. Any interested person may appeal fled by the advisory agency in approving any decision of the advisory agency relative the tentative map. Upon application oft he to the provisions of Government Code subdivider during the effective period, an Sections 66473.5, 66474, 66474.1 and extension of the effective period up to three 66474.6 to the City Council. Such appeal (3) years may be granted .or conditionally and the hearing thereon shall be conducted granted by the Planning Commission, which in the manner provided by Government is designated the advisory agency for this Code Section 66452.5(a) and (b), and by purpose, upon the determination that cir- subsection F of this section, cumstances under which the map was ap- F. Whenever a public hearing is held proved have not changed to the extent pursuant to this section, it shall be conduct- which would warrant a change in the design ed as required by Government Code Section or improvement of the tentative map. Expi- 66451.3. Notice of the time and place there- ration dates of approved tentative maps may of, and a general description of the location be extended pursuant to the provisions of of the proposed subdivision shall be given Government Code Section 66452.6(a). (Ord. at least ten (10) days before the hearing by 1-91 § 1 (8-2.9)) publication once in a newspaper of general 44 4 - 15 (m~,~in 8-92) such map by such advisory agency or legislative body. Pursuant to Section 66451.2, fees may be collected from the subdivider for expenses incurred under this section. [Amended, Chapter 1128, Statutes of 1980] 66452.4. No action by local agency to be deemed as approval If no action is taken upon a tentative map by an advisory agency which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative map or by the legislative body within the time limits specified in this chapter or any authorized extension thereof, the tentative map as filed, shall be deemed to be approved, insofar as it complies with other applicable reqmrements of this division and local ordinance, and it shall be the duty of the clerk of the legislative body to certify or state his or her approval. [Amended, Chapter 982, Statutes of 1987] 66452.5. Subdivider, advisory agency and interested person appeals (a) The subdivider, or any tenant of the subject property, in the case of a proposed conversion of residential real property to a condominium project, community apartment project, or stock cooperative project, may appeal from any action of the advisory agency with respect to a tentative map to the appeal board established by local ordinance or, if none, to the legislative body. The appeal shall be filed with the clerk of the appeal board, or if there is none, with the clerk of the legislative body within 10 days after the action of the advisory agency from which the appeal is being taken. Upon the filing of an appeal, the appeaI board or legislative body shall set the matter for hearing. The hearing shall be held within 30 days after the date of filing the appeal. Within 10 days following the conclusion of the hearing, the appeal board or legislative body shall render its decision on tlh~ appeal. (b) The subdivider, any tenant of the subject property, in the case of a conversion of residential real property to a condominium project, community apartment project, or stock cooperative project, or the advisory agency may appeal from the action of the appeal board to the legislative body. The appeal shall be filed in writing with the clerk of the le. gislative body within 10 days after the action of the appeal board from whi :h the appeal is being taken. After the filing of an appeal, the legislative body shall set the matter for hearing. The hearing shall be held within 30 days after the date of a request therefor filed by the subdivider or the appellant. Within 10 days following the conclusion of the hearing, the legislative body shall render its decision on the appeal. The decision shall comply with the provisions of Sections 66473, 66473.5, and 66474, and shall include any findings required by those sections. (c) If there is an appeal board and it fails to act upon an appeal within the time limit specified in this chapter, the decision from which the appeal was taken shall be deemed affirmed and an appeal therefrom may thereupon be taken to the legislative body as provided in subdivision (b) of this section. If no further appeal is taken, the tentative map, insofar as it complies with applicable requirements of this division and local ordinance, shall be deemed approved or conditionally approved as last approved or conditionally approved by the advisory agency, and it shall be the duty of the clerk of the legislative body to certify or state that approval, or if the advisory agency is one which is ATTACHMENT 12.., chapter, the tentative map, insofar as it complies with applicable requirements of this i ':i:.~!,.'~tivision and local ordinance, shall be deemed to be approved or conditionally approved as last approved or conditionally approved, and it shall be the duty of the clerk of the ":' iegisiative body to certify or state that approval. (d) Any interested person adversely affected by a decision of the advisory agency or appeal board may file an appeal with the governing body concerning any decision of the advisory agency or appeal board. The appeal Shall be filed with the clerk of the governing body within 10 days after the action of the advisory agency or appeal board which is the subject of the appeal. Upon the filing of the appeal, the governing body shall set the matter for hearing. The hearing shall be held within 30 days after the filing of the appeal. The hearing may be a public hearing for which notice shall be given in the time and manner provided. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the governing body shall, within 10 days, declare its findings based upon the testimony and documents produced before it or before the advisory board or the appeal board. It may sustain, modify, reject, or overrule any recommendations or rulings of the advisory board or the appeal board and may make any findings which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter or local ordinance adopted pursuant to this chapter. (e) Notice of each hearing provided for in this section shall be sent by United States mail to each tenant of the subject property, in the case of a conversion of residential real property to a condominium project, community aPartment project, or stock cooperative project, at least three days prior to the hearing. The notice requirement of~this Subdivision shall be deemed satisfied if the notice complies with the legal requirements for service by mail. Pursuant to Section 66451.2, fees may be collected from the subdivider or from persons appealing or filing an appeal for expenses incurred under this section. [Amended, Chapter 580, Statutes of 1997] 66452.6. Term of tentative map approvals; effect of moratoriums and lawsuits upon approval time limits; extensions of time (a)(1) An approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall expire 24 months after its approval or conditional approval, or after any additional period of time as may be prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 12 months. However, if. the subdivider is required .to expend one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) or more to construct, improve, or finance the construction or improvement of public improvements outside the property boundaries of the tentative map, excluding improvements of public rights-of-way which abut the boundary of the property to be subdivided and which are reasonably related to the development of that property, each filing of a final map authorized by Section 66456.1 shall extend the expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map by 36 months from the date of its expiration, as provided in this section, or the date of the previously filed final map, whichever is later. The extensions shall not extend the tentative map more than 10 years from its approval or conditional approval. However, a tentative map on property subject to a development agreement authorized by Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4 of Division 1 may be extended for the period of time provided for in the agreement, but not beyond the duration of the agreement. The number of phased final maps that may be filed shall be determined by the advisory agency at the time of the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map. 43